Original Research Article

Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless

Steel Tubing
Edwin N.T. Jong1
1Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Science and Engineering, Curtin University Sarawak,
CDT 250, 98009 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia.

*Corresponding author contact no.: +60 85 443939 Extn: 3962

E-mail: edwinjong@curtin.edu.my

Date of received: 17th April 2015

Date of revision: 1st October 2015
Date of acceptance: 8th October 2015

Abstract

The paper highlights the difficulties and precautions when dealing welding qualification
test of a super duplex stainless steel tubing of a small diameter (16.0mm) with thin wall
thickness (1.6mm) in Malaysia. This paper also describes the analytical steps being taken up
to eliminate all possible difficulties with a systematic approach in consistently producing
successful results for welding SDSS towards our successes.

Keywords: Super Duplex Stainless Steel (SDSS); Ferritic-Austenitic Microstructure; Pitting

Corrosion; Weld-Decay; Sigma Phases.

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

A duplex stainless steel (DSS) is one type of the steel families, which contains a two-phase
structure (i.e. with a two-phase ferritic-austenitic microstructure). More definitively, it is reserved
for alloys where both phases are present in significant quantities and in approximately equal
volume fractions (as opposed to alloys in which one constituent appears in the form of small
precipitates). In practice, the term duplex stainless steel covers ferritic-austenitic alloys with
typically between 30% and 70% ferrite.
Microstructurally intermediate between the ferritic and austenitic stainless steels, the
duplex stainless steel grades combine the favourable properties of both, including good toughness
and reasonably good corrosion resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking, as well as to other
forms of corrosion such as pitting, crevice and intergranular attacks.
The duplex stainless steels also possess good weldability. However, in order to approach
the favourable performance attributes of the parent metals in welded fabrications, specific welding
practices must be employed. Although duplex stainless steels have good weldability, specific
welding practices are required to ensure that their intrinsic benefits such as good toughness and
corrosion resistance are not excessively reduced by the action of welding.
In addition, several sub-groups exist within the ferritic-austenitic family of stainless steels;
these can be loosely characterized by the terms alloy lean, duplex, high alloy duplex and
superduplex. These families are grouped by similar Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number
(PREN). PREN is a formula which has been developed to compare the resistance to chloride pitting
of stainless steels, where;

PREN = % Cr + 3.3 x (% Mo) + 16 x (% N) Eq. 1

Alloy lean 23 31 PREN
22% Cr Duplex 30 36 PREN
25% Cr High Alloy Duplex 32 40 PREN

308
 Edwin N.T. Jong

25% Cr Superduplex >40 PREN

Due to the introduction of tungsten to some grades of superduplex stainless steel, an element
that also improves pitting resistance, a modified form of the PREN relationship has also been
proposed:

PREN(W) = % Cr + 3.3 x (% Mo + 0.5 x %W) + 16 x (% N) Eq.2

Generally, the microstructure in a wrought base metal is disrupted at fusion welds and, in
order to obtain optimum properties, welding procedures are designed and qualified to ensure that
approximately 30 to 70% ferrite fraction is achieved in the weld metal. Therefore, before taking up
the challenges on the practical aspects of welding super duplex stainless steels (SDSS), it is
important to understand some of the microstructural transformations occurring in the weld metal
and HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) during the welding process as these have vital implications on the
procedures that are adopted for welding this type of SDSS material.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The prime objective for this case presentation is to share our challenging practical experiences that
we have encountered and the essential precautions that have been taken up during qualification
of a welding procedure specification (WPS) for welding small diameter with thin walled SDSS
tubing, i.e. 5/8 (16.0mm) dia OD x 0.065 (1.6mm) wall thickness tubing, butt weld of SDSS (ASTM
A789 UNS S32750) to SDSS (ASTM A789 UNS S32750) using both manual GTAW and orbital
GTAW welding processes with 99.9% purity argon gas as the shielding gas and the backing gas. In
order to accept the SDSS welded joints, they also require to pass the stringent quality checks using
various identified NDE techniques including visual inspection testing (VT), radiography testing
(RT) and/or ultrasonic testing (UT) in according to ASME Section V requirements, all the required
mechanical tests as per ASME Section IX requirements and the pitting corrosion resistance tested
to ASTM G48 Method A with less than 1 g/m2 weight loss for 24 hours at 40oC as per the project
specific technical specification requirements.

3.0 WELDING QUALIFICATION APPROACHES

As the contractual requirements for this project, GTAW is the welding process being chosen.
However, in order to have a clear indication on the most appropriate and reliable welding
parameters to be used for welding Super Duplex Stainless Steel (SDSS), UNS S32750 tubing of
5/8 (16.0mm) dia. OD x 0.065 (1.6mm) wall thickness (WT) and thus to consistently produce the
same quality SDSS welded tubing joints, three (3) different proposed Welding Procedure
Specifications (p-WPS) as listed below using the specific GTAW process have been prepared for
assessment on the welding of these SDSS tubings as a comparison of their technical feasibilities
and the eventual assessments based on the required NDE, mechanical and corrosion tests.

3.1 p-WPS
In order to proceed with the welding qualification tests (WQT), three preliminary welding
procedure specifications (p-WPS) have been set to critically assess and evaluate the SDSS welds
using various forms of GTAW processes as expressed below.
a. P-WPS-A: root pass only with manual GTAW autogenous welding and hot pass to cap finishing
by GTAW with SDSS filler metal;
b. P-WPS-B: from root pass to cap finishing by manual GTAW process with SDSS filler metal; and
c. P-WPS-C: from root pass to cap finishing by automatic (orbital) GTAW with SDSS filler metal.
After each welding qualification test (WQT), all the test pieces are to undergo non-
destructive examination (NDE) using visual inspection testing (VT), dye penetration test (PT) for
surface flaw detection and radiography testing/examination (RT) for sub-surface flaw detection.
Only those test pieces that have successfully passed the required NDE evaluations with no visible
detectable defects as per ASME Section V requirements are submitted to qualified testing

309
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

laboratories for the specific mechanical tests (including tensile tests, bend tests, hardness
measurement survey), ferrite counts and pitting corrosion tests so that these full laboratory test
data can be incorporated and recorded in the written procedure qualification records (PQR) for
supporting the relevant WPS for welding production.
As per ASME Section IX requirements, the following tests have been conducted for each p-
WPS.
a. Tensile Tests for full section as per ASTM A370 requirements
b. Bend Tests as per ASTM A370 requirements
c. Macro-section Examination as per ASTM E340 and Hardness Measurement at 0 degree as per
ASTM E92 requirements
d. Macro-section Examination as per ASTM E340 and Hardness Measurement at 180 degree as
per ASTM E92 requirements
e. Microstructure Examination and Ferrite Counts as per ASTM E562 for ferrite content
determination as below
i. Phase Balance and Ferrite Counts at 0 degree
ii. Phase Balance and Ferrite Counts at 180 degree
iii. Deleterious Phase Examination at 0 degree
iv. Deleterious Phase Examination at 180 degree

f. ASTM G48 Method A Pitting Corrosion Test x 4 at inner and outer start/stop sectors at 40oC for
24 hours: each specimen is subjected to total immersion of 10% ferric chloride hexahydrate (10%
FeCl3.6H2O) test solution at a constant test temperature of 401oC for 24 hours. After the 24-hour
period of immersion in the test solution, each of these test specimens is then rinsed in water,
dripped in acetone, air-dried and subsequently examined, evaluated by weight loss measurement
and analysed for pitting corrosion attacks.

3.2 Orbital GTAW with Fillet Metal:

In order to ensure consistently producing quality welds from orbital GTAW, which is performed
using AMI 227 power supply with M79-2375 weld head, the following precautionary procedure
shall be strictly adhered to.
a. Tack welds are to be done at 12 oclock and 6 oclock position by autogenous manual GTAW or
machine welding on outer tube within the maximum heat inputs specified. Tack weld surfaces are
to be cleaned by Aluminum Oxide based Scotch Brite pads before welding start.
b. All weldments shall be left natural cooling, accelerate fast cooling by compressed air is prohibited.
c. Only clean cloth dampened with approved solvent is allowed to wipe on areas to be welded.
d. Weld capping can only be cleaned with Aluminum Oxide based Scotch-Brite pad/sheet and
stainless steel wire brush is to be used for minimum application if heavy oxides are observed.
e. At the stop-start locations (also for oxide spots), they are to be ground off using Diamond Coated
Burr Set or Diamond Coated Needle File.
f. Tungsten electrode Start Position is to be set at 3 oclock.

4.0 RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

With each p-WPS (i.e. p-WPS-A, p-WPS-B and p-WPS-C), at least ten (10) welded SDSS
joint samples were produced to qualify the respective p-WPS as depicted in Figure 3. For this
special welding procedure qualification tests, three (3) experienced welders were specially assigned
to weld these SDSS joints setting at 5G welding position as per the WPSs welding parameters.
Each of these welded joints was critically examined by visual inspection testing (VT) and
later assessed by various NDE techniques for surface and sub-surface flaws using Dye Penetrant
Test (PT) and Radiography Testing (RT), respectively. Only those test samples passed by the
required NDE techniques were submitted to qualified testing laboratories for all various
mechanical testing requirements as specified above from Items (a) to (e) and, for ASTM G48A test
as stipulated in Item (f) above, the SDSS welded tubing were first properly cleaned with
Aluminium Oxide based Scotch Brite as per the required in-house cleaning procedure. The cleaned
SDSS welded tubing were shown in Figure 4.

310
 Edwin N.T. Jong

Figure 3: As received SDSS welded tubing Figure 4: SDSS welded tubing samples being
cleaned with aluminium oxide based scotch brite

4.1 Transverse Tensile Test

Each of these sets of tensile test samples was submitted to testing laboratory for tensile
tests as per ASTM A370 testing requirements are tabulated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The Testing
Machine used was 250-kN Instron tensile testing machine and the testing temperature was set at
atmospheric room temperature, at 25oC.
Please note, with ASTM A789 UNS S32750 SDSS, the min yield strength is 550 MPa and the min
ultimate tensile strength is 800 MPa with a min 15% elongation. The basic tensile strength of
weldment shall meet these criteria.

Table 1: Tensile test results of p-WPS-A

Sample* OD Thickness Area 0.2% 0.2% UTS UTS (Psi) Elongation Location
(Sample (mm) (mm) (mm2) Yield Yield (MPa) (%) of failure
tested in stress stress
full (MPa) (psi)
section)
T1-A 15.8 1.60 71.53 714 103,600 910 132,000 9 Fusion
Line
T2-A 16.0 1.60 71.55 721 104,572 925 143,160 11 Fusion
Line

Table 2: Tensile test results of p-WPS-B

Sample* OD Thickness Area 0.2% 0.2% UTS UTS Elongation Location of
(Sample (mm) (mm) (mm2) Yield Yield (MPa) (Psi) (%) failure
tested in stress stress
full section) (MPa) (psi)
T1-B 15.87 1.60 71.73 762 110,500 988 143,300 18 Base Metal
T2-B 15.85 1.60 71.63 732 106,200 987 143,200 17 Base Metal
TB694 16.0 1.60 72.38 763 110,664 969 140,542 17 HAZ
TB695 16.0 1.60 72.38 751 108,923 973 141,122 21 HAZ

Table 3: Tensile test results of p-WPS-C

Sample* OD Thickness Area 0.2% 0.2% UTS UTS Elongation Location
(Sample (mm) (mm) (mm2) Yield Yield (MPa) (Psi) (%) of failure
tested in stress stress
full section) (MPa) (psi)
T25-C (#25) 16.0 1.60 72.38 752 109,068 978 141,847 15.46 HAZ
T26-C (#26) 16.0 1.60 72.38 759 110,084 970 140,687 15.74 HAZ

4.2 Bend Test

Each of the set of quality good samples welded to each p-WPS (i.e. p-WPS-A, p-WPS-B and p-
WPS-C) was also submitted to bend tests as per ASTM A370 testing requirements and the test
results were tabulated in Tables 4, 5 and 6 as below.

311
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

Table 4: Bend Test Results of p-WPS-A

Type Dimension Sample Bend Former Result Comments
L x W (mm) Angle Diameter
() (mm)
Face bend 160 x 9.5 F1 180 4T No defect was observed Acceptable
Root bend 160 x 9.5 R1 180 4T No defect was observed Acceptable

Table 5: Bend Test Results of p-WPS-B

Type Dimension Sample Bend Angle Former Result Comments
L x W (mm) () Diameter
(mm)
Face bend 160 x 9.5 F1 180 4T No indication Acceptable
Observed
Face bend 160 x 9.5 F1 180 4T No indication Acceptable
Observed
Root bend 160 x 9.5 R1 180 4T No indication Acceptable
Observed
Root bend 160 x 9.5 R1 180 4T No indication Acceptable
Observed

Table 6: Bend Test Results of p-WPS-C

Type Dimension Sample Bend Angle Former Result Comments
L x W (mm) () Diameter
(mm)
Face bend 160 x 9.5 A03 180 4T No indication Observed Acceptable
(#696)
Face bend 160 x 9.5 A03 180 4T No indication Observed Acceptable
(#697)
Root bend 160 x 9.5 A03 180 4T No indication Observed Acceptable
(#698)
Root bend 160 x 9.5 A03 180 4T No indication Observed Acceptable
(#699)

4.3 Hardness Measurement Survey across weldment

Vickners Hardness Tests were conducted as per the test method requirements specified by ASTM
E92 with a constant test load of 10 kgf being applied. The summary Vickners hardness
measurement survey of these welded test samples from all three p-WPS is tabled in Table 7 below.
Please note that the max hardness value allowable for ASTM A789 UNS S32750 SDSS is 310 Hv10.

Table 7: A Summary Vickners Hardness Measurement Survey of these

welded test samples from all three WPS.
Locations p-WPS-A (Hv10) p-WPS-B (Hv10) p-WPS-C (Hv10)
Base Metal 275 287 272 291 275 297
HAZ 264 286 275 285 278 290
Weldment 272 281 275 285 287 289

4.4 Pitting Corrosion Test

All SDSS welded samples were critically assessed by various designated NDE techniques.
Only those quality good welded samples are submitted to Pitting Corrosion Test as per ASTM G48-
A requirements.
From p-WPS-A, 26 nos. of SDSS welds including the welds for procedure qualification were
submitted to two different testing laboratories in Singapore and the results were found to be erratic
ranging from 0.04 g/m2 to 95 g/m2. From these batches of test samples, the best results were
obtained from welds that were cooled naturally as opposed to compressed air (dry air) cooling and
there seemed to have no reasonable correlation between ferrite counts and ASTM G48-A test
results.
For these experiences gained from WQT of p-WPS-A, we decided to use the same welding
parameters but replacing the autogenous root pass with solid SDSS filler metals for the root run,

312
 Edwin N.T. Jong

we managed to achieve consistently and fulfil the objectives of pitting corrosion tests, some of
whose results are tabulated Tables 8 & 9 as below.
Table 8: Weight Loss Results of Test Specimens obtained from p-WPS-B
Sample No (a) (b) (c) (b c) [(b c)/a] x 104 Pitting
Observation
Surface Initial Final Weight Loss Weight Loss Cap area Root area
Area (cm2) Weight Weight (g) (g) (g/m2)
(g)
B01 (#301) 19.28 16.1205 16.1138 0.0067 0.3475 No No
B02 (#302) 18.61 13.1163 13.1102 0.0061 0.3278 No No
B08 (#313) 20.59 14.9552 14.9539 0.0013 0.0621 No No

pH of the solution: Before test: 0.9; After Test: 1.0

Table 9: Weight Loss Results of Orbital Welded Test Specimens obtained from p-
WPS-C as per Pitting Corrosion Test, ASTM G48 Method A@24 hours, (40C)
Sample No (a) (b) (c) (b c) [(b c)/a] x 104 Pitting
Observation
Surface Area Initial Final Weight Loss Weight Loss Cap area Root area
(cm2) Weight Weight (g) (g/m2)
(g) (g)
A05 (#702) 24.59 13.9767 13.9763 0.0004 0.163 No No
A06 (#703) 24.43 14.6905 14.6900 0.0005 0.205 No No
A07 (#704) 24.65 14.4724 14.4722 0.0002 0.081 No No
A08 (#705) 24.81 13.7163 13.7161 0.0002 0.081 No No
pH of the solution: Before test: 0.9; After Test: 1.0

Pitting Corrosion Test Results:

The specimens were observed visually and under low magnification stereomicroscope at 20x
magnification; some of the photographic documentations are depicted Figures 5 and 6.
Figure 5: Photographic documentation for Sample #702: A05

Before Test OD Surface After Test OD Surface Before Test ID Surface After Test ID Surface

4.5 Phase Balance & Ferrite Content Determination

The details of the phase balance and the ferrite content determination that were conducted in
testing laboratories were as below:
Test Method: ASTM E562 using manual count
Test Location: HAZ and WELD METAL
Etchant used: 40% NaOH, Electrolytic etch
Magnification: 500X
Grid size selection: Reference to ASTM E562
Grid Description: Square Grid, 25 points
Number of fields assessed: 30

Manual GTAW:
By using Manual GTAW, it was generally identified that there were more ferrite phases in the
capping run but more austenite phases in the root runs as depicted in Figure 7.

313
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

Welded Joint on Super DSS by Cap: with more ferritic phase Root: with more austenitic phase
GTAW-Manual

Orbital GTAW with Fillet Metal:

SDSS welded joints produced from orbital GTAW generally revealed a better distribution between
ferrite phase and austenite phase at all locations as tabulated in Table 10.

Table 10: Test Results Summary of Ferrite and Austenite Phase Distribution
produced from Orbital GTAW
Sample Marking Start Weld (0) End Weld (180)
Name
Side 1 Side 2 Weld Side 1 Side 2 Weld Microstructure
(HAZ) (HAZ) (HAZ) (HAZ)
#841 A09 37.4 36.4 45.3 38.0 37.0 45.6 Fig 8
#842 A10 37.2 37.8 46.4 38.0 38.2 46.7 Fig 9

Figure 8: Microstructure of Sample #841 (A09 at 0) taken at 500x

magnification

314
 Edwin N.T. Jong

Figure 9: Microstructure of Sample #841 (A09 at 180) taken at 500x magnification

5.0 DISCUSSION ON FINDINGS AND CHALLENGES:

Based on the hand-on experiences starting from the preparation of SDSS tubing samples until the
completion of SDSS welded joints from three different GTAW approaches, the NDE assessments
and laboratory testing results on all SDSS welded joints manufactured from these three p-WPS,
we can summarise our findings/observations and challenges encountered as below.

5.1 Metal Surface Preparation and Cleanliness

5.1.1 Stray arc strikes on the SDSS base metal or on the completed welds must be avoided, as
high cooling rates and consequently high ferrite contents can be produced. Such arc strikes can
subsequently be the sites of severe local corrosion and lead to premature failure of the whole
component if not removed.

5.1.2 Residual slag can be removed by fine grinding/abrasion. However, rotary brushing (power
brushing) is not recommended due to the excessive surface deterioration and formation of fine
crevices which may occur. Using conventional methods for cleaning welded joints, i.e. stainless
steel brush, sand paper, etc. can also lead to high failure rates in ASTM G48-A pitting corrosion
test as the method of cleaning can leave with reasonable deep scratches on welded surfaces which
are susceptible/prone to localized corrosion attacks when completely immersed in the 10% ferric
chloride hexahydrate (10% FeCl3.6H2O) test solution at a constant test temperature of 401oC for
24 hours.

5.1.3 Surface Finishing

Based on our numerous attempts, using Aluminium Oxide based Scotch Brite pads with 1 m
surface finishing can consistently ensure for success in all tests. This method provides finished
surfaces which will never rust, with no change in surface dimensions and are more consistent than
other abrasives and contaminant-free for improved adhesion of sealers and coatings. Most
importantly, it always creates mirror-like and consistent surface finishing on flat or contoured
SDSS welded joints.

5.2 Material Handling and Pre-weld Procedures

5.2.1 Equipment for SDSS Material Handling
Suitably protected lifting equipment, covered fork lift arms, storage racking and adequately
protected rollers and pipe stands are employed for handling. Thus, pre-welding procedures for
super duplex stainless steels should follow normal practices applied to austenitic stainless steels.
Dirt, grease, oil, paint and sources of moisture of any sort will interfere with welding operations
and may adversely affect the corrosion resistance and mechanical properties of the weldment and
so must be removed.

5.2.2 Possible Contamination

Prior to welding, it is important that all aspects of handling of SDSS tubes are performed in a
controlled manner in order to prevent contamination, particularly by ferrous materials, of the
duplex stainless steel components. Poor handling practice can lead to rust spots and potentially
provide sites for in service pitting corrosion. It is for this reason that material segregation controls
are adopted, whereby duplex stainless steel fabrication is separated from areas where other
materials are being worked.

315
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

5.3 Preheating and Humidity Control

Preheat Temperature and Humidity Control: As a general rule, preheat is not necessary as
all welding activities are conducted in a hot tropical environment/climate. However, precaution is
required to ensure that the relative humidity of welding workshop is sufficiently dry especially
during cloudy and/or rainy days, and is fully ventilated at ambient temperature of about 25C in
order to keep dry the joint area and avoid condensation.

5.4 Arc Energy and Interpass Temperature Selection

5.4.1 Heat Input Control
This is the greatest challenge in dealing with welding of small diameter and thin-walled SDSS
tubing. Just reading from electrode manufacturers on the limitations of stipulating arc energy
alone, 22Cr DSS of, say, 10-20mm thickness can be welded at 0.5 to 2kJ/mm. For thinner walled
22Cr DSS, heat input should perhaps be restricted to ~1.5kJ/mm, depending on the criticality of
the application. For 25Cr superduplex stainless steel (SDSS) grades of 10-20mm thickness, lower
maximum arc energy should be specified to prevent any possible intermetallic formation. The
recommended arc energy window is typically 0.5 to 1.5 kJ/mm.

5.4.2 Interpass Temperature

Will depend on the duplex stainless steel grade concerned, and arc energy employed. For 22Cr
duplex alloys S31803 and S32205, for example, an interpass temperature of 150C has been
recommended for arc energy of 1.5kJ/mm and a thickness of 10-12mm, although this may be
increased to 225C if lower arc energies can be guaranteed. Interpass temperatures may also be
restricted further for thin walled material to as low as 100C. For super duplex stainless steel
grades, maximum interpass temperatures as low as 75C may be stipulated, particularly when
welding thin walled pipes (<5mm) using GTAW, for example, 150C is a more common limit for
thicker material.

5.4.3 Intermetallic Precipitation

Is additive in multipass welds and, provided that sufficient austenite reformation takes place,
lower arc energy is preferred for filler weld runs, for optimum results. For this reason, the pass
following deposition of the root bead is often termed the cold pass, as it is deposited at a heat
input lower than that of the root bead. In particular, low arc energy for the root run and higher arc
energy for the second and subsequent passes should be avoided, as it can lead to appreciable
reduction in corrosion resistance, due to the additive effects of adverse alloying element
segregation between ferrite and austenite and the formation of intermetallic phases and secondary
austenite.

5.5 Shielding Gases

5.5.1. Quality of Shielding Gas
A good gas shield during welding is essential to protect the weld pool from atmospheric oxidation
and contamination. Most typically, this protection is achieved using argon, but gas mixtures of
Ar/He can also be employed. Oxygen content in the gas shield on both sides of the weld should be
as low as possible, ideally <25 ppm, although this is seldom achievable on the root side in practice,
and in order to assure complete flushing of air and full protection of the weld, gas flows should be
initiated several seconds prior to striking the arc and should be maintained for several seconds
after the arc is extinguished, ideally long enough for the weld and HAZ to cool below the oxidation
range of the superduplex stainless steel.

5.5.2 Influence of Dissolved Nitrogen

Nitrogen influences weld metal microstructure and corrosion resistance property; hence it is
important to control nitrogen during welding. Using nitrogen-free shielding gases for gas shielded
processes will typically result in the loss of some nitrogen from the weld pool. The extent of loss is
dependent on the nitrogen content of the super duplex stainless steel in question, the arc length
(voltage) and arc energy.

5.5.3 Control of Nitrogen

316
 Edwin N.T. Jong

To prevent this problem, binary (Ar/N2) and tertiary (Ar/He/N2) mixtures are commercially
available for use as shielding or plasma gases (0.5-2.5% N2). Their use can prevent nitrogen loss,
and even result in increased weld metal nitrogen content. However, it should be noted that too
much nitrogen can lead to weld metal porosity. Also, high levels of N2 result in excessive wear of
the GTAW electrode. Typically, a 1% nitrogen addition may be used on 22% Cr steel and 2%
nitrogen for super duplex stainless steel grades.

5.6 Backing Gases

5.6.1 Backing Gases
For internal protection of single-sided welds (in tubing, pipes, for example) can be either pure argon,
or high purity nitrogen. Welds produced using backing gas containing nitrogen have performed
well in pitting tests. Such gases can contain up to 100% N2, although this may cause high austenite
content on the root surface. Some manufacturers recommend using Formier gas, which is a 90%
N2 + 10% H2 mixture, as backing gas. This gas provides good protection against oxidation and
improved weld appearance due to better wetting. However, some hydrogen pick-up will arise, and
cannot easily diffuse out of the weld unless solution annealing after welding is performed.
Hydrogen will embrittle weldments containing high ferrite levels, leading potentially to hydrogen
cracking, but this should not be of concern provided the weld metal ferrite content is below say 55-
60% and the hydrogen content fairly low, say <10ppm.

5.6.2 Maintaining Flow of Backing Gas

Backing gas should be employed in such a way that several changes of volume have occurred prior
to commencing welding, and it is typical practice, for multipass welds, to maintain the gas for
approximately 3 or 4 passes, i.e. until the root pass ceases to be significantly heated by subsequent
welding.

5.7 Consumable Types

5.7.1 Selection of Welding Consumables
Weld metal is typically less corrosion resistant than parent steel of the same initial composition,
due to nitrogen loss and element partitioning. Thus, the welding consumables typically are slightly
overalloyed with respect to parent steel and for aggressive environments; a superduplex stainless
steel consumable is sometimes employed for welding 22Cr duplex stainless steel grades. More
highly alloyed duplex consumables are not available to weld superduplex grades due to the
increased risk of intermetallic formation, although nickel alloy types with high levels of Mo may
be adopted.

5.8 Joint Design

5.8.1 Essence of Joint Design
Using GTAW without filler addition (autogenous welding) is not typically recommended for duplex
stainless steel, unless a solution anneal is envisaged after welding. Consequently, it is essential to
incorporate a root gap in the joint design, to ensure adequate filler addition when employing GTAW
process.
For uniformity of joint gap, machining rather than grinding is recommended during joint
preparation to optimise the fit-up. If grinding has to be performed, stainless steel compatible
tooling should be used and any grinding burr removed to avoid incomplete fusion and lack of
penetration.
For austenitic stainless steels, a skilled welder can overcome some deficiencies in joint preparation
by manipulation of the torch. However, dealing with duplex stainless steel, some of these
techniques may cause a longer than expected exposure in the harmful temperature range (550-
950C) and should be avoided.

5.9 Heat Input

Control of Heat Input: Since the heat input during welding of all three different approaches can
affect the austenitic-ferritic phase balance as well as the production of undesirable phases, such as
sigma, which can result in embrittlement, it is very important to have precise control of the heat
input during the welding of duplex alloys. Several of the welding parameters controlled by orbital

317
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

welding power supplies may be adjusted to regulate the heat input into the weld. The major control
of heat input during welding is the primary current (amps).
5.10 NDE Techniques for Quality Check
5.10.1 NDE Requirements
All NDE techniques (i.e. VI, PT, RT & UT) are useful for screening the quality of welded joints
prior to various planned mechanical, metallurgical and corrosion tests. From these combinations
of NDE assessments, they give the initial quality check by providing first-hand information
pertaining to the quality level of welded joints that have been produce and, without damaging
these welded joints, they are able to reveal the locations, length, depth and width of possible defects
which may not be detected visually.

5.11 Manual GTAW Process with Autogenous Welding for Root Pass
SDSS welded joints manufactured by manual GTAW process with autogenous root pass have
always revealed the following properties:

5.11.1 Lack of Fusion

Under light microscopic examination, it is observed that the manual GTAW with fillet wire for the
hot pass cannot fully burnt through the initial autogeneous welding on root pass and is found to
be prone to pitting corrosion attacks esp. at the start/stop area, which clearly depicted in Figure
10a below. This is further confirmed that localized corrosion attacks are mainly observed at these
specific start/stop areas (refer to Figure 10b) where incomplete weld reinforcement at root. Indeed,
welders welding technique in finishing the final capping run may contribute to this effect. Hence,
through the vast variety of welded SDSS tubing samples, failure with corrosion pits can also occur
at both OD and ID; they are quite random and unpredictable.

(a)Pitting at the Root (b) Weld StartStop Area

Figure 10: Micrograph revealing severe pitting as observed at root pass and sketch
indicating incomplete reinforcement at start/stop area on weldment

5.11.2 ID Concavity
Another disadvantage of GTAW with autogenous welding method with argon shield gas is that the
thin-walled welds can be unacceptably concave on the OD with excessive build up on the ID when
sufficient heat for a full-penetration weld is applied. The use of pressure balancing can help to
overcome weld bead OD concavity.

5.11.3 Lower Mechanical Strength

In general, SDSS joints manufactured by this method have lower mechanical strength

5.11.4 Difficulty in the Austenite-Ferrite Dual Phase Ratio Criteria

With this welding approach, it can just manage to fulfil metallurgical criteria with about 3070%
ferrite phase at weldment and HAZ; and, it is almost certain that it always indicates more ferrite
phases in the capping runs but more austenite phases at root runs;

318
 Edwin N.T. Jong

5.11.5 Pitting Corrosion Resistance Requirements

It can almost ascertain that the welded joints of this nature would fail to achieve the weight loss
criteria when undergoing ASTM G48-A corrosion tests at a constant test temperature of 401oC
for 24 hours. Hence, manual GTAW with autogenous root pass can hardly achieve any weight loss
criteria (i.e. <4.0g/m2 Norsek Specification and <1.0 g/m2 as per the specific project
requirements).

5.12 Manual GTAW Process with Fillet Metal for Root Pass
SDSS welded joints with manual GTAW process with chosen fillet metal have always indicated
the following promising properties:
i. Weld Bead Uniformity: It is difficult for a thin-wall SDSS material (1.6mm and less) to add
wire uniformly by hand so the appearance of manual weld beads with welding wires can always be
seen irregular.
ii. Uniformity of Heat Input Control: The addition of filler material can always be done with
manual welding of duplex stainless steels. The lack of uniform heat input with manual welding,
even with the addition of filler, results in uneven distribution of ferrite with higher than acceptable
ferrite levels in some parts of the weld. Manual welding of duplex is difficult because the weld pool
is sluggish. Manual welders may overcompensate for the excessive viscosity by over penetrating
the root or by pushing through the root with wire leaving bits of wire projecting into the inside of
the weld. It can almost ascertain that the welded joints of this nature would fail to achieve the
weight loss criteria when undergoing ASTM G48-A corrosion tests at a constant test temperature
of 401oC for 24 hours. Hence, manual GTAW with autogenous root pass can hardly achieve any
weight loss criteria (i.e. <4.0g/m2 Norsek Specification and <1.0 g/m2 as per the specific project
requirements).
iii. Inconsistency in Quality Control: Welds of this nature can fail radiography and very likely
to have secondary phase precipitation and lower pitting resistance due to the overheating inherent
in the manual GTAW process.
iv. Higher Mechanical Strength: The welded joints by this method are considered to be

v. Austenite-Ferrite Dual Phase Ratio Criteria: With this welding approach, there is no issue
in fulfilling metallurgical requirements with 30 to 60 ratios between ferrite and austenite phases
across all locations of the weldment but must adhere to a stringent quality control system. In
general, it is observed that there are slightly more ferrite phases in the capping runs as compared
to the root runs.
Vi. Welder Dependence: It is very much dependent on the skills of welders; i.e. a skill-orientated
welding method.
vii. Pitting Corrosion Resistance Requirements: With special welding training, SDSS joints
manufactured by this approach can easily pass the ASTM G48-A corrosion test requirements with
weight loss criteria of <1.0 g/m2 as per the specific project requirements.

5.13 Orbital GTAW with Fillet Metal

i. Meeting all Applicable Welding Code Requirements: The AMI Model 227 power supply can
be programmed to adjust the wire feed rate in synchronization with the primary and background
current pulses. These welds meet requirements for all applicable codes and standards including
bend and tensile tests for qualification to ASME Section IX of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
critical pitting temperature (CPT) according to ASTM G-48A, Vickers Hardness Testing, and were
qualified to the Norwegian standards, NORSOK and the project specific specifications.
ii. Austenite-Ferrite Dual Phase Ratio Criteria: Orbital GTAW can easily achieve all criteria
once the correct parameters are set up and can consistently produce the same quality good welds
throughout the operations. It is observed that orbital GTAW has always revealed a better
distribution between ferrite phase and austenite phase (ratio: 35 to 50) at all locations.
iii. Non-Welder Dependence: This is not a skill-orientated welding method but depend upon the
parameters being set up initially by a trained welding technician.
iv. Pitting Corrosion Resistance Requirements: SDSS welded joints manufactured by
this approach have no problem in passing the ASTM G48-A corrosion test requirements with
weight loss criteria of <1.0 g/m2 as per the specific project requirements.

319
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

5.14 Tensile Strength Properties

Provided that appropriate duplex stainless steel fillers are employed, there should be no difficulty
achieving tensile strength values specified for the parent steel in a cross-weld specimen over the
temperature range normally used for duplex stainless steels. Further, there is little change in the
tensile properties of the weld metal over a wide range of ferrite levels. Elongation of the weld metal
is normally lower than that of the base metal, although values of elongation of around 25% can be
achieved.

5.15 Microhardness Values

i. The microhardness of superduplex stainless steel weldments is normally greater than that of the
SDSS base material, due to strain induced by the heating and cooling cycle. Also, there is an effect
of alloy addition, as superduplex stainless steel grades are invariably harder than lower alloy
grades.
ii. Pitting Corrosion Resistance Requirements: With special welding training, SDSS joints
manufactured by this approach can easily pass the ASTM G48-A corrosion test requirements with
weight loss criteria of <1.0 g/m2 as per the specific project requirements.
iii. The increase in microhardness is manifest in both weld metal and HAZ, particularly in the root
region. This strain-induced hardening is caused by compression of the region during cooling and is
a function of the number of weld passes. Hardness of weldment and base material alike are an
important consideration if the material is intended for service in sour conditions, where NACE
hardness requirements are invoked.

5.16 Ferrite Control

i. Effect of Materials Properties: From this welding qualification tests and step-by-step
analyses, the ferrite control in SDSS welded joints can also be considered as one of the most crucial
factors in ensuring the success of manufacturing SDSS welded joints. Thus, the primary issue in
welding duplex stainless steels is to achieve welds with a balanced phase structure because the
proportion of austenite to ferrite in the metal determines its mechanical properties such as
strength, ductility and hardness, and its resistance to corrosion. Duplex stainless steels have a
balanced phase structure of approximately 50 per cent austenite and 50 per cent ferrite. The ideal
dual phase balance is considered to be between 45% and 55% ferrite but manufacturers generally
produce DSS materials with base metal ferrite counts between 35 to 45% to avoid higher ferrite
counts after welding.
ii. Superior Corrosion Resistance Requirements: During welding, the liquid puddle solidifies
as ferrite and during cooling there is partial transformation of the ferrite to austenite. The
proportion of austenite to ferrite in the finished weld depends on the base metal chemistry and on
the welding thermal cycle. Most specifications for offshore/subsea applications allow a range of 35
to 65% ferrite in the weld and HAZ, but for the more critical applications requiring superior
corrosion resistance, ferrite numbers below 50% are preferred. Control of base metal chemistry
was the first step in achieving predictable ferrite counts after welding, however, precise control of
heat input during welding is also essential to maintain the optimum phase balance. Too rapid
cooling can make the phase balance shift to higher ferrite contents with a loss of corrosion
resistance, ductility, and increased susceptibility to hydrogen cracking. The variable heat input
from weld-to-weld and at different locations within manual welds of duplex stainless steels can
result in unacceptably high ferrite numbers.

5.17 Control of Weld Area Microstructure

i. Welding parameters should be chosen to ensure that overall cooling conditions are slow enough
for adequate austenite formation in the HTHAZ and weld metal and fast enough to avoid
deleterious precipitation in the LTHAZ and weld metal. This is done by recommending heat input
(arc energy) ranges, i.e. maximum and minimum values, and maximum interpass temperatures.
ii. Various models exist to describe the ferrite-austenite reaction at welds, based on material
composition and welding thermal cycle. Welding consumables overalloyed in nickel are often
selected unless post weld solution annealing is to be used.

320
 Edwin N.T. Jong

6.0 CONCLUSIONS:

From this hand-on welding experience with super duplex stainless steel (SDSS) tubings, we can
deduce on the following aspects.
6.1 Manual GTAW:
i. Shortages of Certified Skill Welders: Manual GTAW of duplex stainless steel tubing may be
appropriate for some applications with the limitations including the shortages of certified manual
welders with skills sufficient for welding acceptable welds on duplex stainless steel tubing of this
nature.
ii. Welding Consumable Requirements: Duplex stainless steel filler metals should be used.
Autogenous welding is not recommended. Generally, when joining duplex stainless steel to other
types of materials, a duplex stainless steel filler metal is recommended.
iii. Joint Preparation: to achieve good and full penetration, a slightly wider root gap and joint
angle than for standard stainless steel joints, should be used.
iv. Shielding and Backing Gas Requirements: The root should be gas-shielded. Suitable gases
are argon, argon-nitrogen mixtures or nitrogen. Nitrogen additions improve the corrosion
resistance on the root side. Careful purging is important for all stainless steels.
v. Preferred Welding Process: TIG or GTAW is strongly recommended for root passes in one-
sided welding.
vi. Industrial Practice with Copper Backing: Welding against copper backing should be
avoided because of the risk of too rapid cooling. Arc strike outside the joint should also be avoided,
as it results in very rapid cooling.
vii. Mechanical Cleaning: Rotating brushes for cleaning should be avoided, because of the risk
of forming micro-crevices.

6.2 Automatic GTAW:

Methods of welding super duplex stainless steel (SDSS) tubing successfully include the following:
i. Orbital GTAW is an excellent joining method for small diameter (<1.0) & thin wall (1.6mm
thick) duplex stainless steel tubing and pipe.
ii. Ease of Process Control: The nature of the process and the fine control of heat input make it
possible to develop procedures that meet the highest quality specifications for phase balance,
corrosion resistance, and mechanical strength.
iii. Repeatability: Orbital GTAW offers repeatability of process giving assurance that the
production welds will be of the same quality as the qualification welds.
iv. Quality Control Consistency: A major advantage of orbital welding over manual welding is
that once a procedure has been established for a particular duplex stainless steel, consistent welds,
which meet all of the requirements of the qualified test coupons, can be achieved with a high degree
of repeatability throughout a project.
v. Best Practices in Welding: Although duplex stainless steels have good weldability, specific
welding best practices are required to ensure that their intrinsic benefits such as good toughness
and corrosion resistance are not excessively reduced by the action of welding.
vi. Weld Bead Profile: For some applications, orbital GTAW with the addition of filler wire is
preferred. This technique produces a favourable and regular weld bead profile and can be done
successfully with pure argon shield gas.
vii. Improved Productivity: Orbital GTAW of super duplex SAF 2507 stainless steel also
provided improved productivity compared to manual welding and proved to be a very satisfactory
and economical fabrication technology.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:

The following aspects required more detail research and step-by-step approach so that the same
welded joints can be repeatedly reproduced.
a. Influence of Austenite-Ferrite Dual Phase Balance of Welds on Electrochemical
Reactions: A better understanding of the relationship between the austenite-ferrite balance of
welds and results of the ASTM G-48 pitting and crevice corrosion resistance tests combined with
more accurate ferrite determinations will lead to specifications for ferrite levels more consistent
with the severity of the service environments.

321
 Welding Qualification Test for a Super Duplex Stainless Steel Tubing

b. Best Practice Guidelines: To formulate the best practice guide looking at key issues such as
the microstructural transformations, which occur in the weld metal, and heat affected zone during
welding. It provides practical information and guidance on welding procedures, highlighting
important aspects like arc energy and interpass temperature, and the significance of shielding gas
composition.

REFERENCES:

1. ASTM A 789/A 789M: Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Ferritic/
Austenitic Stainless Steel Tubing for General Service.

2. API TECHNICAL REPORT 938-C: Use of Duplex Stainless Steels in the Oil Refining
Industry.

3. ASME Section IX: Qualification Standard for Welding and Brazing Procedures,
Welders, Brazers, and Welding and Brazing Operators.

4. ASTM A370: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
Products.

5. ASTM E340: Standard Test Method for Macro-etching Metals and Alloys.

6. SFA-5.9/SFA-5.9M: Specification for bare stainless steel welding electrodes and rods.

7. ASTM E92: Standard Test Method for Vickers Hardness of Metallic Materials.

8. ASME Section V: Non-Destructive Examination.

9. ASME Section V, ARTICLE 23, SE-273: Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Examination
of the weld zone of welded pipe and tubing.

10. ASME Section V, ARTICLE 22, SE-94: Standard Guide for Radiographic Examination

11. ASTM E562: Standard Test Method for Determining Volume Fraction by Systematic
Manual Point Count.

12. ASTM G 48: Standard Test Methods for Pitting and Crevice Corrosion Resistance of
Stainless Steels and Related Alloys by Use of Ferric Chloride Solution.

13. NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-1: Petroleum and natural gas industries Materials for use
in H2S-containing Environments in oil and gas production Part 1: General principles
for selection of cracking-resistant materials.

14. ASTM G 46: Standard Guide for Examination and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion.

15. NORSOK STANDARD M-601: Welding and inspection of piping.

322