Mechanical Properties

Dinesh W. Rathod1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
Variations and Comparative
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016, India Analysis of Dissimilar Metal
e-mail: dineshvrathod@gmail.com

Sunil Pandey
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: spandey@mech.iitd.ernet.in
P. K. Singh
Reactor Safety Division,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Hall 7, Trombay,
Mumbai 400085, India
e-mail: pksingh@barc.gov.in
Rajesh Prasad
Department of Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: rajesh@am.iitd.ac.in
Pipe Welds in Pressure Vessel
System of Nuclear Plants
The experimental investigations of two dissimilar metal weld (DMW) joints between
SA508Gr.3Cl.1 ferritic steel and SS304LN austenitic stainless steel using Inconel 82/182
(ERNiCr-3/ENiCrFe-3) and Inconel 52/152 (ERNiCrFe-7/ENiCrFe-7) filler metals have
been conducted in the present work. The integrity assessment of DMW joints and the
mechanical properties variations has made pertaining to ASME Section-III and Section-
IX. Mechanical tests comprising bend test, transverse tensile test (TTT), tensile test,
Charpy impact test, microhardness measurement have been carried out along with micro-
structural evolution using the standard test specimens according to respective ASTM
standards. Bend tests have shown that interfaces of the SA508–Inconel, Inconel–Inconel,
and Inconel–SS304LN are free from any lack of fusion or cracks. TTTs have shown that
failures of the specimens are from the SS304LN indicating integrity of the weld joint. Ten-
sile tests confirm that tensile strength of the different regions agreed the required strength
as per ASME Section-II. The weld strength mismatch and plastic instability strength
(PIS) are found to be important factors during integrity assessment of joints. Based on the
comparative investigations, owing to better mechanical properties, Inconel 82/182 filler
metals could be an optimum choice over Inconel 52/152 filler metals for present DMW
joints required in pressure vessel system of nuclear plants. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4031129]

Introduction denude soft zone and carbon-enriched hard zone can exist due to
migration of carbon from ferritic steel [3,5,8,10,11]. These joints
In light water reactors, generally, pressure vessel
have varying mechanical and fracture toughness properties across
(SA508Gr.3Cl.1 or equivalent) material is joined to piping steel
the weld joints. Integrity assessment of the components requires
(SA312 Type 304LN or equivalent) by welding using nickel-
to identify the lowest properties of the regions in the weld joints
based alloys. Inconel 82/182 (ERNiCr-3/ENiCrFe-3), the
for conservative assessment.
Ni-based consumable, is often used to weld the SA508Gr.3Cl.1 or
Some researchers have investigated properties of DMW joints
equivalent components to austenitic stainless steel SS304LN pipes
between ferritic steel and austenitic stainless steel using Inconel
for DMWs. Other Ni-based consumables, such as Inconel 52/152
82/182 [9,12,13] and Inconel 52/152 filler metals [13–17]. The
(ERNiCrFe-7/ENiCrFe-7), are preferred for repair activities of
comparative investigation of mechanical properties of both
such DMWs owing to its good corrosion resistance against
Ni-based filler metals is required for the best choice of consum-
Inconel 82/182. The physical and mechanical properties variation
ables for the DMW joints. In the present paper, two DMW joints
within the weldment zone always caused several problems in such
of SA508Gr.3cl.1 ferritic steel and SA312 Type SS304LN austen-
DMWs. The structural integrity and design assessment of such
itic stainless steel pipe materials have been prepared using Inconel
welds are very important in consideration of safe service life. Cer-
82/182 and Inconel 52/152 consumables. Both joints have welded
tain failures in pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants with leak
as per the requirement of ASME Section-III and Section-IX.
have been reported in V.C. Summer—USA (2000), Tsuruga 2—
Qualified weld joints have been investigated by tensile test, TTT,
Japan (2003), and Palisades—through-wall crack in the HAZ, not
Charpy V-notch test, bend test, microstructure evolution, and
in weld USA (1993). The weld materials used for the joints in
microhardness measurement across the weld joint. The detailed
these plants were Alloy 82/182 [1,2]. The PWR plants with
analysis of the mechanical properties is discussed thoroughly in
cracks/flaws in weld of Alloy 82/182 were also reported at Ring-
the present paper for comparison between the weld joints of
hals 3&4—Sweden (2000), Three Mile Island-1—USA (2003),
Inconel 82/182 and Inconel 52/152 filler metals.
Tihang 2—Belgium (2002), Calvert Cliffs 2—USA (2005), and
Biblis-A—Germany (2000) [1,2]. Several other problems have
been associated with DMWs that reduce the design life of joint
[1–7]. Mismatch in coefficient of thermal expansion of the austen- Experimental Details
itic and ferritic steel across the weld joint leads to the develop-
ment of cyclic thermal stresses [3,7–9]. Formation of carbon Welding Procedure and Materials. SA508Gr.3Cl.1 in
quenched and tempered condition and SA312 Type S304LN in
solution-annealed condition have used in pipe form to prepare
1
Present address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Manav Rachna DMW joints. The size of the pipe was 324 mm outer diameter and
International University, Sec-43, Faridabad 121001, Haryana, India. 25 mm wall thickness. For the present study, pipe pieces of
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 3, 2015;
160 mm length were used for welding. The filler metal rods of
final manuscript received July 1, 2015; published online September 7, 2015. Assoc. Inconel 82 (2 mm dia.), Inconel 52 (2.4 mm dia.), and Inconel 182
Editor: Marina Ruggles-Wrenn. and 152 (4 mm dia.) electrodes were used as consumables. The

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011403-1

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 chemical composition of base metals and filler metals used in the
study is given in Table 1.
All pipe pieces have machined as per compound bevel joint
design. According to AWS D1.1, the 10 deg angle was used on
top side for 6 mm thickness while for remaining 19 mm at root
side the angle used was 37.5 deg. This provides the 75 deg
included angle for joint design. The joint design can be seen in
Fig. 1 as the schematic presentation. Four buttering layers were
deposited on ferritic steel pipe piece with manual tungsten inert
gas (TIG) welding process using Inconel 82 and Inconel 52 (TIG
rods) filler metals for the respective joints. The 3 mm diameter Tung-
sten electrode was used for buttering and welding process (root joint)
with straight polarity using 6–9 L/min argon gas shielding. The
as-welded DMW pipe joints using Inconel 82/182 and Inconel 52/
152 consumables are shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), respectively.
The average thickness of approximately 7 mm for buttering
deposits was confirmed for both weld joints. The welding parame-
ters during buttering are given in Table 2. For DMW joints prepa-
ration, two root passes have been employed using TIG process
and Inconel 82/52 TIG rods for the respective weld joints. The
close chamber purging was provided during root passes of the
both joints. The subsequent fill passes applied with shielded metal
arc welding process using Inconel 182 and Inconel 152 electrodes
at reverse polarity. The pipes welding position was 5 G (axis hori-
zontal) for both joints and they were not rotated during welding.
The welding procedure is adopted according to ASME Section-
IX (welding procedure) and ASME Section-III (acceptance crite-
ria) for both Inconel 82/182 and Inconel 52/152 weld joints.
Welding parameters during root pass and fill pass are summarized
in Table 3 for both DMW joints.
Both DMW joints were examined 100% by radiograph test as
per requirement of ASME Section-V (inspection procedure) and
both joints were found to meet the acceptance criteria of ASME
Section-III. The axial and circumferential shrinkage in both
DMW joints was measured during welding. The Inconel 82/182
joint was noticed with 4.16 mm axial shrinkage and 2 mm circum-
ferential shrinkage. This shrinkage is significantly less than the
axial (4.87 mm) and circumferential (3 mm) shrinkage noticed in
Inconel 52/152 joint. This indicates that the intensity of residual
stresses would be more with Inconel 52/152 than with the Inconel
82/182 joint. The specimens for the tests were machined from the
different sections of both joints.

Table 1 Chemical composition of base metals and filler metals in weight percentage

Composition in wt. %

Materials and element C Ni Cr Fe Mn Mo Si Nb Cu Ti

Base metals SA508Gr3cl1 ferritic steel 0.191 0.53 0.12 96.93 1.30 0.43 0.24 — 0.19 —
SS 304LN 0.024 8.22 18.09 70.83 0.83 0.33 0.04 — 0.94 —
Filler metals Inconel 82 0.017 70.47 19.86 1.41 3.43 0.45 0.24 2.09 0.03 0.44
Inconel 182 0.034 67.17 13.09 6.84 8.51 0.43 0.49 1.46 0.04 0.71
Inconel 52 0.013 56.08 30.91 10.44 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.25
Inconel 152 0.024 56.69 28.05 7.92 3.75 0.39 0.25 1.44 0.12 0.47

Fig. 1 As-welded DMW pipe joints using (a) Inconel 82/182 and (b) Inconel 52/152
consumables

Table 2 Process parameters during deposition of buttering layers

Joint Layers Passes Current (A) Voltage (V) Welding speed (mm/s) Heat input (J/mm) Thickness (mm)

Inconel 82/182 1 6 98 8.4–9.5 0.60–1.05 900–1400 2.5

2 6 0.64–0.97 900–1500 2
3 6 0.72–0.98 800–1300 2
4 7 0.67–0.97 900–1400 2.5
Inconel 52/152 1 6 98–100 8.2–9.8 0.63–1.05 900–1400 2.5
2 6 0.64–0.97 900–1600 2
3 7 0.72–0.98 980–1380 2.5
4 6 0.67–0.97 900–1320 2.5

011403-2 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 Welding parameters during deposition of root and fill passes of welding for both the joints

Joint Passes Type of passes Current (A) Voltage (V) Welding speed (mm/s) Heat input (J/mm) Thickness (mm)

Inconel 82/182 1 Root pass 118–120 8.1–9.8 0.56 1910 3

2 Root pass 110–114 7.5–9.6 0.99 973 2
3–8 Fill pass 110 25–29 0.67–0.80 3400–4100 20
Inconel 52/152 1 Root pass 102–106 8.1–10.6 0.70 1395 3
2 Root pass 114–118 8.6–10.4 0.99 1200 2
3–7 Fill pass 100 26–31 0.40–0.60 5000–7000 20

direction of weld joints with 3 mm thickness. The schematic of

extracted specimens for TTT is shown in Fig. 2. The tensile test
specimens in circumferential direction were machined from dif-
ferent materials regions of weld joints, such as HAZ of ferritic
steel, buttering (Inconel 82/52), weld metal (Inconel 182/152),
and HAZ of SS304LN. Three subsize specimens (ASTM E8M-
07) of 3 mm thickness were machined from each weldment
regions of both DMW joints. The schematic position of extracted
specimens of tensile specimens is shown in Fig. 3.
Charpy V-notch test was performed for base metals and weld-
ment regions of joint by keeping the notch orientation in circum-
ferential direction of weld within the required weldment region.
The schematic positions of extracted specimens are shown in Fig.
3. The Charpy test for every specimen was conducted at ambient
temperature (24  C) following the ASTM E23-07 standard. For
bend test, two specimens were machined for side bend test from
both DMW joints. The specimens and testing procedure were fol-
lowed as per the instructions given in ASTM E190-03 standard.
Fig. 2 Schematic of TTT specimens, across the direction of
weld
Results and Discussion
Weld Qualification Tests
Bend Test. The bend test was conducted on side bend test speci-
mens by adjusting the weld, so that the weld joint regions come
under complete tension. The test was performed until the speci-
mens attained complete U-shape. The defect-free specimens were
confirmed with dye penetrant test and qualified the bend test crite-
ria for both DMW joints. This signifies that both DMW joints pos-
sess the required ductility in the weldment regions. The qualified
bend test specimens are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), the Inconel
82/182 and Inconel 52/152 joints, respectively.

Fig. 3 Schematic of Charpy specimens from HAZ of ferritic

steel, buttering, weld metal, and the tensile specimens in the
circumferential direction of welds
Mechanical Testing and Procedure. Specimens for mechani-
cal tests were machined from different sections of both DMW
joints. TTT was conducted on three standard sheet type rectangu-
lar specimens (ASTM E8M-07) extracted from transverse
TTT. The engineering stress strain curves obtained from the
TTT are shown in Fig. 5 for both the DMW pipe joints. All speci-
mens of both the joints were fractured from the weaker portion of
SS304LN within gauge length, and the tensile strength of all
specimens is almost equal with marginal variations in elongation.
SS304LN side of the specimens has major contribution in the
elongation of all specimens. The fractured specimens are shown
in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) of Inconel 82/182 and Inconel 52/152 joints,
respectively. The obtained results signify that both joints possess

Fig. 4 Side bend test specimens showing no cracks or defects: (a) Inconel 82/182 and (b)
Inconel 52/152 joint

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011403-3

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 5 Stress–strain curves from TTT specimens for both DMW
joints
Fig. 6 TTT specimens after test: (a) Inconel 82/182 joint and (b)
Inconel 52/152 joint
the required strength and ductility for the DMW joint requirement
and structural integrity.
Metallurgical Testing
Welds Microstructure. The weld deposits of Inconel 82/182
and 52/152 have been primarily austenite with two phase solidifi-
cation structure of dendrite and dendrite cores [12,18,19]. The
microstructures showed solidified dendrite structure with recrys-
tallized feature [8]. Figure 7(a) shows the buttering interior of
Fig. 7 Interior of buttering with dendrites and dendrite cores of (a) Inconel 82 and (b)
Inconel 52
011403-4 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Inconel 82 with dendrites and dendrite cores. The dendrite growth
is in transverse direction of weld joint, which is in the direction of
cooling during buttering as shown in Fig. 7(a) by long arrow. Sec-
ondary phase precipitates in dendrite and dendrite cores are indi-
cated by small arrows in the figure. Solidification grain
boundaries (SGBs) are clearly evidenced and indicated in the fig-
ure. The location of microstructure on cross section of joint can
also be seen in the figure. Similarly, the buttering interior of
Inconel 52 can be seen in Fig. 7(b). The dendrite size and spacing
are significantly smaller than the Inconel 82. The dominant
columnar and cellular dendrite structure (small arrows in Fig. 7(b))
are present in the direction of cooling, which is in the transverse
direction of welds and is indicated by long arrow in Fig. 7(b).
The composition mismatch in both consumables especially Nb,
Cr, and Fe contents caused to increase the dendrite size and spac-
ing owing to the effect on dilution ability of these elements in
weld deposits [6]. The dilution of filler metal with ferritic steel
base metal also changed the weld deposit chemistry from the filler
metal composition.
The weld metal microstructure of Inconel 182 is shown in
Fig. 8(a). The fully austenitic structure was observed with the
presence of SGBs and migrated grain boundaries. The consider-
able amount of secondary phase particles with laves phases
[9,18,19] can be seen in dendrite cores and is indicated by arrows.
Moreover, the interior of Inconel 152 weld metal is shown in
Fig. 8(b). The austenitic microstructure is observed with tiny NbC
and TiC precipitates with significant amount of elongated harder
r-phases (bright) at the grain boundaries. Similar to buttering,
grain size in weld metal of Inconel 152 is also significantly
smaller than Inconel 182 grain size.
Figure 9(a) shows the microstructure of HAZ of SS304LN for
the Inconel 82/182 joint. The austenite grain size marginally
reduced than the corresponding base metal with minor increase in
twin grain gap. The cross section of joint for microstructure loca-
tion is also shown in Fig. 9. Similar thing was also noticed with
the Inconel 52/152 joint as shown in Fig. 9(b). The grain size in
HAZ of SS304LN is marginally more in Inconel 82/182 joint than
Inconel 52/152 joint. The increase in austenite grain size of HAZ
has been reported by Mathew and Latha [20] for SS316LN welds.
However, owing to temper bead deposition during multipass
welding, the reduction in austenite grains could be possible and
was evidenced in the present study.
Microhardness Variation. The microhardness variations across
the weld of both DMW joints are given in Fig. 10. The high hard-
ness in HAZ of ferritic steel is observed due to faster cooling rate
and formation of reformed martensite [21]. The hardness near
interface in HAZ ferritic steel was observed considerably lesser in
Inconel 52/152 joint than in Inconel 82/182 joint. This may be
caused because of the formation of soft zone (carbon depleted)
due to carbon migration [13].
The hardness in buttering region is lesser at ferritic steel side
than weld metal sides. The microhardness in Inconel 52/152 is
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 8 Interior of weld metal with general grain structure of (a) Inconel 182 and (b) Inconel
152

Fig. 9 HAZ of SS304LN representing (a) Inconel 82/182 and (b) Inconel 52/152 DMW joints

Fig. 10 Microhardness variations across both the DMW pipe joints

significantly more than the Inconel 82/182 in buttering and weld
metal regions. The higher chromium content in the composition
and increased Fe content due to dilution resulted in the formation
of harder r-phases, which was confirmed in the microstructure of
weld metal (Fig. 8(b)). The hardness in HAZ of SS304LN for
Inconel 52/152 joint is more than Inconel 82/182 joint. This is
consistent with the reduction in austenite grain size in the HAZ of
SS304LN (Fig. 9). The hardness recorded in the present study is
in agreement with the earlier studies on Inconel 82/182 [9,22] and
Inconel 52/152 welds [16]. The favorable hardness profile and bet-
ter combination of hardness values across the weld joint were
noticed in Inconel 82/182 compared to Inconel 52/152 joint.
Mechanical Testing
Tensile Properties Variations in Weldment Materials Zone. The
engineering stress–strain curves of the weldment regions are very
important in integrity assessment. The typical stress–strain curves
of the specimens are given in Figs. 11(a) and 11(b) for Inconel 82/
182 and Inconel 52/152 joints, respectively.
The stress–strain curves exhibited the almost similar patterns
with marginal variations within the same materials zone of both
DMW joints. The average properties are calculated from the
stress–strain curves of all specimens belonging to different mate-
rial zones of both DMW joints. The calculated properties yield
strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), uniform elongation
(UE), total elongation (TE), and PIS are given in Figs. 12(a) and
12(b) for Inconel 82/182 and Inconel 52/152 joints, respectively.
The material properties like UTS and UE govern the deformation
behavior and type of failure (ductile or brittle) in material. These
properties considerably varied across the weldment regions
between two dissimilar metals involved in DMW joints. PIS varia-
tions in each material zone are estimated using the below equation:
  
UEð%Þ
PIS ¼ UTS  þ1 (1)
100
PIS is the true stress at maximum load or a true version of UTS
that reflects variation in UTS and UE. It is dependent on the

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011403-5

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 11 Typical stress–strain curves of base metal and weldment regions of (a) Inconel 82/182 joint and (b) Inconel 52/152
joint
Fig. 12 Average tensile properties of base metal and weldment regions of (a) Inconel 82/182 joint and (b) Inconel 52/152
joint
temperature but not truly on stress concentration. It represents re-
sistance to local necking initiation and generally used as local fail-
ure criteria for ductile materials [12]. The UE(%) was converted
into uniform strain in Eq. (1) for estimating the PIS. The YS and
UTS in HAZ of ferritic steel have increased than corresponding
base metal while UE and TE were reduced. The increase of hard-
ness in this region is consistent with tensile properties due to the
coarse and fine grains in HAZ of ferritic steel some fraction of
reformed martensite [21]. The variation is almost similar for both
joints. The dominant columnar dendrite and cellular growth are
significant in Inconel 52 than in Inconel 82 (Fig. 7). This caused
to decrease the strength and elongation in Inconel 52 buttering
and the resulting PIS than in Inconel 82.
The fracture surface observations of tensile test specimens of
Inconel 82 buttering (Fig. 13(a)) and Inconel 52 buttering
(Fig. 13(b)) are consistent with tensile properties. The compara-
tively larger dimples (encircled) are observed in Inconel 82 due to
the larger dendrite size (Fig. 9) than in Inconel 52. The secondary
phase particles nucleated microvoids (indicated by arrows) and
dendrite structures with complete ductile dimpled fracture are
clearly visible in Figs. 13(a) and 13(b) of Inconel 82 and Inconel
52 buttering, respectively. The presence of r-phase particles in
Inconel 152 weld metal causes the strength and elongation to
decrease marginally than the Inconel 182 weld metal. Fine slag
inclusion and second phase particles nucleated microvoids are
shown by arrows in Figs. 14(a) and 14(b) of Inconel 182 and
Inconel 152 weld metals, respectively. The existence of r-phase
011403-6 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
at grain boundaries and the second phase particles can be traced in
Fig. 14(b) of Inconel 152 weld metal fracture surface.
The strength in HAZ of SS304LN of Inconel 52/152 joint is
marginally more than the Inconel 82/182 joint, but the elongation
is reduced significantly. This observed to be consistent with the
microstructure and microhardness variations. The austenite grain
size in HAZ of SS304LN for Inconel 52/152 joint is smaller than
Inconel 82/182 joint, which also caused to reduce the PIS of HAZ
of SS304LN in Inconel 52/152 joint than Inconel 82/182 joint.
Comparatively, the tensile properties of different material zones
(weldment regions) of Inconel 82/182 joint are more favorable
than Inconel 52/152 DMW joint.
The strength mismatch between base metals and welds has the
significant influence on crack-driving force and the crack growth
resistance. The weld strength mismatch can be indicated with yield
strength ratio (YSR). Varying tensile properties across the different
material regions lead to varying YSR, which is a very important
concern to regulate the strain concentration location in weld joints.
Therefore, the YSR can affect the crack growth resistance in com-
plete plastic deformation [12]. The YSR in terms of weld strength
mismatch [12] is calculated using the below equation:
Yield strength ratio ðYSRÞ ¼ YSWM =YSBM (2)
The YSWM and YSBM represent the YS of weld metal and base
metal, respectively. YSR more than one is desirable in terms of
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 13 Fracture surface of tensile test specimens: (a) Inconel 82 and (b) Inconel 52
buttering

Fig. 14 Fracture surface of tensile test specimens: (a) Inconel 182 and (b) Inconel 152
buttering

structural integrity. However, if it is less than one, then the pre-
existing defects if any present in welds could lead to the fracture
initiation [12]. The calculated YSR for ferritic steel and SS304LN
side with average values and the obtained range of YSR are given
in Table 4 for both DMW pipe joints. The tensile properties of
both base metals and filler metals are very different so weld
strength mismatch exists. However, the effect of mismatch is con-
sidered significant when the strength of mismatched materials
region exceeds 10% [12]. This suggests the consideration of YSR
and its effect while assessing the integrity of DMW joints [6,13].
The average YSR and its range for different materials zone for
both DMW joints can be observed in Table 4.
The YSR between weld metal and base metal SS304LN is over-
matched in both joints, while it is undermatched with HAZ of
SS304LN, which is not very significant in both joints compared to
ferritic steel side. The YSR between weld metal and ferritic steel
base metal is undermatched in both joints. However, the signifi-
cant reduction in YSR is attributed for buttering and HAZ of fer-
ritic steel in both joints. The obtained results indicate that plastic
strain concentration can occur in SS304LN base metal, between
the buttering and HAZ ferritic steel and at weld metal after initial
plastic deformation in SS304LN. This is more critical with
Inconel 52/152 joint than with Inconel 82/182 joint due to very
less YSR value between buttering and HAZ of ferritic steel. Simi-
larly, the lower value of PIS is also observed within buttering
region, which is significantly less in Inconel 52 than in Inconel
82. For integrity assessment, the buttering region is observed with
higher risk of strain concentration and crack tip stresses during
complete plastic deformation.
Charpy V-Notch Impact Toughness. To measure Charpy
V-notch impact toughness of different materials zone of DMW
joints, standard (10  10  55 mm) specimens with 2 mm V-notch
as per ASTM E190-03 standard have been machined from both
pipe joints as shown in Fig. 3. Out of five specimens in each weld-
ment region, the maximum and minimum values were discarded
and the average of remaining three specimens is accounted for
analysis. The impact toughness of different weldment zones of
both DMW joints in circumferential direction of welds is given in
Fig. 15. The impact energy absorbed by base metals and regions
of both joints is more than the minimum prescribed value of 80 J
[23,24]. The HAZ of ferritic steel region was observed with

Table 4 Estimated YSR for different sides of the DMW joint

YSR-Inconel 82/182 joint YSR-Inconel 52/152 joint

Location Zone Average Range Average Range

SA508Gr.3cl.1 ferritic steel side YSRWM-BM508 0.71 0.66–0.80 0.71 0.70–0.73

YSRBT-HZ508 0.63 0.58–0.68 0.55 0.52–0.59
SS304LN side YSRWM-BM304 1.83 1.68–2.08 1.85 1.82–1.90
YSRWM-HZ304 0.91 0.87–0.99 0.98 0.91–1.06

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011403-7

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 15 Impact toughness in base metals and weldment
regions of both DMW joints
almost same impact toughness in both DMW joints. Moreover,
the impact energy absorbed by Inconel 52 buttering is signifi-
cantly more than by Inconel 82 due to significant transverse
columnar and cellular dendrite growth across the direction of
notch in Inconel 52 buttering (Fig. 7). The impact toughness in
buttering is more than the weld metal due to the absence of fine
slag inclusions from the coated electrodes, which nucleates the
microvoids in weld metal and leads to low stress field ahead of
cracks. This justifies the lowest impact toughness in weld metal
region of both the DMW joints.
The impact toughness of Inconel 152 weld metal is marginally
less than Inconel 182 weld metal owing to the presence of harder
r-phases at grain boundaries. The fracture surface observation
was noticed to be consistent with impact toughness and not very
distinctive from the fracture surface observed in tensile test. The
obtained results are considerably more than the results reported by
Hajiannia et al. [18] and in agreement with the results reported by
Sireesha et al. [23]. The impact toughness of Inconel 52 is favor-
able against Inconel 82 and Inconel 182 weld metal is preferred
over Inconel 152 weld metal. Considerably, larger material zone
of weld metal in weld joint requires better toughness properties.
Hence, owing to better impact toughness of Inconel 182 weld
metal and reasonably acceptable toughness of Inconel 82, this
joint can be preferred over the Inconel 52/152 joint.
Influence of Mechanical Properties on Integrity Assessment
of DMW Joints. The accurate method for structural integrity
assessment of DMW joints in nuclear plant does not exist at pres-
ent [16]. The data and information of similar metal welds are
adopted for the design of DMW joints. The structural integrity
assessment in the present form depends on the results of several
years of experience and strength analysis of materials [25]. In ref-
erence to integrity assessment procedure for weld joints in exist-
ing codes and literature such as R6 [26], European method
SINTAP [27], and FITNET FFS [28], the dissimilar joints are
considered as sandwich composite combination of different mate-
rials comprising the base metals and weld metals. The effects due
to interfacial regions and HAZ are not given required considera-
tion in these codes and procedure, which was also agreed by
Wang et al. [16]. The defects in welds can appear anywhere in the
base metals, interfacial regions, buttering, weld metal, and HAZ
regions. Considering the different materials zone in DMW joints,
undermatched (unsafe) and overmatched results can be obtained
owing to the variations in mechanical properties across the weld-
ment regions. The fracture mechanism and deformation behavior
are difficult to be estimated whether the crack will be positioned
at interface or at weldment regions due to varying mechanical
properties. This can deviate the crack from one material to another
material. Hence, the integrity assessment methods in present
codes and procedure cannot be used with desirable accuracy for
DMW joints.
011403-8 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The mismatch in mechanical properties has significant effect on
fracture resistance and crack growth path [26]. The varying micro-
structure and mechanical properties exist in DMW joints and dis-
tinctive variations in same material regions are reported by Wang
et al. [14–16] and Jang et al. [9]. Resistance to crack initiation and
propagation can be greatly affected by heterogeneity in mechani-
cal properties across the weldment regions [29]. Therefore, the
varying local mechanical properties across welds with considera-
tion of HAZ and interfacial regions are required to be investi-
gated. These properties could be used in more complex integrity
assessment of DMW joints and the modified methods based on
local mechanical properties across the weldment zones of joints
can be developed for DMW joints in nuclear plants.
Conclusion
The experimental investigations of Inconel 82/182 and Inconel
52/152 joints have been carried out and analyzed in the present
study. Some derived conclusions from the study for pressure ves-
sel system of nuclear plants are listed here
(1) The axial and circumferential shrinkage is more in Inconel
52/152 joint than in Inconel 82/182 joint. This could sug-
gest the more susceptibility of residual stresses in Inconel
52/152 joint than in Inconel 82/182 joint.
(2) The desirable and favorable microstructure and microhard-
ness profile is observed in Inconel 82/182 joint, as the sig-
nificant fraction of harder r-phase exists in Inconel 52/152
joint.
(3) The YS of Inconel 82/182 and Inconel 52/152 is over-
matched with SS304LN, but undermatched with
SA508Gr.3Cl.1 ferritic steel. The minor undermatched is
observed with weld metal to the HAZ of SS304LN. While
significant undermatched has observed with buttering and
HAZ of ferritic steel. The YSRWM-BM508 for Inconel 82/
182 is 0.66–0.80, while for Inconel 52/152 it is 0.70–0.73.
Similarly, YSRBT-HAZ508 for Inconel 82/182 is 0.58–0.68
and for Inconel 52/152 it is 0.52–0.59. This suggests the
comparatively better YSR with Inconel 82/182 joint than
with Inconel 52/152 joint.
(4) PIS is a very important concern for weld integrity. The
lower values of PIS are observed in Inconel 52 buttering
and HAZ of SS304LN of Inconel 52/152 joint. Hence,
based on the PIS, the Inconel 82/182 joint could be pre-
ferred over Inconel 52/152 joint.
(5) Tensile properties are more favorable in Inconel 82/182
joint compared to Inconel 52/152 joints.
(6) Impact toughness of buttering Inconel 52 is more than Inconel
82 owing to significant columnar and cellular dendrites across
the notch orientation. While Inconel 152 (weld metal) tough-
ness is marginally less than Inconel 182 due to the presence
of r-phases at grain boundaries. Considering the larger mate-
rial zone of weld metal in weld joint and reasonably good
impact toughness of Inconel 82 buttering, the Inconel 82/182
joint can be preferred over Inconel 52/152 joint.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences,
Department of Atomic Energy, for the financial support to the
research work (2008/2036/107-BRNS/4038A).
References
[1] Miteva, R., and Taylor, N. G., 2006, “General Review of Dissimilar Metal
Welds in Piping Systems of Pressurised Water Reactors, Including WWER
Designs,” Network for Evaluating Structural Components, Institute for Energy,
Petten, The Netherlands, Report No. EUR 22469 EN.
[2] Taylor, N., Faidy, C., and Gilles, P., 2006, “Assessment of Dissimilar Weld
Integrity: Final Report of the NESC-III Project,” Network for Evaluating Struc-
tural Components, Institute for Energy, Petten, The Netherlands, Report No.
EUR 22510 EN.
Transactions of the ASME
 [3] Bhaduri, A. K., Venkadesan, S., Rodriguez, P., and Mukunda, P. G., 1994,
“Transition Metal Joints for Steam Generators—An Overview,” Int. J. Pressure
Vessels Piping, 58(3), pp. 251–265.
[4] DuPont, J. N., and Mizia, R. E., 2010, “Review of Dissimilar Metal Welding
for the NGNP Helical Coil Steam Generator,” Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, ID, Report No. INL/EXT-10-18459.
[5] Lundin, C. D., 1982, “Dissimilar Metal Welds—Transition Joints Literature
Review,” Weld. Res. Suppl., 61(2), pp. 58s–63s.
[6] Rathod, D. W., 2015, “Weldability Investigations of Dissimilar Metal Joints for
Nuclear Plant Applications,” Ph.D. thesis, IIT Delhi, New Delhi, India.
[7] Roberts, D. I., Ryder, R. H., and Viswanathan, R., 1985, “Performance of Dis-
similar Welds in Service,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 107(3), pp.
247–254.
[8] Sireesha, M., Albert, S. K., and Sundarasan, S., 2005, “Influence of High Tem-
perature Exposure on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of DMW
Between 9Cr–1Mo and Alloy800,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 36(6), pp.
1495–1505.
[9] Jang, C., Lee, J., Sung Kim, J., and Eun Jin, T., 2008, “Mechanical Property
Variation Within Inconel 82/182 Dissimilar Metal Weld Between Low Alloy
Steel and 316 Stainless Steel,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 85(9), pp.
635–646.
[10] Sudha, C., Paul, V. T., Terrance, A. L. E., Saroja, S., and Vijayalakshmi, M.,
2006, “Microstructure and Microchemistry of Hard Zone in Dissimilar Weld-
ments of Cr–Mo Steels,” Weld. J., 85(4), pp. 71s–80s.
[11] Rathod, D., Aravindan, S., Singh, P. K., and Pandey, S., 2014, “Metallurgical
Characterization and Diffusion Studies of Successively Buttered Deposit of
Ni–Fe Alloy and Inconel on SA508 Ferritic Steel,” ISIJ Int., 54(8), pp.
1866–1875.
[12] Kim, J. W., Lee, K., Kim, J. S., and Byun, T. S., 2009, “Local Mechanical Prop-
erties of Alloy 82/182 Dissimilar Weld Joint Between SA508 Gr.1a and F316
SS at RT and 320  C,” J. Nucl. Mater., 384(3), pp. 212–221.
[13] Pandey, S., Prasad, R., Singh, P. K., and Rathod, D. W., Dec 2014,
“Investigation on Dissimilar Metal Welds of SA312 Type 304LN Pipe
(Extruded) and SA508Gr.3Cl.1 Pipe (Forged),” Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre, Mumbai, India, Report No. 2008/36/107-BRNS/4038A.
[14] Wang, H. T., Wang, G. Z., Xuan, F. Z., and Tu, S. T., 2013, “Fracture Mecha-
nism of a Dissimilar Metal Welded Joint in Nuclear Power Plant,” Eng. Failure
Anal., 28, pp. 134–148.
[15] Wang, H. T., Wang, G. Z., Xuan, F. Z., and Tu, S. T., 2013, “An Experimental
Investigation of Local Fracture Resistance and Crack Growth Paths in a Dissim-
ilar Metal Welded Joint,” Mater. Des., 44, pp. 179–189.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[16] Wang, H. T., Wang, G. Z., Xuan, F. Z., Liu, C. J., and Tu, S. T., 2013, “Local
Mechanical Properties of a Dissimilar Metal Welded Joint in Nuclear Power
Systems,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 568, pp. 108–117.
[17] Wang, J., Wang, G. Z., Xuan, F. Z., and Tu, S. T., 2015, “Constraint-Dependent
J–R Curves of a Dissimilar Metal Welded Joint for Connecting Pipe-Nozzle of
Nuclear Pressure Vessel,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137(2), p. 021405.
[18] Hajiannia, I., Shamanian, M., and Kasiri, M., 2013, “Microstructure and
Mechanical Properties of AISI 347 Stainless Steel/A335 Low Alloy Steel Dis-
similar Joint Produced by Gas Tungsten Arc Welding,” Mater. Des., 50, pp.
566–573.
[19] Naffakh, H., Shamanian, M., and Ashrafizadeh, F., 2009, “Dissimilar Welding
of AISI 310 Austenitic Stainless Steel to Nickel-Based Alloy Inconel 657,”
J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(7), pp. 3628–3639.
[20] Mathew, M. D., and Latha, S., 2007, “An Assessment of Creep Strength Reduc-
tion Factors for 316L(N) SS Welds,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 456(1–2), pp. 28–34.
[21] Srinivasan, G., and Bhaduri, A. K., 2010, “Development of Transition Metal
Joints for Steam Generator Applications,” 63rd Annual Assembly and Interna-
tional Conference of the International Institute of Welding, Istanbul, Turkey,
July 11–16, pp. 81–87.
[22] Gauzzi, F., and Missori, S., 1988, “Microstructural Transformations in
Austenitic-Ferritic Transition Joints,” J. Mater. Sci., 23(3), pp. 782–789.
[23] Sireesha, M., Albert, S. K., Shankar, V., and Sundaresan, S., 2000, “A Compara-
tive Evaluation of Welding Consumables for Dissimilar Welds Between 316LN
Austenitic Stainless Steel and Alloy 800,” J. Nucl. Mater., 279(1), pp. 65–76.
[24] IGCAR, “PFBR/32040/SP/1002/R-0—Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor Specifica-
tion for the Qualification of the Welding Consumables,” Indira Gandhi Centre for
Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, India, Report No. PFBR/32040/SP/1002/R-0.
[25] Chhibber, R., Arora, N., Gupta, S., and Dutta, B., 2006, “Use of Bimetallic
Welds in Nuclear Reactors: Associated Problems and Structural Integrity
Assessment Issues,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C, 220(8), pp. 1121–1133.
[26] R6, 2007, “Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,” Pro-
cedure R6-Revision 4, Nuclear Electric Ltd., Gloucester, UK.
[27] SINTAP, 1999, “British Steel Report,” European SINTAP Procedure, British
Steel plc, Sheffield, UK.
[28] Koçak, M., 2010, “Structural Integrity of Welded Structures:
Process–Property–Performance (3P) Relationship,” 63rd Annual Assembly and
International Conference of the International Institute of Welding, Istanbul,
Turkey, July 11–17.
[29] Younise, B., Sedmak, A., Rakin, M., Gubeljak, N., Medjo, B., Burzić, M., and
Zrilić, M., 2012, “Micromechanical Analysis of Mechanical Heterogeneity
Effect on the Ductile Tearing of Weldments,” Mater. Des., 37, pp. 193–201.
FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011403-9