Doc.

IX-H-797-14

Effect of shielding gas and welding position on properties of duplex

and superduplex welds
M.A. Valiente Bermejo, L. Karlsson, L-E. Svensson, K. Hurtig
Department of Engineering Science, University West, SE-461 86 Trollhättan, Sweden

Abstract

A large scale application of duplex stainless steels is closely related to the use of welding for
fabrication, and it is necessary to find the optimum way to weld these alloys without
detriment to their properties. Therefore, the formation of deleterious phases needs to be
avoided and a balanced ferrite/austenite microstructure needs to be achieved to meet the
required mechanical properties and corrosion resistance. Moreover, to improve quality and
to decrease the non quality costs in duplex and superduplex welding it is also essential to
reduce the number of welding defects while achieving the required properties. The
selection of a proper shielding gas plays a major role in the physics of the arc and
consequently it has a great influence on the welding defects occurring in duplex and
superduplex weldments.

This work presents a systematic evaluation of five different shielding gas compositions in
GMAW (Gas Metal Arc Welding) of duplex SAF 2205 and superduplex SAF 2507 steels.
Considering argon as the reference component, additions of helium, nitrogen and carbon
dioxide were included and the following mixtures evaluated: Ar+2%CO2,
Ar+30%He+2%CO2, Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2 and Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2+1.8%N2. The
influence of welding positions was also considered and three positions selected: PA
(downhand), PC (horizontal) and PE (overhead).

The first experimental part consisted of a comprehensive set of bead-on-plate GMAW

welds where shielding gas and heat input were fixed parameters and the weld performance
was assessed in terms of arc stability, weld pool fluidity, bead surface and presence of
spatters. Duplex and superduplex specimens were X-ray analysed to evaluate porosity and
the bead geometry (width, penetration and height) were also assessed. Results from this
first set of experiments served as a basis for the selection of the shielding gas compositions
used in the second experimental part.

Results from bead-on-plate tests on duplex showed that pure argon shielding gas presents
the lowest (penetration/width) ratio (Figure 1) and also the worst weld performance (arc
stability, weld pool fluidity, bead surface and spatters). Similar results were obtained for
bead-on-plate tests on superduplex; therefore, pure argon shielding gas was rejected for the
second experimental stage of pipe welding.

Bead-on-plate tests on superduplex SAF 2507 showed that shielding gases containing 2%
CO2 (Ar+2%CO2 and Ar+30%He+2%CO2) presented higher (penetration/width) ratio
than the shielding gases containing only 0.5% CO2 (Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2 and
Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2+1.8%N2), probably due to the influence of CO2 on the surface
P a g e 1|3
 Doc. IX-H-797-14

tension of the weld pool. In general, for all the shielding gases tested, weld performance is
better at the high range of heat inputs (0.730-0.755 kJ/mm) than at the lower range (0.610-
0.640 kJ/mm), as depicted in Figure 2. At the highest range, the best weld performance
was achieved by Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2 shielding gas.

In the second experimental part, 6 pipes of SAF 2205 (12 mm thickness, 114 mm OD) and
10 pipes of SAF 2507 (12 mm thickness, 118 mm OD) with single-U groove joint
preparation were GMAW multipass welded in PA, PC and PE positions using different
shielding gases. Backing gas was used in all cases: argon for duplex pipes and nitrogen for
superduplex pipes. For the root pass, GTAW in PA position and with argon as shielding
gas was used. Filler materials employed were OK Autrod 2209 (AWS/SFA A5.9 ER2209)
ø 1 mm for duplex and OK Autrod 2509 (AWS/SFA A5.9 ER2594) ø 1 mm for
superduplex. The welding setup included a rotating system for the pipes and a mechanised
welding system to ensure repeatability and control of the heat input. It included a robotic
arm with the welding torch fixed in the preselected positions. Pipe welds were X-ray
inspected, corrosion tested, chemical composition analysed, ferrite content determined and
also mechanically tested (tensile test, bending test and toughness test). Samples were also
microstructurally inspected to correlate the properties with the microstructural features.

Results on pipe welding tests for duplex and also for superduplex, showed that the lowest
ductility is found in those samples shielded with Ar+2%CO2. In PA and PC positions,
porosity is only found when shielded with Ar+2%CO2, however, in PE position porosity is
found regardless the shielding gas used. First microstructural evaluation of samples not
passing ASTM G48A corrosion test, showed how harmful reheating is for these materials,
as pitting corrosion attack initiates in the secondary austenite formed in the reheated areas
caused by multi-pass welding.

(a) Ar+2%CO2 (b) Ar+30%He+2%CO2

D/W=0.28
D/W=0.34

(c) Ar

D/W=0.21

Figure 1- Duplex bead-on-plate tests conducted with heat input fixed at 0.730 kJ/mm but using
different shielding gases. The lowest penetration/width ratio (D/W) is observed when using pure argon.

P a g e 2|3
 Doc. IX-H-797-14

Superduplex
Ar/2CO2 0,755 kJ/mm
20
Ar/2CO2 0,610 kJ/mm
18
16 Ar/30He/2CO2 0,755 kJ/mm

14 Ar/30He/2CO2 0,610 kJ/mm

Weld performance

12
Ar/30He/0,5CO2 0,755 kJ/mm
10
Ar/30He/0,5CO2 0,610 kJ/mm
8
6 Ar/30He/0,5CO2/1,8N2 0,755
kJ/mm
4 Ar/30He/0,5CO2/1,8N2 0,610
2 kJ/mm
Ar 0,755 kJ/mm
0
Shielding gas and heat input Ar 0,610 kJ/mm

Figure 2- Influence of shielding gas and heat input on the weld performance of superduplex. Weld
performance was assessed by considering arc stability, weld pool fluidity, bead surface and spatters over a
maximum of 20 points. The higher the heat input, the better weld performance is achieved with all the
shielding gases. Gases showing the best performance were Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2 and
Ar+30%He+0.5%CO2+1.8%N2, and the worst performance was shown by pure argon.

First results showed that pure argon presents the worst weld performance and the lowest
(penetration/width) ratio whilst highest (penetration/width) ratio is achieved by those
shielding gases containing 2%CO2. For all the shielding gases, the higher the heat input, the
better weld performance is achieved. On the other hand, samples shielded with
Ar+2%CO2 presented the lowest ductility and showed porosity in all welding positions.

There are still some microstructural characterisation and ferrite content measurements
ongoing that will help us to correlate the results obtained in the tests with the
microstructural features. It will allow us to draw the final conclusions shortly.

P a g e 3|3