Avesta Sheffield 2205
2-1996
A Duplex Stainless Steel
2205 PRODEC®
A Duplex with Improved
Machinability
Summary
Investigations of the metallographic
structure, corrosion resistance, weld-
ability and machinability of the
duplex stainless steel Avesta Sheffield
2205 PRODEC ®, which has an im-
proved machinability compared to a
standard 2205 duplex stainless steel,
have been performed. Machinability
was characterised by determination
of critical cutting speeds for a certain
level of tool wear in four different
machining tests. The parent metal has
been characterized metallographi-
cally and by corrosion testing involv-
ing pitting susceptibility determined
by the electrochemically based
critical pitting temperature determina-
tion in 1M NaCI in the Avesta Cell
and critical crevice corrosion tem-
perature in water containing 3000
ppm chloride at a potentiostatically
controlled potential of 300 mV vs
SCE. Stress corrosion cracking (SCO
susceptibility was determined in 40%
CaCI2, solution at 100°C. Welds have
been characterized mechanically.
Largely, the properties of the 2205
PRODEC® material are similar to
standard 2205, though some di-
minished corrosion resistance was
observed. This could mainly be
explained by the lower nitrogen
content in the 2205 PRODEC® ma-
terial compared with the standard
2205 duplex stainless steel.
To be continued on page 2.
The Lateral
Homogeneity of Passive
Films
Summary
The lateral homogeneity of passive
films formed on the austenitic-ferritic
stainless steel 2205 in a neutral 1M
NaCI solution have been investigated
using high lateral resolution AES and
XPS. The samples were polarised at
different constant potentials for 60
minutes and then characterised with
acom
respect to lateral differences in the
passive film on the respective phases.
There were no significant lateral
differences for the major alloy
elements in the outer region of the
passive layer. In the inner region,
there was a correlation with the Cr
content and the underlying phase
structure. On the metal side of the
oxide/metal interface, a pronounced
enrichment of nickel was found on
top of the austenite and the ferrite,
suggesting that the metal region
closest to the oxide/metal interface
consists of a continuous, austenite-
like, structure.
To be continued on page 9.
60 Years of Duplex
Stainless Steel
Applications
Abstract
In this paper the history of wrought
duplex stainless steel development
and applications is described. Ferritic-
austenitic stainless steels were intro-
duced only a few decades after
stainless steels were developed. The
paper gives details from the first
duplex stainless steels in the 1930's to
the super duplex stainless steel devel-
opment during the 1980's.
During the years much effort has
been devoted to production and
welding metallurgy as well as cor-
rosion research of the duplex stainless
steels. Therefore, duplex stainless
steels are to-day established in a
wide product range. Numerous im-
portant applications are exemplified.
In most cases the selection of a
duplex steel has been a result of the AVESTA SHEFFIELD
CORROSION MANAGEMENT
combination high strength—excellent
corrosion resistance. In the pulp & AND APPLICATION
paper industry the most interesting ENGINEERING
use is as vessel material in digesters.
For CPI, the duplex steels are currently
used in heat exchangers. The largest
application of duplex steels exists in
the oil & gas/offshore industry.
Hundreds of kms of pipelines are
installed and are still being installed.
An increased use of duplex steels is
foreseen in areas where the strength
is of prime importance.
To be continued on page ]7.
 acom No. 2-96

Machinability, Corrosion Resistance and

Weldability of an Inclusion Modified
2205 Duplex Stainless Steel
by
Poul-Erik Arnvig, M.Sc., Béla Leffler, M.Sc., Elisabet Alfonsson, B.Sc. and Anders Brorson, M.Sc.,
Avesta Sheffield AB, Research & Development,
S-774 80 Avesta, Sweden

Introduction Materials Metallography

Duplex stainless steel of the 2205 The chemical composition of the The microstructure has been investi-
type is generally more difficult to steels tested are presented in Table 1. gated and found to comply with the
machine than common stainless steel The investigated plate samples for general material requirements for hot
grades such as type 304 and 316. corrosion and welding tests were rolled plate type 2205. The ferrite
Many properties of the 2205 duplex taken from hot rolled plates of 12 mm content, see Table 5 (page 6), was
steel that are beneficial for its appli- thickness. Plate samples for machin- slightly higher in the PRODEC® quality
cations combine to make the steel ing tests were taken from 50 mm and which most likely is explained by the
somewhat harder to machine. These 80 mm thick plates. The bar material difference in nitrogen content, as
properties include a high mechanical was taken from a bar of diameter 80 shown in Table 1.
strength, good ductility and a rapid mm. All materials were commercially The amount of elongated (stringers-
strain hardening. These factors result produced and tested in the "as like) non-metallic inclusions in 2205
in high cutting forces and accelerated delivered" condition apart from the PRODEC® was about 10-20 times
tool wear during machining opera- necessary machining of test speci- higher than in standard 2205,
tions. The risk of vibration, tool failure mens. whereas the amount of undeformed
and other machining problems during Standard 2205 material from non-metallic inclusions was the same
complex and extensive machining is various heats was used. Materials "a" in both standard and PRODEC®
therefore fairly high for a conven- and "e" were used for comparative material. More details on the
tional 2205 duplex stainless steel. corrosion tests, "b" and "e" were used inclusion geometry and chemical
A special metallurgical treatment for weldability testing and "c", "d", "e" composition of PRODEC® modified
has for several years been used to and "f" were used for machinability alloys has earlier been published by
improve the machinability of standard testing. Bar material was used only Davison et al. (1).
austenitic stainless steels producing for turning tests. Furthermore a stan-
the PRODEC®* range of austenitic dard austenitic stainless steel type
stainless steels earlier discussed by 316L was tested within parts of the
Davison et al. (1). corrosion test program to establish
To improve the machinability of reference data. The 2205 PRODEC®
2205 duplex stainless steel, a similar test material for all tests using plate of
metallurgical technique has now the same thickness was taken from
been implemented on the production the same plate.
of this alloy. By modifying the com-
position of the non-metallic inclusions
Table 1.
and controlling the shape, size and
distribution of the inclusions, consider- Chemical composition of tested alloys (heat analysis).
able improvements in the machin- Chemical composition, % (w/w)
ability of 2205 duplex stainless steel Material C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo N
are obtained. 2205
The intention of the present paper is a (plate) 0.014 0.45 1.49 0.023 0.001 22.2 5.8 2.99 0.17
to document major properties of a
b (plate) 0.018 0.42 1.48 0.022 0.001 21.9 5.6 2.95 0.16
2205 PRODEC ® and compare them
c (plate) 0.017 0.45 1.41 0.021 0.001 21.6 5.8 2.99 0.19
with those of a traditionally produced
d (bar) 0.012 0.42 1.40 0.029 0.003 22.1 5.6 3.28 0.16
2205 steel. The documented prop-
erties include machinability, corrosion 2205 PRODEC®
resistance and weldability. e (plate) 0.019 0.56 1.38 0.020 0.017 21.9 5.7 2.97 0.13
* PRODEC is a Registered Trademark of Avesta f (bar) 0.017 0.60 1.35 0.017 0.020 21.8 5.9 2.90 0.13
Sheffield AB. 316L 0.019 0.40 1.23 0.035 0.002 16.5 10.1 2.06 0.05

2
 acom No. 2-96

A picture of the typical metallo-

graphic duplex structure is shown in
Figure 1. In Figures 2 and 3 pictures
of unetched, as-polished metallo-
graphic specimens are shown,
illustrating the differences in size and
shape of the inclusions in standard
2205 and 2205 PRODEC®
For reference, a typical picture of
the inclusion size and distribution of a
type 316F alloy (S-alloyed) is shown
in Figure 4. The distribution, size and
shape of inclusions is effectively
controlled by the metallurgical
treatment used for the PRODEC®
material compared to the traditional
way of producing free machining
grades by alloying with high amounts
of sulphur. The inclusion control used
in the PRODEC® quality is clearly
demonstrated by comparing Figure 3
and Figure 4.
Figure 1. Figure 2.
2205 PRODEC ®, etched in 2205, as-polished. (200x)
Murakami's etchant.
(200x)

Mechanical
properties
The general mechanical properties of
duplex stainless steel type 2205,
which includes the PRODEC®
modification, as well as those for
austenitic stainless steel 316L are
given in Table 2. The actual mech-
anical properties of the materials
tested are listed together with the
relevant test results.

Experimental
Machinability testing
Figure 3. Figure 4.
Turning 2205 PRODEC ®, as-polished. (200x) 316F (free machining grade),
The turning test was an ISO type as-polished. (200x)
longitudinal turning test using a
Coromant S4 SPUN 120304 Table 2.
cemented carbide insert. The feed Typical minimum mechanical properties.
rate (f) used was 0.1 mm/turn and a
Minimum values
depth of cut (ap) of 1.0 mm. Machin-
Rp 0.2 (20°C) Rp 0.2 (100°C) Rm (20°C) A5 (20°C)
ability was evaluated as the V30 value,
Material MPa MPa MPa %
which is defined as the highest cutting
speed that gives a maximum flank 2205 480 360 680 25
wear of 0.3 mm after 30 minutes of 2205 PRODEC® 480 360 680 25
cutting. 316L 210 164 490 45

3

Face Milling
The face milling test was a single
tooth face milling operation using a
modern positive-negative milling
cutter type SECO 220.13, Ø 160 mm
(cutting data: fz= 0.2 mm/tooth, a p=
2.0 mm, a e= 120 mm) with two
different cemented carbide inserts.
During the test, the tool wear was
measured at frequent intervals and
the test was continued until a maxi-
mum flank wear of 0.5 mm was
reached. This was repeated for
different cutting speeds and the
machinability was evaluated as the
V5 value, which is defined as the
cutting speed that gives a tool life of
five minutes of actual cutting time.
Note that the tool is only cutting
part of the time during the milling
operation. A tool life of five minutes
actual cutting time, i.e. the time when
the cutting edge is actually cutting the
material, is equal to a tool life of
about 18 minutes total machining
time for the machining operation and
conditions used during the test. This is
a normal tool life during real machin-
ing operations with cemented car-
bide tools.
Slot Milling
This test was run using a Ø 14 mm
Wedevåg ENMAX three fluted high
speed steel end mill (cutting data: fz=
0.045 mm/tooth, a p = 7 mm, a e = tool
diameter). During the test, the cutting
speeds were varied while the other
cutting data were kept constant. The
tool life to failure was measured and
the machinability was evaluated as
the V4000 value, which is defined as
the cutting speed giving a tool life
corresponding to 4000 mm milling.
Drilling
The drilling test is similar to the slot
milling test in that it uses tool failure
as the tool life criterion. The test uses
a Ø 10 mm high speed steel twist drill
type Wedevåg Double-X (cutting
data: a p = 20 mm [bottom holes], f =
0.25 mm/turn) and the machinability
was evaluated as the V2000 value,
which is defined as the cutting speed
that gives a tool life corresponding to
2000 mm of milling.
acom No. 2-96
Welding
Three different automatic welding
techniques with a welding fixture
were used to compare the weldability
of 2205 PRODEC® with that of stan-
dard 2205 material.
Plasma welding was chosen in
order to avoid cleaning and prepara-
tion of the first weld bead in two of
the welding procedures used. These
welds were finished with either Sub-
merged Arc Welding (SAW) or
Shielded Metal Arc Welding
(SMAW). SAW was used to demon-
strate the weldability of the two ma-
terials using a high productivity weld
method. Gas Metal Arc Welding
(GMAW) using flux cored wire was
also performed.
One joint type was welded with a
plasma pass followed by two SAW
filler passes in a 80° V-joint with 3 mm
land. 2205 filler material, see Table 3,
was used. Argon was used as
plasma- and shielding gas, N 2 +
10% H2 was used as root gas. A high
basicity flux was used for the SAW
passes. The heat input was 1.8-
2.1 kJ/mm for the plasma pass and
1.6-2.4 kJ/mm for the SAW passes.
The second joint type was welded
in the same way as the first weld
except that SMAW was used for the
five filler passes, see Table 3, and the
joint geometry was 60°V with 1.5 mm
land. The heat input was 1.6-2.2 kJ/
mm for the plasma pass and 0.7-
1.3 kJ/mm for the SMAW passes.
The third joint type was welded
with GMAW and flux cored 2205-
wire, see Table 3, with two filler
passes and one pass from the back-
side. A 60° V-joint geometry with
Table 3.
Chemical composition of filler metals.
Chemical composition, % (w/w)
Filler metal form C Si Mn
SMAW Electrode,
Ø 4.0 mm 0.03 1.10 0.91
GMAW Wire,
Ø 1.2mm 0.03 0.67 1.17
Plasma Wire,
Ø 1.0 mm 0.012 0.48 1.55
SAW Wire,
Ø 2.4 mm 0.014 0.47 1.58
4
1.5 mm land was used and Ar+25%
CO2+0.03% NO was used as
shielding gas. The heat-input was
0.9-1.9 kJ/mm.
Welds were characterised by
weldability and ferrite content deter-
mined according to ASTM E562-83
(point counting). Mechanical prop-
erties according to ASTM A370-92,
i.e. yield/tensile strength at room
temperature and impact toughness
determined at -40°C, was also deter-
mined.
Corrosion testing
Pitting corrosion
The resistance to pitting corrosion of
the base material of standard 2205
®
and 2205 PRODEC was character-
ised by determining the Critical Pitting
Temperature (CPT) in 1M NaCI
solution according to an electro-
chemical method using the Avesta
Cell, described earlier by Qvarfort
and Alfonsson (2). The CPT is defined
as the lowest temperature at which
pitting occurs during an anodic
polarisation scan. The advantage of
this test technique lies in the ability to
test only one surface. This has been
used in this investigation to determine
possible variations between the outer
parts and the centre of the plates. All
surfaces were tested with a surface
that was laboratory ground with 360
mesh SiC paper.
Crevice corrosion
Resistance to crevice corrosion of the
base material of standard 2205,
2205 PRODEC ® and the 316L mater-
ial was determined using a modified,
P S Cr Ni M N
0.020 0.014 23.6 9.7 3.04 0.14
0.023 0.006 22.8 9.1 2.99 0.12
0.015 0.001 22.4 8.7 3.14 0.14
0.017 0.001 22.3 8.9 3.10 0.14

less aggressive testing procedure of
the potentiostatic method earlier used
to document the crevice corrosion
resistance of highly alloyed austenitic
stainless steels by Gartland et al. (3).
Ring shaped specimens, see
Figure 5, were machined from one
side of the plate to 3 mm thickness.
The surfaces were ground on a
grindstone (Abra plan, Struers) and
polished using diamond spray, grain
size 15µm, after which the specimens
were stored for minimum 2 days in a
desiccator before actual testing.
Using this preparation one surface
was located close to the original
plate surface and one surface was
located about 3 mm below the
original plate surface.
Ring shaped washers of rubber
bound aramid fibre were mounted
on both sides of the specimen with
a final torque of 6 Nm, see Figure 5.
The package was immersed in a
NaCI solution containing 3000 ppm
Cl-.
After being exposed in the solution
for 24 hours at 20°C at the free
corrosion potential, the specimens
were anodically polarized to +300
mV vs. SCE. The temperature was
increased every 48 hours in steps of
4°C until the measured corrosion
current indicated crevice corrosion by
exceeding 10 µA/cm 2 for more than 6
hours. Crevice corrosion was after-
wards confirmed by visual inspection.
The Critical Crevice Corrosion
Temperature (CCT) is defined as the
lowest temperature at which crevice
corrosion occurred. Minimum 3 spe-
cimens were used.
acom No. 2-96
Stress corrosion cracking
Standard tensile specimens, see
Results
Figure 6, were machined with the Machining
long side transverse to the original
The results of the machining tests are
major rolling direction of the plate.
presented in Figures 7-10 (page 6),
The specimens were electropolished
and the standard machinability rat-
and passivated for 20 minutes in 20%
ings as defined above are given in
HNO3 shortly before testing. The
Table 4.
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCO test
The PRODEC® material gives a
was done under constant load
much slower tool wear in the turning
conditions in 40% CaCI2 with
test with a plateau in the wear curve
1% CalCH3COO)2 as pH-buffer,
after the initial wear, see Figure 7.
pH = 6.0±0.5, at a temperature of
This type of behaviour is character-
100±3°C in order to evaluate the
istic of the PRODEC® material while
stress corrosion cracking susceptibility
the standard material gives a more or
of the base material of standard
less continuous increase in the tool
2205 and 2205 PRODEC® The test
wear. The machinability rating, V30,
was performed using continous
of the PRODEC® material has in-
bubbling of clean air through the
creased by 16% in this turning test as
solution in order to stabilise the
compared to the standard 2205
corrosion potential of the specimen.
material.
The pH of the test solution was
In face milling the machinability of
checked and adjusted every second
the PRODEC® material is improved
day within 0.5 pH units by adding
very significantly over a wide range
HCI or CaO—if necessary. Tests were
of cutting speeds for a milling oper-
performed at various loads up to
ation using a modern coated ce-
110% of the actual yield stress at
mented carbide insert with chip
100°C. breaker as illustrated in Figure 8. The
V5 value, see Table 4, is increased by
Table 4.
Machinability ratings for standard 2205 and 2205 PRODEC ®—for definitions of
machinability rating see "Experimental" above.
2205
Test Rating type 2205 PRODEC® Improvement
Turning (CC) V 30 195 227 16%
Face milling (uncoated CC) V5 43 53 23%
Face milling (coated CC) V5 110 176 60%
Slot milling (High speed steel) V 4000 27 32 18%
Drilling (High speed steel) V 2000 17 25 47%
5
 acom No. 2-96

Figure 7. Figure 8.
Tool wear turning with cemented carbide inserts. Tool life at different cutting speeds during face milling
with coated cemented carbide inserts.

Figure 9. Figure 10.

Tool life at different cutting speeds at slot milling test with Tool life at different cutting speeds at drilling test with
high speed steel end mills. high speed steel twist drills.

60% compared to the standard
material when using a coated tool
with chip breaker. Normally uncoated
tools would not be used for the face
milling of duplex steels, but even for
this type of tool a significant improve-
ment of is obtained, see Table 4.
The slot milling results are similar to
the face milling results (uncoated
tool). The PRODEC® material shows
an improvement by almost 20% in
machinability rating, V4000 , see
Table 4. This improvement is valid
over a wide range of cutting speeds
as illustrated in Figure 9.
Finally the drilling test showed a
dramatic increase in machinability
rating, V2000, by nearly 50% as seen
in Table 4. The drilling results are
shown in more detail in Figure 10,
where the improved machinability of
Welding
The impression of the weldability of
the steels was in general good and
no differences were observed be-
tween standard 2205 and 2205
PRODEC® except in the case of
plasma welding, where the arc
seemed to be somewhat unstable
when welding the PRODEC ® material.
Results from the evaluation of the
welds with regard to ferrite content
and mechanical properties are listed
in Table 5.
Table 5.
Ferrite content and mechanical properties of welded standard 2205 and
2205 PRODEC ®
Weld metal Ferrite content
Face/Root bead Rp0.2 (MPa)
The ferrite content in the root bead
was in general higher than in the
weld face for both materials. In the
two cases of SAW and SMAW
welding, the ferrite content was
slightly higher in the weld face of the
PRODEC® material compared to the
standard material. However, such
differences in ferrite content are
hardly of practical importance. This is
illustrated by the similar mechanical
properties between standard and
PRODEC® material, except for the
Plasma+SAW weld. For the
Impact tough-
Yield stress Tensile stress Ductility ness, -40°C
Rm IMPa) A5 (%) (J/cm )
2

the PRODEC® material is evident Stan- PRO- Stan- PRO- Stan- PRO Stan PRO- Stan- PRO-
compared to the standard 2205 dard DEC
®
dard DEC
®
dard DEC
9 -
dard DEC
®
dard DEC
®

material
Base material
(Surface/centre) 39/38 44/47 496 509 761 770 40 36 - -
Plasma+SAW 34/49 45/43 542 538 783 743 31 29 131 54
Plasma+SMAW 40/55 46/53 530 530 774 747 27 27 41 35
GMAW

(Flux cored wire) 42/58 42/51 559 558 777 753 33 30 39 40

6
 acom No. 2-96

Plasmo+SAW weld the impact Table 6.

toughness was significantly higher for Critical Pitting and Crevice Corrosion Temperatures of base materials.
the standard material—see Table 5. Location of CPT, 1M NaCI, °C CCT, 3000ppm CI-/300mV vs. SCE,°C
All cracking in the tensile testing of test area 2205 2205 2205 2205
welds occurred outside the weld
Standard PRODEC® Standard PRODEC® 316L
zone. The impact toughness values
Surface and 3 mm
are listed for the weld metal. Impact
below surface - - 40 32 <20
toughness in the HAZ was also
measured but in each case found to Surface 46-51 42 - - -
be higher than the weld metal figure, Centre 46 39-40 - - -
which consequently represents the
critical value for the specific weld.

tion of microsections at up to 500x The increase in the machinability

Corrosion Resistance
The CPTs and CCTs determined
for the base materials are given in
Table 6.
The CPT in 1M NaCI could not be
determined with the precision gen-
erally obtainable with this method.
Apparently some variation of the CPT
from specimen to specimen existed.
The CPT was slightly higher for the
standard 2205 base material
compared to 2205 PRODEC ®.
The CPTs in 1M NaCI determined
on the rolling faces of the plates were
slightly higher than the CPTs deter-
mined on the centre faces of the
same material. The observed differ-
ence can hardly be considered to be
significant although the trend follows
the findings of Davison et al. (1).
The CCT for the base material was
slightly lower for 2205 PRODEC® than
for standard 2205 material. Crevice
corrosion occurred randomly on both
sides of the specimens indicating no
significant variation between the
ground rolling surface and a surface
located about half way to the centre
of the plate.
The Stress Corrosion Cracking
results obtained in 40% CaCI2 at
100°C indicated excellent stress
corrosion resistance for both types of
2205 material. SCC was found to
initiate from the bottom of pits of the
2205 PRODEC ® material at a stress
level of around 100% of the actual
yield stress at 100°C. No SCC-cracks
could be found in the standard 2205
material even at 110% of the actual
yield stress at 100°C. See also
Table 7.
Pitting was observed in both ma-
terials at stress levels lower than the
above indicated threshold stresses.
However/ even after careful examina-
magnification, no SCC cracks could
be found. All microsections were
prepared in the longitudinal plane of
the specimen cutting through selected
pits.
The initiated stress corrosion cracks
were found to propagate through
both ferrite and austenite in the
duplex structure. None of the speci-
mens containing SCC cracks had
ruptured at the end of the test period
of 500 hours.
Table 7.
Summary of Stress Corrosion
Cracking tests in 40% CaCl2 at
100°C, pH = 6.
Material Yield stress, SCC threshold
Rp0.2 (100°C) stress % of
MPa RpO.2 (100°C)
Standard
2205 451 >110
2205
PRODEC® 435 100
Discussion
Machinability may be expressed in
different ways but in the present
investigation the machinability criteria
used are mainly based on studies of
the tool life during several different
standardised machining operations.
The duplex stainless steels have a
machinability profile that differs some-
what from that of the austenitic steels
with similar or lower localised corro-
sion resistance, in that they are, rela-
tively speaking, not as difficult to
machine with high speed steel tools
as with cemented carbide tools. For
that reason the machinability has
been tested using both cemented car-
bide tools and high speed steel tools.
values obtained for the 2205
PRODEC® compared to standard
2205 lies between 16 and 60%
depending on the machining oper-
ation involved. This is clearly a con-
sequence of the metallurgical treat-
ment used to produce this material.
The inclusion control illustrated in the
metallographic results is the pre-
dominant reason for this improved
machinability, although the low
nitrogen content also has a beneficial
effect.
Improved production economy can
thus be achieved when choosing a
PRODEC® material due to less tool
wear and higher cutting speeds that
will lead to shorter production time.
Furthermore the improved machin-
ability material can be expected to
result in far fewer machining prob-
lems, which will lead to a further
increase in productivity.
The consequences of the metal-
lurgical treatment with regard to
mechanical properties were found to
be insignificant in the tests performed.
Tensile and ductility data for the base
material of both standard and
PRODEC® material were far above
the typical minimum values specified
for duplex stainless steel 2205, as is
shown in Table 2 and 6. The tensile
and ductility properties of the welded
materials also were on similar levels
when comparing standard and
PRODEC® material, except when
welding (SAW) with high basicity flux
was performed.
Usually, the use of high basicity flux
will give a significant improvement in
impact toughness as seen for the
standard material. However/ this was
®
not the case for the 2205 PRODEC
welded specimen. The main reason to
the improvement in impact toughness

7

when using high basicity flux is that
the flux removes oxygen, silicates,
sulphur etc. from the weld pool.
Apparently, the slightly increased
content of inclusions in the PRODEC®
material, could not be dissolved by
the flux.
Weldability was found in general
to be fully satisfactory for both
materials, although the plasma torch
showed signs of instability when
welding the 2205 PRODEC ® material.
This can be attributed to the presence
of calcium containing inclusions
typically found in PRODEC® material
as documented by Davison et al. (1).
A detailed investigation of the
corrosion resistance of the welds is
presently in progress and will be
presented elsewhere.
The resistance to pitting corrosion
as indicated by the Critical Pitting
Temperatures was found to be
significantly higher than for austenitic
316L materials. Alfonsson and
Qvarfort (4) found the CPT of various
316L heats to be around 15°C. A
significantly higher CPT of around
®
40°C was found for the PRODEC
base material. CPT values in this
range are mostly observed for stan-
dard 2205 material in connection
with low nitrogen contents (~0.13%
N). The CPT of 46-51 °C found for the
standard 2205 material is typical for
material containing around 0.17%
nitrogen. The trend observed on the
CPTs was also seen for the Critical
Crevice corrosion Temperature.
The small reduction in pitting
resistance found for 2205 PRODEC®
coompared to standard 2205 using
the critical pitting temperature as a
criterion is small enough to be ex-
plained solely by the lower alloying
content of nitrogen. No significant
effect of the higher content of
inclusions in the PRODEC® material
could thus be detected. This might
seem contradictory to the well estab-
lished fact that inclusions, especially
sulphides, are detrimental to the
pitting resistance of stainless steel.
However, neither the amount of in-
clusions nor the total sulphur content
of a stainless steel will influence the
pitting resistance significantly pro-
vided the size of the inclusions is be-
low a certain critical level, as shown
by Stewart and Williams (5) and
acom No. 2-96
further discussed by Baker and Castle
(6). Davison et al. (1) also found a
minimal effect of the higher level of
inclusions in austenitic PRODEC®
material on the CPT.
The high stress corrosion cracking
resistance together with the high
strength of the duplex stainless steels,
compared to the standard austenitic
grades, are two of the major advan-
tages, when using duplex stainless
steels. The results from the CaCI2
experiments indicate a slightly
diminished SCC resistance for the
PRODEC® material, but the threshold
stress level of 100% Rp0.2 still indi-
cates an excellent stress corrosion
cracking resistance. The difference in
threshold stress levels between stan-
dard 2205 and 2205 PRODEC® is
hardly of any practical significance.
A typical application of the new
®
2205 PRODEC is for tube sheets in
tube and shell heat exchangers.
These heat exchangers often contain
several hundred tubes, where each
tube is welded into a drilled hole in
the tube sheet. The improved ma-
chinability of the PRODEC® grade
will increase the productivity of the
drilling process significantly. Often,
2205 is chosen for this application
because of the risk of stress corrosion
often present in tube heat exchangers
due to high operating temperatures.
Since the SCC resistance of the 2205
PRODEC® is on the level with stan-
dard 2205 as discussed above, the
advantage of using 2205 PRODEC ®
in such cases is obvious.
Another typical application of 2205
PRODEC® is wrought flanges, where
the improved machinability can be
utilised during the fabrication of the
flanges to lower the production cost.
The slightly diminished crevice
corrosion resistance of the
2205 PRODEC ® material should of
course be considered when choosing
the material, but the corrosivity of the
environments, where duplex stainless
steel type 2205 are used, are seldom
excessively critical with respect to
crevice corrosion—otherwise, higher
alloyed stainless steels should be
®
used. However, 2205 PRODEC can
still tolerate far more aggressive
environments than austenitic stainless
steel type 316L.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be
drawn:
®
• 2205 PRODEC has a significantly
improved machinability compared
to standard 2205;
• the mechanical properties of 2205
PRODEC® are largely comparable
to standard 2205;
• the pitting and crevice corrosion
®
resistance of 2205 PRODEC is
slightly lower than for standard
2205;
• the stress corrosion resistance of
2205 PRODEC ® was found to be on
the level of standard 2205;
• the weldability of 2205 PRODEC®
was generally found to be similar to
standard 2205;
• the small differences in corrosion
resistance between 2205 PRODEC®
and standard 2205 could mainly
be explained by the lower nitrogen
content in the PRODEC material.
References
1. Davison R. M., Alfonsson E., Runnsjö G.:
"Characterization of Stainless steel plates for
Paper Machine Headbox Applications",
Proc. CORROSION/90, April 23-27, (1990),
Paper No. 542.
2. Qvarfort R., Alfonsson E.: "An Improved Cell
for Electrochemical Pitting Corrosion
Testing", Proc. 11th Scandinavian Corrosion
Congress, Stavanger, June, (1989), Paper
No. F-79.
3. Gartland P. O., Steinsmo V., Drugli J. M.,
Solheim P.: "High Alloyed Stainless Steels for
Chlorinated Seawater Applications—A
Summary of Test Results for Eleven Austenitic
and Duplex Materials", Proc. CORROSION/
93, May, (1993), Paper No. 646.
4. Alfonsson E., Qvarfort R.: Materials Science
Forum, 111-112, (1992), p. 483-491.
5. Stewart J., Williams, D. E., Corros. Sci., Vol.
33, (1992), p. 457.
6. Baker M. A., Castle J. E.: Corros. Sci., Vol. 34,
No. 4, (1993), pp. 667-682.
This paper was first presented at the
Duplex Stainless Steel '94 conference in
Glasgow, UK, 1994. Reprinted with kind
permission of The Welding Institute.