Microstructural evolutions in dissimilar welds between AISI 310 austenitic stainless steel and Inconel 657
Source abstract
Abstract
This investigation has been performed to characterize dissimilar metal welds between type 310 austenitic stainless steel (SS) and Inconel 657 superalloy. The welds were produced using four types of filler materials: Inconel 82, Inconel A, Inconel 617, and type 310 SS. The weldments were characterized in detail using optical metallography and scanning electron microscopy. It can be concluded that Inconel A weld metal does not promote severe hot cracking. Continuous NbC precipitates in the Inconel 82 weld metal can sensitize the weld metal to solidification cracking. The presence of high amounts of Mo in Inconel 617 weld metal led to the formation of brittle phases. In addition, continuous precipitates were observed in the 310 SS weld metal, which can lead to poor resistance of the weld metal to hot cracking. In the aged condition, Inconel 82 and Inconel A exhibited good thermal stability, whereas Inconel 617 and type 310 SS exhibited poor thermal stability. Also, after subjecting the heat-affected zone and interface between Inconel weld metal and base metals to aging treatment, unmixed zone of Inconel 657 base metal side has disappeared. Elimination of this region can be attributed to high-temperature interdiffusion of alloying elements. Finally, it is found that Inconel A and Inconel 82 weld metals are the best choices for the dissimilar welds performed here, respectively.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: High Temperature Alloys and Creep · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (15)
Show source-provided references
1. Kacar R, Baylan O (2004) Mater Des 25:31710.1016/j.matdes.2003.10.010 ↗
2. Meola C, Squillace A, Memola F, Minutolo C, Morace RE (2004) J Mater Process Technol 155–156:189310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.303 ↗
3. Jian L, Yuh CY, Farooque M (2002) Corros Sci 2:1573
4. Zhao SH, Xie X, Smith GD (2004) Surf Coat Technol 185:17810.1016/j.surfcoat.2003.12.003 ↗
5. Belloni G, Caironi G, Gariboldi A, Lo Conte A (2001) SMiRT 16, Washington, DC (paper 1546)
6. Dupont JN, Banovic SW, Marder AR (2003) Weld J 82:125s
7. Naffakh H, Shamanian M, Ashrafizadeh F (2008) J Mater Sci 43:5300. doi: 10.1007/s10853-008-2761-410.1007/s10853-008-2761-4 ↗
8. Kuo TY, Lee HT (2002) Mater Sci Eng A 338:20210.1016/S0921-5093(02)00063-1 ↗
9. Sireesha M, Albert SK, Shankar V, Sundaresan S (2000) Mater Sci Eng A 292:7410.1016/S0921-5093(00)00969-2 ↗
10. Naffakh H, Shamanian M, Ashrafizadeh F (2000) J Mater Process Technol 209:362810.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.08.019 ↗
11. Rowe MD, Crook P, Hoback GL (2003) Weld J 82:313s
12. Wang N, Mokadem S, Rappaz M, Kurz W (2004) Acta Mater 52:317310.1016/j.actamat.2004.03.047 ↗
13. Lee HT, Jeng SL, Yen CH, Kuo TY (2004) J Nucl Mater 335:5910.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.06.004 ↗
14. Sireesha M, Albert SK, Shankar V, Sundaresan S (2000) J Nucl Mater 279:6510.1016/S0022-3115(99)00275-5 ↗
15. Naffakh H, Shamanian M, Ashrafizadeh F (2008) Metall Mater Trans A 39A:240310.1007/s11661-008-9598-y ↗