A comparative evaluation of welding consumables for dissimilar welds between 316LN austenitic stainless steel and Alloy 800

Abstract Transition joints in power plants between ferritic steels and austenitic stainless steels suffer from a mismatch in coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) and the migration of carbon during service from the ferritic to the austenitic steel. To overcome these, nickel-based consumables are commonly used. The use of a trimetallic combination with an insert piece of intermediate CTE provides for a more effective lowering of thermal stresses. The current work envisages a trimetallic joint involving modified 9Cr–1Mo steel and 316LN austenitic stainless steel as the base materials and Alloy 800 as the intermediate piece. Of the two joints involved, this paper describes the choice of welding consumables for the joint between Alloy 800 and 316LN. Four consumables were examined: 316, 16-8-2, Inconel 82 and Inconel 182. The comparative evaluation was based on hot cracking tests and estimation of mechanical properties and coefficient of thermal expansion. While 16-8-2 exhibited highest resistance to solidification cracking, the Inconel filler materials also showed adequate resistance; additionally, the latter were superior from the mechanical property and coefficient of thermal expansion view-points. It is therefore concluded that for the joint between Alloy 800 and 316LN the Inconel filler materials offer the best compromise.