A Weldability Study of Nickel-Iron-Cobalt Hydrogen Resistant Alloys Using Weld Simulation in Parallel with Variable Restraint Testing

Article Preview

Abstract:

Incoloy 903 overlays have been used to provide hydrogen environment embrittlement (HEE) resistance to welds in nickel alloy 718 structures. This is problematic because application of the required overlays has a history of high rejection and rework due to interpass microfissuring. Kovar has been identified as a potential hydrogen resistant replacement for Incoloy 903. A weldability study was initiated to compare the hot crack (microfissure) resistance of the two alloys to determine if substitution of Kovar for Incoloy 903 has the potential to improve the fabricability of HEE overlays. Varestraint testing indicates that Kovar has much higher crack initiation strains for both HAZ and weld metal cracking. Crack initiation strains were approximately 2% for Kovar while Incoloy 903 crack initiation strains were only 0.25% . Maximum crack lengths (MCL) observed on Kovar Varestraint tests were 0.12mm and 0.58mm for base and weld metal respectively, while 903 MCLs were 0.56mm and 2.3mm. Gleeble hot ductility testing indicates that Kovar has a nil ductility range of 7 degrees C while Incoloy 903 has a range of approximately 45 degrees C. The larger range observed for 903 is an indication of its greater crack susceptibility. Fabricability was correlated to material microstructure using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and microprobe analysis.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Materials Science Forum (Volumes 638-642)

Pages:

3763-3768

Citation:

Online since:

January 2010

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2010 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] W. Yeniscavich, in: Superalloys II, edtied by C.T. Sims et. al., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY (1987), p.495.

Google Scholar

[2] F. Matsuda, First US - Japan Symposium on Advances in Welding Metallurgy, San Francisco, CA, AWS, Miami, FL June (1990), p.19.

Google Scholar

[3] J.J. Pepe, W.F. Savage, Welding Journal, 46, 9, (1967), p. 411s.

Google Scholar

[4] M.G. Collins, J.C. Lippold, Welding Journal, 82, 10, (2003), p. 288s.

Google Scholar

[5] A.W. Dix, W.F. Savage, Welding Journal, 50, 6, (1971), p. 247s.

Google Scholar

[6] W.L. Pumphrey, P.H. Jennings, J. Institute of Metals, 75, (1948), p.235.

Google Scholar

[7] W.S. Pellini, Foundry, 80, 11, (1952), p.125.

Google Scholar

[8] J.C. Borland, British Welding Journal, 7, 8, (1960), p.508.

Google Scholar

[9] W.F. Savage, C.D. Lundin, Welding Journal, 45, 11, (1966), p.456.

Google Scholar

[10] C.D. Lundin, et. al., Welding Journal, 74, 7, (1993), p.189.

Google Scholar