ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Mechanical property variation within Inconel 82/182 dissimilar metal weld between low alloy steel and 316 stainless steel
Changheui Janga,, Jounghoon Leea, Jong Sung Kimb, Tae Eun Jinb
a

Department of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 373-1, Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea b Korea Power Engineering Company, 360-9 Mabuk-ri, Guseong-eup, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 449-713, Republic of Korea Received 1 February 2007; received in revised form 22 June 2007; accepted 10 August 2007

Abstract In several locations of pressurized water reactors, dissimilar metal welds using Inconel welding wires are used to join the low alloy steel components to stainless-steel pipes. Because of the existence of different materials and chemistry variation within welds, mechanical properties, such as tensile and fracture properties, are expected to show spatial variation. For design and integrity assessment of the dissimilar welds, these variations should be evaluated. In this study, dissimilar metal welds composed of low alloy steel, Inconel 82/182 weld, and stainless steel were prepared by gas tungsten arc welding and shielded metal arc welding techniques. Microstructures were observed using optical and electron microscopes. Typical dendrite structures were observed in Inconel 82/182 welds. Tensile tests using standard and mini-sized specimens and micro-hardness tests were conducted to measure the variation in strength along the thickness of the weld as well as across the weld. In addition, fracture toughness specimens were taken at the bottom, middle, and top of the welds and tested to evaluate the spatial variation along the thickness. It was found that while the strength is about 5070 MPa greater at the bottom of the weld than at the top of the weld, fracture toughness values at the top of the weld are about 70% greater than those at the bottom of the weld. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In pressurized water reactors (PWRs), low alloy steels (LASs) and stainless steels (SSs) are widely used in the primary system because of good mechanical properties. For example, in Korean-designed OPR1000 and APR1400 plants, the main primary coolant piping is made of LASs clad with SS, but the major branch lines are made of SS to provide proper strength and corrosion resistance. In most cases, Inconel welding wires are used to join the LAS components to SS pipes and form dissimilar metal welds. The Inconel welding wires are known to accommodate the differences in composition and thermal expansion of the two metals. The typical locations of the dissimilar metal welds in PWRs are shown in Fig. 1. As shown in the gure, quite a few locations in primary piping systems are made of dissimilar metal welds.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 869 3824; fax: +82 42 869 3810.

E-mail address: chjang@kaist.ac.kr (C. Jang). 0308-0161/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.08.004

Recently, the concern and interest in the integrity of the dissimilar metal welds have been raised since the cracking incident in the V.C. Summer nuclear power plant [1]. In that incident, through wall cracks in Inconel 82/182 weld of the hot leg nozzle caused leak of primary water into the containment. It has been thought that the repair welding during the construction caused signicant residual stress on the inner surface of the weld. For integrity analysis of the dissimilar metal weld, it is essential to have enough material properties on a database. It is generally known that the material properties within the weld show considerable scatter and spatial dependence. In case of the dissimilar metal welds, which consist of different types of materials, in part due to the chemical composition gradient and the mixing of ller metals and base metals, the spatial variation and scatter in material properties could be even more signicant. Therefore, it is important to know the variation of the mechanical properties in dissimilar weld areas to properly analyze the integrity of the nozzles. However, even though there have been several attempts to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
636 C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646

Fig. 1. Locations of dissimilar metal welds in typical PWRs.

Table 1 Chemical compositions of the base metals and welding wires C F316 SA508 class3 0.03 0.20 Ni+Co Alloy82 Alloy182 67.0 min. 59.0 min. Mn 0.77 1.21 C P 0.027 0.012 Mn S 0.003 0.001 Fe Si 0.69 0.26 S Ni 13.25 0.82 Si Cr 18.00 0.16 Cu Mo 2.25 0.47 Cr Cu 0.03 Ti Al 0.04 Nb+Ta P Others

0.10 max. 2.53.5 0.10 max. 5.09.5

3.0 max. 0.015 max. 0.50 max. 0.50 max. 18.022.0 10.0 max. 0.015 max. 1.0 max. 0.50 max. 13.017.0

0.75 max. 2.03.0 1.0 max. 1.02.5

0.03 max. 0.50 max. 0.030 max. 0.50 max.

measure the mechanical properties of Inconel 82/182 welds [24], the variation of mechanical properties was not properly investigated. In this paper, the spatial variations of the mechanical properties of the dissimilar metal weld were investigated by tensile tests, micro-hardness tests, and fracture toughness tests. 2. Materials and experiments 2.1. Materials and welding Base metals used to construct dissimilar metal welds are SA508 Cl.3 LAS and F316 SS. SA508 Cl.3 is a typical LAS

used for large vessels and some of the nozzles in OPR1000 plants. F316 SS is one of the materials for the branch lines connected to those nozzles. The chemical compositions of the base metals are summarized in Table 1. Both base metals are provided as forged and in heat-treated conditions and are prepared as 40 mm thick plates before the welding procedure. The plates are welded manually, closely simulating the welding procedures used for the nozzle to pipe welding in OPR1000. The key welding parameters are summarized in Table 2. The schematics of weld design and procedure are shown in Fig. 2. Before the welding, 2 passes of buttering were applied on the machined edges of the SA508 plate by manual gastungsten arc welding (GTAW)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646 Table 2 Welding parameters for dissimilar metal welds Layer Filler metal Type Size (mm) 2.4 2.4 4.0 GTAW GTAW SMAW DCSP DCSP DCRP 90 130 140160 14 15 2324 8 14 1018 20 20 50 100 175 max. 9.5 8.4 11.223.0 Welding process Current polarity Current (A) Voltage (V) Travel speed (cm/min) Shield gas, Ar (l/min) Interpass temp. (1C) Heat input (kJ/cm) 637

1 2 3-X

SFA5.14, ERNiCr-3 SFA5.14, ERNiCr-3 SFA5.11, ENiCrFe-3

Fig. 2. Schematics of the dissimilar metal weld of single V-groove design.

Fig. 4. Location where the tensile specimens were taken from the nished dissimilar weld: (a) locations for small-sized specimens and (b) sheet locations for mini-sized specimens.

Fig. 3. Small-sized round bar specimen (a) and mini-sized specimen (b) for tensile test.

with Inconel 82 bare wire. The resulting thickness of the buttering was about 5 mm. After the buttering, the pieces were post-weld heat treated at 615 1C to relieve the residual stress. Before groove welding, to provide torch initiation

and proper constraint, pieces of dummy metal blocks were welded at both ends of the base metals. The rst 23 passes (about 5 mm) of V-groove welding were completed by GTAW with Inconel 82 bare wire, and then the remaining thickness was lled by shielded-metal arc welding (SMAW) with Inconel 182 ux-coated wires. During the welding, argon gas was continuously supplied at the front and back sides of the plates as a shielding gas. The nished weld blocks were not heat treated. After the welding, the completed weld blocks were cut in pieces for microstructural observation and mechanical tests. After machining off a few centimeters at both ends of the blocks, the whole welded blocks were examined by ultrasonic tests to check the soundness of the welds. To reveal the microstructural features in dissimilar weld and base metals, the electrolytic etching and chemical etching methods were applied. The microstructures were observed using optical and scanning electron microscopes.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
638 C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646

from the welded plates. Specimens were taken from SA508 LAS regions, Inconel weld regions, and SS regions along the welding direction as shown in Fig. 4. The specimens were tested at room temperature at a strain rate of 5 104 s. Micro-hardness measurements were done across the dissimilar metal welds at locations where the mini-sized tensile specimens were taken too. 2.3. Fracture toughness test Compact tension (CT) specimens were taken from the welded blocks. To measure the spatial variation of the fracture characteristics of the dissimilar metal weld, the top and the bottom of the welds were electron beam welded to the SS blocks and the specimens were machined to place the machined notches along the thickness of the weld as shown in Fig. 5. Also shown in Fig. 5 is the specimen geometry used in the study. The specimen thickness (B) was 12.7 mm, and width (W) was 38.1 mm. Initially, the machined crack depth (a) was 16.9 mm. The specimens were fatigue precracked to reach a/W$0.55 before the fracture toughness tests. The tips of the nal fatigue precrack were placed at the bottom, middle, and top of the welds. During the fracture tests, crack growth was measured using the direct-current potential drop (DCPD) method. After the test, the specimens were fatigue loaded to split in half to reveal the fracture surfaces. The fracture surfaces were examined using a scanning electron microscope. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Weld microstructure
Fig. 5. Fracture test specimens and the orientation of the specimens: (a) EB welded block and (b) locations of the CT specimen.

Fig. 6. Cross-sectional view of the nished dissimilar weld.

2.2. Tensile and micro-hardness tests Small-sized round bar tensile specimens and mini-sized sheet-type tensile specimens shown in Fig. 3 were machined

The cross section of the nished weld is shown in Fig. 6. In the gure, the distinctive region of dissimilar metal welds, such as LAS base metal, Inconel 82 buttering, Inconel 82/182 fusion zone, and SS base metal, are clearly visible. Also, the dendrite structures within the fusion zone and their orientation showing the maximum cooling direction during the welding are evident. Microstructure observation of the base metals revealed that SA508 Cl.3 is composed of tempered bainite structure, and F316 is composed of well-developed austenitic grains with a few ferritic stringers. In the fusion zone, the dendrite microstructure is clear in the Inconel fusion zone and buttering area. However, the direction and spacing of the dendrites vary depending on the locations. The optical microstructures of several regions of dissimilar metal welds are shown in Fig. 7. As shown in the gure, the dendrites are more closely spaced at the bottom part of the weld compared with the top part. The recrystallized features with extensive grain boundary migration [5] shown in Fig. 7b are observed in all parts of the weld. Within the area between the dendrites, signicant segregation and secondary phase precipitations are observed, though not clearly shown in the gure. Therefore, it is anticipated

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646 639

Fig. 7. Typical microstructure of Inconel 82/182 weld fusion zone: (a) root area; (b) middle; (c) top of weld; and (d) 182/F316 fusion boundary.

that a large number of ne inclusions are present in the Inconel 182 weld metal as reported by Sireesha [5]. The fusion boundary between Inconel weld and SS base metal is shown in Fig. 7d. It is clear that a portion of the base metal was melted and resolidied during the welding process. 3.2. Tensile property variation The results of the round bar tensile tests are shown in Fig. 8. The test results show a slightly different property depending on the test position, across the dissimilar metal weld and along the thickness of weld. As a whole, SA508 Cl.3 base metals show higher yield strength than Inconel 82/182 weld and F316 base metals. However, UTS values are similar in both base metals and Inconel weld metal. Within the Inconel fusion weld, quite a large tensile property variation is present, such that the yield strength and UTS are about 5070 MPa larger at the bottom of the weld than at the top of the weld. The average elongations are about 0.210.23 in SA 508 Cl.3, 0.380.45 in Inconel 82/182 weld, and 0.610.78 in F316. The mini-sized tensile test results are shown in Fig. 9 and the average values are summarized in Table 3. It is shown in the gure that, for the base metals, the overall values of tensile properties measured using mini-sized specimens are compatible with those measured using round bar specimens. However, for the Inconel weld metal, the UTS values from the mini-sized specimens are substantially lower than those measured from the round bar specimens. The large

and elongated grains in the weld may have contributed to the under-estimation of UTS values for the mini-sized specimens with a thickness of about 0.28 mm. To conrm the effects of the specimen thickness, mini-specimens with increased thickness are being tested. Nevertheless, the tensile property variation along the thickness is also clear in mini-sized tensile specimen tests, but the strength differences are reduced to 4050 MPa. A signicant increase in strength is observed in F316 base metal near the fusion boundary. As shown in Fig. 9, the increases in yield strength in the heat-affected zone of F316 are as large as 100 MPa at the middle and bottom of the welded block. The size of the hardened zone is larger at the bottom of the welded block. Hardening of the heataffected zone of the SSs was previously reported by others [4,6], but the reported size of the hardened zone was a few millimeters for the thin plates. The sources of the hardening in SSs are grain recrystallization and carbide precipitation [4]. Therefore, the large hardened zone observed in our study may have been caused by the multiple welding passes to complete the 40 mm thick blocks. Accordingly, the amount of hardening and the size of the hardened zone decrease at the top of the welded block, as shown in Fig. 9. 3.3. Micro-hardness variation across dissimilar metal welds The micro-hardness test results are summarized in Fig. 10. Despite the large uctuation within the Inconel weld, the strength variations observed in tensile tests are

ARTICLE IN PRESS
640 C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646
Tensile Properties Across the Dissimilar Weld - Top of the Weld
700
Close symbols for ultimate tensile strength Open symbols for yield strength

600 Yield Strength and UTS, MPa

SA508 Cl.3 601.5 2.1 Stainless F316 615.57.2 82/182 Weld 587.6 33.9

500

400
SA508 Cl.3 458.1 6.8

300
82/182 Weld 330.3 17.2 Stainless F316 345.641.4

200 -60.0

-40.0

-20.0 0.0 20.0 Distance from the center of the welds, mm

40.0

60.0

Tensile Properties Across the Dissimilar Weld - Middle of the Weld

700
Close symbols for ultimate tensile strength Open symbols for yield strength

600 Yield Strength and UTS, MPa

SA508 Cl.3 599.41.8

82/182 Weld 632.515.6

Stainless F316 612.416.5

500

400

SA508 Cl.3 462.1 9.1 82/182 Weld 379.810.9

300

Stainless F316 354.545.7

200 -60.0

-40.0

-20.0 0.0 20.0 Distance from the center of the welds, mm

40.0

60.0

Tensile Properties Across the Dissimilar Weld - Bottom of the Weld

700
Close symbols for ultimate tensile strength Open symbols for yield strength

600

Yield Strength and UTS, MPa

SA508 Cl.3 599.31.3 500

82/182 Weld 639.2 4.3

Stainless F316 609.311.9

400

SA508 Cl.3 468.315.1 82/182 Weld 396.715.8 Stainless F316 324.626.8

300

200 -60.0

-40.0

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

Distance from the center of the welds, mm

Fig. 8. Tensile properties variation across dissimilar metal welds. Using round bar specimens: (a) top part of the weld; (b) middle part of the weld; and (c) bottom part of the weld.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646
Strength Variation across the Dissimilar Weld
- Top part of the Weld 700 LAS Base 650 Inconel Weld 600 550 Strength, MPa 500 450 400 350 300 YS_SA508 250 200 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Distance from the center of weld, mm
- Middle part of the Weld 700 650 600 550 Strength, MPa 500 450 400 350 300 YS_SA508 250 200 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Distance from the center of weld, mm 20 30 40 50 UTS_SA508 YS_82/182 UTS_82/182 YS_F316 UTS_F316 LAS Base Inconel Weld F316 Base

641

F316 Bas e

YS_82/182 UTS_82/182 30 40

YS_F316 UTS_F316 50 60

UTS_SA508

Strength Variation across the Dissimilar Weld

Strength Variation across the Dissimilar Weld

- Bottom part of the Weld 700 650 600 550 Strength, MPa 500 450 400 350 300
YS_SA508 YS_82/182 UTS_82/182 YS_F316 UTS_F316

LAS Base

Inconel Weld

F316 Base

250 200 -50 -40 -30 -20

UTS_SA508

-10 0 10 Distance from the center of weld, mm

20

30

40

50

Fig. 9. Tensile properties variation across dissimilar metal welds. Using mini-sized specimens: (a) top part of the weld; (b) middle part of the weld; and (c) bottom part of the weld.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
642 C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646 Table 3 Tensile properties in different parts of the dissimilar welds measured by mini-sized specimens Location Yield strength (Mpa) SA508 Cl.3 471.0710.4 455.9718.4 456.7724.7 Inconel 82/182 weld 355.7721.3 396.6728.1 403.4721.7 F316 389.4712.9 365.2713.0 361.5720.4 Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) SA508 Cl.3 597.3711.6 582.0722.2 586.8730.5 Inconel 82/182 weld 502.9735.0 543.0731.9 544.8730.4 F316 616.2716.3 582.4714.5 594.4712.0

Top Middle Bottom

veried in micro-hardness tests, but in a much ner scale. The hardness values are higher at the bottom of the weld and decrease in middle and top of the weld, which is consistent with the tensile test results. The hardening behaviors in the heat-affected zone of SS base metals are also observed in hardness tests. The gradual increase in hardness in the heat-affected zone of SSs approaching the fusion boundary was reported in other dissimilar metal welds too [4,6]. Through micro-hardness tests, the narrow heat-affected zone of the SA508 Cl.3 is also identied, as shown in Fig. 10. This could explain why the heat-affected zone of SA508 Cl.3 is not evident in mini-sized tensile test results shown in Fig. 9. That is, because the heataffected zone of SA508 Cl.3 is less than the width of the mini-sized specimen, it is likely that the heat-affected zone is completely or partially missed during specimen preparation. 3.4. Fracture toughness variation The fracture toughness test results of the Inconel welds are shown in Fig. 11 and summarized in Table 4. The tests were completed with fully ductile fracture and stopped when crack extension reached about 3 mm. Two specimens were tested at each weld location, but one of the tests for the middle of weld was interrupted and not successful. As shown in Fig. 11, for the specimens taken at the same location, the JR curves are similar. The JR curves of the specimens taken at the top of weld are much greater than those at the bottom of the weld. From the JR curves, the fracture toughness values were determined following ASTM E1820-01 [7] and are summarized in Table 4. All of the fracture toughness values satised the thickness and other requirements and are therefore considered valid JIC values. In our tests, Inconel 82/182 welds exhibit fracture toughness values of around 100220 kJ/m2. These values are considerably lower than the values reported for ENH82 welds [2]. It is clear in Table 4 that the fracture toughness strongly depends on the location of the weld along the thickness direction. It is quite natural considering that because of the large number of welding passes and repeated heat cycles during the welding process as well as compositional differences, the microstructure, and the thermo-mechanical history cannot

be uniform within the weld. Therefore, the mechanical property variation within the weld should be considered in the structural integrity evaluation of the dissimilar metal welds. 3.5. Fracture surface observation The fracture surfaces of round bar tensile specimens were observed under a scanning electron microscope and the results are shown in Fig. 12. The fracture surface shows the typical dimpled ductile fracture surface. The dendrite morphology is clearly visible even on the fracture surface, in which the microvoids are aligned along the primary dendrites. In some of the microvoids, the secondary particles are visible at the center. From the microstructural features, it is postulated that the interdendritic core with severe segregation or secondary particles would have been the microvoid initiation sites. From the fracture surface observation of the CT specimens, ductile fracture modes are observed with three operative cracking mechanisms, such as primary microvoid coalescence, void-sheet formation, and shear-stretch formation [2]. In the shear-stretched zone, well-dened slip offsets are typically observed, indicating that this mechanism requires extensive plastic deformation. Representative fracture-surface morphologies of Inconel 82/182 welds are shown in Fig. 13. The dominant fracture mechanisms are different depending on the location within the weld. In the bottom of the weld (Fig. 13a), primary microvoid coalescences are dominantly observed. In the middle of the weld (Fig. 13b), shear-stretch features are observed and primary dimples are also partially observed. In the top of the weld (Fig. 13c, d), shear-stretch features are dominantly observed, and the size of shear-stretch region is much larger than the size in the middle part. Void-sheet features are also observed surrounding the large shear-stretch region. As previously mentioned, the JIC fracture toughness is increased as the specimen location is moved from the bottom to the top of the weld. These facts demonstrate that the size of the shear-stretch mode is related with the JIC fracture toughness value. And the shear-stretch mode is more effective for increasing JIC fracture toughness than primary microvoid coalescence and void-sheet formation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646
Vickers Micro-hardness Values Across the Dissimilar Weld - Top of the Weld
300 VHN_F316 VHN_82/182 VHN_508 250 82/182 Weld 198.4 10.2 HAZ

643

275

HAZ

Vickers micro-hardness number, VHN

225

Stainless F316 188.54.8 200

175 SA508 Cl.3 194.3 18.0 150 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

Distance from the center of the welds, mm

Vickers Micro-hardness Values Across the Dissimilar Weld - Middle of the Weld
300 VHN_F316 HAZ 275 82/182 Weld 210.2 10.0 250 SA508 Cl.3 192.5 5.5 225 Stainless F316 178.6 8.5 VHN_82/182 VHN_508 HAZ

Vickers micro-hardness number, VHN

200

175

150 -30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

Distance from the center of the welds, mm

Vickers Micro-hardness Values Across the Dissimilar Weld - Bottom of the Weld
300 VHN_F316 VHN_82/182 VHN_508 HAZ HAZ Stainless F316 178.0 3.5 225 SA508 Cl.3 190.0 5.5 200 82/182 Weld 220.4 11.0

275
Vickers micro-hardness number, VHN

250

175

150 -30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

Distance from the center of the welds, mm

Fig. 10. Micro-hardness variation across dissimilar metal welds: (a) top part of the weld; (b) middle part of the weld; and (c) bottom part of the weld.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
644 C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646

J-R curve of Inconel 82/182 weld at room temperature

800.0 700.0 600.0
J-integral, KJ/m2
J integral_Top 6 power fit_Top 6 J integral_Top 5 power fit_Top 5 J integral_Middle 3 power fit_Middle 3 J integral_Bottom 2 power fit_Bottom 2 J integral_Bottom 1 power fit_Bottom 1

500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0

0.0 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 crack extension, mm

Fig. 11. JR curves variation across Inconel 82/182 welds at room temperature.

Table 4 Mean JIC fracture toughness properties in different parts of the Inconel 82/182 welds at room temperature Position Top Middle Bottom ID 6 5 4 3 2 1 JIC (kJ/m2) 201.5 226.0 163.1 140.4 105.8 Mean value JIC (kJ/m2) 213.7 163.1 123.1

4. Conclusions The dissimilar metal welds joining the low alloy steel and stainless steel were fabricated and the microstructures were analyzed. Also, the spatial variation in mechanical properties was investigated. Through the analysis, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The dendritic structures are well developed in Inconel 82/182 weld. Within the area between the dendrites, signicant segregation and secondary phase precipitations are observed. Also, the dendrites are more closely spaced at the bottom part of the weld compared with the top part. 2. Within the Inconel fusion weld, the yield strength and tensile strength are about 5070 MPa higher at the bottom of the weld than at the top of the weld. Such differences in strength along the thickness of the weld

were also conrmed in mini-sized tensile tests and micro-hardness tests. 3. In our tests, Inconel 82/182 welds exhibited fracture toughness values of around 100220 kJ/m2 at room temperature. The fracture toughness strongly depended on the location of the weld along the thickness direction such that fracture toughness values at the top of the weld are about 70% greater than those at the bottom of the weld. This may have been caused by the spatial variation in the composition, the microstructure, and the thermo-mechanical history during the multi-pass welding of thick plates. 4. The fracture surface of compact tension specimens showed general ductile fracture modes. However, dominant fracture modes were different depending on the location within the weld, such that the dominant feature changed from primary dimple mode to large

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646 645

Fig. 12. Fracture surfaces of tensile specimen taken at the middle of Inconel 82/182 weld.

Fig. 13. Fracture surface morphology for Inconel 82/182 welds: (a) specimen no. 2 (bottom); (b) specimen no. 3 (middle); (c) specimen no. 5 (top); and (d) specimen no. 6 (top).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
646 C. Jang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 635646

shear-stretch mode as fracture toughness increased from the bottom to the top of the dissimilar metal welds.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Economy (MOCIE) under the Electric Power Research Program. Part of the funding was provided by the Second Phase BK21 Program of the Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development of Korea. References
[1] USNRC. Crack in weld area of reactor coolant system hot leg piping at V.C. Summer, IN00-17, October 18, 2000.

[2] Mills WJ, Brown CM. Fracture toughness of alloy 600 and en82h weld in air and water. Metall Trans 2001;32A(5):116174. [3] Chopra OK, Soppet WK, Shack WJ. Effects of alloy chemistry, cold work, and water chemistry on corrosion fatigue and stress corrosion cracking of nickel alloys and welds. NUREG/CR-6721 2001. [4] Celik A, Asaran A. Mechanical and structural properties of similar and dissimilar steel joints. Mater Charact 1999;43:3118. [5] Sireesha M, Albert S, Shankar V, Sundaresan S. Microstructural features of dissimilar welds between 316LN austenitic stainless steel and alloy 800. Mater Sci Eng 2000;A292:7482. [6] Sireesha M, Albert S, Shankar V, Sundaresan S. A comparative evaluation of welding consumables for dissimilar welds between 316LN austenitic stainless steel and alloy 800. J Nucl Mater 2000;279: 6576. [7] ASTM. Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness. ASTM E1820-01, 2001.