Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/net

Original Article

Thermal aging effect on fracture toughness of GTAW/SMAW of 316L

stainless steel: experiments and applicability of existing CASS models
Gyo-Geun Youn a, b, Yun-Jae Kim a, *, Yasufumi Miura b
a
Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, 136-701, Republic of Korea
b
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, 2-6-1 Nagasaka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken, 240-0196, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents thermal aging effect on fracture toughness properties of GTAW (gas tungsten arc
Received 11 May 2020 welding) and SMAW (shielded metal arc welding) of 316L stainless steels, and investigates the appli-
Received in revised form cability of the existing three thermal aging models for CASS (cast stainless steels). Thermal aging was
9 October 2020
carried out at 350
C for up to 15,000h and at 400
C up to 8,000h. After aging, tensile and fracture
Accepted 11 October 2020
Available online 15 October 2020
toughness tests using 0.5T C(T) specimens were carried out at room temperature and at 288
C.
Comparing with the predictions using three (ANL, French and H3T) thermal aging models for CASS show
that the predictions can be very non-conservative at operating temperature, and thus that the existing
Keywords:
Thermal aging effect on fracture toughness
thermal aging models for CASS cannot be applied to the welded stainless steels.
GTAW 316L stainless Steel © 2020 Korean Nuclear Society, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an open access article under the
SMAW 316 CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Applicability of thermal aging models

1. Introduction representative ones; the ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) model

Cast stainless steels (referred to as CASS hereinafter) are mainly
used for primary system piping in nuclear power plants owing to
their high resistance to stress corrosion cracking, good weldability,
high resistance and soundness of casting. The CASS are known as
the duplex phase of ferrite and austenite and their excellent me-
chanical properties come from the ferrite phase. On the contrary,
the ferrite phase causes thermal aging [1e4], and extensive
experimental studies [5e22] have been conducted to understand
and to characterize such thermal aging phenomenon. Based on
these studies, it has been found that, with thermal aging, the
strength increases [5e9] but ductility [6,8,9] decreases. Accord-
ingly, both fracture toughness [5,6,10e22] and Charpy impact en-
ergy [10e12,14e17,20e22] decrease when thermal aging occurs.
From these vast amounts of experimental data, significant ef-
forts have been made to predict the thermal aging effect on fracture
toughness of aged CASS. Among them, three models are the most
ABBREVIATION: ANL, Argonne National Laboratory; ASSW, austenitic stainless
steel welds; BWR, boiling water reactors; CASS, cast stainless steels; C(T), compact
tension; GTAW, gas tungsten arc welding; H3T, Hyperbolic-Time-Temperature-
Toughness; J-R, J-resistance; R.A, reduction of area; RT, room temperature; SMAW,
shielded metal arc welding.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kimy0308@korea.ac.kr (Y.-J. Kim).
[16], H3T (Hyperbolic-Time-Temperature-Toughness) model [14],
and French model [17]. All three models provide estimation equa-
tions for aged CASS, when the chemical composition and aging
conditions (aging temperature & time) are known. Those equations
are empirical in the sense that they have been derived based on
extensive fracture toughness test data. All three models use the
concept of the equivalent aging time by substituting the aging time
of a certain aging temperature with the equivalent aging time at the
reference temperature (for example, 400
C for the French model).
The equations in these three models are slightly different, which
was discussed in detail in the Refs. [23,24].
Like CASS, austenitic stainless steels also have good mechanical
properties such as high ductility, high fracture toughness and good
resistance to stress corrosion cracking. Thus, they are widely used
in reactor systems in nuclear power plants. Although austenitic
stainless steel is an austenite phase in wrought conditions, it be-
comes a duplex phase of austenite and ferrite after welding, and
thus thermal aging can also occur in welded austenitic stainless
steels. Some researches [25e28] have investigated the thermal
aging effect on material properties for stainless steel weldments.
The results showed that the welded austenitic stainless steel could
be embrittled by thermal aging due to the ferrite phase, similar to
CASS, leading to reduced Charpy impact energy and fracture
toughness. However, compared to CASS, much less research has
been done and no model has been yet proposed to predict the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.10.007
1738-5733/© 2020 Korean Nuclear Society, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

models to check the applicability. The presented work is concluded

Nomenclature in Section 5.

a, Da crack length and crack extension, respectively

2. Materials and experimental procedures
CV, CU Charpy impact energy value of V-notch and U-
notch specimen, respectively
2.1. Test materials
CVint initial Charpy impact energy value of V-notch
specimen
This work considers SMAW (shielded metal arc welding) and
D, m material constants in J-R curve, given by J ¼ D∙Dam
GTAW (gas tungsten arc welding) of 316L stainless steels. Welding
J(pred) J-resistance values predicted by the thermal aging
was performed using a 50 mm thick 316L plate with the 60
V-
models
groove, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(c). The SMAW joint had the
J(test) J-resistance values obtained from the test data
length of 250 or 500 mm and the width of 300 mm, whereas GTAW
Jx J-resistance values at the crack extension of Da ¼ x
had the length of 500 mm and the width of 300 mm. The fabricated
mm, x ¼ 0.2, 1.0, 3.0, 6.0
joints are shown in Fig. 1(b) and (d). The chemical compositions of
J0.2/BL J-resistance values corresponding to the 0.2 mm
SMAW and GTAW are given in Table 1. The ferrite content was
offset line
measured in the cross section of the welded joints using the ferrite
P thermal aging parameter
scope, giving the ferrite content of ~9% for SMAW and ~15% for
Q activation energy
GTAW [29].
R reduction factor
t aging time
TS aging temperature 2.2. Experimental procedures
dC ferrite content
εf(uni) uni-axial fracture strain The welded joints were cut into some blocks having the
q material constant related to aging temperature dimension of the length 70 mm (welding direction), width 300 mm
sf flow strength defined by the average of yield and and thickness 50 mm. Then the blocks were thermally aged in air at
tensile strength 350
C and 400
C, as summarized in Table 2. From the thermally
aged blocks, smooth bar tensile and 0.5T compact tension (C(T))
specimens were extracted as shown in Fig. 2. Smooth bar tensile
specimens had 6 mm in diameter and 30 mm in gage length
fracture toughness for aged welded stainless steels. Furthermore, (Fig. 3(a)) and 0.5T C(T) specimens were manufactured according to
most of existing results are for the case of low ferrite contents. On the drawing shown in Fig. 3(b). Please note that C(T) specimens
the other hand, Japanese BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors) mainly use under the aging condition of 400
C for 5,000h were machined to
welded 316L stainless steels with relatively high ferrite contents. 12 mm in thickness, due to lack of the block volume.
This paper presents thermal aging effect on tensile and fracture Tensile and fracture toughness tests were performed at both
properties of GTAW (gas tungsten arc welding) and SMAW (shiel- room temperature and 288
C. For the smooth bar tensile tests,
ded metal arc welding) of 316L stainless steels, and checks appli- experiments were performed three times for each aging condition.
cability of the existing three (ANL, French and H3T) thermal aging The tests were conducted according to JIS Z2241 [30] at room
models for CASS. Section 2 explains materials and test procedures. temperature and JIS G0567 [31] at 288
C. At room temperature, JIS
Experimental data are presented in Section 3. In Section 4, exper- Z2241 suggests either strain-rate or stress-rate control test, up to
imental data are compared with the predictions using existing 0.2% proof stress, but only the strain-rate control test after 0.2%

Fig. 1. (a) Cross sectional and (b) upper view of SMAW of 316L stainless steel plate and (c) cross sectional and (d) upper view of GTAW of 316L stainless steel plate [29].

1358
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

Table 1
Chemical composition of the test materials [29].

Material C Si Mn P S Ni Cr Mo N Fe

SMAW (ES316L-16) 0.014 0.42 1.63 0.015 0.003 11.76 19.50 2.25 0.066 Bal
GTAW (YS316L) 0.016 0.44 1.46 0.010 0.015 11.83 19.96 2.80 0.048 Bal

Table 2
Summary of test conditions.

Test Material Aging Temperature (oC) Aging Time (hours) Test Temperature (oC)

GTAW & SMAW Un-aged 0 Room Temperature & 288
C

350 2,000
4,000
8,000
15,000
400 5,000
8,000

proof stress. To obtain both 0.2% proof stress and tensile strength
from a single specimen, stress-rate control test was conducted at
the rate of 10 MPa/s up to 0.2% proof stress, and then strain-rate
control one at the rate of 0.3/min (which is the mean value sug-
gested in JIS Z2241). At 288
C, JIS G0567 suggests only strain-rate
control test and thus the tests were performed at the rate of 0.003/
min until 0.2% proof stress, and then at the rate of 0.1/min (which is
the mean value suggested in G0567). For the fracture toughness
tests, experiments were performed twice for each aging condition
and tests were conducted according to ASTM E1820-15 [32]. The
load was applied so that the crack opening displacement had the
speed of 0.005 mm/s and the crack extension was measured by the
unloading compliance method.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Tensile test results
Selected engineering stress-strain curves for un-aged and aged
GTAW of 316L stainless steels are shown in Fig. 4. As expected,
strengths tend to increase with aging but ductility decreases. It can
be seen that the aging temperature is more important than time.
For instance, the aging time at 350
C for 15,000h is three times
longer than that at 400
C for 5,000h. However, the yield and
tensile strength at 400
C for 5,000h are higher than those at 350
C
for 15,000h.
For all GTAW test data, the effect of aging time and temperature
on the yield and tensile strengths are shown in Fig. 5 and on the
uni-axial fracture strain in Fig. 6. The uni-axial fracture strain
(εf(uni)) was calculated from the reduction of area (R.A) using the
following equation
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram for 0.5T C(T) specimen extraction locations in 316L stainless
steel plate weld joints [29].
1359


1
εf ðuniÞ ¼ ln (1)
1  R:A
The results show that the effect of aging time and temperature
at room temperature is similar to that at 288
C. The effect of the
aging temperature on strengths is more important than that of the
aging time, particularly on the tensile strength. It is also true for
uni-axial fracture strain that the effect of the aging temperature is
more important.
Corresponding results for un-aged and aged SMAW of 316L
stainless steel are shown in Figs. 7 to 9. Overall trends are similar to
those for GTAW of 316L stainless steel. In engineering stress-strain
curve, yield and tensile strength are higher in the 400
C 5,000h
than in the 350
C 15,000h, as shown in Fig. 7. The strength values
are higher at 400
C than 350
C for all aging conditions as shown in
Fig. 8. As shown in Fig. 9, the uni-axial fracture strain value de-
creases with thermal aging time and its decreasing rate is faster at
400
C.
3.2. Fracture toughness test results
Fig. 10(a) and (b) show the effect of aging on fracture toughness
test results for un-aged and aged GTAW of 316L stainless steel at
room temperature. The results show that the fracture toughness
gradually decrease with the aging time. It can be also seen that the
aging conditions of 350
C for 15,000h and 400
C for 8,000h have
almost the same fracture toughness. The J-R curves for both aging
conditions are decreased by almost half, compared to those for the
un-aged condition. Fig. 10(c) and (d) are corresponding results at
288
C. The J-R curves at 288
C are generally lower than those at
room temperature, but the effect of aging time and temperature on
fracture toughness is almost the same as that at room temperature.
The present experimental results are consistent to the results
presented in Ref. [33].
Fig. 11 shows fracture toughness test results for un-aged and aged
SMAW of 316L stainless steel. As for the aged GTAW of 316L stainless
steel, fracture toughness tends to decrease with thermal aging.
However, since the ferrite content in SMAW is 9% which is smaller
than that in GTAW (15%), the effect of thermal aging is less significant
in SMAW than in GTAW. On the other hand, although the ferrite
content in SMAW is lower than that in GTAW, fracture toughness
values of SMAW are overall smaller than those of GTAW, possibly due
to the welding process [29]. Despite its lower cost and better
weldability than other welding techniques [34e36], SMAW is known
to have low welding quality, since the high thermal input alloying
elements are applied during welding. It causes dendritic or hard
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura
Fig. 3. Dimensions of the test specimens: (a) smooth bar tensile specimen and (b) 0.5T C(T) specimen. (unit: degree and mm).
phases result in the reduction of ductility and brittleness [36,37]. On
the other hand, GTAW is known to have high welding quality due to
its low heat input process [38]. It has been reported in Ref. [38] that
SMAW has more uneven micro-hardness and less homogeneous
strain fields than GTAW. Thus the lower welding quality might be the
main reason for its lower fracture toughness than GTAW.
4. Validation for the applicability of assessment rules to
welded stainless steels
Currently there is no model to evaluate the thermal aging effect
on fracture toughness of stainless steel welds. However, several
models are currently available to evaluate the thermal aging effect
on fracture toughness of CASS [14,16,17]. These models have been
1360
Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368
developed based on enormous fracture toughness test data of base
materials. Relevant equations are given to predict fracture tough-
ness with high accuracy when the chemical composition and aging
conditions are known. As these models have been developed based
on huge amount of toughness test database, it would be valuable to
see whether these models can be also applied to the present GTAW/
SMAW of 316L stainless steel, which is the topic of this section.
4.1. Application of the ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) model
The ANL model [16] provides an estimation of the thermal aging
effect on fracture toughness for CF3, CF8 and CF8M materials. For
GTAW and SMAW in the present work, the molybdenum (Mo)
contents were 2.25 wt% and 2.80 wt%, the estimation equations of
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

Fig. 4. Selected engineering stress-strain curves for GTAW of 316L stainless steel aged at 350
C for 15,000h and 400
C for 5,000h: (a) room temperature and (b) 288
C.

Fig. 5. Variations of true yield and tensile strengths of GTAW of 316L stainless steel: (a) room temperature and (b) 288
C.

Fig. 6. Variations of uni-axial fracture strain of GTAW of 316L stainless steel: (a) room temperature (b) 288
C.

the CF8M was used.


If the chemical composition and aging conditions are known, 1000Q 1 1
the ANL model [16] provides the thermal aging parameter P to P ¼ log 10 ðtÞ   (2)
19:143 Ts þ 273 673
convert thermal aging time and temperature to the equivalent
aging time at the temperature of 400
C. The thermal aging where t and TS denote the aging time and temperature, respec-
parameter P is given as follows tively; Q is activation energy in kJ/mol, expressed as follows
1361
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

Fig. 7. Selected engineering stress-strain curves for SMAW of 316L stainless steel aged at 350
C for 15,000h and 400
C for 5,000h: (a) tested at room temperature and (b) 288
C.

Fig. 8. Variations of true yield and tensile strengths of SMAW of 316L stainless steel: (a) room temperature and (b) 288
C.

Fig. 9. Variations of uni-axial fracture strain of SMAW 316L stainless steel: (a) room temperature (b) 288
C.

toughness for aged CASS using estimation equations. The equations

Q ¼ 10½74:52  7:20q  3:46Si  1:78Cr  4:35Mn þ 23N (3) provide the material constants, D and m, in J-R curves

where q is a material constant related to the aging temperature.

J ¼ DðDaÞm (4)
The chemical composition and thermal aging parameter P are
then used to predict the Charpy impact energy value of the V-notch To apply the ANL model, the initial impact energy CVint [J/cm2] at
specimen, CV [J/cm2], at room temperature and, in turn, fracture room temperature and the ferrite content dc should be given. When
1362
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura
Fig. 10. Selected fracture toughness test results for aged GTAW of 316L stainless steel tested: (a)-(b) at room temperature and (c)-(d) at 288
C.
the value of CVint is not known, the suggested value of 200 J/cm2 can
be used [16]. The ferrite content is recommended to use the value
obtained from the estimation methods such as the Hull’s equivalent
factor [39] or ASTM A800 method [40]. It should be noted that, for
GTAW and SMAW, the estimated ferrite contents from the Hull’s
equivalent factor were 11.1% and 6.5%, respectively. However, the
actual measured ferrite contents were 15% and 9%, respectively. In
this study, predictions of fracture toughness using the ANL model
were performed not only using the estimated ferrite content but
also using the measured ferrite content for comparison.
4.2. Application of the French model
The French model [17] developed by EdF only provides fracture
toughness estimation of the aged CF8M CASS. As for the ANL model
[16], the French model [17] provides the Charpy impact energy value
of the U-notch specimen CU at 20
C and V-notch specimen CV at
320
C from the chemical composition and equivalent aging time at
the aging temperature of 400
C. To obtain equivalent aging time, the
following activation energy Q (kJ/mol) is used
Q ¼  193:1 þ 13:66ðCr þ Mo þ SiÞ
The fracture toughness can then be predicted using the equations
relating the Charpy impact energy, CV, and fracture toughness. The
provided equations are for predicting resistance J values at the crack
extension of Da ¼ 0.2, 1.0 and 3.0 mm, J0.2, J1.0 and J3.0, respectively
(see Fig. 12 for the definitions).
Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368
4.3. Application of the H3T model
The H3T model [14] developed by MHI can provide predictions
only for the fracture toughness of aged CF8 and CF8M materials
using the same prediction equations. Furthermore, it provides the
fracture toughness prediction equation only at operating tempera-
ture so the data at 288
C can be analyzed. Contrary to the previous
two models providing fracture toughness estimation from the
Charpy impact energy, this model gives fracture toughness estima-
tion directly from the chemical composition, ferrite content and
aging conditions. The estimated fracture toughness values are
resistance J values corresponding to the 0.2 mm offset line [32], J0.2/
BL, and to the crack extension of Da ¼ 6.0 mm, J6.0 (see Fig. 12 for the
definitions). For constructing the blunting line, 2sf was used, where
sf denotes the flow strength (the average of the yield and tensile
strength). In the present experiments, the crack extension was
measured only up to 4 mm. Thus, comparison will be made only for
J0.2/BL values from the H3T model.
For this work, the chemical composition and aging conditions are
given in Section 2. For the ferrite contents, the actual values esti-
mated from ASTM A800 method [40] were used; 9.8% for GTAW and
5.8% for SMAW. In addition, the suggested value of Q ¼ 100 kJ/mol
(5) [14] was used to calculate the activation energy and initiation acti-
vation energy for conservative estimations.
4.4. Comparison results
Fig. 13 compares predicted J-resistance curves of aged GTAW and
SMAW using the ANL model with experimental data for selected
1363
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura
Fig. 11. Selected fracture toughness test results for aged SMAW of 316L stainless steel tested: (a)-(b) at room temperature and (c)-(d) at 288
C.
cases. For predictions, two curves are given; one using the ferrite
content measured in experiment (15%) and the other using the
ferrite content predicted by the Hull’s equivalent factor [39] (11%).
For the case of aged GTAW tested at room temperature (Fig. 13a),
the predicted J-R curve using the predicted ferrite content is slightly
lower (conservative) than the test data. However, when the pre-
diction is made using the actual measured ferrite content, the
predicted J-R curve is further lower, suggesting that all predictions
are conservative. However, for the case of aged GTAW tested at
288
C (Fig. 13b), the predicted J-R curve are higher (non-conser-
vative) than the experimental data. Now the prediction using the
measured ferrite content is closer to the experimental data. The
Fig. 12. Various definitions of resistance J.
1364
Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368
prediction using the predicted ferrite content is higher (more non-
conservative).
For the case of SMAW, predicted J-R curves are much higher
(non-conservative) than experimental data, regardless of the ferrite
content and temperature. The use of the measured ferrite content
moves the curves closer to the experimental data, but the pre-
dictions are still much higher (more than twice). This implies that
the use of the ANL model [16] to SMAW always gives highly non-
conservative prediction in fracture toughness.
Fig. 14 shows the ratios of the predicted fracture toughness (J0.2,
J1.0 and J3.0) using the French model [17] and experimental one for
aged GTAW and SMAW at aging temperature of 350
C. As the ratio
of the predicted and experimental value is given, the ratio less than
unity implies the prediction is conservative. The ratio greater than
unity means the prediction is non-conservative. For the case of
aged GTAW tested at room temperature (Fig. 14(a)), the ratios are
less than unity (ranging from ~0.3 to ~0.7). They increase with
increasing aging time. For the case of aged GTAW tested at 288
C
(Fig. 14(b)), the ratios are greater than unity (ranging from ~2 to ~4).
Thus, the fracture toughness predictions of aged GTAW using the
French model are very conservative at room temperature but are
non-conservative at 288
C.
For the case of aged SMAW tested at room temperature
(Fig. 14(c)), the ratios are greater than unity (ranging from ~1.1 to
~1.9) and they tend to increase with aging time. For the case of aged
SMAW tested at 288
C (Fig. 14(d)), the ratios are much greater than
unity (ranging from ~5 to ~12). Thus, the fracture toughness pre-
dictions of aged SMAW using the French model [17] are
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental and predicted J-R curves using the ANL model: (a)-(b) GTAW and (c)-(d) SMAW.

nonconservative both at room temperature and at 288
C, but the fractional (or similar) changes in fracture toughness due to thermal
degree of non-conservatism is much larger at 288
C. aging in the existing model can be applied to ASSW, then the
Fig. 15 shows the ratios of the predicted fracture toughness (J0.2/ reduction factor due to thermal aging should be the same for both
BL) using the H3T model [14] and experimental one for aged GTAW CASS and welded stainless steels
and SMAW at aging temperature of 350
C and tested at 288
C.
! !
Since, the H3T model is only applicable to operating temperature Jaged Jaged
conditions, the experimental J0.2/BL values tested at 288
C are ¼ RðTs ; tÞ ¼ (6)
Junaged Junaged
compared with the prediction results. The blunting lines to deter- CASS ASSW
mine the experimental J0.2/BL values are shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
Similar to the results in Fig. 14, the ratio of the predicted and where R is the reduction factor being a function of aging temper-
experimental value is given. For the case of aged GTAW (Fig. 15(a)), ature and time, and the subscript ASSW stands for austenitic
the ratios are much larger than unity (ranging from ~7.6 to ~8.8). stainless steel welds. Rearranging Eq. (6) leads to
For the case of aged SMAW (Fig. 15(b)), the ratios are even larger    
(ranging from ~19 to ~32). Thus, the fracture toughness predictions Junaged Jaged
of aged GTAW and SMAW using the H3T model are non-   CASS
¼  CASS ¼ constant (7)
conservative. Junaged Jaged
ASSW ASSW
Fracture toughness estimation results for all test data are sum-
marized in Table 3. The present results show that it is inappropriate As the fracture toughness ratio of unaged ASSW and CASS
to apply the existing assessment rules to aged GTAW and SMAW should be constant, that of aged ASSW and CASS should also be
stainless steels. constant and be independent of the aging time and temperature.
Note that fracture toughness values of unaged GTAW and SMAW Note that (Jaged)CASS in Eq. (7) is indeed the predicted J value for
can be lower than those of unaged CASS. Thus inaccurate prediction aged GTAW or SMAW, shown in Fig. 14 for instance as J(Pred). On the
of aged GTAW and SMAW might be caused by different initial other hand, (Jaged)ASSW is the experimentally measured toughness
(unaged) fracture toughness between austenitic stainless steel value of aged GTAW or SMAW, shown in Fig. 14 for instance as J(Test).
welds (ASSW) and CASS, rather than thermal aging models them- The results in Fig. 14 as well as those in Figs. 13 and 15 suggest that
selves. Thus it would be worth checking whether the fractional (or the values of J(Pred)/J(Test) are not constant and depend strongly on
similar) changes in fracture toughness due to thermal aging in the the aging time and temperature. Therefore the existing thermal
existing model can be applied to ASSW. Assuming that the aging models for CASS cannot be used to welded stainless steels
and the thermal aging models based on experimental data of
1365
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368

Fig. 14. Comparison of experimental and predicted J values using the French model: (a)-(b) GTAW and (c)-(d) SMAW.

Fig. 15. Comparison of experimental and predicted J0.2/BL values using the H3T model: (a) GTAW and (b) SMAW.

welded stainless steels are required to properly predict the fracture
toughness of aged GTAW and SMAW.
5. Conclusions
This paper firstly presents experimental tensile and fracture
toughness test results of un-aged and aged GTAW and SMAW of
316L stainless steels. The thermal aging was carried out at 350
C
for up to 15,000h and at 400
C up to 8,000h. After aging, tensile
1366
and fracture toughness tests using 0.5T C(T) specimens were car-
ried out at room temperature and at 288
C.
Test data show that, with thermal aging, ductility and fracture
toughness decrease but the strengths (yield and tensile) increase.
The aging temperature has a greater effect than the aging time.
To check the applicability of the existing thermal aging models,
predicted fracture toughness values using three (ANL, French and
H3T) models are compared with experimental data of aged GTAW
and SMAW. The predicted J-R curves using the ANL model are
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura
Table 3
Summary of fracture toughness estimation results.
Model Test temperature
GTAW ANL RT
288
C
H3T 288
C
French RT
288
C
SMAW ANL RT
288
C
H3T 288
C
French RT
288
C
slightly conservative for aged GTAW tested at room temperature.
However, they are non-conservative for all other cases. In the case
of the French model, the model provides very conservative
toughness only for aged GTAW tested at room temperature, but
very nonconservative predictions in all other cases. Finally, the H3T
model also provides non-conservative predictions for aged GTAW
and SMAW tested at 288
C. The degrees of conservatism and non-
conservatism are summarized in Table 3. Thus, it is shown that the
existing thermal aging models for CASS cannot be applied to the
welded stainless steels.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) supported by Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-
2018M2A8A4084016, NRF-2019M2D2A2048296).
References
[1] J.K. Sahu, U. Krupp, R.N. Ghosh, H.J. Christ, Effect of 475oC Embrittlement on
the mechanical properties of duplex stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. 508 (2009)
1e14.
[2] O.K. Chopra, H.M. Chung, Aging of cast duplex stainless steels in LWR systems,
Nucl. Eng. Des. 89 (1985) 305e318.
[3] O.K. Chopra, A. Sather, Initial Assessment of the Mechanisms and Significance
of Low-Temperature Embrittlement of Cast Stainless Steels in LWR Systems,
U.S.NRC, NUREG/CR-5385, ANL-89-17, 1990.
[4] H.M. Chung, Aging and life prediction of cast duplex stainless steel compo-
nents, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 50 (1992) 179e213.
[5] M.D. Mathew, L.M. Lietzan, K.L. Murty, V.N. Shah, Low temperature aging
Embrittlement of CF-8 stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. 269 (1999) 186e196.
[6] J.D. Kwon, J.C. Park, Y.S. Lee, W.H. Lee, Y.W. Park, An investigation of the
degradation characteristics for casting stainless steel, CF8M, under high
temperatures, Nucl. Eng. Des. 198 (2000) 227e240.
[7] F. Xue, Z.X. Wang, G. Shu, W. Yu, H.J. Shi, W. Ti, Thermal aging effect on
Z3CN20.09M cast duplex stainless steel, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (2009)
2217e2223.
[8] S. Li, Y. Wang, S. Li, H. Zhang, F. Xue, X. Wang, Microstructures and mechanical
properties of cast austenite stainless steels after long-term thermal aging at
low temperature, Mater. Des. 50 (2013) 886e892.
[9] W.F. Michaud, P.T. Toben, W.K. Soppet, O.K. Chopra, Tensile-Property Char-
acterization of Thermally Aged Cast Stainless Steels, U.S.NRC, NUREG/CR-
6275, ANL-94/37, 1995.
[10] T. Yamada, S. Okano, H. Kuwano, Mechanical property and microstructural
change by thermal aging of SCS14A cast duplex stainless steel, J. Nucl. Mater.
350 (2006) 47e55.
[11] S.L. Li, Y.L. Wang, H.L. Zhang, S.X. Li, K. Zheng, F. Xue, X.T. Wang, Micro-
structure Evolution and impact fracture behaviors of Z3CN20-09m stainless
steels after long-term thermal aging, J. Nucl. Mater. 433 (2013) 41e49.
1367
Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368
Comparison with Test J(pred)/J(test)
Conservative using measured dc ¼ 15% 0.5e0.6
Good agreement using predicted dc ¼ 11% 0.8e1.0
Non-conservative using measured dc ¼ 15% 1.1e1.3
Non-conservative using predicted dc ¼ 11% 1.6e1.8
Non-conservative 5.0e8.8
Conservative 0.3e0.7
Non-conservative 1.1e4.2
Non-conservative using measured dc ¼ 9.0% 2.5e3.5
Non-conservative using predicted dc ¼ 6.5% 2.9e4.5
Non-conservative using measured dc ¼ 9.0% 3.3e5.2
Non-conservative using predicted dc ¼ 6.5% 3.9e6.0
Non-conservative 18.6e32.0
Non-conservative 1.1e1.9
Non-conservative 1.0e11.7
[12] O.K. Chopra, W.J. Shack, Mechanical Properties of Thermally Aged Cast
Stainless Steels from Shippingport Reactor Components, U.S.NRC, NUREG/CR-
6275, ANL-94/37, 1995.
[13] P.L. Delliou, S. Saillet, Large EDF Tests on Aged Cast Duplex Stainless Steel
Components e Part I: Reduced Scale Tests, ASME 2015 PVP Conference, 2015.
PVP2015-45960.
[14] S. Kawaguchi, T. Nagasaki, K. Koyama, Prediction Method of Tensile Properties
and Fracture Toughness of Thermally Aged Cast Duplex Stainless Steel Piping,
ASME 2005 PVP Conference, 2005. PVP2005-71528.
[15] N. Ligneau, C. Pages, M. Akamatsu, C. Pokor, V. Calonne-Chatelee, Integrity and
Life Assessment of Cast Duplex Stainless Steel Elbows Used in the Primary
Loops of PWRs, ASME 2009 PVP Conference, 2009. PVP2009-77731.
[16] O.K. Chopra, Estimation of Fracture Toughness of Cast Stainless Steels during
Thermal Aging in LWR Systems, U.S.NRC, NUREG/CR-4513, ANL-15/08, 2016.
[17] C. Faidy, Ageing Management of Cast Stainless Steel Components in French
PWRs, ASME 2012 PVP Conference, 2012. PVP2012-78843.
[18] J.Y. Jeon, Y.J. Kim, J.W. Kim, S.Y. Lee, Effect of thermal ageing of CF8M on multi-
axial ductility and application to fracture toughness prediction, Fatigue Fract.
Eng. Mat. 38 (2015) 1466e1477.
[19] G.G. Youn, H.S. Nam, Y.J. Kim, J.W. Kim, Numerical prediction of thermal aging
and cyclic loading effects on fracture toughness of cast stainless steels CF8A:
experimental and numerical study, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 163 (2019) 105e120.
[20] S. Bonnet, J. Bourgoin, J. Champredonde, D. Guttman, M. Guttman, Relation-
ship between Evolution of mechanical properties of various cast duplex
stainless steels and metallurgical and aging parameters: outline of current
EDF programmes, Mat. Sci. Tech. 6 (1990) 221e229.
[21] Y. Miura, M. Yamamoto, Effect of Aging Temperature on Fracture Toughness of
Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel, ASME 2015 PVP Conference, 2015. PVP2015-
45434.
[22] Y. Miura, T. Sawabe, K. Betsuyaku, T. Arai, Thermal Aging Behavior of Grade
CF3M Austenitic Stainless Steels, ASME 2017 PVP Conference, 2017. PVP2017-
65959.
[23] M.F. Uddin, G.M. Wilkowski, D. Rudland, R.E. Kurth, F.W. Brust, D.J. Shim,
Comparison of Different Thermal Aging Models to Assess Fully Aged Tough-
ness in Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels, ASME 2015 PVP Conference, 2015.
PVP2015-45790.
[24] M.F. Uddin, G.M. Wilkowski, S. Phothana, F.W. Brust, Flaw Evaluation Pro-
cedure for Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Materials Using Thermal Aging
Models, ASME 2017 PVP Conference, 2017. PVP2017-66111.
[25] W.J. Mills, Fracture toughness of type 304 and 316 stainless steels and their
welds, Int. Mater. Rev. 42 (1997) 45e82.
[26] I.J. O’Donnel, H. Huthmann, A.A. Tavasolli, The fracture toughness behaviour of
austenitic steels and weld metal including the effects of thermal ageing and
irradiation, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 65 (1996) 209e220.
[27] O.K. Chopra, Effects of Thermal Aging on Fracture Toughness and Charpy-
Impact Strength of Stainless Steel Pipe Welds, U.S.NRC, NUREG/CR-6428,
ANL/EVS-17/3, 2017.
[28] D.J. Alexander, K.B. Alexander, M.K. Miller, R.K. Nanstad, Y.A. Davidov, The
Effect of Aging at 343oC on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of
Type 308 Stainless Steel Weldments, U.S.NRC, NUREG/CR-6628, ORNL/TM-
13767, 2000.
[29] Y. Miura, T. Arai, Effect of Thermal Aging on Fracture Toughness of Austenitic
Stainless Steel Welds, SMiRT-24, 2017 (Division IX.
[30] JSA, Method of Tensile Test for Metallic Materials, Japanese Standards Asso-
ciation, 2011. JIS Z2241.
[31] JSA, Method of Elevated Temperature Tensile Test for Steels and Heat-
Resisting Alloys, Japanese Standards Association, 2012. JIS G0567.
[32] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2015. ASTM E1820-15.
[33] S.H. Hong, H.M. Kim, B.S. Kong, C.H. Jang, I.H. Shin, J.S. Yang, K.S. Lee, Evalu-
ation of the thermal ageing of austenitic stainless steel welds with 10% of d-
ferrites, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 167 (2018) 32e42.
G.-G. Youn, Y.-J. Kim and Y. Miura
[34] R.A. Jeshvaghani, E. Harati, M. Shamanian, Effects of surface alloying on
microstructure and wear behavior of ductile iron surface-modified with a
nickel-based alloy using shielded metal arc welding, Mater. Des. 32 (2011)
1531e1536.
[35] M.B. Karamış, K. Yıldızlı, Surface modification of nodular cast iron: a
comparative study on graphite Elimination, Mater. Sci. Eng. 527 (2010)
5225e5229.
[36] W. Yu, M. Fan, J. Shi, F. Xue, X. Chen, H. Liu, A comparison between fracture
toughness at different locations of SMAW and GTAW welded joints of primary
coolant piping, Eng. Fract. Mech. 202 (2018) 135e146.
1368
Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (2021) 1357e1368
[37] J.H. Abboud, Microstructure and Erosion characteristic of nodular cast iron
surface modified by tungsten inert gas, Mater. Des. 35 (2012) 677e684.
[38] A. Amirsadeghi, S.M. Heydarzadeh, Comparison of the influence of molybde-
num and chromium TIG surface alloying on the microstructure, hardness and
wear resistance of ADI, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 201 (2008) 673e677.
[39] F.C. Hull, Delta ferrite and martensite formation in stainless steels, Weld. Res.
52 (1973) 193e203.
[40] ASTM, Standard Practice for Steel Casting, Austenitic Alloy, Estimating Ferrite
Content/Thereof, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2015. ASTM A
800/A 800M.