Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 1995–2002 | Cite as

A Comparative Study of Fracture Toughness at Cryogenic Temperature of Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds

  • I. Aviles Santillana
  • C. Boyer
  • P. Fernandez Pison
  • A. Foussat
  • S. A. E. Langeslag
  • A. T. Perez Fontenla
  • E. M. Ruiz Navas
  • S. Sgobba
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

The ITER magnet system is based on the “cable-in-conduit” conductor (CICC) concept, which consists of stainless steel jackets filled with superconducting strands. The jackets provide high strength, limited fatigue crack growth rate and fracture toughness properties to counteract the high stress imposed by, among others, electromagnetic loads at cryogenic temperature. Austenitic nitrogen-strengthened stainless steels have been chosen as base material for the jackets of the central solenoid and the toroidal field system, for which an extensive set of cryogenic mechanical property data are readily available. However, little is published for their welded joints, and their specific performance when considering different combinations of parent and filler metals. Moreover, the impact of post-weld heat treatments that are required for Nb3Sn formation is not extensively treated. Welds are frequently responsible for cracks initiated and propagated by fatigue during service, causing structural failure. It becomes thus essential to select the most suitable combination of parent and filler material and to assess their performance in terms of strength and crack propagation at operation conditions. An extensive test campaign has been conducted at 7 K comparing tungsten inert gas (TIG) welds using two fillers adapted to cryogenic service, EN 1.4453 and JK2LB, applied to two different base metals, AISI 316L and 316LN. A large set of fracture toughness data are presented, and the detrimental effect on fracture toughness of post-weld heat treatments (unavoidable for some of the components) is demonstrated. In this study, austenitic stainless steel TIG welds with various filler metals have undergone a comprehensive fracture mechanics characterization at 7 K. These results are directly exploitable and contribute to the cryogenic fracture mechanics properties database of the ITER magnet system. Additionally, a correlation between the impact in fracture toughness and microstructure resulting from the above treatment is provided.

Keywords

austenitic stainless steel cryogenic fracture toughness secondary phases welding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their thanks to Dr. Arman Nyilas (in memorian) for the contributions made in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    The ITER project, European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sborchia C. et al, Overview of ITER Magnet System and European Contribution, in 2011 IEEE/NPSS, 24th Symposium on Fusion EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Mitchel et al., The ITER Magnets: Design and Construction Status, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2012, 22(3), p 4200809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.S. Pellini, Guidelines for Fracture-Safe and Fatigue-Reliable Design of Steel Structures. Applications of Fracture Mechanics and Structural Integrity Technology, Welding Institute, Cambridge, 1983Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.T. Rolfe and J.M. Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of Fracture Mechanics, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 1977Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boston, 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.R. Rice, A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notched and Cracks, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1968, 35, p 379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Shankar, T.P.S. Gill, S.L. Mannan, and S. Sundaresan, Solidification Cracking in Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds, Sadhana, 2003, 28(3–4), p 359–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.A. Brooks and A.W. Thompson, Microstructural Development and Solidification Cracking Susceptibility of Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds, International Materials Reviews, 1991, 36(1), p 16–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASTM E45-13, Standard Test Methods for Determining the Inclusion Content of Steel.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.P. Walsh, V.J. Toplosky, K. Han, N.N. Martovetsky, T. Mann, and J.R. Miller, Mechanical Properties of Modified JK2LB for Nb 3 Sn CICC Applications, CEC-ICMC, Tucson (Arizona), 2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Nakajima et al., Development of Low Carbon and Boron Added 22Mn–13Cr–9Ni–1Mo–0.24N Steel (JK2LB) for Jacket which Undergoes Nb3Sn Heat Treatment, Trans. Appl. Superconduct., 2004, 14(2), p 1145–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Hamada et al., Optimization of JK2LB Chemical Composition for ITER Central Solenoid Conduit Material, Cryogenics, 2007, 47(3), p 174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 15614-1:2004—Specification and qualification of welding procedures for metallic materials—Welding procedure test—Part 1: Arc and gas welding of steels and arc welding of nickel and nickel alloys.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 6947:2011—Welding and allied processes—Welding positions.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO 4063:2009—Welding and allied processes—Nomenclature of processes and reference numbers.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ASTM E1820:01—Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM E1823—Standard Terminology Relating to Fatigue and Fracture TestingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Iida and A.J. McEvily, Ed., Advanced Materials for Severe Service Applications, Springer, Berlin, 2012Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    X.-K. Zhu and J.A. Joyce, Review of Fracture Toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA) Testing and Standardization, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2012, 85, p 1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Kuimalee et al., Isothermal Phase Transformation Sequence in Fe–22wt%Cr–3.2wt%Mo–6.2wt%Ni–0.037%C Cast Duplex Stainless Steel, Chiang MaiJ. Sci., 2011, 38(1), p 47–55Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y. Song, T.N. Baker, and N.A. McPherson, A Study of Precipitation 316LN Precipitation in As-Welded 316LN Plate Using 316L/317L Weld Metal, Materials Science and Engineering: A, 1996, 212(2), p 228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Y. Zhou, Y. Liu, X. Zhou, C. Liu, J. Yu, Y. Huang et al., Precipitation and Hot Deformation Behavior of Austenitic Heat-Resistant Steels: A Review, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2017, 33, p 1448–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    V.D. Vijayanand, K. Laha, P. Parameswaran, V. Ganesan, and M.D. Mathew, Microstructural Evolution During Creep of 316LN Stainless Steel Multi-pass Weld Joints, Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2014, 607, p 138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Aviles Santillana
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Boyer
    • 3
  • P. Fernandez Pison
    • 1
  • A. Foussat
    • 3
  • S. A. E. Langeslag
    • 1
  • A. T. Perez Fontenla
    • 1
  • E. M. Ruiz Navas
    • 2
  • S. Sgobba
    • 1
  1. 1.CERNGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.University Carlos III of MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.ITER OrganizationSt. Paul lez Durance CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations