HOME

HELP
.=

OAK RIDGE N A T I O N A L LABORATORY

operated b y
-. UNION CARBIDE C O R P O R A T I O N
c-4 f o r the
U. S. A T O M I C E N E R G Y C O M M I S S I O N
ORNL - TM- 2858

TENSILE PROPERTIES O F HASTELLOY N WELDED AFTER IRRADIATION

H. E. McCoy, R. W. Gunkel, and G. M. Slaughter

,-.- "-
.
'.!
. i

NOTICE This document contains information of a preliminary nature

ond was prepared primarily for internal use ot the Oak Ridge Notionol
Laboratory. It i s subiect to revision or correction and therefore does
not represent a final report.

DTSTRIBUTION OF THIS DOClJMENT IS UNLIMITED

 e. , ,
. -

T h i s report was prepared os an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United States,
nor the Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission:
A. Makes ony warronty or representation, expressed or implied, w i t h respect t o the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of the information contained i n t h i s report, or thot the use of
any informotion, apporotus, method, or process disclosed i n t h i s report m a y not infringe
privately owned rights; or
6. Assumes any l i o b i l i t i e s w i t h respect t o the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of
any informotion, apparotun, method, or process disclosed i n t h i s report.
As used i n the above, "person acting on behalf of the Commission" includes any employee or
contractor of the Commission, or employee of such contractor. t o the extent that such employee
or contractor of the Commission, or employee of such contractor prepares, disseminates, or
provides access to, any information pursuant t o h i s employment or contract w i t h the Commission,
or h i s employment w i t h such contractor.
 Contract No. W-740%eng-26

MEZ'ALSANDCERAMICS
DIVISION

TENSILEPROPERTIES
OFHASTELLOYNWELDEDAFTER
IRRADIATION

H. E. McCoy, R. W. Gunkel, and G. M. Slaughter

LEGAL NOTICE -~--. - ,

APRIL 1970
1.
OAKR@GENATIONALLABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
operated by
UNIONCARBIDECCWPORATION
for the
U.S. ATOMICENERGY COMMISSION
,

iii

u , CONTENTS
,5 Page
_- _. Abstract......................'....... 1
i Introduction . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Experimental Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 2
ExperimentalResults. . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Discussion~ofResults . . . . . . . . ...*.. . . . . . . . ..l2
Summary ., . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I@
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . :. . . . l . 20
/--
U
5

F-

.-;.

Y
 hd
TENSILEPROPERTIES
OF HASTELLOY
N WELDED
AFTERIRRADIATION
”

/ H. E. McCoy, R. W. Gunkel, and G. M. Slaughter

5

ABSTRACT

Fusion welds affecting 75%~of the cross section were

made in small tensile samples (0.125 in. in diameter) of
Hastelloy N irradiated to thermal fluences up to
-9.4 X 1020 neutrons/cm2. All of the unirradiated samples
and 67s of the irradiated samples were satisfactorily welded
using a specialized technique developed for this program.
Surface contamination is suspected to be the cause of the
unsuccessful welds in the irradiated samples. The welded
irradiated samples generally had as good tensile properties
at 25 and 650°C as the irradiated base metal. The weld
metal deformed appreciably at 650°C and made a significant
contribution to the overall fracture strain. The fracture
location in the irradiated samples tested at 650°C shifted
from the weld metal to the base metal following the post-
weld anneal of 8 hr at 870°C. The porosity which was
observed near the fusion line of the irradiated samples
.x probably results from transmuted helium bubbles, but this
i did not seem to affect the location of the fracture.
St

INTRODUCTION

The maintenance and repair of nuclear systems will frequently

involve cutting and rewelding pipes and components that have been irra-
diated. The prospect of these repairs raises the obvious questions of
how such welds can be made and what are their mechanical properties.
It is this latter question that will be discussed in the present report.
This report will also deal specifically with molten-salt reactors where
the additional problem exists of removing residual fluoride salt or
corrosion products. However, cleanliness will likely be a paramount
problem in making remote welds in any reactor system.
 2

The alloy studied is Hastelloy N, a nickel-based material developed

specifically for use in molten-salt reactors.' The irradiated material
studied had been exposed to the core of the Molten-Salt Reactor Experi-
.
ment for long periods of time as a surveillance material for the reactor
vessel. The welds made in this study were simple gas tungsten-arc
fusion welds that melted about 754 of the cross-sectional area of a
miniature (0.125 in. in diameter) tensile sample. Thus, the welds were
made with very low heat input and minimal restraint, .and the results
can be used only qualitatively.

EXPERIMENTALDETAIIS

The heats of material involved in this study were air-melted and

the chemical compositions are given in Table 1. These heats were used
in fabricating the MSRE vessel; heat 5065 for the top and bottom heads
and heat 5085 for the cylindrical shell.
Samples of these heats were placed in the various SU~eilhnCe facil-
-i
ities of the MSRE.2-? These samples have the general configuration of a
long rod l/4 in. in diameter with periodic reduced sections 1 l/8 in. long .
and l/8 in. in diameter. After the desired exposure, these rods can be
segmented to obtain small tensile samples. The core surveillance assembly
is located axially about 3.6 in. from the core center line where the ther-
mal flux (< 0.876 Mev) is 4.1 x 1012 neutrons cmw2 sec'l and the fast flux
(> 1.22 Mev) is 1.0 x 1Ol2 neutrons cmw2 set". The environment is a

'W. D.-Manly --et al., "Metallurgical Problems in Molten Fluoride

Systems," pp. 164-17'9 in Progr. Nucl. Energy Ser. IV 1, Pergamon,
Oxford, 1960.
2W. H. Cook, Molten-Salt-Reactor Program Semiann. Progr. Rept.
Aug. 31, 1965, ORNL3872, pp. 87-92.
3H. E. McCoy, An Evaluation of the Molten-Salt Reactor Experi-
ment Hastelloy N Surveillance Specimens - First Group, ORNLTM-1997
(November 1967).
4H. E. McCoy, An Evaluation of the Molten-Salt, Reactor Experi-
ment Hastelloy N Surveillance Specimens - Second Group, O-TM-2359
(February 1969).
 3

Table 1. Chemical Analysis of Surveillance Heats

Content, w-t $
Element
Heat 5065. Heat 5085

Cr 7.2 7.3
Fe 3.9 3.5
MO 16.5 16.7
C 0.065 0.052
Si 0.60 0.58
co 0.08 0.15
W 0.04 0.07
MO 0.55 0.67 -
v 0.22 0.20
P 0.004 o.ooct3
S 0.007 0.004
Al 0.01 0.02
Ti 0.01 < 0.01
CU 0.01 0.01
B bpd 24, 3’7, 38
20, 10
0 0.0016 0.0093
N 0.011 0.013

molten fluoride salt, 65 LiF, 29.1 BeF2, 5 ZrFc, 0.9 UF4 (mole $), at
650°C. There is a control facility &n which the samples are exposed to
static "fuel salt" containing depleted uranium. The temperature follows
that of the MSBE. A second surveillance facility is located outside the
core in a vertical position about 4.5 in. from the vessel. The tempera-
ture is also 65O'C at this location and the thermal flux (< 0.876 Mev)
is 1.0 x 1011 neutrons c.mw2 sec'l and the fast flux (> 1.22 Mev) is
1.6 X 1011 neutrons cmw2 see-l. The environment is nitrogen with 2 to
5% 02, and the Hastelloy N samples have a thin oxide film after exposure.
In order to make fusion welds (no filler metal added) on the irra-
diated tensile specimens, it was necessary to design a special welding
fixture that could be operated remote.ly in a hot cell. We aimed for a
reasonable assurance of good penetration (high percentage of cross sec-
tion of specimen to be weld metal) without specimen distortion.
Figure 1 is a photograph of the welding fixture assembled for use in
the hot cell. As can be seen, the fixture consists of a rigid stand,
motor-driven chuck, specimen support, and a gas tungsten-arc welding
 Fig. 1. Welding Equipment Developed for Making Remote Welds.

torch. The upper support has an internal curved surface that contacts
the fillet radius of the tensile sample and keeps the sample aligned
during welding. The torch was connected to a programmedwelding power
supply located outside the‘hot cell. The welding conditions were
adjusted to obtain penetration of about 754 of the sample cross section.
All samples were abraded with &O-grit emery paper and cleaned
with acetone.before welding. We did the final abrasion on each sample
with a clean piece of emery paper in an effort to minim&contamination.
The tensile tests were run on Instron Universal testing machines.
The strain measurementswere taken from the crosshead travel. The test
environment was air in each case.
 EZPERIMENTALRESULTS

Wewelded 25 unirradiated samples both in the hot cell and in the

laboratory and all welds visually appeared sound. Wewelded I.5 irra-
diated samples; three welds were completely unsatisfactory and two
others were very questionable due to surface cracks. Thus, 67s of the
welded irradiated specimens were found to be sound by visual examina-
tion. The bad welds occurred randomly, and we suspected that cleanli-
ness was our main problem in obtaining sound welds.
The results of tensile tests on base-metal samples are given in
Table 2, and those for the welded samples are given in Table 3. Numer-
ous variables are included, and care must be used in making cmarisons.
The changes in strength are not thought to be significant, and we shall
discuss in somedetail only the changes in the fracture characteristics.
A comparison of Groups 3, 4, and 5 in Table 2 shows that the
fracture strain of the unirradiated base metal decreases with aging at
65O'C. (Corrosion is very slight in the samples and the property
changes are attributed entirely to thermal aging.3,4) The property
changes are greater for heat 5085 than for heat 5065. Groups 1 and 2,
Table 2, show that irradiation reduces the fracture strain with the
magnitude of the change increasing with increasing fluence. The reduc-
tion in fracture strain in tests at 25°C is thought to be due to carbide
precipitation, and samples 7982 and 7976, Group 2, Table 2, lend sup-
port to this hypothesis. The fracture strain at 25°C was only 32.8s in
the as-irradiated condition, but improved to 48.3% after an anneal of
8 hr at 870°C. The reduction in the fracture strain at 650°C due to
irradiation is even more dramatic. We attribute this reduction in
fracture strain to the production of helium in the metal by the
lOB(n,a)'Li transmutation and have found that postirradiation annealing
does not improve the properties at elevated temperatures.5
Comparison of the data for Group 3 in Tables 2 and 3 shows that weld-
ing decreases the fracture strain in the unirradiated condition and that

5MSRProgram Semiann. Progr. Rept. Feb. 28, 1966, ORNL-2936,p. 117.

 _, ..__.

Table 2. Tensile Properties of Base-Metal Samples

.

Heat Sample Test Strain Stress, psi Elongation, $ Reduction

History Number Temperature in Area
Number C~~IJ Yield Ultimate Uniform Total
("d ($1
Group 1
5065 a 7915 25 0.05 51,700 109,300 41.4 41.5 34.1
5065 a 7913 650 0.002 40,400 46;300 3.2 3.4 6.0
5085 a 7888 25 0.05 52,300 95,000 28.7 28.9 20.0
5085 a 7886 650 0.002 35,000 42,400 4.5 5.0 13.1
,Group 2
5065 b 7940 25 0.05 49,000 118,800 57.8 59.7 38.4
5065 b 7947 65Q 0.002 34,100 55,500 12.2 12.5 16.1
5085 b 7976 25 0.05 46,500 99,100 32.8 32.8 24.5
5085 b 7982' 25 0.05 46,700 119,000 48.2 48.3 34.2
5085 b 7965 650 0.002 31,300 49,900 11.1 11.6 18.6
Group 3
5065 d Ii343 25 0.05 64,000 124,600 52.0 55.5 52.1
5065 d 280 650 0.002 46,300 75,400 22.8 24.0 28.1
5085 d 4295 25 0.05 51,500 120,800 52.3 53.1 42.2
5085 d 10,083 650 0.002 32,200 70,600 32.8 34.5 27.5
' Group 4
5085 e FC-3 25 0.05 45,500 111,200 46.8 46.8 31.5
5085 e DC-25 650 0.002 31,500 62,500 22.8 24.3 27.2
Group 5
5065 f 10,215 25. 0.05 60,900 126,700 46.5 47.4 39.3
5065 f 10,216 650 0.002 44,200 73,300 16.0 16.5 16.8

* t c . cI
 Table 2 (continued)

Heat Sample Test Strain Stress, psi Elongation, $ Reduction

Number History Number Temperature Rate in Area
("C) (min-I) Yield ' Ultimate Uniform Total (9
Group 5 (continued)
5085 f 10,-X6 25 0.05 53,900 115,900 38.4 38.6 29.7
5085 f 10,190 650 0.002 37,700 64,700 17.4 18.0 19.7
a osed to fuel salt in the core of the MSREfor 15,289 hr at 650°C to a thermal fluence of
9.4 x 910 O neutrons/cm2.
b
osed.to MSREcell environment of N2-2 to 5% 02 for 20,789 hr at 650°C to a thermal fluence of
216 X E"p
10 9 neutrons/cm2.
'Given a postirradiation anneal of 8 hr at 870°C.
%Jn*irradiated, annealed 2 hr at 900°C.
eUnirradiated, annealed 2 hr at 9OO"C, exposed to static barren "fuel" salt for 4800 hr at 65O'C.
fUnirradiated, annealed 2 hr at 900°C, exposed to static barren "fuel" salt for 15,289 hr at 650°C.
 Table 3. Tensile Properties of Welded Samples
.

Strain Stress, psi Elongation, $ Reduction Location

Heat 'Sample Rate in Area of
Number History Number
(tin-l) Yield Ultimate Uniform Total Failure
(4)

Group 1
5065
5065
7899
7898
b
b
25
650
0.05 56,600
0.002 40,700
92,200
55,200
15.2
7.5
15.4
7.6
16.0
8.6 z
d,e
5085
5085
5085
7872
7870
7871
b
none
b
25
650
650
0.05 52,900
0.002 36,900
0.002 38,000
.105,700
45,400
52,300
33.3
4.4
7.5
33.6
5.4
9.3
25.2
9.5
2.4
he
d
Grow 2
5065 f 7959 b 25 0.05 52,700 55,300 2.5 4.3 19.6 C
5065 f 7957 none 650 0.002 35,400 48,800 6.1 6.8 19.2
5065 f 7958 b 650 0.002 32,700 55,100 10.9 11.3 10.8 :
5085 f 7992 none 25 0.05 48,600 104,200 40.2 40.4 33.2 d
5085 f 7990 b 25 0.05 47,300 112,800 40.5 40.8 26.8 d,e
5085 f 7994 none 650 12.9 13.1 C
5085 f 7991 b 650 0.002 33,100
32,700 55,700
62,300 ii:"2 18.6 13.9 d
Group 3
5065 % 4l58 b 25 0.05 63,700 138,700 43.2 43.4 30.3 C
5065 Q 4155 none 650 0.002 37,500 59,300 9.7 10.4 15.6 C
5065 I3 4162 b 650 0.002 43,200 80,300 19.5 20.1 16.0 c .
5085 g 10,086 b 25 0.05 49,800 105,900 29.9 30.0 15.7 C
5085 g 10,085 none 650 0.002 35,400 61,500 12.7 13.7 10.7 C
5085 63 10,087 b 650 0.002 30,400 70,600 33.3 34.5 18.0 C

c:‘i* . I, , v . c;
 Table 3 (continued)

Post- Test Strain Stress, psi

Heat Temper- Elongation, $ Reduction Location
weld
Number History izb$
Anneal ature
Rate
(mjn-l)
Yield Ultimate Uniform Total in Area of
Failure
PC> (78

Group 4
5085 h 10,082 none 25 0.05 53,200 121,600 57.0 60.8 18.1 d
5085 h 10,081 none 650 0.002 29,400 56,100 14.5 15.5 14.0 C

Group 5 ',
5085 i 9010 none' 650 0.002 33,700 55,700 10.1 10.7 12.8 C

a osed to fuel salt in core of MSREfor 15,289 hr at 650°C to a thermal fluence of

9.4 x 910 O neutrons/cm2; welded in cell.
bEight hours at 870°C.
Cweld metal.
dBase metal.
eExceptions to the general fracture trend.
E osed to MSREcell environment of Nz-2 to 5s 02 for 20,789 hr at 650°C to a thermal fluence of
2.6 Xf"P
10 9 neutrons/cm2 ; welded in cell.
gUnirradiated, welded outside cell.
h
Unirradiated, welded in cell.
i Exposed to static barren "fuel" salt for 4800 hr at 650°C; welded in cell.
 10

the fractures were located in the weld metal for the conditions investi-
gated. Group 4, Table 3, involves unirradiated samples welded in the
hot cell. Sample 10,081 is a duplicate. of 10,085 prepared outside the
hot cell and attests to the reproducibility of the welding technique.
Sample10,082 was not given a postweld anneal before testing at 25°C
as was sample 10,086 and the location of fracture changed from the weld
metalto the base metal. Sample9010, Group 5, Table 3, had been
exposed to fluoride salt for 4800 hr at 65O"C, and its good properties
show that no basic problem prevents welding componentsthat have been
exposed to salts.
The samples in Groups 1 and 2, Table 3, were welded after irradia-
tion. These samples generally have lower fracture strains than their
unirradiated counterparts shok in Groups 3, 4, and 5, Table 3. The
fracture strains for heat 5085 tested at 25°C are an exception, since
they are about equal for unirradiated and irradiated welds. The frac-
ture strains for samples from heat 5065 which were irradiated, welded,
and tested at 25°C are quite low (samples 7899 and 7959, Groups 1 and .
2, Table 3).
A comparison of the properties of the irradiated base metal, .
Groups 1 and 2, Table 2, with those of the samples irradiated and
welded, Groups 1 and 2, Table 3, shows that the welds generally have as
high a fracture strain as did irradiated base metal. The poor proper-
ties of heat 5065 at 25°C after welding are again an exception to this
generalization. The fracture strain of samples irradiated, welded,
annealed 8 hr at 870°C, and tested at 650°C is higher than for the
comparable irradiated base metal sample. Note that the fracture loca-
tion in the irradiated ssmple shifts from the weld metalto the base
metal following the postweld anneal of 8 hr at 87OOC. This is in con-
trast to the unirradiated welds where fracture occurred in the weld
metal of both as-welded and postweld annealed samples.
Several of the samples were examined metallographically. The frac-
t
ture of an unirradiated welded sample is shown in Fig. 2. This sample
was tested at 25°C without postweld annealing, and fracture occurred in
the base metal. The weld area has a larger diameter, indicating that
 Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of Sample 10,082. Heat 5085, Unirradiated,
welded in the hot cell and tested at 25°C. Fracture occurred in the base
metal. (a) As polished. (b) Etchant: glyceria regia. 35X.
 I.2

it is stronger than the base metal under these test conditions. The
fracture of an unirradiated weld sample is shown in Fig. 3. The frac-
ture is across the weld zone and the base metal fracture has both trans-
and intergranular sections. There is also some porosity in the weld
metal. The fracture of an unirradiated welded sample tested at 650°C
is shown in Fig. 4. This sample had been exposed to molten salt for
4800 hr at 65O"C, and the weld looks very sound with only a little
porosity. The intercellular cracks.in the weld metal indicate that the
weld metal did deform.
The fracture of an irradiated sample that fractured as it was .
removed from the welding fixture is shown in Fig. 5. There is some
porosity near the fusion line and some within the weld metal. The
microstructure of another sample that was welded after irradiation is
shown in Fig. 6. This sample was tested at 65O“C, and the fracture was
intergranular and located in the base metal. Again, .there is a large
amount of porosity near the fusion line and in the weld metal. Much
of the porosity near the fusion line is associated with the carbide
stringers that are present. Because of the similar chemical behavior
of carbon and boron, it is quite reasonable to suspect that these
stringers of carbides-would also be enriched in boron. Transmission
electron microscopy of this material shows that helium bubbles are
present in this material (Fig. 7), and the heating may allow enough
diffusion to occur near the fusion line for the bubbles to agglomerate.

DISCUSSION OF HESULTS

These tests have shown that the fracture strain of Hastelloy N in

tensile tests at 25 and 650°C decreases with long exposure at 65O“C.
Neutron irradiation causes.an even more dramatic decrease in the frac-
ture strain. We fused about 75% of the cross section of both unirra-
diated and irradiated samples. Welding alone caused rather large
decreases in the fracture strain of unirradiated samples. These sam- z

ples responded much as we had noted earlier

6H. E. McCoy and D. A. Canonico, "Preirradiation

in another study6 involving

and Postirradiation
Mechanical Properties of Hastelloy N Welds," Welding J. (N.Y.) g(5),
/-.
tia
203-s-211-s (my 1969).
i

f Fig. 3. Photckicrograph of Sample 10,081. Heat 5085, Unirradiated,

Welded in Hot Cell, Tested at 65OOC. Fracture occurred in the weld metal.
c-j (a) As polished. (b) Etchant: glyceria regia. 35X.
 5

Fig. 4. Photomicrograph of Sample 9010. Heat 5085, exposed td static

barren "fuel" salt for 4800 hr at 650°C, welded in hot cell, tested at
650°C. Fracture occurred in the weld metal. (a) As polished.
(b) Etchant: glyceria regia. 35x.
 Fig. 5. Photomicrographs of Sample7897. Heat 5065, irradiated fo
15,289 hr in fuel salt in the MSREat 650°C. Thermal fluence was
9.4 X 1020 neutrons/cm2, welded in hot cell, and broke while removing
from weld fixture. (a) As polished, (b) etchant: aqua regia. 35X.
 16

Fig. 6. Photomicrographs of Sample7870. Heat 5085, irradiated for

15,289 hr in fuel salt in the MSREat 650°C to a thermal fluence'of
9.4 X 10" neutrons/cm2, welded in a hot‘cell, and tested at 650°C.
Fracture occurred in the base metal. (a) As ,polished, (b) etchant:
aqua regia. k35X.
 Fig. 7. Transmission Electron Micrograph of Hastelloy N (Heat 5085)
Irradiated in the MSHEto a Thermal Fluence of 9.4 X lo*' neutrons/cm*
at 650°C. 25,000x.

welds in large plates of Hastelloy N. Someof the irradiated samples

were welded and these were found to have fracture strains at least as
high as those observed for the irradiated base metal. (Heat 5065 tested
at 25°C is an exception and its ductility was very low after welding.)
Our previous work had involved some samples that were welded and then
irradiated.7 Most of our sqles that were welded after irradiation
had higher fracture strains at 650°C than the samples in our previous
study that were welded before irradiation. This is probably due to the
drastic redistribution, of helium that occurs when the metal is fused.
Most of the helium should be lost from the weld metal, and this exhibits

7H. E. McCoyand D. A. Canonico, "Preirradiation and Postirradiation

Mechanical Properties of Hastelloy N Welds," Welding J. (N.Y.) g(5),
203-s-211-s (May 1969).
more ductility at high temperatures than the irradiated base metal
where the helium is thought to be associated with grain boundaries.
Thus, the weld metal will strain and make a significant contribution
to the total strain.
A rather consistent pattern evolves for the location of the frac-
ture in welded samples. In both irradiated and unirradiated samples
tested at 25"C, the fracture occurs in the base metal,in as-welded
samples and shifts to the weld metal after a postweld heat treatment
.of 8 hr at 870"~. The weld metal in the as-deposited form is stronger
at 25°C (Fig. 2) and does not deform as much as the base metal. After
annealing, the weld metal softens and fracture occurs in the weld metal.
This observation does not indicate anything about the relative ductili-
ties of the weld and.base metals, since the sample geometry allows the
weaker material to deform without any deformation occurring in the
stronger material. Thus, the as-deposited weld metal is strong at 25OC,'
but may be extremely brittle. At 650°C unirradiated welded samples
failed in the weld metal in the as-welded and heat-treated conditions.
The irradiated samples failed in the weld metal when tested in the as-
welded condition and the fracture shifted to the base metal after
annealing for 8 hr at 87O'C. Metallographic studies indicate that the
weld metal and the base metal both deform when tested at 650°C. Thus,
the location of the fracture is likely governed by crack propagation.
Cracks can propagate in unirradiated welds more easily in the weld
metal than in the base metal and fracture occurs in the weld metal.
Cracks seem to propagate very'easily through irradiated base metal and
the postweld annealed weld metal has better resistance to crack propaga-
tion. Thus, irradiated welded samples fail in the weld metal in the as-
welded condition and in the base metal after annealing.
Two metallographic features in the irradiated welds deserve some
comment; the porosity in the weld metal and the porosity near the fusion
line (Figs. 5 and 6). The voids in the weld metal are thought to be
related to superficial surface films on the samples before welding or
are characteristics of the particular heats of material involved.
 19

The porosity near the fusion lines is associated preferentially

with the carbide stringers. Wehave noted that these stringers are
high in silicon,8 and that melting starts in these areas when the alloy
is heated to about l4OO"C (ref. 9). Thus, the supposition that these
void areas result.f!rom localized melting would seemreasonable were it
not for the observation that unirradiated welded samples do not contain
this porosity (Figs. 2, 3, and 4). The possibility that they are large
agglomerates of helium that form during welding must at least be con-
sidered. A shell of material 0.037 cm (- 0.015 in.) thick around the
fusion zone would contain about 0.2 cm3 of transmuted helium at
atmospheric pressure and 1400°C. If this helium were distributed as
small bubbles 0.005 cm.(-.0.002 in.) in diameter, there would be about
2 X lo6 bubbles present in this small volume. Thus, it seems likely
that the porosity near the fusion line is actually helium bubbles.
There is no evidence that either type of porosity influenced the loca-
tion of the fracture.

-
SuMEilARY
i:
Cur studies have shown that fusion welds can be made in irradiated
Hastelloy N after exposure to fluoride salts. The rather meager statis-
tics indicate that acceptable welds are not obtained as frequently
in the irradiated material as in the unirradiated samples.
Samples that had been irradiated and welded were found generally
to have as good tensile fracture strain at 25 and 650°C as the base
metal. Welded samples that were given a postweld anneal of 8 hr at
870°C were even more ductile than the irradiated base metal. At 25°C .
both unirradiated and irradiated welds failed in the base metal in the
as-welded condition and in the weld metal after annealing 8 hr at 87O'C.

'R. E. Gehlbach and H. E. McCoy, Jr., "Phase Instability in

Hastelloy N," pp& 346-366 in International Symposiumon Structural
Stability in Superalloys, Seven Springs, Pennsylvania, September 4.4,
1968, Vol. II. Available from Dr. John Radavich, AIMS High-Temperature
Y Alloys Connnittee, Micromet Laboratories, West Lafayette, Indiana.

u 9H. E. McCoy,'Influence of Several Metallurgical Variables on the

Tensile Properties of Hastelloy N, ORNL-3661(August 1964).
 20

At a test temperature of 65O”C, the unirradiated welds failed in the

weld metal in the as-welded and heat-treated condition. The samples
irradiated and welded failed in the weld metal in the as-welded condi-
tion and in the base metal after annealing.
The weld metal in all samples contained minor porosity that likely
reflects the welding,characteristics of this alloy under the welding
parameters that we used. The irradiated samples had a large amount of
porosity associated with the carbide stringers near the fusion line.
We feel that this porosity resulted from the agglomeration of small
transmutation-produced helium bubbles during the welding'.
The data are not sufficient to draw a meaningful conclusion about
the weldability of irradiated reactor components of Hastelloy N; the
samples were too small, the heat input too low, and the degree of
restraint too low. The observation that the fused weld metal will
deform readily at 650°C is encouraging since this indicates that the
weld metal might deform small amounts to relieve stresses between rela-
tively large and brittle components or pipe segments. The observed
porosity near the fusion line means that this area will be weakened.
Welds in large sections will be required to determine whether the com-
posite joint of weld metal and fusion zone has acceptable properties.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to technicians T. E. Scott for making the

welds and to B. C. Williams for running the tensile tests. The metal-
lographic work was done by E. Lee and S. E. Spencer. The transmission
electron microscopy was done by R. 'E.. Gehlbach. We are also grateful
to J. R. Weir for his interest in this work and for reviewing the
manuscript. The manuscipt was prepared by the Metals and Ceramics
Division Reports.Office.
 21

u o-TM-2858

INTERNALDISTRIBUTION
9
1-3. Central Research Library 67. W. L. Carter
4-5. ORNL Y-l2 Technical Library 68. G. I. Cathers
Document Reference Section 69. J. E. Caton
6-25. Laboratory Records 70. 0. B. Cavin
26. Laboratory Records, ORAL RC 71. J. M. Chandler
27. ORNL Patent Office. 72. C. J. Claffey
28. R. K. Adams 73. F. H. Clark
29. G. M. Adamson, Jr. 74. H. D. Cochran
30. R: G. Affel 75. Nancy Cole
31. J. L. Anderson C. W..Collins
32. R. F. Apple R E. L. Compere
33. W. E. Atkinson 78. K. V. Cook
34. C. F. Baes 79. W. H. Cook
35. J. M. Baker 80. J. W. Cooke
36. S. J. Ball 81. L. T. Corbin
'37. C. E. Bamberger 82. B. Cox
38. C. J. Barton 83. J. L. Crowley
39. H. F. Bauman 84. F. L. Culler
40. M. S. Bautista 85. D. R. Cuneo
4i. S. E. Beall 86. J. E. Cunningham
4
42. M. J. Bell 87. J. M. Dale
43. M. Bender 88. D. G. Davis
‘t
44. C. E. Bettis 89. R. J. DeBakker
45. E. S. Bettis 90. J. H. DeVan
D. S. Billington 91. J. R. DiStefano
i;: R. E. Blanc0 92. S. J. Ditto
48. F. F. Blankenship 93. F. A. Doss
49. J. 0. Blomeke 94. A. S. Dworkin
50. E..E. Bloom 95. W. P. Eatherly
51. R. Blumberg J. R. Engel
52. E. G. Bohlmann ;;: E. P. Epler
53. B. S. Borie 98. 3. I. Federer
54. C. J. Borkowski 99. D. E. Ferguson
55. H. I, Bowers 100. L. M. Ferris
56. C. M. Boyd 101. A. P. Fraas
57. G. E. Boyd 102. J. K. Franzreb
58. J. Braunstein 103. H. A. Friedman
59. M. A. Bredig 104. D. N. Fry
60. R. B. Briggs 105. J. H Frye, Jr.
61. H. R. Bronstein 106. L. C. Fuller
62. G. D. Brunton 107. W. K. Furlong
63. 0. W. Burke 108. C. H. Gabbard .
&4. S. Cantor 109. R. B. Gallaher
65. D. W. Cardwell 110. R. E. Gehlbach
66. J. H. Carswell, Jr. 111. J. H. Gibbons
 22

112.
ll3.
L. 0. Gilpatrick
G. Goldberg
165. M. S. Lin G
166. R. B. Lindauer
ll4. W. R. Grimes t
167. E. L. Long, Jr.
115. A. G. Grindell 168. A. L. Lotts
116. R. H. Gqymon 169. M. I. Lundin Q
117. J. P. Hammond 170. R. N. Lyon
118. R. L. Hamner 171. R. K. Macklin
119. T. H. Handley 172. H. G. MacPherson
120. B. A..Hannaford 173. R. E. MacPherson
121. P. H. Harley 174.. J.,C. Mailen
122. D. G. Harman 175. D. L. Manning
123. W. 0. Harms 176. C. D. Martin
l-24. C. S. Harrill ', 177. W. R. Martin
125. P. N. Haubenreich 178. R. W. McClung
126. F. K. Heacker 179-I-83. H. E. McCoy.
127. R. E. Helms l84. D. L. McElroy
128. P. G. Herndon 185. C. K. McGlothlan :
129. D. N. Hess X36. C. J. McHargue
130. J. R. Hightower X37. H. A. McLain
131-133. M. R. Hill 188. B. McNabb
wt. E. C. Hise 189. L. E. McNeese
135. B. F. Hitch 190. J. R. McWherter
136. H. W. Hoffman 191. H. J. Metz
137. D. K. Holmes 192. A. S. Meyer
138. P. P. Holz 193. R. L. Moore
139. R. W. Horton 194. C. A. Mossman
140. A. Houtzeel 195. D. M. Moulton
141. T. L. Hudson 196. T. R. Mueller
lA2. W. R. Huntley 197. M. L. Myers
143. H. Inouye 198. H. H. Nichol
l.44. W. H. Jordan 199. J. P. Nichols
145. P. R. Kasten 200. E. L. Nicholson
146. R. J. Kedl 201. T. S. Noggle
147. C. W. Kee 202. L. C. Oakes
l&3. M. T. Kelley 203. S. M. Ohr
149. M. J. Kelly 204. P. Patriarca
J-50. C. R. Kennedy 205. A. M. Perry
151. T. W. Kerlin 206. T. W. Pickel
152. H. T. Kerr 207. H. B. Piper
153. J. J. Keyes 208. C. B. Pollock
154. R. T. King 209. B. E. Prince
155. S. S. Kirslis 210. G. L. Rsgan
156. L. R. Koffman 2ll. J. L. Redford
157. J. W. Koger 212. J. D. Redman
158. H. W. Kohn 213. D. M. Richardson
159. R. B. Korsmeyer 214. M. Richardson
160. A. I. Krakoviak 215. G. D. Robbins I
161. T. S. Kress‘ 216. R. C. Robertson .
162. J. W. Krewson 217. K. A. Romberger
163. C. E. Lamb 2l.8. M. W. Rosenthal
164. J. A. Lane 219. R. G. Ross
 23

220. J. Roth 250. W. Terry

221. J. P. Sanders 251. R. E. Thoma
222. H. C. Savage 252. P. F. Thomason
223. W. F. Schaffer 253. L. M: Toth
224. C. E. Schilling 254: A. L. Travaglini
225. Dunlap Scott 255. D. B. Trauger
226. J. L. Scott 256. Chia-Pa0 Tung
227. H. E. Seagren 257. W. E. Unger
228. C. E. Sessions 258. G. M. Watson
229. J. H. Shaffer 259. J. S. Watson
230. W. H. Sides 260. H. L. Watts
231-235. G. M. Slaughter 261. C. F. Weaver
236. A. N. Smith 262, B. H. Webster
237. F. J. Smith 263. A. M. Weinberg
238. G. P. Smith 264. J. R. Weir
239. 0. L. Smith 265. K. W. West
240. P. G. Smith 266. H. L. Whaley
241. I. Spiewak 267. M. E. Whatley
242. R. C. Steffy- 268. J. C. White
243. H. H. Stone 269. R. P. Wichner
244. R. A. Strehlow 270. L. V. Wilson
245. R. D. Stulting 271. Gale Young
246. D. A. Sundberg 272. H. C. Young
247. R. W. Swindeman 273. J. P. Young
248. J. R. Tallackson 274. E. L. Youngblood'
249. E. H. Taylor 275. F. C. Zapp

EXTERNAL
DISTRIBUTION

276. G. G. Allaria, Atomics International

277. J. G. Asquith, Atomics International
278. D. F. Cope, RDT, SSR, AEC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
279. C. B. Deering, AF,C, OSR, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
280. A. R.- DeGrazia, AEC, Washington
281. H. M. Die&amp, Atomics International
282. David Elias, AEC, Washington
283. J. E. Fox, AEC, Washington
284. A. Giambusso, AEC!,Washington
285. F. D. Haines, AEC; Washington
286. C. E. Johnson, AEC, Washington
287. W. L. Kitterman, AEC, Washington
288. W. J. Larkin, AEC, Oak Ridge Operations
289. Kermit Laughon, AEC, OSR, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
290. A. B. Martin, Atomics International
291. D. G. Mason, Atomics International
292. C. L. Matthews, AEC, OSR, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
293294. T. W. McIntosh, AEC, Washington
295. F. W. Meyers, Atomics International
296. D. E. Reardon, AEC, CanogaPark Area Office
297. D. R. Riley, AEC, Washington
 24
-
298. H. M. Roth, AEC, Oak Ridge Operations Ld
299. T. G. Schleiter, AEC, Washington
300. M.,Shaw, AEC, Washington f
301. J. M. Simmons, AEC, Washington .-
302. W. L. Smalley, AEC, Washington 0
303. S. R. Stamp, AEC, Canoga Park Area Office
304. E. E. Stansbury, the University of Tennessee
305. D. K. Stevens,' AEC, Washington
306. R. F. Sweek, AJ3C, Washington
307. A. Taboada, ABC, Washington
308. M. J. Whitman, AEC, Washington
309. R. F. Wilson, Atomics International
310. Laboratory and University Division, AEZ, Oak Ridge OperatSons
311-325. Division of Technical Information Extension