NASA Technical Memorandum 107271

Tensile Properties of Weldments

in Alloy GTD 222

Robert V. Miner

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio

and

Lawrence M. Huse

NYMA, Inc.

Brook Park, Ohio

August 1996

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
Trade names or manufacturers' names are used in this report for identification

only. This usage does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed

or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
TENSILE PROPERTIES OF WELDMENTS IN ALLOY GTD 222

Robert V. Miner

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

and

Lawrence M. Huse

NYMA, Inc.

Brook Park, Ohio 44142

SUMMARY

Alloy GTD 222 is a candidate for gas turbine engine cases having higher temperature capability than Alloy 718.

In this work, simple butt welds were made in GTD 222 with two different grain sizes, and between GTD 222 and

Alloy 718. Electron beam (EB) and gas tungsten arc (GTA) welds of GTD 222 to itself, and EB welds to Alloy 718,

all reached at least the full 1200 °F 0.2 percent YS of coarse grain GTD 222, if at least a post-weld age was applied.

GTA welds also achieved the 1200 °F UTS of the coarse grain GTD 222, if a post-weld age, or solution and age,

was applied. However, defects in the EB welds limited the ductility and UTS of many specimens. A post-weld solution plus age provided a small improvement in ductility compared to an age alone. GTA welds with Nimonic 263

filler showed a reduction in tensile strength relative to welds with GTD 222 filler for all heat treatment conditions.

INTRODUCTION

The NASA Advanced Subsonics Technology program seeks to aid U.S. manufacturers of engines for commercial aircraft to extend their dominance of the world market into the next century. Engine cycle analysis studies have

identified compressors with higher overall pressure ratios in the compressor, about 50:1, as one of the highest payoff

technologies. Higher pressure ratios increase the compressor exit gas temperature and thus the temperatures of the

components at the back of the compressor: blades, vanes, disks, cases, and seals. This report presents work done at

the NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) in cooperation with General Electric Aircraft Engine Group, Evandale,

Ohio to develop an alloy for compressors with a 100 °F higher temperature capability over Inconel 718. The candidate alloy GTD 222, which was originally developed by G.E. Power Generation as a cast alloy, is a derivative of

Alloy 939 with improved creep capability and thermal stability but reduced tensile strength relative to Alloy 718. It

was introduced in cast nozzles for land based gas turbines. More recently G.E. Aircraft Engine Group, Evandale has

developed the alloy in wrought form for some static structural parts.

NASA LeRC undertook as part of this development program to make and characterize welds in GTD 222, and

between GTD 222 and Alloy 718. For most efficient design and manufacture of large compressor cases, it is desirable to be able join smaller case segments without mechanical fasteners, rather than develop the capability to make

large single piece case forgings. Also, it is desirable to be able to weld to other alloys which might be used in selected areas of the case. For instance, Alloy 718 might continue to be used for the lower temperature areas of the case.

Electron beam (EB) and gas tungsten arc (GTA) welds were produced joining wrought GTD 222 to itself and to

Inconel 718. Two forms of GTD 222 were investigated having grain sizes of ASTM 9-10 and 2-3. The current production process yields an intermediate grain size about ASTM 4. Also, two different filler metals were evaluated in

the GTA welding, GTD 222 and Nimonic 263. Nimonic 263 is a similar alloy with somewhat lower strength, but it

is widely used and should be available at lower cost. Finally, different weld and post-weld heat treatment sequences

were also evaluated for each material/weld type.
MATERIALS AND PROCEDURES

Materials

Alloy GTD 222 was supplied by G.E. as diverse small pieces from two different vendors, in three different

forms, and given three different solution heat treatments. These will be described in some detail for completeness,

however it will be seen that the weld strengths do not appear to reflect the diversity of material except for grain size,

and only two grain sizes were represented, ASTM 9-l 0 and 2-3.

The two GTD 222 vendors were Teledyne Alvac and Carlton Forge Works/Special Metals. Teledyne Alvac

supplied rolled bar with two different cross sections, L-shaped about 1.4 in. high, 0.9 in. along the base, and 0.4 in.

thick, and "hat"-shaped which were essentially rectangular, 0.5 by 1.2 in. Carlton Forge supplied a rolled ring about

1.5 in. wide radially and 0.9 in. thick. Rolling procedures were not divulged.

All the materials were solution treated before welding. The Teledyne Alvac GTD 222 was solution treated at

either 1800 or 2200 °F for 1 hr, yielding ASTM grain sizes of 9-10 or 2-3, respectively. The Carlton Forge material

was solution treated at either 2100 or 2200 °F for 1 hr, but both temperatures yielded an ASTM 2-3 grain size. The

particular GTD 222 used for each weld sequence is summarized in table I.

The Alloy 718 used in this study was 1.0 in. thick plate found in stock at NASA LeRC, and is of unknown origin. It was solution treated at 1700 °F for 1 hr before welding. The grain size was ASTM 4.

For each material/weld type, it was desired to evaluate three different weld/heat treatment sequences in duplicate tests using pieces from a single weld were possible. To accomplish this with the GTD 222 available, it was necessary to use a miniature 1.5 in. long tensile specimen. However, this still did not allow pieces to be cut such that the

weld plane would be the same with respect to the rolling direction for all three GTD product forms. The material

direction perpendicular to the weld planes are indicated in Table I.

Material/Weld/Heat Treatment Variations

Table I indicates the material/weld/heat treatment variations studied. Both EB and GTA welds were made in

GTD 222 of the two different grain sizes, also EB welds were made of the coarse grain GTD 222 to Alloy 718. GTA

welds in the coarse grain GTD 222 were made with both GTD 222 and Nimonic 263 fillers. For each material/weld

type, three weld/heat treatment sequences were evaluated. Again, all materials had first been solution treated. The

first two EB weld/heat treatment sequences represent possible production sequences, and the third was simply to

show the as-welded properties. The first GTA weld/heat treatment sequence is the normal production sequence. The

second two represent possible repair weld sequences applied to a part already solution treated and aged.

For the welds of GTD 222 to itself, the solution and aging treatments used were 2100 °F for 1 hr and 1475 °F

for 8 hr, respectively. For the welds of GTD 222 to Alloy 718, the solution and two step aging treatments used were

1700 °F for 1 hr and 1325 °F for 8 hr plus 1150 °F for 8 hr, respectively. All heat treatments were performed in

vacuum and the initial cooling rate from the solution treatment was about 50 °F/min.

Electron Beam Welds

Since any weld defects are typically concentrated in the start and stop locations, extra material to be cut away

and discarded after welding was tacked onto the butted pieces at both ends of the joint. These were small rectangular

blocks cut from scrap GTD 222 having the same thickness as the pieces to be welded. A weld pass was made, then

the specimen was then turned with the other side up, and a second weld pass was made. The beam penetration was

nearly the full 0.4 in. thickness of the joint. The electron beam current was 14 ma, the accelerating voltage was

111 kV, and the specimen travel speed was 10 in./min.

Gas Tungsten Arc Welds

As shown in table I, the GTA weld of the fine grain GTD 222 had a "double vee" geometry, while those of the

coarse grain GTD 222 had a "single vee" geometry. Figure 1 shows the GTA welds schematically with the
individualweldpassesnumbered. Forbothweldgeometriesthepieceswerefirsttackweldedtogetherattheends.

Therootopeningspacebetweenthe1/16in.highrootfaceswasabout1/32in.Forthe"doublevee"welds,thepiece

wasturnedoverafterdepositingthefirstweldpass,andthejointareawasgroundtoremoveanyunsoundmaterial.

Thesecondpasswasdepositedfromthatside.Onthe"singlevee"weldsthefinalpasswasperformedinthesame

manner.

TheGTAweldsweredonemanually. Nopre-orpost-weldheatingwasused.Theweldelectrodewas2percent

thoriatedtungstenwitha1/16in.diameter anda30° angleonthetip.ThepolaritywasstraightDC.Theargongas

coverhadaflowrateofabout25ft3/hr.The GTD 222 and Nimonic 263 weld wires had diameters about 0.042 and

0.063 in., respectively.

The welded specimens were inspected radiographically. A few areas were identified which were avoided in

cutting tensile specimens. The pieces were then sectioned into thirds for separate heat treatment. The pieces were

macroetched and visually inspected before machining, also to avoid any unsound areas in the tensile specimens. It

was apparent that in the EB welds of both the coarse grain GTD 222 to itself and to Alloy 718, part of the joint near

one surface was not fused. The tensile specimens were placed as far as possible to the other side, but it will be seen

that the unfused area was not successfully avoided in all specimens.

Mechanical Testing

Duplicate 1200 °F tensile tests were performed for each material/weld type/heat treatment sequence. The gage

length of the test specimen was about 0.113 in. in diameter and 0.56 in. long. The welds were well centered in the

gage length. The EB welds were about 0.05 in. wide. However, the GTA welds were much wider, about 0.25 to

0.30 in., and constituted a major portion of the gage length. The widths of the "single vee" welds tended to be

slightly bigger than those for the "double vee" welds. Figure 1 shows schematically the difference in the width of

the welds in the center of the specimens.

Duplicate 1200 °F tensile tests were also performed on the base materials, except for the fine grain GTD 222.

Insufficient material remained beyond that required for the welded specimens.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Base Alloys

Results of the 1200 °F tensile tests for the base alloys, EB welds, and GTA welds are presented in Tables II to

IV, respectively. It may be seen in table II that at 1200 °F the large grain GTD 222 has lower 0.2 percent YS but

higher ductility than the Alloy 718. Yet, the base Alloy 718 used in this study has lower than typical strength and

ductility. More typical values of 0.2 percent YS, UTS, and E! for Alloy 718 would be ! 40 and 160 ksi, and

20 percent.

Electron Beam Welds

Table III shows the EB weld test results. In addition to the basic tensile properties, ratios to the properties for

the large grain GTD 222 base alloy are shown for 0.2 percent YS and RA. It is not meaningful to compare elongation, in particular, with the base alloy, since deformation was observed to be very concentrated in the welds. The EB

welds were only about 0.05 in. wide, about 10 percent of the gage length of the tensile specimens. Thus, elongation

as a percentage of the total gage length is not largely a property of the weld. Because of the surrounding constraint,

RA and UTS in the weld are also expected to be less than would be measured in a test volume with normal length/

diameter ratio.

Consider first 0.2 percent YS for the self similar EB welded specimens. The values for all reached that measured for

coarse grain GTD 222, about 102 ksi, if a post-weld age, or solution and age, was applied. All failures occurred in the

welds or at the weld/heat affected zone (HAZ) interface. The welded specimens with the highest yield strength were

those from the fine grain GTD 222 given only a post-weld age. Welded specimens from both the fine and coarse grain

GTD 222 given a post-weld solution treatment and age were weaker, probably because the cooling rate from the solution
treatment intheheattreatment furnaceisconsiderably sowerthanthatwhichoccursduringtheweldingprocessitself.

Theweldedspecimens fromthecoarsegrainGTD222withonlyapost-weldagewerealsoweaker, butinthiscasethere

wereflawsinthewelds.Twocontainedcracksandonewasasimplefailuretohitthejointwiththeelectronbeam.One

valueof0.2percent YSforaweldspecimenfromthefinegrainGTD222givennopost-weldheattreatment was

115ksi,whilethesecondwasonly91ksi.Thisappearsrelatedtoaweldfeaturewewillcall"spikes"tobediscussed

shortly.However, thoughnodefectswereobservedonthecoarsegrainGTDweldedspecimens whichalsoreceivedno

post-weldage,theirstrengthswerethelowest,about78ksi.

Whilethe0.2percent YSwasgood,ingeneral, manyoftheGTDselfsimilarEBweldedspecimens didnotdisplay

thefullUTSorRAofthebasecoarsegrainGTD222becauseofvariouswelddefects. Bluedpatchesontheotherwise

goldfracturesurfaceswereassumedtobepreexistingcracks.Crackswerefoundexclusivelyinweldsoflargegrain

GTD222toitselforto718.Incontrast, theweldedspecimens fromthefinegrainGTD222exhibitedthepreviously

mentioned"spikes"onthefracturesurfaces. Thoughthe0.2percent YSoftheseweldedspecimens isgenerallyhigh,the

UTSandductility appear to decrease in proportion to the fraction of"spikes" on the fracture surface.

Figure 2 shows the fracture surface of one of the fine grain GTD 222 welded specimens. The "spikes" seen

there can also be seen in transverse and longitudinal cross sections in figure 3. At the bottom of the electron beam

"spike" on the pass from the second side, the liquid/solid interface is left decorated with a second phase and sometimes shrinkage voids. The decorated rings in the transverse section of an untested weld scrap shown in figure 3(b)

indicate that the mechanical drive for the workpiece in this particular EB welding machine was not continuous, but

rather stuck and skipped leaving a trail of overlapping circles. Voids at the bottom of EB weld "spikes" as shown in

figure 3(c) are not unusual, but voids extending up the "spike" circumference were previously unknown to the

authors. "Spikes" were observed in polished sections of the other EB welds, but were not related to failure as in the

welds of the fine grain GTD 222. The weld shown in figure 3(b) is in the coarse grain GTD 222. Why these "spikes"

were the weakest link only in the welds in the fine grain GTD 222 is not understood.

Though in polished sections some voids are observed on the circumference of the weld "spikes" extending up

from the tip, there is no suggestion that they cover a large area of the circumference. The long segments of the

"spikes" on the fracture surfaces must be revealed by fracture propagation along what appears to be largely bonded

interface, perhaps related to the second phase decoration.

The welds to Alloy 718 also reached the yield strength of the coarse grain GTD 222 if at least a post-weld age

was applied. Weld cracking was observed on the fracture surfaces of the specimens given the Alloy 718 solution

treatment and double age, yet 0.2 percent YS values over 100 ksi were observed. The specimens which were only

aged after welding yielded at 116 ksi and failed in the Alloy 718. The joint in one specimen tested as-welded was

not completely fused. The other yielded at 70 ksi and failed in the Alloy 718.

Weld cracks limited the ductility and UTS of three of the GTD 222 to Alloy 718 welded specimens. We are

reluctant to say that the particular weld/heat treatment sequences exhibiting weld cracks were anything more than at

random. The other specimens failed in the Alloy 718.

Gas Tungsten Arc Welds

Tensile properties of the GTA welds are presented in table IV. All failures occurred in the welds or near the

weld/HAZ interface. For all the weld sequences using GTD 222 filler, the 0.2 percent YS are about the same as for

the EB welds with the same post-weld heat treatment. However, the UTS and ductilities of the GTA welded specimens are consistently higher than those of the EB welded specimens. The UTS approaches that of the large grain

GTD 222, 150 ksi. This was probably due partly to the larger weld length/diameter ratio in the tensile specimen gage

section, but also to the absence of weld cracking (and absence of incomplete fusion).
StrengthsofthefinegrainGTD222weldedspecimenswereaboutthesameasthoseofthecoarsegrainGTD

222specimens, exceptforthosewiththeage+weld+age weld/heat treatment sequencewhichappeartobemorethan

10percenthigherforthefinegrainGTD222specimens. Ductilities,however, mightappearsomewhat higherfor

weldsinthecoarsegrainGTD222.Theweldedspecimens withtheNimonic263fillerhadstrengthsthatwere

10to15ksilowerthanthosewithGTD222filler,butperhapshigherductilities. Thismaysimplyreflectthelower

strengthoftheNimonic263.

DifferencesbetweentheGTAweldsincoarseandfinegrainGTD222arenotunderstood. Thisisso,inparticular,fortheage+weld+age weld/heat treatment sequence, sinceallfailuresoccurredintheweld,notinthebasemetal

orheataffectedzone.Also,it isnotunderstoodwhytheage+weld+age sequenceproducedhigheryieldstrengths

thantheweld+agesequence. Whatobviousinfluencecanagingthebasealloybeforeweldinghaveontheproperties

oftherelativelylargevolumeof weldfillerlaiddownsubsequently? Yet,evenfortheweldsampleswithNimonic

263filler,theage+weld+age weld/heat treatment sequenceproducedhigherstrengthantheweld+agesequence.

CONCLUDINGREMARKS

Itissomewhat difficulttointerprettheresultsofthisstudy.Insomewaystheypresentanoptimisticevaluation

oftheweldabilityofGTD222.Thereisverylittlephysical constraint inthebuttweldsperformed, andsufficient

testingwasnotconductedtorevealvariability.Further,it wasattemptedtolocatetensilespecimenstoavoidareas

seentocontaindefects.

Ontheotherhand,therewerecompromises intheexperiment whichhavebeencited,variablesamongthe

materialsandmethods, andrelativeinexperiencewithEBwelding,whichmightleadtosuspicionthatsomeresults

aretoolow.However, thedefectiveweldshavebeenidentifiedbyfailureanalysis, andneglectingthoseresults,we

seethathepropertiesofgoodEBorGTAweldsinGTD222givenapost-weldage,orsolutionandage,doapproximatethoseofcoarsegrainGTD222.

SUMMARYOF RESULTS

Simple butt welds were made by both EB and GTA in GTD 222 having two different grain sizes. Both GTD 222

and Nimonic 263 filler were evaluated in GTA welds. EB welds were also made between GTD 222 and Alloy 718.

Evaluation of the welds was based on 1200 °F tensile testing, fractography, and metaliography. The results are summarized as follows:

1. The EB and GTA welds of GTD 222 to itself and EB welds to Alloy 718 all reached at least the full 0.2 percent YS of coarse grain (ASTM 2-3) wrought GTD 222, if at least a post-weld age was applied and GTD 222 filler

was used in the GTA welds.

2. Defects in the EB welds, limited the ductility and UTS of many specimens. This was associated with shrinkage voids and fracture propagation along the surface of the weld "spikes," and other weld cracking not associated

with the "spikes".

3. GTA welds achieved both the 0.2 percent YS and UTS of the coarse grain GTD 222, if at least a post-weld

age was applied and GTD 222 filler was used. Reduction in area averaged about 75 percent of that for coarse grain

GTD 222.

4. Welds with Nimonic 263 filler were about 13 percent weaker than those with GTD 222 filler for all weld/

heat treatment sequences.
TABLE I.--DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIALS, WELD TYPES, AND WELD/HEAT TREATMENT SEQUENCES

Weld Alloys GTD 222 GTD 222 GTD 222 Weld configuration Material GE, Weld sequence

type joined vendor form grain size,

ASTM

EB 222/222 TA Hat 9-10

222/222 TA L 2-3

222/718 TA Hat 2-3

GTA 222/222 TA L 9-10

222/222 CF Ring 2-3

222/222 CF Ring 2-3

(fill er met al)

Bead on plate

(NA)

Butt

(NA)

Butt

(NA)

Butt double vee

(GTD 222)

Butt single vee

(GTD 222)

Butt single vee

(Nimonic 263)

orientation GTD 222

of tensile code

test axis

Rolling WTI

direction

Transverse WT6B

Rolling

direction/

thickness

WT2

Transverse WT5B

Radial

WT5A

WT6A

WS1

Weld+Soln+Age

Weld+Age

Weld

Weld+Soln+Age

Weld+Age

Weld

Weld+Soln+Age

Weld+Age

Weld

Weld+Soln+Age

Age+Weld +So In+Age

Age+Weld +Age

Weld+Soln+Age

Age+Weld+Soln+ Age

Age+Weld+Age

Weld+Soln+Age

Age+Weld+Sol n+ Age

Age+Weld+Age

Radial WS 1

TABLE II.--TENSILE PROPERTIES OF BASE MATERIALS AT 1200 OF

Alloy Grain Material orientation

size of tensile axis

718 3

GTD222 2-3

0.2 percent UTS, El, RA,

YS, ksi percent percent

ksi

Rolling 132.6

direction 128.4

Radial 101.7

102.8

151.2 9.1 15.4

147.8 7.6 12.9

150.2 19.9 24.7

150.4 20.8 30.8
Alloys

joined

222/222

222/222

222/718

GTD222

ASTM

G.S.

9-10

2-3

2-3

TABLEIll.-- TENSILEPROPERTIES OFELECTRONBEAMWELDSAT1200°F

Weldsequence0.2percent 0.2 percent UTS, El, RA, RA,

YS, YS, ksi percent percent weld +

ksi weld + GTD 222

GTD 222

Weld+Soln+Age 102.0 1.0 119.7 2.9 7.3 0.3

104.5 1.0 151.0 9.7 20.1 .7

Weld+Age 120.2 1.2 127.0 0_5 8.0 0.3

122.6 1.2 152.5 11.1 8.8 3

Weld 115.2 1.1 132.7 4.0 28.3 1.0

91.1 9 96.4 0.9 15.9 6

Weld+Soln+Age 107.5 1.0 142.6 8.2 9.0 0.3

1(30.1 1.0 144.9 11.7 13.8 _5

Weld+Age 104.2 1.0 124.4 4.3 7.6 0.3

104.1 1.0 152.7 16.1 12.2 .4

Weld 78.8 0.8 107.1 13.3 46.1 1.7

76.7 .8 106.2 13.3 40.8 1.5

Weld+718 Soln+- 100.6 1.0 100.6 0_5 9.9 0.4

Age 112.7 1.1 119.9 0.8 9.8 .4

Weld+718 Age 116.0 1.1 141.6 4.4 8.9 0.3

115.9 1.1 140.8 4.4 7.1 3

Weld 64.2 0.6 64.2 2-5 8.7 0.3

70.4 .7 83.9 4.4 18.2 .6

Failure location

Weld, 20 percent "spikes"

Weld/HAZ, 2 perecnt "spikes"

Weld, 50 perecnt "spikes"

Weld/HAZ, 5 percent "spikes"

Weld/HAZ, 1 percent "spikes"

Weld, 50 percent "spikes"

Weld/HAZ, 5 percent cracks

HAZ?

Weld, 10 percent not fused

Weld, 10 percent cracks

Weld/HAZ

Weld

Weld, 20 percent cracks

Weld, 15 percent cracks

Alloy 718, far from HAZ

Alloy 718, far from HAZ

Weld, 40 percent not fused

Alloy 718, far from HAZ

Alloys

joined

222/222

222/222

222/222

TABLE IV. --TENSILE PROPERTIES OF GAS TUNGSTEN ARC WELDS AT 1200 °F

GTD 222

ASTM

G.S.

Filler Weld sequence 0.2 percent 0.2 percent UTS, El, RA, RA,

YS, YS, ksi percent percent weld +

ksi weld + GTD 222

GTD 222

GTD Age+Weld+Sol n+ Age 103.7 1.0 148.6 17.7 23.6 0.8

222

9-10

Age+Weld+ Age 123.8

121.7

Weld+Age 101.3

Age+Weld+Soln+ Age 100.8

101.9

Age+Weld+Age 109.5

107.0

Weld+Age 102.8

102.3

Age+Weld+Soln+ Age 85.9

86.7

Age+Weld+Age 97.9

100.1

Weld+Age

1.2 157.6 8.0 11.8 0.4

1.2 154.1 7.1 19.0 .7

1.0 151.3 16.3 18.7 0.7

2-3

2-3

GTD

222

Nimonic

263

85.6

88.3

1.0 148.6 19.7 24.3 0.9

1.0 147.5 10.4 26.4 9

1.1 150.6 15.5 19.5 0.7

1.0 128.6 4.1 16.2 .6

1.0 148.6 16.5 23.9 0.9

1.0 150.2 18.6 23.1 .8

0.8 129.6 15.2 30.1 1.1

.8 124.9 13.0 18.2 .7

1.0 133.9 12.7 23.7 0.9

1.0 127.9 6.8 18.0 .6

0.8 127.0 11.2 20.4 0.7

9 132.4 13.3 33.1 1.2

Failure location

Weld

Broke in maching

Weld

Weld

Weld

No test, big pore

Weld/HAZ

Weld/HAZ

Weld

Weld

Weld/HAZ

Weld/HAZ

Weld

Weld

Weld

Weld

Weld

Weld
!

!6

t

0.4

0

t

t

0.4

Figure 1.---Sequence of GTA weld passes for single and double vee specimens.

Figure 2.uFracture surface in an EB weld of the fine grain (ASTM 9-10) GTD 22.
Figure 3.mCross sectionsof weld "spikes": (a) Transverse section of "spike" on fracture

surface, (b) Transverse section of untested weld piece, and (c) Longitudinal section of

untested weld piece.
Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection Of information is estimeled to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, seamhing existing data sources,

gathering end maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of informelion, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations end Reports, 1215 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

August 1996

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Tensile Properties of Weldments in Alloy GTD 222

6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert V. Miner and Lawrence M. Huse

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135- 3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Technical Memorandum

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

WU-538-06-13

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

E-10338

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA TM- 107271

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Robert V. Miner, NASA Lewis Research Center, and Lawrence M. Huse, NYMA, Inc., 2001 Aerospace Parkway, Brook

Park, Ohio 44142 (work performed under NASA Contract NAS3-27186). Responsible person, Robert V. Miner,

organization code 5120, (216) 433-9515.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 26

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, (301) 621 _)390.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Alloy GTD 222 is a candidate for gas turbine engine cases having higher temperature capability than Alloy 718. In this

work, simple butt welds were made in GTD 222 with two different grain sizes, and between GTD 222 and Alloy 718.

Electron beam (EB) and gas tungsten arc (GTA) welds of GTD 222 to itself, and EB welds to Alloy 718, all reached at

least the full 1200 °F 0.2 percent YS of coarse grain GTD 222, if at least a post-weld age was applied. GTA welds also

achieved the 1200 °F UTS of the coarse grain GTD 222, if a post-weld age, or solution and age, was applied. However,

defects in the EB welds limited the ductility and UTS of many specimens. A post-weld solution plus age provided a small

improvement in ductility compared to an age alone. GTA welds with Nimonic 263 filler showed a reduction in tensile

strength relative to welds with GTD 222 filler for all heat treatment conditions.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Weld strength; Nickel alloys; Heat resistant alloys

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OFPAGES

1!

16. PRICE CODE

A03

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102