Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

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

Effect of welding heat-input on tensile strength and fracture location in T

upset resistance weld of martensitic stainless steel to duplex stainless steel
rods
⁎
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-9466, Azadi Avenue, 14588, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Effect of welding current (2–4 kA) was investigated on the microstructure evolution and mechanical properties
Upset resistance welding of the upset resistance dissimilar welds of Martensitic Stainless Steel (MSS) to Duplex Stainless Steel (DSS) rods.
Martensitic stainless steel While in MSS side of the welds, no martensite was formed at lower welding currents (2–3 kA), small values of
Duplex stainless steel martensite was formed at the higher welding currents (3.5–4 kA). In DSS side of the welds, hotspot formation
Tensile strength
and change in the phase balance between ferrite and austenite phase were the most important phenomena.
Fracture location
Phase balance
Strength of welds first increased and then decreased with welding current. Increase of strength was related to
superior plastic deformation and stronger metallurgical bonds with the solid state mechanism. For high welding
currents, decline in the tensile strength was mainly due to ‘hotspot’ formation. Fracture occurred in the heat
affected zone of the martensitic steel rod rather than the weld interface at the optimum welding current (3.5 kA).

1. Introduction unbalanced microstructure (with more ferrite in most cases) which no

Martensitic stainless steels (MSSs) are the cheapest grade of the
stainless steels due to low content of alloying elements. Because of high
strength and hardness as well as good atmospheric corrosion resistance,
MSSs are widely used in turbine blades, cutlery and piping industry.
MSSs have high hardenability and except at very low cooling rates,
their microstructure mostly consists of martensite. However, because of
high yield strength and low formability, MSSs are usually produced
with ferritic microstructure. After forming or other manufacturing
processes like welding, their microstructure will be turned into mar-
tensite by an appropriate heat treatment. Fusion welding processes face
multiple challenges when used for MSSs such as formation of very hard
martensite phase and hydrogen embrittlement [1–3]. In contrast, du-
plex stainless steels (DSSs) are among the most expensive grades of
steels, not only due to high content of alloying elements, but also be-
cause of the thermomechanical process needed to produce their parti-
cular microstructure. Nevertheless, higher strength and better corrosion
resistance in chlorine environments compared to austenitic stainless
steels (ASSs) resulted in the replacement of ASSs and even some Nickel-
based alloys with DSSs specially in piping industry. The exceptional
properties of DSSs are mainly related to the equal content of ferrite and
austenite phases in their microstructure. Thus, the main challenges in
joining DSSs using fusion welding processes are formation of an
longer possesses the required properties [1,4–6].
Upset Resistance Welding is a solid state welding process which uses
electrical current and mechanical pressure to join various metallic
parts, from wheel rims in automotive industry to pipes and rods used in
petrochemical industry. Heat is produced as a result of electrical cur-
rent passage through the workpieces in accordance to Joule’s law, i.e.
Q = RI2t, where Q is the produced heat and R, I and t are electrical
resistance, electrical current and time of current passage, respectively.
Since the electrical resistance is the highest at the interface of the
workpieces (called as contact resistance), most of the heat is generated
at the interface and temperature rises up to hot working or even melting
temperature of the workpieces [7–10].
Dissimilar joints of martensitic to duplex stainless steels have some
applications specially in critical joints of piping industry, where both
corrosion resistance and high yield strength are needed. A literature
review shows that several researches have been conducted on the
welding of MSS to DSS using GTAW process [11,12]. To the best
knowledge of the authors, no attempt has been made so far to weld
martensitic to duplex stainless steels by upset resistance welding.
However, there is no limitation for URW process in dissimilar welding
of martensitic to duplex stainless steels. Indeed, URW may be used to
weld martensitic to duplex stainless steels according to the geometry
and size of the parts. In this work, the effects of the welding current on

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m_movahedi@sharif.edu (M. Movahedi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.08.039
Received 19 July 2018; Received in revised form 22 August 2018; Accepted 31 August 2018
1526-6125/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525

Table 1
Chemical composition and mechanical and physical properties of the base metals.
Chemical composition (wt.%) Mechanical Properties Physical Properties [13]

C Mn Si Cr Ni N Mo Tensile Strength (MPa) El. (%) Thermal Conductivity (W/m K) Electrical Resistivity (Ω. mm2/m)

AISI 410 0.02 0.46 0.31 13.31 0.28 – 0.03 675 10 24.9 0.57
ER 2209 0.02 1.31 0.36 22.62 8.01 0.08 3.08 989 17 16 0.80

Fig. 1. Microstructure of a) MSS and b) DSS base metals and c) URW machine used for welding the samples.

the microstructure and mechanical properties of the upset resistance
welds of MSS to DSS rods are investigated. Determining the optimal
welding current in order to achieve the highest strength is the main
purpose of this paper.
2. Experimental procedure
Rods with 2.4 mm diameter from AISI 410 MSS and 2209 DSS were
used as the base materials. Chemical composition and mechanical and
physical properties of the base materials are given in Table 1. Fig. 1
shows the microstructures of the base materials, both with the worked-
elongated grains. AISI 410 and 2209 steels consisted mostly of ferrite,
and relatively equal amount of austenite and ferrite phases, respec-
tively. As mentioned before, MSSs are usually produced with initial
microstructure of ferrite due to high yield strength and low formability
limiting forming of these alloys to wire and sheet.
For welding, samples were first cut 90 mm in length, then grinded
by 240 grit abrasive paper to promote intimate contact between faying
surfaces. Afterward, samples were welded using an URW machine
(Fig. 1-c) manufactured by Novin Sazan Company (Tehran, Iran). Im-
portant resistance welding parameters such as pre-squeeze time, upset
force, welding time and holding time were determined by primary ex-
periments, and were set to 60 cycles (each cycle is equal to 0.02 s ap-
proximately), 1.1 kN, 8 cycles and 60 cycles, respectively.
Five levels of welding current, from 2 to 4 kA (2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and
4 kA) were used to weld the samples. Three samples were welded with
each welding current, two of them were used for tensile test and the
other one for microstructural studies and microhardness test.
Tensile tests were conducted using Hounsfield tension/compression
machine, with the gauge length of 50 mm (25 mm from each side of the
joint) and tensile rate of 2 mm/min. Vickers microhardness test was
done along the centerline of the joint cross section with a load of 100 gf
applied for 15 s.
Vilella’s (100 ml ethanol, 5 ml HCl, 1 g Picric acid) and Kalling’s No.
2 (100 ml ethanol, 100 ml HCl, 5 g CuCl2) reagents were used for
etching MSS and DSS, respectively. Field-Emission Scanning Electron
Microscope (FESEM) was used for investigation of the fracture surfaces
and presence of discontinuities and voids at the weld interface.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Microstructural studies
3.1.1. Weld interface
Fig. 2 shows the microstructure of the weld interface. No signs for
formation of a reaction or transition layer between the base metals were
seen at the weld interface of all samples. Variation of the welding
current resulted in two main differences between the weld zone of the
samples:
(i) Formation of defects at the weld interface
(ii) Size of the flash formed at the weld interface

518
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525

Fig. 2. Microstructure of weld interface, a) 2 kA b) 2.5 kA c) 3 kA d) 3.5 kA and e) 4 kA sample. f) FESEM image from “hotspot” in 4 kA sample.

Fig. 3. FESEM image from the weld interface of the sample, a) 2 kA and b) 3.5 kA.

Except the sample welded with 3.5 kA in which no obvious dis-
continuities or voids were formed at the weld interface, other welds had
defects in the weld interface or adjacent to the interface. Fig. 3 also
shows FESEM image of 2 kA and 3.5 kA samples at the weld interface.
Presence of the voids at the interface of the 2 kA sample comparing to
the almost perfect contact between the base metals in 3.5 kA sample is
obvious. At the samples welded with lower welding currents, presence
of such imperfections may be related to lower temperature of the weld
interface, which is a result of low welding current and low heat gen-
eration according to Joule’s law. Lower temperature makes the plastic
deformation and flash formation more difficult and therefore, solid
state bonding mechanisms cannot form proper atomic bonds. However,

519
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi
Fig. 4. a) Presence of small amount of martensite in the MSS microstructure of
3.5 kA sample. b) Fe-Cr-C pseudo binary equilibrium diagram at 13% Cr for
MSS [1].
in the sample welded with 4 kA, high welding current caused formation
of hotspots at DSS side of the sample (Fig. 2-f). Hotspots are small voids
forming due to partial melting at or near the weld interface. Partial
melting usually occurs because of high concentration of heat at the
weld interface or near it in the base materials. The reason for con-
centration of heat at a certain point is heterogeneity or impurity in the
chemical composition resulting in higher electrical resistance and
higher heat generation. Hotspots generally cause a decrease in the
mechanical properties [7,14] as will be discussed in section 3.2.
The second difference was the size of flash formed at the weld in-
terface. As shown in Fig. 2, flash size increased with enhancement of
the welding current. Flash forms due to plastic deformation during the
welding. Higher heat causes more reduction in yield strength of both
base materials facilitating plastic deformation. Thus, more macroscopic
deformation occurs at the weld interface. Presence of flash can be an
indication of superior weld quality. Flash formation helps removal of
oxides and contaminations from the faying surfaces of the base rods,
creates an intimate contact between the virgin metals from the base
metals and forms stronger metallurgical bonds at the weld interface.
[5,7,10].
520
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525
3.1.2. Microstructure of MSS side of weld
Fig. 2 also shows the microstructure of MSS side of the welds. Be-
cause of the worked microstructure of the base materials, the most
obvious phenomenon was the recrystallization and grain growth of
ferrite near the weld interface. As shown in Fig. 2, grain size increased
with welding current. This can be due to higher heat generation at the
interface of the samples welded with higher welding currents. More-
over, formation of equi-axed grains of ferrite and no evidence for pre-
sence of melted and re-solidified microstructure show that AISI 410 rod
was not melted during the welding.
Another noticeable feature is that while according to the literature,
welding of martensitic stainless steels leads to formation of a fully
martensitic microstructure in the weld metal [15,16], microstructure of
the MSS side of the welds in this research, mostly included ferrite phase.
In fact, in the samples welded with lower welding currents (from 2 to
3 kA), the microstructure only consisted of ferrite polygonal grains.
However, in the samples welded with higher welding currents (3.5 and
4 kA), very small amount of non-equilibrium phase, i.e. martensite, was
formed in the microstructure. Very low weight percent of carbon in the
martensitic stainless steel base metal may justify the lack of martensite
formation in the welded samples. According to Table 1, the carbon
content of 410 MSS used as the base metal is very low (< 0.02 wt.%).
Therefore, according to the Fe-Cr-C pseudo binary equilibrium diagram
at 13% Cr [1] for martensitic stainless steels (Fig. 4-b), no austenite was
formed during heating cycle of welding for temperatures lower than
∼900 °C (welding currents from 2 to 3 kA). However, for temperatures
higher than ∼900 °C (welding currents of 3.5 and 4 kA) very small
amount of austenite was formed. Therefore, there was no or small
amount of austenite in the microstructure for transformation to mar-
tensite during cooling cycle.
3.1.3. Microstructure of DSS side of weld
Microstructures of DSS side of the welds are shown in Fig. 5. The
microstructure consisted of ferrite (F) and austenite (A) phases. Similar
to the MSS side of welds, recrystallization was the most dominant
phenomena in the DSS side of the welds. However, there was a con-
siderable difference between the MSS and DSS sides of the welds in
term of grain growth, i.e. the average grain size was significantly lower
in DSS side compared to MSS one. Inferior grain growth in duplex
stainless steel is a result of the two-phased microstructure. Presence of
austenite phase confines the movement of ferrite grain boundaries and
vice versa [1,5]. Moreover, austenite has a close-packed crystal struc-
ture which hinders atomic diffusion and grain growth, resulting in finer
grains compared to MSS side of the weld [5,14].
Fig. 5 also shows that the morphology of the ferrite and austenite
phases was different in the samples welded with the welding current
less than 3 kA and the samples welded with higher currents. In the
sample welded with 2 kA, only static recrystallization occurred and
very fine grains of ferrite and austenite were formed near the join in-
terface. The occurrence of static recrystallization rather than dynamic
one is due to very low temperature and lack of plastic deformation
during the welding (absence of flash in this sample, as shown in Fig. 2-
a, is an evidence for lack of plastic deformation). In the sample welded
with 2.5 kA, the morphology of ferrite and austenite was relatively si-
milar to the base metal, however, with a little coarser grains elongated
towards the flash. This can be due to occurrence of recrystallization and
subsequent plastic deformation of the materials near the joint interface
towards the flash. At the samples welded with higher welding currents,
ferrite phase had polygonal morphology and austenite formed at the
ferrite grain boundaries, an evidence for plastic deformation and
complete dynamic recrystallization and grain growth near the joint
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi
Fig. 5. Microstructure of DSS side of welds, a) 2 kA, b) 2.5 kA, c) 3 kA, d) 3.5 kA and e) 4 kA. F and A refer to ferrite (dark) and austenite (light) phases, respectively.
interface.
Fig. 5 also shows that 4 kA sample, hotspots were formed in the DSS
side of the samples near the weld interface. On the other hand, in
contrast to MSS side of welds, hot spot may be a proof for formation of
melt in this region. Formation of hotspots and melt at the DSS side of
the samples could be a result of higher electrical resistivity and lower
thermal conductivity of DSS (Table 1). Higher resistivity causes more
heat generation near the interface inside the DSS, and lower thermal
conductivity results in concentration of the heat near the weld inter-
face, which facilitates hotspot formation.
Another considerable phenomenon in the DSS side of the welds was
the formation of an unbalanced microstructure in which the ferrite
content was higher than 50% for the samples welded with currents
higher than 2.5 kA (Ferrite volume percent was calculated using Clemex
image analysis software and the results are given in Figs. 6-a and -c).
Indeed, the more was the welding current, the higher was the ferrite
content in the microstructure. The most volume fraction of ferrite in the
521
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525
microstructures was ∼70% that was formed in the sample welded with
4 kA. This can be justified using WRC-1992 pseudo binary phase dia-
gram for duplex stainless steels [1] shown in Fig. 6-d. According to
lever rule, at lower temperatures, austenite content should be higher
than ferrite in the 2209 duplex stainless steel. However, at higher
temperatures ferrite becomes the dominant phase of the microstructure.
Therefore, because of more heat generation and higher temperature in
the samples welded with higher welding currents, their ferrite content
can be higher than austenite [17,18].
3.2. Mechanical properties and fracture location of weld
Vickers microhardness profile across the weld interface is shown in
Fig. 7-a. In the MSS side, samples welded with lower welding currents
(2 to 3 kA) showed a decrease in the hardness values compared to the
base metal. This may be attributed to the recrystallization and grain
growth occurred near the interface, which annul the effect of cold
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi
Fig. 6. a) Microstructure of DSS side of the sample welded with 4 kA, b) colored
ferrite phase, c) volume percent of ferrite phase calculated using Clemex image
analysis software and d) WRC 1992 pseudo-binary phase diagram for DSSs.
522
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525
working and strain hardening in the base metal. However, in 3.5 and
4 kA samples, an increase in hardness values was observed near the
weld interface despite more grain growth compared to 2–3 kA samples.
This can be due to formation of some martensite near the weld interface
(as discussed in Section 3.1.2) leading to an increase in the overall
hardness of this area. In the DSS side of the welds, except for the sample
welded with 2 kA, hardness values generally decreased near the weld
interface as a result of the recrystallization and grain growth near the
weld interface. For 2 kA sample, as shown in Fig. 5-a and was explained
in Section 3.1.3, a very fine grain structure was formed near the joint
interface due to static recrystallization resulting in higher hardness
compared to the base metal. There was also a slight peak in the hard-
ness near the weld interface of the sample welded with 2.5 to 4 kA, may
be due to increase in the ferrite volume fraction compared to the aus-
tenite. It also should be noticed that the distance from weld interface in
which the hardness values reached to the hardness of DSS base metal
was far lower than that in the MSS side of the welds. This was attributed
to the lower thermal conductivity of DSS (Table1) and lower extent of
the recrystallization in the heat affected zone of DSS compared to MSS
side of the welds.
Fig. 7-b and -c show the stress-strain curves and values of tensile
strength and elongation of the welds, respectively. The sample welded
with 2 kA had the lowest tensile strength and elongation compared to
other welds due to lack of proper bonds and presence of voids and
discontinuities at the weld interface (as discussed in section 3.1.1.) The
highest tensile strength as well as highest elongation belongs to the
sample welded with 3.5 kA, which had no discontinuity at the weld
interface and consequently, included strong metallurgical bonds. Fur-
thermore, 4 kA sample also showed lower tensile strength and elonga-
tion, which may be mainly because of presence of hotspots near the
weld interface. Fig. 8-e provides an evidence for the presence of large
voids (hotspots) on the fracture surface of this sample. It should be
mentioned that although only a few hotspots can be observed in Fig. 5-
e, this figure shows just about ∼350 μm from the joint interface with
the total length of ∼2.4 mm and thus, there are some other hotspots at
other regions of the joint interface (as shown in Fig. 2-e). Therefore, it
can be concluded that there is an optimal welding current (3.5 kA)
which results in the highest tensile strength of the weld. It is of crucial
importance that except the 3.5 kA sample which failed from the heat
affected zone of MSS side of the sample (away from the joint interface),
fracture occurred at the weld interface in all of the other samples
(Fig. 8-a and -b). Indeed, with increase in the joint strength of the
3.5 kA sample, fracture location changed from the joint interface to the
weaker point of the sample, i.e. heat affected zone of the martensitic
stainless steel.
FESEM images from the fracture surfaces of the samples welded
with 2 kA, 3.5 kA and 4 kA are presented in Fig. 8-c, -d and -e, re-
spectively. As can be seen, in the 2 kA sample in which fracture oc-
curred at the weld interface, metallurgical bonds were not formed be-
tween the faying surfaces at all the interface area and brittle failure
with formation of cleavages was dominant in the fracture surface.
However, in the sample in which fracture occurred at the heat affected
zone of MSS rod (3.5 kA sample), ductile fracture was dominant and
dimples were observed in the fracture surface. This may justify the
higher elongation of the sample welded with 3.5 kA compared to other
welds. Fig. 8-e indicates the presence of hotspots as the large voids near
the periphery of the fracture surface of the sample welded with 4 kA.
The remaining regions of the fracture surface showed features of brittle
fracture with no significant evidence for ductile fracture. The men-
tioned phenomena are in agreement with the inferior elongation of the
4 kA sample.
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi
Fig. 7. a) Hardness profile across the weld interface. b) Stress-strain curves and c) values of tensile strength and elongation for all samples.
4. Conclusion
Upset resistance welding process was used to join martensitic
stainless steel to duplex stainless steel rods. Effect of the welding cur-
rent was studied on the microstructure and mechanical properties of the
joints and the following main results were obtained:
1. Recrystallization and grain growth were the dominant phe-
nomena at both sides of the weld interface. In martensitic side of the
weld, no martensite was formed in the samples welded with low
welding currents (2–3 kA) due to low carbon content of this alloy and
low temperature near the weld interface. However, in the samples
welded with higher welding currents (3.5 and 4 kA) some martensite
was formed near the weld interface.
2. Hotspots were formed at high welding currents due to heat
523
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525
concentration in the duplex stainless steel side of the welds.
Additionally, the phase balance between the ferrite and austenite
phases was changed in the duplex stainless steel. Volume fraction of
ferrite increased up to 70% in 4 kA sample with the highest heat-input
and temperature.
3. Tensile strength of the welds first increased and then decreased
with the welding current. Increase in strength was caused by more
plastic deformation and formation of stronger metallurgical bonds at
the joint interface. At high welding currents, reduction in tensile
strength was generally due to formation of hotspots. Fracture occurred
in the heat affected zone of the martensitic steel rather than the weld
interface at the optimum welding current (3.5 kA).
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525

Fig. 8. Stereograph of the a) 2 kA and b) 3.5 kA samples. FESEM images from the fracture surfaces of the c) 2 kA, d) 3.5 kA and e) 4 kA samples.

524
A. Ozlati, M. Movahedi
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Research Board of Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran for the financial support and
provision of the research facilities used in this work.
References
[1] Lippold JC, Kotecki DJ. Welding metallurgy and weldability of stainless steels.
Canada: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2005.
[2] Dev S, Devendranath Ramkumar K, Arivazhagan N, et al. Investigations on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of dissimilar welds of inconel 718 and
sulphur rich martensitic stainless steel AISI 416. J Manuf Process 2018;32:685–98.
[3] Fang JX, Dong SY, Wang YJ, et al. Microstructure and properties of an as-deposited
and heat treated martensitic stainless steel fabricated by direct laser deposition. J
Manuf Process 2017;25:402–10.
[4] Alizadeh-Sh M, Marashi SPH. Resistance spot welding of dissimilar austenitic/du-
plex stainless steels: microstructural evolution and failure mode analysis. J Manuf
Process 2017;28:186–96.
[5] Kuroda T, Ikeuchi K, Ikeda H. Flash butt resistance welding for duplex stainless
steels. Vaccum 2006;80:1331–5.
[6] Verma J, Vasantrao Taiwade R. Effect of welding processes and conditions on the
microstructure, mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of duplex stainless
steel weldments—a review. J Manuf Process 2017;25:134–52.
[7] Ozlati A, Movahedi M, Mohammadkamal H. Upset resistance welding of carbon
steel to austenitic stainless steel narrow rods. J Mater Eng Perform
525
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 35 (2018) 517–525
2016;25:4902–10.
[8] Kerstens NFH. Investigation and control of factors influencing resistance upset butt
welding, Ph.D thesis. Netherlands: Delft Uuniversity of Technology; 2009. p. 15–47.
[9] Kerstens NFH, Richardson IM. Heat distribution in resistance upset butt welding. J
Mater Process Technol 2009;209:2715–22.
[10] Sharifitabar M, Halvaee A, Khorshahian S. Microstructure and mechanical proper-
ties of resistance upset butt welded 304 austenitic stainless steel joints. Mater Des
2011;32:3854–64.
[11] Bettahar K, Bouabdallah M, Badji R, et al. Microstructure and mechanical behavior
in dissimilar 13Cr/2205 stainless steel welded pipes. Mater Des 2015;85:221–9.
[12] Pagani SM, Robinson FPA. Microstructure and mechanical and electrochemical
properties of martensitic weld deposits developed for welding of a 12%Cr duplex
stainless steel. Mater Sci Technol 1988;4:554–9.
[13] ASM handbook, Vol 1: Properties and Selection, Irons. Steels and high performance
alloys. USA: ASM International; 1990.
[14] Sharifitabar M, Halvaee A. Resistance upset butt welding of austenitic to martensitic
stainless steels. Mater Des 2011;31:3044–50.
[15] Pouranvari M, Alizadeh-sh M, Marashi SPH. Welding metallurgy of stainless steels
during resistance spot welding Part I: fusion zone and Part II: heat affected zone and
mechanical performance. Sci Technol Weld Join 2015;20:502–21.
[16] Das CR, Albert SK, Bhaduri AK, et al. Effect of minor change in composition on
toughness of weld metal for repair of turbine blades made of martensitic stainless
steel. Sci Technol Weld Join 2008;13:159–66.
[17] Neissi R, Shamanian M, Hajihashemi M. The effect of constant and pulsed current
gas tungsten arc welding on joint properties of 2205 duplex stainless steel to 316L
austenitic stainless steel. J Mater Eng Perform 2016;25:2017–28.
[18] Reddy GM, Rao KS, Sekhar T. Microstructure and pitting corrosion of similar and
dissimilar stainless steel welds. Sci Technol Weld Join 2008;13:363–77.