Materials Transactions, Vol. 57, No. 4 (2016) pp.

494 to 500
©2016 The Japan Institute of Metals and Materials

A Comparative Study on the Effect of Electrode on Microstructure and Mechanical

Properties of Dissimilar Welds of 2205 Austeno-Ferritic and 316L Austenitic
Stainless Steel
Jagesvar Verma1, Ravindra Vasantrao Taiwade1,*, Rajesh Kisni Khatirkar1 and Anil Kumar2
1
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT),
South Ambazari Road, Nagpur - 440 010, Maharashtra, India
2
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, National Institute of Technology (NIT) Raipur, Opposite Ayurvedic College,
GE Rd, Raipur, 492010, Chhattisgarh, India

In the present study, the weldability, microstructures and mechanical properties of dissimilar welds (2205 austeno-ferritic and 316L aus-
tenitic stainless steel) was investigated by using shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) with the help of two different electrodes namely duplex
(E2209) and austenitic (E309L). After welding, the microstructure of the different zones of joints was evaluated by using optical microscopy
and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), while, the localized chemical information was obtained by energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS)
attached to the SEM. In E2209 weld metal, the solidification was observed as the primary ferrite mode. While, 309L weld metal was observed
as the primary ferrite with austenitic matrix. Optimum ferrite content was observed in both the electrode. Finally, it was concluded that for the
joints between the 2205 austeno-ferritic and 316L austenitic stainless steel, the E2209 electrode was dominant property wise.
[doi:10.2320/matertrans.M2015321]

(Received August 10, 2015; Accepted January 22, 2016; Published March 11, 2016)
Keywords: 2205 austeno-ferritic, 316L austenitic stainless steel, shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), scanning electron microscopy/energy
dispersive spectrometer (SEM/EDS) analysis, microstructure

1. Introduction applications10). In fact, it can be utilized in those places where

Austeno-ferritic or namely duplex stainless steels (DSSs)
have been successfully used in petrochemical, chemical, oil
pipelines, marine transportations, gas fuel, energy and power
generations, etc. due to excellent resistance to stress corro-
sion cracking (SCC), pitting and crevice corrosion1,2). Even
DSSs are 1.5 times as strong as the common austenitic
steels3). This is due to well balanced austenite and ferrite con-
tent that provides a strong resistance to localized corrosion
and mechanical properties1). It is also known as a nickel (Ni)
saver and can save 70 to 210 kg Ni in per metric ton of steels4)
which attracted the worldwide attention. But, the major
downside (DSSs) is, the less production comparable to the
massive demand globally5), while, besides the Ni issue, mar-
ket is still captured by austenitic stainless steel (ASS) grades
and above mentioned industries also utilizes the ASS grade
(commonly 316L, 316LN, 317LN ASS)5,6) as a most import-
ant candidate material. In light of futuristic aspect the dissim-
ilar metal joint cannot be avoided in such industries. Even in
recent trend the manufacturers/researchers also diversified
towards the utilization of dissimilar metal welding (DMW)
mainly due to the economic benefits and also sometimes to
improve the performance of the component6,7). Likewise,
Matsuyama s municipal water tank was implemented and
constructed three dissimilar combinations of the SS (DSS
2205, 304 and 316 ASS) in Japan8). For dissimilar joining the
key issues towards the selection of filler metal which play an
important role to avoid solidification cracking, liquation
cracking and in improving the mechanical properties of the
weldments9). Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) is the
broadly employed, joining process in the field of engineering
*
Corresponding author, E-mail: rvtaiwadevnit@gmail.com
the mechanized process can not be reached and also more
popular due to its economy and portability10). M. Rahmani et
al.11) studied the effect of electrode ER2594 and ER309LMo
on the microstructures and mechanical properties of dissimi-
lar weldment (super DSS 2507 and 304L ASS). Author con-
cluded that austenitic weld metal had vermicular delta ferrite
within austenitic matrix and mainly composed of allotriomor-
phic grain boundary and widmanstaten austenite in a ferrite
matrix. Welds with both the electrodes showed better me-
chanical properties than the base metal. P. Bala Srinivasan et
al.12) studied the microstructure and corrosion behavior of
2205 DSS and low alloy steel fabricated by SMAW process.
They concluded that both the electrode (E2209 and E309)
was compatible with SMAW. However, the general corrosion
resistance of the weld metal produced by E309 electrode was
better than that of E2209. Carbon depleted zone and type II
boundary was observed near the fusion boundary and weld
metal interface in low alloy steel as a result of welding param-
eters. K. D. Ramkumar et al.13) investigated multi-pass gas
tungsten arc welding (GTAW) of super DSS 2507 by using
two different filler wires (ER2553 and ERNiCrMo-4). The
authors commented that the filler wire ER2553 exhibited bet-
ter tensile properties and impact toughness compared to
high-alloyed Ni based filler wire for super DSS due to suffi-
cient amounts of ferrite, allotriomorphic and the austenite in
the form of wedge shaped widmanstatten and as intergranular
precipitates in the weld zone were found. Abbas Eghlimi et
al.14) investigated the dissimilar joints (super DSS 2507/AISI
304L) with ER309LMo, which produced skeletal ferrite and
accommodated the highest amount of residual strain due to
least amount of under cooling and highest fraction of low an-
gle grain boundaries. Shaogang Wang et al.15) reported that
the GTAW process with ER2209 filler material combination
 A Comparative Study on the Effect of Electrode on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Welds
Table 1 Chemical compositions of base metals and electrodes (mass%) and Creq/Nieq ratio (based on WRC-1992) derived from base metals and electrodes
composition.
Materials and Electrode C Si Mn Cr Mo Ni
2205 0.0281 0.55 1.72 22.42 3.12 5.7 0.16 0.006 0.079 0.422 Bal.
316L 0.028 0.282 1.24 16.62 2.14 10.2
E2209 0.019 0.788 1.04 22.88 3.11 8.55 0.09 0.005 0.074 0.14 Bal.
E309L 0.03 0.5 1.21 23.24 0.07 12.7
is more appropriate for dissimilar joints between 2205 DSS
and 16MnR steel in practice as compared to SMAW process.
Intermetallic phases were not precipitated by using both the
processes. The joint produced by SMAW showed higher sus-
ceptibility to pitting corrosion in chloride solution than that of
weldment produced by GTAW because of finer grains in
GTAW process. The above mentioned literature11–15) glimpsed
a light on the effect of filler metal on various combinations of
duplex, but did not fully focused on selection of economical
process and appropriate alloy composition (electrodes) for
dissimilar weld. Therefore, the objective of the current inves-
tigation is to attempt detailed comparative analysis on the se-
lection of appropriate electrode for dissimilar welding of
2205 DSS and 316L ASS using economical SMAW process
on the basis of structure-property co-relationships.
2. Experimental Procedure
The base metals (BMs) employed in this study were
150 mm (length)  ×  150 mm (width)  ×  3 mm (thickness)
plates of 2205 DSS and 316L ASS welded with the help of
two different electrodes E2209 and E309L (3.15 mm diame-
ter). The nominal chemical compositions were confirmed by
spectroscopy as well as wet chemical analysis method of the
BMs and the electrodes are represented in Table 1. Base met-
als were cut by electrical discharge machining (EDM) and
solution annealed (1050 C at 1 h) for subsequent welding op-
erations. Square butt joints with a root gap of 1.2 mm be-
tween the BM of 2205 DSS and 316L ASS were carried out
by using single pass SMAW process with direct current elec-
trode positive (DCEP) mode. The welding was performed in
a direction perpendicular to the rolling direction of both the
plates and calculated the heat inputs by considering efficiency
(η) 75%, arc voltage (V), current (I) and welding speed
(v)16,17) as mentioned in Table 2. The SMAW weldments (sur-
face and internal defects) were characterized, using gamma
ray radiography non-destructive testing (NDT) and mac-
ro-etching (50% HCl in water at 80 C for 45 min.) techniques.
Metallographic samples were prepared (taking transverse
section of welded region) as per ASTM E3-9518) by polishing
on successively fine emery papers (150, 320, 400, 600, 800,
1000, 1200, grit) followed by velvet cloth using 0.75 μm alu-
mina slurry. The final polishing was done by 0.25 μm dia-
mond paste to achieve mirror finish. The samples were mi-
cro-etched by marble s reagent (4 g CuSO4.5H2O, 20 ml HCl
and 20 ml doubled distilled water)19) with reaction time 10 s.
Microstructures of different zones like weld metal (WM),
heat affected zone (HAZ) and unmixed zone (UMZ) were ob-
served using an optical microscope (Zeiss AxioLab A1) cou-
pled with an image analyzing software and scanning electron
495
N Al Cb Cu Fe WRC-1992 Creq WRC-1992 Nieq Creq/Nieq ratio
25.59 9.98 2.56
- 0.008 0.063 0.3 Bal. 18.80 11.26 1.66
26.04 11.05 2.35
- - - 0.11 Bal. 23.31 13.77 1.69
Table 2 The welding parameters and the heat inputs (η = 0.75).
Current (A) Welding speed Voltage (V) Heat input Electrode (mm)
(mm/s) (J/mm)
120 (E2209) 3.1 26 754.83 3.15
120 (E309L) 3.3 25 681.81 3.15
microscope (JEOL 6380A, Japan). The chemical composi-
tion of the different zones/microstructural features was ob-
tained by using an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) at-
tached to SEM. Energy dispersive spectrometer line scans
were also obtained to identify the compositional variation
across the WM, HAZ and UMZ. Ferrite content was mea-
sured by magnetic induction method (Fischer Ferritoscope
FMP30) of the welds. Hardness was obtained by using Vick-
ers s micro hardness (Simadzu Micro-hardness Tester) with a
load of 500 gm for 10 s. Tensile test was carried out as per
ASTM E8M-0420) by Instron Universal Testing Machine
(model-4467) with maximum capacity of 30 kN. Charpy
V-notch impact test was also carried out as per ASTM E23-
0421). V-notch was etched on the WM to clear visualization of
crack path.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Microstructural Characterization
Full penetration weld was acquiesced with duplex (E2209)
and austenitic (E309L) electrodes in the present investigation
by using SMAW process. Figure 1 showed the secondary
electron SEM macrographs of the weld beads at low magnifi-
cation obtained at two different electrodes, no any defects
were found in both the weld (as per NDT and macro-etching
test results). Figures 2 and 3 illustrated the optical micro-
structures of the fusion boundary (for both 316L ASS side
and 2205 DSS side), weld zone, HAZ and BM for SMAW by
E2209 and E309L. It was observed that the obtained grain
coarsening was much more pronounced on the 2205 DSS side
as compared to 316L side for both the electrode due to higher
thermal conductivity and higher surface energy in these loca-
tions22). While, on the other hand, in 316L ASS side the un-
mixed zone (UMZ) was observed due to lower thermal con-
ductivity of 316L ASS as compared to 2205 DSS11). The
delta (δ)-ferrite stringer was also present in the UMZ at 316L
ASS side due to the presence of more ferrite former elements.
Further, it was also observed that the weld morphology by
using E2209 electrode was completely different than that of
E309L due to alteration of electrode composition. Cellular
and columnar growth with three distinguish characteristics
like allotriomorphs or grain boundary austenite (GBA), wid-
496 J. Verma, R. V. Taiwade, R. K. Khatirkar and A. Kumar

Fig. 1 SEM macrograph of weld with (a) E2209, (b) E309L.

Fig. 2 Microstructure of DSS 2205 and 316L ASS weld zone (a) E2209, (b) E309L, (c) segmented image from the image software with E2209 (black back-
ground shows a ferrite matrix remaining is austenite), (d) segmented image from the image software with E309L (black background shows austenite re-
maining is delta-ferrite).

manstatten austenite (WA) a needle shaped (higher length to
width ratio) structured grains formed as a branched from this
GBA and intra-granular austenite (IGA) were observed with
E2209 due to ferrite grain size and the cooling rate23). While,
for weld zone with E309L has a dendritic structure mainly
skeletal ferrite and lathy ferrite were observed. The formation
of skeletal ferrite was reported due to rejection of Cr from
austenite and Ni from ferrite phase24). While, lathy ferrite
formed due to restricted diffusion and/or a characteristic
cooling rate during welding25,26), leads to greater ferrite for-
mer elements than skeletal ferrite. During solidification after
welding by E2209, weld region was completely governed
with DSS. However, in practice it was reported that the DSSs
weld solidify in fully ferritic mode (F mode)27) and austenite
nucleate below the ferritic solvus temperature, which mainly
depends on the chromium and nickel equivalent (Creq/Nieq)
ratio (>1.95 is F mode) of the steel and has been reported by
many researchers23,28,29) due to strong diffusivity of ferrite
former elements (Mo and Cr) in ferrite phase30). It was also
witnessed that E2209 (in electrode composition) have more
Mo and Cr content (shows higher Creq) but less Ni than
E309L, which promotes higher Creq/Nieq ratio. This was also
evident in the present investigation (the calculated Creq/Nieq
ratio of the welded region for E2209 as mentioned in Table 1
is >1.95). However, 309L weld solidifies as an FA (fer-
rite-austenite) mode25) due to the higher Ni and less Cr, Mo
content in the electrode (less Creq/Nieq ratio) than E2209, the
primary ferrite exhibited as a skeletal ferrite morphology and
the calculated Creq/Nieq ratio was 1.69 as mentioned in
Table 1. Further, SEM/EDX analysis of 309L weld revealed
 A Comparative Study on the Effect of Electrode on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Welds 497

Fig. 3 Microstructure of DSS 2205 and 316L ASS weldments (a) DSS HAZ with E309L, (b) UMZ with E309L, (c) DSS HAZ with E2209, (d) UMZ with
E2209.

Fig. 4 SEM-EDAX analysis and micrograph of weld zone (a) E309L, (b) E2209.

Table 3 Data obtained from SEM-EDAX of welds with E2209 and E309L. in lathy ferrite during ferrite–austenite transformation25).
E2209 E309L While, The EDX examination for E2209 evident that the pri-
Elements Cr K Mo L Ni K Mn K Elements Cr K Mo L Ni K Mn K mary phase GBA and secondary phase needle shaped WA
GBA 21.19 3.12 8.7 0.54 Skeletal 18.73 0.76 10.12 0.61
both have almost similar Cr and Ni level but WA has more Mo
content than GBA and also higher Ni content than ferrite ma-
WA 21.65 3.33 8.8 0.66 Lathy 22.19 0.78 9.98 0.68
trix due to the high temperature displacive mechanism of al-
loy31) as shown in Fig. 4. Further, the EDS line scans were
also performed in order to observe the transition of elements.
that lathy ferrite accumulated more Cr but less Ni and Mn It was observed that, from DSS BM to WM side (E2209) con-
content than skeletal ferrite as shown in Table 3, this may be siderable variation of Mo, Ni and Cr were observed, which is
due to restricted diffusion/and or faster cooling rate of alloy a clear indication of more ferrite phases in the weld, while
498 J. Verma, R. V. Taiwade, R. K. Khatirkar and A. Kumar

Fig. 5 EDS line scan across the weldment (a) E2209, (b) E309L.

Table 4 Measured ferrite content (in volume % and FN) of weldments by image software and ferritoscope.

Electrode Different Measured % ferrite content by Measured % ferrite content by Measured ferrite number by
weldment image software ferritoscope ferritoscope
section Mean Mean
BM (DSS) 44.2 51.03 72.01
E2209
WM 38.4 35.33 44.02
BM (DSS) 44.2 51.03 72.01
E309L
WM 21.7 18.5 19.1

from ASS BM to WM side variation of Cr and Mo were ob-

served but the reduction in Ni was seen as shown in Fig. 5(a).
On the other hand (with E309L) the transition of Cr, Ni and
Mo were more pronounced in DSS BM to WM due to higher
thermal conductivity leads to higher thermal diffusivity of al-
loy, but the reverse trend was observed on either side of the
weldment (ASS 316L to WM) as shown in Fig. 5(b), this may
be due to thermal gradient, cooling rate and electrode compo-
sition32). It has been reported14) that the ferrite content in the
weld usually decreases with the increase in dilution. The op-
timum range of the ferrite content in weld has been reported
to be 25–70%33) to avoid welding related defects (like solidi-
fication cracking) and to improve mechanical and corrosion Fig. 6 WRC-1992 diagram showing the predicted solidification mode and
ferrite number of weld metal with E2209 and E309L electrode.
resistance properties34) in duplex, while 3–20% in austenitic
weld35). Therefore, control of the weld dilution and ferrite
content is of prime importance and can be effectively done by
controlling the welding process parameters14). However, volume percentage of ferrite and austenite content in the
phase identification and volume fraction of phases induced in welds was 38.4% and 61.6% respectively for E2209, while,
the weld prior to welding operation were also done (with 21.7% and 78.3% for E309L as tabulated in Table 4. The
E2209 and E309L) by using a WRC-1992 diagram consider- δ-ferrite content was also evaluated by a magnetic induction
ing 30% dilution36) based on the actual measured composi- method, using a calibrated ferritoscope. However, a minor
tions of elements to check the suitability of electrode and difference was observed in ferrite (35.33%) and austenite
mode of solidification with this dissimilar joint by SMAW as (64.67%) content for E2209, while, 18.5% ferrite and 81.5%
shown in Fig. 6. Diagram was based on Nieq and Creq. How- austenite for 309L as reported in Table 4. Nevertheless, the
ever, it was reported that the WRC-1992 diagram was the im- selection of electrode based on a WRC-1992 diagram before
portant tool for selection of appropriate electrode and to avoid welding and measured ferrite content after welding was in
solidification cracking35). The quantification of δ-ferrite was good agreement with above mentioned literatures.
carried out through two techniques after welding, image anal-
ysis from the metallographic images and the ferritoscope 3.2 Mechanical properties
(magnetic method). To evaluate the δ-ferrite content by image 3.2.1 Micro-hardness
analysis technique were analyzed and quantify by image soft- Micro-hardness studies were carried out across the trans-
ware as shown in Fig. 2(c)–(d). The approximate measured verse section of the dissimilar weldments (such as 316L BM,
 A Comparative Study on the Effect of Electrode on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Welds
Fig. 7 Hardness profile, stress-strain curves and fractograph of impact
specimens of DSS 2205/ASS 316L weldments (a) hardness profile, (b)
stress- train curves, (c) impact specimen, (d) impact fractograph E2209,
(e) impact fractograph E309L.
UMZ, WM, 2205HAZ, 2205BM) for both electrodes as
shown in Fig. 7(a). From micro-hardness profile results, it
was evident that the variation in micro-hardness values of
weld zone (237.5 HV and 198.8 HV average values) for
E2209 and E309L respectively. This difference in the weld
hardness could be attributed to the solidification mode, mor-
phology and distribution of micro-constituents in the resul-
tant WM due to difference in electrode composition as men-
tioned above23–30). However, E2209 weld solidify in F mode
having higher Creq or Creq/Nieq ratio than that of E309L. It
was reported that, higher the Creq, higher the micro-hard-
ness37,38). However, micro-constituents elements like nickel
decreases the microhardness, while, nitrogen (interstitial sol-
id solution), Cr and Mo increases the microhardness37,38),
since E2209 having higher nitrogen, Cr, Mo and less nickel
content than that of E309L which led to higher ferrite content
results higher hardness. It was noteworthy that, for E2209,
some of the locations of 2205 HAZ and WM, hardness of the
austenite phase was found to be higher than the ferrite phase
may be due to higher diffusion of Cr and Mo in austenite
phase. The average hardness of 2205 HAZ was 265.7 HV and
256.2 HV for E2209 and 309L respectively due to variation
in thermal gradient. However, the micro-hardness profiles in
the 316L side UMZ section increasing trend were nearly sim-
ilar (166.1 HV and 151.3 HV) and a direct relationship be-
tween ferrite content for both E2209 and E309L were ob-
tained respectively, this trend of hardness was observed due
to thermal gradient, morphology and ferrite content.
3.2.2 Tensile and impact test
The tensile studies were carried out for the dissimilar weld-
ment as shown in Fig. 7(b) (average value is reported of two
tested specimens of both electrodes). The tensile specimens
fractured from 316L BM side. Since, the dissimilar weld
499
joints were not to be below the minimum tensile strength than
that of the weaker steel grade (that is 316L austenitic stainless
steel) because the fracture was occurred in 316L BM side
which indicated that the weld joint possessed sufficient
strength. The mode of fracture was ductile in nature for both
electrodes. Tensile strength obtained was 557 MPa and
532 MPa for E2209 and E309L respectively. E2209 obtained
higher tensile strength due to higher Creq39). Charpy V-notch
impact test was also carried out for both the electrode. Impact
samples also showed a ductile fracture (energy absorbed was
~72 J for E2209 and ~60 J for E309L). The fractured surface
of impact specimens was analyzed by using SEM as shown in
Fig. 7(c)–(e). Both tensile and impact test suggest that the
mechanical strength (since it depends only on the BM and
WM is stronger than the BM) and toughness of the dissimilar
welds produced by using SMAW and joined by E2209 was
higher than that of E309L. The higher impact energy of
E2209 WM is due to its F solidification mode compared with
FA mode in E309L. However, nitrogen also plays a signifi-
cant role to improve the impact energy in E220940).
4. Conclusion
(1) Both electrodes were weldable with SMAW process.
(2) E2209 weld solidify in ferrite mode, while E309 was fer-
rite-austenite mode, which causes to considerable varia-
tion in ferrite content.
(3) Tensile test data confirmed that both the weldments un-
dergo a ductile type of fracture. However, the ultimate
tensile strength of the weldments employing E2209 was
higher than the E309L. Impact toughness and hardness
were also higher for the E2209 weld.
(4) Joints produced by SMAW using E2209 (with less Ni
content) electrode had achieved better properties than
E309L.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Director, VNIT Nagpur for
providing necessary facilities and constant encouragement to
publish this paper. The authors are also grateful to Mr. Ashvin
Gaikwad, Weldfast Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur for provid-
ing the welding facilities and electrodes. The authors would
also like to thank Mrs. Varsha Patankar (Technical staff, Test-
ing of Materials Laboratory, Department of Metallurgical and
Materials Engineering) for her help in conducting the me-
chanical test.
REFERENCES
1) E. Taban and E. Kaluc: Weld. World 55 (2011) 48–57.
2) S. Topolska and J. Labanowski: J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 36
(2009) 142–149.
3) H. Hwang and Y. Park: Mater. Trans. 50 (2009) 1548–1552.
4) B. I. Voronenko: Met. Sci. Heat Treat. 39 (1997) 428–437.
5) J. Charles: Proc. Conf. on Duplex Stainless Steels, A Review after
DSS07, (Stainless Steel World, Grado, Italy, 2007).
6) J. Labanowski: Arch. Mater. Sci. Eng. 28 (2007) 27–33.
7) J. Wang, M. Lu, L. Zhang, W. Chang, L. Xu and L. Hu: Int. J. Min. Met.
Mater. 19 (2012) 518–524.
8) K. Kuwayama: Water Tank built to last 60 years, Nickel Development
Institute, 10 (1994). http://www.nickelinstitute.org/~/Media/Files/
500 J. Verma, R. V. Taiwade, R. K. Khatirkar and A. Kumar
TechnicalLiterature/WaterTankBuilttoLast60Years_14030_.pdf
9) K. D. Ramkumar, A. Singh, S. Raghuvanshi, A. Bajpai, T. Solanki, M.
Arivarasu, N. Arivazhagan and S. Narayanan: J. Manuf. Process 19
(2015) 212–232.
10) G. S. Sidhu and S. S. Chatha: Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 2
(2012) 746–750.
11) M. Rahmani, A. Eghlimi and M. Shamanian: J. Mater. Eng. Perform.
23 (2014) 3745–3753.
12) P. Bala Srinivasan, V. Muthupandi, W. Dietzel and V. Sivan: Mater. Des.
27 (2006) 182–191.
13) K. D. Ramkumar, G. Thiruvengatam, S.P. Sudharsan, Debidutta Mish-
ra, N. Arivazhagan and R. Sridhar: Mater. Des. 60 (2014) 125–135.
14) A. Eghlimi, M. Shamanian and K. Raeissi: J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 22
(2013) 3657–3664.
15) S. Wang, Q. Ma and Y. Li: Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 831–837.
16) H. Vashishtha, R. V. Taiwade, R. K. Khatirkar, A. V. Ingle and R. K.
Dayal: ISIJ Int. 54 (2014) 1361–1367.
17) R. Unnikrishnan, K. S. N. Satish Idury and R. K. Khatirkar: Mater.
Charact. 93 (2014) 10–23.
18) Standard Practice for Preparation of Metallographic Specimens, E
3-95, ASTM, PA, USA (1995).
19) ASM Handbook: Metallography and Microstructures, (Materials Park,
OH: ASM International, 2004).
20) Standard Test Method for Tensile Testing of Metallic Materials, E 8-04,
ASTM, PA, USA (2004).
21) Standard Practice for Preparation Notched Impact Testing of Metallic
Material, E23-04, ASTM, PA, USA (2004).
22) J. C. Lippold, W. A. Baeslack III and I. Varol: Weld. J. 71 (1988)
1S–14S.
23) R. Kacar: Mater. Des. 25 (2004) 1–9.
24) J. A. Brooks, J. C. Williams and A.W. Thompson: Metall. Trans. A 14
(1983) 1271–1281.
25) J. C. Lippold and D. J. Kotecki: Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of
Stainless Steel, (John Wiley & Sons, 2011) pp. 1–357.
26) R. Saluja and K.M. Moeed: Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 5 (2014) 36–43.
27) W. Reick, M. Pohl and A. F. Padilha: ISIJ Int. 38 (1998) 567–571.
28) G. L. Leone and H. W. Kerr: Weld. J. 61 (1982) 13S–22S.
29) J. W. Fu, Y. S. Yang and J. J. Guo: Mater. Sci. Technol. 25 (2009) 1013–
1016.
30) J. W. Fourie and F. P. A. Robinson: J. S. Atr. Inst. Min. Metall. 90
(1990) 59–65.
31) D. J. Kotecki and T. A. Siewert: Weld. J. 71 (1992) 171–178.
32) R. Badji, M. Bouabdallah, B. Bacroix, C. Kahloun, B. Belkessa and M.
Halim: Mater. Charact. 59 (2008) 447–453.
33) J. Labanowski: J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 20 (2007) 255–258.
34) V. Shankar, T. P. S. Gill, S. L. Mannan and S. Sundaresan: Sadhana 28
(2003) 359–382.
35) D. Harish Kumar, A. Somireddy and K. Gururaj: Int. J. Mater. Sci.
Appl. 1 (2012) 1–7.
36) S. Aguilar, R. Tabares and C. Serna: J. Mater. Phys. Chem. 1 (2013) 65.
37) A. Moteshakker, I. Danaee, S. Moeinifar and A. Ashrafi: Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join. 0 (2015) 1–10.
38) S. Geng, J. Sun, L. Guo and H. Wang: J. Manuf. Process. 19 (2015)
32–37.
39) H. Y. Liou, Y. T. Pan, R. I. Hsieh and W. T. Tsai: J. Mater. Eng. Perform.
10 (2001) 231–241.
40) M. Keskitalo, K. Mantyjarvi, J. Sundqvist, J. Powell and A. F. H. Ka-
plan: J. Mater. Process. Technol. 216 (2015) 381–384.