Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

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

Technical Paper

Dissimilar welding behavior of 22% Cr series stainless steel with 316L

and its corrosion resistance in modified aggressive environment
Jagesvar Verma, Ravindra Vasantrao Taiwade ∗
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT), South Ambazari Road, Nagpur 440 010,
Maharashtra, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Superior sustainability in highly aggressive environment makes duplex stainless steels as a futuristic
Received 1 May 2016 materials and better replacement of austenitic grade, which reflects an inevitability of dissimilar joint
Received in revised form 9 July 2016 in many aggressive environments. In the present work, an attempt has been made to produce dissimilar
Accepted 11 July 2016
welds between 22% Cr series duplex 2205 and 316L austenitic stainless steel, employing shielded metal
Available online 27 July 2016
arc welding process, using two different welding parameters (corresponding to current) and studied
the microstructural, mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of the weldment. Modified destruc-
Keywords:
tive and non-destructive tests were attempted in aggressive environment to assess the intergranular
Intergranular corrosion
Aggressive environment
corrosion resistance and pitting characteristics of the weldments. The results of the analysis showed
Destructive and non-destructive testing the balanced austenite/ferrite content for both heat inputs. Higher tensile strength and hardness was
observed in the low heat input. Intergranular corrosion resistance was improved in high heat input,
while, abrupt change in pitting characteristic was observed in the low heat input.
© 2016 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, dissimilar metal combination increasingly
incorporated in many industrial domains like power generation,
petrochemical, nuclear and shipbuilding sectors, mainly due to cost
flexibility [1,2]. However, in those industries various grades (304,
316L, 316LN, 317LN, 654 SMO) of austenitic stainless steel (ASS)
are in service due to huge production (∼70–80%) worldwide also
characterized with good weldability, strength and toughness [2–6].
Moreover, 316L is more popular among the other austenitic grades
with respect to cost/performance ratio [7]. But, in highly aggressive
environment the performance of 316L is deprived, particularly for
localized corrosion [8]. In contrast, duplex stainless steels (DSSs)
especially 22% Cr series (DSS 2205) has received major attention
among the design engineers, materials scientists and fabricators
due to high resistance to localized corrosion such as pitting and
stress corrosion cracking (SCC) also shows less susceptible to inter-
granular corrosion (IGC) [9,10]. It is possible due to dual phase
nature (50% austenite and 50% ferrite) and higher alloying elements
like Cr, Mo and N offer higher pitting resistance equivalent number
(PREN > 30, PREN = %Cr + 3.3%Mo + 16%N) [11–14], higher the PREN
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jageshwarverma28@gmail.com (J. Verma),
rvtaiwadevnit@gmail.com (R.V. Taiwade).
better the pitting resistance. Since, the presence of austenite phase
improves the toughness, whereas, the presence of the ferrite phase
improve the yield strength and reduce the SCC or hot cracking
[15]. If ferrite and austenite ratio is not balanced (such as in weld-
ing process), the resistance against pitting, SCC and IGC decreases
[10,16–18]. Duplex alloys are highly performed in chloride and
sulphide environments. But welded joints have key issues toward
corrosion resistance [19]. Therefore, it is great significance to inves-
tigate the microstructure and corrosion behavior. Other than above
mentioned promising properties, 22% Cr series DSS 2205 is also well
known for weight saver (reduces the cost of materials) due to higher
strength [14].
Nowadays, the worldwide movement concerned for the eco-
nomical sources by utilizing the high performance materials in
aggressive and cheaper materials in mildy environment with
economical joining process, which glimpse a light for dissimilar
combinations. Nevertheless, dissimilar combination of DSSs and
ASSs will give the huge advantages with respect to cost/property
ratio [20]. In fact, DSSs have substituted ASSs where higher resis-
tance to SCC and pitting is required [21]. In order to retain
microstructure and high resistance to corrosion of weld metal
(WM), it is reported that the welding parameters (such as heat
input) play an important role [22,23] and suggested an allowable
range of heat input for DSS is 0.5–2.0 kJ/mm to maintain the phase
ratio in the weld [24]. For the joining of materials, welding pro-
cesses are unavoidable. In most of the engineering sectors shielded

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2016.07.001
1526-6125/© 2016 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
metal arc welding (SMAW) process is an inevitable option due
to high versatility, especially in those places where the mecha-
nized processes cannot be reached [25,26]. Several investigations
have been reported on the microstructure, mechanical properties
and corrosion resistance behavior of dissimilar joints fabricated
by using different welding processes. Neissi et al. [27] studied the
dissimilar (316L ASS and 2205 DSS) joints, fabricated by constant
and pulsed current GTAW process using ER2209 DSS as a filler
metal. The authors concluded that pulse current GTAW showed
higher pitting resistance than that of constant GTAW process due
to finer grain size in the samples welded by the pulse GTAW. Harm-
ful nitride and sigma precipitates were reported in the constant
current GTAW process. Kumar et al. [28] have attempted the dis-
similar metal welding of DSS 2205 with AISI 316 by using gas
metal arc welding (GMAW) with duplex 2205 filler wire, shows
more tensile strength due to the presence of ferrite structure.
Labonwski [20] carried out DSS 2205 and 316L dissimilar joint by
submerged arc welding (SAW) process with a heat input range
of 1.15–3.2 kJ/mm was tested in two different environments to
ensure the SCC susceptibility. Weld showed lower susceptibility
to SCC in MgCl2 environment than BMs (duplex and 316L steel)
and failed in HAZ side. While, samples tested in an inert (glycerin)
environment, broke on 316L steel side. Cracks propagated mainly
through ferrite phase, passing by austenite acicular grains. Wang
et al. [29] demonstrated that gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW)
process with ER2209 filler material is highly suitable for dissim-
ilar joints between DSS 2205/16MnR 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 susceptibility to pitting corrosion in chloride solution (3.5%
NaCl) than that of weldment produced by GTAW because of finer
grains.
Instead of enormous scope and demand of dissimilar combi-
nations globally. The documentation by previous contemporary
research works on the economic process (like SMAW) of 22% Cr
series DSS 2205 and 316L dissimilar joints by duplex electrode
E2209 on microstructures, mechanical properties and corrosion
behavior in various aggressive environments are scanty. Therefore,
this paper mainly deals with modified destructive and nondestruc-
tive testing in aggressive solution (where DSSs and ASSs actually
experiences) with a detail analysis of microstructural evolution,
mechanical properties and corrosion behavior of 22% Cr series DSS
2205 and 316L dissimilar weldments and its structure-property
relationships using SMAW process.
2. Experimental procedures
2.1. Materials and welding
The base metals (BMs) used for welding in the present
investigation were 316L ASS and 22% Cr DSS 2205 in the as-
rolled and mill annealed condition. Plates of dimension 200 mm
(length) × 100 mm (width) × 3 mm (thickness) of both ASS and DSS
were cut with the help of an electrical discharge machine (EDM) fol-
lowed by solution annealed (1050 ◦ C at 1 h) for subsequent welding
operations. Dissimilar SMAW welding was carried out using DSS
E2209 electrode (3.15 mm diameter). Chemical composition of ASS
and DSS BM and an electrode was given in Table 1. Square butt joints
Table 1
Chemical compositions of BM and electrode (wt%) Creq /Nieq ratio as per WRC-1992 diagram.
Materials C Si Mn Cr Mo Ni
2205 0.02 0.55 1.72 22.42 3.12 5.7
316L 0.02 0.28 1.24 16.62 2.14 10.2
E2209 0.02 0.78 1.04 22.88 3.11 8.55
(with 1.2 mm plate gap) were carried out with DCEN polarity at two
different current (low (70 A) and high (120 A) current for 3 mm thick
plate). However, above 120 A current melting of plate and below
70 A lack of penetration were observed in the plates. Hence, fast
welding speed maintained for high current (120 A), while, slow for
low current (70 A) and corresponding to current (I), arc voltage (V)
and welding speed (v), heat inputs were calculated by considering
efficiency (Á) 75% [30,31] as mentioned in Table 2 and based on
current and other parameters, heat input calculated 0.7 kJ/mm for
70 A and designated (for discriminating) as a high heat input (HHI).
While, 0.39 kJ/mm for 120 A and designated as a low heat input
(LHI), schematic diagrams of joints and samples were represented
in Fig. 1. However, in arc welding processes current is the most
responsive parameters which affect current density and melting
rate of an electrode and BM [3]. The welding was done completely
in manual mode and before welding, the base plates were thor-
oughly cleaned with ethanol to remove contamination for avoiding
welding defects.
2.2. Metallographic and microscopy
Metallographic samples were prepared (taking transverse sec-
tion of welded region) as per ASTM E3-95 [32] by final emery paper
polishing with 1200 grit followed by velvet cloth using 0.75 ␮m
alumina slurry and final polishing was done by 0.25 ␮m diamond
paste to achieve mirror finish. The samples were micro-etched by
marble’s reagent (4 g CuSO4 ·5H2 O, 20 ml HCl and 20 ml doubled
distilled water) [33] with reaction time 10 s. Microstructures of var-
ious zones like WM, heat affected zone (HAZ) and unmixed zone
(UMZ) were observed by using an optical microscope (Zeiss Axi-
oLab A1) attached to an image analyzing software and scanning
electron microscope (JEOL 6380A, Japan). The chemical composi-
tion of the different zones features was acquired by using an energy
dispersive spectrometer (EDS). Ferrite contents were measured by
magnetic method (Fischer Ferritoscope FMP30) of the welds. Hard-
ness was obtained by using Vickers’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-04 [34] by Instron universal test-
ing machine (model-4467). Fractured ends of the tensile tested
specimens were analyzed by SEM.
2.3. Corrosion resistance test
The susceptibility to intergranular corrosion (IGC) or degree
of sensitization (DOS) was evaluated by non-destructive double-
loop electrochemical potentiokinetic reactivation (DL-EPR) test.
This practice was used originally to measure the DOS of ASSs, but
its application for assessing the DOS in DSS 2205 has been put into
practice using more aggressive electrolytes [35]. In the present case
the electrolyte 2 M H2 SO4 + 1 M HCl was taken up at room tempera-
ture (27 ◦ C) using Potentiostat (Solartron-1285). Test samples (with
surface area 0.48 cm2 ) were prepared from longitudinal direction
of the weld as illustrated in Fig. 1 and embedded in epoxy resin
to be used as a working electrodes with a copper wire attached to
the rear part using a silver paste for electric contact. The test was
performed at a scan rate of 1.67 mV/s and the potential range was
from −500 mV (SCE) to +300 mV.
N Al Cb Cu Fe WRC-1992Creq WRC-1992Nieq Creq /Nieq ratio
0.16 0.006 0.08 0.42 Bal. 25.59 9.98 2.56
– 0.008 0.06 0.3 Bal. 18.80 11.26 1.66
0.09 0.005 0.07 0.14 Bal. 26.04 11.05 2.35
 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of specimen obtained from the dissimilar weldments for metallurgical, mechanical and corrosion studies.
Table 2
Process parameters and heat inputs.
Current (A) Welding speed (mm/s) Voltage (V) Heat input (kJ/mm)
70 1.2 16–23 0.70
120 4.8 21–25 0.39
Further, another alternative method (modified destructive test)
was attempted to detect the susceptibility of joints in a highly
aggressive environment. The test was performed in boiling (100 ◦ C)
26% magnesium chloride (MgCl2 ) solution for 24 h. The fracto-
graphic analysis of fractured surfaces was examined by using
a JEOL 6380A tungsten filament SEM. In order to assess the
pitting characteristics of the specimens, immersion test (destruc-
tive) in boiling (100 ◦ C) 42% MgCl2 for 100 h (test sample size
20 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm cut from the longitudinal direction of in
the weld) was performed to observe the pitting characteristic of
dissimilar joints, schematic diagram as shown in Fig. 1 illustrated
the area of the coupon prepared for the test. Furthermore, potentio-
dynamic polarization tests (non-destructive) were also conducted
using an electrochemical analyzer (Biologic Science Instrument EC-
Lab V10.40 with eight channels). The tests (with 0.48 cm2 surface
area) were conducted at room temperature and synthetic sea water
(3.5% NaCl) solution was used as an electrolyte. The test sample was
prepared from longitudinal direction of the weld similar to DL-EPR
test sample as illustrated in Fig. 1. The range of the potential was set
to −300 mV (EOCP ) to 1200 mV and the scanning speed to 0.5 V/s.
A conventional three-electrode electrochemical cell with platinum
as a counter electrode, saturated calomel electrode (SCE) as the ref-
erence electrode and sample as working electrode was employed
and each specimen was immersed in the electrolytes for at least
30 min for stabilization of the open circuit potential (OCP) in both
electrochemical processes.
Note – Tests were made three times for reproducibility, fresh
electrolyte was used for every electrochemical test with nitrogen
purging, prior to each experiment, all specimens was grounded
by emery papers, followed by alumina polishing and cleaned
3
ultrasonic cleaner using ethanol. Rinsed with distilled water and
dried in air.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Microstructure
The microstructures of the dissimilar metal weldment were
divided into three sections; HAZ DSS 2205, WM and UMZ 316L
ASS to observe the microstructural changes presented in each
zone for both heat inputs (HI). The typical microstructures were
observed on both sides of the BM. However, thermal gradient alters
the size of the microstructure and HAZ, which further affects the
mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of the weldment
[35]. Figs. 2 and 3 illustrated the microstructures of different zones
for both HI. It was reported that the microstructure of the HAZ was
mainly influenced by thermal cycles, whereas WM morphology can
be controlled by both chemical compositions of filler metal and
welding parameters [36]. However, the width of DSS 2205 HAZ
for HHI was measured average as ∼0.81 mm, while for LHI was
∼0.59 mm. On the other side (316L ASS) the UMZ was observed
(with some ␦-ferrite stringers) and the width of this UMZ was
∼0.050 mm and ∼0.042 mm for both high and low HI respectively.
The drastic change was observed in the ASS UMZ side, which was
attributed to lower thermal conductivity (at 20 ◦ C, 9.4 W m−1 K−1 )
of ASS than DSS (at 20 ◦ C, 17 W m−1 K−1 ) [29,37]. In a weld zone,
center to HAZ, the microstructure changes gradually from the fine
dendrite grains to coarse columnar grains and austenite precip-
itates like an island on the ferrite matrix. However, the amount
of austenite depends on the heat applied and cooling rate [38]. In
HHI due to slow cooling rate, it was expected that most of the fer-
rite consumed in austenite than that of LHI. However, weld zone
composed three distinguished characteristics of austenite such as
grain boundary allotriomorphs designated as a ␥1 , widmanstatten
austenite (␥ WA) (an acicular shape, branched from allotriomorphs
grains) and intragranular austenite (IGA) or ␥2 within the grains
were observed. It was accounted that the allotriomorphs grains and
4 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
Fig. 2. Optical micrographs of dissimilar weldment (a) DSS HAZ and weld at HHI, (b) ASS weld, UMZ and BM at HHI, (c) DSS HAZ and weld at LHI, (d) Weld, UMZ and BM at
HHI.
␥ WA nucleate at higher temperature and IGA only at lower tem-
perature with higher undercooling [39]. The growth of IGA requires
lattice diffusion, which needs higher activation energy, and lat-
tice diffusion is slower than allotriomorphs austenite diffusion and
hence the growth is limited [40,41]. However, in case of LHI little
more ␥2 was observed than that of HHI due to rapid cooling and
can be distinguished by Fig. 3(a) and (b). It was reported that the
fast cooling promotes more secondary austenite in the weld [42].
Further, in HHI more austenite phase was observed as shown in
Figs. 2(a) and 3(a). Furthermore, the EDS line scan was performed
in order to observe the transition of elements in the weld due to
thermal effect as shown in Fig. 4(a). It was reported that the alter-
ation in HI results the change in the diffusion of alloying elements
[42]. However, in the WM, transition of substitutional alloying
elements like Cr and Mo was not diffused or segregated signifi-
cantly from ferrite matrix to austenite phase. While, higher Ni was
examined in the austenite phase as shown in Fig. 4(b). The result
was indicated that the thermal cycle was not significantly affects
the transition of alloying elements from ferrite to austenite phase.
However, in LHI due to fast cooling, very less transition of Cr and Mo
was observed during austenite formation than that of HHI. Further,
the dendrites were much coarser in the HHI sample as compared to
LHI due to higher solidification time as a consequence of difference
in HI [41]. Nevertheless, in many contemporary works [43–45], it
was reported that the DSS weld solidify in ferritic mode (F), which
completely depends upon the ratio of Cr equivalent (Creq ) to Ni
equivalent (Nieq ) (if it is greater than 1.95, mode is ferritic), higher
the ratio more the ferrite phase. However, in this study the solidifi-
cation mode was calculated (based on Creq /Nieq ) as a F mode due to
the governing of DSS 2209 electrode which dominated (Creq /Nieq
∼2.35) in the weld as given in Table 1. Even though, in WM the
austenite phase dominated in case of both HI as measured by ferri-
toscope, due to thermal gradient and solidification cooling time as
mentioned above. The ferrite content in the weld region decreases
with the increase in HI from ∼41% (LHI) to ∼33% (HHI) as per ferri-
toscope measurement which illustrated the significant difference
in both HI. While, 316L BM shows fully austenitic structure so neg-
ligible amount of ferrite was present. Duplex stainless steel 22% Cr
DSS BM contains 46:56 ferrite austenite phase. To avoid welding
related defects like solidification cracking and improve mechanical
properties of the WM, the ferrite content has been reported to be
in the range 30–70% [36], and in the heat inputs with SMAW was
shown good agreements with literatures.
3.2. Mechanical properties
3.2.1. Micro-hardness and tensile strength
Micro-hardness studies of dissimilar weldments were carried
out across the transverse section (such as 316L BM, UMZ, WM, DSS
HAZ and DSS BM) as shown in Fig. 5(a, b). However, irrespective of
similar electrode composition in both the welds a significant vari-
ation in micro-hardness of weld zone was observed and average
values were accounted 242.5 HV and 231.5 HV for both low and
high HI respectively. This difference in the weld hardness could
be attributed to the solidification time, variation in morphology
and distribution of substitutional, and interstitial alloying elements
in the ferrite and austenite phase due to thermal gradient [36].
Moreover, solidification time plays a vital role in the variation of fer-
rite content, higher the ferrite contents higher the micro-hardiness
[36,46]. Since, LHI experiencing to faster cooling showed higher fer-
rite content results higher micro-hardness than that of HHI. On the
other hand, the average hardness of DSS 2205 HAZ was 264.2 HV
and 255.5 HV for LHI and HHI respectively, however, in this zone
only thermal gradient affects the hardness [38]. In 316L ASS side
UMZ section increasing trend were observed, 162.1 HV (LHI) and
149.3 HV (HHI) which illustrated the direct relationship between
 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
Fig. 3. Optical micrographs of dissimilar weldment (a) HHI weld, (b) LHI weld.
ferrite content. Furthermore, the tensile sample of both HI was
tested (in each condition, three specimens were acquired and the
average tensile strength of three results was obtained) for the dis-
similar weldment and observed that the specimens fractured in
the 316L BM side in fully ductile mode with higher plasticity as
Fig. 4. EDS line scan (a) SEM micrograph of LHI weld, (b) transition of alloying elements at LHI.
5
shown in Fig. 6(a, b) and the measured average tensile strength
were 568 MPa and 555 MPa for LHI and HHI respectively. The results
clearly envisaged that the strength of the SMAW welds is higher
than that of the 316L ASS BM and also the tensile results greatly
support the hardness data. The increase in tensile strength of the
welds (DSS dominated weld) than ASS BM could be attributed to
the solid solution strengthening by austenite former elements [47].
3.3. Corrosion behaviors
3.3.1. Modified destructive test in corrosive environment
Characterization of dissimilar metal welds designed for use in
aggressive chemical environment is not accomplished without cor-
rosion test. However, in many industrial situation materials are
experiencing with chemicals in static/dynamic conditions or stress
condition. In sequence, the modified destructive test were adopted
(rather than the standard test of intergranular stress corrosion
cracking) to see the welding behavior of materials in aggressive
environment followed by stress condition (tensile test), for these
purpose tensile specimens of both HI were separately submitted to
the highly aggressive environment (in 26 wt% MgCl2 solution, boil-
ing at 100 ◦ C for 24 h). In other words, MgCl2 is the most aggressive
solution among the chloride media considered so far [10]. After
test at 24 h, samples were removed from solution and then sub-
jected to tensile test. Moreover, after tensile test, it was remarkably
observed that the samples were again broken from 316L BM side
as similar fashion mentioned in previous tensile tests results. The
fragmented specimen after test (followed by tensile test) indicated
the sufficient strength of welded joints in short duration chloride
environment test compared to 316L BM. However, the decline in
strength (538 MPa and 533 MPa for LHI and HHI respectively) was
measured after destructive (in aggressive media MgCl2 ) test when
compared to tensile test done without experiencing in corrosive
environment as mentioned in the above section. However, the SEM
fractograph of joint was shown the drastic reduction in plasticity
indicated the transition from ductile to cleavage fracture, due to
continuous experiencing in a chemical environment as illustrated
in Fig. 6(c, d) for both HI. It was expected that in this short duration
other phenomenon like pitting and intergranular corrosion may be
taking place in 316L BM due to single phase in nature and also sug-
gested that the test for 24 h in 26 wt% MgCl2 was not sufficient for
revealing the any susceptibility attack in HAZ and weld.
3.3.2. Immersion test in aggressive environment
The modified immersion test was attempted to assess the pitting
characteristic in highly aggressive environment to take the coupon
of 20 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm. The samples of both HHI and LHI (weld)
6 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10

Fig. 5. Microhardness profile of DSS 2205/ASS 316L weldment (a) HHI, (b) LHI.

Fig. 6. SEM characterization of fractured sample (a, b) before and (c, d) after modified destructive test.

as well as both 22% Cr DSS 2205 and 316L BMs were separately sub-
mitted in boiling (100 ◦ C) MgCl2 (42%) for 100 h, Fig. 1 represented
the schematic diagram of sample area. After the test heavily pit
was observed in the weld and BMs as shown in Fig. 7(a–d). The
SEM micrograph revealed numerous cracks on the phase bound-
ary (interface of ferrite-austenite grain boundary) as well as in the
austenite phase compare to ferrite phase. The grain dropping and
deep grooving were clearly seen in all the cases. This test revealed
the susceptibility of weld in this environment at 100 h duration and
led to the destruction of materials. Furthermore, maximum weight
loss was observed in 316L BM (0.43 g mass loss) followed by HHI
(0.38 g mass loss) than LHI (0.25 g mass loss) and minimum loss in
case of 22% DSS 2205 BM (0.16 g mass loss) may be due to higher
austenite phase in 316L BM and HHI leads more mass loss. This
selective localized corrosion is attributed may be due to difference
in electrochemical potential of austenite and ferrite bi-phase in the
WM [29].
3.3.3. Electrochemical testing (DL-EPR)
Generally, IGC assessments performed in situ during inspec-
tion of finished stainless steel products to ensure that the final
microstructure is not sensitized. However, many common meth-
ods are developed to evaluate the susceptibility to IGC behavior
of stainless steel such as Strauss, Huey and Streicher test [35,48].
Further, it was also reported that during in situ observation,
these tests may fail to detect low degree of sensitization and also
 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10 7

Fig. 7. SEM micrograph of destructed samples (a) HHI, (b) LHI, (c) DSS 2205 BM, (d) 316L BM by modified immersion test.

consume a lot of material for testing [35,48], which is unfavorable Table 3

DL-EPR test data.
to the service life of materials. That is why, there is great need for
nondestructive and higher sensitive test such as electrochemical Sample Ia , 10−3 (A/cm2 ) Ir , 10−5 (A/cm2 ) Ir /Ia (% DOS)
DL-EPR test. In this study the electrochemical test was adopted DSS BM 0.59 5.06 8.60
such as double loop electrochemical potentiokinetic reactivation 316L BM 2.51 5.64 2.24
(DL-EPR) in modified electrolyte solution (2 M H2 SO4 + 1 M HCl) HHI 1.31 12.10 9.23
rather than standard G108 which is more appropriate for ASS but LHI 1.12 12.50 11.16

not for DSS to detect the IGC [35]. With the increasing demand
and use of DSS, a few literatures documentation has been reported
on the application of modified DL-EPR to DSS by using main elec-
trolyte solution sulfuric acid (H2 SO4 ) with the addition of NaCl,
KSCN or CH3 CSNH2 as a depassivator [35]. However, KSCN used as
a depassivator to attack the grain boundary is too aggressive for
less corrosion resistant SS, while, CH3 CSNH2 simply decompose in
an acid environment. Instead of these very few literatures recom-
mended to HCl as a better depassivator rather than NaCl and KSCN
for in situ observation. Since the weld of both HI is dominated by
duplex phase due to duplex filler, hence for this test HCl selected as
a depassivator to detect the sensitization of dissimilar weld (even
for low degree of sensitization) in which DSS generally experiences
in numerous chemical industries.
Generally, this test indicates that the lower value of %DOS shows
better resistance to IGC. The DL-EPR curves for test sample with
HHI, LHI and BM were compared in Fig. 8(a–e). In addition, Table 3
lists the summary of anodic activation peak current density (Ia ),

Fig. 8. (a) DL-EPR curves of weldments, (b) optical micrograph of sensitized sample DSS BM, (c) HAZ, (d) HHI weld, (e) LHI weld.
8 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
Fig. 9. SEM micrograph of Cr-depleted zone (a) HHI, (b) LHI.
reactivation peak current density (Ir ), and %DOS determined by the
DL-EPR test results. The obtained results indicated that the %DOS of
DSS BM was less compared to both HI, while in 316L indicated very
less sensitization in contrast to DSS BM and both HI due to single
phase in nature (austenite). However, when compare to both HI
weld, in which the %DOS of HHI was less than that of LHI, this is
due to the presence of allotriomorphs grains, WA and less ferrite
content as mentioned above. However, separately measurement of
HAZ was very difficult due to micron in length, but the vicinity of
weld DSS side small part of DSS HAZ was observed with high sensi-
tization of ferrite phase as illustrated in Fig. 8(c). It was also reported
that in fusion welding process HAZ was the region where sensi-
tization occurs severely due to high ferritization [49] also causes
of Cr depletion due to fast cooling rate, which does not allow Cr
back diffusion to affected areas from the grain interiors and the
HAZ [50]. However, Cr depletion was observed in grain boundary
in both the cases as shown in Fig. 9(a, b). The passive film during
the reactivation scan no longer stable over a time and subsequently
breakdown occurs in Cr depleted area [51]. It was also reported that,
Fig. 10. Schematic diagrams of electrochemical test set up and sample.
Table 4
Electrochemical data of the dissimilar weldments obtained from potentiodynamic
polarization studies in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Region Corrosion Corrosion current Pitting potential,
potential, Ecorr (mV density, Icorr , 10−6 Epit (mV vs. SCE)
vs. SCE) (A/cm2 )
DSS BM −57.49 0.33 –
LHI −304.33 2.34 566
HHI −268.47 0.96 300
316L BM −305.80 0.34 −89
during welding ferrite is mainly transformed to sigma and other
intermetallic phases like secondary austenite (␥2 ) [51] which are
more prone for IGC attack. In this case, the microstructure analysis
was not revealed any sigma phase, but the secondary phase (␥2 )
was clearly examined more in LHI may be due to rapid cooling as
mentioned above. Based on the results, it was suggested that the
increased amount of allotriomorphs grains and WA decreased the
IGC attack. On the other hand Cr depleted area and high ferritization
accelerated the sensitization phenomena.
3.3.4. Potentiodynamic polarization behavior
Fig. 10 illustrated the schematic diagram of corrosion configura-
tion setup and Fig. 11(a) showed the potentiodynamic polarization
curves obtained from both BMs and HI (taking only weld part,
separate study of HAZ is very difficult due to micron in length)
respectively in 3.5% NaCl solution at room temperature. The pit-
ting potential (Epit ) and Ecorr values of DSS BM were observed to
be higher than both HI and ASS BM. It was also reported that steels
which possess higher Ecorr values are thermodynamically more sta-
ble than those with lower Ecorr [52]. However, in DSS BM no pit was
examined after the potentiodynamic scanning in 3.5% NaCl solution
as shown in Fig. 11(b), this could be attributed to optimum phase
ratio and substitutional alloying elements like Cr, Mo, Ni and inter-
stitial element N [53]. The alloying elements like Cr could improve
the stability of passive films; Ni would decrease the overall disso-
lution rates of Fe and Cr, while Mo supports the pitting resistance
[54]. More pits were observed in 316L BM due to austenitic phase
as illustrated in Fig. 11(c). Furthermore, in LHI the higher Epit and
lower Ecorr values were measured than that of HHI due to higher
ferrite content having higher Cr and Mo increases pitting potential
toward the noble direction [53,54]. More pitting was observed in
the austenite phase in the weld, especially in secondary austen-
ite due to synergetically less pitting resistance alloying elements
exist as shown in Fig. 11(d, e) and data given in Table 4. It was also
reported [55] that PREN for austenite is lower than that of ferrite
as a consequence, the pits are nucleated in austenite.
 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
Fig. 11. Anodic polarization curves for dissimilar weldments (a) polarization curve of DSS BM, HHI, LHI and 316L BM, (b) SEM micrograph of DSS 2205 BM, (c) SEM micrograph
of 316L BM, (d) SEM micrograph of HHI, (e) SEM micrograph of LHI.
4. Conclusions
1) SMAW weldment of dissimilar 22% Cr series DSS and 316L
by using E2209 for both LHI and HHI (corresponding to 120 A
and 70 A current) was shown acceptable results for engineering
application in terms of solidification cracking, intermetallic and
mechanical properties but encountered few novel interesting
results in corrosion behavior.
2) Weld metal exhibits substantial difference of substitutional
alloying elements (Cr and Mo) in ferrite and austenite phase in
both heat input due to thermal effects. However, three charac-
teristics of austenite were observed (i.e. allotriomorphs grains
of austenite, widmanstatten austenite and intragranular austen-
ite).
3) The adopted modified destructive test for the assessment of sus-
ceptibility to dissimilar weldment (with 26 wt% MgCl2 solution
for 36 h) was not sufficient for providing information about sus-
ceptibility on DSS HAZ and WM. However, fractured observed in
316L BM side showed dramatic changes from ductile to cleavage,
resulted in strength declination.
4) Modified test data revealed that susceptibility of DSS BM, HAZ
and WM in 24 h done by SMAW with this heat input was not
sufficient and recommended that the test should be conducted
for longer duration.
5) Immersion test in the highly aggressive MgCl2 environment was
shown the selective dissolution of austenite phase, deep groov-
ing and numerous cracks in phase boundary with heavy weight
loss.
6) Highly sensitization (%DOS) was measured in LHI due to high
ferritization. While, improved pitting resistance was observed
compared to HHI. Chromium depleted region and high ferritiza-
tion accelerated the sensitization phenomena.
7) Modified DL-EPR test was revealed to be a sensitive tool to
measure deterioration in the passive film stability for DSS 2209
dominated weld.
8) The secondary austenite was more prone for pitting corrosion
in solution simulated to sea water chloride composition.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Director, VNIT Nagpur for pro-
viding necessary facilities and constant encouragement to publish
this paper. The authors are also thankful to Mr. Ashvin Gaikwad,
Weldwell Electrodes, Nagpur for providing the welding facilities
9
and DSS 2209 electrode. The authors would also like to thanks Mrs.
Varsha Patankar (Technical staff, Testing of Materials Laboratory,
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering) for her
help in conducting mechanical testing.
References
[1] Logan BP, Toumpis AI, Galloway AM, McPherson NA, Hambling SJ. Dissimilar
friction stir welding of duplex stainless steel to low alloy structural steel. Sci
Technol Weld Join 2016;21:11–9.
[2] Ramkumar KD, Singh A, Raghuvanshi S, Bajpai A, Solanki T, Arivarasu M, et al.
Metallurgical and mechanical characterization of dissimilar welds of austenitic
stainless steel and super-duplex stainless steel – a comparative study. J Manuf
Process 2015;19:212–32.
[3] Kumar S, Shahi AS. Effect of heat input on the microstructure and mechanical
properties of gas tungsten arc welded AISI 304 stainless steel joints. Mater Des
2011;32:3617–23.
[4] Labanowski J. Mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of dissimilar
stainless steel welds. J Arch Mater Sci Eng 2007;28:27–33.
[5] Balakrishnan M, Anburaj J, Nazirudeen SSM, Neelakantan L, Arayanan R.
Influence of intermetallic precipitates on pitting corrosion of high Mo super-
austenitic stainless steel. Trans Indian Inst Met 2015;68:S267–79.
[6] Vasantharaja P, Vasudevan M, Palanichamy P. Effect of welding processes on
the residual stress and distortion in type 316LN stainless steel weld joints. J
Manuf Process 2015;19:187–93.
[7] Amudarasan NV, Palanikumar K, Shanmugam K. Impact behaviour and micro
structural analysis of AISI 316L stainless steel weldments. Int J Appl Innov Eng
Manag 2013;2(6):269–72.
[8] Malik AU, Al-Fozan SA, Al Romiahl M.Proceeding 2nd scientific symp. on
maintenance planning and operations, relevance of corrosion research in the
material selection for desalination plants. 1993. p. 885.
[9] Deng B, Jiang Y, Gong J, Zhong C, Gao J, Li J. Critical pitting and repassivation
temperatures for duplex stainless steel in chloride solutions. Electrochim Acta
2008;53:5220–5.
[10] Liou HY, Pan YT, Hsieh RI, Tsai WT. Effects of alloying elements on the mechan-
ical properties and corrosion behaviors of 2205 duplex stainless steels. J Mater
Eng Perform 2001;10:231–41.
[11] Matsunaga H, Sato YS, Kokawa H, Kuwana T. Effect of nitrogen on corrosion of
duplex stainless steel weld metal. Sci Technol Weld Join 1998;3:225–30.
[12] Bae SH, Lee HW. Effect of Mo contents on corrosion behaviors of welded duplex
stainless steel. Met Mater Int 2013;19(3):563–9.
[13] Udayakumar T, Raja K, Afsal Husain TM, Sathiya P. Prediction and optimization
of friction welding parameters for super duplex stainless steel (UNS S32760)
joints. Mater Des 2014;53:226–35.
[14] Cvijovic Z, Radenkovic G. Microstructure and pitting corrosion resistance of
annealed duplex stainless steel. Corros Sci 2006;48:3887–906.
[15] Luo J, Donga Y, Li L, Wanga X. Microstructure of 2205 duplex stainless steel
joint in submerged arc welding by post weld heat treatment. J Manuf Process
2014;16:144–8.
[16] Kolenic F, Kovac L, Drimal D. Effect of laser welding conditions on
austenite/ferrite ratio in duplex stainless steel 2507 welds. Weld World
2011;55:19–25.
[17] Mohammed Asif M, Shrikrishna KA, Sathiya P, Goel S. The impact of heat
input on the strength, toughness, microhardness, microstructure and corro-
sion aspects of friction welded duplex stainless steel joints. J Manuf Process
2015;18:92–106.
10 J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24 (2016) 1–10
[18] Geng S, Sun J, Guo L, Wang H. Evolution of microstructure and corrosion
behavior in [2205] duplex stainless steel GTA-welding joint. J Manuf Process
2015;19:32–7.
[19] Ramkumar KD, Goutham PS, Radhakrishna VS, Tiwari A, Anirudh S. Stud-
ies on the structure-property relationships and corrosion behaviour of
the activated flux TIG welding of UNS S32750. J Manuf Process 2016,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2016.05.006.
[20] Labanowski J. Stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of dissimilar stainless
steels welded joints. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng 2007;20:255–8.
[21] Olsson J, Snis M. Duplex – a new generation of stainless steels for desalination
plants. Desalination 2007;205:104–13.
[22] Abtibol Menezes JW, Abreu H, Kundu S, Bhadeshia HKDH, Kelly PM. Crystal-
lography of widmanstatten austenite in duplex stainless steel weld metal. Sci
Technol Weld Join 2009;14:4–10.
[23] Liou HY, Hsieh RI, Tsai WT. Microstructure and pitting corrosion in sim-
ulated heat-affected zones of duplex stainless steels. Mater Chem Phys
2002;74:33–42.
[24] Berthier A, Paillard P, Christien F. Structural and chemical evolution of super
duplex stainless steel on activated tungsten inert gas welding process. Sci Tech-
nol Weld Join 2009;14:681–90.
[25] Sidhu GS, Chatha SS. Role of shielded metal arc welding consumables on pipe
weld joint. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 2012;2:746–50.
[26] Buchely MF, Colorado HA, Jaramillo HE. Effect of SMAW manufacturing process
in high-cycle fatigue of AISI 304 base metal using AISI 308L filler metal. J Manuf
Process 2015;20:181–9.
[27] Neissi R, Shamanian M, Hajihashemi M. The effect of constant and pulsed cur-
rent gas tungsten arc welding on joint properties of 2205 duplex stainless steel
to 316L austenitic stainless steel. J Mater Eng Perform 2016;25(5):2017–28.
[28] Kumar R, Bhattacharya A, Bera TK. Mechanical and metallurgical studies in
double shielded GMAW of dissimilar stainless steels. Mater Manuf Process
2015;30:1146–53.
[29] Wang S, Ma Q, Li Y. Characterization of microstructure, mechanical proper-
ties and corrosion resistance of dissimilar welded joint between 2205 duplex
stainless steel and 16MnR. Mater Des 2011;32:831–7.
[30] Vashishtha H, Taiwade RV, Khatirkar RK, Ingle AV, Dayal RK. Welding behaviour
of low nickel chrome-manganese stainless steel. ISIJ Int 2014;54:1361–7.
[31] Unnikrishnan R, Satish Idury KSN, Khatirkar RK. Effect of heat input on the
microstructure, residual stresses and corrosion resistance of 304L austenitic
stainless steel weldments. Mater Charact 2014;93:10–23.
[32] Standard practice for preparation of metallographic specimens. Philadelphia,
PA, USA: ASTM E 3-95; 2001.
[33] Metallography and microstructures. ASM handbook Materials Park, OH: ASM
International; 2004.
[34] Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials. Philadelphia,
PA, USA: ASTM E 8-04; 2004.
[35] Gong J, Jiang YM, Deng B, Xu JL, Hu JP, Li J. Evaluation of intergranular corrosion
susceptibility of UNS S31803 duplex stainless steel with an optimized double
loop electrochemical potentiokinetic reactivation method. Electrochim Acta
2010;55:5077–83.
[36] Rahmani M, Eghlimi A, Shamanian M. Evaluation of microstructure and
mechanical properties in dissimilar austenitic/duplex stainless steel joint. J
Mater Eng Perform 2014;23(10):3745–53.
[37] Lippold JC, Kotecki DJ. Welding metallurgy and weldability of stainless steel. A
John Wiley and Sons; 2005.
[38] Chehuan T, Dreilich V, de Assis KS, de Sousa FVV, Mattos OR. Influence of multi-
pass pulsed gas metal arc welding on corrosion behaviour of a duplex stainless
steel. Corros Sci 2014;86:268–74.
[39] Ramirez AJ, Brandi SD, Lippold JC. Secondary austenite and chromium nitride
precipitation in simulated heat affected zones of duplex stainless steels. Sci
Technol Weld Join 2004;9:301–13.
[40] Eghlimi A, Shamanian M, Raeissi K. Effect of current type on microstructure
and corrosion resistance of super duplex stainless steel claddings produced by
the gas tungsten arc welding process. Surf Coat Technol 2014;244:45–51.
[41] Muthupandi V, Srinivasan PB, Seshadri SK, Sundaresan S. Effect of weld metal
chemistry and heat input on the structure and properties of duplex stainless
steel welds. Mater Sci Eng A 2003;358:9–16.
[42] Karlsson L, Borjesson J. Orientation relationships of intragranular austenite in
duplex stainless steel weld metals. Sci Technol Weld Join 2014;19:318–23.
[43] Reick W, Pohl M, Padilha AF. Recrystallization-transformation combined
annealing of a cold rolled ferritic-austenitic reactions during duplex stainless
steel. ISIJ Int 1998;38:567–71.
[44] Fu JW, Yang YS, Guo JJ, Ma JC, Tong WH. Microstructure evolution in AISI 304
stainless steel during near rapid directional solidification. Mater Sci Technol
2009;25:1013–6.
[45] Kacar R. Effect of solidification mode and morphology of microstructure on
the hydrogen content of duplex stainless steel weld metal. Mater Des 2004;
25:1–9.
[46] Taban E, Kaluc E. Welding behaviour of duplex and superduplex stainless
steels using laser and plasma arc welding processes. Weld World 2011;55:
48–57.
[47] Ramkumar KD, Mishra D, Vignesh MK, Raj BG, Arivazhagan N, Naren SV, et al.
Metallurgical and mechanical characterization of electron beam welded super-
duplex stainless steel UNS 32750. J Manuf Process 2014;16:527–34.
[48] Buhler HE, Gerlach L, Greven O, Bleck W. The electrochemical reactivation
test (ERT) to detect the susceptibility to intergranular corrosion. Corros Sci
2003;45:2325–36.
[49] Amuda MOH, Mridha S. An overview of sensitization dynamics in ferritic stain-
less steel welds. Int J Corros 2011;2011:1–9.
[50] Niekerk CJV, Toit MDU, Erwee MW. Sensitization of AISI 409 ferritic stainless
steel during low heat input arc welding. Weld World 2012;56:54–64.
[51] Lo KH, Kwok CT, Chan WK. Characterisation of duplex stainless steel subjected
to long-term annealing in the sigma phase formation temperature range by the
DLEPR test. Corros Sci 2011;53:3697–703.
[52] Siow KS, Song TY, Qiu JH. Pitting corrosion of duplex stainless steels. Anti-Corros
Methods Mater 2001;48:31–6.
[53] Tavares SSM, Pardal JM, Lima LD, Bastos IN, Nascimento AM, de Souza JA. Char-
acterization of microstructure, chemical composition, corrosion resistance and
toughness of a multipass weld joint of superduplex stainless steel UNS S32750.
Mater Charact 2007;58:610–6.
[54] Olsson COA, Landolt D. Passive films on stainless steels – chemistry, structure
and growth. Electrochim Acta 2003;48:1093–104.
[55] Ebrahimi N, Moayed MH, Davoodi A. Critical pitting temperature dependence
of [2205] duplex stainless steel on dichromate ion concentration in chloride
medium. Corros Sci 2011;53:1278–87.