ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Austenite Morphology and Distribution Dependence

of Impact Toughness in S32101 Duplex Stainless
Steel Laser Welds
BAOJUN WANG, YONGPENG ZHANG, XINJUN SHEN, PENGCHENG HUAN,
QINGYU ZHANG, and XIAONAN WANG

In this study, S32101 duplex stainless steel (DSS) was welded by laser and then subjected to
post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) at 1100 C for various times to tailor the weld microstruc-
ture. The impact toughness of the welds was tested at  40 C, and the crack propagation
behavior was characterized in detail by electron back-scattered diffraction (EBSD). After
PWHT for 4.5 and 30 minutes, the austenite volume fraction increases from 17.8 pct (HT0
weld) to 35.4 pct (HT4.5 weld) and 37.7 pct (HT30 weld), and the impact absorbed energies are
4.0, 5.1, and 20.7 J, respectively. Therefore, the austenite volume fraction is not the key factor in
determining weld toughness. The increase in austenite in the HT4.5 weld is due to the coarsening
of the original austenite, while it is mainly the formation of intragranular austenite (IGA) in the
HT30 weld, which contributes to the uniform distribution of austenite. The EBSD analysis
shows that the IGA has higher crack propagation resistance than widmanstätten austenite (WA)
and grain boundary austenite (GBA) because the crack can deflect at the IGA/ferrite phase
boundaries. Coherent or semicoherent orientation relationships (ORs) also increase the fracture
critical stress. Therefore, ductile fraction occurs in the HT30 weld, and its toughness improves
significantly. In addition, the local plastic deformation caused by IGA agglomeration in the
macroscopic cleavage fracture region also enhances the HT30 weld toughness. Thus, the
austenite morphology and distribution play a key role in the impact toughness of the welds.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-024-07314-x
 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2024

I. INTRODUCTION Welding is an essential connection method in engi-

DUPLEX stainless steel (DSS) has outstanding
mechanical properties and corrosion resistance due to
its balanced microstructure, including ferrite and
austenite.[1,2] Compared with the second-generation
standard DSS and super duplex stainless steel (SDSS),
the second-generation lean S32101 DSS uses cheaper
manganese and nitrogen instead of nickel, which is
conducive to saving production costs.[3,4] Therefore,
S32101 DSS has been widely used in petrochemicals,
pressure pipelines of natural gas transportation and
structural parts.[2,5]
BAOJUN WANG, YONGPENG ZHANG, XINJUN SHEN,
QINGYU ZHANG, and XIAONAN WANG are with the School of
Iron and Steel, Soochow University, Suzhou 215100, P.R. China.
Contact e-mails: xjshen88@suda.edu.cn, qingyu.zhang@suda.edu.cn
PENGCHENG HUAN is with the The State Key Laboratory of
Rolling and Automation of Northeastern University, Shenyang
110819, P.R. China.
Manuscript submitted July 12, 2023; accepted January 7, 2024.
neering construction. However, when the medium-thick-
ness DSS plates are connected by traditional arc
welding, opening grooves, filling wires, and even mul-
tiple passes welding are necessary due to their low
energy density,[4,6] which increases costs and reduces
efficiency. Laser welding with high energy density can
connect medium-thickness DSS plates only by one pass
without opening grooves and filling wires.[7] Moreover,
laser welding has faster welding speed, higher precision
and higher automation, which has been widely used in
engineering manufacturing.[8,9] However, excessive fer-
rite phase and precipitates caused by rapid cooling of
laser welding harm mechanical properties and corrosion
properties.[10–14] Impact loads often exist in the service
environment, so it is necessary to tailor the weld
microstructure and improve toughness.
Optimizing welding process parameters, adding nitro-
gen gas during welding, and post-welding heat treatment
(PWHT) are often used to tailor the weld microstruc-
ture.[10,12,15–17] However, optimizing process parameters
can only weaken non-equilibrium solidification due to
low heat input.[17] It is undoubtedly effective in balanc-
ing ferrite/austenite proportion by adding nitrogen

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

during welding, as nitrogen is the austenite-forming
element. However, the production of nitrides is also
inevitable.[12,16] Many studies have proved that PWHT
can balance the phase proportion and eliminate precip-
itation simultaneously.[10,15] In addition, many research-
ers have found that the weld impact toughness is not
only related to phase equilibrium[18–20] but also to
microstructure morphology.[10,21] Therefore, obtaining
the austenite with appropriate morphology through
PWHT is also essential. Haghdadi et al.[21] and Wu
et al.[22] found that elongated austenite has higher
cryogenic toughness than equiaxed and widmanstätten
austenite (WA) in the rolled DSS. However, the austen-
ite morphology, distribution and size in the microstruc-
ture of rolled steel plates differ significantly from the
weld microstructure. Furthermore, Zhang et al.[10] sug-
gested that the non-coherent relationship between
spheroidized intragranular austenite (IGA) and ferrite
in electron beam welds contributes to toughness. How-
ever, studies on the austenite morphology (including
grain boundary austenite (GBA), WA, and IGA) and
distribution in the welds are lacking.
In the present study, S32101 DSS was welded by laser,
and then the morphology and distribution of austenite
in the welds were tailored by PWHT at 1100 C for
various times. Electron back-scattered diffraction
(EBSD) analysis was used to characterize the
microstructure and crack propagation behavior in
detail. The influence of PWHT on the austenite mor-
phology and distribution in the welds was discussed, and
their influence mechanism on impact toughness was
illustrated based on the crack propagation behavior.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
A. Welding and Heat Treatment Procedures
The chemical composition of the used S32101 DSS is
listed in Table I. Before welding, the samples were
machined to 160 9 75 9 6.5 mm by wire cutting and
then polished and cleaned. A welding platform with a
CWX-3000 fiber laser, shielding gas system and custom
fixture was used, as shown in Figure 1(a). Our previous
tests proved that the welding parameters listed in
Table II could avoid the formation of weld pores. Thus,
these parameters were adopted, and the relationship
between the microstructure and impact toughness of the
welds can be truly reflected. After welding, the speci-
mens were reheated to 1100 C and held for 4.5 and
30 minutes, respectively, followed by quenching in water
to obtain austenite with different morphologies and
distributions and to avoid the formation of a precipi-
tated phase. The specimens were named HT0 (without
Table I. Chemical Composition of Used S32101 DSS
(Weight Percent)
C Cr Ni N P Si Mo Mn Cu
0.02 21.64 1.52 0.19 0.02 0.52 0.16 5.21 0.13 bal.
heat treatment), HT4.5 (heat treatment for 4.5 minutes),
and HT30 (heat treatment for 30 minutes), respectively.
B. Microstructure Characterization and Impact
Toughness Testing
After heat treatment, microstructure characterization,
Charpy impact testing and observation of impact
fracture behavior were performed. The specimens were
polished and etched with Beraha’s II solution (100 mL
H2O + 20 mL HCl + 1 g K2S2O5). Then, the
microstructures were observed using an RX50M optical
microscope (OM) and a SU-5000 field emission scanning
electron microscope (FE-SEM). The EBSD analysis was
conducted by a ZEISS G300 FE-SEM with a step size of
0.4 lm, and a HKL Channel 5 and OIM Analysis
software were used for postprocessing. According to
GB/T 229-2020, subsized Charpy impact specimens of
55 9 10 9 5 mm with V-notch were machined [Fig-
ures 1(b) and (c)]. A PIT452D-2 impact testing machine
was used to achieve the impact absorbed energy of the
specimens at  40 C, and the impact experiment was
repeated three times. To analyze the fracture mecha-
nism, a TESCAN VEGA3 SEM was used to observe the
macro- and micromorphologies of the impact fractures,
and the microstructures near impact cracks were char-
acterized by EBSD analysis. Nickel plating was applied
to the fracture surfaces to preserve the microstructures
near impact cracks and obtain good characterization
results. The nitrogen content in the welds was measured
by a TCH600 ONH analyzer to quantify nitrogen loss in
the welds.
III. RESULTS
A. Microstructure of the Welds
Figures 2(a) through (d) shows the welds cross-sec-
tion, optical microstructures, and the corresponding
statistical data. The microstructures were observed at
the center position of the welds [Figure 2(a)]. All the
welds contain ferrite and austenite phases [Figures 2(b)
through (d)]. Three kinds of austenite exist in the welds,
i.e., GBA, WA, and IGA, marked by the yellow arrow.
It is evident that the GBA and WA are long strips, while
the IGA has a blocky shape, and the uniformity of the
austenite distribution in the welds is mainly affected by
IGA. In the HT0 weld, the austenite is mainly GBA
[Figure 2(b)], the original austenite coarsens obviously
in the HT4.5 weld [Figure 2(c)], the number of IGA
increases significantly, and the austenite grains are
distributed uniformly in the HT30 weld [Figure 2(d)].
Figure 2(e) shows the volume fractions of austenite
and IGA in the welds. After PWHT, the volume fraction
of austenite in the welds increases from 17.8 to 35.4 and
37.7 pct, and the IGA increases from 5.1 to 12.8 and
18.6 pct, respectively. In addition, the size distribution
and number density of IGA in the welds were quanti-
Fe tatively counted [Figure 2(f)], and the size is represented
by the equivalent circular diameter. The proportion of
IGA larger than 4 lm increases from 36.9 to 59.3 and
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 1—Schematic diagrams of the laser welding system and specimen preparation process: (a) Laser welding system; (b) Microstructure
observation specimens and Charpy impact specimens; (c) Position and size of Charpy impact sample. TD is the transverse direction, RD is the
roll direction, and ND is the normal direction.
Table II. Welding Parameters for S32101 DSS
Parameter
Laser Power (kW)
Welding Speed (mm/minutes)
Heat Input (kJ/mm)
Defocusing Amount (mm)
Flow of Pure Argon (L/minutes)
66.5 pct, respectively. The number density of IGA
increases from 3280 to 3505/mm2 and 4220/mm2. Thus,
the high proportion of IGA in the HT30 weld is mainly
attributed to the significant nucleation and growth of
IGA after long-time PWHT.
Due to the non-equilibrium transformation of the
weld microstructure, secondary precipitates are easy to
form in the weld. Figure 3 shows SEM images of the
welds. There is a large amount of secondary precipitates
in the HT0 weld, while there are no precipitates in the
HT4.5 and HT30 welds. SEM-EDS point and mapping
show that the secondary precipitates are rich in N, while
Cr was not obviously enriched or even poor [Figures 3(b)
through (d)], which are considered as nitride (chromium
nitride).[23] In addition, the nitride precipitates are
distributed in the interior of the coarse ferrite grains.
This precipitation behavior commonly occurs in duplex
stainless steel welds.[12,20] As for the carbide, Kose
et al.[24–26] reported that Cr23C6 is often formed in the
DSS weld when the cooling rate is slow, such as air
cooling. In our present study, water quenching with a
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
high cooling rate was adopted after PWHT, so the
formation of carbide is inhibited in the welds.
Value
3 B. Impact Toughness of the Welds
500
0.36 Figure 4 shows the weld impact energy and ductile
2 fracture ratio after PWHT. After PWHT, the impact
30 energy increases from 4.0 to 5.1 J and 20.7 J, respec-
tively, consistent with the trend that the ductile fracture
ratio rises from 4.3 to 12.5 and 42.1 pct. Therefore, the
significant improvement in weld toughness is closely
related to the increase in the ductile fracture ratio.
Figure 5 shows the macro- and micromorphologies of
the fracture surfaces after PWHT. The HT0 and HT4.5
welds have no obvious plastic deformation on the
macroscale [Figures 5(a) and (b)], and the micromor-
phology is cleavage facets, so almost an entire brittle
fracture occurs. The HT30 weld exhibits obvious plastic
deformation [Figure 5(c)], and dimples and cleavage
facets exist on the fracture surface. It is worth noting
that the size of cleavage facets in the HT0 weld is large
and smooth, and tear ridges caused by GBA at ferrite
grain boundaries indicate that cleavage cracks propa-
gate steadily between and within ferrite grains [Fig-
ures 5(a1) and (a2)]. In the HT4.5 weld, the surface of the
cleavage facets begins to be rough, but the size is still
large, and the cleavage crack propagates straight [Fig-
ure 5(b1)]. For the HT30 weld, the height difference of
adjacent cleavage facets appears frequently, and the size
of cleavage facets decreases significantly [Figure 5(c2)],
indicating that cleavage cracks propagate more tortu-
ously in ferrite grains. Therefore, the cleavage fracture
behavior in the three welds indicates that the HT30 weld
Fig. 2—Cross-section, optical microstructures and the corresponding statistical data of the welds: (a) Cross-section; (b) HT0 weld; (c) HT4.5
weld; (d) HT30 weld; (e) Volume fractions of austenite and IGA; (f) Size distribution and number density of IGA (Color figure online).

has higher crack propagation resistance than the HT0
and HT4.5 welds.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Effect of PWHT on Weld Microstructure
Figure 6 shows the equilibrium phase diagram of the
S32101 DSS. With the decrease in temperature, ferrite
forms first, and then austenite and nitrides generate in
sequence. In the laser welded welds, the rapid growth of
ferrite along the direction of heat flow leads to the
formation of coarse ferrite columnar crystals and ferrite
grain boundaries with high energy provide a favourable
condition for austenite formation.[27,28] However, the
high cooling rate also inhibits the growth of austenite at
the ferrite grain boundaries (i.e., GBA) and the nucle-
ation inside the ferrite (i.e., IGA).[28,29] In addition,
about 0.05 wt pct nitrogen loss under the action of high
energy laser also brings difficulty for austenite formation
in the weld. Therefore, the HT0 weld without PWHT
contains less austenite [Figure 2(b)]. A low fraction of
austenite has limited storage capacity for nitrogen
element, resulting in supersaturation of nitrogen in the
ferrite with low nitrogen solubility, so the nitrides are
formed in the interior of ferrite grains [Figures 3(a)
through (d)].
As shown in Figure 6, the theoretical austenite
volume fraction considering nitrogen element loss is
36.9 pct at 1100 C (Figure 6), much higher than that in
the HT0 weld (17.8 pct). Therefore, the PWHT will

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 3—SEM images and elemental analysis of the welds: (a) HT0 weld; (b) and (c) the observation and analysis of nitrides; (d) SEM-EDS
mapping of nitride; (e) HT4.5 weld; (f) HT30 weld. The N element was not detected in the ferrite by spot scanning due to its low content since
Cr2N was precipitated.

significantly increase the austenite content in the welds.

After PWHT, the phase fractions in the HT4.5 and
HT30 welds are 35.4 and 37.7 pct, respectively, which
reached an equilibrium state.
In this study, the PWHT temperature exceeds the
solution temperature of nitrides (903 C), resulting in
the disappearance of nitride precipitates in the HT4.5
and HT30 welds [Figures 3(e) and (f)]. The dissolution
of nitrides increases the nitrogen content of the ferrite,
creating conditions for the formation of austenite.
However, Xie et al. pointed out that the formation of
IGA requires more active energy to overcome the
constraints of the surrounding ferrite lattice, so the
formation of IGA is slow.[28] Therefore, a small
amount of IGA is generated during the short-time
PWHT and the growth of the original austenite
domains. As a result, austenite in the HT4.5 weld is
Fig. 4—Impact energy and ductile fracture ratio of the welds after mainly composed of coarsened GBA and WA [Fig-
PWHT.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 5—Macro- and micro morphologies of impact fracture surfaces of the various welds: (a) HT0 weld; (b) HT4.5 weld; (c) HT30 weld. (a1),
(a2) The top and the bottom micromorphologies of HT0 fracture surface. (b1), (b2) The cleavage facets and the dimples of HT4.5 fracture
surface. (c1), (c2) The cleavage facets and the dimples of HT30 fracture surface.

Fig. 7—IPF of austenite in the HT30 weld (Color figure online).

GBA and WA increase the proportion of IGA, as they

have no essential difference compared with IGA.

B. Fracture Mechanism for Austenite with Different

Fig. 6—The equilibrium phase diagram of S32101 DSS calculated by
JMatPro.
ure 2(c)]. When the PWHT time is extended to
30 minutes, sufficient time is provided for the nucle-
ation and growth of IGA, the size and the number
density of IGA increase significantly [Figures 2(d)
through (f)]. In addition, to follow the principle of
minimizing interface energy, the long strips of WA and
GBA gradually tend to be equiaxial [marked by black
dashed rectangles in Figure 7). The decompositions of
Morphology and Distribution
In ferrite-austenite duplex steels, austenite has better
plastic deformation ability than ferrite due to more slip
systems. Therefore, the typical way to improve the weld
toughness is to increase the austenite content.[18–20,30]
However, in this study, the impact absorbed energy of
the HT4.5 weld with 35.4 pct austenite is only 5.1 J,
which is close to that of the HT0 weld with 17.8 pct
austenite (4.0 J). The impact absorbed energy of the
HT30 weld with 37.7 pct austenite reaches 20.7 J.
Obviously, the impact toughness of the welds is deter-
mined by other factors.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A


Fig. 8—Inverse pole figures (IPFs) and local kernel average
misorientation (KAM) images of impact fracture surfaces: (a) HT0
weld; (b) HT4.5 weld; (c) HT30 weld; (a) through (c) IPFs; (a1), (a2)
and (c1) are KAM images in (a) and (c) located by dashed
rectangles, respectively; (d) Position of EBSD analysis (Color
figure online).
To clarify the relationship between the microstructure
and crack propagation in the welds, the crack propaga-
tion behaviors of the HT0, HT4.5, and HT30 welds were
investigated through EBSD (Figure 8). The crack
propagation path in the HT0 weld is straight, and the
direction of main crack propagation deviates from the
impact load direction, resulting in deflections of 36 deg
(22 fi  14 deg), 125 deg ( 105 fi 20 deg) and 26 deg
(26 fi 0 deg) inside the ferrite. The accumulation of
IGA leads to 91 deg abnormal deflection and higher
kernel average misorientation (KAM) values [green
arrow in Figures 8(a) and (a1)], meaning local plastic
deformation occurs.[26] However, due to the small size
and low density of the IGA in the HT0 weld, the
occurrence of crack deflection and local plastic defor-
mation is limited [marked by red arrows in Figures 8(a)
through (a2)]. The crack goes straight through WA
without deflection [marked by white dashed rectangles
in Figure 8(b)], so the fracture profile is flat in the HT4.5
weld, which has high percentage of GBA and WA
[Figure 8(b)]. In the HT30 weld, effective and frequent
crack deflection and the fracture profile becomes signif-
icantly rough due that high density of IGA [red arrow in
Figure 8(c)]. The area of plastic deformation induced by
IGA accumulation increases [Figure 8(c1)]. Meanwhile,
the coarsened GBA in the HT4.5 weld does not improve
its toughness. Hence, the IGA is more critical in
inhibiting crack propagation than WA and GBA.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Previous studies have shown that microscopic inter-
faces with high misorientation, including grain bound-
aries and phase boundaries, play an important role in
crack propagation.[31–33] In our present study, the effect
of grain boundaries can be ignored because of their low
density [Figures 9(a) through (f)]. After PWHT, the
high-angle phase boundary density increases from
0.191 to 0.281 lm1 and 0.266 lm1, respectively. The
misorientation angle is mainly concentrated at ~ 44 deg,
which suggests that K–S (~ 42.85 deg) or N–W ORs
(~ 45.98 deg) exist between the austenite and ferrite
[Figure 9(g)]. Because the exact coherent ORs almost do
not exist, misorientation angles between 41.85 and
46.98 deg are regarded as coherent or semicoherent
ORs, which are represented by the red line in
Figures 9(d) through (f). Obviously, WA, IGA and
one side of GBA exhibit coherent or semicoherent ORs
with adjacent ferrite grains, consistent with the previous
reports in DSS weld.[25,34,35] Meanwhile, the density of
coherent or semicoherent interfaces located in the
interior of ferrite grains in the HT30 weld is higher
than that in the HT0 and HT4.5 welds [Figure 9(h)].
Although the types of WA/ferrite and IGA/ferrite
phase interfaces are the same, they show different roles
in crack propagation. In detail, cracks spread directly
through WA and are usually deflected at IGA. Accord-
ing to fracture theory, the degree of stress concentration
determines the formation of cracks.[36] Thus, when the
crack propagates to WA/ferrite phase boundaries, the
stress release is relatively difficult due to the additional
constraints of coherent or semicoherent ORs,[10] and
then the crack spreads directly. However, IGA/ferrite
has a shorter phase boundary than WA/ferrite, resulting
in a relatively weak additional constraint and conducive
to crack deflection. In addition, Interface sliding is
inevitable when crack deflection at phase boundaries.
Compared with general phase interfaces, sliding along
coherent or semicoherent interfaces increases the surface
energy (c) and then critical fracture stress (rc ) increases
according to the Griffith fracture theory
h i1=2
pEc [37]
(rc ¼ ð1v2 Þd0 ), which also contributes to increas-
ing crack propagation resistance.
Wang et al.[36] pointed out that the variation of crack
propagation path length caused by crack deflection can
be quantitatively described by the roughness parameter
RL (the ratio of the true propagation length Lt to its
projected length L¢). The RL values of the three welds
are 1.23, 1.15, and 1.84, respectively, as shown in
Figure 10. It is obvious that the frequent crack deflec-
tion caused by the high density and uniform distribution
of IGA increases the crack propagation path. So, the
energy consumption will be increased with the elonga-
tion of the crack propagation path.
According to the above discussion, the toughening
mechanism of the HT30 weld can be summarized in
Figure 11. Because the IGA has higher crack propa-
gation resistance than WA and GBA, the high-density
and larger IGA in the HT30 weld increase resistance
for crack propagation by frequent crack deflection. As
Fig. 9—(a) through (c) Distributions of grain boundaries (Blue lines indicate high-angle grain boundaries with misorientation h ‡ 15 deg, and
green lines indicate low-angle grain boundaries with misorientation 2 deg £ h < 15 deg); (d) through (f) Distributions of misorientation angle
(red line represents 41.85 to 46.98 deg); (g) Phase boundary densities; (h) Point-point and point-origin misorientation angle along the yellow
dashed lines in (a) through (c). (a), (d) HT0 weld; (b), (e) HT4.5 weld, and (c), (f) HT30 weld (Color figure online).

Fig. 10—Fracture surface profile and roughness calculation of the Fig. 11—Schematic diagram of the fracture mechanism for the HT30
three fracture surfaces. weld.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

a result, more and larger plastic deformation regions
are induced, and the weld toughness improves
significantly.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, lean S32101 DSS was welded by laser, and
the PWHT process was used to tailor the microstructure
in the welds. The influence of the austenite morphology
and distribution on the impact toughness was revealed by
observing the crack propagation path using EBSD. The
main conclusions are as follows:
1. Nonequilibrium solidification and nitrogen loss in
the laser welding pool result in a low austenite volume
fraction (17.8 pct) and nitride precipitates in the HT0
weld. After PWHT, the nitride precipitates disap-
pear, and the austenite volume fractions of the HT4.5
and HT30 welds increase to 35.4 and 37.7 pct,
respectively, close to the theoretical equilibrium
value of 36.9 pct. The austenite in the HT30 weld
distributes uniformly owing to the highest propor-
tion of IGA (18.6 pct) formed through nucleation
and growth of IGA and the decomposition of WA.
2. WA, one side of GBA, and IGA exhibit coherent or
semicoherent ORs with the adjacent ferrite grains.
However, the additional stress generated by the
coherent or semi-coherent ORs at the IGA/ferrite
interface is relatively weak, making the cracks prone
to deflection at the IGA/ferrite interface. Therefore,
IGA has higher crack propagation resistance than
WA and GBA.
3. The HT0 weld has poor impact toughness (4.0 J) due
to low austenite volume fraction and nitride precip-
itates. The high proportions of GBA and WA in the
HT4.5 weld do not improve the weld toughness
(5.1 J). The IGA with high density and uniform
distribution in the HT30 weld causes frequent crack
deflection and larger local plastic deformation, hin-
dering crack propagation inside the coarse ferrite and
improving toughness significantly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported by the Aca-
demic Start-up Foundation of Soochow University
(NH14400323).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
BW: investigation, methodology, analysing and dis-
cussing data, writing–original draft. YZ: investigation,
methodology. XS: supervision, funding acquisition,
conceptualization, analysing and discussing data,
review & editing. PH: investigation, methodology. QZ:
analyzing and discussing data, supervision. XW: ana-
lysing and discussing data.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
DATA AVAILABILITY
Data will be made available on request.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest.
REFERENCES
1. Z. Feng, J. Li, and Y. Wang: Steel Res. Int., 2017, vol. 88, p.
1700177.
2. T. Dandekar, A. Kumar, R. Khatirkar, D. Mahadule, and G.
Ayyappan: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2021, vol. 30, pp. 2916–29.
3. M. Lilias, P. Johansson, H. Liu, and C. Olsson: Steel Res. Int.,
2008, vol. 79, pp. 466–73.
4. J. Pilhagen and R. Sandstrom: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2014, vol. 602,
pp. 49–57.
5. Y. Fang, Z. Gao, W. Bai, and P. Sun: Int. J. Mater. Res., 2018,
vol. 109, pp. 485–93.
6. N. Ouali, K. Khenfer, B. Belkessa, J. Fajoui, B. Cheniti, B. Idir,
and S. Branchu: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2019, vol. 28, pp.
4252–64.
7. L. Chen, B. Wang, X. Qi, X. Shen, Q. Sun, and X. Wang: Steel
Res. Int., 2022, vol. 93, p. 2200349.
8. S. Hu, B. Yang, B. Zeng, D. Zheng, and Z. Yang: Mater. Sci.
Forum, 2016, vol. 861, pp. 141–46.
9. A. Ghosh, D. Misra, and S. Acharyya: Lasers Manuf. Mater.,
2019, vol. 6, pp. 228–46.
10. Z. Zhang, H. Jing, L. Xu, Y. Han, L. Zhao, X. Lv, and J. Zhang:
J. Manuf. Process., 2018, vol. 31, pp. 568–82.
11. F. Cao, G. Huang, W. Hou, R. Ni, T. Sun, J. Hu, Y. Shen, and A.
Gerlich: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2022, vol. 307, p. 117660.
12. Z. Zhang, Y. Han, X. Lu, T. Zhang, Y. Bai, and Q. Ma: Mater.
Sci. Eng. A, 2023, vol. 872, p. 144936.
13. M. Keskitalo, K. Mäntyjärvi, J. Sundqvist, J. Powell, and A.
Kaplan: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2014, vol. 216, pp. 381–84.
14. K. Ceyhun: J. Mater. Sci., 2020, vol. 55, pp. 17232–54.
15. A. Magalhaes, C. Magalhaes, M. De Lima, J. Cruz, L. Godefroid,
R. Bertazoli, and G. De Faria: Weld. J., 2020, vol. 99, pp.
185–202.
16. R. Lai, Y. Cai, Y. Wu, F. Li, and X. Hua: J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 2016, vol. 231, pp. 397–405.
17. F. KoleniČ, L. Kovac, and D. Drimal: Weld. World, 2011, vol. 55,
pp. 19–25.
18. K. Qi, G. Wang, Y. Jin, J. Gu, Z. Zhang, and Y. Tao: Int. J. Mod.
Phys. B, 2020, vol. 34, p. 2040061.
19. T. Toth, S. Krasnorutskyi, J. Hensel, and K. Dilger: Int. J. Press.
Vessel. Pip., 2021, vol. 191, p. 104354.
20. N. Haghdadi, C. Ledermueller, H. Chen, Z. Chen, Q. Liu, X. Li,
G. Rohrer, X. Liao, S. Ringer, and S. Primig: Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
2022, vol. 835, p. 142695.
21. N. Haghdadi, P. Cizek, P. Hodgson, and H. Beladi: Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 2018, vol. 745, pp. 369–78.
22. X. Wu, Z. Song, J. He, H. Feng, B. Wang, and M. Wu: Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 2022, vol. 851, p. 143654.
23. A. Mohamed, A. Mohamed, H. Abdel, A. Farahat, and A.
EINikhaily: Sci. Rep., 2023, vol. 13, p. 4592.
24. K. Ceyhun and T. Ceyhun: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2023, vol. 862, p.
144476.
25. K. Ceyhun and T. Ceyhun: Mater. Chem. Phys., 2022, vol. 289, p.
126490.
26. K. Ceyhun and T. Ceyhun: J. Manuf. Process., 2022, vol. 73, pp.
861–94.
27. S. Saravanan, K. Raghukandan, and N. Sivagurumanikandan: J.
Manuf. Process., 2017, vol. 25, pp. 284–89.
28. X. Xie, J. Li, W. Jiang, Z. Dong, S. Tu, X. Zhai, and X. Zhao:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2020, vol. 786, p. 139426.
29. J. Singh and A. Shahi: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2018, vol. 272,
pp. 137–48.
30. S. Cui, Y. Shi, Y. Cui, and T. Zhu: Eng. Fail. Anal., 2018, vol. 94,
pp. 226–31.
31. I. Alvarez-Armas, U. Krupp, M. Balbi, S. Herenu, M.C. Marinelli,
and H. Knobbe: Int. J. Fatig., 2012, vol. 41, pp. 95–100.
32. B. Donges, A. Giertler, U. Krupp, C. Fritzen, and H. Christ:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2014, vol. 589, pp. 146–52.
33. R. Strubbia, S. Herenu, A. Giertler, I. Alvarez-Armas, and U.
Krupp: Int. J. Fatig., 2014, vol. 65, pp. 58–63.
34. X. Zhang, K. Wang, Q. Zhou, J. Kong, Y. Peng, J. Ding, C. Diao,
D. Yang, Y. Huang, T. Zhang, and S. Williams: Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, 2020, vol. 773, p. 138856.
35. L. Karlsson and J. Börjesson: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2014, vol.
19, pp. 318–23.
36. H. Wang, Y. Tian, Q. Ye, R. Misra, Z. Wang, and G. Wang:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2019, vol. 761, p. 138009.
37. W. Brace: J. Geophys. Res., 1960, vol. 65, pp. 3477–80.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A