Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Data Collections

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

Data Article

Optimization of welding parameters and study on mechanical and

pitting corrosion behavior of dissimilar stainless steel GTA welds
Anil Kumar Peethala a, *, Balaji Naik D b, Srinivasa Rao. K a, Rambabu G c
a
Metallurgical Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530003, India
b
Universal College of Engineering & Technology, Dokiparru, Guntur 521332, India
c
Mechanical Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530003, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study aims to determine the effect of filler wire on mechanical properties and pitting
Stainless steels corrosion behavior by comparing the microstructures of dissimilar stainless steel gas tungsten arc
Ferritic stainless steels (GTA) welds. In order to produce weldments with optimized parameters, Taguchi method and
Weld zone
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to design the experiments. Optical microscopy was done
Heat affected zone
on the welds before and after corrosion testing in order to correlate the microstructure and
Austenitic stainless steels
Gas tungsten arc welding mechanical properties with the corrosion behavior. Hardness and tensile tests were performed,
Dissimilar welding and failure locations of tensile specimens were recorded for dissimilar welds. By using a potentio-
Optimization dynamic polarization test in a 3.5% NaCl environment, pitting potentials of base metal, heat
Taguchi method affected zone (HAZ) and fusion zone were measured. Welds made with ferritic filler wire were
Pitting potential found to be having a higher number of corrosion pits, which indicates poor corrosion resistance. A
Corrosion resistance comparison of pitting potentials for both dissimilar welds revealed that austenitic filler produced
relatively higher positive potentials, resulting in better corrosion resistance. Welds made with
austenitic filler wire were found to have improved strength and ductility in dissimilar stainless
steel joining when compared to welds made with ferritic filler wire. Better combination of
strength and corrosion resistance of dissimilar stainless-steel welds is attributed to less grain
coarsening in heat affected zone and increased Ni content in weld zone.

Specification table

Subject area Mechanical Engineering, Physical Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, etc.

Compounds NaCl
Data category Materials, Physio-chemical.
Data acquisition Scanning electron microscope (SEM), Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), Gill AC’s basic electrochemical system.
format
Data type Raw, analyzed
Procedure In our present investigation in order to correlate the microstructure and mechanical properties with the corrosion behavior. Hardness and
tensile tests were performed, and failure locations of tensile specimens were recorded for dissimilar welds. By using a potentio-dynamic
polarization test in a 3.5% NaCl environment, pitting potentials of base metal, heat affected zone (HAZ) and fusion zone were measured.
Data accessibility Data is with this article

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.K. Peethala).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdc.2022.100978
Received 12 November 2022; Received in revised form 12 December 2022; Accepted 15 December 2022
Available online 16 December 2022
2405-8300/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Table 1
Chemical compositions of plates and filler wires.
Type Sample ID C Mn S P Si Cr Cu Mo Ni Co Nb V

Parent Metals AISI 304 0.057 0.93 0.005 0.043 0.48 18.1 - - 8.04 - - -
AISI 430 0.05 0.34 0.003 0.028 0.39 16.4 0.098 0.035 0.12 - - 0.11
Filler Wires ER 308 0.04 1.8 0.009 0.009 0.3 20 0.15 0.2 9.5 - - -
ER 430 0.06 0.55 0.015 0.026 0.38 16.79 0.1 0.16 0.4 - - -
Weld Zones A1A 0.53 0.98 0.003 0.037 0.4 18.8 0.41 0.22 8.28 0.18 0.011 0.06
A2A 0.031 0.75 0.002 0.04 0.37 18.7 0.38 0.18 8.2 0.15 0.005 0.05
F1F 0.026 1.2 0.004 0.03 0.42 19.8 0.24 0.14 7.27 0.07 0.01 0.06
F2F 0.034 0.35 0.004 0.025 0.4 17.7 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.31 0.05
A1F 0.025 1.21 0.003 0.031 0.41 19.9 0.27 0.16 8.06 0.1 0.008 0.06
A2F 0.032 0.41 0.006 0.026 0.4 18.3 0.07 0.04 1.06 0.05 0.33 0.04

Table 2
L18 orthogonal array.
Experiment Filler metal Voltage Current Gas flow rate Heat input

1 Austenitic 9 120 20 0.9

2 Austenitic 9 140 25 1.2
3 Austenitic 9 160 30 1.5
4 Austenitic 12 120 20 1.2
5 Austenitic 12 140 25 1.5
6 Austenitic 12 160 30 0.9
7 Austenitic 15 120 25 0.9
8 Austenitic 15 140 30 1.2
9 Austenitic 15 160 20 1.5
10 Ferretic 9 120 30 1.5
11 Ferretic 9 140 20 0.9
12 Ferretic 9 160 25 1.2
13 Ferretic 12 120 25 1.5
14 Ferretic 12 140 30 0.9
15 Ferretic 12 160 20 1.2
16 Ferretic 15 120 30 1.2
17 Ferretic 15 140 20 1.5
18 Ferretic 15 160 25 0.9

Table 3
Level- setting for design parameters.
Controlled factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Filler metal Austenitic Ferretic —–

Voltage (Volts) 9 12 15
Current (Amps) 120 140 160
Gas flow rate 20 25 30
Heat input 0.9 1.2 1.5

1. Rationale

Stainless steels are engineering materials that can meet a wide range of design requirements. They are resistant to corrosion, strong
at high temperatures, tough at cryogenic temperatures, and their manufacturing is less laborious and cost-effective than other ma­
terials [1,2]. Dissimilar metal welding has become a very promising technology in various fields like power plants and transportation
systems. The dissimilar metal combinations such as austenitic and ferritic stainless steels are in high demand in these sectors. In
general, dissimilar metal joining is difficult than similar metal joining due to the differences in metallurgical aspects such as physical
and mechanical properties between the parent metals. Due to the highly weldable nature of stainless steels, it is possible to obtain the
optimal combination of corrosion resistance, strength, and cost effectiveness in stainless steel welds [3]. Usually, welds are often prone
to all types of corrosion as a result of the microstructural and compositional changes that occur during the welding process [4,5].
Welding process has a significant impact on the corrosion susceptibility of welds, which can result in galvanic corrosion and pitting
corrosion on welds. To minimize the welding process’s limitations, effective filler wire selection is crucial for achieving excellent weld
quality and microstructure [6]. Optimization of welding parameters is important to achieve the better properties of similar and dis­
similar welds.

2
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Table 4
Experimental design.
Exp.No Filler metal Voltage Current Gas flow rate Heat input Tensile strength Hardness Pit potential

1 Austenitic 9 120 20 0.9 512.3 135 366

2 Austenitic 9 140 25 1.2 532.11 138 356
3 Austenitic 9 160 30 1.5 543.55 150 450
4 Austenitic 12 120 20 1.2 535.32 138 361
5 Austenitic 12 140 25 1.5 540.2 135 370
6 Austenitic 12 160 30 0.9 545.15 140 350
7 Austenitic 15 120 25 0.9 520.01 130 345
8 Austenitic 15 140 30 1.2 538.31 135 359
9 Austenitic 15 160 20 1.5 542.13 139 365
10 Ferretic 9 120 30 1.5 535.48 115 308.4
11 Ferretic 9 140 20 0.9 518.42 102 290.21
12 Ferretic 9 160 25 1.2 541.29 100 288
13 Ferretic 12 120 25 1.5 528.05 98 290
14 Ferretic 12 140 30 0.9 530.01 105 300
15 Ferretic 12 160 20 1.2 524.3 100 305.1
16 Ferretic 15 120 30 1.2 519.03 95 270.04
17 Ferretic 15 140 20 1.5 505.68 110 290.52
18 Ferretic 15 160 25 0.9 512.03 100 278.32

Table 5
ANOVA of tensile strength.
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Filler metal 1 499.2 499.17 7.18 0.028

Voltage (Volts) 2 380.1 190.07 2.73 0.124
Current (Amps) 2 306.5 153.25 2.20 0.173
Gas flow rate 2 448.9 224.43 3.23 0.094
Heat input 2 335.6 167.80 2.41 0.151
Error 8 556.2 69.52 — —
Total 17 2526.4 — — —

Table 6
ANOVA of hardness.
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Filler metal 1 5512.50 5512.50 306.96 0.000

Voltage (Volts) 2 88.11 44.06 2.45 0.148
Current (Amps) 2 29.78 14.89 0.83 0.471
Gas flow rate 2 128.11 64.06 3.57 0.078
Heat input 2 163.44 81.72 4.55 0.048
Error 8 143.67 17.96 — —
Total 17 6065.61 — — —

Table 7
ANOVA of pit potential.
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Filler metal 1 27332.0 27332.0 69.62 0.000

Voltage (Volts) 2 1899.0 949.5 2.42 0.151
Current (Amps) 2 824.9 412.5 1.05 0.393
Gas flow rate 2 1012.8 506.4 1.29 0.327
Heat input 2 2172.6 1086.3 2.77 0.122
Error 8 3140.8 392.6 — —
Total 17 36382.1 — — —

Taguchi method is the simplest technique for optimizing experimental parameters with a limited number of trials. The number of
required trials for an experiment is determined by the no. of parameters involved with the experiment. A greater number of parameters
results in a more number of iterations and a longer time required to complete an experiment. This method examines the entire
parameter space with a small number of experiments by employing an orthogonal array. The total degrees of freedom (DOF) must be
computed in order to choose an effective orthogonal array for the experiments. The DOF is defined as the no. of design parameter
comparisons required to be made.

3
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 1. Main effects plot for SN ratio.

Table 8
Optimum parameters for each response variable.
Exp. No Filler metal Voltage Current Gas flow rate Heat input Tensile strength Hardness Pit potential S/N Ratio

1 Austenitic 9 120 20 0.9 512.3 135 366 46.5662

2 Austenitic 9 140 25 1.2 532.11 138 356 46.714
3 Austenitic 9 160 30 1.5 543.55 150 450 47.5476
4 Austenitic 12 120 20 1.2 535.32 138 361 46.7317
5 Austenitic 12 140 25 1.5 540.2 135 370 46.6021
6 Austenitic 12 160 30 0.9 545.15 140 350 46.809
7 Austenitic 15 120 25 0.9 520.01 130 345 46.2421
8 Austenitic 15 140 30 1.2 538.31 135 359 46.5705
9 Austenitic 15 160 20 1.5 542.13 139 365 46.8009
10 Ferretic 9 120 30 1.5 535.48 115 308.4 45.2474
11 Ferretic 9 140 20 0.9 518.42 102 290.21 44.2902
12 Ferretic 9 160 25 1.2 541.29 100 288 44.1465
13 Ferretic 12 120 25 1.5 528.05 98 290 43.9939
14 Ferretic 12 140 30 0.9 530.01 105 300 44.5439
15 Ferretic 12 160 20 1.2 524.3 100 305.1 44.1877
16 Ferretic 15 120 30 1.2 519.03 95 270.04 43.6914
17 Ferretic 15 140 20 1.5 505.68 110 290.52 44.8411
18 Ferretic 15 160 25 0.9 512.03 100 278.32 44.0996

Table 9
Confirmatory test- results.
Exp. No Filler metal Voltage Current Gas flow rate Heat input Tensile strength Hardness Pit potential

1 Austenitic 9 160 30 1.5 543 150 450

544 152 451
541 149 448
Average 542.66 150.33 449.66

In view of the above, present work is aimed at studying the mechanical properties and pitting corrosion of dissimilar stainless-steel
welds made with optimized welding parameters. Taguchi, ANOVA were used for optimization of welding parameters. Two fillers of
austenitic and ferritic filler were used for GTAW of dissimilar stainless steels in the present study.

2. Procedure

AISI304 (ASS) and AISI430 (FSS) plates with a thickness of 5 mm were (Table 1 represents chemical compositions) used for making
GTA welds with AISI 308 (ER 308) and AISI 430 (ER 308) filler wires using the Taguchi method to optimize the parameters. The
experimental layout shown in Table 2 was constructed using an L18 orthogonal array with eighteen rows and five columns because the
current study employs mixed levels of five parameters. The L18 has five columns and eighteen rows and the parameters such as filler
metal, voltage, current, gas flow rate and heat input. Present study intends to examine the microstructural changes in various zones of
dissimilar welds of austenitic, ferritic stainless steels (AISI 304, AISI430) with filler wire variations (ER 308, ER 430) by using GTAW at

4
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 2. Macrostructure of (a) A1F weldment (b) A2F weldment.

optimized parameters. The microstructure of the welds on the top surface and cross-sections of the samples of the base metal, as well as
various zones of dissimilar GTA welded samples, were analyzed using a Leica-DM2700M optical microscope. SEM Micrographs of the
weld specimens were acquired using SEM- Tescan VEGA3 with the secondary electron imaging mode of the SEM at 15 and 20 kV. In
order to quantify the elements, an energy dispersive X-ray (EDAX) study was carried out. An electron probe micro analyzer (EPMA)
(Camebax, Camera MBX) was utilized in order to carry out the micro-chemical characterization of the base metal, HAZ, and WZ re­
gions. Vickers micro-hardness tester (Model: DV-1A) was used to measure micro hardness and tensile tests have been carried out using
hydraulic universal testing equipment (Instron, capacity: 100 ton) in various zones of each type of sample. Pitting corrosion testing for
base metal and dissimilar weld samples were carried out using Gill Ac electrochemical work station with 3.5% NaCl.

3. Data, value and validation

3.1. Selection of control parameters

The control parameters listed in Table 3 were chosen for the study due to theiraffect on the objectives of enhancing hardness, tensile
strength and pitting potential. Eventhough there are other parameters, but the following were found to be appropriate for the
experimental work related to welding equipment. This investigation was conducted using mixed levels.
This experiment has five variables at mixed levels. It would be necessary to conduct a full factorial experiment, at least 35 =243
experiments. Taguchi experiment with a L18 (35) orthogonal array (18 tests, 5 variables, mixed levels) was used in the present work.
The experiment design is shown in Table 2.
Eighteen experiments, following the plan, were performed on the engine and the results were shown in Table 4 and the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) of tensile strength, hardness and pit potential are shown in Tables 5–7.
From the Table 5, the value of P for filler metal has 0.028 which is less than or equal to 0.05. So, the filler metal has the most
influencing parameter for tensile strength.
From the Table 6, the value of P for filler metal and heat input are 0.0000 and 0.048 which is less than or equal to 0.05. So, the filler
metal has the most influencing parameter compared to heat input for hardness.
From the Table 7, the value of P for filler metal has 0.0000 which is less than or equal to 0.05. So, the filler metal has the most
influencing parameter for pit potential. Overall, the filler metal has the most significant parameter for the responses.

5
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 3. Microstructure of A1F weldment - (a) A HAZ (b) A weld interface (c) WZ (d) F weld interface (e) F HAZ.

3.2. Main effects plot

Fig. 1 shows the main effects plot for SN ratio and it’s drawn for larger is better type. From the Fig. 1, it is clearly observed that the
optimum values of tensile strength, hardness and pit potential are at filler metal: austenitic, voltage: 9 V, current: 160 A, gas flow rate:
30 and heat input: 1.5.
Optimum parameters for tensile strength, hardness and pit potential are shown in Table 8 and optimization analysis was carried out
by using signal-to-noise ratio for larger the better type. From the Table 7 it was clearly observed that the experiment 3 has reached the
global solution because the value of signal-to-noise ratio for larger the better type reaches maximum value at experiment 3.

3.3. Confirmatory test

The final step, after choosing the ideal welding levels, is to validate the outcomes using the ideal design parameter levels. By
selecting five control parameters in the multi optimization technique, a confirmation test is carried out for the combined objective.

6
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 4. Microstructure of A2F weldment - (f) A HAZ (g) A weld interface (h) WZ (i) F weld interface (j) F HAZ.

Table 9 displays the results of the confirmation test.

3.3.1. Microstructural studies

The macrostructure of GTAW joints produced by the combination of dissimilar metals is shown in (Fig. 2) as A1F (austenitic filler
wire), A2F (ferritic filler wire). It has been observed that dissimilar metal welds made with ferritic filler wire exhibit symmetrical weld
zone. On the other hand, weld zone in dissimilar metal welds made with ferritic filler wire was observed to be different from ferrite
stainless steel side, and austenite stainless steels side did not show any grain coarsening, which is predominantly limited to ferritic
stainless steel side. Figs. 3 and 4 shows microstructure of zonal variation in the austenitic to ferritic stainless steel dissimilar weldment
with austenitic and ferritic filler wire.
As seen in Figs. 5 and 6, it can be concluded that grain coarsening occurs exclusively in the HAZ region, which is subjected to the
highest thermal temperatures during the weld cycle. Despite this, as weld pool cools more quickly than the heat-affected zone, the weld
zone contains finer grains than the heat-affected zone due to lower residence time of high temperature in weld zone.

7
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 5. SEM Microstructure of A1F weldment - (a) A HAZ (b) A weld interface (c) WZ (d) F weld interface (e) R HAZ.

On the side of ferritic stainless steel, grains are columnar, whereas on the side of austenitic stainless steel, they are predominantly
equiaxed. On the ferritic side of the stainless steel specimen, epitaxial growth was observed, whereas the austenitic side of the stainless
steel specimen displayed no such features. In the case of A1F weldment with ferritic filler, Fig. 7 and Table 10 shows low Ni% and high
Fe% compared to A2F weldment with austenitic filler. As Ni supposed to acts as austenitic stabilizer, the lower% of Ni indicates the
more amount of ferrite formation which imbalances the ferrite/austenite ratio and influences the mechanical properties negatively.
And also the lower Cr% of A1F than A2F may results in decrease in corrosion resistance of A1F weldment than A2F weldment, as Cr
favors the corrosion resistance. In the case of austenitic-ferritic welds, from the microstructure, it was observed that the amount of
austenite was higher on the austenitic stainless steel side in comparison with ferritic stainless steel side. This is one of the main factors
that determines the high temperature strength of stainless steels. In general, austenitic stainless steels have a higher temperature
strength than ferritic stainless steels. This is because austenitic stainless steels have a higher nickel content. It would appear that this
phenomenon has an effect that is consequential on the microstructural changes that occur during welding. And also Fig. 3 depicts the
fine grain structure of both austenitic stainless steel and ferritic stainless steel base metals. Because of the high temperatures expe­
rienced during welding, as well as the availability of time due to the longer time required to cool, both the heat affected zone (HAZ) and

8
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 6. SEM Microstructure of A2F weldment - (f) A HAZ (g) A weld interface (h) WZ (i) F weld interface (j) F HAZ.

the weld zones exhibit a coarse grain structure.

3.3.2. Hardness studies

The dissimilar weldment of austenitic to ferritic stainless steel with austenitic filler wire shows better hardness distribution without
much difference in hardness values of other zones. Hence, dissimilar weldment with austenitc filler which shows overall better effi­
ciency in hardness values. The amount of ferrite formation during the welding and residual stresses generated during dissimilar
welding due to difference in coefficient of thermal expansion may attributed to decrease in hardness values.
The characteristics of austenitic stainless steel like less Cr%, higher Ni% and high temperature strength etc. may be responsible for
the increased hardness that can be found on this side. The presence of ‘δ’ ferrite in the fusion zone may also play an important role in
decreasing hardness of weldment. Residual stresses are generated during welding, since austenitic stainless steels have less coefficient
of thermal expansion when compared to ferritic stainless steels may be responsible for decrease in the hardness values and gradient in
the hardness distribution as shown in Fig. 8. In general, AISI 304 microstructure remains completely austenitic at room temperature.

9
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 7. SEM- EDAX of wz in weldment (a) A1F (b) A2F.

Table 10
SEM- EDAX of weld zone in dissimilar weldments.
Fe (Wt%) Cr (Wt%) Mn (Wt%) Ni (Wt%)

A1F 67.05 20.36 3.10 7.63

A2F 77.65 18.19 1.51 1.14

Because the rate of cooling that occurs during conventional welding procedures is so rapid, the change from ferrite to austenite does
not progress to completion. As a result, some ‘δ’ ferrite is retained at room temperature after the solidification process. Therefore, the
ultimate structure of austenitic stainless weld metal is a δ + γ structure. Several studies suggested that a certain amount of retained ‘δ’
ferrite in austenitic stainless steel can be advantageous in decreasing hot cracking and weld distortion in the as-welded structure. This
can be achieved by retaining a certain percentage of the ferrite. Between dissimilar weldments, the weldment with austenitic filler wire
shows better hardness than weldment with ferritic filler wire. The amount of ferrite formation during the welding and residual stresses
generated during dissimilar welding due to difference in coefficient of thermal expansion may attributed to decrease in hardness
values.

3.3.3. Tensile studies

In dissimilar weldments, tensile strength is almost in the same range but A1F shows more ductility compared to A2F (Table 11).
From the Fig. 9, it can be observed that A1F shows more ductility compared to ferritic filler wire with more % of strain and reduction.
Better toughness in dissimilar welds can be attributed to the presence of equiaxed grains in addition to columnar grains that run
perpendicular to the crack path. It’s possible that the very fine solidification structure which results from the quick solidification
during the GTA welding process is responsible for the improved strength and toughness of dissimilar GTA welds.
A2F dissimilar weld have a superior yield strength compared to other welds with uniform fine grain structure distribution. Since
A2F contains residual/ thermal stresses generated due to difference in coefficient of thermal expansion, A1F shows overall better
tensile properties than A2F. Clearly shows the nature of failure was brittle at HAZ region on ferritic stainless steel side with less
percentage of elongation. It may due to loss of ductility as ferritic stainless steels are prone to embrittlement after welding [7]. As

10
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 8. Micro Vickers hardness values of dissimilar weldments.

Table 11
Tensile properties.
Sample ID UTS(N/mm2) YS (N/mm2) % Elongation % Strain

A1F 539.37 405.21 57.25 13.81

A2F 541.29 430.22 12.57 6.93

austenitic filler forms more amount of ferrite which is more ductile, it may favors the increase in percentage of elongation and superior
weld joint without defects may resulted in better tensile values [8].

3.3.4. Corrosion studies

A1F to A2F
Table 12, gives the pitting potential values of various zones of dissimilar stainless welds. Same values are plotted in graph and is
shown in Fig. 10. In all the zones relatively more positive values of potentials are observed on welds made with austenitic filler wire
when compared to that of weld made with ferritic filler. This may be due to relatively more passivity range of austenitic stainless steel.
And also grain refinement in weld zone may responsible for better pitting resistance, as it reduce the concentration of chromium at
grain boundaries and grain interiors [9].
Corrosion starts early in A2F when compared to A1F as is evident from graph. Pitting is predominantly confined to HAZ, which is
mainly attributed to sensitization as a result of welding thermal cycle. This is more rapid in ferritic stainless steels than in austenitic
stainless steels. Chromium depletion occurs in regions heated to high temperatures of 450–500 ⁰C. Also, solubility of carbon and
nitrogen in ferritic steel is much lower compared to austenitic stainless steel. Solubility of C and N decreases with a decrease in
temperature. Supersaturated C, N form chromium carbides and nitrides in weld metal and near the fusion line along grain boundaries
leading to sensitization.
In stainless steels, Cl- ion causes breakdown of passive oxide films. Internal stresses as high as yield strength are generated in welds.
Maximum stress gradient was identified near fusion line in HAZ in stainless steel joints. In salt water, anions migrate up these stress
gradients and the electrolysis reactions produces regions of strong hydrochloric acid. Passivation breakdown and lack of spontaneous
re-passivation promotes higher rates of localized attack.
As can be seen in Fig. 11, the presence of fine grains in the weld zone, as well as an increased number of pits, indicates that the
corrosion rate in the weld zone is higher than other zones. Fig. 11 shows the microstructures of austenitic to ferritic stainless steel
dissimilar weldment with various zones after corrosion. The presence of chromium carbide precipitates in the grain boundary areas of
HAZ, which occurred due to heat cycle, may be the cause for the increased corrosion rates of HAZ than base metal and weld zone, as
shown in Fig. 11 for A2F.
In case of A2F weld, the presence of coarse grains in the HAZ and weld zone, as depicted in Fig. 10, might have resulted in a
reduction in the number of reaction sites available for corrosion. The same can be seen in the lower corrosion rate values that have been
recorded.
More number of pits was observed in ferritic filler wire weldments as compared to austenitic filler wire. In ferritic stainless steels,
randomly dispersed intermetallics in the base metal are dissolved during welding; and on cooling, they get reprecipitated at grain

11
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 9. Tensile properties of dissimilar weldment weld zones with filler wire variation.

Table 12
Comparison of Epit (mV) values of dissimilar weldments.
Sl. No. Sample ID BM1 HAZ1 WZ HAZ2 BM2

1 A1F 557.16 432.4 373.5 778.8 158.1

2 A2F 557.16 174.7 288.6 447.9 158.1

boundaries.
The high pitting resistance of GTA weldments with austenitic filler in comparison to welds with dissimilar combination with ferritic
filler could be due to the influence of recrystallized microstructure and possible compositional changes due to the melting during
welding. The pitting corrosion is primarily localized to the HAZ that is near to the fusion boundary of the ferritic stainless-steel
interface of A-F GTA welds (shown in Fig. 9). This phenomenon, may be the result of increasing chromium carbide precipitation
and associated chromium depletion as a result of accelerated diffusion of chromium due to high temperature exposure during welding.

3.3.5. EPMA
From the EPMA analysis, across the γ/δ dendritic interface in the context of A-F welds with ferritic filler revealed that the con­
centrations of Cr greatly rose in the δ ferrite, while the concentration of Ni declined as one moved from γ to δ phase (Fig. 12). So­
lidification from the melt pool in fusion welding generally leads to local compositional differences, which would in turn result in less
stable passive coating and thus worse corrosion resistance. The compositional heterogeneity in the weld metal could be caused by one
of three primary processes: micro-segregation during the process of weld metal solidification; element partitioning during the solid
state transformation from ferrite to austenite; or the precipitation of intermetallic phases, carbides, and nitrides, which results in Cr-
depleted regions. It was noticed that the pitting corrosion resistance of the weldment had a greater value than that of the parent metal.
This study might have huge impact on steel industry, which spends a high value on the corrosion resistance of stainless steel weld­
ments, a property that this observation emphasizes.
The extraordinarily high corrosion resistance of dissimilar welds can be due to the approximately equivalent percentage of

12
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 10. Comparison of potentio-dynamic polarization of (a) HAZ1 (b) weld zone (c) HAZ2.

austenite and ferrite that is present in these welds [10]. In the case of austenitic weld metal, it has been observed that a compositional
variation in chromium levels can lead to the development of pits at the δ - ferrite matrix interfaces, because of difference in chromium
levels. In the case of dissimilar weldments with ferritic filler wire, it has been observed that pits initiated at the interface because of
lattice mismatch, which resulted in localized disturbance of the passive film as there is no compositional difference like ferrite and
austenite (Fig. 12). There will be a differential in strain energy between ferrite and austenite grain as a result of a mismatch in the
lattice. The ferrite and austenite interface will have a larger value of strain energy in comparison to the interior region of either ferrite
or austenite which is away from the grain boundaries. Because of this, strain energy acts as a driving force for the electrochemical
reaction that is involved in the corrosion of steels.

4. Conclusion

• In the microstructure of ferritic stainless steel base metal, elongated grains are observed, whereas base metal of austenitic stainless
steels had equiaxed grains, with a few twinning are observed.
• The weld parameters of GTA welding for dissimilar welding were optimized by using Taguchi method and analysis of variance
(ANOVA) values are 9 V voltage, 160 A current, 30 lit/min gas flow rate, 1.5 kJ/mm heat input.
• Microstructure of weld zone in dissimilar metal welds made with ferritic filler wire was observed to be different from ferrite
stainless steel side, and austenite stainless steels side did not show any grain coarsening, which is predominantly limited to ferritic
stainless steel side.
• SEM-EDS studies revealed an increase in Ni content in the weld zone due to usage of austenitic filler wire compared to ferritic filler.
• Vickers micro hardness values shows that weldments with austenitic filler wire shows better hardness values and good hardness
distribution without much gradient compared to welds with ferritic filler wire.
• The tensile strength of A2F dissimilar welds have a superior tensile strength compared to other welds with uniform fine grain
structure distribution than A1F. It shows that failure occurred primarily in ferritic side due to relatively lower strength of ferritic
stainless steel.
• It was found that dissimilar stainless steel welds made with austenitic filler wire are having better strength when compared to
ferritic filler. It may be due to increased Ni content.
• In dissimilar metal weldments, austenitic filler wire shows better corrosion resistance compared to ferritic filler wire. This is evident
from less number of pits in welds made with austenitic filler.

13
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 11. Microstructure of (a) A1F and (b) A2F weldment, after corrosion.

14
A.K. Peethala et al. Chemical Data Collections 43 (2023) 100978

Fig. 12. Distribution of Cr and Ni (a) A1F (b) A2F.

• Present study recommends austenitic filler wire for dissimilar stainless steel welds to achieve better combination of strength and
corrosion resistance.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Department of Metallurgical Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pra­
desh, India for their continuous support in completing this work.

References

[1] G.B. Joseph, G. Murugesan, R. Prabhakaran, Combined welding of austenitic and ferritic stainless steel, J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 5 (4) (2013) 44–47.
[2] G.G. Youn, Y.J. Kim, Y. Miura, Thermal aging effect on fracture toughness of GTAW/SMAW of 316L stainless steel: experiments and applicability of existing
CASS models, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (4) (2021) 1357–1368.
[3] A. Mathur, A.M. Muneer, S.S. Sricharan, K. Chandra Shekar, Gas tungsten arc welding of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steels, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. IJERT ISSN
(2015) 2278. -0181.
[4] N.V. Amudarasan, K. Palanikumar, K. Shanmugam, Mechanical properties of AISI 316L austenitic stainless steels welded by GTAW, in: Advanced Materials
Research, 849, Trans Tech Publications Ltd, 2014, pp. 50–57.
[5] A.J. Delgado, R.R. Ambriz, R. Cuenca-Álvarez, N. Alatorre, F.F. López, Heat input effect on the microstructural transformation and mechanical properties in
GTAW welds of a 409L ferritic stainless steel, Rev. de Metal. 52 (2) (2016) 68–77.
[6] R. Yilmaz, H. Usun, Mechanical properties of Austenitic stainless steels welded by GMAW and GTAW, J. Marmara Pure Appl. Sci. 18 (3) (2002) 97–113.
[7] C. Li, H.S. Jeong, Weldability of type 444 ferritic stainless steel GTA welds, Int. J. Korean Weld. Soc. 3 (1) (2003) 29–33.
[8] J. Ronevich, C.S. Marchi, D.K. Balch, Evaluating the resistance of austenitic stainless steel welds to hydrogen embrittlement, in: Proceedings of the Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019 (Vol. 58981, p. V06BT06A035).
[9] T.R. Tabrizi, M. Sabzi, S.M. Anijdan, A.R. Eivani, N. Park, H.R. Jafarian, Comparing the effect of continuous and pulsed current in the GTAW process of AISI
316L stainless steel welded joint: Microstructural evolution, phase equilibrium, mechanical properties and fracture mode, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 15 (2021)
199–212.
[10] G.M. Reddy, K.S. Rao, Microstructure and mechanical properties of similar and dissimilar stainless steel electron beam and friction welds, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 45 (9) (2009) 875–888.

15