Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICMMM 2019

Effect of laser welding process parameters on dissimilar joints of

AISI 316 and nickel 201
G. Krishna Kumara∗, C.Velmuruganb, R.S.Jayaramc, M.Manikandand
a
Department of MechatronicsEngineering, Nehru Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore - 641 105, India.
b
Department of MechanicalEngineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore - 641049, India.
c,d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita College of Engineering and Technology, Nagercoil- 629 902, India.

Abstract

The dissimilar butt welding of nickel 201 and AISI 316 was investigated using 4 kW CO2 laser welding machine. The effects of
welding power (2580 - 3420 W), welding speed (450 - 1150 mm/min), focal position (-1 to 0 mm), beam angle (84 - 96 degrees)
and Beam offset (0 - 0.2 mm) on the welded bead geometry like depth of penetration (DP), bead width (BW), area of penetration
(AP) and heat input (HI) were analyzed with Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The central composite design was used for
this experimental plan. Mathematical equations were formed to find the required heat input and weld profile responses dissimilar
butt welding process. Output responses reflect the results for mathematical models within the range of process parameters used.
Numerical optimisation technique was used to identify the optimal condition region of all this laser welding process. It helps to
achieve better process parameter combination for the controlled responses of this process. Depth of penetration is the most
important output response to achieve the good dissimilar joint. The welding power and welding speed are the two factors which
influencing more on the strength of dissimilar joint even though all the other three factors are involving. The beam angle does not
show any considerable change on bead width and Fusion Zone Area (FZ) and also there is no significant influence of the beam
offset on bead width. An optimization results were confirmed by experiments to validate values of the process parameters values
found from RSM. In microstructure studies some delta ferrite is seen in the interdendritic region and also the solidification shows
columnar grains. The tensile test results the fracture in the base metal which proves that the weld strength is good as expected.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and
Modelling, ICMMM – 2019.

Keywords: CO2 laser welding; dissimilar joint; Response Surface Methodology (RSM); weld-bead geometry; microstructure

∗
Krishna Kumar. Tel.: +91-9791606259.
E-mail address: [email protected]

2214-7853 © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling,
ICMMM – 2019.
 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973 2965

Nomenclature

DP Depth of Penetration
BW weld Bead Width
AP Area of Penetration
HI Heat Input
WS Welding Speed
BA Beam Angle
BO Beam Offset
RSM Response Surface Methodology
FZ Fusion Zone Area

1. Introduction

Stainless steels and Nickel is a common materials now rapidly gaining popularity in aerospace, nuclear power
plants and food processing industries. Dissimilar metal joining of steel and nickel needs solution in assembling
sections. Laser welding gives best results over conventional joining processes for dissimilar metal joining
applications [1]. The experimental investigations on Inconel 600 and Inconel 690 results that the base metals are
achieved satisfied tensile and shear strength. The characteristics of Nd:YAG laser enable the welding of complicated
structure in the nuclear power plant [2]. Keyhole shape is efficient because of energy that is saved by reflection and
also the shape extends the heat to the metal surface below by energy saving thermal conduction. It should be very
important that maintain allowable metal to metal gap. If power is very low for a material that melts only the surface
[3]. CO2 laser welding dissimilar joint process was successfully used on AISI 316 and AISI 1009 steel sheets. The
common residual stress problem while dissimilar metal joining is solved by using CO2 laser welding even though
the materials have different thermal expansion coefficient and heat conductivity values. Welding speed and laser
power has strong influence on weld area when comparing with the other input parameters [4]. Laser welding is so
successful for joining low carbon steel, stainless steel and Nickel alloys. Weld bead geometry and penetration depth
are determined the applied welding energy to the joint. The controlled combination of the welding process
parameters is determining the laser energy input. The important process parameters to control the output parameters
are focused size, shielding gas, laser power and welding speed [5]. A copper-nickel dissimilar couple has been
studied by the evaluation of microstructure and composition of metals in profiles at different scan speeds. The nickel
side mixed well in the profile. Thermal properties effects more and caused highly strained weld pool [6]. Carlson
focused the relationship between the heat Input and in depth of penetration of the laser beam. If the laser power
exceeds the level, the material melts and vaporizes quickly and forms the cavity instantly. The proper laser power
and the welding speed give the perfect penetration with minimum heat input. The study of major applications of
laser welding for stainless steel, Nickel alloys and Titanium alloys were experimented [7]. Bikash Ranjan Moharana
et al investigated about the characteristics of AISI 304 and copper dissimilar joint. The CO2 laser welded dissimilar
joint showed the good mixing and solidification of SS and Cu confirmed by EDS analysis. There was a HAZ with
10 μm thickness found by macroscopic examination. The mechanical properties like tensile and hardness properties
were obtained in a satisfactory level. The fracture found outside the weld upto a value of 201 MPa [8]. The primary
industrial manufacturing processes in need of hybrid joints. A 6Kw CO2 laser was used to join low alloy steel with
dual-phase steel. A hardness character survey was observed across the dissimilar profile. Tensile fracture happened
outside the weld that showed satisfied hybrid joint. Hardness results observed higher values at DP side and lower
values at HSLA side [9].Laser welding investigations are carried out on dissimilar Titanium-stainless steel
combinations. The experiments indicated here the embrittlement on the weld is leading the combination not feasible.
The use of interlayer in the form of tantalum strip has gradually improved the joint strength. The joints were
showing very less detects in welder [10]. The laser dissimilar butt joint of magnesium alloys were carried out using
2.5 kW power CO2 laser with helium shielding gas. The investigation on microstructures showed good direction of
recrystallization in the weld zone. For the microhardness distribution showed no serious effects across the weld
profile [11]. Laser welding is the best technique for joining dissimilar materials with good accuracy. The joining of
2966 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973

dissimilar SS 304 and SS 316 butt joint has made by 600W pulsed Nd:YAG laser. The welding power, speed and
width of pulse were used in that work. The tensile strength and weld width have been investigated. The
mathematical models were developed by using Response surface methodology tool. The microstructural analysis
and hardness survey have carried out for the metallurgical and mechanical analysis of the weld [12]. Nickel
superalloy and stainless steel dissimilar joint was achieved by 500W Nd:YAG laser. Microstructure, tensile and
microhardness were carried out to analyse the joints. The tensile fracture happened in the weld joint that results 17%
reduced strength and hardness as the value of base metal [13]. Laser welding is a better fusion process than
conventional welding methodologies because of the low dimensional change and due to less dimensional and shape
changes. It has better processing speed. The joint has good strength, consistency and less heat affected zone. The
butt joint of SS 304 with sheet thickness of 2.5 mm investigated using factorial method to forecast the weld
geometry. The direct and also the interaction effect of the input welding process parameters on the weld geometry
were investigated [14]. H. Naffakh et al., experimented the welding of SS 310 to Inconel 657 alloy by using four
types of filler materials made of Inconel and 310 steel. A shielded metal arc welding machine was used for the
experiment. Based on the hot-cracking, tensile and EDS tests it was concluded that Inconel A is the best suitable
filler material for the dissimilar joint in that experimental set up [15]. Yaowu Hu et al., studied about SS304 – nickel
dissimilar joint using 1 kW powered laser spot welding machine. Heat and mass transfer between the materials had
been analyzed using the 3D transient numerical model. Two different assumptions were considered and analyzed
like two different cases. The weld bead cross sections of both the case were measured and the pool measurements
compared with the different temperatures of the spot. The results were indicating the possibility of the dissimilar
joint of SS304 and nickel using the laser welding machine [16]. However there is no information available in the
open literature on SS316 and Nickel dissimilar joints without filler wire. Hence in this experimental research an
effort was tried to predict mechanical properties of laser beam welded dissimilar joints.
This paper presents the macro and microstructural analysis on weld joint. The experimental data needed for
dissimilar welded joint of AISI 316 and Nickel 201plates with 5mm thickness.

2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental design
Experiments were based on five input factors with their five levels and in central composite design (CCD) with half
fraction. The independent laser input process variables laser power (2580 - 3420 W), speed (450 - 1150 mm/min), focal
position (-1 to 0 mm), beam angle (84 - 96 degrees) and Beam offset towards nickel side (0 - 0.2 mm). Design-Expert
11 is used as statistical software to analyse the experimental data by response surface methodology. The F- test, lack of
fit and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are to test the adequacy of the developed models. Experimental data were fit
with second order polynomial equation (1) by step-wise regression method to identify related terms in the mathematical
model. Response graph and statistical plots were generated by the same software.
Y = b0 + Σ bixi + Σ biix2ii + Σ bijxi xj (1)
2.2. Experimental work
AISI 316 with chemical composition in weight percent of 18.50% Cr,11.50% Cr, 0.9% Si, 1.7% Mn and balance
as Fe and Nickel 201 with 0.45% Fe, 0.30% Si, 0.25% Mn remaining as nickel was used as base materials. The
dimensions of each specimen were 100 mm length x 50 mm width with 5 mm thickness. The range of the input
process parameters were fixed by the trial samples and bead on plate runs performed by varying the process
parameters. The working range of the process parameters were confirmed by visual inspection of those trial runs is
shown in Table 1. The butt weld joint was carry out based on design matrix randomisation to avoid experimental
errors using a six axes 4kW CO2 universal laser machining center (TRUMPF LASERCELL TLC1005). Argon gas
was used for the experiments as shielding gas with 15 l/m rate of flow. All the sample were sectioned across the
weldment and prepared for by polishing with a series of emery papers ranging from 100 grit sizes down to 1000 grit
size. Optical Metallurgical Microscope (Zeiss, AxioVert.A1) machine was used for metallographic examination.
The macro examination was carried out using a Stereomicroscope at magnification of 10X. Weld bead profile was
measured by using MACSCOPE-Z with Pixel Fox Camera and (dhs Imaging System, Ver. 6.02, Germany). The
experiment design matrix with the output responses values are shown in Table 2.
 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973 2967

Table.1. Input variables and experiment limits

Input Variables -2 -1 0 +1 +2
Laser Beam Power, BP (Watts) 2580 2790 3000 3210 3420
Welding Speed , WS (mm/min) 450 625 800 975 1150
Focal position , FP (mm) -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0
Beam Angle , BA (Degrees) 84 87 90 93 96
Beam Offset , BO (mm) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

3. Result and discussions

The experiment was conducted based on design matrix and the specimens were cross-sectioned to measure the
output responses which are mentioned in Table 2.

Table 2. Design matrix with coded process parameters and measured value of responses

Bead Area of Heat

Beam Welding Focal Beam Beam Depth of
Exp. Run Width Penetration Input
Power Speed position Angle Offset Penetration
No. order (BW) (AP) (HI)
Watts mm/min mm Degrees mm (DP) mm
mm Sq.mm J/mm

1 18 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 5 3.79 10.66 214.272

2 32 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 4.794 2.481 10.279 246.528
3 21 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 4.318 3.178 6.765 137.354
4 7 1 1 -1 -1 1 4.513 2.438 6.892 158.031
5 22 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 4.806 4.376 12.998 214.272
6 30 1 -1 1 -1 1 4.98 4.085 10.575 246.528
7 5 -1 1 1 -1 1 4.518 1.663 5.222 137.354
8 2 1 1 1 -1 -1 4.738 3.181 8.947 158.031
9 23 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 4.651 3.776 11.611 214.272
10 13 1 -1 -1 1 1 4.712 4.069 12.95 246.528
11 3 -1 1 -1 1 1 4.882 2.971 7.269 137.354
12 31 1 1 -1 1 -1 4.663 2.975 6.887 158.031
13 11 -1 -1 1 1 1 4.406 4.244 13.149 214.272
14 16 1 -1 1 1 -1 4.518 4.933 14.156 246.528
15 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 4.376 2.83 7.026 137.354
16 17 1 1 1 1 1 4.713 3.126 7.704 158.031
17 12 -2 0 0 0 0 4.387 3.808 8.158 154.8
18 6 2 0 0 0 0 4.695 3.356 8.206 205.2
19 15 0 -2 0 0 0 4.75 4.796 15.293 320
20 19 0 2 0 0 0 4.512 2.612 6.659 125.217
21 29 0 0 -2 0 0 4.879 3.392 10.675 180
22 25 0 0 2 0 0 4.975 3.775 11.225 180
23 8 0 0 0 -2 0 4.775 3.001 7.445 180
24 4 0 0 0 2 0 4.639 3.568 9.77 180
25 26 0 0 0 0 -2 4.379 3.619 9.927 180
26 14 0 0 0 0 2 4.516 3.364 9.455 180
27 28 0 0 0 0 0 4.762 4.002 9.758 180
28 27 0 0 0 0 0 4.798 3.569 9.792 180
29 9 0 0 0 0 0 4.772 3.556 10.827 180
30 10 0 0 0 0 0 4.562 3.832 10.747 180
31 20 0 0 0 0 0 4.612 3.946 10.332 180
32 24 0 0 0 0 0 4.544 3.621 8.689 180
2968 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973

3.1. ANOVA- Analysis of variance

Analysis of variance helped to test the adequacy of the models. According to this test, calculated F ratio of the
model should be within the confidence limit. The insignificant coefficients can be eliminated by step wise method
using the statistical software package. The fit value summary indicates that the mathematical model is significant for
all the output responses and are analysed by Design Expert software. The final reduced models for the output
responses are resulting from ANOVA Tables 3 – 6.

Table 3. Analysis of variance table - Penetration Depth (DP)

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value Prob. >F

Model 0.8925 9 0.0992 11.89 < 0.0001
BP 0.0693 1 0.0693 8.32 0.0086
WS 0.1096 1 0.1096 13.15 0.0015
BA 0.0432 1 0.0432 5.18 0.0330
BO 0.0536 1 0.0536 6.43 0.0189
BP x FP 0.0640 1 0.0640 7.68 0.0112
WS x BA 0.2116 1 0.2116 25.38 < 0.0001
FP x BA 0.1076 1 0.1076 12.90 0.0016
FP ² 0.1383 1 0.1383 16.59 0.0005
BO ² 0.0802 1 0.0802 9.62 0.0052
Residual 0.1834 22 0.0083
Cor.Total 1.08 31

R² = 0.8295; predicted R² = 0.6704; adjusted R² = 0.7598; adequate precision = 15.4620.

The actual factor mathematical model for the responses is given in equations (2), (3), (4) and (5).

Depth of Penetration (DP) = 20.6755 + 0.00108035 x BP - 0.0201005 x WS - 0.211407 x BA + 5.10936 x BO +

0.00164879 x BP x FP + 0.000219048 x WS x BA - 0.0440609 x FP x BA + 1.03291 x FP2 - 20.8218 x BO2
(2)

Table 4. Analysis of variance table – Weld Bead Width (BW)

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value Prob. >F
Model 13.23 9 1.47 22.98 < 0.0001
WS 7.89 1 7.89 123.37 < 0.0001
FP 0.5180 1 0.5180 8.10 0.0094
BA 0.9866 1 0.9866 15.43 0.0007
BP x FP 0.9821 1 0.9821 15.36 0.0007
BP x BA 0.2767 1 0.2767 4.33 0.0494
WS x FP 1.15 1 1.15 17.94 0.0003
WS x BO 0.4186 1 0.4186 6.55 0.0179
FP x BO 0.5852 1 0.5852 9.15 0.0062
BA ² 0.4219 1 0.4219 6.60 0.0175
Residual 1.41 22 0.0639
Cor.Total 14.63 31
R² = 0.9039; predicted R² = 0.7426; adjusted R² = 0.8645; adequate precision = 20.9796.
 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973 2969

Table .5. Analysis of variance table - Area of Penetration (AP)

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value Prob. >F

Model 165.83 8 20.73 38.06 < 0.0001
WS 135.06 1 135.06 247.98 < 0.0001
FP 2.38 1 2.38 4.38 0.0477
BA 7.11 1 7.11 13.06 0.0015
WS x BA 2.48 1 2.48 4.55 0.0439
F P x BO 4.74 1 4.74 8.70 0.0072
BA x BO 3.09 1 3.09 5.67 0.0259
BP² 7.23 1 7.23 13.28 0.0014
BA² 4.44 1 4.44 8.16 0.0089
Residual 12.53 23 0.5446
Cor. Total 178.35 31

R² = 0.9298; predicted R² = 0.8726; adjusted R² = 0.9053; adequate precision = 24.2448.

Table .6. Analysis of variance table - Heat Input (HI)

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value Prob. >F
Model 53517.32 4 13379.33 1169.49 < 0.0001
BP 4069.84 1 4069.84 355.75 < 0.0001
WS 46044.84 1 46044.84 4024.81 < 0.0001
BP x WS 134.07 1 134.07 11.72 0.0020
WS ² 3268.56 1 3268.56 285.71 < 0.0001
Residual 308.89 27 11.44
Cor. Total 53826.20 31

R² = 0.9943; predicted R² = 0.9789; adjusted R² = 0.9934; adequate precision = 131.0439.

Bead Width (BW) = -103.865 - 0.00505918 x WS -7.40654 x FP + 2.36086 x BA + 0.00486508 x BP x FP +

2.61846 x 10-05 x BP x BA - 0.00612 x WS x FP - 0.0127701 x WS x BO - 17.0504 x FP x BO -0.0131769 x BA2
(3)

Area of Penetration (AP) = -367.12 + 0.05388 x WS + 5.3574 x FP + 7.85918 x BA - 0.000749286 x WS x BA - 40.9674 x FP x

BO - 0.273298 x BA x BO + 1.08025 x10-07 x BP2 - 0.0391721 x BA2 (4)

Heat Input (HI) = 222.648 + 0.125026 x BP -0.559319 x WS - 7.87692 x 10-05 x BP x WS + 0.000340834 x WS2
(5)

3.2. Models validation

Actual value and predicted values relationships for Penetration depth (DP), Width of the bead (BW), Penetration
Area (AP) and Heat Input (HI) are shown in Figs. 1–4 respectively. The Residual values are which closer indicates
the developed models adequate. It is necessary to confirm the level of adequacy of the mathematical models by
conducting confirmative experiments. By using the developed models, the validation experiments were predicted
with the help of point prediction in the Design Expert software. Table 8 show the error percentage between with
calculator value and experimental value of the analysed responses.
2970 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973

3.3. Influence of input process variables

3.3.1. Depth of Penetration (DP)

Perturbation plot for the effects of laser welding parameters on penetration depth is shown in Fig.5.which states
that the increased penetration depth with increased beam power also it is clearly seen that the increase in speed
results decreased penetration depth. The depth of penetration decreases up to midpoint of focal position and then
starts to increases from -0.5mm to 0mm. This is because of the interaction between speed and angle of beam which
are the main influence factors on penetration depth. At beam angle of 93 degree the interaction plot shows the
increase in depth of penetration with the increase in welding speed. At the same time the lower angle have the
inverse effect with the increase in speed. Also from Fig.5 it is clear that in the lower angles more amount of material
melts and formed the maxim penetration depth. The compensation of melting ratio of two different materials is so
difficult because of their large difference in thermal conductivity and laser absorption. In this case the effect of laser
beam angle on penetration depth is influenced also by the beam offset. In the case the response value increases as
the beam offset and beam angle, up to the central values of both the parameters and then becomes stable. Normally
the dissimilar joint faces the problem of the difference in melting temperature and thermal conductivity of the
different materials while joining. This problem can be resolved by adjusting the offset distance. For the beam offset
distance on depth of penetration, the response increases up to the midpoint and then moves steadily with the increase
of the beam offset distance towards nickel.

3.3.2. Bead Width (BW)

Fig.6 shows perturbation plot of the effects of laser welding process variable parameters on bead width. It has
seen that the increase in welding speed results decreased weld bead parameters and also shows the reduced bead
width with increased beam power. Moreover from Fig.6 wider laser beam increases the bead width because of the
material melts in wider area meanwhile focused beam have less area to spread on material results minimum bead
width. From Fig.6 depicts that the variation in beam angle does not show any considerable change on bead width
and area of penetration. Hence the beam angle does not have any significant effect on the both responses. It has seen
that from Fig.6 there is no significant influence of the beam offset on bead width and area of penetration.

3.3.3. Area of Penetration (AP)

Perturbation plot illustrate effects of laser welding input parameters on area of penetration is shown in Fig.7From
the above figure there is a small gradual increase in weld bead area and slight reduced values with increased laser
power. In addition it is seen that the increase in welding speed results a decreased response values. This is a good
sign of a better bead geometry which has planned to achieve for the higher values of laser power and welding speed.
The same results reflect on area of penetration with focusing and defocusing focal positions which can be clearly
shown in Fig.7.From Figure it is depict that the variation in beam angle does not show any considerable change on
the area of penetration. Hence the beam angle does not have any significant effect on the response. It has also
noticed from Figure 7 there is no significant influence of the beam offset on bead width.

Fig.1.Scatter plot for depth of penetration. Fig.2. Scatter plot for bead width.
 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973 2971

Fig.3.Scatter plot for area of penetration. Fig.4.Scatter plot for heat input

3.3.4. Heat Input (HI)

Fig.8 show the perturbation plot for the effects of laser input parameters on heat input. There is clear evidence
that at Fig.8, the response heat input is increasing with increasing of laser power because of higher intensity of heat
energy on the material at the higher value of laser power also the higher welding speed leads the lesser heat input on
the material as mentioned in the goal of the response.

4. Optimization
The optimum input process parameters are found by using Design Expert 11 software. For laser beam power
2790 Watts is the optimised input parameter value to produce the dissimilar joints between SS316 and nickel 201.
The most important input parameter is welding speed. Optimum value for welding speed is 974.997 mm/min with
and focal position value of -0.75 mm. The beam angle of 93 degrees is an optimum value for the best output
responses with the offset distance value of 0.103 mm towards nickel side.

Fig.5. Perturbation plot on penetration depth. Fig.6. Perturbation plot on Width of Bead.

4.4.1. Experimental confirmation of bead geometry

Table 7 shows confirmation test for the optimised input and output responses. The finalized bead profile values
are in the acceptance level of error percentage between the predicted value and the measured value.

Fig.7. Perturbation plot on area of penetration. Fig.8. Perturbation plot on heat input
2972 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973

Table 7. Experimental confirmation of bead geometry for optimal solutions

Depth of Penetration (DP) Bead Width (BW) Fusion Zone Area (FZ)
Predicted Value 4.803 3.461 6.764
Measured Value 4.882 3.3841 6.887
Error % 1.6448 -2.2219 1.8184

Error in % = {(experimental value - predicted value) / predicted value} X 100

4.4.2. Tensile test observations

The welded sample was prepared for standard tensile test specimen ASTM E8-16a with the help of EDM wire
cutter. The tensile test is carried out in Electro-Mechanical Universal Testing Machine UNITEK 9450.

Fig. 9 a. Fractured sample of the optimized Fig. 9.b. Load Vs Elongation curve for the optimized
specimen specimen

Dissimilar metal joint is successfully carried out between AISI 316 and Nickel 201 CO2 laser welding, having
an acceptable tensile strength of above 412 Mpa. Tensile tests and it’s Load Vs Elongation curve are shown in Figs.
9a, 9b respectively. The results indicates that the weld strength is nearly equal value of the base metal nickel 201
and also satisfied results.

4.4.3. Microstructure observations

The microstructure image of base metal Nickel 201 (Fig.10) shows coarse, equiaxed grains of gamma (nickel)
solid solution. There is no carbide precipitation is seen at the grain boundaries and also annealing twins are seen
within the grains. The microstructure image of base metal AISI 316 (Fig.11) shows fine grains of austenite, within
annealing twins and also less than 5% free ferrite is seen.

Fig.10. Microstructure of base metal Fig. 11. Microstructure of base metal Fig.12. Microstructure of weld
Ni 201 AISI 316

The microstructure image of weld (Fig. 12) shows fine dendrites of nickel solid solution and there is some delta
ferrite at the interdendritic region and also the solidification structure shows coarse. The figure shows the columnar
structure in the sample which indicates good fusion in the weld joint between the dissimilar metals. Etching was
carried out by masking technique using aquaregia and Marble's reagents.
 G. Krishna Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 22 (2020) 2964–2973 2973

5. Conclusions

The experimental study investigates the optimization and the effects of input process parameters for the output
responses by using RSM tool. The optimization results for the best output responses is 2790 Watts power, 974.997
mm/min speed, focal position value of -0.75 mm , beam angle of 93 degrees and offset distance value of 0.103 mm
towards nickel side. The confirmation experiment was also done and that results the acceptable value. The most
important input parameter is the laser speed. The laser welding power & laser welding speed are the most significant
input factors which affects all output responses of the dissimilar joint process. Because, the joining of two different
materials facing the challenge with different melting ratios. By using the optimized power and speed values the good
weld joint of the dissimilar materials can be achieved. All the other input parameters influencing on a particular
output responses only. But the power and speed are causing significant changes in all the output responses. The
optimized specimen is undergone the tensile test and the microstructure observations. The optimized specimen
achieved the tensile value of 412 Mpa and the microstructural observation results the good fusion between the
dissimilar materials.

References

[1] Jose Roberto Berretta, Wagner de Rossi, Mauricio David Martins das Neves, J. Optics & Laser Tech.,45 (2007) 960-966.
[2] Jae-Do Kim, Cheol-Jung KIM, Chin-Man Chung, J. Mat. Proc. Tech. 114 (2001) 51-56.
[3] R.S.Parmar, Welding processes and technology, Khanna Publishers, 1997.
[4] E.M. Anawa, A.G. Olabi, J. Mat. Proc. Tech., 204 (2008) 22-33.
[5] Dawes C, Laser welding, First edition, Abington Publications., 1997.
[6] Tobias Solchenbach, Peter Plapper, J. Optics & Laser Tech., 54 (2013) 249-256.
[7] K.W.Carlson, Proce. of Inter. Cong. on appli. of Lasers and Electro Optics, (1985) 49 - 57.
[8] Bikash Ranjan Moharana, Sushanta KumarSahuaSusanta Kumar, Sahoo Ravi Bathe, Engineering Science and Tech., 19 (2016) 684-690.
[9] D. Parkes ,W.Xu, D. Westerbaan , S.S. Nayak, Y. Zhou, F. Goodwin, S. Bhole, D.L. Chen, J. Materials and Design , 51 (2013) 665 – 675.
[10] B.Shanmugarajan, G.Padmanabham, J. Optics & Laser Tech., 50 (2012) 1621-1627.
[11] Pawel Kolodziejczak, Wojciech Kalita, J. of Materials Proc. Tech., 209 (2009) 1122–1128.
[12] Nikhil Kumar, Manidipto Mukherjee, Asish Bandyopadhyay, J. Optics & Laser Tech., 88 (2017) 24-39
[13] Siyu Zhou, Dongsheng Chai, Jingling Yu, Guangyi Ma, Dongjiang Wu, J. of Manu. Proc., 25 (2017) 220–226.
[14] K.Manonmani, N.Murugan, G.Buvanasekaran, J. Advanced Manu. Tech., 32 (2007) 1125-1133.
[15] H. Naffakha, M. Shamaniana, F. Ashrafizadeh. J.of mater. Proc. Tech., 209 (2009) 3628–3639.
[16] Yaowu Hu, Xiuli He, Gang Yu, Zhifu Ge, Caiyun Zheng, Weijian Ning. J. App. Surface Sci., 258 (2012) 5914– 5922.