0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Optimizing Temper Bead Welding by Computational Weld Mechanics and Design of Experiment Matrix

[+] Author and Article Information
Mahyar Asadi

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
e-mail: masadi@connect.carleton.ca

Christopher Bayley

DRDC Atlantic,
Dockyard Laboratory Pacific,
CFB Esquimalt,
Building 199(D),
P.O. Box 17000 Stn Forces,
Victoria, BC V9A 7N2, Canada
e-mail: Christopher.Bayley@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

John Goldak

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
e-mail: jgoldak@mrco2.carleton.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 21, 2010; final manuscript received February 16, 2013; published online May 21, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Marina Ruggles-Wrenn.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(3), 031401 (May 21, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-10-1157; doi: 10.1115/1.4023725 History: Received October 21, 2010; Revised February 16, 2013

Temper bead welding is usually done by experiment, i.e., trial and error. This paper describes a computational weld mechanics model to compute the transient temperature and transient microstructure evolution in temper bead welds. The computed hardness from this model, is compared to measured hardness for validation. Furthermore, the effects of power per unit length, welding current, and welding speed on final hardness, are studied by designing and implementing three design-of-experiment matrices.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cross-section of the mesh used for the FEM analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Double Ellipsoid model showing semiaxes length parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Thermal results show the transient temperatures when the first bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Thermal results show the transient temperatures when the second bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Thermal results show the transient temperatures when the third bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Martensite phase fraction result while the first bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Martensite phase fraction result while the second bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Martensite phase fraction result while the third bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Austenite phase size result for the first bead, the second bead and the third bead at the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Hardness result while the first bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Hardness result while the second bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Hardness result while the third bead reaches the cross section distanced 100 mm from the edge after the complete cool down at the end of process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The column of images on the left show measured VPN hardness. The column of images on the right show computed VPN hardness after each weld pass.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

The line that VPN hardness is measured

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

The VPN hardness is measured for the settings tested in section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

The computed VPN hardness along the line shown in Fig. 14 for the design-of-experiment (DOE) matrix given in Table 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

The computed VPN hardness along the line shown in Fig. 14 for the DOE matrix in Table 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Six sets of VPN hardness plot including different projects from Table 4 for a better comparison. The sets are (1,2,3), (4,5,6), (7,8,9), (1,4,7), (2,5,8), and (3,6,9) from top left to bottom right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

The computed VPN hardness along the line shown in Fig. 14 for the DOE matrix in Table 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Six sets of VPN hardness plot including different projects from Table 5 for a better comparison. The sets are (1,2,3), (4,5,6), (7,8,9), (1,4,7), (2,5,8), and (3,6,9) from top left to bottom right.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In