Abstract:Bu makaleye şu şekilde atıfta bulunabilirsiniz(To cite to this article): Çevik B., "Analysis of welding groove configurations on strength of S275 structural steel welded by FCAW", Politeknik Dergisi, 21(2): 489-495, (2018).Erişim linki (To link to this article): http://dergipark.gov.tr/politeknik/archive DOI: 10.2339/politeknik.389642 Politeknik Dergisi, 2018; 21(2) : 489-495 Journal of Polytechnic, 2018; 21(2) : 489-495
ABSTRACTThe quality of welded joints depends on many factors such as welding curre… Show more
“…It is assumed that this trend emerges from the insufficient heat input occurring at the beginning of the welding or processing. A similar trend was also noted by Çevik [62]. It was also noted that the yield strength and the UTS for all the specimens (processed and unprocessed) were lower than those of the base metal.…”
This paper presents the analysis of the friction stir-processed aluminium alloy 5083-H111 gas tungsten arc-welded and friction stir-welded joints. The comparative analysis was performed on the processed and unprocessed gas tungsten arc-welded and friction stir-welded joints of similar aluminium alloy 5083-H111. The results showed a clear distinction between the friction stir processed joints and unprocessed joints. There is a good correlation observed between the microstructural results and the tensile results. Ultrafine grain sizes of 4.62 μm and 7.177 μm were observed on the microstructure of the friction stir-processed friction stir-welded and gas tungsten arc-welded joints. The ultimate tensile strength for friction stir-welded and gas tungsten arc-welded before friction stir processing was 153.75 and 262.083 MPa, respectively. The ultimate tensile strength for friction stir processed friction stir-welded joint was 303.153 MPa and gas tungsten arc-welded joints one was 249.917 MPa. The microhardness values for the unprocessed friction stir-welded and gas tungsten arc-welded joints were both approximately 87 HV, while those of the friction stir-processed ones were 86.5 and 86 HV, respectively. The application of friction stir processing transformed the gas tungsten arc morphology from brittle to ductile dimples and reduced the ductile dimple size of the unprocessed friction stir-welded joints from the range of 4.90–38.33 μm to 3.35–15.59 μm.
“…It is assumed that this trend emerges from the insufficient heat input occurring at the beginning of the welding or processing. A similar trend was also noted by Çevik [62]. It was also noted that the yield strength and the UTS for all the specimens (processed and unprocessed) were lower than those of the base metal.…”
This paper presents the analysis of the friction stir-processed aluminium alloy 5083-H111 gas tungsten arc-welded and friction stir-welded joints. The comparative analysis was performed on the processed and unprocessed gas tungsten arc-welded and friction stir-welded joints of similar aluminium alloy 5083-H111. The results showed a clear distinction between the friction stir processed joints and unprocessed joints. There is a good correlation observed between the microstructural results and the tensile results. Ultrafine grain sizes of 4.62 μm and 7.177 μm were observed on the microstructure of the friction stir-processed friction stir-welded and gas tungsten arc-welded joints. The ultimate tensile strength for friction stir-welded and gas tungsten arc-welded before friction stir processing was 153.75 and 262.083 MPa, respectively. The ultimate tensile strength for friction stir processed friction stir-welded joint was 303.153 MPa and gas tungsten arc-welded joints one was 249.917 MPa. The microhardness values for the unprocessed friction stir-welded and gas tungsten arc-welded joints were both approximately 87 HV, while those of the friction stir-processed ones were 86.5 and 86 HV, respectively. The application of friction stir processing transformed the gas tungsten arc morphology from brittle to ductile dimples and reduced the ductile dimple size of the unprocessed friction stir-welded joints from the range of 4.90–38.33 μm to 3.35–15.59 μm.
“…The type of edge is identified by:(1) if the pixel value of the amplified point is 1, then this edge is interior;(2) if the pixel value of the amplified point is 0, this edge is exterior. The algorithm to identify an edge is mathematically detailed in Algorithm 1. Algorithm 1. Steps to identify the type of an edge. Given : binary image I; edge m; point A = (x,y),A⊂m,I(x,y)=1. Note: I(x,y) is pixel value of pixel (x,y). Steps : 1) .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, one of its pretreatments, cutting welding grooves, still requires to be automated urgently. To ensure the strength of the final welding assemblies, 1 to ensure thorough welding, and to guarantee high welding shape tolerance, it is necessary to cut precise welding grooves, especially for workpieces with big thickness.…”
To guarantee the strength and precision of the final welding assemblies, it is necessary to cut welding grooves before welding thick workpieces. General methods to cut welding grooves on plane workpieces need much manual assistance, and some even need manual operation purely. Therefore, this paper proposed a robot system for cutting Y-shaped welding grooves with full automation. Flame cutting technology has been adopted, requiring no jig to fix workpieces, which also causes no direct vibration to robot structure. Vision-based sub-system firstly captures the edges to be cut, which are composed of continuous points, and a laser range finder (LRF) starts to obtain the thickness of the edges precisely. To convert these edges into the trajectory of flamer, Least Square Method and Hermite Interpolation are respectively utilized to fit lines and curves. Robot system subsequently computes the motion-related parameters according to the position of the edges and geometric parameters of the desired welding grooves. The inverse kinematics of this robot is solved by geometry methods, which decreases computation burden and saves much time compared with traditional algebra method. Another core novelty is that a velocity planning method combining optimization algorithm has been put forward, which, we think, is not only useful in this gantry robot but also benefits other motion axes with heavy load. This further reduces vibration. Finally, the simulation and experimental results both prove the feasibility of this system. To date, no available robots or machines tool can finish this process with full automation (to the best of our knowledge).
“…In the GMAW method, the composition of the shielding gas is said to be the most important thing in its function to protect the molten filler metal in the weld pool from atmospheric contamination [5]. Not only that, but the groove configuration is also very influential on the mechanical properties and microstructure of the welding structure [6].…”
Steel is a metal that commonly used in fabrication, engineering, and reparation activities in the structure construction industry. ASTM A53 steel is a low carbon steel with 0.25% to 0.3% of carbon content so it has a high weldability. ASTM A36 steel is a low carbon steel with carbon content of 0.25% to 0.29% and is often used in the floating building industry. This study aims to determine the effect of shielding gas flow rate and V-groove type to the tensile strength of A53 steel welded with A36 steel by Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) method. The shielding gas level used is 100% CO2 with flow rate variations, including 15 liters/minute, 20 liters/minute, and 25 liters/minute. The groove types used are Single V-Groove and Double V-Groove. Tensile strength test result showed that in the welding process in this study, specimen with 25 liters/minute flow rate on the Double V-Groove had the highest
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
