4.4 Article

Comparison of residual stresses in Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo linear friction welds

Journal

MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 640-650

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/174328408X332825

Keywords

Linear friction welding; Ti-64; Ti-6242; Residual stress; Synchrotron X-rays; Contour method

Funding

  1. EPSRC
  2. RollsRoyce

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, the levels of residual stress in the vicinity of linear friction welds in Ti-6Al-4V (Ti-64), a conventional alpha-beta titanium alloy, and Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo (Ti-6242), a near a titanium alloy with higher temperature capability, are mapped and contrasted. The alloys have significantly different high temperature properties and the aim of this work was to investigate how this might affect their propensity to accumulate weld residual stresses and their response to post-weld heat treatment. Measurements are reported using high energy synchrotron X-ray diffraction and the results are compared to those made destructively using the contour method. The strain free lattice plane d(0) variation across the weld has been evaluated using the biaxial sin(2)psi technique with laboratory X-rays. It was found that failure to account for the d(0) variation across the weld line would have led to large errors in the peak tensile stresses. Contour method measurements show fairly good correlation with the diffraction results, although the stresses are underestimated. Possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed. The peak tensile residual stresses introduced by the welding process were found to be greater for Ti-6242 (similar to 750 MPa) than for Ti-64 (similar to 650 MPa). Consistent with the higher temperature capability of the alloy, higher temperature post-weld heat treatments have been found to be necessary to relieve the stresses in the near a titanium alloy compared to the alpha+beta titanium alloy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available