4.4 Article

Weldability study of additive manufactured 316L austenitic stainless steel components-welding of AM with conventional 316L components

Journal

WELDING IN THE WORLD
Volume 65, Issue 7, Pages 1415-1427

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40194-021-01098-z

Keywords

AM; PBF; Weldability; SS316L

Funding

  1. Engie

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the weldability of AM 316L components using common welding processes such as manual GTAW. Tests showed that AM (PBF) components are weldable, but the analysis was conducted in the worst condition without heat treatment or post-processing.
Additive manufacturing (AM) using PBF (powder bed fusion) is widely applied in industry with many advantages but also some drawbacks such as productivity rates and limited dimensions. Future implementations of AM will require a re-design of components in order to reserve AM for the particular complex geometries, to join AM subassemblies or to connect with conventional components. It brings the aspect of weldability of AM parts in the picture. This study is investigating the weldability of AM 316L components using common welding processes such as manual GTAW. Bead-on-plate tests were started as a first step to examine weldability. After satisfactory results, two AM pipe components were fabricated (PBF) in the same built to be welded to conventional 316L parts. One AM pipe component was used to characterize the mechanical properties while the other test coupon was welded to conventional pipe by manual GTAW. The test welds were submitted to a mechanical and corrosion testing program including creep rupture testing. It was decided to start the weldability analysis in the worst condition, i.e., As Build/As Welded (AB/AW) without any heat treatment nor post-processing. Based upon the results obtained for the conditions tested, it could be concluded that AM (PBF) components are weldable.

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