4.5 Article

A novel test method for mechanical properties of characteristic zones of girth welds

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2021.104533

Keywords

Girth weld; Characteristic zone; Mechanical properties; Inhomogeneity; Test method

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shannxi Province, China [2021JQ-947, 2020JQ-934]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Fund [2019M653785]
  3. Young Scientists Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51904332]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a specimen processing method for weld characteristic zones and solves the issue of lack of weld mechanical properties in existing steel pipe safety evaluations. Testing an X80 automatic girth weld showed significant differences in tensile properties between different characteristic zones, highlighting the need for a more detailed assessment of weld properties in practical engineering and safety evaluations.
The safety evaluation of girth welds is an important issue for steel pipes. Current standards and studies all regard the weld as a uniform material, ignoring its inhomogeneity. In this paper, a specimen processing method for weld characteristic zones is proposed. Based on the natural morphology of the weld structure, specimens are accurately designed and processed for each characteristic zone. In addition, a testing method to determine the tensile properties in the characteristic zones of the weld is also proposed, solving the absence of weld mechanical properties in existing steel pipe safety evaluations. This method was used to test an X80 automatic girth weld, and the results showed that the tensile properties significantly differed between different characteristic zones of the girth weld. The inhomogeneity displayed in this weld demonstrates how a more detailed assessment of weld properties should be considered in practical engineering and safety evaluations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available