4.3 Article

Residual stress measurement on propellant tank of 2219 aluminum alloy and study on its weak spot

Journal

JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages 2213-2220

Publisher

KOREAN SOC MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-017-0417-5

Keywords

2219 aluminum alloy; Residual stress; The indentation strain-gauge method; Variable polarity plasma arc welding; Friction stir welding

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51675375, 51475325]
  2. Tianjin research projects of applied basic and advanced technology [14JCYBJC19100]
  3. Research and development of welding equipment for ship horizontal welding robot [2014BAF12B05]
  4. Beijing University of Technology, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presented residual stress measurement on two circumferential Variable polarity plasma arc welding (VPPAW) joints and one circular closed Friction stir welding (FSW) joint on the propellant tank of 2219 aluminum alloy using the indentation strain-gauge method. Quite large tensile residual stresses were attached to the center and inner areas of the circular closed FSW joint. There were very large tensile stresses in some points of the two circumferential VPPAW joints, among these points, the maximum value was +253 MPa, which was about 63 % of the yield strength of 410 MPa measured in the base material. In addition, the peak of compressive residual stress was about -160 MPa. Above all, there were two typical peaks of residual stress in the circumferential VPPAW joints, one was located in the middle part while the other one was near the start/end position of the joints. Combining the result of residual stress measurement with the characteristics of the tank structure, it can be concluded that circular closed FSW joint around the flange was a weak spot on the propellant tank. And the most vulnerable point on the circular closed FSW joint has also been found.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available