4.7 Article

Studies on the formation mechanism of incomplete fusion defects in ultra-narrow gap laser wire filling welding

期刊

OPTICS AND LASER TECHNOLOGY
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2020.106275

关键词

Ultra-narrow gap; Incomplete fusion; The heat transfer mechanism; Numerical simulation

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFB1200504-A-03]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51605399]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Austenitic stainless steel has many excellent properties and it has been extensively used in rail transit trains. Ultra-narrow gap laser wire filling welding is the preferred welding method to connect austenitic stainless steel. However, with this method, it is easy to form defects such as lack of fusion in the welding process. In order to clarify the mechanism of incomplete fusion defects, this article analyzed incomplete fusion defects from the groove design and the welding wire transfer behavior, integrating with high-speed photography and finite element simulation. It is found that the form of narrow gap groove has a close relationship with the formation of fusible defects. Besides, under the condition of globular transfer, all the complicated recoil force, blocking effect of the large droplet on laser energy, the eruption of metal vapor and turbulence of the molten pool caused by large droplet transfer will cause violent disturbance of the molten pool and seriously affect its heat conduction effect. The base metal incompletely melting, the lack of transfer driving force on the droplet and the failure of droplet wetting and spreading on the sidewalls of the groove are the main causes of welding non-fusion defects. Designing reasonable groove, ensuring the stability of wire feeding, adopting liquid bridge transfer mode and appropriately increasing heat input are conducive to reduce the occurrence of incomplete fusion, which is essential to improve the welding quality and enhance the safety of rail vehicles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据