4.2 Article

EFFECT OF MIG WELDING PROCESS PARAMETERS ON EROSION AND CORROSION BEHAVIOR OF ASTM A106 GRADE-B PIPE WELDMENTS

期刊

SURFACE REVIEW AND LETTERS
卷 28, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0218625X21500992

关键词

Automation; welding; pipes; erosion; corrosion; SEM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluating the integrity of welded pipes for fluid transportation in processing industries involves investigating corrosion and erosion behaviors under different environmental conditions, with tests showing mechanisms of corrosion and erosion. The study finds that the reinforcement form factor is the most preferable weld bead characteristic for obtaining better erosion and corrosion resistant weldments.
Evaluating the integrity of the welded pipes used for fluid transportation in processing industries demands certain investigations on the erosion and corrosion behavior under various environmental conditions. ASTM A106 Grade-B pipes are butt welded using an automated MIG welding setup to obtain the optimum output response such as Reinforcement Form Factor (W1), Penetration Shape Factor (W2), and Tensile Strength (W3) in the weldments. The slurry erosion test is conducted on the weldment surface by varying the velocity and erodent concentration in acidic (0.1M H2SO4) and alkaline (3.5%wt. NaCl) conditions. Correspondingly, the samples are subjected to electrochemical corrosion test in 0.1M H2SO4 and 3.5% wt. NaCl solutions. The SEM investigations carried out on the eroded weldment surface show glimpses of erosion mechanisms such as shallow and deep ploughing, oxide cracks, ridges and valleys, scale formation at some areas attributing to sulphide deposition. The corrosion that occurred on the weldment surface tested under acidic conditions is relatively high compared to the alkaline conditions. The reinforcement form factor is the most preferable weld bead characteristic to obtain better erosion and corrosion resistant weldments in the investigated pipe material.

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

4.2
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