4.7 Article

Variable profile heat source models for numerical simulations of arc welding processes

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2022.107593

关键词

Variable heat sources; Numerical simulation; Arc welding; Finite element analysis; VCP; FVP

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - CNPq, within the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of Brazil [140322/2016-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes two variable profile heat sources with only two geometrical parameters to achieve accurate simulation results for various welding processes, base materials, and plate thicknesses. Numerical simulations in ANSYS (R) APDL software show that the new heat sources have equal or better agreement with experimental weld profiles and thermal cycles compared to classical heat sources, namely the 3D Conical and the Double Ellipsoid.
Numerical modeling of arc welding and correlated processes tend to be challenging, since they have complex physical phenomena. Several heat sources, with geometric parameters to be adjusted, have been developed to impose the energy input of the process. This study proposes two variable profile heat sources, with only two geometrical parameters, that intend to achieve good accuracy, regardless the welding process, base material and thickness of the welded plates. These sources are tested against GTAW and GMAW processes of butt joints of carbon and stainless steel plates with two different thicknesses. Numerical simulations are performed in ANSYS (R) APDL software, and performance of these new heat sources are compared with classical ones, namely the 3D Conical and the Double Ellipsoid. Weld profiles and thermal cycles from experiments are compared with numerical ones. Although all heat sources had difficulties to predict accurately results in cases of GMAW processes, numerical results of the new heat sources had equal or better agreement than the classical ones.

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