4.5 Article

Influence of Weld Defects and Postweld Heat Treatment of Gas Tungsten Arc-Welded AA-6061-T651 Aluminum Alloy

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4030333

关键词

aluminum alloy; weld defects; tensile properties; phased array ultrasonic testing; postweld heat treatments

资金

  1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory) [NRC-HQ-11-G-38-0052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Welding defects and the reduction of mechanical performances are the foremost problems for fusion welded aluminum alloys joints. The influences of weld defects and post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) on tensile properties of gas tungsten arc (GTA) welded aluminum alloy AA-6061-T651 joints are investigated in this current study. All welded specimens are nondestructively inspected with phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) to classify weld defect and measure the projected defects area-ratio (AR). Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) decreased linearly with the increase of the size of weld defect but tensile toughness behaved nonlinearly with defect size. Depending on defect size, defective samples' joint efficiency (JE) varied from 35% to 48% of base metal's (BM) UTS. Defect-free as-welded (AW) specimens observed to have 53% and 34% JE based on UTS and yield strength (YS) of BM, respectively. PWHT was applied on defect-free welded specimens to improve tensile properties by precipitation hardening, microstructures refining, and removal of postweld residual stresses. Solution treatment (ST) (at 540 degrees C) followed by varying levels of artificial age-hardening (AH) time was investigated to obtain optimum tensile properties. For GTA-welded AA-6061-T651, peak aging time was 5 hr at 180 degrees C. PWHT specimens showed 85% JE based on UTS and up to a 71% JE based on YS of BM. However, toughness values decreased about 29% due to the presence of precipitate-free fusion zones. The experimental investigations can be used to establish weld acceptance/rejection criteria and for the design of welded aluminum alloy structures.

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

4.5
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