A Comparison of the Constitutive Response of Austenitic and Ferritic Steels under Welding Processes

Abstract:

The need to accurately measure and predict weld residual stresses (WRS) has led to several examinations intent on developing best-practice guidelines in the assessment of welded structures. The present investigation examines two benchmark weld specimens; both specimens are autogenous edge-welded beams, with welds deposited using a mechanised tungsten inert gas process. However, one of the beams was made from AISI 316LN austenitic steel, while the other was made from SA508 Gr.3 Cl.1 ferritic steel. Considerable differences in the cross-weld residual stress profile were observed between the two beams, prompting a detailed examination of why such differences exist. Computational weld mechanics was used to assess both processes; model validation was achieved using previously reported WRS and micro-hardness measurements. A comparison of the numerical solutions indicates that the shape misfit resulting from a sharp weld-induced thermal gradient causes significant longitudinal tensile stresses in the heat-affected zone in both specimens. The presence of influential solid-state phase transformations in the ferritic specimen leads to the formation of compressive stresses in the weld metal, while the stresses remain tensile in the weld metal region of the austenitic specimen. The compressive stresses in the ferritic specimen serve to offset the tensile stresses in the HAZ, leading to a reduction of the self-equilibrating WRS present in the ferritic parent metal.

• Periodical: Materials Science Forum (Volume 905)
• Pages: 83-90
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.905.83
• Online since: August 2017
• Authors: Cory J. Hamelin*, Ondrej Muránsky, Mike C. Smith, Lyndon Edwards
• Keywords: Finite Element Analysis, Solid-State Phase Transformation, Welding

References

[1] Hamelin CJ, Muránsky O, Smith MC, Holden TM, Luzin V, Bendeich PJ, Edwards L. Acta Materialia 2014; 75: 1.

DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.04.045

[2] Muránsky O, Smith MC, Bendeich PJ, Edwards L. Computational Materials Science 2011; 50: 2203.

[3] Muránsky O, Smith MC, Bendeich PJ, Holden TM, Luzin V, Martins RV, Edwards L. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2012; 49: 1045.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.07.006

[4] Smith MC, Smith AC, Wimpory R, Ohms C. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2014; 120–121: 93.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.05.002

[5] Muránsky O, Hamelin CJ, Smith MC, Bendeich PJ, Edwards L. Computational Materials Science 2012; 54: 125.

[6] Smith MC, Muransky O, Bendeich P, J., Edwards L. The impact of key simulation variables on predicted residual stresses in pressuriser nozzle dissimilar metal weld mock-ups. Part 2 - Comparison of simulation and measurements. ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Bellevue, Seattle Washington, (2010).

DOI: 10.1115/pvp2010-26023

[7] Smith MC, Bate SK, Bouchard PJ. Simple Benchmark Problems for Finite Element Weld Residual Stress Simulation. ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference. Paris, France, 2013. p.15.

DOI: 10.1115/pvp2013-98033

[8] Abaqus. Dassault Systèmes, (2013).

[9] Smith RM. FEAT-WMT: Weld-Modelling Tool User Guide. FeatPlus Limited, (2010).

[10] Maynier P, Dollet J, Bastien P. Prediction of Microstructure via Empirical Formulae Based on CCT Diagrams. In: Doane DV, Kirkaldy JC, editors. Hardenability Concepts with Applications to Steels. Chicago, IL: AIME, 1977. p.163.