Scholarlink

<p>A combined experimental–numerical study was carried out to compare gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), two gas metal arc welding conditions (GMAW<sub>1</sub> and GMAW<sub>2,</sub> With the same speed and heat input as hybrid welding, respectively) and a GTAW–GMAW hybrid configuration on AISI 316&#xa0;L. Effective heat inputs were 0.32&#xa0;kJ·mm⁻¹ (GTAW), 0.83&#xa0;kJ·mm⁻¹ (GMAW<sub>1</sub>) and 1.15&#xa0;kJ·mm⁻¹ (GMAW<sub>2</sub> and Hybrid). A three-dimensional finite element was developed and validated against experimental fusion zone geometries, showing deviations below 8%. The hybrid process achieved the greatest penetration (3.3 ± 0.1&#xa0;mm) and highest depth-to-width ratio (0.41 ± 0.02), while GMAW<sub>2</sub> produced the widest bead and the largest secondary dendrite arm spacing (32 ± 2&#xa0;μm). The cooling time was extended in filler-assisted processes relative to GTAW. Nevertheless, within the filler-based conditions, the hybrid weld displayed the shortest cooling time (4.9&#xa0;s), indicating a higher effective cooling rate than both GMAW<sub>1</sub> and GMAW<sub>2</sub>. Ferrite fractions measured by XRD–Rietveld analysis were 9.0 ± 0.3% (Hybrid), 7.0 ± 0.2% (GMAW<sub>1</sub>), 6.0 ± 0.2% (GMAW<sub>2</sub>), and 5.0 ± 0.3% (GTAW), exceeding equilibrium-based predictions. The hybrid weld also showed refined dendritic structure and the highest fusion zone hardness (210 HV). The study establishes GTAW–GMAW hybrid welding as an efficient approach for achieving improved penetration and refined solidification structures in austenitic stainless steel joints.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Microstructural analysis and finite element simulation of hybrid GTAW–GMAW welding on AISI 316 L stainless steel

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月29日

查看全文
  • Ali Ebrahimpour,
  • Pedram Alipour,
  • Tohid Saeid

摘要

A combined experimental–numerical study was carried out to compare gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), two gas metal arc welding conditions (GMAW1 and GMAW2, With the same speed and heat input as hybrid welding, respectively) and a GTAW–GMAW hybrid configuration on AISI 316 L. Effective heat inputs were 0.32 kJ·mm⁻¹ (GTAW), 0.83 kJ·mm⁻¹ (GMAW1) and 1.15 kJ·mm⁻¹ (GMAW2 and Hybrid). A three-dimensional finite element was developed and validated against experimental fusion zone geometries, showing deviations below 8%. The hybrid process achieved the greatest penetration (3.3 ± 0.1 mm) and highest depth-to-width ratio (0.41 ± 0.02), while GMAW2 produced the widest bead and the largest secondary dendrite arm spacing (32 ± 2 μm). The cooling time was extended in filler-assisted processes relative to GTAW. Nevertheless, within the filler-based conditions, the hybrid weld displayed the shortest cooling time (4.9 s), indicating a higher effective cooling rate than both GMAW1 and GMAW2. Ferrite fractions measured by XRD–Rietveld analysis were 9.0 ± 0.3% (Hybrid), 7.0 ± 0.2% (GMAW1), 6.0 ± 0.2% (GMAW2), and 5.0 ± 0.3% (GTAW), exceeding equilibrium-based predictions. The hybrid weld also showed refined dendritic structure and the highest fusion zone hardness (210 HV). The study establishes GTAW–GMAW hybrid welding as an efficient approach for achieving improved penetration and refined solidification structures in austenitic stainless steel joints.