Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering / 2018 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 4826020 | 5 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4826020

Evaluation of Residual Stress on Steel Parts Welded and Milled

Academic Editor: Fernando Lusquiños
Received20 Oct 2017
Revised24 Dec 2017
Accepted08 Jan 2018
Published19 Mar 2018

Abstract

Welded parts are common in mechanical engineering. As all manufactured parts, they also present residual stresses introduced by the corresponding manufacturing process. Residual stresses can be beneficial or not because they can increase or reduce the useful life of the mechanical components, particularly when they are subjected to a cyclic stress in which they can fail by fatigue. In this study, SAE 1045 steel samples were welded by metal inert gas process, varying the speed and welding current. The welded samples were thereafter milled, including the welded region. Residual stresses on material as received, welded, and welded and subsequently milled were evaluated through the microhardness method. A factorial statistical design was used, and the results were studied by analysis of variance. It can be concluded that, in general, welding introduces compressive residual stresses which are improved by posterior milling operation, and there is an optimal set of operating parameters for this condition.

1. Introduction

Currently, it is necessary to understand and control the manufacturing processes and manufactured products to achieve higher efficiency and production quality as well as low-cost operations. The gas metal arc welding (GMAW) is a procedure considered as advantageous when compared to other welding processes due to production capacity, applicability, and the automation possibilities. Several parameters can influence a weld, which make adjustment procedure difficult [1, 2]. Among them, welding electric current, the polarity of the arc, the composition and the diameter of the electrode, shielding gas, and welding speed are the main parameters [3].

Welding current is very important in the process and must be adequate to the wire speed feed [4]. Welding current is set up from information about the material to be welded, the electrode type and its diameter, and the protection gas. Another important parameter is welding speed. A common strategy is to increase welding current as welding speed is increased, normally in a proportional way. If the welding current or welding speed is above a critical value, a defect named humping occurs. In this case, the welding current combined with welding speed represents the upper limit to design, that is, the upper limit of welding current and welding speed combination in parameter optimization design [5]. When mechanical and thermal processes are realized, residual stresses can be generated. In welding, tensile residual stresses occur as result of the high heat input, which reduce fatigue strength [6]. Residual stress is induced by machining processes and, depending on its magnitude and sign, can be very detrimental to mechanical parts when they are in service [7]. Several studies are being realized to diagnose the type and nature of these stresses originated from machining [810].

Residual stress can be evaluated using indentation tests. This method compares the surface hardness of a material before and after manufacturing process. If the hardness is higher than the hardness of the material after processing, it indicates that a compressive residual stress is present on its surface. If lesser, then tensile residual stresses are present [1113]. In this study, a milled operation is done after a gas metal arc welded, to increase the surface finishing of the welded part. Then, residual stress is evaluated before and after processes to recommend or not these combined operations.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiment was done using a randomized factorial design. The influence variables were welding current, welding speed, the regions of the part, and two process conditions: parts only welded and parts welded and subsequently milled. The response variable was the microhardness, associated with residual stress. Welding was done in plates of 100 × 100 × 3.2 mm of SAE 1045 steel.

The plates were wet grinded and cut into two parts with a closed joint. An AWS ER-70S-6 electrode with a diameter of 0.8 mm was used. Protection gas used was constituted of 80% of argon and 20% of CO2. This gas mixture was used as recommended by Moyer [14] and Suban and Tusek [15] to increase productivity and hardness of the bead weld.

After tests, three levels were chosen for welding current: I1 = 140 A, I2 = 160 A, and I3 = 176 A.

Three weld speeds were adopted: V1 = 4.5, V2 = 5.4, and V3 = 6.4 (mm/s). Three regions were observed in the welded part, as can be seen in Figure 1: (MZ) metal zone, (AZ) affected zone, and (BM) base material.

A group of welded parts were milled to evaluate the residual stress in this condition to be compared with simple welded part. The parameters used in milling were depth of cut (d) = 0.3 mm, cutting speed (Sc) = 250 m/min, and feed rate (f) = 100 mm/min. The mill used was a tool with 2 teeth. Microhardness Vickers test was done using a load of 5 N in 20 s. Six points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6), three in each side of the bead weld, were fixed to measure the microhardness, as shown in Figure 2.

3. Results and Discussion

An indentation test was done in the material as received to be compared with the parts welded and parts welded and milled. The results are shown in Table 1.


P1P2P3P4P5P6

Replica 1238242240240242238
Replica 2239243241240242239
Replica 3240242240241243240

In Table 2, the results of Microhardness Vickers obtained from parts welded and from parts welded and milled are shown. In Table 2, V1 = 4.5 m/min, V2 = 5.4 m/min, V3 = 6.4 m/min, I1 = 140 A, I2 = 160 A, and I3 = 176 A.


Parts welded
I1I2I3
P1P2P3P4P5P6P1P2P3P4P5P6P1P2P3P4P5P6

V1245250255256250246250252253252250256254254257255256254
248253255255249248247253255249248248252253256260259258
247253256256250249250252254255250248251253258258256253
V2248251254254249247249249254253251250259261260257252250
251253257257248252250249252254254253253260255254250252
248254257257254245252253255256255254252255256254253251
V3250252254254250250252250254253251251253252258259258251
252253254254249249249249252255253255252255256257258252
249250252252250248253255257254255250255258260259258255

Parts welded and milled

V1276280286286270260270273279282280269268290284270268270
278272275276258268269270270279270269260269274290286279
261269270280271266262270275277269263267271280274270273
V2255264268271277275275276280282281271273279273275268270
254257264270269269272272275280278270276280274285280280
279271280263270267275276280280278271292282280290280276
V3270274279280270270266286283269265272290290294300293280
278270267275270269256249268271258270298295299295293275
270271273275274270246270278265260270290284295299293280

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) with 95% of confidence was used. First, the results were analyzed for the parts only welded. Table 3 shows the results of the ANOVA, where SS = square sum, DF = degrees of freedom, MSS = mean square sum, and value is the significance. When value is lesser than 0.05, the result is significant, and the variable has influence in the process. In this table, the principal effects are V (welding speed), I (welding current), and P (position of the measure). VI, VP, and IP are the double interactions between the principal effects, and VIP is the triple interaction of the principal effects.


SSDFMSS value

Total1824.698161
V12.30826.151.5030.227
I461.0862230.54356.3310.001Significant
P538.6235107.72526.3210.001Significant
VI30.24647.5611.8470.125
VP46.876104.6871.1450.336
IP106.7651010.672.6080.007Significant
VIP186.791209.3392.2820.004Significant
ERR442.0001084.092

From the ANOVA, it can be concluded that welding current and the measurement position are significant and influence the microhardness. The welding speed, however, proved to be not significant and does not influence the hardness of the parts.

The analysis of variance also showed an interaction between the welding current and the measurement position, and there was also interaction between the three variables. An orthogonal contrast test revealed that there is no difference between the results obtained with the welding current I1 and I2. But, the hardness increases when the welding current I3 is used. As the increasing of hardness is associated with the introduction of compressive residual stress, we can conclude that welding current at more high level is beneficial to fatigue strength in welded parts.

The measurement position also showed to be different. The position P1 is symmetric to position P6, as well as position P2 and P5, and position P3 is symmetric to P4. An orthogonal contrast test revealed that there is no difference between the symmetric positions, as we expected. But there is a difference between the hardness measured in the position in a same side. The hardness in the positions P3 and P4 are higher than hardness in the positions P2 and P5, and these are higher than measurements at positions P1 and P6. So, we can conclude that hardness decreases from the region near the bead weld toward the edge of the part.

The analysis of variance to the welded and milled condition is presented in Table 4.


SSDFMSS value

Total15,222.94161
V421.8002210.9075.3940.006Significant
I3735.80021867.91047.7740.001Significant
P1479.9005295.9817.5700.001Significant
VI3361.2004840.31521.4920.001Significant
VP291.6661029.1660.7450.680
IP210.5551021.0550.5380.859
VIP1499.2592074.9631.9170.018Significant
ERR4222.66710839.098

After milled, the three variables are influents. There is interaction between the welding current and welding speed, and there is interaction between the three variables. An orthogonal contrast test revealed that there is no difference between the results obtained with the welding speeds V1 and V2. But, the hardness increases when the welding speed V3 is used. In the same way, the welding current presents no difference between I1 and I2, but the welding current I3 influences the microhardness on welding part. As it can be seen in the welded part, there is no difference between the symmetric positions. But there is difference between the hardness measured at positions in the same side. The hardness in the positions P3 and P4 is higher than hardness at positions P2 and P5, and these are higher than measurements at positions P1 and P6.

Figure 3 presents the curves of microhardness measured to the welded and welded and milled and as-received parts as a function of measurement position and welding current, when the welding speed is the intermediated speed V2 = 5.4 mm/s. The same behavior is verified with the other two welding speeds. In Figure 3, it can be noted that the welding increases the microhardness compared to that measured in the part as received. Similarly, milling also increases the microhardness over only the part welded. Also, the behavior of the microhardness is symmetrical in relation to the weld bead and shows greater from central positions (P3 and P4) toward the edge of the piece (P1 and P6), regardless of processing (welded or welded and milled) and the welding current. It is important to pay attention to the fact that the effect of welding current be more pronounced in the welded and milled part.

In Figure 4, the curves of microhardness to the welded and welded and milled are presented and as received parts as a function of the measurement positions to welding speed. In this case, the values are those obtained when the welding current is the intermediated current I2 = 160 A. The same behavior is verified with the other two welding currents, as shown in Figure 3. As it was seen from welding current, welding speed also increased the microhardness of the part compared with the part as received. And by milling the welded part, the microhardness increased more. But, in a different way, the effect of welding speed V3 was not so pronounced in the microhardness as the effect of welding current I3, as seen in Figure 3.

Here, the distribution of microhardness in surface of the parts of the welding speed variable, verified in the points P1 to P6, is equal to that of welding current variable.

4. Conclusions

As demonstrated by other authors, the hardness can be associated with residual stress. If it increases, the presence of compressive stress is noted. Other way, if it decreases, there is the presence of tensile stresses. In the case of welding of a SAE 1045 steel, it can be observed that compressive residual stresses are introduced. The intensities of these residual stresses are greater near the bead weld and decrease toward the edge of the part. Welding current increases still more the intensity of the residual stresses as detected in the welding current of 176 A. The effect of welding speed on residual stresses is lesser than the effect of welding current. The milling operation in a part after welding proved to increase the compressive residual stresses. In this case, the effect of the welding current of 176 A was very important. So, as a general conclusion, considering that a presence of a compressive residual stress is beneficial to fatigue strength and that the milling improves the surface quality of the product in relation to the welded surface, this work recommends the milling operation after welding of this kind of parts.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank FAPEMIG–Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais for the financial support to this research.

References

  1. D. Xueping, L. Huan, W. Huiliang, and L. Jiquan, “Numerical analysis of arc plasma behavior in double-wire GMAW,” Vacuum, vol. 124, pp. 46–54, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. A. R. D. Tipi, S. K. H. Sani, and N. Pariz, “Frequency control of the drop detachment in the automatic GMAW process,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 216, pp. 248–259, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. J. M. Hermans and G. Den Ouden, “Process behavior and stability in short circuiting gas metal arc welding,” Welding Journal, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 137–141, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  4. Z. H. Rao, J. Hu, S. M. Liao, and H. L. Tsai, “Determination of equilibrium wire feed speeds for a stable GMAW process,” in Proceedings of ASME 2008 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, MA, USA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, MA, USA, November 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  5. X. Meng, G. Qin, and Z. Zou, “Investigation of humping defect in high speed gas tungsten arc welding by numerical modelling,” Materials and Design, vol. 94, pp. 69–78, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. S. Y. Hwang, Y. Kim, and J. H. Lee, “Finite element analysis of residual stress distribution in a thick plate joined using two-pole tandem electro-gas welding,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 229, pp. 349–360, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. V. G. Navas, O. Gonzalo, and I. Bengoetxea, “Effect of cutting parameters in the surface residual stresses generated by turning in AISI 4340 steel,” International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 61, pp. 48–57, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. B. Coto, V. G. Navas, O. Gonzalo, A. Aranzabe, and C. Sanz, “Influences of turning parameters in surface residual stresses in AISI 4340 steel,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 53, no. 9–12, pp. 911–919, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. F. Ning, C. Ming, and G. Peiquan, “Simulation of cutting tool geometry parameters impact on residual stress,” in Proceedings of Control and Decision Conference, CCDC’09, pp. 5472–5475, Orlando, FL, USA, December 2009, in Chinese. View at: Google Scholar
  10. J. S. Robinson, D. A. Tanner, C. E. Truman, and R. C. Wimpory, “Measurement and prediction of machining induced redistribution of residual stress in the aluminium alloy 7449,” Experimental Mechanics, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 981–993, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. V. Buljak, G. Cocchetti, A. Cornaggia, and G. Maier, “Assessment of residual stresses and mechanical characterization of materials by “hole drilling” and indentation tests combined and by inverse analysis,” Mechanics Research Communications, vol. 68, pp. 18–24, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. S. Y. Pak, S. Y. Kim, S. H. Kim, and J. R. Youn, “Measurement of residual stresses in polymeric parts by indentation method,” Polymer Testing, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 946–952, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. M. Bocciarelli and G. Maier, “Indentation and imprint mapping method for identification of residual stresses,” Computational Materials Science, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 381–383, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. N. Moyer, “The evolution of shielding gas,” Welding Journal, vol. 76, pp. 51-52, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  15. M. Suban and J. Tusek, “Dependence of melting rate in MIG/MAG welding on the type of shielding gas used,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 119, pp. 185–192, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Frederico Ozanan Neves et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

765 Views | 260 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.