Optimization of shielding gas composition in high nitrogen stainless steel gas metal arc welding. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Zeng; Fan, Chenglei; Ming, Zhu; Chen, Chao; Yang, Chunli; Lin, Sanbao; Wang, Langping
• Is Part Of: Journal of manufacturing processes. Volume 58(2020)
• Page Start: 19
• Page End: 29
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: High nitrogen stainless steel filler metal -- Ar-N2-CO2 shielding gas -- Mechanical properties optimization; Production management -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Manufacturing processes -- Periodicals; Procestechnologie; Productietechniek; Production -- Gestion -- Informatique -- Périodiques; Fabrication -- Périodiques; Manufacturing processes; Production management -- Data processing; Periodicals; 670.5
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.08.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-6125

Abstract

Abstract: High nitrogen stainless steel has extensive applied foreground in industries. But the weldability limits the use of the steel. The weld without nitrogen can become the weakness of the joint in corrosion resistance and strength. In this study, response surface methodology was applied to optimize the Ar-N2 -CO2 ternary shielding gas for a nitrogen-containing filler metal in high nitrogen stainless welding. The influence of the proportion of N2 and CO2 on the nitrogen content, the impact energy and the tensile strength were investigated by the statistical regression models. The results show that the tensile strength, nitrogen content and impact energy increase and then decrease with the increasing of CO2, which indicates that CO2 content should not be too high. N2 addition can increase the nitrogen content of the weld obviously. But the impact energy decreases when N2 content exceeds about 7%. Integrating the mathematic models of the three performances, the optimal shielding gas compositions were determined to be 87 %Ar-6.5 %N2 -6.5 %CO2 . With this optimal shielding gas, the tensile strength and impact energy reached 956.7 MPa and 166.8 J, respectively. The deviation between the experimental value and the predicted value was below 2%.