Mechanical Properties and Metallurgical Characterization of Dissimilar Welded Joints between AISI 316 and AISI 4340

Technical Paper

Abstract

In the present study, the influence of six different process parameters and three interactions on joint tensile strength, toughness, fusion zone microhardness variation are studied during dissimilar tungsten inert gas welding between austenitic stainless steel AISI 316 and alloy steel AISI 4340. Detailed experimental study using fractional factorial experimental design and subsequent statistical analysis show that higher tensile strength, toughness can be achieved using ER 309 filler material and suitably selecting the other process parameters and heating conditions. Addition of small proportion of hydrogen in shielding gas increases the heat transfer efficiency, melting and subsequent penetration. Preheating of AISI 4340 material reduces the chance of solidification cracking and post-heating helps to improve the joint mechanical property. Microstructural observations show that improper selection of process parameters may lead to micro-pores and degrade the joint quality. Successful joining of the dissimilar materials greatly depends on the selection of optimum process parameters, filler material and shielding gas.

Keywords

Dissimilar welding Tungsten inert gas welding Tensile strength Toughness Microhardness 

References

  1. 1.
    Kumar R, Bhattacharya A, and Bera T K, Mater Manuf Process 30 (2015) 1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhattacharya A, and Kumar R, Mater Manuf Process 31 (2016) 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reddy G M, Mohandas T, Rao A S, and Satyanarayana V V, Mater Manuf Process 20 (2005) 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arivazhagan N, Singh S, Prakash S, and Reddy G M, Mater Des 32 (2011) 3036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bina M H, Jamali M, Shamanian M, and Sabet H, Trans Ind Inst Met 68 (2015) 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu W, Hu S, and Shen J, Mater Des 65 (2015) 855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teker T, and Kursun T, Mater Manuf Process 26 (2011) 926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ozdemir N, Sarsılmaz F, and Hascalik A, Mater Des 28 (2007) 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arivarasu M, Kasinath D R, and Natarajan A, Mater Res 18 (2015) 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jafarzadegan M, Feng A H, Abdollah-zadeh A, Saeid T, Shen J, and Assadi H, Mater Character 74 (2012) 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar K G, Ramkumar K D, and Arivazhagan N, J Mech Sci Technol 29 (2015) 1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fatima S, Khan M, Jaffery S H I, Ali L, Mujahid M, and Butt S I, Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl (2015). doi:10.1177/1464420715584392.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dewan M W, Liang J, Wahab M A, and Okeil A M, Mater Des 54 (2014) 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Durgutlu A, Mater Des 25 (2004) 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tathgir A, Bhattacharya A, and Bera T K, Mater Manuf Process 30 (2015) 1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhattacharya A, and Singla S, Proc Inst Mech Eng Part E J Process Mech Eng (2016) (in press).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross P J, Taguchi Technique for Quality Engineering, Tata McGrawHill, New Delhi (2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Institute of Metals - IIM 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology PatnaPatnaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThapar UniversityPatialaIndia
  3. 3.LPUPhagwaraIndia

Personalised recommendations