Abstract
Low-frequency scanning electron beam welding (SEBW) is recently recognized as a possible control method for preventing the top concavity behavior in plate full penetration welding. However, due to a lack of understanding of the control of beam scanning in preventing concavity, the welding quality is difficult to control. In this study, the basic physics under different scanning frequencies was investigated. The results indicate the fundamental reason of improving the weld morphology is that the scanning can make the energy more dispersed. Specifically, due to the impact of recoil pressure and the nature of the weld pool, longitudinal scanning can promote the upstream flow of liquid metal and prevent the top concavity. However, when the scanning frequency reaches a certain threshold value, the effect of promoting the upwelling becomes weak. The threshold of the scanning frequency is 42.00 Hz for welding the 22-mm-thick 30HGSA steel in this study. When the scanning frequency is between 24.00 and 42.00 Hz, the process is in the Improvement Stage. Therefore, longitudinal scanning can effectively control the flow in the weld pool, and an appropriate scanning frequency is necessary to prevent the top concavity. These investigations can provide a better understanding of the effect of scanning on the top morphology.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
References
H. Schultz: Woodhead Publishing, Abington, 1993.
C.M. Weber, E.R. Funk, and R.C. McMaster: Ohio State University, 1970.
A. Sanderson, C.S. Punshon, and J.D. Russell: Fusion Eng. Des., 2000, vol. 49, pp. 77–87.
H. Schwarz: J. Appl. Phys., 1964, vol. 35, pp. 2020–29.
N. Saresh, M.G. Pillai, and J. Mathew: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2007, vol. 192–193, pp. 83–88.
B. Zhang, M. Shi, G. Chen, and J. Feng: Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 2012, vol. 22, pp. 2633–37.
C. Panwisawas, B. Perumal, R.M. Ward, N. Turner, R.P. Turner, J.W. Brooks, and H.C. Basoalto: Acta Mater., 2017, vol. 126, pp. 251–63.
W.H. Giedt and L.N. Tallericoj: Weld. J., 1988, vol. 67, pp. 299–305.
O.K. Nazarenko, A.A. Kaidalov, and S.N. Kovbasenko: Ed. BE Paton. Kiev: Science, dumka, 1987, vol. 265.
V.K. Dragunov, E.V. Terentev, A.P. Sliva, A.L. Goncharov, and A.Y. Marchenkov: Weld. Int., 2017, vol. 31, pp. 307–11.
Z. Wang, J.P. Oliveira, Z. Zeng, X. Bu, B. Peng, and X. Shao: Opt. Laser Technol., 2019, vol. 111, pp. 58–65.
M. Schweier, J.F. Heins, M.W. Haubold, and M.F. Zaeh: Phys. Procedia, 2013, vol. 41, pp. 20–30.
H.W. Choi, D.F. Farson, and M.H. Cho: Weld. J., 2006, vol. 85, pp. 174–79.
C. Wu, L. Zhong, and J. Gao: Meas. Sci. Technol., 2009, vol. 20, p. 115702.
P. Wei, K. Chuang, J. Ku, and T. DebRoy: IEEE Trans. Comp Pack Man, 2012, vol. 2, pp. 383–94.
U. Reisgen, M. Schlezer, A. Abdurachmanov, G. Turichin, E. Valdaitseva, F.W. Bach, T. Hassel, and A. Beniyash: Paton weld. Jour., 2012, vol. 2.
A.P. Sliva, V.K. Dragunov, E.V. Terentyev, and A.L. Goncharov: J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2018, vol. 1089, p. 012005.
M. Luo, R. Hu, T. Liu, B. Wu, and S. Pang: Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 2018, vol. 127, pp. 1313–26.
V.A. Sudnik, V.A. Erofeev, K.H. Richter, and K.V. Heins: in Computer Technology in Welding and Manufacturing, Kiev, 2006, pp. 295–300.
S. Pang, L. Chen, J. Zhou, Y. Yin, and T. Chen: J. Phys. D Appl. Phys., 2011, vol. 44, p. 025301.
K. Mundra, and T. DebRoy: Welding J., New York, 1993, vol. 72, pp. 1-s.
M.J. McNallan and T. Debroy: Metall. Trans. B, 1991, vol. 22, pp. 557–60.
F. Kong and R. Kovacevic: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2010, vol. 41B, pp. 1310–20.
S. Osher, and R. Fedkiw: Springer, 2003.
A. Appel: Spring joint computer conference, ACM, 1968, pp. 37–45.
J. Eggers: Rev. Mod. Phys., 1997, vol. 69, p. 865.
Q. Tang, S. Pang, B. Chen, H. Suo, and J. Zhou: Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 2014, vol. 78, pp. 203–15.
S. Pang, X. Chen, J. Zhou, X. Shao, and C. Wang: Opt. Lasers Eng., 2015, vol. 74, pp. 47–58.
A.J. Chorin: Math. Comp., 1968, vol. 22, pp. 745–62.
Acknowledgments
This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52022033).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (AVI 57215 kb)
Supplementary file2 (AVI 56503 kb)
Appendices
Appendix A
A.1 Simulation Methods
To simplify the energy interaction process between the high energy beam and the transient change keyhole surface, the Dirac delta function was adopted,[23] which is designed to be convenient for Level Set (LS) method.[24] In addition, a ray casting method[25] was adopted to consider the situation that some parts of the keyhole surface were blocked by the protrusions on the upper of them.
To create the physical process of phase transition between the solid and the liquid, and the forces like interphase force, interphase force, and so on during EBW, the mixture model presented by Eggers was adopted,[26] assuming the fluid is incompressible
As for the motion description of the keyhole free surface, LS method[24] was adopted to track the evolution process.
Discontinuous boundary model proposed by Pang et al. was adopted to treat the boundary conditions in SEBW, considering the discontinuity caused by Marangoni shear stress, surface tension, and recoil pressure.[20] The model was reviewed by Tang et al.,[27] and a specific description of the discretization process can also be found in Pang et al. by adopting the high-order finite difference method.[28] Most of the physical parameters adopted in the process were determined by using the thermal parameter calculation software JMatPro. Figure
A.1 presents the calculating flowchart.[29]
A.2 Modeling Verification
To prove the validity of the visualization results, the depth and average width of the Sample No. 1 are listed in Table
A.1. Furthermore, the weld section profile calculated was compared against the cross section observed in Figure
A.2. The upper part of Figure A.2(a) is the simulation result, and the lower part is the experimental result. To clearly exhibiting the difference, a pair of comparable contour profiles are extracted from Figure A.2(a), which represents the fusion zone of the cross section obtained in two different ways, as is shown in Figure A.2(b). According to Figure A.2, a similar result is presented that the profiles of the cross section between the experimental result and the simulated result are within the margins of error. Still, a visible difference appears at the opening of the keyhole leading to air, indicating the limitation of the model that it sacrifices the accurate estimate of vapor plume friction for shortening the computing time.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luo, M., Sliva, A.P., Hu, R. et al. Physical Understanding of Active Control of Beam Scanning in Preventing Top Concavity in Electron Beam Welding. Metall Mater Trans A 53, 3369–3380 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-022-06751-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-022-06751-w