4.5 Article

Predicting Susceptibility to Solidification Cracking and Liquation Cracking by CALPHAD

期刊

METALS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met11091442

关键词

welding; solidification cracking; liquation cracking; CALPHAD; pandat software

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of the United States [DMR-0098776, DMR 1500367, DMR1904503]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that CALPHAD-based modeling can help predict the susceptibility of alloys to liquation and solidification cracking. By comparing the relationship between temperature and solid fraction in the weld metal, the susceptibility to cracking can be assessed. The composition of the weld metal, influenced by the workpiece, filler metal, and dilution, plays a key role in predicting susceptibility to cracking.
In welding, liquation cracking can occur in the partially melted zone, leaving open cracks along the edge of the weld bead. Likewise, solidification cracking can occur in the mushy zone, leaving open cracks inside the weld bead (which is called the weld metal or fusion zone). The present study aims at demonstrating that CALPHAD-based modeling can help predict the susceptibility of alloys to both types of cracking. The basic relationship between temperature T and the fraction of solid f(S) of an alloy can be calculated using thermodynamic software and a database based on the alloy composition. For liquation cracking the T-f(S) curve of the weld metal can be compared with that of the workpiece to assess the susceptibility. For solidification cracking, on the other hand, the T-(f(S))(1/2) curve of the weld metal can be used to calculate the susceptibility. The composition of the weld metal depends on the compositions of the workpiece and the filler metal, and the percentage of the workpiece in the weld metal (called dilution). The susceptibility predictions based on these curves and comparison with welding experiments will be demonstrated using Al alloys, Mg alloys, and carbon steels as examples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据