PSI - Issue 48

Elisaveta Doncheva et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 48 (2023) 222–229 Doncheva et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

227

6

The process of preparing the specimens with the repair welding technique is shown on figure 5 and on figure 6 is shown the preparation of samples by adding an additional liquid super metal. The specimens 5 and 6 presented on figure 7 a) are made without defect to only compare the results of the tensile test as standards and all marked specimens with defined defects are presented on figure 7 b). 3. Analysis and discussion of the results The dimensional characteristics of the test specimens after tensile testing are shown in table 3, and the strength characteristics of the tested sample, σ p 0.2 , σ m , and σ u , are shown in table 4, depending on the degree of testing, i.e., whether the test was carried out until the moment of fracture or if it was stopped before the moment of fracture of some of the test samples.

Table 3: Dimensional characteristics of the test specimens after tensile testing

Initial cross section mm 2

Cross section after fracture

Mark up of pieces Н92/1 Н92/2 Н46/1 Н46/2 ОМ/1 ОМ/2

Initial length. mm

Initial widht., mm

Initial thickness mm

Length of fracture

Wight after fracture

Thickness after fracture

Elongation %.

Contraction %

No.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

200 200 200 200 200 200

36.5 33.6 36.9 36.7 40.2 40.1 40.1 40.1 40.1 39.95

7.8

284.7 260.4 276.7 269.7 321.6 323.6 320.8 322.8 320.8 320.8

230 224 232 229 248 246 210 213 220 217

29

5.65 6.55

163.85 198.47 152.11

15 12 16 15 24 23

42 24 45 39 47 43 18 23 47

7.75

30.3 28.7 30.2 32.5 36.4 35.6 32.2 35.7 30

7.5

5.3

7.35 8.05 8.05

5.48 5.65 5.65

165.5 169.5 183.6

ТМ46/1 ТМ46/2 ТМ92/1 ТМ92/2

202.4

8

4.4 4.4

160.16

4 5 9 7

203

8.05

156.6

202.4 202.4

8 8

3.35

107.87 146.37

10. 26 NOTE: T he test pieces with numbers 1, 3, and 5 were tested until fracture, while the others were stopped before fracture but with defined σ k. 4.1

Table 4: Strength characteristics of the tested specimens, σ p0.2 , σ m and σ u

Initial cross section mm 2

Ultimate strength σ m , N/mm 2

Fracture cross sec tion mm 2

Fracture strength σ u , N/mm 2

Yeld force. Fp 0,2 , dN

Ultimate force, Fm, dN

Fracture force, Fu,dN

Yield strength σ p0,2, N/mm 2

Note

No. Mark up

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Н92/1 Н92/2 Н46/1 Н46/2 ОМ/1 ОМ/2

284.7 260.4 276.7 269.7 321.6 323.6 320.8 322.8 320.8 320.8

163.85 198.47 152.11

10835 10533 11069

15280 14224 15267 12420 16319 16380 11274 11959 10500 11480

13567

380.6 404.5

536.7

163.85 198.47 152.11

Fracture

-

546 551 461

No fracture

12962

400 340 447 447 398

Fracture

165.5 169.5 183.6

9174

-

165.5 169.5 183.6

No fracture

14369 14458

13145

507.4 506.2

Fracture

-

No fracture No fracture No fracture No fracture No fracture

ТМ46/1 ТМ46/2 ТМ92/1 ТМ92/2

160.16

7828

9473

574 591

160.16

156.6

-

-

156.6

107.87 146.37

8870 7880

8642

434 400

513.4

107.87 146.37

10.

-

582

After tensile test of specimens made with repair welding, shown in Figure 8 and the performance conditions of the specimens in this figure impose the question of analysing the reasons why the samples with a larger defect length fracture in the weld zone or opposite why the sample with a smaller defect dimension fractures in the base material.