PSI - Issue 13
Luka Grubiša et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 13 (2018) 430–437 Luka Grubiša, Darko Bajić, Tomaž Vuherer/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000 – 000
434
5
a
b
Fig. 7. Fatigue pre-cracking; (a) instrument setup; (b) clamping of the specimen
a
b
Fig. 8. Testing of the SENB specimen: (a) three point bent scheme; (b) testing of the specimen on the Smitweld 1405 machine
5. Results and discussion
Table 4 shows the notation of specimens used in investigation with their dimensions. Fig. 9 shows the specimen after the tensile test, where breakage occurred in HAZ microstructure. Results of the tensile tests are listed in Table 5. Table 4. Notation of the specimens The specimen For analysis Dimensions T Tensile tests 6 20 140 CH-WM Charpy impact tests (WM) 5 10 55 CH-HAZ Charpy impact tests (HAZ) 5 10 55 SENB-WM Fracture mechanics (weld metal) 6 12 80 SENB-HAZ Fracture mechanics (HAZ) 6 12 80
Fig. 9. Specimen after tensile test
Table 5. Results of tensile tests R p 0,2 , MPa
R m ,MPa
A 5 , % 27.2
Z , %
341 45.2 Force versus time ( F - t ) and energy versus time diagrams ( E - t ) were recorded during the instrumented Charpy tests. Results of the tests from WM and HAZ microstructure are shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, respectively. 600
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease