Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the present study, welding of P92 steel and 304H austenitic stainless steel (304H ASS) plates (thickness: 8 mm) was performed using activated flux-gas tungsten arc welding (activated flux-GTAW) and compared with the multipass-gas tungsten arc welding (multipass-GTAW). The comparison was done based on weld bead morphology, angular distortion, metallurgical features, mechanical properties, and economics of welding. In activated flux-GTAW, TiO2 powder (flux) is used to achieve through thickness penetration in single pass, whereas the multipass-GTAW was done in eight passes using the Ni-based filler wire ErNiCr-3/Inconel 82. The results indicated that the activated flux-GTAW process considerably lowered the angular distortion of the welded plates owing to the uniform thermal cycle in single pass. The activated flux-GTAW weldment exhibited better tensile properties with ultimate tensile strength (UTS) as 690.4 MPa and 36.30% elongation. However, the impact strength of weld metal of activated flux-GTAW weldment was quite low due to the formation of untempered martensitic structure. The economic assessment divulged that the activated flux-GTAW process is cost-effective due to no groove preparation and single pass process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: