| Literature DB >> 36079353 |
Tie Yin1,2, Jinpeng Wang3, Hong Zhao1, Lun Zhou1,2, Zenghuan Xue2, Hehe Wang2.
Abstract
With the increase in transmission pressure and pipe diameter of long-distance oil and gas pipelines, automatic welding of the pipeline has become the mainstream welding method. The multi-layer and multi-pass welding path planning of large-diameter pipelines with typical narrow gap grooves are studied, and a welding strategy for pipeline external welding robot is proposed. By analyzing the shape of the weld bead section of the narrow gap groove and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the equal-height method and the equal-area method, the mathematical model of the filling layer is established. Through the test and analysis in the workshop, the predicted lifting value meets the actual welding requirements. The microstructure of the weld was analyzed by SEM. The main structure of the weld was fine acicular ferrite, which could improve the mechanical properties of the welded joint. After multi-layer filling, the filling layer is flush with the edge of the groove. The establishment of this model lays a foundation for the formulation of welding process parameters for large-diameter pipes and the off-line programming of welding procedures.Entities:
Keywords: filler layer strategy; narrow gap groove; pipeline welding; prediction model
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079353 PMCID: PMC9457232 DOI: 10.3390/ma15175967
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Pipeline all-position welding system.
Figure 2Narrow gap groove weld.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of narrow gap compound groove.
Figure 4Weld pass filling layer appearance: (a) concave; (b) convex; (c) hump.
Figure 5Filling diagram of pipeline external welding robot.
Layer height of theoretical filling layer with a pipe diameter of 1219 mm.
| Filler Layer | Equal Height Method (mm) | Equal Area Method (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.82 | 3.44 |
| 2 | 2.82 | 3.11 |
| 3 | 2.82 | 2.85 |
| 4 | 2.82 | 2.65 |
| 5 | 2.82 | 2.49 |
| 6 | 2.82 | 2.35 |
| Calculated total layer height h | 16.92 | 16.89 |
The theoretical fill layer height of the three calculation methods.
| Filler Layer | Equal Height Method (mm) | Equal Area Method (mm) | A Lift Prediction Model with Upper and Lower Limits (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.82 | 3.44 | 3.00 |
| 2 | 2.82 | 3.11 | 3.00 |
| 3 | 2.82 | 2.85 | 3.00 |
| 4 | 2.82 | 2.65 | 2.80 |
| 5 | 2.82 | 2.49 | 2.62 |
| 6 | 2.82 | 2.35 | 2.50 |
| Total layer height | 16.92 | 16.89 | 16.92 |
The calculation process of an uplift prediction model with upper and lower limit effect.
| Filler Layer | 1st Calculation (mm) | 1st Layer Height Correction Value (mm) | 2nd Calculation (mm) | 2nd Layer Height Correction Value (mm) | 3rd Calculation (mm) | Final Result (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 16.9 | 10.9 | 7.9 | 16.9 | ||
| n_middle | 6 | 4 | 3 | 6 | ||
| 1st layer | 3.44 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |||
| 2nd layer | 3.11 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |||
| 3rd layer | 2.85 | 3.02 | 3.00 | 3.00 | ||
| 4th layer | 2.65 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | ||
| 5th layer | 2.49 | 2.62 | 2.62 | 2.62 | ||
| 6th layer | 2.35 | 2.47 | 2.48 | 2.50 | ||
| Total layer height | 16.92 |
Chemical composition of base metal (wt%) [26].
| Material | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Mo | Ni+Cr+Cu | Nb+V+Ti | Ceq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X80 | 0.05~0.07 | 0.25 | ≤1.80 | 0.01 | 0.001 | ≤0.35 | ≤0.50 | ≤0.15 | 0.42~0.44 |
Chemical composition of filler metal [1].
| Element | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Cr | Mo | Ni | V | Cu | Ti | Al |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filler metal | 0.05 | 0.69 | 1.53 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.020 | 0.004 | 0.89 | <0.001 | 0.110 | 0.060 | 0.003 |
Figure 6Experiment installation.
Welding process parameters for each layer.
| Layers | Welding Parameters | 3 O’clock | 4 O’clock | 5 O’clock | 6 O’clock |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st layer | Welding speed (cm/min) | 59.9 | 55.1 | 55.5 | 52.1 |
| Current (A) | 219.2 | 196.7 | 210.4 | 194.4 | |
| Voltage (V) | 25.2 | 25.1 | 24.7 | 24.8 | |
| Swing width (mm) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2nd layer | Welding speed (cm/min) | 45.5 | 42.8 | 41.8 | 38.7 |
| Current (A) | 207.9 | 198.4 | 188.2 | 185.8 | |
| Voltage (V) | 25.7 | 25.2 | 24.8 | 23.8 | |
| Swing width (mm) | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 1.7 | |
| Swing time (ms) | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | |
| Swing speed (mm/s) | 10 | 10.8 | 14.2 | 14.2 | |
| Edge dwell time (ms) | 40 | 60 | 80 | 80 | |
| 3rd layer | Welding speed (cm/min) | 45.3 | 42.5 | 38.9 | 39 |
| Current (A) | 193.1 | 194.1 | 180.9 | 176.5 | |
| Voltage (V) | 25.5 | 25.2 | 23.8 | 24.5 | |
| Swing width (mm) | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 1.7 | |
| Swing time (ms) | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | |
| Swing speed (mm/s) | 10 | 10.8 | 14.2 | 14.2 | |
| Edge dwell time (ms) | 40 | 60 | 80 | 80 | |
| 4th layer | Welding speed (cm/min) | 47.7 | 43.8 | 37.7 | 37.1 |
| Current (A) | 203 | 202.7 | 187.1 | 176 | |
| Voltage (V) | 25.3 | 24.4 | 23.8 | 24 | |
| Swing width (mm) | 1.8 | 2 | 2.4 | 2.4 | |
| Swing time (ms) | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | |
| Swing speed (mm/s) | 15 | 16.7 | 20 | 20 | |
| Edge dwell time (ms) | 40 | 60 | 80 | 80 | |
| 5th layer | Welding speed (cm/min) | 47.3 | 43.6 | 41.7 | 36.9 |
| Current (A) | 199.2 | 184 | 177.5 | 189.1 | |
| Voltage (V) | 25.3 | 24.8 | 24.3 | 23.8 | |
| Swing width (mm) | 1.8 | 2 | 2.4 | 2.4 | |
| Swing time (ms) | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | |
| Swing speed (mm/s) | 15 | 16.7 | 20 | 20 | |
| Edge dwell time (ms) | 40 | 60 | 80 | 80 | |
| 6th layer | Welding speed (cm/min) | 44 | 43.5 | 43.9 | 41.6 |
| Current (A) | 230 | 229.4 | 200.3 | 170.8 | |
| Voltage (V) | 25.4 | 25.2 | 24.9 | 24 | |
| Swing width (mm) | 2.4 | 2.6 | 3 | 3 | |
| Swing time (ms) | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | |
| Swing speed (mm/s) | 16 | 17.3 | 20 | 22 | |
| Edge dwell time (ms) | 40 | 60 | 80 | 80 |
Figure 7Macro metallographic diagram.
Figure 8Microstructure of weld metal under SEM.