Use of filler wire for laser welding of Ti–6Al–4V
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to the high specific strength and excellent corrosion resistance, Ti–6Al–4V has been widely applied in aerospace industries. In this study, the welding performance of 3·2 and 5·1 mm thick Ti–6Al–4V sheets was studied using a 4 kW continuous wave Nd:YAG laser. It is found that the use of filler wire, matching the parent metal composition, can bridge the joint gap and produce full penetrated welds up to a width of 0·6 mm without cracking. The laser welds were characterised in terms of the bead geometry, defects, microstructures and hardness. With increasing joint gap, the percent porosity area increased, reaching just over 1% of the fusion zone area at a gap width of 0·6 mm for the 3·2 and 5·1 mm thick sheets. The maximum underfill depth in the Ti–6Al–4V laser welds was about 5% or 7% of the sheet thickness for the 3·2 and 5·2 mm thick materials, respectively, meeting the AWS D17-1 specification. The microindentation hardness was maximum in the fusion zone and sharply decreased through the heat affected zone until reaching the base metal value.En raison de sa résistance spécifique élevée et de son excellente résistance à la corrosion, le Ti–6Al–4V est largement utilisé dans l’industrie aérospatiale. Dans cette étude, on a étudié le rendement de soudage de tôles de Ti–6Al–4V de 3·2 et 5·1 mm d’épaisseur en utilisant un laser Nd:YAG de 4 kW à onde continue. On constate que l’utilisation de fil d'apport, correspondant à la composition du métal parent, peut combler l’espace du joint et produire des soudures à pénétration complète sans fissures jusqu'à une largeur de 0·6 mm. On a caractérisé les soudures au laser en termes de la géométrie des cordons, des défauts, des microstructures et de la dureté. Avec l’augmentation de l’espace du joint, le pourcentage de porosité augmentait, atteignant un peu plus de 1% de la superficie de la zone de dilution avec une largeur de joint de 0·6 mm pour les tôles de 3·2 et 5·1 mm d’épaisseur. La profondeur maximale du caniveau dans les soudures au laser de Ti–6Al–4V était respectivement d’environ 5% ou 7% de l’épaisseur de la tôle pour les matériaux de 3·2 et 5·2 mm d’épaisseur, satisfaisant ainsi la norme d’AWS D17-1. La dureté de la micro-indentation était maximale dans la zone de dilution tout en diminuant fortement dans la zone thermiquement affectée jusqu'à atteindre ultimement la valeur du métal de base.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".