Analyzing the Influence of Welding Process Selection on Residual Stresses in Tube-to-Tubesheet Welded Joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tube-to-tubesheet joints are used in the fabrication of shell and tube type heat exchangers, steam generators, boilers, condensers, and end shields of pressure tube type nuclear reactors like CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) and PHWR (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor). The weld joints connecting the tubes to the tubesheets are of prime importance as they have a direct impact on equipment safety. In the fabrication of these critical class-1 nuclear components, full penetration weld joints are used. Typically, these full penetration weld joints are created through multi-pass Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding. However, more recent techniques, such as single-pass Electron Beam Welding (EBW) and Laser Beam Welding (LBW), have also been employed for this purpose. The fabrication time of these pieces of equipment containing full penetration weld joints can be drastically reduced if single-pass welding techniques are used compared to multi-pass welding techniques. However, the residual stresses developed in these joints due to the localized heat input and the substantial constraints of the tubesheet are unknown. Different welding processes, such as TIG welding, EBW, or LBW, can lead to varying levels of residual stresses in these joints, subsequently impacting their longevity. Weld residual stress plays a significant role in the initiation of failure modes of these tube-to-tubesheet welded joints, such as stress corrosion cracking, fatigue, and corrosion fatigue.This paper analyzes the residual stresses developed at the tube-to-tubesheet interface resulting from different welding techniques, such as multi-pass TIG welding and single-pass EBW/LBW. A comprehensive three-dimensional coupled thermo-mechanical finite element analysis is employed for this purpose. The findings reveal a significant difference, with single-pass EBW exhibiting up to 32% lower residual stresses compared to multi-pass TIG welding. Additionally, the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) in EBW is approximately 50% smaller than in TIG welding, and the equivalent distortion in EBW is reduced by 90% compared to multi-pass TIG welding. In summary, this investigation concludes that single-pass EBW offers distinct advantages for tube-to-tubesheet weld joints, including reduced residual stresses, a smaller HAZ, and lower distortions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".