火箭推进

为明确工艺件来源和规格因素对焊件性能合格率的作用,对五年来44批次的钛管焊接试验历史数据进行了分析。当生产批次不同时,母材抗拉强度和冲击韧性的波动程度分别可达±19.1%和±38.1%; 当批次相同但出自不同根余料时,波动程度分别可达±6.2%和±13.6%; 焊接热过程会使性能的均值降低且波动增大,相较而言冲击韧性改变更明显。当工艺件外径逐渐增大时,母材抗拉强度均值基本恒定,而冲击韧性均值逐渐提高,且波动程度先增大后减小; 在经历相同焊接热过程后,只有小外径焊件的冲击韧性波动程度明显增大。提出了两类改进建议,一是将工艺件限定在同一根钛管上取材,二是将冲击韧性的合格指标从固定值改为与外径成正比的系列值。

In order to clarify the effect of the source and specification of process parts on the qualification rate of weld performance, the historical data of all-position TIG joints of Ti tube during recent 5 years and 44 batches were analyzed.When the production batches are different, the fluctuation of the tensile strength and impact toughness for the base metal can reach ±19.1% and ±38.1%, respectively.When the tubes are from the same batches but different roots, the fluctuations can reach ±6.2% and ±13.6%, respectively.The heat process of welding will reduce the average value of the performance and increase the fluctuation, and the impact toughness will change more obviously.When the outer diameter of the process part gradually increases, the average tensile strength of the base material is constant, while the average impact toughness gradually increases first and then decreases.After experiencing the same heat process of welding, only the impact toughness fluctuations of small-diameter weldments increase significantly.Two types of improvement suggestions are proposed.One is to limit the process parts to the same Ti tube,and the second is to change the qualification index of impact toughness from a fixed value to a serial values proportional to outer diameter.

引言
1 试验方法
2 结果与讨论
3 结论

表1 TA1导管主要化学成分<br/>Tab.1 Main composition of TA1 tube

表1 TA1导管主要化学成分
Tab.1 Main composition of TA1 tube

图1 φ6*1 mm钛管焊接试验力学性能数据<br/>Fig.1 Mechanical performance data of φ6*1 mm Ti tube welding test

图1 φ6*1 mm钛管焊接试验力学性能数据
Fig.1 Mechanical performance data of φ6*1 mm Ti tube welding test

图2 φ6*1 mm钛管母材与焊件力学性能数据对比情况<br/>Fig.2 Comparison of mechanical performance data of φ6*1 mm Ti tube base-metal and weldment

图2 φ6*1 mm钛管母材与焊件力学性能数据对比情况
Fig.2 Comparison of mechanical performance data of φ6*1 mm Ti tube base-metal and weldment

图3 φ6*1 mm钛管焊接试验合格率<br/>Fig.3 Qualification rate of φ6*1 mm Ti tube welding test

图3 φ6*1 mm钛管焊接试验合格率
Fig.3 Qualification rate of φ6*1 mm Ti tube welding test

图4 φ6*1 mm钛管同根工艺件力学性能数据<br/>Fig.4 Mechanical performance data of φ6*1 mm Ti tube from the same root

图4 φ6*1 mm钛管同根工艺件力学性能数据
Fig.4 Mechanical performance data of φ6*1 mm Ti tube from the same root

图5 不同外径钛管母材力学性能数据<br/>Fig.5 Mechanical performance data of base-metal of Ti tube with different outer diameters

图5 不同外径钛管母材力学性能数据
Fig.5 Mechanical performance data of base-metal of Ti tube with different outer diameters

图6 不同外径钛管母材力学性能数据(去极值)<br/>Fig.6 Mechanical performance data(without extreme values)of Ti tube base-metal with different outer diameters

图6 不同外径钛管母材力学性能数据(去极值)
Fig.6 Mechanical performance data(without extreme values)of Ti tube base-metal with different outer diameters

图7 不同外径钛管焊件力学性能数据<br/>Fig.7 Mechanical performance data of weldments of Ti tube with different outer diameters

图7 不同外径钛管焊件力学性能数据
Fig.7 Mechanical performance data of weldments of Ti tube with different outer diameters

图8 不同外径钛管母材与焊件力学性能数据对比情况<br/>Fig.8 Comparison of mechanical performance data of Ti tube base-metal and weldments with different outer diameters

图8 不同外径钛管母材与焊件力学性能数据对比情况
Fig.8 Comparison of mechanical performance data of Ti tube base-metal and weldments with different outer diameters

图9 不同外径钛管焊接试验合格率<br/>Fig.9 Qualification rate of Ti tube welding test with different outer diameters

图9 不同外径钛管焊接试验合格率
Fig.9 Qualification rate of Ti tube welding test with different outer diameters

[1] 牛睿, 朱文山, 李利亮, 等.高分五号卫星姿轨控分系统设计[J].上海航天, 2019, 36(S2): 61-66.
[2] 周剑敏, 魏懿, 曹永梅, 等.高分三号卫星控制分系统设计与在轨验证[J].航天器工程, 2017, 26(6): 93-98.
[3] 刘万龙, 牛向楠, 李全令, 等.一种姿轨控发动机地面试验控制系统设计[J].火箭推进, 2015, 41(2): 114-117.

备注

引言

1 试验方法

2 结果与讨论

3 结论

期刊信息