Slammed Tim Liam Cole |work| | ULTIMATE |
As the drama continues to unfold, many are left wondering what’s next for Tim and Liam Cole. Will Tim be able to recover from this public slam, or will his reputation be forever tarnished?
In a strongly worded statement, Liam Cole expressed his disappointment and frustration with Tim’s actions. “I’m appalled by Tim’s behavior,” Liam Cole said. “His actions are unacceptable and he needs to take responsibility for his mistakes.” slammed tim liam cole
According to sources, the drama began when Tim made a comment that didn’t sit well with Liam Cole. Details of the incident are still emerging, but it’s clear that Liam Cole was not holding back when he unleashed his verbal attack on Tim. As the drama continues to unfold, many are
In related news, Tim’s representatives have yet to comment on the situation. However, sources close to the matter say that Tim is taking the criticism seriously and is considering his next move. In related news, Tim’s representatives have yet to
The fallout from Liam Cole’s comments has been significant, with many in the industry weighing in on the controversy. Some have expressed support for Liam Cole, saying that he was justified in speaking out against Tim’s behavior.
Fig. 1.
Groove configuration of the dissimilar metal joint between HMn steel and STS 316L
Fig. 2.
Location of test specimens
Fig. 3.
Dissimilar metal joints for welding deformation measurement: (a) before welding, (b) after welding
Fig. 4.
Stress-strain curves of the DMWs using various welding fillers
Fig. 5.
Hardness profiles for various locations in the DMWs: (a) cap region, (b) root region
Fig. 6.
Transverse-weld specimens of DN fractured after bending test
Fig. 7.
Angular deformation for the DMW: (a) extracted section profile before welding, (b) extracted section profile after welding.
Fig. 8.
Microstructure of the fusion zone for various DSWs: (a) DM, (b) DS, (c) DN
Fig. 9.
Microstructure of the specimen DM for various locations in HAZ: (a) macro-view of the DMW, (b) near fusion line at the cap region of STS 316L side, (c) near fusion line at the root region of STS 316L side, (d) base metal of STS 316L, (e) near fusion line at the cap region of HMn side, (f) near fusion line at the root region of HMn side, (g) base metal of HMn steel
Fig. 10.
Phase analysis (IPF and phase map) near the fusion line of various DMWs: (a) location for EBSD examination, (b) color index of phase for Fig. 10c, (c) phase analysis for each location; ① DM: Weld–HAZ of HMn side, ② DM: Weld–HAZ of STS 316L side, ③ DS: Weld–HAZ of HMn side, ④ DS: Weld–HAZ of STS 316L side, ⑤ DN: Weld–HAZ of HMn side, ⑥ DN: Weld–HAZ of STS 316L side, (the red and white lines denote the fusion line) (d) phase fraction of Fig. 10c, (e) phase index for location ⑤ (Fig. 10c) to confirm the formation of hexagonal Fe3C, (f) phase index for location ⑤ (Fig. 10c) to confirm no formation of ε–martensite
Fig. 11.
Microstructural prediction of dissimilar welds for various welding fillers [34]
Fig. 12.
Fractured surface of the specimen DN after the bending test: (a) fractured surface (x300), (b) enlarged fractured surface (x1500) at the red-square location in Fig. 12a, (c) EDS analysis of Nb precipitates at the red arrows in Fig. 12b, (d) the cross-section(x5000) of DN root weld, (e) EDS analysis in the locations ¨ç–¨é in Fig. 12d
Fig. 13.
Mapping of Nb solutes in the specimen DN: (a) macro view of the transverse DN, (b) Nb distribution at cap weld depicted in , (c) Nb distribution at root weld depicted in
Table 1.
Chemical composition of base materials (wt. %)
|
C |
Si |
Mn |
Ni |
Cr |
Mo |
| HMn steel |
0.42 |
0.26 |
24.2 |
0.33 |
3.61 |
0.006 |
| STS 316L |
0.012 |
0.49 |
0.84 |
10.1 |
16.1 |
2.09 |
Table 2.
Chemical composition of filler metals (wt. %)
| AWS Class No. |
C |
Si |
Mn |
Nb |
Ni |
Cr |
Mo |
Fe |
| ERFeMn-C(HMn steel) |
0.39 |
0.42 |
22.71 |
- |
2.49 |
2.94 |
1.51 |
Bal. |
| ER309LMo(STS 309LMo) |
0.02 |
0.42 |
1.70 |
- |
13.7 |
23.3 |
2.1 |
Bal. |
| ERNiCrMo-3(Inconel 625) |
0.01 |
0.021 |
0.01 |
3.39 |
64.73 |
22.45 |
8.37 |
0.33 |
Table 3.
Welding parameters for dissimilar metal welding
| DMWs |
Filler Metal |
Area |
Max. Inter-pass Temp. (°C) |
Current (A) |
Voltage (V) |
Travel Speed (cm/min.) |
Heat Input (kJ/mm) |
| DM |
HMn steel |
Root |
48 |
67 |
8.9 |
2.4 |
1.49 |
| Fill |
115 |
132–202 |
9.3–14.0 |
9.4–18.0 |
0.72–1.70 |
| Cap |
92 |
180–181 |
13.0 |
8.8–11.5 |
1.23–1.59 |
| DS |
STS 309LMo |
Root |
39 |
68 |
8.6 |
2.5 |
1.38 |
| Fill |
120 |
130–205 |
9.1–13.5 |
8.4–15.0 |
0.76–1.89 |
| Cap |
84 |
180–181 |
12.0–13.5 |
9.5–12.2 |
1.06–1.36 |
| DN |
Inconel 625 |
Root |
20 |
77 |
8.8 |
2.9 |
1.41 |
| Fill |
146 |
131–201 |
9.0–12.0 |
9.2–15.6 |
0.74–1.52 |
| Cap |
86 |
180 |
10.5–11.0 |
10.4–10.7 |
1.06–1.13 |
Table 4.
Tensile properties of transverse and all-weld specimens using various welding fillers
| ID |
Transverse tensile test
|
All-weld tensile test
|
| TS (MPa) |
YS (Ϯ1) (MPa) |
TS (MPa) |
YS (Ϯ1) (MPa) |
EL (Ϯ2) (%) |
| DM |
636 |
433 |
771 |
540 |
49 |
| DS |
644 |
433 |
676 |
550 |
42 |
| DN |
629 |
402 |
785 |
543 |
43 |
Table 5.
CVN impact properties for DMWs using various welding fillers
| DMWs |
Absorbed energy (Joule)
|
Lateral expansion (mm)
|
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
Ave. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Ave. |
| DM |
61 |
60 |
53 |
58 |
1.00 |
1.04 |
1.00 |
1.01 |
| DS |
45 |
56 |
57 |
53 |
0.72 |
0.81 |
0.87 |
0.80 |
| DN |
93 |
95 |
87 |
92 |
1.98 |
1.70 |
1.46 |
1.71 |
Table 6.
Angular deformation for various specimens and locations
| DMWs |
Deformation ratio (%)
|
| Face |
Root |
Ave. |
| DM |
9.3 |
9.4 |
9.3 |
| DS |
8.2 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
| DN |
6.4 |
6.4 |
6.4 |
Table 7.
Typical coefficient of thermal expansion [26,27]
| Fillers |
Range (°C) |
CTE (10-6/°C) |
| HMn |
25‒1000 |
22.7 |
| STS 309LMo |
20‒966 |
19.5 |
| Inconel 625 |
20‒1000 |
17.4 |