Mathematical modeling of GTAW process parameter for Incoloy825 by using factorial design approach

C.Prabaharan1, Dr.A. Asha2.

Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,Jayaram college of engineering and Technology Trichy, Tamilnadu, India 621 014 2 Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering ,Kamaraj college of engineering and Technology Virudhunagar Tamilnadu ,India 626 001

Abstract Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) is an electric arc welding process that produces an arc between a non consumable electrode and the work to be welded. The weld is shielded from the atmosphere by a shielding gas that forms an envelope around the weld area. This experimental study aims at optimizing various Gas Tungsten Arc welding parameters including welding voltage (V), welding current (I), gas flow rate (GFR), nozzle to plate distance (NPD) and Torch angle () by developing a mathematical model for Bead geomentry of a Incoloy825 specimen. Factorial design approach has been applied for finding the relationship between the various process parameters and weld deposit volume The study revealed that the welding voltage, current and gas flow rate varies directly with weld deposit volume and inverse relationship is found between torch angle and NPD with weld deposit volume. Keywords: Gas Tungsten Arc Welding; Factorial Design Approach; Weld Deposit Volume. experimental aims at optimizing various gas tungsten arc welding parameters such as welding Voltage(V), Current(I), Nozzle To Plate Distance(NPD), Gas Flow Rate(G), Torch Angle(). Factorial design approach has been applied for finding the relationship between the various input process parameters and output parameters. To develop a mathematical model for various output parameters with respect to the input parameters through the factorial design approach. 1.1 Principle of GTAW Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW), also known as tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding is a process that produces an electric arc maintained between a non-consumable tungsten electrode and the part to be welded. The Heat-Affected Zone, the molten metal and the tungsten electrode are all shielded from atmospheric contamination by a blanket of inert gas fed through the GTAW torch. Inert gas (usually Argon) is inactive or deficient in active chemical properties. The shielding gas serves to blanket the weld and exclude the active properties in the surrounding air.

1. Introduction
In this competitive world, the customers perceive the most reliable, high quality with low cost product. In order to satisfy the customers demand, the manufacturing industries are being forced to continuously optimize their process parameters .Gas Tungsten Arc Welding famously abbreviated GTAW, is one of the most important metal joining process in manufacturing industries. The selection of improper GTAW process parameters increases the power consumption, man power and cost of the product. So that optimization of GTAW process parameters is must, to produce effective products. Modern fabrication process the newer materials tailarability is one of the challenging tasks for the development of the quality oriented fabrication equipments. In this way the INCONEL825 have a wide range of applications in many industries. The INCONEL825 have an excellent weldability through a GTAW process. However to make a quality and economical aspects satisfied finding the optimum parameters is much essential, then only the critical applications of INCONEL825 tailarability will be a successful one. This

2. Previous Research
Manoj Singla, Dharminder Singh, Dharmpal Deepak et al. [1] investigated the relationship between the input parameters such as current, voltage , speed, torch angle , gas flow rate, nozzle to plate distance and output parameter weld deposit volume. By using factorial design approach. Farhad Kolahan1, Mehdi Heidari. [2] In this research, the regression modeling is used in order to establish the relationships between input and output parameters for Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) process Ugur Esme et al. [3] investigated the multi response optimization of TIG welding process to yield favorable bead geometry using Taguchi method and Grey relation analysis. The significance of the factors on overall quality characteristics of the weldment has been evaluated quantitatively by ANOVA. The experimental results show that the tensile load, HAZ, area of penetration, bead width, and bead height are greatly improved by using grey relation analysis in combination with Taguchi method. Bandhita Plubin et al. [4] determined the optimal factors of FCAW for steel ST37 using response surface methodology and central composite design for optimizing the tensile strength of weldments. T.Senthil Kumar et al. [5] studied the effect of pulsed TIG welding parameters and pitting corrosion potential of aluminium alloys. ANOVA method was used to find significant parameters and regression analysis has been used to develop the mathematical model to determine the pitting corrosion potential. It was found that peak current and pulse frequency have direct proportional relationship, while base current and pulse-on-time have inverse proportional relationship with the pitting corrosion resistance. V. Vel murugan and v. Gunaraj et al. [6] In this study, the statistical method of threefactors, five-levels factorial central composite rotatable design has been used to develop mathematical models to correlate angular distortion with multi-pass GMAW process parameters. Further, these mathematical models help to optimize the GMAW process and to make it a cost-effective one by eliminating the weld defects due to angular distortion.

L.Suresh Kumar et al. [7] discussed the mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steel AISI 304 and 316 and found out the characteristics of welded metals using TIG & MIG welding process. Voltage was taken constant and various characteristics such as strength, hardness, ductility, grain structure, HAZ were observed in two processes, analyzed and finally concluded. Farhad Kolahan et al. [8] established input-output relationships for metal active gas welding for gas pipelines. Regression analysis was performed on data collected as per Taguchi design of experiments. Data adequacy was verified using ANOVA method. S.Kumanan et al. [9] determined submerged arc welding process parameters using Taguchi method and regression analysis. The % contribution of each factor is validated by analysis of variance method. The planned experiments were conducted in the semiautomatic submerged arc welding machine and SN ratios are computed to determine the optimum parameters. P.Atanda et al. [10] conducted sensitization study of normalized 316L stainless steel. The work was concerned with the study of the sensitization and desensitization of 316L steel at the normalizing temperatures of 750-950C and soaking times of 05, 1, 2 and 8 hours. Sunniva R. Collins et al. [11] conducted weldability and corrosion studies of AISI 316L electro polished tubing and were orbitally and autogenously welded with welding parameters varied to achieve an acceptable weld. M. Aghakhani, E. Mehrdad, and E. Hayati et al. [12] In this research paper using Taguchi's method of design of experiments a mathematical model was developed using parameters such as, wire feed rate (W), welding voltage (V), nozzle-to-plate distance (N), welding speed (S) and gas flow rate (G) on weld dilution. Joseph I. Achebo et al.[13] This study is intended to investigate the inadequacies of existing GMAW welding process parameters utilized by the investigated industrial firm in its signature welding protocol, by suggesting alternative, uniquely crafted, and improved process parameters to replace its existing signature welding protocol, thereby improving the weld results by attaining higher UTS.

3. Factorial Design Approach and Terminology 3.1Introduction In statistics, a full factorial experiment is an experiment whose design consists of two or more factors, each with discrete possible values or "levels", and whose experimental units take on all possible combinations of these levels across all such factors. A full factorial design may also be called a fully crossed design. Such an experiment allows studying the effect of each factor on the response variable, as well as the effects of interactions between factors on the response variable. For the vast majority of factorial experiments, each factor has only two levels. For example, with two factors each taking two levels, a factorial experiment would have four treatment combinations in total, and is usually called a 22 factorial design. If the number of combinations in a full factorial design is too high to be logistically feasible, a fractional factorial design may be done, in which some of the possible combinations (usually at least half) are omitted 3.2Notation To save space, the points in a two-level factorial experiment are often abbreviated with strings of plus and minus signs. The strings have as many symbols as factors, and their values dictate the level of each factor: conventionally, for the first (or low) level, and for the second (or high) level. The points in this experiment can thus be represented as , , , and .The factorial points can also be abbreviated by (1), a, b, and ab, where the presence of a letter indicates that the specified factor is at its high (or second) level and the absence of a letter indicates that the specified factor is at its low (or first) level (for example, "a" indicates that factor A is on its high setting, while all other factors are at their low (or first) setting). (1) is used to indicate that all factors are at their lowest (or first) values

3.3 Implementation For more than two factors, a 2k factorial experiment can be usually recursively designed from a 2k-1 factorial experiment by replicating the 2k-1 experiment, assigning the first replicate to the first (or low) level of the new factor, and the second replicate to the second (or high) level. This framework can be generalized to, e.g., designing three replicates for three level factors, etc. A factorial experiment allows for estimation of experimental error in two ways. The experiment can be replicated, or the sparsity-of-effects principle can often be exploited. Replication is more common for small experiments and is a very reliable way of assessing experimental error. When the number of factors is large (typically more than about 5 factors, but this does vary by application), replication of the design can become operationally difficult. In these cases, it is common to only run a single replicate of the design, and to assume that factor interactions of more than a certain order (say, between three or more factors) are negligible. Under this assumption, estimates of such high order interactions are estimates of an exact zero, thus really an estimate of experimental error. When there are many factors, many experimental runs will be necessary, even without replication. For example, experimenting with 10 factors at two levels each produces 210=1024 combinations. At some point this becomes infeasible due to high cost or insufficient resources. In this case, fractional factorial designs may be used.As with any statistical experiment, the experimental runs in a factorial experiment should be randomized to reduce the impact that bias could have on the experimental results. In practice, this can be a large operational challenge.Factorial experiments can be used when there are more than two levels of each factor. However, the number of experimental runs required for three-level (or more) factorial designs will be considerably greater than for their two-level counterparts. Factorial designs are therefore less attractive if a researcher wishes to consider more than two levels.

3.4 Analysis A factorial experiment can be analyzed using ANOVA or regression analysis. It is relatively easy to estimate the main effect for a factor. To compute the main effect of a factor "A", subtract the average response of all experimental runs for which A was at its low (or first) level from the average response of all experimental runs for which A was at its high (or second) level. Other useful exploratory analysis tools for factorial experiments include main effects plots, interaction plots, and a normal probability plot of the estimated effects. 4. Methodology
In this project sixteen trials were conducted practically as per the fractional factorial design approach and results were tabulated. The mathematical model for weld deposition volume was developed based upon the experimentation and the ultimate aim of this research is to investigate the most influencing factor on weld deposit volume by plotting the results in the graph. 4.1 Treatment Variables: Voltage (V) Current (I) Gas flow rate(GFR) Nozzle To Plate Distance (NPD) Torch angle() For conducting trial runs values or levels of these variables were chosen randomly from an infinite potential level i.e. the sampling fraction for these trials runs was equal to zero, however, we got a . 4.2 Design Matrix Table 1:design matrix of welding parameters S.NO Voltage(V) X1 1. 1 2. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. + + + + Current (I) X2 + + + + -

rough range of these factors from the literature we surveyed. With the help of these trials runs effective, representatives levels were developed for each factor (variables). The numbers of levels for to be included in the experiment were chosen for each factor as per the design. These numbers of levels were two for each so as per the definition it is a 2n (2*2*2*2*2) factorial experiment. Where n is number of factors. If full factorial approach had been practiced, the number treatment combination would have been 16. But without affecting the accuracy of the model and the objective of the test we went for half factorial approach according to which the number of treatment combinations becomes 2n-1 (25-1 = 24 = 16). The levels for each factor were the highest value and the lowest value of the factors in between and at which the outcome was acceptable. These values were outcomes of trials runs. Highest value has been represented by + and the lowest value has been represented by - as mentioned in Table 2. As per the design matrix the final runs were conducted and the response i.e. the weld deposit area was measured and noted down against each combination. Then the values of different coefficients were calculated as per the modeling. These values of coefficients represent the significance of corresponding factors (variable) on the response. Higher the value of coefficients, higher the influence of the variable on the response. Negative value of coefficients indicates the inverse relationship between variable and response. The calculation was done as per the following model

Gas flow rate(GFR) X3 + + + + -

Nozzle To Plate Distance (NPD) X4 + + + + + + +

Torch angle() X5 + + + +

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

+ + + + -

+ + + + -

+ + + + -

+ -

+ + + +

4.3 MATHEMATICAL MODEL DEVELOPED

Assuming the values of responses as y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, y8,.y15,y16 against the treatment Combinations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,15, 16 respectively (as per the S. No. in the matrix design) Y as the optimized value of

response (i.e. left hand side in the equation used for the showing the relation among the factors and the response). Relation between main effects interactions effects and the response has been shown in the following equation.

Y=b0+b1+b2+b3+b4+b5+b1X1+b2X2+b3X3+b4X4+b5X5++b12(X1X2)+b13(X1X3)+b14(X1X4)+b15(X1X5)+b2 ..Eqn-(i) 3(X2X3)+b24(X2X4)+b25(X2X5)+b34(X3X4)+b35(X3X5)+b45(X4X5) Here, Y is the optimized weld deposit area yi (i = 1 to 16) is the response of the ith treatment combination. b0 is the mean of all the responses bj (j =1 to 5) is the coefficient of jth main Factor (j = 1 for voltage, 2 for current, 3 for NPD, 4 for Gas flow rate, 5for Torch angle) bjk ( j, k=1 to 5) is the coefficient for interaction factor. Values of all these coefficients were calculated as followings: b0 = yi / 16 = [(y1+y2+y3+y4+y5+y6+y7+y8+y9+y10+y11+y12+y13+y14+y15+y16)] / 16 b1 = [(y1-y2+y3-y4+y5-y6+y7-y8+y9-y10+y11-y12+y13-y14+y15-y16)] / 16 b2 = [(y1+y2-y3-y4+y5+y6-y7-y8+y9+y10-y11-y12+y13+y14-y15-y16)] / 16 b3 = [(y1+y2+y3+y4-y5-y6-y7-y8+y9+y10+y11+y12-y13-y14-y15-y16)] / 16 b4 = [(y1+y2+y3+y4+y5+y6+y7+y8-y9-y10-y11-y12-y13-y14-y15-y16)] / 16 b5 = [(y1-y2-y3+y4-y5+y6+y7-y8-y9+y10+y11-y12+y13-y14-y15-y16)] / 16 b12 = [(y1-y2-y3+y4+y5-y6-y7+y8+y9-y10-y11+y12+y13-y14-y15+y16)] / 16 b13 = [(y1-y2+y3-y4-y5+y6-y7+y8+y9-y10+y11-y12-y13+y14-y15+y16)] / 16 b14 = [(y1-y2+y3-y4+y5-y6+y7-y8-y9+y10-y11+y12-y13+y14-y15+y16)] / 16 ..Eqn-(ii) ..Eqn-(iii) ..Eqn-(iv) ..Eqn-(v) ..Eqn-(vi) ..Eqn-(vii) ..Eqn-(viii) ..Eqn-(ix) ..Eqn-(x)

b15 = [(y1+y2-y3-y4-y5-y6+y7+y8-y9-y10+y11+y12+y13+y14-y15+y16)] / 16 b23 = [(y1+y2-y3-y4-y5-y6+y7+y8+y9+y10-y11-y12-y13-y14+y15+y16)] / 16 b24 = [(y1+y2-y3-y4+y5+y6-y7-y8-y9-y10+y11+y12-y13-y14+y15+y16)] / 16 b25 = [(y1-y2+y3-y4-y5+y6-y7+y8-y9+y10-y11+y12+y13-y14+y15+y15)] / 16 b34 = [(y1+y2+y3+y4-y5-y6-y7-y8-y9-y10-y11-y12+y13+y14+y15+y16)] / 16 b35 = [(y1-y2-y3+y4+y5-y6-y7+y8-y9+y10+y11+y12-y13+y14+y15+y16)] / 16 b45 = [(y1-y2-y3+y4-y5+y6+y7-y8+y9-y10-y11+y12-y13+y14+y15+y16)] / 16
5. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND TEST RESULTS 5.1 Experimental Details

..Eqn-(xi) ..Eqn-(xii) ..Eqn-(xiii) ..Eqn-(xiv) ..Eqn-(xv) ..Eqn-(xvi) ..Eqn-(xvii)

The experiments were conducted according to the design matrix the response was recorded to Table:2: chemical compositions inconel825 Element % Nickel 38.0 46.0 Chromium 19.5 23.5 Iron 22.0 min (~33%) Molybdenum 2.5 3.5 Copper 1.5 3.0 Titanium 0.6 1.2

join 6 mm Inconel 825 Base metal for carrying out bead on inconel825 plate of 6 mm thickness corresponding to the material specification. The appropriate chemical compositions of base material are shown in the table.2

Element Carbon Manganese Sulfur Silicon Aluminium

% 0.05 max 1.0 max 0.03 max 0.5 max 0.2 max

The test specimen having 6 mm thickness is used as the welding trails. The dimension of the work piece is shown in the figure.1

100

120

FIGURE.1. Dimensions of the work piece

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm

MOSFET Inverter DC TIG200ET welding machine has been used for the welding trials. Solid wire of 1.6 mm diameter TIG-521 (ERNiCr-3) as per the AWS/SFA - 5.14 standards is used as the filler metal. Based on the preliminary test trails upper and lower values are fixed Weld beads are deposited using the 5.2 EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS

welding conditions stipulated by the design matrix. The welding gun is allowed to cool in room temperature and the spatter is cleaned from the nozzle after each run. After finishing the welding trails to calculate the weld deposit Volume (WDV) for all the welded pieces and are tabulated.

The parameters and ranges were selected for conduct the experiment shown in the table 3 Table:3 Parameters Range Parameters Polarity Range DCSP (Direct Current Straight Polarity) Voltage Current Torch angle NPD Type of gas Tungsten Electrode Gas flow rate 14-18 volts 90-130 Amps 60-75 Degree 1.7-2 mm 100% Argon EW-Th2 (2% Thoriated) 400-1400 liter/hour

5.3EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Using the factorial approach following results were tabulated after experimentation were shown in table 4. Table 4: Experimental results

Curre Volta nt(I) ge S.no X2 X1 (Amp (volts) s) 1 18 130 2 3 14 18 130 90

NPD X3 (mm) 2 2 2

Gas flow rate(G) X4 (lt/hr) 1400 1400 1400

Torch angle() X5 75 60 60

BW mm

BD mm

5.8 5.9 5.8

6.4 6.9 6.3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

14 18 14 18 14 18 14 18 14 18 14 18 14

90 130 130 90 90 130 130 90 90 130 130 90 90

2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2 2 2 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

75 60 75 75 60 60 75 75 60 75 60 60 75

5.2 5.1 5.6 5.9 5.1 5.8 6.0 5.7 5.9 5.3 5.7 5.5 5.6

6.7 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.8 6.2 6.9 6.9 6.5

Now as per the equations mentioned earlier the values of different effects for the BEAD HEIGHT (BH) and BEAD WIDTH (BW) can be calculated as below:
S.NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 C b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b12 b13 b14 b15 b23 b24 b25 b34 b35 b45 BH 6.68125 0.09375 -0.03125 -0.00625 0.03125 -0.08125 -0.06875 -0.04375 -0.03125 0.03125 0.05625 0.01875 0.05625 -0.08125 -0.04375 -0.08125 BW 5.61875 -0.00625 0.03125 0.14375 -0.06875 0.01875 -0.14375 0.01875 0.10625 0.04375 0.08125 0.01875 0.00625 -0.01875 -0.10625 0.05625

The actual mathematical model for weld BEAD WIDTH BW =+5.62-6.250E-003A+0.03B+0.14C-0.069D+0.019 E-0.14 AB+0.019AC+0.11A D+0.044AE+0.081BC+0.019BD+6.250E-003BE-0.019CD-0.11 CE+0.056DE

The actual mathematical model for weld BEAD HEIGHT BH =+6.68+0.094* A-0.031* B-6.250E-003 C+0.031D-0.081 E-0.069 AB-0.04A C-0.031A D+0.031AE+0.056 BC+0.019B D+0.056B E-0.081C D-0.044C E-0.081 D E

BH
0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 A -0.05 -0.1 B C D E Series1

BH A B C D E

The results of present investigation in shows the influence of treatment variables (Current, Voltage, NPD, GFR,TA) on welding deposition area (WDA) as shown in Fig. 2.

6.CONCLUSION 1. Results indicate that processes variables influence the weld bead area to a significant extent.
2. Various welding variables which influence WDV were identified and their quantitative Influence on the same was investigated. 3. Welding current ,Voltage ,GFR ,TA were found to be most influencing variable to WDV
REFERENCES

4. The weld deposit rate were increased in the increment value of parameters such as voltage, current and gas flow rate. 5. The weld deposit rate is decreased at the maximum value of torch angle. 6. The nozzle to plate distance was not having any significant effect on weld deposit rate.

[1] Parametric Optimization of Gas Metal Arc Welding Processes by Using Factorial Design Approach - Manoj Singla, Dharminder Singh, Dharmpal Deepak Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering, Vol. 9, No.4, pp.353-363, 2010 [2] A New Approach for Predicting and Optimizing Weld Bead Geometry in GMAW Farhad Kolahan1, Mehdi Heidari International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering 5:2 2011 [3] Ugur Esme, Melih Bayramoglu, Yugut Kazancoglu, Sueda Ozgun, Optimization of weld bead geometry in TIG welding process using grey relation analysis and Taguchi method, Materials and technology 43 (2009) 3, 143-149. [4] Bandhita Plubin, Narongchai Sathavornvichit, Putipong Bookkamana, Central composite design in optimization of the factors of automatic flux cored arc welding, Proceedings of the 2nd IMT-GT Regional Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Applications, June 13-15, 2006. . [5]. T.Senthil Kumar, V.Balasubramanian, M.Y.Sanavullah, S.Babu, Effect of pulsed current TIG welding parameters on pitting corrosion behavior of AA6061 aluminium alloy, Journal of Material Science Technology, Vol.23 No.2, 2007. [6]. Effects of process parameters on angular Distortion of gas metal arc welded Structural

steel plates - by V. Vel murugan and v. Gunaraj. Supplement to the welding journal, november 2010 [7] L.Sureshkumar, S.M.Verma, P.Radhakrishna Prasad, P.Kiran Kumar, T.Siva Shanker, Experimental investigation for welding aspects of AISI 304 & 316 by Taguchi technique for the process of TIG & MIG welding, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, Vol.2 issue 2, 2011. [8] Farhad Kolahan, Mehdi Heidari, Modeling and optimization of MAG welding for gas pipelines using regression analysis and simulated annealing algorithm, Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, Vol.69, April 2010, pp.259-265. [9] S.Kumanan, J.Edwin Raja Dhas & K.Gowthaman, Determination of submerged arc welding process parameters using Taguchi method and regression analysis, Indian Journal of Engineering & Material Sciences Vol.14, June 2007, pp.177-183. [10] P.Atanda, A.Fatudimu, O.Oluwole, Sensitization study of normalized 316L stainless steel, Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering, Vol.9, no.1, pp.13-23, 2010. [11] Sunniva.R.Collins, Peter.C.Williams, Weldability and corrosion studies of AISI 316L electropolished tubing, Swagelok Research [12] Parametric Optimization of Gas Metal Arc Welding Process by Taguchi Method on Weld

Dilution - M. Aghakhani, E. Mehrdad, and E. Hayati International Journal of Modeling and Optimization, Vol. 1, No. 3, Aug 2011 [13] Optimization of GMAW Protocols and Parameters for Improving Weld Strength

Quality Applying the Taguchi Method - Joseph I. Achebo Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2011 Vol I WCE 2011, July 6 8, 2011, London, U.K.