Statistical Modeling of GTAW for Weld Strength and Hardness in Welding Zone w. r. t.

304 Stainless Steel

Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Lecturer, Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, Pune Prof. Dr. M.L. Kulkarni, Professor, SVERIs College of Engineering, Pandharpur. Prof. Dr. P.J.Awasare, Professor & Head, Dyanaganga College of Engineering, Pune
ABSTRACT Industrially gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), is a widely used for welding stainless steel, as it have good weld quality and relatively lower capital investment. However the numbers of parameters involved in the process are large, thus it is difficult to set process parameters so as to obtain the desired weld quality. In the present paper attempts are made to investigate the parametric effect on the weld strength and hardness near the weld zone for 304 stainless steel. Parameters under consideration were welding current shielding gas flow and work piece thickness. Multiple regression analysis is carried out to establish relation between stated parameters and dependent parameters such as weld strength and hardness near the weld zone. It is observed that weld strength increases with increase in welding current upto certain limit, also with increase in work piece thickness weld current required is high. The effect of shielding gas flow on the weld strength is negligible. The variation in the hardness is observed near the weld zone with increase in welding current and shielding gas flow. The validation of the developed empirical model show good agreement with the experimental results. Key Words: Weld Strength, Hardness, Welding Current, Shielding Gas Flow, Work piece Thickness

1.0 Introduction TIG is an arc welding process, wherein coalescence is produced by heating the work piece with an electrical arc struck between a tungsten electrode and the work piece. TIG welding involves a number of process variables. Each variable has its effect on the weld and there is an interrelationship among variables that affects the weld characteristics. Welding parameters have significant effect on mechanical properties of material. Heating and subsequent cooling of the work piece during welding, [1,2] results in the change in the microstructure of the base metal. The change in microstructure results changes in mechanical properties of the welded joint. Therefore effect of welding parameter needs to be systematically investigated. In the present study, major factors affecting the weld characteristics are investigated and their effect on weld characteristics is studied. By using the result obtained from experimentation, an empirical relations for breaking load and hardness of work piece ( 3mm from the center of weld pool), based on the selected welding parameters are established using multiple regression analysis. The established empirical relations can be used for predicting the probable values of breaking load of welded joint and hardness near the welded zone. 2.0 Experimental Procedure It was observed that, welding current, shielding gas flow and work piece thickness are the parameters which affect the hardness and strength of the welded joint. Initial experiments were carried out to determine the working range limits [3] of selected welding parameters. An AXT -400 TIG welding machine with DC output and 440V input supply voltage was used for experimentation. The welding machine was having a forced air cooled welding torch; it was working in the current range of 10 400A. Welding current is manually regulated with the help of current regulator. A gas regulating attachment was also provided with the welding machine for controlling shielding gas flow. Argon was used as shielding gas for welding the work pieces. As Argon is slightly heavier than air, provides more efficient gas shielding at lower flow rate.

Engineering Today, April 2013

The density of argon (1.656 kg/m3) is higher than that of the atmosphere; therefore better protection of molten weld pool is possible. Argon [4,5] is better for arc starting and operates at a lower arc voltage.1.6 mm diameter 304 stainless steel rod was used as consumable filler metal. For study SS304 was selected as work piece material, as it has a very large scale application in the process industry. The material is selected in three thickness ranges i.e. 1.2mm, 2mm and 3mm. The specimen size selected was 25mm X 100mm as per ASTM standards. The SS304 sheet was converted in the desired work piece size by using shearing operation. After shearing the work pieces were straighten by holding them in a manual press. The burr from the cut edges of the work piece was removed by manual filing. The welding on SS304 work piece was performed in two steps. Initially the work pieces were tagged for alignment and then the final welding run was performed. For holding the work piece in both of these operations, a fixture was fabricated in MS angle, an asbestos sheet (8mm Thick) was used as support for work piece. The asbestos guide ways were glued with the base asbestos sheet, this help in proper alignment of the work piece during welding. 2.1 Work Piece Characterisation 2.1.1 Tensile Load Measurement The work pieces welded by TIG welding process were tested for breaking load on a FSA make universal testing machine with 60T capacity. 2.1.2 Hardness Measurement A PRIME make Rockwell cum Brinell hardness testing machine with maximum 5 kN capacity was used to test the work piece for hardness. For present study A scale (HRA) with diamond indenter with 60 kg load was used. Hardness measurement by using Rockwell cum Brinell hardness testing machine is dependent on the supporting anvil size. It was observed that hardness measurement of work piece get affected with the supporting base of the anvil. If a larger diameter anvil is used for thin plate, larger warped area of thin sheet comes in contact with the anvil, which deviates hardness value from actual value. To avoid variation in the hardness value small supporting area of the anvil is to be used, which supports smaller area of the warped sheet exposing small amount of irregularities of the surface while taking hardness reading. Therefore the anvil used for the hardness measurement. 2.2 Process Parameters The process parameters[4,5] governing the TIG welding process are welding current, arc voltage, shielding gas, travel speed, pulsing in case of

programmed welding, rod feed speed, torch angle, pool geometry, work piece thickness, temperature distribution, bead geometry, clamping, fixtures, heat sink, heat buildup, distortion, high frequency of arc starting. It was not possible to consider all above mentioned parameters for study, therefore few parameters were selected for studying their effect on breaking load and hardness of the material. It was found that welding current, shielding gas flow and work piece thickness has greater effect on mechanical properties [6] of material. The increase in welding current results in increase in heat input given to the work piece, which affects the mechanical properties of the material. The increase in shielding gas flow result in increases the rate of heat transfer [7], it also affect the penetration, which plays important role in improving the strength of the welded joint. As thickness of work piece increases, welding current and shielding gas flow used for welding were also to be increased significantly. With increases in thickness of work piece, the increase in welding current and shielding gas flow results into heating and subsequent cooling [1] of the work piece that result in the change in the microstructure of the base metal. The change in microstructure results in change in the hardness of the base metal, which affects strength of welded joint. It, also, observed that hardness of the base metal near the weld was lowest and it increases in the HAZ. So, welding current, shielding gas flow and work piece thickness were considered as variables for present study. Breaking load of joint and hardness of the material were considered as dependent variables. 2.3 Pilot Experiments Working limits of experimentation were decided through pilot experiments. Initially experiments were performed to identify the working range of the process parameters [2] for all work piece thicknesses. The welded work pieces were observed visually and the range of parameter for the pilot experiments was decided. The selected working range is given in table 1 and 2. The pilot experiments were performed within above mentioned working range. One parameter varied by keeping other two parameters constant. From results, it was observed that, variation in hardness due to change in welding current and shielding gas flow is observed in the region 3mm from the center of weld pool along the length of work piece. Therefore the variation in the hardness is plotted against the welding current and shielding gas flow in the region of 3mm from the center of weld pool along the length of work piece. Similarly, variation in the breaking load is plotted against varying current and shielding gas flow as shown in Fig 14. These plots are instrumental in deciding the working range for the final experiments.

Engineering Today, April 2013

Table 1 Working Limits for Shielding Gas Flow for Pilot Experiments Work Piece Thickness (mm) 1.2 2 3 Shielding Gas Flow q (LPM) Lower Upper Limit Limit 1 10 1 1.5 14.5 10.5 Welding Current i (A) 25 65 110
50
Hardness (HRA)

Welding Current vs Hardness at 3mm From Center of Weld Pool

45 40 35 30 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 Welding Current (A)

Gas Flow 1LPM, Thickness 1.2mm Gas Flow 2LPM, Thickness 2mm Gas Flow 3LPM, Thickness 3mm

Table 2 Working Limits for Welding Current for Pilot Experiments Work Piece Thickness (mm) 1.2 2 3 Welding Current i (A) Lower Upper Limit Limit 15 60 55 80 100 170 Shielding Gas Flow q (LPM)
Breaking Load (KN)

Fig. 3 Welding Current vs. Hardness at 3mm

Welding Current vs Breaking Load

52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 Welding Current (A) Gas Flow 1LPM, Thickness 1.2mm Gas Flow 2LPM, Thickness 2mm Gas Flow 3LPM, Thickness 3mm

1 2 3

Shielding Gas Flow vs Breaking Load

55
Breaking Load (KN)

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Current 25A,Thickness 1.2mm Current 65A, Thickness 2mm Current 110A, Thickness 3mm

Fig. 4 Welding Current vs. Breaking Load

Shielding Gas Flow (LPM)

Fig. 1 Shielding Gas Flow vs. Hardness at 3mm

Shielding Gas Flow vs Hardness at 3mm From Center of Weld Pool
55
Hardness (HRA)

2.4 Final Experimentation After performing initial experiments, suitable working range of welding parameters for further experimentation was selected. Three working values of welding current and shielding gas flow were selected for each work piece thickness, which is given in Table 1 and 2. Parameter maintained constant was gap between the plates. As work piece thickness increases the gap between the work pieces needs to be increased accordingly. The gap between the work pieces for higher thickness of work piece is instrumental in proper penetration, which gives better joint quality. The maintained gap was 1.2 mm for 1.2 mm thickness of work piece whereas it was 2 mm for 2 and 3 mm thickness of work piece, as it affects the tensile breaking load, that can be achieved. For designing final experiments, L9 orthogonal array was used. Using L9 orthogonal array total 9 experiments for each thickness of work piece were designed. Using orthogonal array sets of welding

50 45 40 35 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Current 25A,Thickness 1.2mm Current 65A, Thickness 2mm Current 110A, Thickness 3mm

Shielding Gas Flow (LPM)

Fig. 2 Shielding Gas Flow vs. Breaking Load

Engineering Today, April 2013

parameters such as welding current, shielding gas flow for all thickness of work piece were selected for further experimentation. These set of parameters are useful for selecting the larger combinations of parameter range with optimum number of experiments. Working limit for parameters for final experiments is shown in Table 3and 4. Table 3 Working Limits for Welding Current for Final Experiments (mm) i1 1.2 2 3 20 55 150 (A) i2 25 60 160 i3 30 65 170

m1 , m2 , m3 and b are constants generated using multiple regression analysis. The constants m1, m2, m3 and b are determined from the multiple regression analysis. The values of influencing variables can be selected form obtained working range for these parameters. The value for breaking load can be obtained from empirical relation for values of influencing variables. Thus, predicted value of the breaking load is helpful in selecting suitable welding process parameters. From the experiments it was observed that the major variation in the hardness value of the material was in the region of 3mm from the center of weld pool along length of the work piece. Therefore, equation obtained by multiple regression analysis for hardness at 3mm from the center of weld pool along length of the work piece. The equation obtained by multiple regression analysis for breaking load H = bh*( mh3 * mh2 * mh1q ) Where, ...4.2

Table 4 Working Limits for Shielding Gas Flow for Final Experiments (mm) q1 1.2 2 3 1 1 1 q (LPM) q2 2 2 2 q3 3 3 3

H = Hardness at 3mm from the center of weld pool along length of the work Piece = Work piece thickness = Welding current q = Shielding gas flow mh1, mh2 , mh3 and bh are constants generated using multiple regression analysis. The constants mh1, mh2, mh3 and bh are determined from the multiple regression analysis. The values of influencing variables can be selected form obtained working range for these parameters. Using multiple regression analysis the equation generated for breaking load and hardness at 3mm from the center of weld pool along length of the work piece. The values for breaking load and hardness generated by the regression analysis are compared by the values generated by experiments. The comparison between the values generated by multiple regression analysis and experiments are shown in Table 5 and 6 Fig. 5 represents comparison of breaking load calculated by using multiple regression analysis and actual experiments. Form the Fig. 5, it is observed that, results obtained by multiple regression analysis are close to actual experimental values. The error observed is less than 10%. Maximum error observed 9.54% for 3mm work piece thickness with 160 A welding current and 4 LPM shielding gas flow. Minimum error

3.0 Regression Analysis In the present study breaking load and hardness were dependent on welding current, shielding gas flow and thickness of work piece. Breaking load and hardness were dependent variables and welding current, shielding gas flow and thickness were influencing variables. The data generated from experiments was collected and tabulated using Microsoft Excel software. Multiple regression analysis was applied to the data by using Microsoft Excel worksheet. Relation between breaking load and influencing variables, welding current, shielding gas flow and work piece thickness was derived. The equation obtained by multiple regression analysis for breaking load is given below. = b*( m3 * m2 * m1q ) Where, = Breaking Load = Work Piece Thickness = Welding Current q = Shielding Gas Flow .4.1

Engineering Today, April 2013

observed is 4.24% for 2mm work piece thickness with 55 A welding current and 2 LPM shielding gas flow. As the value of the error is less than 10% it can be stated that the obtained equation is close to the actual equation. Therefore, values generated by the multiple regression analysis can be accepted for breaking load.

Table 5 Result of Validation Experiment for Breaking Load Breaking load (kN) by Analysis 20.23 20.13 29.74 29.36 45.40 45.33 Breaking load(kN) by Expt. 19 21.4 31 31 43 41 % Error

1.2 1.2 2 2 3 3

30 30 55 65 160 160

1 4 2 5 3 4

6.07 -6.30

Fig. 6 represents comparison of hardness calculated by using multiple regression analysis and actual experiments. Form the Fig. 6; it is observed that, results obtained by multiple regression analysis are close to actual experimental values. The error observed is less than 10%. Maximum error observed 4.94% for 3mm work piece thickness with 160 A welding current and 4 LPM shielding gas flow. Minimum error observed is 1.93% for 3mm work piece thickness with 160 A welding current and 3 LPM shielding gas flow. Therefore, values generated by the multiple regression analysis can be accepted for hardness of the material. Within defined range of process parameters, any of the combination of the process parameter leads to same results as found from experimentation and model validation. Thus, the developed model is validated and is found to be correct.
Comparisom by Breaking Load
60

-4.24 -5.59 5.28 9.54

Breaking Load (KN)

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sample No. Breaking Load by Experiments Breaking Load by Analysis

Fig. 5 Comparison of Breaking Load

Table 6 Result of Validation Experiment for Hardness

60
Hardness (HRA)

Comparison by Hardness

Hardness (HRA) by Analysis 36.57 37.48 41.42 42.03 44.87 45.23

Hardness at 3mm (HRA) by Expt. 35 39 43 43 44 43

50

% Error

40 30 20 10 Hardness by Experiments Hardness by Analysis

1.2 1.2 2 2 3 3

30 30 55 65 160 160

1 4 2 5 3 4

4.30 -4.06 -3.81 -2.31 1.93 4.94

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sample No.

Fig. 6 Comparison of Hardness (At 3mm from center of the weld pool) CONCLUSIONS It is found that the parameter considered i.e. welding current, shielding gas flow and work piece thickness have great influence on the considered weld characteristics i.e. breaking load and hardness. With increase in welding current and shielding gas flow, breaking load increases and hardness decreases. However beyond certain limit the breaking load and

Engineering Today, April 2013

hardness fluctuates. In the present case maximum strength of 55 kN and 46HRA hardness is obtained for 160 A welding current and 3 LPM shielding gas flow. Through regression analysis empirical relations are developed for evaluating the breaking load of welded joint obtained by TIG welding, wherein use of filler material is made. It is found that the developed model gives the result in accordance with experimental validation and hence it is concluded that within the defined process parameter limit developed model can be used effectively. REFERENCES [1] B.Y.Kang, Yarlagadda K.D.V. Prasad, M.J. Kang, H.J.Kim, I.S.Kim, The effect of alternate supply of shielding gases in austenite stainless steel GTA welding, Journal of materials processing technology,(2008), p.1109-1120 [2] M.A. Wahab, M.S. Alam, M.J.Painter and P.E.Stafford, Experimental and numerical simulation of restraining forces in gas metal arc welded joints, welding journal, 85(2006), p. 35-43 [3] Shanping Lu, Hidetoshi Fujii and Kiyoshi Nogi, Arc ignitability, bead protection and weld shape variation for He-Ar-O2 shielded GTA welding on SUS304 stainless steel, Journal of materials processing technology, 209(2009), p. 1231-1239 [4] Cary HB, Modern welding technology, PrinticeHall, Eaglewood Cliff, NJ, 1989. [5]Sacks R.J. Welding : Principles and Practices, Glencoe,Peoria, IL,1981. [6] S.C. Juang and Y.S.Tarng, Process parameter selection for optimizing the weld pool geometry in the tungsten inert gas welding of stainless steel, Journal of materials processing technology, 122(2002), p. 33-37. [7] S.A.A. Akbari Mousavi and R. Miresmaeili, Experimental and numerical analysis of residual stress distribution in TIG welding process for 304L stainless steel, Journal of material processing technology, 208(2008), p. 383-394

Engineering Today, April 2013