Modeling of The MIG Welding Process Using Statistical Approaches

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 35:11661190
DOI 10.1007/s00170-006-0798-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Modeling of the MIG welding process using

statistical approaches
J. P. Ganjigatti & D. K. Pratihar & A. RoyChoudhury
Received: 28 March 2006 / Accepted: 8 September 2006 / Published online: 22 November 2006
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006
Abstract In this paper, an attempt is made to determine

input-output relationships of the MIG welding process by
using regression analysis based on the data collected as per
full-factorial design of experiments. The effects of the
welding parameters and their interaction terms on different
responses have been analyzed using statistical methods.
Both linear as well as nonlinear regression analyses are
employed to establish the input-output relations. The results
of these regression techniques are compared and some
concluding remarks are made.
Keywords MIG welding . Modeling . Full-factorial design .
Linear regression . Non-linear regression
1 Introduction
The arc-welding process plays an important role in
manufacturing science. The two most commonly used
types of arc-welding processes are tungsten inert gas
(TIG) and metal inert gas (MIG) [1]. The distinction
resides in the fact that the TIG process uses a nonconsumable electrode, while the MIG process uses a
consumable electrode. Several methods have been tried by
various investigators to predict bead-geometry in welding.
These methods include theoretical studies and statistical
analysis. Rosenthal studied the temperature distributions on
an infinite sheet, due to a moving point heat source, by
considering the heat dissipation by conduction [2] and his
analysis could be related to arc welding, after making a
J. P. Ganjigatti : D. K. Pratihar (*) : A. RoyChoudhury
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721 302, India
e-mail: dkpra@mech.iitkgp.ernet.in
number of assumptions. Roberts and Wells [3] theoretically

estimated the weld bead width by considering conduction
heat transfer. Later on, Christensen et al. [4] derived nondimensional factors to relate bead dimensions with the
operating parameters. Chandel et al. [5] presented the
theoretical predictions of the effect of current, electrode
polarity, electrode diameter, and electrode extension on the
melting rate, bead height, bead width and weld penetration
in submerged arc welding. Jou [6] developed a numerical
model for single-pass GTA (gas tungsten arc) welding. The
3-D FEM model was able to predict both the transient
thermal histories as well as the weld pool geometries.
Realizing the difficulties associated with theoretical
estimation of input-output relationships of a real-world
process, various researchers have tried to get those through
statistical analysis of the experimental data. These methods
include linear regression, non-linear regression, response
surface methodology, Taguchi methods, and others. Yang
et al. [7] derived curvilinear (i.e., non-linear) regression
equations to study the relationship between correlation
coefficients and standard deviation of error in prediction in
case of submerged arc welding. They also carried out a
study to check the feasibility of using linear regression
instead of curvilinear regression to model weld features.
Markelj and Tusek [8] mathematically modeled the current
and voltage (maximum, minimum, optimum) in TIG
welding as quadratic polynomials of sheet thickness.
Results were presented for algorithmic optimization in the
case of T- joint with fillet weld. Kim et al. [9, 10]
conducted a sensitivity analysis of a robotic GMAW (gas
metal arc welding) process, to determine the effect of
measurement errors on the uncertainty in estimated parameters. They employed non-linear multiple regression analysis for modeling the process and quantified the respective
effects of process parameters on the weld bead geometric
parameters. In another work, Kim et al. [11] developed both

linear as well as non-linear multiple regression equations, to
relate the welding process parameters with the weld bead
geometric parameters in robotic CO2 arc welding. Moreover, Kim et al. [12] compared experimental GMAW weld
bead geometry results with those obtained from empirical
formulae, theoretical (heat-transfer considerations) formulae, and mathematical (regression) model. The latter was
found to give the best fit and could be used for reverse
prediction as well. Kang and Rhee [13] studied arc stability
by the amount of spatter generated and modeled the process
by linear and non-linear multiple regression analyses to
develop an arc stability index. Lee and Rhee [14] reported
an investigation of the gas metal arc welding (GMAW)
process (i.e., butt welding with groove gap), where both
forward (i.e., from process parameters to response) as well
as backward (i.e., from response to process parameters)
relations were established through multiple regression
analysis and the mean deviations in prediction were found
to lie within 9.5 and 6.5%, respectively. Kim et al. [15] also
reported the determination of GMAW process parameters
for optimized weld bead geometry by the inversion of
empirical equations obtained through multiple-regressionrelating weld bead geometry and GMAW process parameters. Allen et al. [16] presented a methodology for robust
process design based on the direct minimization of
expected loss (i.e., cost for defect repair, added quality,
etc.) in robotic GMAW, including comparison of the
presented methodology with the existing alternatives.
Various formulations of the loss function were explored
including those that permit the use of deterministic
optimization methods. Allen et al. [17] derived a method
for obtaining optimized process settings in robotic GMAW
of sheet metal by employing polynomial regression
analysis. With the incorporation of noise factors, it was
possible to estimate process consistency and constrain the
fraction of non-conforming welds. Zhou et al. [18]
attempted to establish quantitative relationships to link the
geometric attributes of a spot weld to its strength under
tensile-shear loading. A computer simulation experiment
was conducted in this study using the concept of design of
experiments (DOE), which essentially indicates the way
experimental data are to be collected to make the regression
analysis possible. Rowlands and Antony [19] presented the
application of DOE to a spot welding process in order to
identify significant process parameters influencing mean
tensile strength and its variability in welded joints.
Murugan et al. applied response surface methodology
(RSM) to develop quadratic relations between welding
process parameters and bead geometry for depositing 316L
stainless steel onto structural steel, using automated
submerged arc welding (SAW) [20] and MIG welding
[21] separately. Gunaraj and Murugan [22] developed and
1167
comparatively studied mathematical models for the beadon-plate and bead-on-joint processes for submerged arc
welding (SAW) of pipes. The analysis indicated that further
modification was required for the models on bead-on-plate
for predicting weld bead quality. Area of the heat-affected
zone was well represented by both the models and followed
the same trend. The authors [23] further modeled the
submerged arc welding (SAW) process using five-level
factorial design and response surface methodology (RSM).
In a continuation of this work [24], mathematical models
were developed (together with sensitivity analysis), for
optimization (minimization) of total bead volume (keeping
other bead parameters as constraints) and determination of
optimum process parameters, for better weld quality,
increased productivity and minimum welding cost.
Tarng and Yang [25] reported on the optimization of
weld bead geometry in GTAW by using the Taguchi
method. Tarng et al. [26] applied the modified Taguchi
method to determine the process parameters for optimum
weld pool geometry in TIG welding of stainless steel. The
modified Taguchi method permitted the simultaneous
consideration of all the weld pool geometry quality characteristics for optimization. Tarng et al. [27] also worked on
the use of grey-based Taguchi method to determine
optimum process parameters for submerged arc welding
(SAW) in hard facing with consideration of multiple weld
qualities. A grey relational analysis allows for the optimization of a process for multiple performance characteristics.
Kim et al. [28] made a study on the prediction of process
parameter values for optimum bead geometry settings in
GMAW of mild steel, using the Taguchi method. Algorithms were developed through multiple regression analysis
and by using neural networks and confirmation tests were
carried out to compare the predictions of the developed
model with the experimental results.
The above statistical analyses are able to provide more
or less satisfactory results, while predicting the response
from the process parameters. It is important to mention that
it might be difficult to predict the nature of input-output
relationships (i.e., linear or non-linear and if it is non-linear
then the level of non-linearity) of a process, beforehand.
Thus, in the present work, an attempt has been made to
carry out both the linear as well as non-linear regression
analyses on the MIG data collected as per full-factorial
design of experiments. Results of the above approaches have
been compared and some important observations are made.
The rest of the text is organized as follows: Input-output
variables of the TIG welding process have been identified
and their feasible ranges have been set in section 2.
Section 3 describes the experimental setup, explains the
method of data collection, and tabulates the experimental
data collected as per full-factorial design of experiments.
Both the linear as well as non-linear regression analyses
1168

Inputs
Welding Speed (S)
Voltage (V)
Wire Feed Rate (F)
Gas flow rate (G)
Responses
Bead Height (BH)
Metal Inert Gas

Welding Process
Nozzle-Plate Distance (D)

Torch Angle (A)
Bead Width (BW)

Bead penetration (BP)
Fig. 1 Input and output parameters of metal inert gas (MIG) welding
process
carried out in the present work have been briefly introduced

in section 4. The results are stated and discussed in section 5
and some concluding remarks are made in section 6. The
scope for future work is indicated in section 7.
Fig. 2 Fronious transarc MIG/MAG set-up
3 Experimental details
2 Statement of the problem
The present work deals with modeling of a metal inert gas
(MIG) welding process in which a consumable electrode is
used and an inert gas shielding is utilized to protect the
molten metal from oxidation. For the above purpose, the
problem has been defined as discussed below. Figure 1
shows a schematic diagram indicating the inputs and
responses of the MIG welding process.
The objective of the present investigation is to establish
relationships between the process parameters (inputs) and
responses (outputs) for bead-on-plate-type MIG welding
process using the statistical regression analysis carried out
on the data collected as per full-factorial design of experiments (DOE). The chosen input parameters in this study are
as follows: welding speed, welding voltage, wire feedrate,
gas flow rate, nozzle-to-plate distance, torch angle, and the
responses considered are: bead height, bead width, and
penetration. Two levels are considered for each of the six
input process parameters (refer to Table 1), so that 26 =64
combinations of input process parameters are to be
considered for full-factorial DOE.
Table 1 Input factors and their levels of the MIG welding process
Sl. no.
Factor
Units
Notation
Level
Value
Welding speed
cm/min
Arc voltage
Wire feedrate
m/min
Gas flow rate
l/min
Nozzle to plate
distance
Torch angle
mm
Degree
25
45
26
30
6
7
14
18
15
20
70
100
This section describes the experimental setup used in the

present work and explains the method adopted for
measurement of weld bead geometry.
3.1 Experimental setup
Experiments are conducted on the MIG welding setup
manufactured by Fronious Schweissmaschinen KG, Wels Thalheim, Austria, as shown in Fig. 2. Figure 3 shows the
schematic diagram of the semi-mechanized welding station
used during the experimentation.
Base material The base material used in this study is the
structural mild steel (plates) having composition - C - 0.10,
Mn - 0.9, Si - 0.04, S - 0.032, P - 0.032 and dimensions of
150758 mm.
Electrode wire Steel carbomig-S6 wire (Batch: MC-200)
with diameters of 1.2 mm manufactured as per ER70S-6,
IS: 6419-1971-S4 and DIN: SG2 DIN 8559 by MIG
WELDCONS PVT. LTD. is employed as the welding
consumable. The chemical composition of filler wire is as
follows: C-0.10, Mn-1.5, Si-0.9, S-0.025, P-0.025.
Shielding gas Commercial argon (99.98%) is used as the
shielding gas in all the experiments. Different flow rates
of shielding gas are used in different modules ranging from
14 to 35 l/min. Welding is performed by adopting a singlepass bead-on-plate welding technique. Direct-current electrode positive (DCEP) polarity is used to carry out the
welding.
3.2 Measurement of weld bead geometry
Four metallographic weld bead samples are cut from each
weld bead at 15-mm intervals, with the first sample being
1169
Fig. 3 A schematic diagram of

MIG welding setup
located 15 mm behind the trailing edge of the crater at the

end of the weld as shown in Fig. 4, to eliminate end effects.
The transverse face of the samples are surface-ground
using a 120 grit size belt with the help of a belt grinder,
polished using grade 1/0 (245 mesh size), grade 2/0 (425
mesh size), and grade 3/0 (515 mesh size) SIA Sianor B
1600 sandpaper. The specimens are polished by using
aluminum oxide and silvet cloth initially and then by
utilizing diamond paste and walwet cloth in a polishing
machine. The polished specimens after cleaning with
alcohol are macro-etched by using 2% Nital (98% nitric
acid+2% alcohol) solution to reveal the geometry of the
weld bead and heat affected zone. Several critical parameters, such as bead height (BH), bead width (BW), bead
penetration (BP) (refer to Fig. 5) have been measured.
Each macro-etched sample image is scanned by utilizing
an HP Scan Jet (2200c at 300 dpi resolutions using 1:1
scale), and then it is converted into a PDF using Adobe
Acrobat release 7 software. It is to be noted that four
replicates of the responses for each combination of the
input parameters have been considered to analyze the
variations in the process. The measurement of bead
geometry is carried out using the Adobe Acrobat measuring
Fig. 4 Weld bead marking for cutting metallographic specimens
tool at 300% magnification. The measured dimensions are

compared with the results obtained using a toolmakers
microscope to test the accuracy of measurement.
3.3 Full-factorial design of experiments
There are six input parameters and each of them has been
set at its two levels. Thus, a total of 64 combinations of the
input parameters are to be considered, according to the fullfactorial design of experiments (DOE). Table 2 shows the
experimental data collected as per the above DOE.
4 Regression analysis using full-factorial design

of experiments
Both linear as well as non-linear regression analyses
have been carried out based on the data collected as per
full-factorial design of experiments, which are discussed
below.
(a) Approach 1: Linear regression analysis considering all
the terms.
Fig. 5 Weld bead after macro-etching
1170
Table 2 Experimental data collected as per full-factorial design of

experiments
Table 2 (continued)
Std. order
Std. order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Yb
Parameters and their levels
Parameters and their levels
Responses (mm)
Responses (mm)
BH
BW
BP
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4.214
2.884
3.134
4.434
3.933
4.445
3.490
2.914
3.193
3.304
3.219
2.769
3.471
3.160
3.338
2.885
4.216
4.425
3.893
4.010
3.572
3.786
2.663
3.127
3.165
2.299
3.204
3.367
3.001
3.012
2.664
2.680
3.418
3.181
3.229
8.601
8.361
11.447
8.935
8.551
9.057
9.268
7.946
7.917
7.775
8.029
7.784
11.828
11.759
13.136
12.024
9.458
9.498
9.287
8.566
8.798
7.821
9.873
7.518
8.002
10.297
8.948
8.298
8.727
7.559
8.235
7.678
13.402
12.787
12.582
2.048
1.773
1.797
2.504
1.926
2.438
1.678
1.634
1.955
1.820
1.860
1.473
2.435
2.450
2.451
2.164
2.528
2.508
1.841
2.175
1.777
1.679
2.463
2.142
1.991
2.017
1.976
1.935
1.679
1.678
1.542
1.413
2.840
3.215
2.413
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
BH
BW
BP
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
3.257
2.969
3.148
4.348
3.934
4.109
3.806
2.765
2.898
2.447
3.065
2.487
2.598
3.264
3.047
3.159
2.815
3.259
3.283
3.267
3.105
4.210
2.729
2.679
2.734
2.346
3.124
3.328
2.555
11.565
12.276
11.512
8.885
8.904
8.726
8.258
10.059
9.561
10.083
7.410
9.591
7.803
8.022
8.238
7.435
8.216
12.457
12.325
11.822
11.789
8.885
9.340
9.849
8.965
10.210
7.670
12.216
10.225
2.109
2.182
1.784
2.480
1.865
1.702
1.626
2.614
2.379
1.914
1.654
2.453
1.932
1.948
1.455
1.448
1.449
3.335
2.431
2.060
2.139
1.551
2.596
2.002
1.767
1.842
1.610
2.202
1.992
The response surface involving all linear and interaction terms of the input parameters may be written as
follows:
Yb f X1 ; X2 ; X3 ; X4 ; X5 ; X6
b0 b1 X1 b2 X2 b3 X3 b4 X4 b5 X5 b6 X6 b7 X1 X2 b8 X1 X3 b9 X1 X4
b10 X1 X5 b11 X1 X6 b12 X2 X3 b13 X2 X4 b14 X2 X5 b15 X2 X6 b16 X3 X4
b17 X3 X5 b18 X3 X6 b19 X4 X5 b20 X4 X6 b21 X5 X6 b22 X1 X2 X3 b23 X1 X2 X4
b24 X1 X2 X5 b25 X1 X2 X6 b26 X1 X3 X4 b27 X1 X3 X5 b28 X1 X3 X6 b29 X1 X4 X5
b42 X1 X2 X3 X4 b43 X1 X2 X3 X5 b44 X1 X2 X3 X6 b45 X1 X2 X4 X5 b46 X1 X2 X4 X6
b57 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 b58 X1 X2 X3 X4 X6 b59 X1 X2 X4 X5 X6 b60 X1 X3 X4 X5 X6
b61 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 b62 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 b63 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 ;
1171
where Xi is the coded value corresponding to the ith input

parameters, and is the estimated response (output) value.
The coefficients (i.e., b0, b1, b2, ...., b63) of the above
equation can be estimated by using a least-square technique
explained in the subsection given below.
(b) Approach 2: Linear regression analysis considering
significant terms only.
In this approach, the insignificant terms are dropped
from Eq. (1). For each response, the significant and
insignificant terms will be identified with the help of Pareto
charts included in the next section. Regression analysis is
carried out and predictions are attempted with the help of
the resulting equations.
5 Multiple least-square regression analysis [29]

The least-square method is used to determine the coefficients of the regression model, which is explained with
the help of one dependent and three independent variables,
as shown below.
b f X1 ; X2 ; X3
Y
Let us consider the response equation as given below.
b 0 a1 X1 a2 X2 a3 X3 e;
Ya
(c) Approach 3: Linear regression analysis using main

factors only.
where 0, 1, 2, 3 are the coefficients and e indicates the

error. For a process with n sets of input-output relationships, Eq. (4) can be written as
In this approach, each response is expressed as a

function of the main factors only (without considering their
interaction terms), as given below.
Yi a0 a1 Xi1 a2 Xi2 a3 Xi3 ei ;
Yb f S; V ; F; G; D; A;
where i 1; 2; . . . . . . . . . ; n.
The general form of the above equation can be expressed
as follows:
where takes the form given below.

Yb a0 a1 S a2 V a3 F a4 G a5 D a6 A;
where a0 ; a1 ; . . . . . . :a6 are the coefficients to be obtained

by using a least-square technique discussed in the subsection given below. Regression analysis is carried out for each
response by considering only the main factors.
d) Approach 4: Non-linear regression analysis.
Non-linear regression analysis is also carried out to
determine the responses - weld bead height (BH), bead
width (BW), and penetration (BP), in case of the MIG
welding process. The bead geometry is expressed as a
function of the input process parameters as follows:
Yb f S; V ; F; G; D; A;
Yb a0 S a1 V a2 F a3 Ga4 Da5 Aa6 ;
Yi a0
k
X
aj Xij ei ;
j1
where k represents the number regression coefficient, which

is equal to the number of variables. The least-square
method chooses the values of , such that the sum of the
square of the errors (e) is minimum. The sum of the square
of the errors can be written as:
n
X
i1
e2i
n
X
Yi a0
i1
k
X
!2
aj Xij
j1
To minimize e, the following equations are to be

satisfied
!

n
k
X
X
@e
2
Yi a0
aj Xij 0
8
@a0 bao ;ba1 ......;bak
i1
j1
After taking log on both the sides, we get

and
lnY lna0 a1 lnS a2 lnV a3 lnF

a4 lnG a5 ln D a6 ln A;
where a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, are the coefficients of the
non-linear model, which can be determined as explained
below.
!

n
k
X
X
@e
b0
b j Xij Xij 0;
2
Yi
@j b
1 ;b
2 ;...b
k
i1
j1
(9)
where j 1; 2; . . . : : ; k
9
1172
Simplifying Eqs. (8) and (9), we get,
n0
b0
n
P
Xi1
i1
b0

n
P
b1
b1
n
P
i1
n
P
i1
Xik
X2i1
:

n
P
b 1 Xik Xi1

i1
b2
Xi1
b2
n
P
Xi2
i1
n
P
Xi1 Xi2
bk
::::::
:::::
bk

i1

n
P
b 2 Xik Xi2
i1
n
P
Xik
i1
n
P
Xi1 Xik
i1
bk
::::::
i1

n
P
i1
n
P
Yi
i1
n
P
Xi1 Yi
i1
X2ik

n
P
Xik Yi
10
i1
square normal equations are written in the matrix form as

follows:
The above equations are known as the least-square

normal equations. The solution of these equations will be
the least-square estimates of the regression coefficients
b0 ;b
bk . For the sake of simplicity, the above leasta
a1 ; . . . . . . a
Y Xae;
11
where
3
2
1
Y1
6 Y2 7
61
6 7
6
6 7
6
7
6
Y 6 7; X 6
6

6 7
6
4 5
4
Yn
1
2
X11
X21

Xn1
X12
X22
............
............
Xn2
............
3
2 3
2 3
0
e1
X1k
6 1 7
6 e2 7
X2k 7
7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
7
7; 6 7and e 6 7
6 7
6 7
7
7
6 7
6 7
4 5
4 5
5
k
en
Xnk
The least-square estimators must satisfy

@e
2X 0 Y 2X 0 X a 0
@a ba
In general, Y is an (n1) matrix of observations, X is an

(np) matrix of the levels of the independent variables,
where p=k+1, is a (p1) matrix of the regression
coefficients, and e is an (nx1) matrix of random errors.
Now we will have to find the matrix of least-square
b, that minimizes
estimators a
e
n
X
After simplification we get,

0
a X0 Y :
X Xb
e2i e0 :e Y Xa0 Y Xa:
It is the matrix form of the least-square normal

equations. We multiply both sides of the above equation
by the inverse of XX. Thus, the least-square estimator of
can be obtained as:
i1
The above equation can be expressed as follows:

e Y 0 Y 0 X 0 Y Y 0 X 0 X 0 X
12
Y 0 Y 20 X 0 Y 0 X 0 X
13
1
b X0 X X0 Y
a
The final equation can be written in the following form.
2
n
6
6 n
6P
6 Xi1
6
6 i1
6
6
6
6
6 n
4P
Xik
i1
n
P
Xi1
n
P
i1
n
P
i1
n
P
i1
i1
X2i1

n
P
Xik Xi1
i1
Xi2
Xi1 Xi2

n
P
Xik Xi2
i1
. . . . . . . . .:
. . . . . . . . .:
. . . . . . . . .:
3
Xik 7
i1
7
n
7
P
Xi1 Xik 7
7
i1
7

7
7

7
7

7
n
5
P
2
Xik
n
P
i1
3
Y
6 i1 i 7
7
6 n
7
6P
6 Xi1 Yi 7
7
6
7
6 i1
6
7
7
6

7
6
7
6
7
6 n
5
4P
Xik Yi
2
3
b0
7
6
6 b1 7
6 7
7
6
6 7
7
6
4 5
bk
n
P
i1
14
The above method is used to determine the coefficients

of both linear as well as non-linear regression equations in
the present study.
1173
tried, the results of which are stated and explained

below.
6.1 Results of approach 1
6 Results and discussion

To establish input-output relationships in the MIG
welding process, the four approaches above have been
The following response equations (un-coded form) are

obtained by using approach 1:
BH 2352:77 92:8981S 82:188V 326:544F 131:632G 109:174D 26:6728A 3:17637SV

13:0035SF 5:43396SG 4:66736SD 1:06117SA 11:5335VF 4:52533VG 3:87911VD
0:918053VA 18:251FG 15:581FD 3:68071FA 6:25094GD 1:52905GA 1:2804DA
0:446883SVF 0:183355SVG 0:759093SVD 0:160628SVA 0:661916SFG 0:280548SFD
0:0360201SFA 0:147071SGD 0:0628249SGA 0:0546375SDA 0:631656VFG 0:558964VFD
0:218395VFA 0:127409VGD 0:0519507VGA 0:0445553VDA 0:88099FGD 0:210635FGA
15
0:179973FDA 0:0749657GDA 0:0256917SVFG 0:0229016SVFD 0:00955729SVFA

0:0395276SVGD 0:00499974SVGA 0:00211086SVDA 0:00869443SFGD 0:00186377SFGA
0:00764475SFDA 0:00330677SGDA 0:0310076VFGD 0:00717695VFGA 0:0063VFDA
0:00257682VGDA 0:0104707FGDA 0:0013513SVFGD 0:000292057SVFGA 0:00026125SVFDA
0:00011201SVGDA 0:000460979SFGDA 0:00036099VFGDA 0:0000156146SVFGDA
BW 10336:00 400:816S 367:975V 1605:77F 565:338G 470:807D 143:935A 14:1683SV

61:1511SF 21:8614SG 19:4387SD 5:31796SA 57:7312VF 20:3452VG 16:5912VD
5:14561VA 88:4775FG 73:2996FD 21:8388FA 25:6945GD 7:87606GA 6:99327DA
2:16749SVF 0:775296SVG 3:34887SVD 0:686033SVA 2:95606SFG 1:06925SFD
0:189277SFA 0:797328SGD 0:290387SGA 0:267937SDA 3:21912VFG 2:61913VFD
0:92043VFA 0:786851VGD 0:284642VGA 0:24883VDA 4:00763FGD 1:197FGA 1:05584FDA
16
0:379976GDA 0:119103SVFG 0:104641SVFD 0:0380124SVFA 0:162448SVGD 0:0284133SVGA

0:010381SVDA 0:0435396SFGD 0:00954436SFGA 0:0399081SFDA 0:0146642SGDA
0:145495VFGD 0:0436021VFGA 0:0379062VFDA 0:0137127VGDA 0:0572988FGDA
0:00578958SVFGD 0:00155823SVFGA 0:00142295SVFDA 0:000526318SVGDA
0:00217722SFGDA 0:00208628VFGDA 0:0000781927SVFGDA
BP 1704:79 10:2897S 69:3675V 161:782F 167:45G 91:3944D 21:5697A 0:498458SV

0:62908SF 2:23227SG 0:61492SD 0:222357SA 6:90429VF 6:55258VG
3:79352VD 0:8814VA 19:9455FG 8:69348FD 2:11771FA 9:093GD 1:97978GA
1:20072DA 0:005138SVF 0:0895818SVG 0:213609SVD 0:0302486SVA
0:025042SFG 0:119808SFD 0:0101919SFA 0:0065345SGD 0:030963SGA
0:0138725SDA 0:79101VFG 0:380393VFD 0:361014VFA 0:0906956VGD 0:0782757VGA
0:049759VDA 1:08576FGD 0:23424FGA 0:119565FDA 0:109223GDA 0:009025SVFG
0:00020906SVFD 0:00489026SVFA 0:0113801SVGD 0:00054828SVGA
0:00127076SVDA 0:00310891SFGD 0:000634052SFGA 0:00061833SFDA
0:0017182SGDA 0:0438331VFGD 0:00943268VFGA 0:00520573VFDA
0:00437419VGDA 0:0129525FGDA 0:000493906SVFGD 0:000135078SVFGA
0:0000415625SVFDA 0:0000713385SVGDA 0:000173417SFGDA
0:000529948VFGDA 0:0000076563SVFGDA
17
1174
Table 3 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead height (BH) (coded units) in case of approach 1
Sl. no.
Terms
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Sl. no.
Terms
Effect
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
SV
SF
SG
SD
SA
VF
VG
VD
VA
FG
FD
FA
GD
GA
DA
SVF
SVG
SFG
SVD
SFD
SGD
SVA
SFA
SGA
SDA
VFG
VFD
0.7526
0.5822
0.1636
0.0138
0.0962
0.3000
0.2551
0.0710
0.0262
0.0157
0.0356
0.1067
0.0240
0.0308
0.0384
0.0071
0.0285
0.1227
0.0666
0.0407
0.0367
0.0521
0.0319
0.0312
0.0392
0.0522
0.0594
0.1005
0.0458
0.0493
0.0398
0.0014
0.0371
3.2569
0.3763
0.2911
0.0818
0.0069
0.0481
0.1500
0.1275
0.0355
0.0131
0.0078
0.0178
0.0534
0.0120
0.0154
0.0192
0.0036
0.0142
0.0614
0.0333
0.0204
0.0184
0.0261
0.0159
0.0156
0.0196
0.0261
0.0297
0.0503
0.0229
0.0246
0.0199
0.0007
0.0186
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
750.410
86.700
67.070
18.840
1.590
11.080
34.560
29.380
8.180
3.020
1.810
4.100
12.300
2.760
3.540
4.420
0.820
3.280
14.140
7.670
4.690
4.230
6.010
3.670
3.590
4.520
6.010
6.850
11.580
5.280
5.670
4.580
0.160
4.280
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.114
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.414
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.870
0.000
35
VGD
0.0293
36
VFA
0.0312
37
VGA
0.0327
38
VDA
0.0015
39
FGD
0.0327
40
FGA
0.0061
41
FDA
0.0174
42
GDA
0.0156
43
SVFG
0.0178
44
SVFD
0.0155
45
SVGD
0.0240
46
SFGD
0.0165
47
SVFA
0.0381
48
SVGA
0.0342
49
SFGA
0.0303
50
SVDA
0.0039
51
SFDA
0.0190
52
SGDA
0.0240
53
VFGD
0.0052
54
VFGA
0.0121
55
VFDA
0.0093
56
VGDA
0.0413
57
FGDA
0.0352
58
SVFGD
0.0024
59
SVFGA
0.0113
60
SVFDA
0.0086
61
SVGDA
0.0315
62
SFGDA
0.0178
63
VFGDA
0.0278
64
SVFGDA 0.0234
SS=0694419 R-Sq=98.80%
Coef.
SE coef.
0.0146
0.0156
0.0163
0.0008
0.0164
0.0030
0.0087
0.0078
0.0089
0.0078
0.0120
0.0082
0.0191
0.0171
0.0151
0.0020
0.0095
0.0120
0.0026
0.0060
0.0047
0.0206
0.0176
0.0012
0.0056
0.0043
0.0158
0.0089
0.0139
0.0117
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
0.00434
3.370
3.600
3.770
0.180
3.770
0.700
2.010
1.790
2.050
1.790
2.760
1.900
4.390
3.930
3.480
0.450
2.190
2.760
0.600
1.390
1.080
4.760
4.050
0.280
1.300
0.990
3.630
2.050
3.210
2.700
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.860
0.000
0.486
0.046
0.074
0.041
0.075
0.006
0.059
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.653
0.030
0.006
0.551
0.165
0.283
0.000
0.000
0.782
0.195
0.325
0.000
0.041
0.002
0.008
R-Sq(adj)=98.40%
For the response - bead height (BH), the effects of

different main factors and their interaction terms are shown
in Tables 3 and 4. In Table 3, the term Effect indicates the
effect of different terms on the response (expressed in the
coded form). The term Coef. stands for the coefficients of

the coded form of equation, corresponding to the uncoded
form of Eq. (15), related to the response BH. It represents
the relationship between the said response and the factors.
Table 4 Analysis of variance

for BH (coded units) in case of
approach 1
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
2-way interactions
3-way interactions
4-way interactions
5-way interactions
6-way interactions
Residual error
Pure error
Total
6
15
20
15
6
1
192
192
255
66.0171
7.0432
2.2173
0.5819
0.1468
0.0351
0.9259
0.9259
76.9673
66.0171
7.0432
2.2173
0.5819
0.1468
0.0351
0.9259
0.9259
11.0029
0.4695
0.1109
0.0388
0.0245
0.0351
0.0048
0.0048
2281.72
97.37
22.99
8.04
5.07
7.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
1175
Fig. 6 Pareto charts of effects

on the response - bead height
(BH)
The term SE Coef. indicates the standard error for the

estimated coefficient, which measures the precision of the
estimate. The T-values are determined as the ratio of
corresponding value under coefficient and standard error.
The p-value is the minimum value for a preset level of

significance at which the hypothesis of equal means for a
given factor can be rejected. The T-test values are
calculated for different terms and from that information;
Table 5 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead width (BW) (coded units), in case of approach 1
Sl. no.
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Sl. no.
Term
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
SV
SF
SG
SD
SA
VF
VG
VD
VA
FG
FD
FA
GD
GA
DA
SVF
SVG
SFG
SVD
SFD
SGD
SVA
SFA
SGA
SDA
VFG
VFD
1.9001
2.2271
0.5738
0.0584
0.2888
0.0921
1.1121
0.1007
0.0732
0.1349
0.3071
0.2442
0.0867
0.0353
0.2503
0.1015
0.0626
0.3002
0.013
0.1833
0.276
0.2284
0.0095
0.0465
0.0739
0.0361
0.2155
0.2648
0.2023
0.1175
0.1244
0.0499
0.0122
9.5633
0.95
1.1135
0.2869
0.0292
0.1444
0.0461
0.5561
0.0504
0.0366
0.0674
0.1536
0.1221
0.0433
0.0177
0.1252
0.0507
0.0313
0.1501
0.0065
0.0917
0.138
0.1142
0.0047
0.0233
0.0369
0.018
0.1078
0.1324
0.1012
0.0587
0.0622
0.0249
0.0061
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
2486.34
247.00
289.51
74.60
7.59
37.54
11.97
144.57
13.10
9.52
17.53
39.92
31.75
11.27
4.59
32.54
13.19
8.13
39.02
1.69
23.83
35.88
29.69
1.23
6.05
9.60
4.69
28.02
34.42
26.30
15.27
16.17
6.49
1.59
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.093
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.220
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.113
35
VGD
0.0448
36
VFA
0.1972
37
VGA
0.0954
38
VDA
0.031
39
FGD
0.0969
40
FGA
0.2578
41
FDA
0.1211
42
GDA
0.4583
43
SVFG
0.0659
44
SVFD
0.13
45
SVGD
0.2311
46
SFGD
0.0687
47
SVFA
0.1422
48
SVGA
0.0763
49
SFGA
0.0367
50
SVDA
0.0092
51
SFDA
0.0976
52
SGDA
0.0096
53
VFGD
0.0185
54
VFGA
0.0268
55
VFDA
0.1117
56
VGDA
0.1441
57
FGDA
0.0518
58
SVFGD
0.0857
59
SVFGA
0.1139
60
SVFDA
0.1289
61
SVGDA
0.0542
62
SFGDA
0.0091
63
VFGDA
0.0976
64
SVFGDA 0.1173
SS=0.0615 R-Sq=99.9%
R-Sq(adj)=99.87%
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
0.0224
0.0986
0.0477
0.0155
0.0485
0.1289
0.0605
0.2292
0.0329
0.065
0.1155
0.0344
0.0711
0.0382
0.0183
0.0046
0.0488
0.0048
0.0093
0.0134
0.0559
0.0721
0.0259
0.0428
0.057
0.0644
0.0271
0.0046
0.0488
0.0586
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
0.00385
5.82
25.64
12.40
4.03
12.60
33.52
15.74
59.58
8.56
16.90
30.04
8.93
18.49
9.92
4.77
1.20
12.69
1.25
2.41
3.49
14.52
18.73
6.73
11.14
14.81
16.76
7.05
1.19
12.68
15.25
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.231
0.000
0.213
0.017
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.237
0.000
0.000
1176
for BW (coded units) in case of
approach 1

Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
2-way interactions
3-way interactions
4-way interactions
5-way interactions
6-way interactions
Residual error
Pure error
Total
6
15
20
15
6
1
192
192
255
575.658
109.452
38.538
9.822
3.166
0.88
0.727
0.727
738.243
575.658
109.452
38.538
9.822
3.166
0.88
0.727
0.727
95.943
7.2968
1.9269
0.6548
0.5277
0.8804
0.0038
0.0038
25,332.51
1926.63
508.77
172.89
139.33
232.47
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
the F-values are determined as shown in Table 4. Most of

the terms (except a few, such as G, SD, FG, VFG, VDA,
FGA, GDA, SVFD, SFGD, SVDA, VFGD, VFGA, VFDA,
SVFGD, SVFGA, SVFDA) have significant contributions
on bead height BH, as their p-values are found to be less
than the significance level =0.05.
The different terms used in the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) are defined as follows. The term DF represents
the degrees of freedom, i.e., the number of terms that will
contribute to the error in prediction. The term Seq SS
indicates the sum of squares for each term representing the
variability in the data contributed by that term. Adj SS
(adjusted sum of squares) is the sum of squares obtained
after removing insignificant terms from the model. The sum
of squares is divided by the DF to calculate the mean
square (MS). The adjusted mean square (Adj MS) is the
mean square obtained after removing the insignificant terms
from the response equation. The F-value is used to test the
hypothesis, which is defined as the ratio of adjusted mean
square value to the residual error.
Figure 6 shows the effect of different main factors and
their interaction terms on the weld bead height (BH) and
once again the contribution of G (i.e., gas flow rate) on the
bead height is found to be so negligible that it is missing
from Fig 6. It is to be noted that the main factor/interaction
term having the maximum contribution is placed at the top
of Fig. 6 and the others have been placed below that
according to their respective contributions in descending
order. Among the various main factors, welding speed (S)
has the maximum contribution on the weld bead height
(BH). Similarly, out of different interaction terms, the term
- AB has the maximum influence on the response BH. The
above observations also confirm our understanding of the
physical problem that the weld bead height BH is
influenced mainly by the main factors like welding speed
(S), voltage (V), torch angle (A) and the interaction term,
namely the combined welding speed and voltage (i.e., SV).
The effects of different main and interaction factors on
the response - weld bead width (BW) are studied with the
help of Table 5. It indicates that most of the factors (besides

GD, SVG, VFD, SVDA, SGDA, SFGDA) have some
significant contributions on the said response. It indicates
that welding voltage (V) has the maximum positive effect
on the bead width BW, whereas welding speed (S) shows
the maximum negative contribution on the said response
(Table 6). Moreover, out of various interaction terms, the
combined SV has a significant negative contribution on the
bead width.
Figure 7 shows the Pareto chart of effects of main factors
and their interaction terms on the bead width (BW). The
factors like welding speed (S) and voltage (V) have
significant contributions on the said response, whereas the
contribution of gas flow rate (G) and torch angle (A), are
found to be not so much important.
Table 7 shows the effects of various main and interaction
factors on the response - weld bead penetration (BP). The
p-values listed in this table indicate that the factors,
namely S, V, F, G, D, A, SV, SF, SD, SA, VF, VG, VA,
FD, FA, GD, DA, SVF, SVG, SVD, SFD, SDA, VFD,
VGD, VFA, VGA, VDA, FGD, FGA, GDA, SVFD,
SVGD, SFGD, SVFA, SVGA, SFGA, SVDA, SFDA,
SGDA, VFGD, VFDA, VGDA, FGDA, SVFGD, SVFDA,
Fig. 7 Pareto chart of effects of the response - bead width (BW)
t6.1
1177
SVGDA, SFGDA and VFGDA, have significant contributions on the said response. The F-values have been
calculated for the main factors and their different interaction
terms (such as 2-way, 3-way, 4-way, 5-way, and 6-way), are
shown in Table 8 by taking the T-values listed in Table 7.
Figure 8 shows the effects of main factors and their
different interaction terms on the said response. It is to be
noted that torch angle (A), welding voltage (V), welding
speed (S) and wire feedrate (F) have the significant
influence on the response - BP. Moreover, nozzle-to-plate
distance (D) and gas flow rate (G) have little influence on
the said response. It is observed that out of different
interaction factors, the combined wire feedrate-torch angle
(FA) has the maximum influence on the response, which is
negative in nature.
From the above study, the following observations have

been made:
1. Weld bead height (BH) depends largely on the main
factors, namely welding speed, welding voltage and
torch angle, and each of these factors has a negative
contribution
2. Welding speed and voltage have major influence on
weld bead width (BW). The bead width increases with
the welding voltage, whereas it decreases with the
increment of welding speed
3. The parameters - torch angle (A), welding voltage (V),
welding speed (S) and wire feedrate (F) have the
significant contributions on the response - BP
4. The correlation coefficients of the regression model
developed for the responses - BH, BW and BP are
Table 7 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead penetration (BP) (coded units), in case of approach 1
Sl. no.
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Sl. no.
Term
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
SV
SF
SG
SD
SA
VF
VG
VD
VA
FG
FD
FA
GD
GA
DA
SVF
SVG
SFG
SVD
SFD
SGD
SVA
SFA
SGA
SDA
VFG
VFD
0.3102
0.3768
0.2670
0.0637
0.0263
0.3930
0.0218
0.0757
0.0075
0.0623
0.1162
0.1028
0.0969
0.0050
0.0922
0.0117
0.0147
0.2182
0.0748
0.0083
0.1418
0.0361
0.0182
0.0015
0.0420
0.0263
0.0089
0.0098
0.0047
0.0081
0.0952
0.0014
0.0711
2.0429
0.1551
0.1884
0.1335
0.0318
0.0132
0.1965
0.0109
0.0379
0.0037
0.0312
0.0581
0.0514
0.0485
0.0025
0.0461
0.0058
0.0074
0.1091
0.0374
0.0041
0.0709
0.0181
0.0091
0.0008
0.0210
0.0131
0.0045
0.0049
0.0024
0.0040
0.0476
0.0007
0.0355
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
666.56
50.61
61.47
43.56
10.39
4.30
64.11
3.55
12.36
1.22
10.17
18.95
16.77
15.81
0.82
15.05
1.91
2.40
35.60
12.19
1.35
23.13
5.89
2.97
0.24
6.85
4.28
1.46
1.60
0.77
1.32
15.53
0.23
11.59
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.226
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.414
0.000
0.058
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.178
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.807
0.000
0.000
0.146
0.111
0.441
0.190
0.000
0.821
0.000
35
VGD
0.0495
36
VFA
0.1181
37
VGA
0.0196
38
VDA
0.0591
39
FGD
0.0869
40
FGA
0.0483
41
FDA
0.0050
42
GDA
0.0808
43
SVFG
0.0115
44
SVFD
0.0407
45
SVGD
0.0308
46
SFGD
0.0516
47
SVFA
0.0590
48
SVGA
0.0183
49
SFGA
0.0130
50
SVDA
0.0281
51
SFDA
0.0412
52
SGDA
0.0196
53
VFGD
0.0428
54
VFGA
0.0072
55
VFDA
0.0330
56
VGDA
0.0523
57
FGDA
0.0339
58
SVFGD
0.0157
59
SVFGA
0.0007
60
SVFDA
0.0607
61
SVGDA
0.0647
62
SFGDA
0.0307
63
VFGDA
0.0393
64
SVFGDA 0.0115
SS=0.0490 R-Sq=98.95%
R-Sq(adj)=98.60%
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
0.0247
0.0591
0.0098
0.0295
0.0434
0.0241
0.0025
0.0404
0.0058
0.0203
0.0154
0.0258
0.0295
0.0091
0.0065
0.0140
0.0206
0.0098
0.0214
0.0036
0.0165
0.0262
0.0170
0.0078
0.0003
0.0304
0.0324
0.0154
0.0196
0.0057
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
0.00307
8.07
19.27
3.20
9.64
14.18
7.87
0.82
13.18
1.88
6.64
5.02
8.42
9.62
2.98
2.13
4.58
6.72
3.19
6.98
1.18
5.39
8.54
5.54
2.56
0.11
9.90
10.56
5.01
6.41
1.87
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.413
0.000
0.061
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.240
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.915
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
1178
for bead penetration (BP)
(coded units) in case of approach 1
t8.1
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
2-way interactions
3-way Interactions
4-way Interactions
5-way Interactions
6-way interactions
Residual error
Pure error
Total
6
15
20
15
6
1
192
192
255
29.9963
8.0554
3.5313
1.2235
0.6789
0.0084
0.4617
0.4617
43.9556
29.9963
8.0554
3.5313
1.2235
0.6789
0.0084
0.4617
0.4617
4.99939
0.53703
0.17656
0.08157
0.11315
0.00844
0.0024
0.0024
2079.00
223.32
73.42
33.92
47.05
3.51
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
found to be equal to 0.988, 0.999, and 0.9895,

respectively. Thus, the models are adequate enough to
make the predictions
The performances of the models have been checked on
some randomly generated test cases, as discussed below.
Table 9 shows 27 sets of input-output data collected at
random (by setting the values of the input parameters
within their respective ranges), for the purpose of testing
the models.
For the response - bead height, predicted values are
compared to their respective target values for 27 test cases
as shown in Fig. 9a. The best-fit straight line corresponding
to these 27 points is drawn and it is found to deviate from
the ideal y=x line. Weld bead height might be dependent on
some other parameters like surface tension of the molten
metal, magnetic force, and others, which have not been
considered in the present model for simplification. The
above deviation might have come due to these reasons. In
Fig. 9b, comparisons have been made of the predicted
values of weld bead width with their respective target
values obtained through the experiments. The best-fit line is
seen to deviate from the ideal y=x line. Moreover, six
points (out of 27) are found to lie away from the best-fit
Fig. 8 Pareto chart of effects of the response - bead penetration (BP)
line and it could be due to the error in experiments and/or

modeling. Predicted values of bead penetration are compared to their respective target values, as shown in Fig. 9c.
Almost ideal predictions are obtained in the case of 11 test
scenarios out of 27. It is interesting to note that in almost 15
test scenarios the predicted values are less than the target
(experimental) values. This may happen due to some
unavoidable errors in measurement and simplification of
the model. Out of these three responses, a slightly better
Table 9 Twenty-seven randomly generated test cases

Run no.
BH
BW
BP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
40
30
40
35
40
40
35
30
30
35
30
40
40
40
30
30
35
35
35
35
30
35
35
40
30
30
40
27
28
29
27
29
27
29
27
29
27
27
28
28
27
29
28
27
29
28
29
28
28
28
29
29
27
28
6.4
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.8
6.4
6.8
6.4
6.4
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.6
17
18
18
18
16
17
17
16
17
18
17
17
18
17
16
17
16
17
18
18
16
18
16
17
18
17
17
18
17
19
17
17
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
16
17
17
17
19
17
16
17
16
17
18
18
16
17
16
92
87
84
87
87
96
96
96
96
87
87
87
96
87
87
87
84
87
96
87
96
87
92
92
96
87
96
2.61
3.45
2.72
3.33
2.58
2.83
2.94
3.36
2.91
3.31
3.54
3.22
2.66
3.04
3.22
3.40
3.00
2.89
2.88
2.95
3.11
2.97
2.89
2.56
3.01
3.76
2.78
9.46
9.44
10.02
8.74
10.29
10.88
9.78
9.11
8.87
9.20
8.24
8.70
9.13
8.44
10.08
9.52
8.94
10.32
9.88
10.76
9.97
9.93
9.93
10.87
10.47
9.00
9.46
1.72
2.33
2.39
2.23
2.55
2.55
2.39
2.44
2.09
2.24
2.30
2.03
2.38
2.12
2.51
2.26
2.23
2.67
1.96
2.68
2.26
2.21
2.10
2.25
2.21
2.18
2.24
prediction is observed in the case of weld bead height

compared to the others. The responses may depend on
some other factors, which are not considered in the present
study, for simplicity.
1179

Regression equations (un-coded form) involving significant
terms (as obtained above) are derived for the different
responses as given below.
BH 188:282 5:11392S 6:40475V 11:815F 5:61912G 0:35365D 1:27155A 0:123793SV

0:421484SF 0:184876SG 0:0452525SA 0:550155VF 0:146713VG 0:077698VD
0:0402425VA 0:225512FD 0:0372514FA 0:0649687GD 0:0532907GA 0:0212842DA
0:0108926SVF 0:00181547SVG 0:0007261SVD 0:000997365SVA 0:00865418SFG
0:00338518SFD 0:00305224SFA 0:00240561SGD 0:00220307SGA 0:000247574SDA
0:0127366VFD 0:0020679VFA 0:0012539VGD 0:00138698VGA 0:0257961FGD
0:00517607FDA 0:000156959SVFG 0:0000576034SVFA 0:0000010319SVGD
18
0:0000332847SVGA 0:000126913SFGA 0:0000214797SFDA 0:0000715588SGDA

0:0000378019VGDA 0:000124992FGDA 0:00000188721SVGDA 0:00000662159SFGDA
0:00000477518VFGDA 0:0000002479567SVFGDA
BW 1575:57 31:0893S 39:3543V 327:084F 90:0302G 6:33163D 28:4847A 0:511314SV

6:23098SF 0:944876SG 1:0184SD 0:656759SA 9:65434VF 2:38562VG 1:34945VD
0:8367VA 19:5509FG 3:81923FD 4:88117FA 1:53114GA 0:663725DA 0:136832SVF
:250111SFG 0:0704312SVD 0:0797309SFD 0:0840903SGD 0:0174715SVA
0:103048SFA 0:0254011SGA 0:00922856SDA 0:606862VFG 0:0534753VGD
0:15281VFA 0:0464317VGA 0:0121643VDA 0:293174FGD 0:269699FGA
19
0:127764FDA 0:0341353GDA 0:00410583SVFG 0:007736SVFD 0:00479432SVGD

0:00821874SFGD 0:00280153SVFA 0:000583899SVGA 0:00415922SFGA
0:00140433SFDA 0:00423019VFGD 0:00870864VFGA 0:00313702VFDA
0:000698089VGDA 0:00686844FGDA 0:000552877SVFGD 0:000100782SVFGA
0:00000118064SVFDA 0:0000164518SVGDA 0:000183725VFGDA 0:00000247972SVFGDA
BP 51:3802 0:085689S 2:26231V 13:1979F 0:116417G 1:54676D 0:016445A 0:0335648SV

0:0485277SF 0:137971SD 0:00823301SA 0:70431VF 0:0603936VG 0:00956919VA 0:395507FD
0:0361856FA 0:0333535GD 0:00960154DA 0:00971294SVF 0:000590673SVG
0:00448874SVD 0:0188215SFD 0:00174388SDA 0:0165315VFD 0:00474429VFA
0:0100852VGD 0:00047384VGA 0:000720912VDA 0:0091996FGD 0:000455945FGA
0:000917204GDA 0:000459664SVFD 0:0000709943SVFA 0:000133072SVGD
0:0000200989SVGA 0:0000661172SVDA 0:000022359SFGD
0:000059139SFGA 0:000194927SFDA 0:0000312899SGDA 0:00121333VFGD
0:0000566926VFDA 0:0000611639VGDA 0:000112652FGDA 0:0000163403SVFGD
0:00000601865SVFDA 0:00000122249SVGDA 0:00000861749SFGDA 0:00000542301VFGDA
20
1180
3.80
11.00
3.70
10.80
3.60
10.60
10.40
10.20
3.40
Target response (mm) ->
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
9.80
9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
8.60
2.70
11.00
10.80
10.60
10.40
10.20
9.80
10.00
9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
8.60
8.40
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70
8.00
2.60
2.50
2.50
8.20
8.20
8.40
2.60
(a)
Predicted response (mm) ->

(b)
2.70
2.65
2.60
2.55
2.50
2.45
2.40
2.35
2.30
2.25
2.20
2.15
2.10
2.05
2.00
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
1.75
1.70
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
2.65
2.70
10.00
8.00
3.50

(c)
Fig. 9 Target versus predicted values of the responses: a Bead height (BH); b Bead width (BW); and c Bead penetration (BP) using approach 1
For the first response, i.e., bead height (BH), the gas
flow rate (G) is found to be an insignificant factor (refer to
Table 3), but it has not been removed from consideration,
due to the fact that there are some significant interaction
terms involving G, such as SG, VG, GD, GA, SVG, SFG,
SGD, SGA, VGD, VGA, FGD, SVFG, SVGD, SVGA,
SFGA, SGDA, VGDA, FGDA, SVGDA, SFGDA,
VFGDA, SVFGDA.
Table 10 shows the effects and p-values for different

factors and their interaction terms to determine the weld
bead height (BH). The main factor - G has been considered,
and the reason behind this consideration has been explained
earlier. Once again, G is found to be an insignificant term,
as its p-value is coming out to be more than the confidence
level =0.05. Results of the analysis of variance are
tabulated and shown in Table 11. The F-ratio values are
1181
Table 10 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead height (BH) (coded units) in case of approach 2
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
SV
SF
SG
SA
VF
VG
VD
VA
FD
FA
GD
GA
DA
SVF
SVG
SVD
SVA
SFG
0.7526
0.5822
0.1636
0.0138
0.0962
0.3000
0.2551
0.0710
0.0262
0.0356
0.1067
0.0240
0.0308
0.0384
0.0285
0.1227
0.0666
0.0407
0.0367
0.0521
0.0319
0.0392
0.1005
0.0312
3.2569
0.3763
0.2911
0.0818
0.0069
0.0481
0.1500
0.1275
0.0355
0.0131
0.0178
0.0534
0.0120
0.0154
0.0192
0.0142
0.0614
0.0333
0.0204
0.0184
0.0261
0.0159
0.0196
0.0503
0.0156
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
0.004401
739.95
85.49
66.14
18.58
1.57
10.93
34.08
28.97
8.07
2.97
4.04
12.13
2.72
3.49
4.36
3.24
13.94
7.56
4.63
4.17
5.92
3.62
4.46
11.42
3.54
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.119
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SFD
SFA
SGD
SGA
SDA
VFD
VFA
VGD
VGA
FGD
FDA
SVFG
SVFA
SVGD
SVGA
SFGA
SFDA
SGDA
VGDA
FGDA
SVGDA
SFGDA
VFGDA
SVFGDA
0.0522
0.0458
0.0594
0.0493
0.0398
0.0371
0.0312
0.0292
0.0327
0.0327
0.0174
0.0178
0.0381
0.0240
0.0342
0.0302
0.0190
0.0240
0.0413
0.0352
0.0315
0.0178
0.0278
0.0234
0.0261
0.0229
0.0297
0.0246
0.0199
0.0186
0.0156
0.0146
0.0163
0.0164
0.0087
0.0089
0.0191
0.0120
0.0171
0.0151
0.0095
0.0120
0.0206
0.0176
0.0158
0.0089
0.0139
0.0117
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
5.93
5.20
6.75
5.59
4.52
4.22
3.55
3.32
3.71
3.72
1.98
2.03
4.33
2.73
3.88
3.44
2.15
2.72
4.69
4.00
3.58
2.03
3.16
2.66
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.044
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.001
0.032
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.002
0.008
calculated from the T-values of Table 10. In Table 11,

the p-values are coming out to be less than the value of
significance level =0.05. Thus, the model is found to be
adequate for predicting the response - bead height.
To carry out the significance test and model validation
for the response - bead width (BW), the T-, p- and F-values
are calculated (refer to Tables 12 and 13). All the
significant factors for this response (as found in Table 5)
are once again seen to be significant. This proves the
correctness of the analysis.
In Table 13, the p-values of the main factors and
interaction terms are found to be less than the significance
level =0.05. Although a lack of fit exists, its p-value is
coming out to be more than . Thus, the model is adequate

enough to make predictions of the response - bead width.
For weld bead penetration (BP), the effects of the
significant terms only (as identified earlier) are once again
determined, as shown in Table 14.
The T- and p-values are calculated for these significant
factors. Once again the p-values of all these factors are
found to be less than 0.05 (confidence level ), as expected.
While carrying out the analysis of variance (ANOVA), the
F test values are calculated for the main factors and
different interaction terms. In Table 15, it is interesting to
note that a lack of fit exists in the model but it is found to
be insignificant (as its p-value is seen to be more than the

for bead height (BH) (coded
units) in case of approach 2
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
2-way interactions
3-way interactions
4-way interactions
5-way interactions
6-way interactions
Residual error
Lack of fit
Pure error
Total
6
13
16
9
3
1
207
15
192
255
66.0171
7.0243
2.1992
0.5315
0.1336
0.0351
1.0266
0.1007
0.9259
76.9673
66.0171
7.0243
2.1992
0.5315
0.1336
0.0351
1.0266
0.1007
0.9259
11.0029
0.5403
0.1374
0.0591
0.0445
0.0351
0.005
0.0067
0.0048
2,000.00
108.95
27.71
11.91
8.98
7.08
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
1.39
0.154
t11.1
1182
Table 12 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead width (BW) (coded units) in case of approach 2
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
SV
SF
SG
SD
SA
VF
VG
VD
VA
FG
FD
FA
GA
DA
SVF
SVD
SVA
SFG
SFD
SFA
SGD
SGA
1.9001
2.2271
0.5738
0.0584
0.2888
0.0921
1.1121
0.1007
0.0732
0.1349
0.3071
0.2442
0.0867
0.0353
0.2503
0.1015
0.0626
0.3002
0.1833
0.276
0.2284
0.0739
0.2648
0.0465
0.0361
0.2023
0.2155
0.1175
9.5633
0.95
1.1135
0.2869
0.0292
0.1444
0.0461
0.5561
0.0504
0.0366
0.0674
0.1536
0.1221
0.0433
0.0177
0.1252
0.0507
0.0313
0.1501
0.0917
0.138
0.1142
0.0369
0.1324
0.0233
0.018
0.1012
0.1078
0.0587
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
0.003898
2453.64
243.75
285.70
73.61
7.49
37.05
11.82
142.67
12.92
9.39
17.30
39.40
31.33
11.12
4.53
32.11
13.02
8.02
38.51
23.52
35.41
29.30
9.48
33.97
5.97
4.63
25.95
27.65
15.07
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SDA
VFG
VFA
VGD
VGA
VDA
FGD
FGA
FDA
GDA
SVFG
SVFD
SVFA
SVGD
SVGA
SFGD
SFGA
SFDA
VFGD
VFGA
VFDA
VGDA
FGDA
SVFGD
SVFGA
SVFDA
SVGDA
VFGDA
SVFGDA
0.1244
0.0499
0.1972
0.0448
0.0954
0.0310
0.0969
0.2578
0.1211
0.4583
0.0659
0.1300
0.1422
0.2311
0.0763
0.0687
0.0367
0.0976
0.0185
0.0268
0.1117
0.1441
0.0518
0.0857
0.1139
0.1289
0.0542
0.0976
0.1173
0.0622
0.0249
0.0986
0.0224
0.0477
0.0155
0.0485
0.1289
0.0605
0.2292
0.0329
0.0650
0.0711
0.1155
0.0382
0.0344
0.0183
0.0488
0.0093
0.0134
0.0559
0.0721
0.0259
0.0428
0.0570
0.0644
0.0271
0.0488
0.0586
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
15.96
6.40
25.30
5.74
12.23
3.98
12.43
33.08
15.53
58.80
8.45
16.68
18.24
29.64
9.79
8.81
4.71
12.52
2.37
3.44
14.33
18.49
6.65
10.99
14.61
16.54
6.95
12.52
15.05
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
significance level =0.05). Thus, the model can be used

for making predictions of the response - bead penetration.
Predicted values of weld bead height (BH) obtained by
using the regression equations are compared with the target
values for 27 randomly generated test scenarios (refer to
Fig. 10a). The best-fit straight line passing through the
points as shown in this figure is found to deviate from
the ideal y=x line. It could be due to the simplification of
the model, in which the parameters like surface tension
of the molten metal, effect of magnetic force, etc., have not
been considered. Moreover, measurement errors for some

of the responses cannot be removed, although proper care
has been taken. It is interesting to note that most of these
points are seen to lie closer to the best-fit line. The above
figure indicates that the predicted response values lie in
close vicinity to their respective target values. Figure 10b
shows the comparison of predicted bead width (BW) values
with their respective target values. The best-fit line passing
through the points is found to be closer to the ideal line, i.e.,
y=x, but some of these points (five points out of 27) are

for bead width (BW) (coded
units), in case of approach 2
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
2-way interactions
3-way interactions
4-way interactions
5-way interactions
6-way interactions
Residual error
Lack of fit
Pure error
Total
6
14
18
13
5
1
198
6
192
255
575.658
109.441
38.522
9.81
3.161
0.88
0.77
0.043
0.727
738.243
575.658
109.441
38.522
9.81
3.161
0.88
0.77
0.043
0.727
95.943
7.8172
2.1401
0.7546
0.6322
0.8804
0.0039
0.0071
0.0038
20,000.00
2,000.00
550.31
194.05
162.56
226.39
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.89
0.085
t13.1
1183
Table 14 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead penetration (BP) (coded units), in case of approach 2
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
SV
SF
SD
SA
VF
VG
VA
FD
FA
GD
DA
SVF
SVG
SVD
SFD
SDA
VFD
VFA
0.3102
0.3768
0.267
0.0637
0.0263
0.393
0.0218
0.0757
0.0623
0.1162
0.1028
0.0969
0.0922
0.0147
0.2182
0.0748
0.1418
0.0361
0.0182
0.042
0.0263
0.0952
0.0711
0.1181
2.0429
0.1551
0.1884
0.1335
0.0318
0.0132
0.1965
0.0109
0.0379
0.0312
0.0581
0.0514
0.0485
0.0461
0.0074
0.1091
0.0374
0.0709
0.0181
0.0091
0.021
0.0131
0.0476
0.0355
0.0591
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
652.72
49.56
60.19
42.66
10.17
4.21
62.78
3.48
12.10
9.95
18.56
16.42
15.49
14.73
2.35
34.86
11.94
22.65
5.77
2.91
6.71
4.20
15.21
11.35
18.87
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
VGD
VGA
VDA
FGD
FGA
GDA
SVFD
SVFA
SVGD
SVGA
SVDA
SFGD
SFGA
SFDA
SGDA
VFGD
VFDA
VGDA
FGDA
SVFGD
SVFDA
SVGDA
SFGDA
VFGDA
0.05
0.02
0.059
0.0869
0.048
0.0808
0.041
0.059
0.031
0.0183
0.0281
0.0516
0.013
0.0412
0.02
0.0428
0.033
0.0523
0.034
0.0157
0.0607
0.065
0.0307
0.039
0.0247
0.0098
0.0295
0.0434
0.0241
0.0404
0.0203
0.0295
0.0154
0.0091
0.014
0.0258
0.0065
0.0206
0.0098
0.0214
0.0165
0.0262
0.017
0.0078
0.0304
0.0324
0.0154
0.0196
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
0.00313
7.90
3.14
9.44
13.88
7.71
12.91
6.50
9.42
4.91
2.92
4.49
8.24
2.08
6.58
3.13
6.83
5.28
8.36
5.42
2.51
9.70
10.34
4.91
6.28
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.038
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
seen to lie away from the best-fit line. Thus, at those five
test cases, predicted values are found to deviate substantially from their respective target values. This may happen
due to the simplification of the model as discussed earlier.
Figure 10c presents a comparative study of the predicted
and target values of weld bead penetration. In ten test
scenarios out of 27, the predicted response values are found
to be closer to their respective target values, but for the
remaining 17 test scenarios, the predicted response values
are found to be less than their respective target values. As a
result, the best-fit line is seen to deviate from the ideal y=x
line. This could be due to the error associated with the
experiments and modeling. Once again, the best prediction
is observed with the response - bead height compared to
that of the other two responses.
for bead penetration (BP)

In this approach, response equations (un-coded form) are
obtained as given in Eqs. (21) through (23):
BH 8:15465 0:0376281S 0:145555V 0:163562F
0:00344922G 0:0192406D 0:00999948A
21
BW 5:91481 0:0950027S 0:556768V 0:573836F

0:0146035G 0:0577641D 0:00307057A
22
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
2-way interactions
3-way interactions
4-way interactions
5-way interactions
Residual error
Lack of fit
Pure error
Total
6
11
13
13
5
207
15
192
255
29.9963
8.0371
3.5125
1.2117
0.6789
0.5191
0.0574
0.4617
43.9556
29.9963
8.0371
3.5125
1.2117
0.6789
0.5191
0.0574
0.4617
4.99939
0.73065
0.27019
0.0932
0.13577
0.00251
0.00383
0.0024
1993.53
291.35
107.74
37.17
54.14
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.59
0.079
t15.1
1184
3.80
11.00
3.70
10.80
3.60
10.60
10.40
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
10.20
10.00
9.80
9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
11.00
10.80
10.60
10.40
10.20
9.80
10.00
9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
8.60
8.40
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70
8.00
2.60
8.20
2.50
2.50
8.40
2.60
8.20
8.60
2.70
8.00
3.50
(a)
(b)
2.70
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
2.70
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.70
(c)
Fig. 10 Target versus predicted values of the responses: a Bead height (BH); b Bead width (BW); and c Bead penetration (BP) using approach 2
BP 0:8363710:0155102S 0:0941953V 0:267031F

0:015918G 0:00526875D 0:0131A
23
The effects of the main factors are studied on the
response - bead height (BH) and the p-values are calculated
(refer to Table 16). Out of various main factors, gas flow
rate (G) is found to be insignificant, as its p-value has come

out to be greater than the significance level =0.05. The
F-value of the main factors is calculated while carrying out
the ANOVA (refer to Table 17).
The significance of the main factors is tested through
Table 18 for the response - bead width (BW). Out of six
main factors, four (such as welding speed S, voltage V, wire
1185
Table 16 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead height (BH)

Table 20 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead penetration (BP)

Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Constant
S
V
F
G
D
A
0.7526
0.5822
0.1636
0.0138
0.0962
0.3000
3.2569
0.3763
0.2911
0.0818
0.0069
0.0481
0.1500
0.01311
0.01311
0.01311
0.01311
0.01311
0.01311
0.01311
248.490
28.710
22.210
6.240
0.530
3.670
11.440
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5990
0.0000
0.0000
Constant
S
V
F
G
D
A
0.3102
0.3768
0.267
0.0637
0.0263
0.393
2.0429
0.1551
0.1884
0.1335
0.0318
0.0132
0.1965
0.0148
0.0148
0.0148
0.0148
0.0148
0.0148
0.0148
138.05
10.48
12.73
9.02
2.15
0.89
13.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.374
0.000
Table 17 Analysis of variance for bead height (BH) (coded units) in

case of approach 3
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj ME
Main effects
Residual
error
Lack of fit
Pure error
Total
6
249
66.0171
10.9502
66.0171
10.9502
11.0029
0.044
250.2
0.00
57
192
255
10.0243
0.9259
76.9673
10.0243
0.9259
0.1759
0.0048
36.47
0.00
Table 18 Estimated effects and coefficients for bead width (BW)

Term
Effect
Coef.
SE coef.
Constant
S
V
F
G
D
A
1.9001
2.2271
0.5738
0.0584
0.2888
0.0921
9.5633
0.95
1.1135
0.2869
0.0292
0.1444
0.0461
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
189.36
18.81
22.05
5.68
0.58
2.86
0.91
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.564
0.005
0.363
Table 20 indicates that the input parameters - S, V, F, G

and A have significant influences on the response - bead
penetration (BP), whereas nozzle-to-plate distance (D) is
found to be insignificant, as its p-value is seen to be more
than the significance level =0.05.
It is important to note from Tables 17, 19, and 21 that a
lack of fit exists in each model and it is found to be
significant. Thus, the above models may not be 100%
adequate for predicting the different responses.
Predicted values of three responses are compared to their
respective target values for 27 randomly generated test
scenarios as shown in Fig. 11ac. Once again, the model
shows a better prediction for bead height (BH) compared to
the other two responses. It could be due to the fact that
some parameters not considered in the present model (for
simplicity), may have significant influence on bead width
(BW) and penetration (BP). Moreover, it may happen due
to some error associated with the measurement of
responses, although proper care has been taken.
The obtained relationships (un-coded form) using approach
4 are shown in Eqs. (2426).
feedrate F, nozzle-to-plate distance D) are found to be

significant for the response - bead width (BW) and the
remaining two factors (namely gas flow rate G and torch
angle A) have less contribution towards the said response.
The results of ANOVA for this response are shown in
Table 19.
BH
Table 19 Analysis of variance for bead width (BW) (coded units) in

case of approach 3
Table 21 Analysis of variance for bead penetration (BP) (coded

Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Main effects
Residual error
Lack of fit
Pure error
Total
6
249
57
192
255
575.658
162.585
161.858
0.727
738.243
575.658
162.585
161.858
0.727
95.943
0.653
2.8396
0.0038
146.94
0.000
29.9963
13.9593
13.4976
0.4617
43.9556
29.9963
13.9593
13.4976
0.4617
4.99939
0.05606
0.2368
0.0024
0.000
0.000
6
249
57
192
255
89.18
749.76
Main effects
Residual error
Lack of fit
Pure error
Total
98.47
0.000
103:1215 F 0:3416 D0:1027

S 0:4034 V 1:3077 G0:0266 A0:2500
24
1186
11.0
3.7
10.8
3.6
10.6
3.5
10.4
9.2
11.0
(a)
2.7
10.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
8.2
2.9
2.5
2.8
8.4
2.7
8.6
2.6
2.6
8.8
2.7
10.6
9.0
2.8
10.4
2.9
9.4
10.2
3.0
9.6
10.0
3.1
9.8
9.8
3.2
10.0
9.6
3.3
10.2
9.4
3.4
9.2
3.8
2.5
Results of the significance test conducted for the

responses - BH, BW, and BP are shown in Tables 22, 24,
9.0
26
8.8
V 1:26382 F 0:94822 G0:13767

100:97682 S 0:26514 D0:01051 A0:55368
and 26, respectively. For the response - BH, the input

parameter - gas flow rate (G) is found to be insignificant.
Similarly, the contributions of gas flow rate (G), nozzle-toplate distance (D) and torch angle (A) are seen to be
insignificant for the response - BW (Table 23).
Moreover, for the response - BP, the input parameters
like gas flow rate (G) and nozzle-to-plate distance (D) are
found to be insignificant. Results of the ANOVA, as shown
in Tables 23, 25, and 27, indicate that the models are
adequate enough to predict the responses.
8.6
BP
25
8.4
V 1:7065 F 0:3905 G0:0266 A0:0236

101:2239 S 0:3566 D0:0966
BW
(b)
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
(c)
Fig. 11 Target versus predicted values of the responses: a Bead height (BH); b Bead width (BW); c Bead penetration (BP) using approach 3
1187
Table 22 Estimated coefficients for bead height (BH) (coded units)

in case of approach 4
Table 27 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for bead penetration (BP)

Variable
Coef.
Standard error
Source
DF Sum of squares
Mean square
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
3.1215
0.4034
1.3077
0.3416
0.0266
0.1027
0.2500
0.2048
0.0247
0.1005
0.0918
0.0562
0.0491
0.0398
15.2402
16.3213
13.0179
3.7225
0.4731
2.0897
6.2858
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0005
0.6379
0.0411
0.0000
Regression
Error
Total
6
57
63
1.2922
0.0547
23.6041 0.0000
Table 23 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for bead height (BH) in

case of approach 4
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
Regression
Error
Total
6
57
63
17.026
1.979
19.005
2.838
0.035
81.728
0.000
Table 24 Estimated coefficients for bead width (BW) (coded units)

Variable
Coef.
Standard error
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
1.2239
0.3566
1.7065
0.3905
0.0266
0.0966
0.0236
0.2882
0.0342
0.1416
0.1279
0.0783
0.0684
0.0552
4.2460
10.4236
12.0519
3.0540
0.3401
1.4118
0.4280
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0034
0.7351
0.1635
0.6703
7.7533
3.1205
10.8738
Figure 12a shows a comparison of the predicted values

of the response (i.e., weld bead height -BH) with their
respective target values for 27 randomly generated test
cases, as mentioned earlier. The best-fit line for the 27
points was determined. Most of the points (but not all) are
seen to lie closer to the best-fit line. Besides a few, modelpredicted values are found to be closer to the target values
for most of the test scenarios. For 27 test cases, the
predicted bead-width values are compared with their
respective target values. Although the best-fit line of the
27 points shown in Fig. 12b is seen to be closer to the ideal
line y=x, a large amount of deviation (difference between
the target and predicted values) is recorded for a number of
points. Thus, some of these data points are seen to lie away
from the best-fit line. It could be due to the simplification of
the model. Figure 12c shows the comparisons of the
calculated values of bead penetration with their
corresponding target values. For most of the test scenarios,
the model has under-estimated the bead penetration values.
It might be due to some experimental error.
6.5 Comparisons of four approaches
Table 25 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for bead width (BW) in

case of approach 4
Variable
DF Sum of squares
Mean square
Regression
Error
Total
6
57
63
25.21211
0.58098
43.39574 0.000
151.27266
33.11593
184.38859
Table 26 Estimated coefficients for bead penetration (BP) (coded

Variable
Coef.
Standard error
Const
S
V
F
G
D
A
0.97682
0.26514
1.26382
0.94822
0.13767
0.01051
0.55368
0.41189
0.04861
0.20049
0.18508
0.11239
0.09812
0.08069
2.37156
5.45462
6.30359
5.12339
1.22494
0.10712
6.86188
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.226
0.915
0.000
Figure 13a shows a comparison of different regression tools

as discussed above in terms of their % deviation in
predictions of weld bead height (BH) for 27 randomly
generated test cases. It is interesting to note that the slightly
better predictions have been made by the non-linear
regression analysis compared to the other regression tools.
The above statement can also be verified from Figs. 9a,
10a, 11a and 12a. This could be due to the fact that the
input-output relationship is highly non-linear, which
becomes difficult for the linear regression tool to model.
It is interesting to note that the values of % deviation in
prediction are seen to lie in the range of 14 to +8%. The %
deviation values, while predicting weld bead width (BW)
using different regression techniques, are compared in
Fig. 13b. Linear regression analysis considering all the
main factors and their interaction terms has proved its
supremacy over the other techniques for most of the
scenarios, but not all. Similar information can also be
obtained from Figs. 9b, 10b, 11b, and 12b. The % deviation
values are found to lie in the range of 22 to +22%.
1188
3.8
11.0
3.7
10.8
10.6
3.6
10.4
9.2

( a)
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
8.2
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
8.2
3.0
2.5
2.9
8.4
2.8
2.6
2.7
8.6
2.6
8.8
2.7
9.6
9.0
2.8
9.4
2.9
9.4
9.2
3.0
9.6
9.0
3.1
9.8
8.8
3.2
10.0
8.6
3.3
10.2
8.4
3.4
2.5
3.5

( b)
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7

( c)
Fig. 12 Target versus predicted values of the responses: a Bead height (BH); b Bead width (BW); c Bead penetration (BP) using approach 4
Excluding 6th and 9th test scenarios (which record the

maximum positive and negative deviations, respectively),
the values of percentage deviation are found to lie between
15 to +15%.
Figure 13c shows a comparison of different regression
techniques used for 27 randomly generated test scenarios.
Once again, linear regression analysis involving all the
main factors and interaction terms has proved its supremacy
over the other techniques for most of the test scenarios,

but not all. It can also be verified from Figs. 9c, 10c, 11c
and 12c.
Regression techniques are also compared in terms of
average RMS deviation in prediction by considering all the
three responses together (refer to Fig. 14). It is to be noted
that approach 1 has yielded the minimum value of average
RMS deviation in predictions.
1189
25
20
15
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
10
5
0
-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-2
% Deviation in prediction ->
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-10
-15
-18
-20
-20
-22
-25
Test case No ->
35
Test case No ->
(a)
(b)
30
25
20
15
10
Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
-5
Test case No ->
(c)
Fig. 13 Comparison of different regression techniques for prediction of a bead height (BH), (b) bead width (BW) and c bead penetration (BP)
Average RMS deviation in

prediction ->
7 Concluding remarks
0.430
0.42565
0.425
0.420
0.42191
0.41476
0.41671
0.415
0.410
0.405
Approach 1
Approach 2
Approach 3
Approach 4
Approaches
Fig. 14 Comparison of different regression techniques with respect to

average root mean square deviation in prediction
In the present work, an attempt has been made to establish

input-output relationships in the MIG welding process by
using both linear as well as non-linear regression analyses.
It is to be noted that three approaches of linear regression
analysis and one approach of non-linear regression analysis
have been developed and their performances are compared.
All three approaches of linear regression analysis have
slightly outperformed the non-linear regression analysis in
terms of average RMS deviation in prediction considering
all the three responses together. It is important to mention
that approach 1 of linear regression analysis has shown the
best performance. This has happened due to the fact that the
input-output relationships in the MIG welding process may
1190
not be so non-linear. Thus, the performances of these

regression techniques are data-dependent.
10.
8 Scope for future work
11.
The present work can be extended in a number of ways, as

given below:
12.
1. It is to be mentioned that the methods adopted in the

present paper are global in nature, i.e., the usual
practice is to establish a single working relationship
between the inputs and an output for the entire domain
of interest, as a result of which, it will be possible to
predict the results accurately at the anchor points (i.e.,
the points which are used to carry out the regression
analysis) only but there might be some significant
deviation in prediction at the intermediate points. An
attempt will be made in the future to cluster the data
based on their similarity values among themselves and
then regression analysis will be carried out cluster-wise
to determine the input-output relationships of the
process.
2. This work deals only with the process modeling but online control of the process has not yet been done. In the
future, attempts will be made for on-line control of the
MIG welding process.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the help,

assistance, advice, and laboratory facilities extended to them by
Professor K. Biswas and Professor G. L. Dutta and many other staff
members and faculty of IIT Kharagpur.
21.
22.
References
1. Mercille J Jr (1982) Welding processes and consumables.
Dominion. Bridge-Sulzer Inc., Lachine PQ, pp 11110
2. Rosenthal D (1941) Mathematical theory of heat distribution
during welding and cutting. Weld J 20(5):220234
3. Roberts DK, Wells AA (1954) Fusion welding of aluminium
alloys. Br Weld J 12:553559
4. Christensen N, Davies V, Gjermundsen K (1965) Distribution of
temperature in arc welding. Br Weld J 12(2):5475
5. Chandel RS, Seow HP, Cheong FL (1997) Effect of increasing
deposition rate on the bead geometry of submerged arc welds.
J Mater Process Technol 72:124128
6. Jou M (2003) Experimental study and modeling of GTA welding
process. J Manuf Sci Eng 125(4):801808
7. Yang LJ, Chandel RS, Bibby MJ (1993) An analysis of
curvilinear regression equations for modeling the submerged-arc
welding process. J Mater Process Technol 37(14):601611
8. Markelj F, Tusek J (2001) Algorithmic optimization of parameters
in tungsten inert gas welding of stainless-steel sheet. Sci Technol
Weld Join 6(6):375382
9. Kim IS, Jeong YJ, Son IJ, Kim IJ, Kim JY, Kim IK, Yarlagadda
PKDV (2003) Sensitivity analysis for process parameters influ-
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
encing weld quality in robotic GMA welding process. J Mater

Process Technol 140:676681
Kim IS, Son KJ, Yang YS, Yarlagadda PKDV (2003) Sensitivity
analysis for process parameters in GMA welding processes using a
factorial design method. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:763769
Kim IS, Son JS, Kim IG, Kim JY, Kim OS (2003) A study on
relationship between process variables and bead penetration for
robotic CO2 arc welding. J Mater Process Technol 136:139145
Kim IS, Kwon WH, Siores E (1996) Investigation of mathematical model for predicting weld bead geometry. Can Metall Q 35
(4):385392
Kang MJ, Rhee S (2001) A study on the development of the arc
stability index using multiple regression analysis in the shortcircuit transfer region of gas metal arc welding. Proc Inst Mech
Eng, Part B 215(2):195205
Lee JI, Rhee S (2000) Prediction of process parameters for gas
metal arc welding by multiple regression analysis. Proc Inst Mech
Eng, Part B 214:443449
Kim IS, Park CE, Jeong YJ, Son JS (2001) Development of an
intelligent system for selection of the process variables in gas
metal arc welding processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:98
102
Allen TT, Ittiwattana W, Richardson RW, Maiul GP (2001) A
method for robust process design based on direct minimization
of expected loss applied to arc welding. J Manuf Syst 20
(5):329348
Allen TT, Richardson RW, Tagliabue DP, Maoul GP (2002)
Statistical process design for robotic GMA welding of sheet metal.
Weld J Suppl, pp 69s70s
Zhou M, Zhang H, Hu SJ (2003) Relationship between quality
and attributes of spot welds. Weld J Suppl, pp 72s79s
Rowlands H, Antony F (2003) Application of design of experiments to a spot welding process. Assembly Autom 23(3):273279
Murugan N, Parmer RS, Sud SK (1993) Effect of submerged arc
process variables on dilution and bead geometry in single wire
surfacing. J Mater Process Technol 37:767780
Murugan N, Parmer RS (1994) Effect of MIG process parameters
on the geometry of the bead in the automatic surfacing of stainless
steel. J Mater Process Technol 41:381398
Gunaraj V, Murugan N (1999) Prediction and comparison of the
area of the heat-affected zone for the bead-on-plate and bead-onjoint in submerged arc welding of pipes. J Mater Process Technol
95:246261
Gunaraj V, Murugan N (2000) Prediction and optimization of
weld bead volume for the submerged arc process - Part 1. Weld
Res Suppl, pp 287294
Gunaraj V, Murugan N (2000) Prediction and optimization of
weld bead volume for the submerged arc process - Part 2. Weld
Res Suppl, pp 331s338s
Tarng YS, Yang WH (1998) Optimization of the weld bead
geometry in gas tungsten arc welding by the Taguchi method. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 14:549554
Tarng YS, Yang WH, Juang SC (2000) The use of fuzzy logic in
the Taguchi method for the optimisation of the submerged arc
welding process. Inter J Adv Manuf Technol 16:688694
Tarng YS, Juang SC, Chang CH (2002) The use of grey-based
Taguchi methods to determine submerged arc welding process
parameters in hard facing. J Mater Process Technol 128(13):16
Kim IS, Park CE, Yarlagadda PKDV (2003) A study on the
prediction of process parameters in the gas-metal arc welding
(GMAW) of mild steel using Taguchi methods. Mater Sci Forum,
pp 235238
Montgomery DC (1997) Design and analysis of experiments, 4th
edn. Wiley, New York

Modeling of The MIG Welding Process Using Statistical Approaches

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Modeling of The MIG Welding Process Using Statistical Approaches

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 35:11661190