Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmpt20

Optimisation and Prediction of the Weld Bead

Geometry of a Mild Steel Metal Inert Gas Weld.

Samuel Oro-Oghene Sada & Joseph Achebo

To cite this article: Samuel Oro-Oghene Sada & Joseph Achebo (2020): Optimisation and
Prediction of the Weld Bead Geometry of a Mild Steel Metal Inert Gas Weld., Advances in Materials
and Processing Technologies

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2374068X.2020.1860597

Published online: 15 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmpt20
ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/2374068X.2020.1860597

Optimisation and Prediction of the Weld Bead Geometry of a

Mild Steel Metal Inert Gas Weld.
Samuel Oro-Oghene Sadaa and Joseph Achebob
a
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Delta State University, Oleh
Campus, Delta State, Nigeria; bDepartment of Production Engineering. Faculty of Engineering, University of
Benin, Benin City, Nigeria

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The mechanical-metallurgical features of a weldment can be eval­ Accepted 3 December 2020
uated based on the establishment of a mathematical model with
KEYWORDS
which the input and output variables relationship, and the optimal Response surface
weld bead properties can be specified. This study investigates the methodology; depth of
suitability of the use of the Response surface methodology (RSM) in penetration; bead width;
the optimising and predicting the weld bead geometry of a gas welding
metal arc weld. A mathematical model of the responses; depth of
penetration and bead width were obtained using the input para­
meters; weld current, arc voltage, weld speed and root gap. From
the model adequacy test, performed to validate the significance of
the model as well as the significant contributions of the input
parameters to the responses; a reliability factor of 81.66% was
recorded. Also, the weld current compared to the other parameters
recorded the most significant effect on the responses.
A confirmatory test performed using the optimal values shows
that the response surface technique performed accurately, as the
recorded test values revealed less 3% error.

1. Introduction
Welding is a key sector in the manufacturing industry, manufactures rely on the sector
for the design of sound and efficient joints for the manufacture of mechanical compo­
nents capable of meeting the reliability needs of consumers. The strength of the weld
joint (depth of penetration, weld bead height and width), the reliability of the product,
and the ease in continuity of production is determined by certain factors such as the
mechanical properties of the welded metal which in turn is dependent on the metallur­
gical features of the weld [1,2]. These factors can be evaluated by means of an establish­
ment mathematical model capable of specifying the input and output relationship of the
variables, along with the optimal weld qualities [3,4].
Several studies have been made on the weld bead geometry of different weld metals
using different modelling methods. Kim [5] designed and developed an intelligent system
based on multiple regressions and neural networks, which proved very effective in the
selection of input parameters based on a given bead geometry. Also the capability of the

CONTACT Samuel Oro-oghene Sada samorosada@gmail.com Department of Mechanical and Production

Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Delta State University, Cleveland Nigeria
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. O. SADA AND J. ACHEBO

modified taguchi method was also applied in the analysis of welding process parameters
effect as well as in determining the optimal weld pool geometry [6] in a welding experi­
ment. The proposed approach along with the experimental results worked satisfactorily.
Yazdipour [7] performed a study using a novel optimisation algorithm known as
imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) in the determination of optimal weld bead of
a tungsten inert gas (TIG) welded plate using the input parameters; weld current, arc
voltage, weld speed, and arc length. The authors developed a correlation using regression
analysis and went further to the test adequacy of the proposed model. In the study of
Benyounis and Olabi [8], they reported the emergence of a more suitable and useful
technique capable of giving the optimum value of the responses in a manufacturing
process involving process parameters settings. The response surface methodology (RSM)
as has been identified, comprises sets of statistics-based approaches designed for analys­
ing experiments, building models, assessing factors and their effects and searching for
optimal solutions. Based on studies [9–11] reviewed, one unique advantage of the RSM
techniques is its ability to determine the interactive effect of the model terms.
This study investigates the capability of the response surface methodology in optimis­
ing and predicting the optimal weld bead responses (depth of penetration and bead
width) of a Metal Inert Gas welded mild steel plate.

2. Methodology
A Mild steel plate, 6 mm thick cut to dimensions of 100x50mm was selected as the
specimen for the experiment along with argon gas as the inert gas, and the metal inert gas
(MIG) welding equipment for the welding process. The specimens were cleaned to
remove any impurities and held together in pairs of two in a vise for the welding
experiment. The following input process parameters and their ranges were selected for
the experiment; weld current: 60–100 Amp, Weld Voltage: 5–15 volts, Weld Speed:
50–80 mm/mins, and Root Gap: 2–3 mm. At the end of the welding process, the
responses; depth of penetration and bead width were measured using a digital vernier
caliper (Make: Starrett No. 723, American and least count = 0.01 mm), and recorded.
Table 1 shows the result of the experiment.
Preceding the experiment, thirty (30) experimental runs comprising the process
parameters was generated using the central composite design (CCD); one of the two
designs of the response surface methodology.

2.1. Experimental design

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is one of the most widely utilised techniques in
solving experimental-related problems, involving approximation of an unknown
mechanism using an acceptable empirical model [12]. Its first task is finding a suitable
approximation of the functional relationship between the input and output variables (x),
without any prior knowledge of any existing relationship [13]. In this study, a second-
order polynomial regression equation as shown in Equation 1, was used to fit the
experimental data as well as describe the significant model terms.
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 3

Table 1. Experiment design and results.

Weld
Exp Current Weld Voltage Speed (mm/ Root Gap Depth of Penetration Bead Width
No (A) (Volts) min) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 60.00 5.00 50.00 2.00 0.90 3.72
2 80.00 0.00 65.00 2.50 1.21 3.68
3 80.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 1.40 3.45
4 80.00 10.00 65.00 1.50 1.30 3.92
5 40.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 0.43 2.39
6 100.00 5.00 50.00 2.00 1.15 3.74
7 80.00 10.00 95.00 2.50 0.45 3.40
8 60.00 5.00 80.00 2.00 1.25 3.20
9 80.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 1.23 3.50
10 80.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 1.14 3.40
11 80.00 10.00 35.00 2.50 0.63 3.43
12 60.00 5.00 80.00 3.00 0.89 3.13
13 60.00 15.00 50.00 3.00 0.91 2.51
14 60.00 15.00 50.00 2.00 1.62 3.45
15 60.00 15.00 80.00 2.00 0.77 3.88
16 80.00 20.00 65.00 2.50 1.81 3.65
17 80.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 0.78 4.17
18 100.00 5.00 50.00 3.00 0.55 4.00
19 100.00 15.00 80.00 2.00 1.11 3.98
20 100.00 15.00 50.00 3.00 0.99 3.25
21 100.00 5.00 80.00 2.00 0.92 3.42
22 100.00 15.00 80.00 3.00 0.98 3.63
23 100.00 15.00 50.00 2.00 1.80 3.30
24 120.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 0.62 3.11
25 80.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 0.61 3.47
26 60.00 5.00 50.00 3.00 0.56 3.40
27 80.00 10.00 65.00 2.50 0.71 3.43
28 80.00 10.00 65.00 3.50 0.62 3.44
29 60.00 15.00 80.00 3.00 0.78 3.34
30 100.00 5.00 80.00 3.00 0.67 3.12

X
k X
k XX
k
y ¼ β0 þ βij xi 2 þ βij xi 2 þ βi xi xj þ εfor i < j (1)
i¼1 j¼1 ij

Where y and xi represents the response and input variables ranging from 1 to k, βo, βj, βjj
and βij are the intercept constant, and the quadratic coefficients of the second-order
terms, respectively, and ei is the error.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Response surface model
A mathematical model of the process showing the input and output variables relationship
was developed as recorded in Equations 2 & 3. The variables; weld current, arc voltage,
speed, root gap have been represented by the alphabets a, b, c & d in the equations.

DEPTHOFPENETRATION ¼ 0:978 þ 0:036a þ 0:136b 0:061c 0:189d þ 0:0069ab

0:032ac 0:024ad 0:141bc 0:006bd þ 0:108cd
0:096a2 þ 0:151b2 0:091c2 þ 0:013d2
(2)
4 S. O. SADA AND J. ACHEBO

Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for the responses – depth of penetration.
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value p-value
Model 3.3300 14 0.2378 4.7700 0.0024 Significant
A-Weld Current 0.0315 1 0.0315 0.6327 0.0008
B-Weld Voltage 0.4455 1 0.4455 8.9400 0.0092
C-Weld Speed 0.0900 1 0.0900 1.8100 0.1989
D-Root Gap 0.8626 1 0.8626 17.3100 0.0028
AB 0.0770 1 0.0770 1.5400 0.2330
AC 0.0163 1 0.0163 0.3261 0.5764
AD 0.0095 1 0.0095 0.1907 0.6685
BC 0.3164 1 0.3164 6.3500 0.0236
BD 0.0005 1 0.0005 0.0102 0.9211
CD 0.1871 1 0.1871 3.7500 0.0718
A2 0.2503 1 0.2503 5.0200 0.0406
B2 0.6232 1 0.6232 12.5000 0.0030
C2 0.2310 1 0.2310 4.6300 0.0480
D2 0.0048 1 0.0048 0.0963 0.7606
Residual 0.7477 15 0.0498
Lack of Fit 0.2334 10 0.0233 0.2269 0.9778 not significant
Pure Error 0.5143 5 0.1029
Cor Total 4.0800 29

Table 3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for the responses – bead width.
Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F-value p-value
Model 3.7400 14 0.2675 5.6500 0.0010 Significant
A-Weld Current 0.4895 1 0.4895 10.3400 0.0058
B-Weld Voltage 0.0085 1 0.0085 0.1799 0.6775
C-Weld Speed 0.0028 1 0.0028 0.0594 0.8107
D-Root Gap 0.4444 1 0.4444 9.3900 0.0079
AB 0.0015 1 0.0015 0.0323 0.8598
AC 0.0234 1 0.0234 0.4937 0.4930
AD 0.1263 1 0.1263 2.6700 0.1232
BC 1.1500 1 1.1500 24.2900 0.0002
BD 0.1294 1 0.1294 2.7300 0.1190
CD 0.0027 1 0.0027 0.0566 0.8152
A2 1.1400 1 1.1400 24.0400 0.0002
B2 0.0360 1 0.0360 0.7612 0.3967
C2 0.0189 1 0.0189 0.3997 0.5368
D2 0.0439 1 0.0439 0.9269 0.3509
Residual 0.7098 15 0.0473
Lack of Fit 0.2720 10 0.0272 0.3107 0.9454 not significant
Pure Error 0.4378 5 0.0876
Cor Total 4.4500 29

Table 4. Goodness of fit statistics (depth of penetration).

Std Dev. 0.2175 R2 0.8406
Mean 3.45 Adjusted R2 0.6919
C.V. % 6.31 Predicted R2 0.5067
Adeq Precision 9.9614

BEADWIDTH ¼ 3:57 0:143a 0:919b þ 0:011c 0:136d þ 0:098ab 0:038ac

þ 0:089ad þ 0:268bc 0:089bd 0:013cd 0:204a2 þ 0:036b2
0:026c2 þ 0:040d2 (3)
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 5

Table 5. Goodness of fit statistics (bead width).

Std Dev. 0.2233 R2 0.8166
Mean 0.9597 Adjusted R2 0.6454
C.V. % 23.26 Predicted R2 0.4885
Adeq Precision 9.0713

3.2. Model adequacy check

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique is employed in testing the adequacy of the
developed model. ANOVA results obtained from the second-order response surface
model are displayed below in Tables 2 and 3.
The prob > F value for the two models developed as shown in Tables 2 and 3 reveals
P value less than 0.05 (95% Confidence level), an indication that the model is significant
as desired, and the lack of fit is not significant. With the F-test analysis, the significant
model terms were estimated and identified. The weld current had the most significant
effect on the responses; this correlates the findings of previous studies [14] which applied
grey analysis in optimising the depth of penetration and bead width of a mild steel weld.
Further analysis to compare the adequacy and reliability of the model for both
responses, using the following statistical tools; the coefficient of determination (R2),
Adjusted R2, Predicted R2 and Adequate precision was performed and recorded in
Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
A reliability factor of 84.06% was obtained for the depth of penetration, an indication
that 84% of the variability of the experiment was accounted for by the model. The
predicted R2gave a value of 50.67% when compared with the adjusted R2 of 69.19%,
the difference of 18.52% which is less than 20% shows that the model is a good predictor
of the response.
A reliability factor of 81.66% was obtained for the bead width, an indication that 82%
of the variability of the experiment was accounted for by the model. The predicted R2gave
a value of 46.85% when compared with the adjusted R2 of 64.54%, the difference of
17.69% which is less than 20% shows that the model is a good predictor of the response.

3.3. Predicted versus observed response

A further confirmation of the adequacy of the regression model is made by plotting the
experimental versus the predicted values of the response as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The
plot reveals that the residuals are distributed normally, which signifies a very good
correlation between values obtained for the experimental and predicted responses.

3.4. Response surface and contour plots

Response surface and contour plots have also been developed, to help interpret the
combined effects of any two parameters on the response while the other parameters
are held at some constant level. The Figure 3–8 below, shows both the response surfaces
and contour plots for various combinations of input parameters on the responses.
To further display the optimal factor setting, a contour plot was employed as shown in
Figure 5–7 respectively.
6 S. O. SADA AND J. ACHEBO

Figure 1. Predicted versus experimental values plot for the depth of penetration.

Figure 2. Predicted versus experimental values plot for the bead width.

As shown in Figure 6–8, the contour plots produce a visual display of the optimal
factor settings region, thereby making the prediction of the responses at any region of the
experimental domain possible.
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 7

Figure 3. 3D plots showing the responses versus two process parameters (root gap and weld current).

Figure 4. 3D plots showing the responses versus process parameters (weld speed and weld current).

Figure 5. 3D plots showing the responses versus process parameters (arc voltage and weld current).

3.5. Optimising the process parameters

To validate the accuracy of the overall model, Design expert software was employed in
performing the numerical optimisation of the responses to ascertain the validity of the
model. The optimal values of 1.624 mm and 3.732 mm were recorded for the depth of
penetration and weld bead width, respectively, at a combined input process parameter of
weld current 87.86amp, weld voltage 15volts, speed 59.02 m/s and root gap of 2 mm.
8 S. O. SADA AND J. ACHEBO

Figure 6. Contour plots showing the responses versus process parameters (weld speed and current).

Figure 7. Contour plots of the responses versus two process parameters (arc voltage and weld
current).

Figure 8. Contour plots showing the responses versus process parameters (root gap and weld current).
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 9

3.6. Result validation

To validate the results obtained, a piece of the specimen used earlier for the experiment
was sourced and the optimised parameters were used in carrying out a weld. The
results obtained compared with the optimal response obtained from optimisation 2.6%
error.

4. Conclusion
The response surface methodology has been successfully applied in the optimisation and
prediction of the weld bead geometry of a mild steel metal inert gas (MIG) weld.
A mathematical model of the responses; depth of penetration and bead width was
obtained with weld current, arc voltage, weld speed and root gap, as input process
variables. A model adequacy test performed to validate the significance of the model as
well as evaluate the significant contributions of the variables to the responses, revealed
that the weld current has the most significant effect on the responses and that response
surface technique is a good predictor of the response haven recorded a reliability factor of
81.66%. With the use of design expert software, the optimal values of the responses
recorded a depth of penetration of 1.624 mm and bead width of 3.732 mm under the
combined input process parameters of weld current 87.86amp, weld voltage 15volts,
speed 59.02 m/s and root gap of 2 mm.
A confirmatory test performed using the optimal values shows that the response
surface technique performed accurately, as the recorded test values revealed less 3%
error.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
[1] American Welding Society. Welding processes, welding Handbook. 8th ed. Miami, FL. Vol.
2; 1991.
[2] Joshi SR, Ganjigatti J,P, Kulkarni S. Application of statistical and soft computing based
modeling and optimization techniques for various welding processes” a review. Int J Latest
Trends Eng Technol. 2014;3(4):375–384.
[3] Tarng YS, Yang W. “Optimization of the weld bead geometry in gas tungsten arc welding by
the Taguchi method”. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 1998;14:549–554.
[4] kumar P,M, Patel N,B. Parametric optimization of TIG welding on UNS S31603 using
genetic algorithm. Int J Adv Eng Res Dev. 2015;2: 256-267.
[5] Kim IS, Son J,S, Park C,E, et al. An investigation into intelligent system for predicting bead
geometry of GMA weld process. J Mater Process Technol. 2005;159(1):113–118.
[6] Juang S,C, Tarng Y,S. Process parameters selection for optimizing the weld pool geometry in
the TIG welding of stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol. 2002;122(1):33–37.
[7] Yazdipour A, Ghaderi M,G. Optimization of weld bead geometry in GTAW of CP titanium
using imperialist competitive algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol Inter. 2014;74(5–8):619–­
625. .
[8] Benyounis K,Y, Olabi A,G. Optimization of different welding processes using statistical and
numerical approaches. Adv Eng Software. 2008;39(6):483–496.
10 S. O. SADA AND J. ACHEBO

[9] Gunaraj V, Murugan N. Application of response surface methodology for predicting weld
bead quality in submerged arc welding of pipes. J Mater Process Technol. 1999;88
(1):266–275.
[10] Sada SO. Minimization of undercut weld defect using the response surface methodology
optimization process. Nigeria Journal of Engineering. 2018;24(2):43–52.
[11] Sada SO. Optimization of weld strength properties of tungsten inert gas mild steel welds
using the response surface methodology. Nigeria Journal of Technology. 2018;37
(2):407–415.
[12] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments: response surface method and design.
New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2005.
[13] Thepsonthi T, Ozel T. Multi-objective process optimization for micro-end milling of
Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2012;63(9–12):903–914.
[14] Bhattacharya A, Batish A, Kumar P. Experimental investigation for multi-response optimi­
zation of bead geometry in submerged arc welding using grey analysis. J Inst Eng (India) Ser
C. 2012;93(2):123–132.