IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Sensitivity analysis of process parameters on tensile properties in

Plasma Arc Welding of AA8011-H24 aluminium alloys and Ti3Al2.5V
Titanium alloys using Response Surface Methodology
To cite this article: K Palani et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 390 012042

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 181.215.205.236 on 30/07/2018 at 18:28

The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

Sensitivity analysis of process parameters on tensile properties

in Plasma Arc Welding of AA8011-H24 aluminium alloys and
Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys using Response Surface
Methodology
K Palani1, C Elanchezhian2 and M Raju3
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa
Mahavidyalaya (Deemed to be University), Kanchipuram, 631561, Tamilnadu, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Sairam Engineering College, Chennai,
600 044, Tamil Nadu, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Eswari Engineering College, Chennai,
600 089, Tamil Nadu, India

E-Mail: palani.k@kanchiuniv.ac.in
Abstract. The quality of a welded joint is strongly decided by the input parameters of the plasma
arc welding process. The mathematical models used to predict the optimum tensile properties
based on the input process parameters of the plasma arc welding. In this investigation, the
response surface methodology is applied to optimize the tensile properties of the Plasma arc
welding of AA8011-H24 aluminium alloys and Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys by proper selection
of process parameters such as welding speed, welding current and gas flow rate. The three
factors, five levels central composite design was applied to conduct the experiments. The impact
of the process parameters on tensile properties of the plasma arc welding process was
investigated by using the sensitivity analysis of the mathematical models. The welding speed
was the more sensitive parameter on the tensile properties of the plasma arc welding compared
to the other parameters followed by the welding current and gas flow rate.

1. Introduction
Owing to high strength-to-weight ratio, good corrosion resistance, low density and low cost of
lightweight hybrid materials, both aluminum alloy and titanium alloy are having more demand in the
fields of aerospace, marine, automotive and transportation industries [1-3] and it reduces the effort of
the fuel consumption. Even though, the formation of brittle intermetallic structures (IMCs) and residual
stress were found which degrade the strength properties at the weld centre of the dissimilar aluminium
alloys with the titanium alloys due to their different chemical properties, viz., melting temperature and
physical properties, viz., Coefficient of linear expansion [4, 5]. Umanath K et al. [6] made an
investigation on the austenitic stainless steel rods using friction welding process and studied the effect
of individual parameters of friction welded joints. They concluded that the least influencing parameters
of forging pressure and friction pressure followed by the rotational speed of the rods on the tensile
strength of the friction welded joints. Tahsini SM et al. [7] made an investigation on the microstructure
of the similar friction welded (FW) joints of AA 7005 aluminum rods with the parameters, viz., friction
pressure and friction time. The fine equiaxed grains were appeared at the rotating side due to higher
cooling rate. The parameters selection of the welding process was the key factor in deciding the quality
of the welded joints discussed by Palani et al. [8, 9].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

The responses of the welding process, viz., bead geometry, tensile properties, hardness and grain
size were optimized by using the different optimization techniques, such as Taguchi method and
response surface methodology reported by Montgomery DC [10]. The enhancement of mechanical
properties was decided by investigating the microstructures at the different zones of the welded joints
studied by Palani et al. [11]. Some of the previous literature was made on the effects of process
parameters on the microstructures and mechanical properties of the welded joints for the different
welding processes. Shi Y et al. [12] studied the effect of underwater wet flux cored arc welding (FCAW)
parameters on weld bead geometry using Taguchi L16 orthogonal array design and they predicted the
responses of the bead geometry in welding compared with the experimental responses. Raja Dhas JE et
al. [13] attempted the investigation on the bead geometry of the low alloy steel using submerged arc
welding process (SAW) with the parameters of arc voltage, welding speed and welding current and also
applied the sensitivity analysis on the SAW process parameters of the welded joints. They reported that
the more sensitiveness of the dilution was found for arc voltage and welding current compared to the
other bead geometry of the joints. Yeni C et al. [14] made an investigation on the microstructure and
mechanical properties of the AA 7075 aluminium alloy joints using both friction stir welding process
and conventional fusion welding process, viz., Metal inert gas welding (MIG) and tungsten inert gas
welding (TIG) process. They observed that the coarse grains for both fusion welding process were found
in weld centre of the joints, whereas the fine grains appeared in stir zone of the joints.
Dongxia Y et al. [15] successfully made a laser welding of dissimilar non-ferrous Al-Mg alloys with
the proper selection of laser welding process parameters, such as welding laser power, welding speed,
wire feed rate to produce the good quality of the welded joints. They optimized that the process
parameters of 2.4 kW laser power, 50 mm/sec welding speed and 35 mm wire feed rate using the Taguchi
method. They reported that the welding speed was the dominant significant parameter compared to other
parameters on the bead geometry of the joints. The lightweight nonferrous alloys were focused in
aerospace, transportation and automobile industries due to its properties such as high strength-to-weight
ratio and corrosion resistance using the friction stir welding process by Elanchezhian C et al. [16]. They
used the Taguchi L9 orthogonal array design to optimize the tensile strength of the welded joints with
the optimum parameters of tool rotational speed of 1400 RPM, transverse speed of 75mm/min, plunge
force of 7 kN, 15.54 mm diameter of the tool, 5.13 mm diameter of the tool pin with tool hardness of
600 HV. Arun Kumar N et al. [17] applied the friction stir welding process on the AA 7075-T651
aluminium alloy 6.35 mm thick plates and optimized the process parameters viz., rotational speed,
transverse speed and plunge force on the impact strength of the welded joints using Taguchi L 9
orthogonal array design. The most contributing parameters of transverse speed 35.81%, axial force
22.23% and rotational speed 7.49% was found using the analysis of variance and also they reported the
maximum impact strength 43.89 for the optimum process settings of rotational speed 1200r/min, axial
force 2 kN and transverse speed 62 mm/min for the FSW joints. The sensitivity of the responses based
on small changes in process parameters of the welding process was studied using the sensitivity analysis.
It is used to enhance the output responses of the welding process by selecting the suitable process
parameters of the joints. Rajakumar S et al. [18] successfully friction stir welding on AA 6061-T6
aluminium alloys and developed the mathematical models to study the nature of the sensitiveness of the
parameters on the welded joints. Also they reported that the optimum parameter settings of rotational
speed of 1150 r/min, axial force of 7.16 kN, transverse speed of 84.3 mm/min, shoulder and pin diameter
of the tool of 15.5 mm and 5.2 mm with 45 HRC tool hardness exhibited the maximum strength
(225 Mpa) of the welded joints.

2
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

The transverse speed showed that as more sensitive than the other parameters on the strength of the
joints using sensitivity analysis. Karthikeyan R et al. [19] focused on the lightweight materials (AA
7075-T6) in aerospace applications using the friction stir spot welding process with the suitable
parameters of plunge depth, rotational speed, plunge rate and dwell period and optimized these
parameters using the response surface methodology. They reported that the initial plunge depth
involvement was more in joining of the alloys, further increment of the plunge depth, there were no
changes occurred, whereas the strength of the joints at certain limit increased by increasing the other
parameter then it was decreased further increment of the other parameters. Saravanan V et al. [20, 21]
successfully investigated the effect of the rotational speed of the FSW tool on the dissimilar AA 2014-
T6 and AA 7075-T6 aluminum alloys joints. They reported that the enhancement of strength properties
owing to the formation of fine equiaxed grain regions in the stir zone with proper material mixing and
plastic deformation of the alloy materials by microstructural analysis. The very limited work was carried
out earlier literature on the dissimilar nonferrous alloys using the plasma arc welding (PAW) process
and the discussion was made only on the bead properties of the welded joints. Ther is no work was
carried out on the sensitiveness of the tensile properties of the PAW process. This work is focused to
investigate the sensitivity of the PAW process parameters on the tensile properties of the joints.
2. Experimental Procedure
In this investigation, the AA 8011 aluminium alloys [22] and Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys (purchased
from Kataria steel distributors, Mumbai, Maharashtra) with the dimensions of 100 mm x 100 mm x 6
mm were selected to make the plasma arc welded (PAW) butt joints. The chemical composition (wt. %)
and mechanical properties of the AA 8011 aluminium alloys and Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys are
presented in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. The plates were initially cut by using the power hacksaw
and the cleaning process was done with Ultrasonic bath sonicator and acetylene.
Table 1 Chemical composition (wt. %) and Mechanical properties of the AA8011-H24 Aluminium alloy

Chemical composition (wt. %)

Fe Si Mn Cu Mg Cr Ti Zn Al
0.74 0.56 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.005 0.08 Balance
Mechanical properties
Yield strength (Mpa) Ultimate tensile strength (Mpa) Elongation (%)
110 140 5.6

Table 2 Chemical composition (wt. %) and Mechanical properties of the Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloy

Chemical composition (wt. %)

Si Fe Al V O C H N Ti
0.0.14 0.30 3.0 2.5 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.02 Balance
Mechanical properties
Yield strength (Mpa) Ultimate tensile strength (Mpa) Elongation (%)
518 620 15

The alloy plates were placed in a horizontal position with 45 o chamber angle and maintained
0.5 mm gap between the plates. The standard ER4043 filler rod with 2 mm diameter and argon gas as
shielding gas was used to join the alloy materials using the plasma arc welding machine is shown in
Figure 1 (fabricated from Sri Multi Weld Systems, Chennai, Tamil Nadu) and the welding conditions
are shown in Table 3. The selection of proper parameters and clamping fixtures decide the good quality
of the welded joints.

3
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

In this investigation, the welding speed, welding current and gas flow rate were selected as the
welding process parameters of the PAW process based on the previous literature on the non-ferrous alloy
materials. The three factors, five levels central composite design of response surface methodology [23]
was introduced to conduct the effective experimental trails by minimizing the effort and cost through
avoiding the unnecessary experiments. The range of parameters and their levels are presented in
Table 4. The twenty different combination of experiments were conducted on these aluminium alloys
and titanium alloys using plasma arc welding process.
Table 3 Plasma Arc Welding process conditions
PAW Parameters Details
Welding Speed, (mm/min) 20 - 100

Welding Current, A 120 - 300

Gas flowrate, (lpm) 10 - 30

Shielding gas Argon

Electrode rod and its diameter ER4043, 2 mm

Nozzle to plate distance, mm 1-6

Torch angle, deg 75-100

Figure 1 Plasma Arc Welding Machine

Table 4 Welding process parameters and their levels for Plasma Arc Welding (PAW)

Levels
Factors Units Notation
-1.672 -1 0 +1 +1.672

Welding Speed mm/min S 23 30 40 50 57

Welding Current Amp I 156 180 215 250 274

Gas Flow rate l/min Q 16 18 21 24 26

The tensile specimens were prepared to perform the tensile behaviour of the PAW butt joints
according to the ASME SEC IX standards [24] using the Tensile testing machine (Model: FIE, UTN 40)
and the tensile testing was conducted in Omega inspection and analytical laboratory, Chennai. The
tensile test response of the PAW butt joints, viz., the tensile strength was shown in Table 5 along with
the design matrix.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Developing a mathematical model for PAW process

The statistical method was used to analyze the responses using the input parameters by response surface
methodology through the collective information of the process shown in equation (1),
Y  f ( x1, x2, ......, xk )   (1)

4
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

Table 5 Design matrix and Experimental results for Plasma Arc Welding (PAW)

PAW process parameters

Welding Welding Tensile strength
Exp. No. Gas Flow rate
Speed Current (Mpa)
(l/min)
(mm/min) (Amp)
1 -1 -1 -1 82
2 1 -1 -1 85.6
3 -1 1 -1 82.8
4 1 1 -1 90.7
5 -1 -1 1 93.2
6 1 -1 1 88.8
7 -1 1 1 66.6
8 1 1 1 68.5
9 -1.682 0 0 88.2
10 1.682 0 0 95
11 0 -1.682 0 72.8
12 0 1.682 0 57.6
13 0 0 -1.682 94
14 0 0 1.682 86.4
15 0 0 0 88.2
16 0 0 0 86
17 0 0 0 85.8
18 0 0 0 85.2
19 0 0 0 86.6
20 0 0 0 85.4

Where Y is the response variable and x1, x2 and xk are the input parameter variables of the process.
The present work deals with the developed regression models shown in equation (2) which gives the
relationship between the PAW parameters and the tensile properties of the butt joints. These second
order models used to predict the tensile properties of the PAW process with acceptable values of the
experimental responses [],

Y=b o +  b i x i +  b ii x i2 +  b ijx i x j +ε (2)

Where bo is the mean value of the responses and bi, bii, bij is the parameter coefficients of the main and
interaction effects. The three factors, five levels central composite design was applied on the second
order quadratic models of the welded joints using Design-Expert 8.1 software [25]. The mathematical
models of the response, viz., the tensile strength of the PAW process are represented in equations (3)

TS(MPa)=86.19+1.50(S)-4.87(I)-2.69(Q)+1.33(SI)-1.75(SQ)-6.60(IQ)
(3)
+1.95(S2 )-7.39(I 2 )+1.45(Q 2 )

5
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

Table 6 Analysis of variance for Tensile strength

Sum of Mean F p-value

Source df
Squares Square Value (Prob > F)
Model 1787.50 9 198.61 161.51 < 0.0001
S-Welding Speed* 30.58 1 30.58 24.87 0.0005
I-Welding Current* 324.43 1 324.43 263.82 < 0.0001
Q-Gas Flowrate* 99.06 1 99.06 80.56 < 0.0001
SI* 14.05 1 14.05 11.42 0.0070
SQ* 24.50 1 24.50 19.92 0.0012
IQ* 348.48 1 348.48 283.38 < 0.0001
S*
2
54.60 1 54.60 44.40 < 0.0001
I*
2
786.48 1 786.48 639.55 < 0.0001
Q*
2
30.36 1 30.36 24.69 0.0006
Residual 12.30 10 1.23
Lack of Fit 6.30 5 1.26 1.05 0.4795
Pure Error 6.00 5 1.20
Core Total 1799.80 19
R-Squared 0.9932 Adj R-Squared 0.9870
Adeq Precision 48.112 Pred R-Squared 0.9682
* Significant Terms
3.2 Checking for adequacy of the model
In this work, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to check the adequacy of the developed
regression model for tensile strength using the Design-Expert 8.1 software. The model F-value of the
tensile strength was found as 161.51 which indicates the model is significant at 95% confidence level
shown in Table 6. The main effects of S, I, Q and interaction effects of SI, SQ, IQ, S2, I2 and Q2 were
studied as a significant model for the tensile strength, whereas there is 47.95% chance of lack of fit
found for the tensile strength which could be more due to noise effects. Furthermore, the regression
coefficient (R2 value) is closer to one which has a good reasonable agreement with the responses [26].
The predicted R2 value of 0.9682 is in good agreement with the adjacent R2 value of 0.9870 for the
tensile strength of the PAW butt joints.
3.3 Sensitivity analysis on the tensile strength of the PAW process
The Sensitivity analysis is to study the sensitiveness of the objective function by the variation of input
parameters of the process which is used to predict the quality of the welded joints. The tendency of
increment or decrement of the objective function based on the critical input process parameters and
priority of these parameters by their contribution were identified to optimize the parameters on the
responses [27]. The partial derivatives were applied on the objective function with respect to the design
parameters to identify the sensitivity of the parameters on the responses [28].
TS
 1.5  1.33( I ) -1.75(Q)  3.9( S ) (4)
S
TS
 4.87  1.33(S) - 6.60(Q)  14.78(I) (5)
I

6
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

TS
 2.69  1.75(S) - 6.60(I)  2.9(Q) (6)
Q
In this work, the sensitivity equations are attained by partial differentiating the mathematical model
of tensile strength with respect to the input parameters, viz., welding speed, welding current and gas
flow rate of the PAW joints and are presented in the equations (4), (5) and (6) respectively.
Table 7 Sensitivity analysis on tensile strength (Welding Current = 250 A)

Sensitivity of Tensile strength (Mpa)

Welding Speed Gas Flow rate Tensile Strength
(mm/min) (lpm) (Mpa) TS/N TS/I TS/Q
16 93.5 -1.47 -9.11 -6.21
18 83.3 -3.22 -15.71 -3.31
20 21 76.1 -4.97 -22.31 -0.41
24 71.7 -6.72 -28.91 2.49
27 70.3 -8.47 -35.51 5.39
16 93.9 2.43 -7.78 -7.96
18 82.1 0.68 -14.38 -5.06
30 21 73.1 -1.07 -20.98 -2.16
24 66.9 -2.82 -27.58 0.74
26 63.8 -4.57 -34.18 3.64
16 98.3 6.33 -6.45 -9.71
18 84.7 4.58 -13.05 -6.81
40 21 73.9 2.83 -19.65 -3.91
24 66.1 1.08 -26.25 -1.01
26 61.2 -0.67 -32.85 1.89
16 106.6 10.23 -5.12 -11.46
18 91.2 8.48 -11.72 -8.56
50 21 78.7 6.73 -18.32 -5.66
24 69.1 4.98 -24.92 -2.76
26 62.4 3.23 -31.52 0.14
16 118.2 14.13 -3.79 -13.21
18 101.6 12.38 -10.39 -10.31
60 21 87.4 10.63 -16.99 -7.41
24 76.1 8.88 -23.59 -4.51
26 67.6 7.13 -30.19 -1.61

In this analysis, the increment of the objective function by a small change in parameter showed as
the positive sensitive behaviour, while the decrement of the objective function showed the negative
sensitive behaviour in the variation of a small amount of parameters of the welded joints [29]. The partial
derivatives of the tensile strength with respect to the input PAW parameters were given in Table 7. The
sensitivity analysis of the tensile strength of the PAW butt joints with respect to a small change in input
process parameters, such as welding speed, welding current and gas flow rate is presented in Figure 2.

7
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

The figure 2(a) showed that the sensitivity of the tensile strength of the PAW process with the small
variations of the welding speed. It can be seen that the tensile strength of the joints is decreased at the
lower welding speed and at constant welding current (250A) whereas tensile strength of the welded
joints gradually increases further increment of welding speed due to proper diffusion of the alloys [30].
The lower tensile strength was observed at the higher welding speed and the constant current shown in
figure 2(b) which is due to improper material reaction at the weld zone and it produces the solidification
defects. The figure 2(c) shows the decrement of the tensile strength of the joints by the small changes in
welding speed and gas flow rate. The combinations of lower gas flow rate and welding speed produced
the higher tensile strength compared to other flowrates while it is lower than the measured tensile
strength.

Figure 2 Sensitivity analysis on the tensile strength of the PAW process, (a) Welding Speed,
(b) Welding Current and (c) Gas Flowrate
It can be seen that the maximum tensile strength was obtained at the higher welding speed with a
constant welding current (250A) due to proper shielding gas nearby and at the welded region which
controls the environmental oxidation process is presented in figure 3. The lower strength was achieved
at the higher gas flow rate with constant welding current (250A) due to the oxidation process was
occurring at the welded region [31] which degrades the strength of the welded joints. The results were
revealed from the figure 2, the welding speed was the more sensitive than the other parameters followed
by the welding current and gas flow rate.

8
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

3.4 Microstructural Analysis

The microstructural analysis of the plasma arc welded joints was discussed to decide the behaviour
of the welded joints on the strength properties. The dissimilar plasma arc welded joints of AA8011-H24
aluminium alloys and Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys was presented in Figure 3. In this work, the
microstructures were examined at different zones of the welded joints. Figure 3(a) showed that the coarse
grains appeared in the base AA8011-H24 of aluminium alloys whereas the grain growth was found at
the heat affected zone (HAZ) in Figure 3(b).

Figure 3 Microstructural Analysis of the PAW butt joints

The different crystalline structure was formed at the weld interface between the aluminium alloys
and titanium alloys in Figure 3(c) which degrades the strength of the welded joints. The clear interface
zone was found in Figure 3(d) nearby the titanium alloys which degrades the strength of the joints and
induced the grain growth due to the heat input [32]. The needle-like structure appeared in Figure 3(e)
which was shown in the titanium material.
4 Conclusions
The optimization of the PAW process parameters on the tensile properties of the AA8011 aluminium
alloys and Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys were investigated using the Response surface methodology. From
this investigation, the following important conclusions are listed below:
 The mathematical relationship was obtained to predict the tensile properties of the plasma arc
welded dissimilar AA8011 aluminium alloys and Ti3Al2.5V Titanium alloys joints by
incorporating the input parameters at 95% confidence level.
 The sensitivity analysis was applied to investigate the sensitiveness of the response, tensile
strength of the welded joints with small variations of process parameters of the dissimilar joints.

9
The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 390 (2018) 012042 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012042
1234567890‘’“”

 The welding speed was the more sensitive parameter compared to the other PAW parameters
followed by the welding current and gas flow rate.
 The intermetallic region was observed at the interface which was nearby the titanium alloys
which reduces the strength of the joints and induced the grain growth due to the heat input.
5 References
[1] Kreimeyer M, Wagner F and Vollertsen F 2005 Opt. Las. Engg. 43 1021-35
[2] Chen YC and Nakata K 2009 Mater. Des. 30 469-74
[3] Palani K, Elanchezhian C, Vijaya Ramnath V, Bhaskar GB, Sai Jagadeesh J and Kumar GM
2017 Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Engg. Technol. 5 437-42
[4] Tomashchuk I, Sallamand P, Méasson A, Cicala E, Duband M and Peyre P 2017 J. Mater. Proc.
Tech. 245 24-36
[5] Peyre P, Berthe L, Dal M, Pouzet S, Sallamand P and Tomashchuk I 2014 J. Mater. Proc. Tech.
214 1946-53
[6] Umanath K, Palanikumar K, Balasubramanian V and Selvamani ST 2015 Appl. Mecha. Mater.
766 757-64
[7] Tahsini SM, Halvaee A and Khosravi H 2016 J. Cent. South Univ. 23 1839-46
[8] Palani K and Elanchezhian C 2015 App. Mech. Mat. 814 451-55
[9] Palani K and Elanchezhian C 2015 App. Mech. Mat. 766 921-27
[10] Montgomery DC 2017 9th ed. Wiley J & Sons, New York
[11] Palani K, Elanchezhian C, Bhaskar GB and Ramnath BV 2018 Adv. Sci. Engg. Med. 10 1-6
[12] Shi Y, Zheng Z and Huang J 2013 Trans. Nonfer. Met. Soc. China 23 1977-84
[13] Raja Dhas JE and Satheesh M 2013 Ind. J. Eng. Mater. Sci 20 425-34
[14] Yeni C, Sayer S and Pakdil M 2009 Kovov. Mater. 47 341-47
[15] Dongxia Y, Xiaoyan L, Dingyong H, Zuoren N and Hui H 2012 Opt. Las. Tech. 44 2020-25
[16] Elanchezhian C, Ramnath BV, Venkatesan P, Sathish S, Vignesh T, Siddharth RV, Vinay B and
Gopinath K 2014 Proc. Engg. 97 775-82
[17] Arun Kumar N, Elanchezhian C and Ramnath BV 2014 Int. J. Engg. Res. 3 (1) 148-50
[18] Rajakumar S, Muralidharan C and Balasubramanian V 2011 Int. J. Manuf. Res. 6 (3) 215-35
[19] Karthikeyan R and Balasubramanian V 2012 Int. J. Manuf. Res. 7 (3) 257-72
[20] Saravanan V, Rajakumar S and Muruganandam A 2016 J. Adv. Mech. Engg. Sci. 2 (4) 19-24
[21] Saravanan V, Banerjee N, Amuthakkannan R and Rajakumar S 2015 Appl. Mech. Mater. 787
350-54
[22] Palani K, Elanchezhian C 2015 Appl. Mecha. Mater. 813 446-450
[23] Palanivel R and Koshy Mathews P 2012 J. Cent. South Univ. 19 1-8
[24] Juang SC and Tang YS 2005 J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 160 128-37
[25] Vijayan D and Rao VS 2016 J. Cent. South Univ. 23 1847-57
[26] Benyounis KY, Olabi AG and Hashmi MSJ 2005 J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 164 978-85
[27] Karthikeyan R and Balasubramanian V 2013 Exp. Tech. 37 (2) 6-15
[28] Kim IS, Son KJ, Yang YS and Yaragada PKDV 2003 Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 43 763-69
29] Karaoglu S and Secgin A 2008 J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 202 500-07
[30] Tian X, Liu Y, Deng W and Liu G 2015 Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 78 (1-4) 481-92
[31] Taban E and Kaluc E 2007 Kovov. Mater. 45 241-48
[32] Balasubramanian M, Jayabalan V and Balasubramanian V 2007 Int. J. Manu. Res. 2 (4) 403-13

10