See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264088857

Comparative Investigation of Mechanical Properties in GMAW/GTAW for

Various Shielding Gas Compositions

Article in Materials and Manufacturing Processes · August 2014

DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2014.901527

CITATIONS READS

17 401

3 authors, including:

Satheesh Kumar K V Sa Gejendhiran

Kongu Engineering College Nandha Engineering College
18 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Satheesh Kumar K V on 27 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 29: 996–1003, 2014
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1042-6914 print=1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2014.901527

Comparative Investigation of Mechanical Properties in

GMAW/GTAW for Various Shielding Gas Compositions
K. V. Satheesh Kumar1, S. Gejendhiran1, and M. Prasath2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai, Erode, Tamil Nadu, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, K.S. Rangaswamy College of Technology, Thiruchengodu, Tamil Nadu, India

Gas metal arc welding (GMAW) and gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) are extensively used in the areas requiring high-speed welds,
higher weld quality finishes, and superior strength properties. In this experimental study, the influence of shielding gas composition on
the mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steel 316L was investigated. The selection of shielding gases and current intensities is the
major concern to achieve the intended properties of the weld metal. The influence of four various shielding gas compositions was studied
in this work. It was carried out in both GMAW and GTAW for 3 and 6 mm thick plates. Optimization of shielding gas mixtures, current
intensities, flow rates, and welding speed is required to automate the process and to improve the overall efficiency of the weld process. Mech-
anical properties are analyzed for GTAW and GMAW specimens. The obtained results prove that the tensile strength, hardness, and impact
strength are higher for GTAW weld specimens compared to GMAW weld specimens. Further by decreasing the percentage of CO2, the
tensile strength and hardness values give the superior results.

Keywords GMAW; GTAW; Shielding gas mixtures; Weld parameter.

INTRODUCTION component of shielding gas affects welded metal properties

Welding is one of the most widely used metal
fabrication methods. The main concern with welding
processes in the past was generally concentrated with
productivity and quality. In the global environment
welding, plays a major role in manufacturing. The gas
metal arc welding (GMAW) and gas tungsten arc weld-
ing (GTAW) process has been of great importance in
welding due to their high flexibility than the other weld-
ing process. The welding parameters like welding cur-
rent, welding speed, and arc voltage are the important
factors affecting the quality, productivity, and cost of
welding. Weld bead geometry directly affects the cost
of welding. Shielding gas plays an important role in
most of the arc welding methods. It has two main func-
tions. One is to protect the arc and weld pool from the
atmospheric air. This protection prevents the oxygen
in the air oxidizing the weld pool and heated metal.
Similarly, other elements in the air (hydrogen, nitrogen,
etc.) are also prevented from having a negative impact.
In the heat-affected zone, hydrogen may even embrittle
the parent metal. The second function is the promotion
of stable metal transfer through the arc; beside this, the
composition of the shielding gas also influences the weld
geometry, weld speed, the burnoff of alloying elements,
corrosion resistance, and mechanical properties. Each
Received December 19, 2013; Accepted February 17, 2014
Address correspondence to K. V. Satheesh Kumar, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai,
Erode 638 052, Tamil Nadu, India; E-mail: satheeshsep24@gmail.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/lmmp.
in different ways. Thus the different combination of the
gases are chosen for different metals and welding methods
[1–13]. There are number of shielding gases commonly
used, each with their own specific properties, and they have
the ability to affect the mode of metal transfer, cleaning
action, penetration level, and weld geometry [14, 15].
Changing the weld parameters and the shielding gas com-
position leads to the change in bead dimensions and pen-
etration [16]. Many researchers, Mohammad Ebrahimnia
et al. [17], Ramazan Yilmaz et al. [18], P. Sathiya et al.
[19], have studied the effect of shielding gas compositions
in the mechanical weld properties. Mohammad
Ebrahimnia et al. [17] showed the results of increase in
the toughness, depth of fusion in the welded joints of ST
37-2 by using argon and carbon dioxide blends. Sittichai
et al. [20] have concluded that if there is increase in carbon
dioxide content in shielding gas mixtures, it will increase
the toughness and depth of penetration of the weld until
a certain limit. Hardness and angular distortion of the
weldment will decrease. Sivashanmugam et al. [21] have
showed that the increase in tensile strength, weld bead
shape, and depth of penetration in the welded austenitic
stainless steel on using of argon and carbon dioxide shield-
ing gas mixtures in a TIG welding apparatus. The objective
of this research work is to determine the better quality of
weld by changing its composition of shielding gas and
the welding parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Stainless steel occupies an important place in the
structural design. The molybdenum gives grade 304
lesser overall corrosion resistant properties than 316L,

996
COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES IN GMAW/GTAW
TABLE 1.—Chemical composition for stainless steel Grade 316L.
Grade Composition range C Mn Si Cr Mo Ni
316L Min % — — — 16.00 2.00 10.00
Max % 0.03 2.00 0.75 18.00 3.00 14.00
particularly lesser resistance to crevice corrosion and
pitting in chloride environments. The Grade 316L is
the low carbon version of 316 and is immune from
sensitization. So it is widely used in heavy gauge welded
components (above 6 mm). Generally there is no
appreciable price difference between 316 and 316L
stainless steel. The austenitic structure in these grades
also gives the better toughness, even reduced to cryo-
genic temperatures. When compared to chromium–
nickel austenitic stainless steels, the 316L stainless
steel offers higher stress to rupture, creep, and higher
tensile strength at elevated temperatures. The chemical
composition of Grade 316L is shown in the Table 1.
The geometry of the work piece is shown in the Fig. 1.
The material of the work piece is stainless steel Grade
316L with a Poisson ratio of 0.33, tensile strength of
570 MPa, yield stress of 346 MPa, and the hardness of
217 BH. The outline dimensions of the work piece
are (100
100
3) mm3 and (100
100
6) mm3. The
shielding gas used in this work are pure argon, pure
Co2, Ar 92% þ CO2 8%, and Ar 88% þ CO2 12%.
The welding parameters used in the research are given
in Table 2. All the samples were thoroughly prepared to
remove any surface oxides and decreasing using acetone.
The welding was performed by GMAW and GTAW
processes in an enclosed chamber. Direct current elec-
trode positive (DCEP) and 1.2 mm ER 316L were used
in this experiment. Shielding was supplied by the shield-
ing gas through the nozzle at a constant flow rate. The
sample (S1) is welded with argon as a shielding at
a pressure of 1 bar and a flow rate of 15 LPM. Welding
was performed using a welding current of 150 A and
welding voltage approximately 17–20 V and an arc
FIGURE 1.—Dimension of the work piece.
997
TABLE 2.—Process parameters for welding.
Process parameter Values
Electrode type ER316L
Electrode diameter (mm) 1.2
Gas flow (LPM) 15
Thickness (mm) 3, 6
Welding speed (mm=min) 200
Wire feed rate (mm=min) 1.5
Welding current (A) 150–180
Welding voltage (V) 23–45
Welding speed (mm=sec) 2.2
Arc gap (mm) 2
Welding rod diameter (mm) 1.2
length of 2 mm has to be maintained. For the second
sample (S2), argon was supplied as a shielding gas at
a pressure of 1 bar with constant flow rate, and the
welding parameters are welding current as 180 A, welding
voltage as the range of 28–30 V, and the arc length of
2 mm.
For the third sample (S3), argon was used as a shield-
ing gas at a pressure of 1 bar with constant flow rate, and
the process parameters are welding current of 200 A,
welding voltage in the range of 38 to 42 V, and arc length
of 2 mm; under these conditions the sample can be
welded. For the samples S4, S5, and S6 were welded
under the process parameters of the pure carbon dioxide
was supplied as the shielding gas at atmospheric pressure
of 1 bar at a flow rate of 15 l=minute, welding current
can vary from 150 to 200 A (150 A, 180 A, and 200 A),
welding voltage in the range of 25 to 45 V, and the arc
length of 2 mm was to be maintained. The same welding
parameters have to be maintained for the shielding gas
mixtures (Ar 92% þ CO2 8%) & (Ar 88% þ CO2 12%),
and these weld samples are represented from S7 to S12.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tensile Testing
The aim of the tensile test is to evaluate the strength and
plasticity of welding joints and examine the influence of
welding defects on the joint performance. The test is done
on computer interface electronic universal testing
machine. The transverse tensile strength, yield strength,
and the percentage of elongation of all joints have been
evaluated. Before testing the welded specimen was cut in
to the required dimension. The dimension of tensile speci-
men was based on ASTM-E8 standard as shown in Fig. 2.
The tensile test result of GMAW and GTAW
process for 150 A, 180 A, and 200 A were shown in the
Tables 3–5.
Figures 3 and 4 show the comparison of tensile
strength by varying shielding gas compositions and weld
techniques for 3 mm and 6 mm plates at welding current
of 150 A.
Figures 5 and 6 show the comparison of tensile
strength by varying shielding gas compositions and weld
techniques for 3 and 6 mm plates at welding current of
180 A.
998 K. V. SATHEESH KUMAR ET AL.

FIGURE 2.—Tensile specimen as per ASTM E8 standard.

TABLE 3.—Tensile results of GMAW and GTAW process for 180 A.

Yield strength Ultimate tensile

in Mpa strength in Mpa
FIGURE 3.—Comparison of tensile strength for 3 mm plate at 150 A.
Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 467 471 575 584

Pure CO2 441 443 571 578
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 478 486 578 589
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 455 459 572 579
6 mm Pure argon 613 627 704 714
Pure CO2 595 600 703 708
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 630 639 712 726
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 607 618 707 710

TABLE 4.—Tensile results of GMAW and GTAW processes for 150 A.

Yield strength Ultimate tensile

in Mpa strength in Mpa

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 463 471 579 580

Pure CO2 441 443 575 578
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 478 486 588 596
FIGURE 4.—Comparison of tensile strength for 6 mm plate at 150 A.
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 455 459 577 579
6 mm Pure argon 613 632 713 719
Pure CO2 595 600 708 711
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 620 640 725 732
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 607 618 711 722

TABLE 5.—Tensile results of GMAW and GTAW processes for 200 A.

Yield strength Ultimate tensile

in Mpa strength in Mpa

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 470 486 583 597

Pure CO2 441 443 580 582
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 479 484 592 606
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 455 459 588 593
6 mm Pure argon 630 638 730 734
Pure CO2 595 600 710 716
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 643 653 738 745
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 607 618 716 718
FIGURE 5.—Comparison of tensile strength for 3 mm plate at 180 A.
COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES IN GMAW/GTAW 999

From the above results, it is clearly noted that the

welding strength is higher than the base metal strength.
Among the four shielded weld metals, tensile strength is
higher than the base metal and in particular the Ar
92% þ CO2 8% shielded weld metal, and its tensile strength
is higher than the other shielded weld metals in both weld-
ing process. Presence of carbon dioxide in shielding gas
mixtures will affect the tensile strength of weldment. When
compared to (GMAW), (GTAW) obtained the better
result because its weld penetration is much higher than
GMAW. By varying the weld parameters, the tensile results
can be varied due to heat supplied, weld penetration, etc.

FIGURE 6.—Comparison of tensile strength for 6 mm plate at 180 A.
Figures 7 and 8 show the comparison of tensile strength
by varying shielding gas compositions and weld techni-
ques for 3 and 6 mm plates at welding current of 200 A.
Hardness Properties
This is to determine the hardness value of weld metal
and to compare the results with base metal. The test can
be conducted on Brinell hardness machine (Hitech India
Equipments Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India).
Here, 15 locations were marked and hardness value
was found for each of the location. Tables 6–8 show
TABLE 6.—Hardness value of GMAW and GTAW processes for 150 A.

Hardness value in BHN

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 158 180

Pure CO2 163 185
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 172 192
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 168 186
6 mm Pure argon 168 196
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 194 215
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 184 212

TABLE 7.—Hardness value of GMAW and GTAW process for 180 A.

Hardness value in BHN

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW

FIGURE 7.—Comparison of tensile strength for 3 mm plate at 200 A. 3 mm Pure argon 168 182
Pure CO2 170 188
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 181 195
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 178 190
6 mm Pure argon 170 198
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 195 218
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 186 215

TABLE 8.—Hardness value of GMAW and GTAW processes for 200 A.

Hardness value

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 180 185

Pure CO2 181 190
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 196 199
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 186 196
6 mm Pure argon 170 200
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 195 224
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 194 219
FIGURE 8.—Comparison of tensile strength for 6 mm plate at 200 A.
1000
FIGURE 9.—Comparison of hardness value for 3 mm plate at 150 A.
the hardness values of GMAW and GTAW processes
for various welding parameters.
Figures 9–14 show the comparison of hardness profile
by varying shielding gas compositions and weld techni-
ques for 3 mm and 6 mm plates at welding current of
150, 180 and 200 A.
The weld zone location shows better hardness when
compared to other areas. Also the heat-affected zone
FIGURE 10.—Comparison of hardness value for 6 mm plate at 150 A.
K. V. SATHEESH KUMAR ET AL.
FIGURE 11.—Comparison of hardness value for 3 mm plate at 180 A.
has comparatively lower hardness value than the base
metal due to dislocation of grains and one of the factors
contributing to lower the hardness in heat-affected zone
is that of high heat input and retention of heat in this
region.
Generally grain nucleation and growth of austenite
can lead to reduce the dislocations of grains and
work hardening compared to its elementary condition.
FIGURE 12.—Comparison of hardness value for 6 mm plate at 180 A.
COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES IN GMAW/GTAW 1001

FIGURE 15.—Specimen for Impact test.

CO2, its microstructure is mainly austenite phase and

in small area adjacent to the boundary ferrite structure
is formed. As results of the formation of primarily aus-
tenitic structure which presents the nucleation of very
fine grain size and low inter granular spacing, it will
attained the maximum hardness value. And from the
results, it is clear that increase in current intensity
increases the hardness value for all shielding gases.

FIGURE 13.—Comparison of hardness value for 3 mm plate at 200 A.
Among the shielding gas mixture, argon 92% þ CO2 8%
will give the better hardness value when compared to
other shielding gas mixtures in GMAW and GTAW
process. The sample welded under the 92% Ar þ 8%
Impact Properties
In order to evaluate the Charpy impact toughness
values of welded joint, a series of Charpy V-notch test
were carried out from specimen welded with different
shielding gases at room temperature (Fig. 15).
Notches were prepared in the base metal and weld
zone. The impact toughness of an unwelded base metal
was found to be 60 joule, which is comparatively lower
than the other three shielded weld metal impact
strengths. The impact values of welded joints are shown
in the Tables 9–11.
Figures 16 and 17 show the comparison of toughness
values by varying shielding gas compositions and weld
techniques for 3 mm plate at welding current of 150,
180, and 200 A.
The impact properties are of greater importance if the
materials are to be employed for temperature appli-
cations. This is due to the least amount of nitrogen in

TABLE 9.—Toughness value of GMAW and GTAW process for 150 A.

Toughness value in joule

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 64 65
Pure CO2 72 73
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 63 66
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 65 67

TABLE 10.—Toughness value of GMAW and GTAW processes for 180 A.

Toughness value in joule

Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW

3 mm Pure argon 62 65
Pure CO2 68 70
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 62 64
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 60 65
FIGURE 14.—Comparison of hardness value for 6 mm plate at 200 A.
1002 K. V. SATHEESH KUMAR ET AL.

TABLE 11.—Toughness value of GMAW and GTAW processes for 200 A. CONCLUSIONS
Toughness value in joule A butt joint model is developed to make the analysis
of mechanical properties for different shielding gas
Thickness Shielding gas GMAW GTAW mixtures. In this investigation, sequential coupling pro-
3 mm Pure argon 61 63
cedure was used to determine better shielding gas mix-
Pure CO2 66 66 ture for GMAW and GTAW. In both processes, the
Ar 92% þ CO2 8% 60 61 better tensile strength was obtained when the CO2% is
Ar 88% þ CO2 12% 61 64 decreased in the shielding gas mixtures. In both pro-
cesses, the better hardness value was obtained from the
shielding gas blends of Ar 92% þ CO2 8% and impact
strength increased with an addition of percentage of
carbon dioxide in the shielding gas mixtures.

SCOPE OF THE FUTURE WORK

In future, trigas mixture can be used and the corre-
sponding mechanical properties have to be calculated.
The CO2 and Ar are the major gases used in this analy-
sis. Further we can analyze with hydrogen, helium, or
nitrogen combination with argon and carbon dioxide.
Here the tensile strength and hardness are considered
for result analysis. Further the flexural, microscopic
analysis is to be considered. Different thickness of filler
wire, current variation, and bevel angle can be varied
in future.
FIGURE 16.—Comparison the toughness value by varying welds
parameters in GMAW process.
REFERENCES
1. Kang, B.Y.; Kang, M.J.; Kim, H.J.; Yarlagadda, K.D.V.
Prasad.; Kim, I.S. Characteristics of alternate supply of
the weld metal and also due to the presence high amount shielding gases in aluminium GMA welding. Journal of
of interdendritic phases in the weld metal. Among Material Processing Technology 2009, 209, 4716–4721.
the shielding gas mixtures, pure CO2 will give the better 2. Hooda, A.; Dhingra, A.; Sharma, S. Optimization of MIG
hardness value when compared to other shielding gas welding process parameters to predict maximum yield
mixtures. The sample welded under the condition of strength in AISI 1040. International Journal of Mechanical
pure CO2, and its microstructure was the absence Engineering and Robotics Research 2002, 1, 203–213.
of intermetallic phases and fine dimple size due to that 3. Anjaneya Prasad, B.; Prasanna, P. Experimental comparison
it will attain maximum hardness value. And from the of the MIG and Friction stir welding processes for AA 6061
results, it is clear that increase in current intensity (Al Mg Si Cu) aluminium alloy. International Journal of
decreases the toughness value of weldment for all Mining, Metallurgy & Mechanical Engineering 2013, 1,
shielding gases. 137–140.
4. Arunkumar, N.; Duraisamy, P.; Veeramanikandan, S.
Evaluation of mechanical properties of dissimilar metal tube
welded joints using inert gas welding. International Journal
Of Engineering Research and Applications 2012, 2, 1709–1717.
5. Durgutlu, A.; Experimental investigation of the effect of
hydrogen in argon as a shielding gas on TIG welding of aus-
tenitic stainless steel. Materials and Design 2004, 25, 19–23.
6. Hsieh, C.-C.; Lin, D.-Y.; Chen, M.-C.; Wu, W. Microstruc-
ture, recrystallization, and mechanical property evolutions
in the heat-affected and fusion zones of the dissimilar stainless
steels. Materials Transactions 2007, 48, 2898–2892.
7. Gharibshahiyan, E.; Honarbakhsh Raouf, A.; Parvin, N.;
Rahimian, M. The effect of microstructure on hardness and
toughness of low carbon welded steel using inert gas welding.
Materials and Design 2011, 32, 2042–2048.
8. Ekici, M.; Ozsarac, U. Investigation of mechanical properties
of microalloyed steels joined by GMAW and electrical arc
welding. Acta Physica Polonica A 2012, 123, 289–290.
FIGURE 17.—Comparison the toughness value by varying welds 9. El-Din Mohamed A Hassan, H.; Sadek, A.A.; Amin, U.
parameters in GTAW process. Effect of shielding gas composition on the mechanical
 COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES IN GMAW/GTAW
properties and corrosion resistance of AISI 321 stainless steel
welds using GMAW process. The Egyptian International Jour-
nal of Engineering Science and Technology 2010, 13, 30–40.
10. Kacar, R.; Kokemli, K. Effect of controlled atmosphere on
the MIG-MAG arc weldment properties. Materials & Design
Journal 2005, 6, 508–516.
11. Kurşun, T. Effect of the GMAW and the GMAW-P welding
processes on microstructure, hardness, tensile and impact
strength of AISI 1030 steel joints fabricated by ASP316L
austenitic stainless steel filler metal. Archives of Metulurgy
and Materials 2011, 56, 955–963.
12. Lakshminarayanan, A.K.; Balasubramanian, V.; Elangovan,
K. Effect of welding processes on tensile properties of
AA6061 aluminium alloy joints. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2009, 40, 286–296.
13. Lu, S.; Fujii, H.; Nogi, K. Weld shape comparison with iron
oxide flux and Ar-O2 shielding gas in gas tungsten arc weld-
ing. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2004, 3,
272–276.
14. Monika, K.; Bala Chennaiah, M.; Nanda Kumar, P.;
Prahalada Rao, P. The effect of heat input on the mechanical
properties of MIG welded dissimilar joints. International Jour-
nal of Engineering Research & Technology 2013, 2, 1406–1413.
15. Nanda, G.; Nanda, A.; Kumar, S. Optimizing the mechanical
properties of AISI 304 steel in gas metal arc welding
View publication stats
1003
process. International Journal on Emerging Technologies
2013, 4, 112–122.
16. Shanping, L.U.; Hidetoshi, L.; Kiyoshi, F. Effects of CO2
shielding gas additions and welding speed on GTA weld
shape. Journal of Material Science 2005, 40, 2481–2485.
17. Ebrahimnia, M.; Goodarzi, M.; Nouri, M.; Sheikhi, M. Study
of the effect of shielding gas composition on the mechanical
weld properties of steel ST 37-2 in gas metal arc welding.
Materials and Design 2009, 30, 3891–3895.
18. Yilmaz, R.; Uzan, H. Mechanical properties of austenitic
stainless steels welded by GMAW and GTAW. Journal of
Marmara for Pure and Applied Sciences 2002, 18, 97–113.
19. Sathiya, P.; Mishra, M.K.; Shanmugarajan, B. Effect of
shielding gases on microstructure and mechanical properties
of super austenitic stainless steel by hybrid welding. Materials
and Design 2012, 33, 203–212.
20. Sittichai, K.; Santirat, N.; Sompong, P. A Study of gas metal
arc welding affecting mechanical properties of austenitic
stainless steel AISI 304. World Academy of Science Engineer-
ing and Technology 2012, 6, 402–405.
21. Sivashanmugam, M.; Manoharan, N.; Ananthapadmanaban,
D.; Kumar, R. Investigation of microstructure and mechan-
ical properties of GTAW and GMAW joints on AA7075
aluminum alloy. International Journal on Design and
Manufacturing Technologies 2009, 3, 56–62.