Advertisement

Modeling and analysis of ferrite number of stainless steel gas tungsten arc welded plates using response surface methodology

  • R. Sudhakaran
  • V. VeL Murugan
  • P. S. Sivasakthivel
  • M. Balaji
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

The prediction of delta ferrite content expressed in terms of ferrite number in austenitic stainless steel welds is very helpful in assessing its performance. The final ferrite content determines the properties of weldments such as strength, toughness, corrosion resistance, and phase stability. This paper presents a study on the effect of process parameters on ferrite number in 202 grade stainless steel gas tungsten arc welded plates (GTAW). Experiments were conducted based on response surface methodology. The ferrite number was determined by using a ferrite scope and by using DeLong diagram. A mathematical model was developed correlating the important controllable GTAW process parameters like welding gun angle, welding speed, plate length, welding current, and shielding gas flow rate with ferrite number. The adequacy of the model was checked using analysis of variance technique. The developed model is very useful to quantitatively determine the ferrite number. The main and interaction effects of the process parameters are presented in graphical form that helps in selecting quickly the process parameters to achieve the desired results.

Keywords

Ferrite number GTAW Response surface methodology Analysis of variance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kumar A, Sundararajan S (2008) Effect of welding parameters on mechanical properties and optimization of pulsed TIG welding of Al–Mg–Si alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. doi: 10.1007/s00170-008-1527-8
  2. 2.
    Vitek JM, David SA, Hihman CR (2003) Improved ferrite number prediction model that accounts for cooling rate effects—part 1: model development. Weld J (AWS) 89(2):10s–17sGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vitek JM, Iskander YS, Oblow EM (2000) Improved ferrite number prediction in stainless steel arc welds using artificial neural networks, 1: neural network development. Weld J (AWS) 79(2):33s–40sGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schaeffler AL (1947) Selection of austenitic electrodes for welding dissimilar metals. Weld J (AWS) 26(10):601s–620sGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeLong WT, Ostrom GA, Szumachowski ER (1956) Measurement and calculations of ferrite in stainless steel weld metal. Weld J (AWS) 35(11):521s–528sGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotecki DJ, Siewert TA (1992) WRC-1992 constitution diagram for stainless steel weld metals: a modification of the WRC-1998 diagram. Weld J (AWS) 71(5):171s–178sGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kotecki DJ (1999) A martensite boundary on the WRC-1992 diagram. Weld J (AWS) 78(5):180s–192sGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balmforth MC, Lippold JC (2000) A new ferritic—martensitic stainless steel constitution diagrams. Weld J (AWS) 79(12):339s–345sGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kannan T, Murugan N (2005) Prediction of ferrite number of duplex stainless steel clad metals using RSM. Weld J (AWS) 84:91s–100sGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palani PK, Murugan N (2006) Prediction of delta ferrite content and effect of welding process parameters in claddings by FCAW. Mater Manuf Process 21:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vasudevan M, Bhaduri AK, Raj B, Prasad Rao K (2003) Delta ferrite prediction in stainless steel welds using neural network analysis and comparison with other prediction methods. J Mater Process Technol 142:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siewert TA, McCowan CN, Olson DL (1988) Ferrite number prediction to 100 FN in stainless steel weld metal. Weld J (AWS) 67(12):289s–297sGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raveendra J, Parmar RS (1987) Mathematical models to predict weld bead geometry for flux cored arc welding. J Metal Construct 19(2):31R–35RGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murugan N, Parmar RS (1997) Effect of welding conditions on microstructure and properties of tube 316L stainless submerged arc welding cladding. Weld J (AWS) 76(5):210s–220sGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sudhakaran R, VeL Murugan V, Senthilkumar KM (2011) Effect of welding process parameters on weld bead geometry and optimization of process parameters to maximize depth to width ratio for stainless steel gas tungsten arc welded plates using genetic algorithm. Eur J Sci Res 62(1):76–94Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gunaraj V, Murugan N (1999) Application of response surface methodology for predicting weld bead quality in submerged arc welding of pipes. J Mater Process Technol 88:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kannan T, Murugan N (2006) Effect of flux cored arc welding process parameters on duplex stainless steel clad quality. J Mater Process Technol 176:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sudhakaran R, VeL Murugan V, Sivasakthivel PS, Balaji M (2011) Prediction and optimization of depth of penetration for stainless steel gas tungsten arc welded plates using artificial neural networks and simulated annealing algorithm. Neural Comput Applic. doi: 10.1007/s00521-011-0720-5
  19. 19.
    Tarng YS, Tsai HL, Yeh SS (1999) Modeling, optimization and classification of weld quality in tungsten inert gas welding. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:1427–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Allen TT, Richardson RW, Tagliabue DP, Maul GP (2002) Statistical process design for robotic GMA welding of sheet metal. Weld J (AWS): 69s–77sGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montgomery DC, Peck EA (1992) Introduction to linear regression analysis. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    VeL Murugan V, Gunaraj V (2005) Effect of process parameters on angular distortion of gas metal arc welded structural steel plates. Weld J (AWS) 84:165s–171sGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cochran WG, Cox GM (1987) Experimental designs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Welding, brazing and soldering (1993) ASM Handbook.6: ASM International, Materials Park, OhioGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Long CJ, DeLong WT (1973) The ferrite content of austenitic stainless steel weld metal. Weld J (AWS) 52(7):281s–297sGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeLong OGA, Szumachowski ER (1956) Measurement and calculation of ferrite in stainless steel weld metal. Weld J (AWS) 35(11):521s–528sGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Montgomery DC (2003) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mini Tab Release 14 (2004), Minitab Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anderson M, Whitcomb P (2005) RSM simplified: optimizing processes using response surface methods for design of experiments. Productivity Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dvivedi A, Kumar P, Singh I (2010) Machining characteristics of Al 6063 SiCp metal matrix composite using electric discharge machining. J Manuf Technol Res, Nova Sci USA 1(3–4):247–272Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gunaraj V, Murugan N (2000) Prediction and optimization of weld bead volume for the submerged arc process—part 1. Weld J (AWS) 79:286s–294sGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Sudhakaran
    • 1
  • V. VeL Murugan
    • 2
  • P. S. Sivasakthivel
    • 3
  • M. Balaji
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKumaraguru College of TechnologyCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.Sree Sakthi Engineering CollegeCoimbatoreIndia
  3. 3.School of Mechanical EngineeringSASTRA UniversityThanjavurIndia

Personalised recommendations