Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Multi optimization of weld bead characteristics during GTAW of Inconel

825 using teaching learning based optimization
Bishub Choudhury, M. Chandrasekaran ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, NERIST, Nirjuli, Arunachal Pradesh, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Welding of higher strength and higher corrosion resistant materials has always been a difficult task for
Received 9 February 2020 the researchers. The higher strain hardening tendency and higher dynamic shear strength of the materi-
Accepted 18 May 2021 als make it challenging for fabrication. Gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) is a popular welding technique
Available online xxxx
used for fabricating superalloys with high quality and low distortion. In this work, GTAW experiments
were carried out on 2.5 mm thick Inconel 825 using an L27 Box- Behnken experimental design.
Keywords: Welding current (I), welding speed (V), arc length (L) and gas flow rate (G) were considered as weld
Inconel 825
parameters to investigate welding characteristics viz., penetration (P) and width of the weld (W).
GTAW
Weld bead geometry
Response surface modeling (RSM) was developed to predict the process responses. For both the
TLBO responses, welding current is found as the most influential process parameter followed by welding speed.
Increase in I increases P and W and decreases with an increase in V. Multi optimization using teaching
learning based optimization (TLBO) algorithm results in optimum fitness value of 0.1930 at parameter
setting of I = 87.682 A, V = 200.97 mm/min, G = 6.829 l/min, L = 2 mm. The corresponding optimum values
of P and W are 2.202 mm and 4.039 mm respectively. The TLBO algorithm found effective and obtain the
result with faster convergence (takes only 2–5 iterations) for obtaining the global optimum solution.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the First International Con-
ference on Advanced Trends in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

1. Introduction
Fabrication of metals and alloys has always been an integral
part of the manufacturing industry. Welding is a metal joining
process which has its own significance and importance in these
industries for the fabrication of various metals and alloys. How-
ever, welding of all kind of material is always been a complicated
task for the investigators, especially those nickel and titanium
based alloys. Difficulties like hot and cold creaking in the weld
zone, loss of strength in the weld as well heat affected zone
(HAZ), the formation of leave phase, etc. were mostly encountered
by the researchers[1,2]. However, these difficulties can be undone
with proper procedure and techniques. Ramkumar et al. conducted
a weldability study on Inconel 718 while welding using A-TIG pro-
cess. Two fluxes TiO2 and SiO2 were considered and TiO2 flux
assisted weldments recorded lesser leave phase formation [3].
Study on the effect of cooling rate on leave phase formation was
carried out by Manikandan et al. The higher instantaneous cooling
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mchse1@yahoo.com (M. Chandrasekaran).
rate was found beneficial in controlling leave phase formation sen-
sitivity [4]. Xin et al. investigated the impact of heat input on hot
creaking tendency in weldments. Lower heat input was suggested
for controlling hot creaking tendency [5].
Welding is one of the most efficient and economical techniques
that is used to join metals and alloys permanently. This is a complex
multi-factor, multi-response process which needs proper control
over input parameters in producing quality weld bead profile with
superior mechanical properties. Modelling and optimization are
employed to provide in depth knowledge on effects of different
parameters on the output characteristics and to provide an optimal
condition [6]. Recently, many researchers have adopted many con-
ventional and soft computing based techniques to predict responses
and optimize the results. Murugan and Ganaraj used RSM design to
forecast angular distortion in the GMAW process. Graphical plots
were plotted by them to study the direct and interaction effect of var-
ious GMAW process parameters [7]. Dutta et al. used Taguchi-Grey
Relation Analysis (GRA) to optimize submerged arc welding (SMAW)
parameters for optimal weld bead geometry [8].Taguchi method was
used by Kumar & Sundarrajan for optimization of pulsed TIG welding
parameters to enhance mechanical characteristics of the weldments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.368
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the First International Conference on Advanced Trends in Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering.

Please cite this article as: B. Choudhury and M. Chandrasekaran, Multi optimization of weld bead characteristics during GTAW of Inconel 825 using teach-
ing learning based optimization, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.368
B. Choudhury and M. Chandrasekaran Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

[9] . Nagesh and Dutta (2010) used an integrated method, where Arti-
ficial Neural Network (ANN) was used for prediction of weld bead
parameters and Genetic Algorithm (GA) to optimize the TIG welding
process parameters for an optimumweld bead geometry [10] . Wan
et al. carry out an investigation on resistance spot welding of tita-
nium alloy where principal component analysis (PCA) and GA are
used for optimization of weld parameters for optimal nugget diame-
ter, failure energy, failure displacement, and failure load [11] .
Moghaddam et al., (2017) employed integrated ANN-Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) approach for modelling and optimization of
GMAW parameters to produce optimum joint edge geometry[12] .
Rao and Kalayankar used a relatively new approach called Teaching
Learning Based optimization (TLBO) to multi-response optimization
of industrial laser beam welding process (LBW). The implementation
of TLBO results in significant improvement on the optimum results
[13].
In this work, response surface modelling of GTAW process
parameters such as welding current (I), welding speed (V), gas flow
rate (G) and arc length (L) is carried out to predict two weld bead
responses viz., penetration (P) and width of the weld (W). ANOVA
analysis and contour plots were plotted to analyse the influence of
process factors on the responses. Multi-objective optimization is
carried out using TLBO approach to maximize penetration and
minimize the width of the weld.

2. Experimental investigation

Welding experimentations were carried out on 2.5 mm thin

Inconel 825 sheets. Welding current (I), welding speed (V), gas flow
rate (G) and arc length (L) are chosen as process parameters for this
Fig. 1 (continued)
investigation according to their importance on various quality
characteristics. Two important weld bead characteristics viz., pen-
etration (P) and width of the weld (W) are selected for our study.
Box-Behnken design of experiment (DOE) having 27 experiments factors and the response parameters. RSM approach determines
with three levels in all four factors was considered. The other the optimum condition for extraction [15]. Sequential experimen-
parameters such as welding voltage, arc angle, etc. were kept con- tation strategy is followed in RSM approach to locate factor space
stant and the experimental procedure is explained in Choudhury & by developing first order experiment followed by second order
Chandrasekaran [14]. experiment. A second order polynomial model used to obtain
After the welding experiments the weld bead parameters were responses consisting of linear, interaction and square terms as
measured using an OPTOMECH VERTICAL PROFILE PROJECTOR, given in Eqn. (1).
shown in Fig. 1(b). The experimental results obtained are tabulated
in Table 1. X
n X
n X
n X
n
Y ¼ bo þ b i xi þ bij xi xj þ bii x2ii þ n ð1Þ
i¼1 i¼1 j¼1 i¼1
3. Response surface modelling
where bo, bi, bij, bii are the constant, linear, interaction and quadratic
term of the model respectively and n is error term. In this work, four
Response surface modelling is commonly employed statistical
process parameters viz., welding current (I), welding speed (V), gas
modelling to obtain correlation between the multiple process
flow rate (G) and arc length (N) are mapped to predict two response
characteristics penetration (P) and width of weld (W). The predic-
tive models were developed at 95% confidence level. MINTAB 17
software package was used in the development of the mathematical
models. The developed model for penetration (P) and width of the
weld (W) are as follows (Eq. (2)- 3):
P ¼ 3:8 þ 0:1398 I þ 0:0387 V  0:358 G  2:74 L  0:000494 I2
 0:000092 V 2 þ 0:00419 G2 ::::
2
þ 0:656 L  0:000017 I  V  0:00147 I  G  0:00128 I  L
þ 0:00096 V  G  0:00610 V  L þ 0:0823 G  L
ð2Þ

R2 = 87.65%, R2 (adj) = 73.23%

W ¼ 11:2  0:059 I  0:144 V  0:103 G þ 8:33 L
þ 0:000943 I2 þ 0:000435 V 2 þ 0:0251 G2  0:302 L2 ::::
ð3Þ
 0:000056 I  V  0:00107 I  G  0:0218 I  L
Fig. 1. (a) Welding Setup; (b) Optomech vertical profile projector for measurement þ 0:00018 V  G  0:0168 V  L  0:134 G  L
of bead geometry.

2
B. Choudhury and M. Chandrasekaran Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
GTAW experimental results.

Sl. No. I, (A) V, (mm/min) G, (l/min) L, (mm) Penetration (P), (mm) Width of the weld (W), (mm)
1 100 205 9 2.5 2.248 4.925
2 80 205 9 3 1.970 4.085
3 100 180 9 2 2.482 4.918
4 100 205 9 2.5 2.248 4.925
5 100 230 9 3 2.023 4.477
6 80 205 9 2 2.094 3.528
7 100 180 9 3 2.538 5.104
8 120 180 9 2.5 2.525 6.796
9 100 230 9 2 2.272 5.133
10 120 230 9 2.5 2.241 5.853
11 80 205 6 2.5 1.443 4.262
12 100 205 12 2 2.089 4.769
13 120 205 6 2.5 2.687 6.365
14 100 180 6 2.5 2.684 5.915
15 80 205 12 2.5 1.614 4.393
16 80 180 9 2.5 1.451 4.511
17 100 205 9 2.5 2.106 4.087
18 100 230 6 2.5 2.047 5.165
19 100 205 6 2 2.587 4.614
20 100 230 12 2.5 1.959 4.438
21 100 205 6 3 2.287 5.057
22 120 205 9 3 2.353 5.968
23 100 205 12 3 2.283 4.407
24 120 205 12 2.5 2.506 6.239
25 120 205 9 2 2.528 6.284
26 80 230 9 2.5 1.201 3.680
27 100 180 12 2.5 2.309 5.133

R2 = 93.35%, R2 (adj) = 85.59% the updated function value of Xtot-A,i and Xtot-B,I of A and B
respectively).

4. Teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm (TLBO)

Rao et al. proposed a new optimization algorithm based on
teaching and learning process, in the year 2011 and named it as
TLBO [16]. The algorithm works with similar concepts of teaching
and learning to enhance the knowledge of the students (learners)
through proper teaching; it has two steps of learning viz., teacher
phase and learner phase.
Teacher Phase: In this phase teacher tries to improve the mean
result of the class or the group of learners. Suppose a class has n
number of students (population size y = 1,2,3. . .. . .n) and m number
of subjects (x = 1,2,3. . ...m). Let for iteration i, Mx,y be the mean
result of the learners in a particular subject x. Now the difference
between the existing mean result of each subject and the corre-
sponding result of the teacher for each subject is given by (Eq. (4))
Mdx;y;i ¼ randðxx;ybest;i  TF  M x;i Þ
Where xx,ybest,i = is the result of the best learner in subject j,
rand = random number in range [0,1],
TF = teaching factor that decides the mean of the class to be
change (Its range is: 1–2)
TF ¼ round½1 þ randð0; 1Þf2  1g
Based on the difference _Mean (Md) the existing equation is
updated to the following equation (Eq. (6)):
 tion of each process parameters was calculated and is observed
xx;y;i ¼ xx;y;i þ Mdx;y;i
Where xx;y;j = updated value of xx;y;i . Here all the accepted values
are become the input for learner phase.
Learners’ Phase: In this part of algorithm, the learner interacts
with themselves to enhance their own knowledge. One learner
may learn new things from other learner if the other learner has
more knowledge. Randomly selecting two learners A and B for a
population size of n, where X/tot-A,i = X/tot-B,i (X/tot-A,I and X/tot-B,i are
0
X 00x;A;i ¼ X0x;A;i þ randðX0x;A;i  X0x;B;i Þ; ifXtotB;i < X0totA;i ð7Þ
Here, X }x;A;i is accepted only if it gives better fitness value.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. ANOVA analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine the signifi-
cance of the developed models and study the effect of process fac-
tors on the weld responses. ANOVA perform F-test and other
adequacy measures like the coefficient of determination (R2) etc.
ð4Þ that determines the suitability of the developed models. In this
analysis, if p-value is less than 0.05 (at 95% confidence level) the
model is said to be adequate. For the lack-of-fit test, the F-ratio
(MSmodel/ MSerror) should not exceed the calculated F-value of the
model.
The ANOVA results of penetration are shown in Table 2. The
coefficient of the developed model was found significant as the
ð5Þ P-value is 0.002 which is less than 0.05 and the F-ratio (MSmodel/
MSerror) is less than the calculated F-value of the model. The coef-
ficient of determination of 87.65% is observed for the developed
model which quite significant for the study. Percentage contribu-
ð6Þ
that welding current has the maximum contribution of 55.68%
on penetration followed welding speed with 10.94% contribution.
ANOVA for width of the weld (W) is shown in Table 3. The coeffi-
cient of determination for the model is determined as 93.35%.
Welding current is found to be the most influencing parameter
on W with a percentage contribution of 75.66% followed by weld-
ing speed with 5.86%. The adequacy of the model is checked and is
found significant to analysis the response variable.
3
B. Choudhury and M. Chandrasekaran Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
ANOVA for penetration (P).

Source Degree of freedom Sum of square Mean square F-Value P-Value % Contribution
Model 14 3.36746 0.24053 6.08 0.002
Linear 4 2.66894 0.66723 16.87 0.000 69.465
I 1 2.13954 2.13954 54.09 0.000 55.686
V 1 0.42038 0.42038 10.63 0.007 10.941
G 1 0.07922 0.07922 2.00 0.182 2.062
L 1 0.02980 0.02980 0.75 0.402 0.776
Square 4 0.56175 0.14044 3.55 0.039 14.621
2-Way Interaction 6 0.13677 0.02280 0.58 0.743 3.560
Error 12 0.47466 0.03955 12.354
Total 26 3.84212
R2 R2(adj)
87.65% 73.23%

Table 3
ANOVA for width of the weld (W).

Source Degree of freedom Sum of square Mean square F-Value P-Value % Contribution
Model 14 17.4980 1.2499 12.03 0.000
Linear 4 15.6167 3.9042 37.58 0.000 83.313
I 1 14.1832 14.1832 136.52 0.000 75.665
V 1 1.0987 1.09987 10.58 0.007 5.861
G 1 0.3330 0.3330 3.21 0.099 1.777
L 1 0.0018 0.0018 0.02 0.897 0.010
Square 4 1.3311 0.3328 3.20 0.052 7.101
2-Way Interaction 6 0.5502 0.0917 0.88 0.536 2.935
Error 12 1.2467 0.1039 6.651
Total 26 18.7447 100
R2 R2(adj)
93.35% 85.59%

5.2. Parametric analysis 5.3. Multi-objective optimization using TLBO algorithm

Model graph analysis is conducted to identify the change in
responses with respect to the change in process parameters. This
helps in understanding the implication of each process factors on
the response. In this work contour plots were plotted between
the GTAW process factors and the responses with the help of MINI-
TAB 17 software.
5.2.1. For penetration (P) of the weld
From the ANOVA results, it is evident that welding current (I)
and welding speed (V) is the most significant parameter that
affects the penetration most. To get a proper understanding con-
tour plot of P versus V&I, G&I, and G&V are plotted as shown in
Fig. 2. Here the dark green indicates maximum penetration and
dark blue indicates minimum penetration.
Fig. 2 shows that penetration increases with an increase in
welding current. Increased current enhances heat input which
causes more molten metal in the weld pool and leads to more pen-
etration. However, welding speed (V) inversely affects the penetra-
tion. With an increase in V, penetration decreases. Gas flow rate (G)
does not have major influences on penetration.
5.2.2. For width of the weld (W)
In this case, the contour plot of W versus I&V, I&G, and V&G are
plotted and are shown in Fig. 3. In first case front width increases
with increase in I and decreases with increase in V. This is due to
increase in welding speed decreases the volume of base metal to
be melted which decrease the W. In second case it is clear that G
has a minimal effect on W though increase in G leads in minimal
decrease of W and again further increase in G leads to increase in
W. In last case it is observed that increase in welding speed
decreases the width of weld.
4
Multi-objective optimization optimizes combined objective
functions so as to optimize both P and W i.e., maximizes penetra-
tion (P) and minimizes the width of the weld (W). In general with
an increase in penetration, width also increases. It is important to
find an optimum penetration where the width of the weld is min-
imum. The combined objective function is defined by normalizing
all the individual objectives. The derived combined objective func-
tion is given in Eqn. (8).
MinimizeZ ¼ w1  ðW=W min Þ  w2  ðP=Pmax Þ ð8Þ
where w1 and w2 are the weightage assigned to W and P respec-
tively. Wmin and Pmax are the minimum and maximum response
reported by the model. The optimization problem is solved for three
different combination of weightage i.e., Case 1: w1 = 0.5 and
w2 = 0.5; Case 2: w1 = 0.6 and w2 = 0.4 and Case 3: w1 = 0.4 and
w2 = 0.6. The optimum results obtain using these weighted combi-
nations are shown in Table 4.
In the first case when equal weight was given to both P and W,
the optimum response obtain is 2.2019 mm and 4.0391 respec-
tively. This also results in minimum objective function value
(0.1930) compared to the rest of the cases. In this case the result
converges in 4th iteration. In the second case 60% weightage was
given to width of the weld which results in lower penetration as
well as the width (P = 1.9284 mm and W = 3.7692). This is due
to lower heat input caused due to lower current and higher speed.
The result for this case converges in 3rd iteration. In the third case,
60% weight was given to penetration. This results in higher pene-
tration of 2.5111 mm and higher width of weld of 4.4847 mm
which is due to the cause of higher heat input. The result for this
case obtained in 3rd iteration. The convergence characteristic of
the optimum i.e. the objective function with minimum value is
shown in Fig. 4.
B. Choudhury and M. Chandrasekaran Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Contour plot (For Penetration).

Fig. 3. Contour plot (For width of the weld).

5
B. Choudhury and M. Chandrasekaran Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 4
Comparison of optimum results with different weightage.

Sl. No. Weightage assigned Optimum Objective function value Optimum parameter combination Optimum result
I (A) V (mm/min) G (l/min) L (mm) W (mm) P (mm)
Case 1 w1 = w2 = 0.5 0.1930 87.682 200.967 6.829 2.00 4.039 2.202
Case 2 w1 = 0.6, w2 = 0.4 0.3655 82.173 203.250 7.529 2.00 3.769 1.928
Case 3 w1 = 0.4, w2 = 0.6 0.3600 94.066 197.356 6.000 2.00 4.485 2.511

2. Welding current (I) is found as the most significant process

parameter followed by welding speed (V). With increase in I,
P and W increases and decreases with increase in V. The effect
of gas flow rate (G) and arc length (L) are found very minimum
on both the response characteristics.
3. Simultaneous optimization of both the responses results in
optimum fitness value of 0.1930 at parameter setting
I = 87.682 A, V = 200.967 mm/min, G = 6.829 l/min, L = 2 mm,
when equal weight (w1 = w2 = 0.5) was given to both the
responses. The corresponding P and W values are obtained as
2.202 mm and 4.039 mm respectively.
4. The TLBO algorithm found effective for optimization of multiple
responses, easy to implement and obtain the result with faster
convergence (takes only 2–5 iterations).

Declaration of Competing Interest

Fig. 4. Convergence of the problem.

It is found that when more weight is provided to a particular
response it results in higher or lower value based upon its charac-
teristics. In our case it is important to have penetration value
higher than 2 mm with a lower value of width of weld. The first
case i.e. with equal weight provides a penetration of 2.2019 mm
with 4.0391 mm width of weld. The 3rd case also satisfies the
required criteria but results in a higher value of W (4.484). The
result obtained with equal weightage provides minimum fitness
value of 0.1930 and is considered as optimum for this study.
6. Conclusions
The present work mainly focuses on parametric optimization of
GTAW process of Inconel 825. Both single and multiple process
characteristics of GTAW process parameters are optimized using
recently developed TLBO algorithm. The important conclusions
drawn from this study are as follows:
1. The predictive model for penetration (P) and width of the weld
(W) were carried out using response surface modelling
approach and are found adequate for implementation. A coeffi-
cient of determination of 87.65% for P and 93.35% for W is
noted.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] J.L. Caron, J.W. Sowards, Weldabillity of Nickel based alloys. Elsevier Ltd. Vol. 6,
2014.
[2] J.N. Dupont, J.C. Lippold, K.C. Kiser, Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of
Nickel Based Alloys, A John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
[3] K.D. Ramkumar, R. Jagat Sai, R.V. Santhosh, S. Gundla, T. Harsha, S. Vimal, N.
Arivazhagan, J. Manuf. Process. 18 (2015) 23–45.
[4] S.G.K. Manikandan, D. Sivakumar, R.K. Prasad, M. Kamaraj, J. Mater. Proc.
Technol. 214 (2013) 358–364.
[5] X. Ye, X. Hua, M. Wang, S. Lou, J. Mater. Process. Tech. 222 (2015) 381–390.
[6] B. Choudhury, M. Chandrasekaran, Mater. Today. Proceed. 4 (2017) 7519–
7526.
[7] V.V. Murugan, V. Gunaraj, Weld. J. (2005) 165s–171s.
[8] S.V. Datta, A.B. Opadhya, P. Kumar, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 39 (2008) 1136–
1143.
[9] A. Kumar, S. Sundarrajan, Mater. Design 30 (2009) 1288–1297.
[10] D.S. Nagesh, G.L. Datta, Appl. Soft Comput. 10 (2010) 897–907.
[11] X. Wan, Y. Wang, D. Zhao, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83 (2016) 545–559.
[12] M.A. Moghaddam, R. Golmezerji, F. Kolahan, Scientia. Iranica. B 24 (1) (2017)
260–273.
[13] R.V. Rao, V.D. Kalyankar, Proceed. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng. Manuf. 226
(2012) 1018.
[14] B. Choudhury, M. Chandrasekaran, Mater. Today: Proceed. 5 (2018) 7337–
7345.
[15] A.I. Khuri, J.A. Cornell, Response Surfaces Design and Analysis, second ed.,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996.
[16] R.V. Rao, V.J. Savsani, D.P. Vakharia, Comp. Aid. Design 43 (2011) 303–315.