Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining

stainless steel 304 with mild steel by using response surface
methodology
U.S. Patil a, M.S. Kadam b
a
Deogiri Institute of Engineering and Management Studies, Aurangabad 431005, India
b
Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad 431005, India

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

Article history: In this work focus is given for obtaining reliable welded joint while joining dissimilar metals in Manual
Received 13 November 2019 (Shielded) metal arc welding process by optimizing the input parameters. Stainless steel 304 and mild
Received in revised form 21 November 2019 steel 1018 were welded by Shielded metal arc welding method which is commonly used in fabrication
Accepted 25 November 2019
industries. 309L grade electrode is used for joining the dissimilar materials. In this study the indepen-
Available online xxxx
dently controllable process parameters affecting the weld strength, Metal deposition rate and Bead
height are welding current, welding speed, root gap, electrode angle. The experimental runs were
Keywords:
planned by using central composite system of Response surface Methodology. On analyzing the process
Dissimilar metals
Manual metal arc welding
parameters by using RSM, it is found that Welding strength 394.5 N/mm2, Metal deposition rate 12.8 gms
Stainless steel 304 and Bead height 5.6 mm were obtained with setting of process parameter as Welding current 101 A,
Response surface methodology Welding speed 7 mm/s, Electrode angle 600 and root gap 1.25 mm. Same results were cross validated
Taguchi method by conducting the experiments with optimized process parameters.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and of the scientific committee of the 10th International Conference of Materials Processing and
Characterization

1. Introduction weld geometry [1–4,6–8,10]. The quality problems associated

Welding is a manufacturing process by which fusion of sur-
faces two different or same material of part are joined together
with or without the application of heat, pressure and a filler
material [3]. Shielded metal arc welding which is used for joining
dissimilar metals for various applications such as automobiles,
nuclear reactors pressure vessels, boilers, economizers, heat
exchangers, reactors in pharmaceutical industries [2–7]. Alloy
steel is highly expensive, hence to reduce its cost it is combined
with the carbon steel [9]. These dissimilar metals are welded
together by arc welding for cost reduction so that welded joints
are reliable to withstand all types of load. This objective can be
achieved by optimizing the welding parameters like electrode
angle, welding speed, welding current, welding voltage, root
gap, arc length, type of electrode used. Several methods, models
have been developed by different researchers to predict the effect
of process parameters on weld strength, metal deposition rate,
with Shielded metal arc welding include weld spatter, porosity,
poor fusion, shallow penetration, and cracking [12]. Many weld-
ing parameters selection contributes to the welded product as
they all affects the strength and quality to a larger extent. From
the literature review, it is found that welding of dissimilar metal
is a big challenge by conventional arc welding process. Repeata-
bility of welding depends on its control on welding speed and
other processing parameters. Considering the literature survey,
it is found that limited literature is available on shielded metal
arc welding and its parameter optimization for industrial applica-
tions for welding stainless steel 304 with mild steel. Research
concentrate on optimization of process parameters in shielded
metal arc welding using response surface methodology to get
optimum results by considering the different process parameters
And so on like welding current (ampere), Welding speed (mm/s),
root gap (mm), electrode angle (degree) [3]. The quality of weld is
improved by increasing the strength, decreasing weld deposition

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and of the scientific committee of the 10th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization

Please cite this article as: U. S. Patil and M. S. Kadam, Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining stainless steel 304 with mild
steel by using response surface methodology, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
2 U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Chemical Properties of SS304, Mild steel and electrode metal.

Metal %C % Mn % Cr % Ni % Mo %S %P % Si
SS304 0.02 1.6 18.48 8.04 0.010 0.006 0.031 0.419
MS 0.10 0.46 – – – 0.005 0.014 0.015
309L (Electrode metal) 0.035 1.58 24.35 12.60 – 0.021 0.024 0.53

Table 2
Mechanical properties of SS 304, MS and SS 309L.

Metal Ultimate Tensile MPa Modulus of elasticity MPa Density Kg/cm3 Thermal conductivity w/m2/0c
SS304 500–600 190 8000 15.2
MS 350–440 205 7870 50.8
309L (Electrode metal) 550–650 200 8000 15.6

Table 3 metal. The chemical composition of mild steel, stainless steel 304
Significant range of process parameters.
and electrode is given in Table 1.
Process parameter Minimum Maximum Table 2 shows the important Mechanical properties of all the
Welding current (ampere) 80 120 metals of welded plates and thermal conductivity measured at
Welding speed (mm/s) 3 9 100 degreesC.
Electrode angle (degree) 30 90 Two plates of size 100mmx50mmx3mm were welded together
Root gap (mm) 1 1.5
to form a weld pad of 200 mm  50 mm  3 mm. Welding is car-
ried out in the down hand position and beads are laid along the
weld pad centreline to form a double butt joint. Welding strength
rate and obtaining optimum bead height. Response surface is measured according to IS 1608 standard by using universal test-
methodology is used successfully to optimize the process param- ing machine. Welded plates are loaded on UTM machine and ulti-
eters to obtain predicated results. mate tensile strength is recorded as welding strength (N/mm2). All
Testing work is carried out in NABL certified lab and metal depo-
2. Materials and methods sition rate is measured by measuring the weights of plates before
welding and after welding. Bead height is measured by using dig-
Experimentation is carried out on shielded metal arc (SMAW) ital micrometer. Numbers of experiments for finalizing the range
welding process, a 3.15 mm diameter consumable stainless steel of parameters were planned by using Response surface methodol-
309 L grade electrode is used to strike an electric arc with the base ogy is Central composite design Method [11]. Design of experi-

Table 4
Experimental reading for responses.

Exp. No. Welding current (Amp.) Welding speed mm/s Electrode angle degree Root gap Welding strength Metal deposition rate Bead Height mm
mm Mpa gms
1 0 2 0 0 393.647 16 6.28
2 0 0 0 2 379.052 14 5.32
3 0 0 0 0 398.565 12 5.72
4 1 1 1 1 396.250 16 6.34
5 0 0 2 0 388.750 14 5.76
6 1 1 1 1 396.040 12 5.61
7 1 1 1 1 397.090 12 5.73
8 1 1 1 1 393.541 10 5.80
9 0 0 0 2 390.994 12 5.57
10 2 0 0 0 389.560 12 5.59
11 1 1 1 1 401.840 14 5.77
12 1 1 1 1 382.650 12 6.31
13 0 0 0 0 399.230 16 5.57
14 0 0 2 0 393.020 12 5.53
15 1 1 1 1 388.606 10 5.89
16 1 1 1 1 389.844 12 5.67
17 0 0 0 0 398.140 18 5.39
18 0 0 0 0 399.067 10 5.88
19 1 1 1 1 398.925 14 5.65
20 1 1 1 1 395.965 14 5.45
21 0 0 0 0 399.342 12 5.65
22 1 1 1 1 391.291 12 5.52
23 1 1 1 1 396.606 18 5.42
24 1 1 1 1 386.885 10 5.90
25 2 0 0 0 394.737 12 5.94
26 1 1 1 1 390.164 12 5.91
27 1 1 1 1 409.665 12 6.28
28 0 0 0 0 397.844 12 5.76
29 0 0 0 0 398.692 14 5.31
30 1 1 1 1 393.193 14 6.29
31 0 2 0 0 402.662 8 6.29

Please cite this article as: U. S. Patil and M. S. Kadam, Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining stainless steel 304 with mild
steel by using response surface methodology, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
 U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 5
Estimated Regression Coefficients for welding strength.

Term Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 40.941 25.681 1.594 0.13
Welding current 0.618 0.194 3.187 0.006
Welding speed 1.339 2.319 0.578 0.572
Electrode angle 0.261 0.133 1.969 0.067
Root gap 10.719 14.349 0.747 0.466
Welding current*Welding current 0.000 0.001 0.115 0.910
Welding speed*welding speed 0.060 0.070 0.863 0.401
Electrode angle*electrode angle 0.000 0.000 0.914 0.374
Root gap*root gap 5.738 2.824 2.032 0.059
Welding current*welding speed 0.015 0.009 1.664 0.116
Welding current*electrode angle 0.001 0.001 1.911 0.074
Welding current*root gap 0.267 0.067 4.012 0.001
Welding speed*electrode angle 0.010 0.007 1.353 0.195
Welding speed*root gap 1.184 0.875 1.354 0.194
Electrode angle*root gap 0.114 0.047 2.401 0.029
R-Sq = 86% R-Sq(adj) = 79%

Fig. 1. Contour plots for welding strength.

Table 6
Estimated Regression Coefficients for Metal deposition rate.

Term Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 40.941 25.681 1.594 0.130
Welding current 0.618 0.194 3.187 0.006
Welding speed 1.339 2.319 0.578 0.572
Electrode angle 0.261 0.133 1.969 0.067
Root gap 10.719 14.349 0.747 0.466
Welding current*Welding current 0.000 0.001 0.115 0.910
Welding speed*welding speed 0.060 0.070 0.863 0.401
Electrode angle*electrode angle 0.000 0.000 0.914 0.374
Root gap*root gap 5.738 2.824 2.032 0.059
Welding current*welding speed 0.015 0.009 1.664 0.116
Welding current*electrode angle 0.001 0.001 1.911 0.074
Welding current*root gap 0.267 0.067 4.012 0.001
Welding speed*electrode angle 0.010 0.007 1.353 0.195
Welding speed*root gap 1.184 0.875 1.354 0.194
Electrode angle*root gap 0.114 0.047 2.401 0.029
R-Sq = 91% R-Sq(adj) = 84%

Please cite this article as: U. S. Patil and M. S. Kadam, Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining stainless steel 304 with mild
steel by using response surface methodology, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
4 U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Contour plots for Metal deposition rate.

Table 7
Estimated Regression Coefficients for average bead height.

Term Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 5.817 0.059 98.215 0.000
Welding current 0.313 0.125 2.505 0.034
Welding speed 0.108 0.070 1.528 0.161
Electrode angle 0.079 0.071 1.117 0.293
Root gap 0.058 0.086 0.674 0.517
Welding current*Welding current 0.116 0.185 0.629 0.545
Welding speed*welding speed 0.089 0.099 0.900 0.392
Electrode angle*electrode angle 0.077 0.104 0.739 0.479
Root gap*root gap 0.020 0.187 0.108 0.916
Welding current*welding speed 0.269 0.130 2.063 0.069
Welding current*electrode angle 0.059 0.138 0.424 0.681
Welding current*root gap 0.154 0.184 0.837 0.424
Welding speed*electrode angle 0.180 0.176 1.025 0.332
Welding speed*root gap 0.064 0.230 0.278 0.787
Electrode angle*root gap 0.031 0.181 0.174 0.866
R-Sq = 89% R-Sq(adj) = 80%

ment consists of a set of experimental runs, in which each run is
defined by the combination of each factor level (variables) and
analysis of experiments [11]. Pilot experiments were conducted
and responses were measured and recorded. On analyzing the
results recorded by using plot experiments, it observed that all
the four independent variables such as Welding current, Welding
speed, Electrode angle and root gap significantly affects the weld-
ing strength, Metal deposition rate and Bead height. From this
analysis significant range of process parameters were as per
Table 3.
On finalizing the range of process parameters, final experimen-
tal runs were planned by using Central composite method of
Response surface methodology. The experimentation work is car-
ried out at Fab Well Industries, Waluj MIDC, Aurangabad which
is engaged in manufacturing tanks for petrochemical industries
such as Indian oil, Hindustan petroleum. Total 31 experiments tri-
als were carried out according the central composite method. For
all the experiments the welding strength, metal deposition rate
and Bead height were measured and recorded in Table 4.
Data obtained from conducting the experiments were validated
by doing the mathematical modelling with help of Response sur-
face methodology analysis by using Minitab software which is dis-
cussed in detail under result and discussion heading.
3. Results and discussion
On analyzing the data recorded in Table 4 through Minitab soft-
ware, by considering each considering each response at time were
discussed below
3.1. Welding strength
By considering welding strength as response and Welding cur-
rent, Welding speed, Electrode angle and root gap as input vari-
ables, it is found that there is 86% correlation between the input
variables and welding strength, result were recorded in Table 5.
Keeping in mind the number of uncontrollable factors (fabrication

Please cite this article as: U. S. Patil and M. S. Kadam, Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining stainless steel 304 with mild
steel by using response surface methodology, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
 U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Fig. 3. Contour plots for Metal Bead Height.

3.2. Metal deposition rate

On analyzing the data recorded in Table 4 through Minitab soft-

ware, by considering Metal deposition rate as response and Weld-
ing current, Welding speed, Electrode angle and root gap as input
variables, it is found that there is 91% correlation between the
input variables and Metal deposition rate, result were recorded
in Table 6, the predicted model shows the good results.
Also contour plots were drawn for Metal deposition rate and all
input variables as shown in Fig. 2. By studying the all contour plots
from the Fig. 2, for different interaction of input variables, it is
observed that Metal deposition rate is significantly affected all
the factors and their interaction. Metal deposition rate will
increase with higher welding current, lower welding speed, higher
Fig. 4. Response Optimizer.
root gap and higher electrode angle.

3.3. Bead height

work is carried uncontrolled atmosphere), the predicted model
shows the good results. Also contour plots were drawn for welding
On analyzing the data recorded in Table 4 through Minitab soft-
strength and all input variables as shown in Fig. 1.
ware, by considering Bead height as response and Welding current,
By studying the all contour plots from the Fig. 1, for different
Welding speed, Electrode angle and root gap as input variables, it is
interaction of input variables, it is observed that welding strength
will increase with lower welding current, lower welding speed, found that there is 89% correlation between the input variables and
bead height, Keeping in mind the number of uncontrollable factors
minimum root gap and higher electrode angle.
(fabrication work is carried uncontrolled atmosphere), the pre-

Table 8
Comparison of optimized responses value with experimental values.

Reponses Optimized Values Experimental values Difference % error

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Average
Welding strength (N/mm2) 394.45 405.12 401.50 399.24 401.98 7.53 2
Metal Deposition rate (gms) 12.79 12.40 12.60 13.10 12.70 0.09 1
Bead Height (mm) 5.61 5.68 5.72 5.68 5.67 0.06 1

Please cite this article as: U. S. Patil and M. S. Kadam, Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining stainless steel 304 with mild
steel by using response surface methodology, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
6 U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
dicted model shows the good results. Results were recorded in
Table 7.
Also contour plots were drawn for Bead height and all input
variables as shown in Fig. 3. By studying the all contour plots from
the Fig. 3, for different interaction of input variables, it is observed
that bead height will increase with higher welding current, higher
welding speed, minimum root gap and lower electrode angle.
3.4. Multiobjective optimization
From Minitab software finally optimization of responses were
done by using response optimizer. Fig. 4 show results of response
optimizer. It is clear that the optimizes value of various responses
are as per follows; Welding strength – 394.5 N/mm2 , Metal depo-
sition rate- 12.8 gms and Bead height- 5.6 mm . For obtaining these
responses, values of input variables are Welding current- 101 A,
welding speed- 7 mm/s, Electrode angle – 600 and Root gap
1.25 mm.
Optimized results were cross validated by conducting 3 exper-
imental runs by setting optimized values of process parameters
such as welding current 101 A, welding speed 7 mm/s , Electrode
angle 60 degree and root gap 1.25 mm. Welding strength, Metal
deposition rate and Bead height were measured for all 3 samples
and recorded in Table 8.
It is found that there is error of 2%, 1% and 1% respectively
between the optimized value and experimental values of welding
strength, metal deposition rate and bead height.
4. Conclusion
Joining stainless steel 304 with mild steel by using Shielded
metal arc welding process is requirement in many applications.
But major concern in such type of welded joints is obtaining joint
with optimum welding strength, metal deposition rate and Bead
height. In this work, focus is given for analyzing the effect of pro-
cess parameter on welding strength, metal deposition rate and
bead height and there by optimizing the responses by using
Response surface methodology. On analyzing the process parame-
ters by using RSM, it is found that Welding strength 394.45 N/
mm2, Metal deposition rate 12.79 gms and Bead height (Average
Please cite this article as: U. S. Patil and M. S. Kadam, Multiobjective optimization of MMAW process parameters for joining stainless steel 304 with mild
steel by using response surface methodology, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.277
5.61 mm) were obtained with setting of process parameter as
Welding current 101 Ampere, Welding speed 7 mm/s, Electrode
angle 600 and root gap 1.25 mm. same is validated by conducting
3 experimental runs by using values of optimized process param-
eters and measuring all the 3 responses. Results show error up to
2% between the experimental values and optimized values.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
U.S. Patil: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
draft, Visualization, Validation. M.S. Kadam: Writing - review &
editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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] Kittipong Kimapong, Surat Triwanpong, Mater. Sci. Forum 950 (2019) 70–74.
[2] T. Nhung Le, M. Khanh Pham, A. Tuan, A. Tuan Hoang, D. Nam Nguyen, J. Mech.
Eng. Res. Develop. 41 (2018) 27–31.
[3] P.G. Ahire, U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam, Proc. Manuf. 20 (2018) 106–112.
[4] A.T. Hoang, V.V. Le, A.X. Nguyen, D.N. Nguyen, J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 12
(2018) 27–40.
[5] Shekhar Srivastava, R.K. Garg, J. Manuf. Processes 25 (2017) 296–305.
[6] Jagesvar Verma, Ravindra Taiwade, Rajesh Khatirkar, Sanjay Sapate, Ashivin
Gaikwad, Trans Indian Inst met, doi:10.1007/s12666-016-0878-8.
[7] Jing Wang, Lu. Min-xu, Lei Zhang, Wei Chang, Xu. Li-ning, Hu. Li-hua, Int. J.
Minerals Metall. Mater. 19 (2012) 518–524.
[8] Amandeep Singh, Neelkanth Grover, Appl. Mech. Mater. 813–814 (2015) 486–
490.
[9] Paul Kah, Madan Shreshta Jukka Martikainen, Appl. Mech. Mater. 440 (2014)
269–276.
[10] U.S. Patil, M.S. Kadam, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 4 (2013) 79–85.
[11] Douglas Montgomery, Design and analysis of experiments, chapter 11.
[12] Welding Metallurgy, Sindo Kou.
Further reading
[13] Wichan Chuaiphan, Somrerk Chandra, Satian Niltawach, Banleng Sornil, Appl.
Mech. Mater. 268–270 (2013) 283–290.