Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Sig sigma implementation (DMAIC) of friction welding of tube to tube

plate by external tool optimization
Nirmaladevi Padmarajan, Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj ⇑
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT), Vellore 632 014, Tamil Nadu, India

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

Article history: The area of the welding industry is experiencing unpredictable improvements. In this case study, six
Received 15 December 2020 sigma using the DMAIC technique is implemented to optimize the friction welding of tube to tube plate
Received in revised form 22 December 2020 using the external tool method. The values are obtained from a research study in the past. The process
Accepted 25 December 2020
parameters are prioritized with percentile contribution predicting statistical significance using
Available online 15 February 2021
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in the analysis phase. Then optimizing the FWTPET process variables by
Response Surface Methodology (RSM) in the improve phase. The predicted values’ practical feasibility
Keywords:
is checked to be under control using IMR control charts in the control phase. The range of optimum values
DMAIC
Six sigma
predicted is under control.
ANOVA Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RSM Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Con-
FWTPET ference on Materials, Manufacturing and Modelling.

1. Introduction key approaches - DMAIC (Define Measure Analyse Improve-

Optimization without which includes uncertainty results in
designs that cannot be called optimal, however, as a substitute
are doubtlessly excessive chances that possibly have an excessive
possibility of failing in use [5]. Six sigma is a method used to
reduce variation, measuring defects, and producing quality pro-
cesses and products [2]. It is also used to reduce all kinds of wastes,
non-value-added activities and improvises on consumer satisfac-
tion [6]. Bill Smith invented six sigma at Motorola in the 1980 s
while it focused on a challenging aim of 3.4 parts per million
defects [8]. Sigma r, is a Greek alphabet utilized by the statisti-
cians to measure variability in any enterprise process [4]. It sys-
tematically removes defects and inefficiencies by imposing a
vigorous and systematic procedure [8]. Since quality improvement
is the top factor of TQM, including a Six Sigma methodology to its
present-day commercial enterprise device covers nearly all of TQM
factors [6]. It was initially restricted to the manufacturing zone
until, in the recent period, it has wrapped almost all branches aim-
ing at diminishing the variations which might be the real devils in
any process [4]. It entails collecting required data, measurement,
and statistics to figure out the various elements in attaining com-
petitive advantages and improvements [7]. This method consists of
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: senthilkumaran.s@vit.ac.in (S.K. Selvaraj).
Control) and DMADV (Define Measure Analyse Design - Verify).
DMAIC is used for a current process. DMADV is used while
developing a brand-new product or process [8].
2. Research methodology
This case study implements a standard methodology of Sig
Sigma, which uses the DMAIC method. The study is executed by
using relevant measurement values from references [1] to imple-
ment the DMAIC process. This study aims to find the optimum val-
ues and range of values for the (FWTPET) process using the method
of six sigma and find the optimum values, range of values for the
process, and check if the process is under control.
3. Case study
3.1. Define
Friction welding of tube to tube plate using an external tool
(FWTPET) can weld comparable or distinctive materials. The tech-
nique encompasses functionality in enrolling distinctive metals,
and their shapes and sizes are not necessarily the same to supply
desirable high-satisfactory weld joint. It’s far essential to set the
right values for the welding process. Usually, it has multiple input
parameters and output responses, wherein it has a close courting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.1013
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Modelling.
N. Padmarajan and Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350

Table 1 tify the optimal range and optimal values of those parameters and
Input parameters and output characteristics of FWTPET process. make it sustainable.
Experiment Input Input Input Output
run Parameter Parameter 2 Parameter 3 Characteristics
1 Speed Pin Shoulder Tensile
3.2. Measure
(rpm) Clearance diameter Strength (MPa)
(mm) (mm) In this phase, the suspected causes that affect the tensile
1 1030 1 25 60.31 strength in the process are identified. Tensile Test has been incor-
2 1030 1 30 70.87 porated for measuring the tensile strength of the FWTPET weld-
3 1030 2 25 55.72 joints. Since the tensile strength is a chief overall conduct for the
4 1030 2 30 63.37
FWTPET weld-joints. The experiment was conducted using pure
5 1500 1 25 44.69
6 1500 1 30 48.52
commercial aluminium. The weld parameters considered during
7 1500 2 25 38.57 the FWTPET process include rotational tool speed (s), pin clearance
8 1500 2 30 42.55 (p), shoulder diameter (d) [1]. These three suspected causes for
directly affecting the tensile strength of the process are mainly con-
centrated. One of the process parameters is measured first while
keeping the rest of the process parameters constant for a level of
2. Similarly, the values for other process parameters are measured.
Table 2
Analysis of variance for response: tensile strength (MPa).
Using a tensometer, the tensile strength for a different set of weld
parameters values is measured and noted as in Table 1 [1].
Source DF SS MS F P
Speed (rpm) 1 720.86 720.860 184.33 0.000
Pin Clearance (mm) 1 73.08 73.084 18.69 0.012
3.3. Analyse
Shoulder Diameter (mm) 1 84.63 84.630 21.64 0.010
Error 4 15.64 3.911 This phase is carried out to identify which of the suspected
Total 7 894.22 causes assumed are the actual causes that truly affect the tensile
strength during the process. Considering multiple input parame-
ters, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is employed in this analysis
phase. ANOVA is primarily calculated using the F value for every
parameter whose value be higher, its effect on the response (TS)
Table 3
Variance components. is maximum. The result of the ANOVA test using MINITAB software
is presented in the Table 2.
Source Var Comp. % of Total StDev
The ANOVA predicts that all the 3 input variables have a more
Speed (rpm) 167.946 83.19 12.959 excellent F value. Hence, the speed (s), pin clearance (p), and shoul-
Shoulder Diameter (mm) 15.137 7.50 3.891
der diameter (d) have a notable effect on the response (TS) of the
Pin Clearance (mm) 18.802 9.31 4.336
Total 201.885 14.209 weld-joints using the FWTPET process. ANOVA also implies that
all these three parameters are the function of Tensile strength.
The given Table 3 also implies the variance components. It is pre-
dicted that the most influential input parameter in the process is
among the nature of the joints and the welding process parameters the rotational tool speed in revolutions per minute, which accounts
[1]. In this optimization study, the aim is to pinpoint those param- for 83.19%, followed by the Pin Clearance in millimeter contribut-
eters directly related to the weld joint’s tensile strength and iden- ing 9.31% and finally the Shoulder diameter contributing 7.50%.

Fig. 1. Tool rotational speed (rpm) vs tensile strength (MPa).

7345
N. Padmarajan and Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350

A deployment between the maximum influential parameter
speed versus the response tensile strength is plotted in ANOVA
as represented in Fig. 1 below. This proves that rotational tool
speed has a direct effect on tensile strength. With comparatively
low speed, the tensile strength is more when other input parame-
ters remain constant (Figs. 2–5).
3.4. Improve
This phase is carried out to identify the optimum variable
to minimize the process’s defects and variation and identify
the values or ranges of key variables involved in the process
[3]. The response surface methodology (RSM) is an essential
multivariate method for improvement. This process merely
compares using empirical work to find the optimum range of
the process parameters for the best possible feedback. The
three input parameters of the FWTPET method (s, p, d) were
used to get the optimum feedback of the heat exchanger
weld-joints; RSM is used. The contour plots are created to esti-
mate the optimum ranges between the combination of two
parameters.
From all the three contour plots and the surface plot, for the
Tensile strength to be at least 54 MPa, optimal ranges are identified
in Table 4.

Fig. 2. Contour plot of response: tensile strength vs shoulder diameter (d), speed (s).

Fig. 3. Contour plot of response: tensile strength vs pin clearance (p), speed (s).

7346
N. Padmarajan and Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350

Fig. 4. Contour plot of response: tensile strength vs pin clearance (p), shoulder diameter (d).

Fig. 5. Surface pots of response: tensile strength.

Further, the RSM technique’s optimization plot determines the
optimum values for the input parameters for the maximum tensile
strength of the weld joint. The optimum values are given in Table 5.
The graph shows the optimal values for the maximum tensile
strength of 70.4875 MPa in Fig. 6.
From the results of the RSM, the optimization plot has been
conducted and the values are obtained.
3.5. Control
This phase is the final stage within the DMAIC approach. The
control phase has been used to ensure that any variances which
arise would be corrected before it influences a process inflicting
negative results. In this phase, control charts are made using the
initial and optimum values from the improve phase to check if

7347
N. Padmarajan and Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350

Table 4 process parameters lay within both the control limits (upper and
The optimal range of values for maximum Tensile strength from the contour plot. lower) in both the individual value and the moving range. Hence,
Rank Process parameters The range for Optimal Tensile the process is under control when the rotational tool speed is set
Strength in the given range. However, in the I-MR Chart of Pin clearance,
Maximum Minimum there are two points at which the process goes out of control
1 Tool rotational Speed 1290 rpm 1030 rpm
[14-16]. The control points mean that the process with the combi-
2 Pin Clearance 1.9 mm 1 mm nation of these parameters set will not cause deviations/defects in
3 Shoulder diameter 30 mm 27.5 mm the future. The optimum values under the optimum range from the
improve phase will remain under control. This control phase is to
make sure the changes made to the process parametric values
are not just temporary (Fig. 9).
Table 5
Multiple response prediction.
4. Conclusion
Variable Setting
Speed 1030 In this study, Sig Sigma using the DMAIC technique determines
Shoulder Diameter 30
Pin Clearance 1
the process parameters’ optimum ranges and values for maximum
tensile strength in the FWTPET process. The process parameters are
Response Fit SE Fit 95% CI 95% PI
identified in the measure phase and confirmed for statistical signif-
Response: Tensile Strength 70.49 1.01 (57.63, 83.35) (51.66, 89.31) icance using ANOVA. The overall percentage contribution has also
been determined using ANOVA, which turned out to be 83.19% of
rotational tool speed contributing the maximum weightage, fol-
the graphs predict the longevity’s optimized values under either lowed by 9.31% of pin clearance and 7.50% of shoulder diameter.
control or out of control. Among the widely available set of such The optimization plot was determined in the improve phase by
control charts to be employed in this phase, the I-MR chart was Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The optimum values were
chosen to be implemented in this process. I-MR is used to track determined as 1030 revolutions per minute for rotational tool
the process variability for some time. It is a combination of two speed (s), 1 mm for shoulder diameter, 30 mm for pin clearance
charts - I implies the individual information (I chart), and ’MR’ for tensile strength of 70.87 MPa. The RSM contour plots also
implies the moving range (MR chart) [9-13]. determined the optimum range for a minimum tensile strength
Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that the I-MR Chart of Tool rotational of 55 MPa. The I-MR charts predict that the process will be under
speed and the I-MR Chart of Shoulder diameter predict that the control under these determined ranges of values.

Fig. 6. Optimization plot.

7348
N. Padmarajan and Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350

Fig. 7. IMR chart of tool rotational speed.

Fig. 8. IMR chart of shoulder diameter.

7349
N. Padmarajan and Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj
Fig. 9. IMR chart of pin clearance.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nirmaladevi Padmarajan: Data curation, Formal analysis,
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original
draft. Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj: Conceptualization, Project
administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visu-
alization, Writing - review & editing.
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] S. Senthil Kumaran, S. Muthukumaran, S. Vinodh, Optimization of friction
welding of tube to tube plate using an external tool, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
42 (3) (2010) 449–457.
[2] A.M. El-Kassas, I. Sabry, M. ElWakil, An implementation of Six sigma in
aluminum pipe welding, Int. J. Adv. Res. Innov. 5 (2) (2017) 192–195.
[3] G.Y. Mu, F. Wang, X.Z. Mi, Application of Six Sigma DMAIC methodology in
welding assembly Quality Improvement, Applied Mechanics and Materials,
Vol. 395, Trans Tech Publications Ltd., 2013, pp. 1099–1103.
[4] M. Sharif, Z. Anwar, Y. Ayub, A. Abbas, M. Ahmed, Optimization in MIG welding
by using six sigma tools, Ind. Eng. Manage. 8 (283) (2019) 2.
[5] P. Koch, Probabilistic design: optimizing for six sigma quality, in: 43rd AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, 2002, April, p. 1471.
7350
Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 7344–7350
[6] T.N. Desai, R.L. Shrivastava, October. Six sigma–a new direction to quality and
productivity management, in: Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering and Computer Science, 2008, pp. 22–24.
[7] T. Singh, D. Kumar, P. Ram, An implementation of Six sigma in steel tube
welding: a case study, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2 (9) (2015) 60–64.
[8] A. Dhamija, O.m. Shukla, A. Misra, N. Saini, Sigma level improvements in MIG
welding using DMAIC approach, Sop Trans. Stat. Anal. 2014 (1) (2014) 23–37.
[9] G. Vetrichelvan, S. Sundaram, S.S. Kumaran, P. Velmurugan, An investigation of
tool wear using acoustic emission and genetic algorithm, JVC/J. Vib Control 21
(15) (2015) 3061–3066, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546314520835.
[10] S. Senthil Kumaran, A. Daniel Das, An examination of seamless ferritic tube and
austenitic alloy tube plate joining by friction welding process, Mater. Today
Proc. 5 (2) (2018) 8539–8546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.551.
[11] S.K. Selvaraj, M.K. Nagarajan, L.A. Kumaraswamidhas, An investigation of
abrasive and erosion behaviour of AA 2618 reinforced with Si3N4, AlN and
ZrB2 in situ composites by using optimization techniques, Arch. Civ. Mech.
Eng. 17 (1) (2017) 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2016.08.003.
[12] S. Senthil Kumaran, S. Muthukumaran, C. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Suitability of
friction welding of tube to tube plate using an external tool process for
different tube diameters - a study, Exp. Tech. 37 (2013) 8–14, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1747-1567.2011.00765.x.
[13] S. Muthukumaran, S. Senthil Kumaran, S. Kumar, Friction welding of Cu-tube
to Al-tube plate using an external tool, Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 64 (3) (2011)
255–260, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-011-0052-2.
[14] L. Liu, N. Ding, J. Shi, N.a. Xu, W. Guo, C.-M. Wu, Failure analysis of tube-to-
tubesheet welded joints in a shell-tube heat exchanger, Case Stud. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 7 (2016) 32–40.
[15] S.S. Kumaran, S. Muthukumaran, S. Vinodh, Optimization of friction welding of
tube to tube plate using an external tool by hybrid approach, J. Alloy. Compd.
509 (6) (2011) 2758–2769.
[16] M.A. Bezerra, R.E. Santelli, E.P. Oliveira, L.S. Villar, L.A. Escaleira, Response
surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry,
Talanta 76 (5) (2008) 965–977.