Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optics & Laser Technology

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

Weld-bead prole and costs optimisation of the CO2 dissimilar laser welding
process of low carbon steel and austenitic steel AISI316
A. Ruggiero a, L. Tricarico a, A.G. Olabi b, K.Y. Benyounis c,n
a

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Gestionale, Politecnico di Bari, Viale Japigia 182, 70126 Bari, Italy
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
c
Department of Industrial Eng., Faculty of Engineering, Garyounis University, P.O. Box 1308, Benghazi, Libya.
b

a r t i c l e in f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 3 March 2010
Received in revised form
27 April 2010
Accepted 10 May 2010
Available online 11 June 2010

The dissimilar full depth laser-butt welding of low carbon steel and austenitic steel AISI 316 was
investigated using CW 1.5 kW CO2 laser. The effect of laser power (1.11.43 kW), welding speed (25
75 cm/min) and focal point position (  0.8 to  0.2 mm) on the weld-bead geometry (i.e. weld-bead
area, A; upper width, Wu; lower width, Wl and middle width, Wm) and on the operating cost C was
investigated using response surface methodology (RSM). The experimental plan was based on Box
Behnken design; linear and quadratic polynomial equations for predicting the weld-bead widthness
references were developed. The results indicate that the proposed models predict the responses
adequately within the limits of welding parameters being used. The regression equations were used to
nd optimum welding conditions for the desired geometric criteria.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Laser welding
RSM
Optimization

1. Introduction
Laser welding has become an important industrial process
because of high degree of automation and high production rate,
and so it is very advantageous in several applications. Till now, in
fact, the main goal has been how to express the laser bead
parameters in terms of process factors in order to optimise the
geometrical features. Welding methods, in general, mean fusion
by heating the two joined parts together, which can cause
modications or losses of materials characteristics. This aspect
is more critical in dissimilar laser welding processes, because it
can be more difcult to meet and to match different properties of
different materials in order to obtain high-quality bead. There are
many issues associated with the joining of dissimilar materials,
depending on the materials being joined and the process
employed, because different factors should be considered such
as the carbon migration from the higher carbon containing alloy
to the relatively lower carbon alloy steels, the differences in
thermal expansion coefcients, the difculty in executing the
post-weld heat treatment and the electrochemical property
variations in the weldment. Dissimilar welding of austenitic
stainless-steel with low carbon steel is faced with the coarse
grains phenomena in the weld zone and heat affected zone of
fusion welds, leading to low toughness and ductility due to the
absence of phase transformation [1].

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kybenyounis@yahoo.com (K.Y. Benyounis).

0030-3992/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2010.05.008

To predict the welding parameters and welding geometry

accurately without consuming materials, time and efforts, there
are various methods of obtaining the desired output variables
throughout models development. Among these, design of experiment (DoE) may be is the most important and efcient way for a
systematic study and it has been adapted for many applications in
different areas. Response surface methodology (RSM) is the most
known type of DoE design, and its results analysis would allow to
calculate and to visualize effects of the input parameters on the
results.
The concept of RSM was introduced by Box and Wilson in
1950s [2], and it grew along as it was used in many research elds
such as physics, chemistry and engineering. Many other researchers have been using this procedure for different studies [3,4].
Benyounis and Olabi [5] have reported a comprehensive literature
review of the application of RSM and other techniques in many
welding processes of different materials. Hangsung et al. [6]
studied the bead size and the strength of the weldment by a slight
alteration of welding condition on the laser weld production line.
Manonmami et al. [7] reported the effects of process parameters
on the weld bead geometry of laser beam welded stainless steel
sheets using a factor factorial technique. Benyounis et al. [8]
studied the effect of the main laser welding parameters on the
weld-bead prole using RSM to develop appropriate models. Liao
et al. [9] studied the laser spot welding on stainless steel sheets,
according to the angle of the laser beam incident direction to the
sheet surface. Anawa et al. [1] analyzed and optimised fusion zone
area and shape of dissimilar austenitic stainless-steel with ferritic
low carbon steel as a function of the selected welding parameters
using a statistical design of experiment technique. Benyounis

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

et al. [10] also considered a universal approach and optimisation

about mechanical properties, weld bead and cost for CO2 laser
welding process.
Once a study by mean of RSM has been done, the optimum
welding parameters combinations can be examined to produce
the desired specications, within the parameters ranges considered for the study. So, this paper rstly aims to use RSM to relate
the laser welding input parameters (laser power, welding speed
and focal position) to the weld bead width dimensions (as the
middle width as both the upper and the lower ones, as well) as
measures and indexes about the process quality, to the weld bead
area as the real extension on the fusion zone and to the operating
cost. The second aim is to nd the optimal welding combination
that would minimize both the middle width and the weld-bead
area, keeping the cost relatively low.

2. Methodology
2.1. Response surface methodology
Usually to determine the optimum value of the process input
parameters can mean to reach either the minimum or the
maximum of a function that expresses these input parameters.
Therefore, RSM is a good way to describe the process and to nd
the optimum value of the considered response. It concerns a set of
mathematical and statistical tools that can be used to predict the
response inuenced by the considered input variables, in order to
optimise this response. With RSM it is possible to dene the
relationships between the responses and the main controllable
input factors, as well. As it is a powerful technique, when all
independent variables can be measurable, controllable and
continuous along the experiment (with negligible error), the
expression for the response surface can be
y f x1 ,x2 ,. . .,xk

83

2.3. Desirability approach

There are many statistical methods for solving multiple response
problems such as overlaying the contours plot for each response,
constrained optimisation problems and the desirability approach.
The desirability method is recommended because it is simple,
available in softwares and provides exibility in giving weight and
importance for all individual responses, as well. It deals with using a
technique for combining multiple responses into a dimensionless
measure of performance, called the overall desirability function. The
desirability function approach involves transforming each estimate
response, Yi, into a unitless utility bounded 0odi o1, where the
higher di value indicates that response value Yi is more desirable, if
di 0 this means a completely undesired response [13]. In this work,
the individual desirability of each response was calculated using Eqs.
(36) . The shape of desirability function can be changed for each
goal by the weight eld wti. Weights are used to give more emphasis
to the upper/lower bounds or to emphasize the target value. Weight
can be ranged between 0.1 and 10; a weight greater than 1 gives
more emphasis to the goal, while weights smaller than 1 give less
emphasis. When the weight value is equal to 1, this will make the dis
vary from 0 to 1 in a linear mode. In the desirability objective
function D each response can be assigned an importance r relative to
the other responses. Importance varies from the least important
value of 1, indicated by (+), the most important value of 5, indicated
by (+ + + + +). If the varying degrees of importance are assigned to
the different responses, the overall objective function is shown in Eq.
(7) below, where n is the number of responses in the measure and Ti
is the target value of its response [11].

 For the goal of maximum, the desirability will be dened by

8
0,
>
>
>
<

Yi Lowi
di
Highi Lowi
>
>
>
:
1,

wti

Yi rLowi
Lowi /Yi /Highi

Yi ZHighi

 For the goal of minimum, the desirability will be dened by

8
1,
>
>
>
<

2.2. Experimental design

The experiment was designed based on a three level Box
Behnken design with full replication [11]. Laser power (1.1
1.43 kW), welding speed (2575 cm/min) and focal point position
(  0.8 to  0.2 mm) represent the laser independent input
variables. Table 1 shows laser input variables and experimental
design levels used.
Using statistical software Design-expert V6, RSM was applied
to the experimental data. Linear and second-order polynomials
were tted to the experimental data to obtain the regression
equations. The sequential F-test, lack-of-t test and other
adequacy measures were used in order to select the best models.
A step-wise regression method was used to t the second-order
polynomial Eq. (2) to the experimental data and to identify the
relevant model terms [12]. The same statistical software was able
to generate the statistical and response plots.
X
X
X
y bo
bi wi
bii w2ii
bij wi wj e
2

Highi Yi
di
High
>
i Lowi
>
>
:
0,

wti

Yi rLowi
Lowi /Yi /Highi

Yi ZHighi

 For goal as a target, the desirability will be dened by

8

>
Yi Lowi wt1i
>
>
,
>
>
>
< Ti Lowi

wt2i
di
Yi Highi
>
,
>
>
>
> Ti Highi
>
:
0,

Lowi /Yi /Ti

Ti /Yi /Highi

Otherwise

 For goal within range, the desirability will be dened by

(
di

1,

Lowi /Yi /Highi

0,

Otherwise

n
Y

dri i

!P1

ri

i1

Table 1
Independent variable and experimental design levels used.

3. Experimental work

Variable

Laser power LP (kW)

Welding speed S (cm/min)
Focal point position F (mm)

1
1.1
25
 0.8

1.265
50
 0.5

1.43
75
 0.2

3.1. Laser welded specimens

The dissimilar joining metals used are AISI316 and a lowcarbon steel with chemical composition as shown in Table 2. Both

84

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

metals were cut into plates of 160  80  3 mm3 which were butt
joined using a 1.5 kW CW CO2 Ron laser and a ZnSe focusing lens
with a focal length of 127 mm. Argon gas was used as shielding
gas with constant ow rate of 5 l/min. From the brand-new
welded plate, four transverse specimens were cut from each
weldment. The three bead prole parameters of width were
measured using an optical microscope with digital micrometers
attached to it with an accuracy of 0.001mm, which allow to
measure in both x-axis and y-axis. The weld bead area was
measured using enterprise image processing software, after
loading pictures of each transverse specimen and setting their
exact scale. The average of the four measured weld prole
parameters was recorded for each response. The design matrix
and the average measured responses are shown below in Tables 3
and 4.

3.2. Operating cost calculations

Laser-welding operating costs can be estimated per hour or per
unit length of the weld if the application data are known. The
welding system used in this work utilized CO2 and uses a static
volume of laser gases of approximately 7.5 l every 72 h. For this
type of welding system with 1.5 kW maximum output power the
operating costs can be divided into different categories: they can
be calculated using Eq. (3) and they are listed in Table 5.
The operating cost calculation does not consider the unscheduled break down and maintenance, such as break down in the
table motion controller or PC hard disc replacement.
The total approximated operating cost per hour as a function of
the output power can be given by 4.954 +1.158 P. While the total
approximated operating cost per unit length of the weld is given
by Eq. (8), assuming 85% utilization.


operating cost Euro=m

4:954 1:158  P
0:85  Scm=min60 min=hm=100 cm

4:954 1:158  P
0:51  S

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
The test for signicance of the regression models, the F-test for
signicance on individual model coefcients and the lack-of-t
test were all performed using the same statistical package. Then,
the step-wise regression method was used to eliminate the
insignicant model terms automatically. So, the resulting ANOVA
Tables 610 for the models summarise the analysis of variance of
each response and show the signicant model terms. These tables
also show the other adequacy measures R2, adjusted R2 and
predicted R2. They are all not so close to 1, but however they
indicate adequate models. In fact, there is adequate precision in
the comparison of the range of the predicted value at the design
points to the average prediction error, and all its values are much
greater than 4, the desirable ratio.

Table 3
Design matrix with code independent process variables.
Exp. no. Laser power (kW) Welding speed (cm/min) Focused position (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

The analysis of variance for the upper width indicates that

there is a linear relationship between the main effects of the three
parameters, because laser power (P), welding speed (S) and
focused position (F) are signicant model terms.
The analysis of variance for the lower width indicates that
laser power (P), welding speed (S) and the second-order effect of
welding speed S2 are signicant model terms. However, the main
effect of focused position (F) and both the second order effect of
laser power (P2) and focused position (F2) are the most important
factors associated with the lower width, as well.
The analysis for the middle width indicates that the main
effects of laser power (P), welding speed (S) and the second order
effect of both welding speed (S2) and focused position (F2) are
signicant model terms. Anyway, also the main effect of the
focused position (F) and the two level interactions of laser power
and welding speed (PS) are the most important factors affecting
the middle width model.
Finally, the analysis for the weld-bead area indicates that the
main effects of laser power (P), welding speed (S) and the secondorder effect of the welding speed (S2) are signicant model terms.
However, the main effect of focused position (F) and the second
order effects of both the laser power (P2) and the focused position
(F2) are also important factors affecting the model.
The nal mathematical models in terms of coded factors in Eq.
(9), and in terms of actual factors in Eq. (10), as determined by
design expert software are shown below
Wu 2:37 0:5P0:76F
Wl 1:02 0:19P-0:4S 0:07F 0:21P 2 0:35S2 -0:18F 2
Wm 1:26-0:21P-0:64S 0:09F 0:21PS 0:48S2 0:25F 2

A 4:49 0:75P-2:1S-0:14F-0:55PS 1:01S2 0:61F 2

Wu 1:14 3:1P-0:03S-2:2F
Wl 13:9-18:71P-0:07S-1:78F 7:88P2 -2:02F 2
Wm 10:16-3:84P-0:17S 3:12F 0:05PS 2:81F 2

10

A 0:24 11:43P-0:07S 6:28F-0:14PS 6:74F 2

4.2. Developing the operating cost model

Table 2
Chemical composition for the low carbon steel used.
Element
Wt (%)

C
0.003

P
0.013

S
0.005

Si
0.001

Mn
0.001

Al
0.04

N
0.01

In this work a mathematical model was developed to estimate

the operating cost for the purpose of optimisation. The step-wise
regression method was used, as it eliminates the insignicant
model terms automatically. The sequential F-test for signicance

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

85

Table 4
Experimental measured responses.
Exp. no.

Upper width (mm)

Lower width (mm)

Middle width (mm)

Area (mm2)

Cost (h/m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

3.931
2.812
1.632
2.394
2.700
3.755
1.435
1.991
3.904
1.700
2.513
0.894
2.451
2.148
1.475
1.931
2.105

1.744
2.424
0.794
1.369
0.847
1.047
1.104
1.202
1.406
0.901
1.584
0.879
1.007
1.032
1.102
1.053
0.925

2.765
1.796
1.134
0.995
1.382
1.195
1.787
1.412
2.642
1.399
2.801
1.369
1.326
1.364
1.210
1.491
1.143

5.899
9.179
3.169
4.248
5.159
4.205
4.446
5.043
7.973
3.630
8.567
3.793
4.694
4.369
4.120
4.414
4.369

0.4146
0.4316
0.1770
0.1850
0.2488
0.2590
0.2488
0.2590
0.4231
0.1813
0.4231
0.1813
0.2539
0.2539
0.2539
0.2539
0.2539

Table 5
Operating cost break down [10].

Table 7
ANOVA table for lower width reduced quadratic model.

Element of cost

Calculations

Welding
cost (h/h)

Source

Sum of
squares

df

Mean
squares

Fvalue

Prob 4F

Laser electrical power

(20.88 kVA)(0.8 pfa)(h0.104/

kWh)n(P/1.5)b
(11.52 kVA)(0.8 pf)(h0.104/
kWh)
(4.8 kVA)(0.8 pf)(h0.104/kWh)
(0.9 kWh)(h0.104/kWh)
{(h989.79/bottle)/(1500 l/
bottle)}  7.5 l/72 h
(h181.37/720 h)
(h284.80/year)/(8760 h/year)
(5 l/min)(60 min/
h)(h8.62  10  3/l)
(h5.60/200 h)
(h5/100 h)
(h184.51/lens)/(1000 h)
(12 h/2000 h operation)(h50/h)

1.158nP

Model
P
S
F
P2
S2
F2
Residual
Lack of
t
Pure
error
Cor total

2.47
0.3
1.29
0.04
0.18
0.52
0.14
0.23
0.22

6
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
6

0.41
0.3
1.29
0.04
0.18
0.52
0.14
0.02
0.04

17.57
12.88
55.27
1.73
7.8
22.15
5.96

o 0.0001 signicant
0.0049
o 0.0001
0.2179
0.0190
0.0008
0.0348

8.44

0.0291 not
signicant

Chiller electrical power

Motion controller power
Exhaust system power
Laser gas LASPUR208
Gas bottle rental
Chiller additives
Shielding gas (Argon)

Nozzle tip
Exhaust system lters
Focus lens
Maintenance labour (with
overhead)
Total approximated operating h4.954 + 1.158nP/h
cost per hour

0.958
0.399
0.094
0.069
0.252
0.033
2.586
0.028
0.05
0.185
0.30

0.02
2.70

4 0
16

R2 0.91; adjusted R2 0.86; predicted R2 0.67; adequate precision 14.87.

Table 8
ANOVA table for middle width reduced quadratic model.

pf: power factor which converts from kVA to kWh.

(P/1.5): The ratio of the utilized laser power to the maximum laser power
achieved by the machine.
b

Table 6
ANOVA table for upper width reduced linear model.
Source

Sum of
squares

df

Mean
squares

Fvalue

Prob4 F

Model
P
S
F
Residual
Lack of
t
Pure
error
Cor total

10.07
2.03
4.57
3.47
2.72
2.21

3
1
1
1
13
9

3.36
2.03
4.57
3.47
0.21
0.25

16.02
9.07
21.78
16.57

0.0001
0.0082
0.0004
0.0013

signicant

1.91

0.2787

not
signicant

0.51
12.79

Source

Sum of
squares

df

Mean
squares

Fvalue

Prob 4F

Model
P
S
F
PS
S2
F2
Residual
Lack of
t
Pure
error
Cor total

5.16
0.35
1.29
0.07
0.17
0.98
0.27
0.23
0.15

6
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
6

0.86
0.35
1.29
0.07
0.17
0.98
0.27
0.02
0.03

37.59
15.21
55.27
3.09
7.53
42.68
11.77

o 0.0001 signicant
0.0030
o 0.0001
0.1094
0.0207
o 0.0001
0.0064

0.07
5.39

1.4

0.3886 not
signicant

4 0.02
16

R2 0.96; adjusted R2 0.93; predicted R2 0.85; adequate precision 17.46.

4 0.13
16

R2 0.79; adjusted R2 0.74; predicted R2 0.64; adequate precision 12.74.

of both the regression model and the individual models terms

were carried out. Table 10 shows the analysis of variance for the
cost model and shows the signicant model terms. It presents also
the adequacy measures R2, adjusted R2 and predicted R2. They are

in reasonable agreement and indicate signicance relationships.

The adequate precision ratio, as well, is greater than four
and it means that the model is adequate. The analysis of variance
results for the cost model shows that the main effect of laser
power (P), welding speed (S), the quadratic effect of the
welding speed (S2) and the two level interaction of laser power
and welding speed (PS) are signicant model terms. Therefore, the
model can be used for further analysis. The cost model in terms of

86

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

Predicted vs. Actual

Table 9
ANOVA table for area reduced quadratic model.

2.50
Sum of
squares

df

Model
P
S
F
PS
S2
F2
Residual
Lack of
t
Pure
error
Cor total

47.26
4.52
35.15
0.16
1.22
4.53
1.55
2.54
2.37

6 7.88
1 4.52
1 35.15
1 0.16
1 1.22
1 4.53
1 1.55
10 0.25
6 0.4

0.17

49.8

Mean
squares

Fvalue

Prob 4F

31
o 0.0001 signicant
17.79
0.0018
138.34
0.0001
0.62
0.4505
4.81
0.0530
17.11
0.0020
6.12
0.0329
9.48

2.05
Predicted

Source

0.0237 not
signicant

1.60

1.15

0.04

16

0.70

R2 0.95; adjusted R2 0.92; predicted R2 0.76; adequate precision 17.61.

0.72
Table 10
ANOVA table for cost reduced quadratic model.

1.15

1.57
Actual

2.00

2.42

Fig. 2. Scatter diagram of lower width.

Source

Sum of
squares

df

Mean
squares

F-value

Prob4F

Model
P
S
PS
S2
Residual
Cor
total

0.26
0
0.23
0
0.03
0
0.26

4
1
1
1
1
12
16

0.06
0
0.23
0
0.03
0

63357.53
558
223204.38
96
29541.76

o 0.0001 signicant
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
o 0.0001

Predicted vs. Actual

Predicted vs. Actual

Predicted

2.40

R2 0.99; adjusted R2 0.99; predicted R2 0.99; adequate precision 647.61.

Predicted

2.90

1.90

4.00

1.40

3.20

0.90
1.00

1.45

2.40

1.90
Actual

2.35

2.80

Fig. 3. Scatter diagram of middle width.

1.60

Predicted vs. Actual

0.80

9.20
0.85

1.62

2.39
Actual

3.16

3.93

7.68

coded factor is
C 0:25 0:01P-0:17S 0:08S2

11

The cost model in terms of actual factor, instead, is shown

below
C 0:78 0:11P-0:02S

Predicted

Fig. 1. Scatter diagram of upper width.

6.15

4.63

12

3.10
4.3. Validation of the models
Figs. 15 show the relationship between actual and predicted
values of upper, lower and middle width and area, respectively.

3.17

4.67

6.17
Actual

7.68

Fig. 4. Scatter diagram of area.

9.18

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

These indicate that the developed models are adequate because

the residuals in prediction of each response are not so big, as the
residuals seem to be close to the diagonal line. Anyway, to verify
the adequacy of the developed models, two conrmation
experiments were carried out using new test conditions, but
they are within the experiment range dened early. Then, the
prediction is carried out using the previous developed models.
Then the average of four measured results was calculated,
taking pictures and measuring them by image processing
techniques, once again (Fig. 6).
Table 11 summarizes the conditions, the averages of actual
experimental values, the predicted values and the percentages of
error. So, the validation results demonstrate that the developed
models are quite accurate, as the error in prediction is in a good
agreement.

87

Table 11
Conrmation experiments.

Exp. no. 1a
Actual
Predicted
Error %
Exp. no. 2b
Actual
Predicted
Error %

Upper width

Lower width

Middle width

Area

Cost

1.129
1.049
7.09

0.890
0.968
8.76

1.065
1.121
4.99

3.361
3.167
6.12

0.1681
0.1643
2.26

1.063
0.977
8.09

0.930
0.994
6.88

1.063
1.128
6.11

3.388
3.204
5.94

0.1628
0.1640
0.74

Perturbation
4.000

4.4. Effect of process factor on parameters

Upper width, mm

3.200

4.4.1. Upper width

Fig. 7 is a perturbation plot that illustrates the effect
of laser-welding parameters on the upper width. It is evident
that both welding speed and focused position have a positive
effect on the width. In the case of the laser power the results
demonstrate a direct proportion, as an increase of laser power
means an increase of upper width. This match with the goal of
weld bead dimensions reduction, so it has to be considered as a
negative effect.

B
C

2.400
A

C
B

1.600

0.800

4.4.2. Lower width

Fig. 8 is a perturbation plot that illustrates the effect of laserwelding parameters on the lower width, and all of them have a

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Fig. 7. Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the upper width.

Predicted vs. Actual

0.52

Perturbation
2.500

2.050
Lower width, mm

Predicted

0.43

0.34

2
5
2

0.25

0.16

B
1.600
A

1.150

B
C

0.700

0.16

0.25

0.34
Actual

0.43

Fig. 5. Scatter diagram of cost.

0.52

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Fig. 8. Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the lower width.

Fig. 6. Weld bead area pictures after etching for different processing conditions, 5  .

88

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

signicant inuence. Fig. 8 shows a perturbation plot to compare

the different welding factors effects. From Fig. 8 it can be noticed
that all the relationships between the welding parameters and the
lower width look like parabolas. In fact, as laser power increases,
the lower width slightly decreases until a minimum, but it
increases after it. It is almost the same behaviour as welding
speed, because the lower width dramatically decreases as it
increases, but it starts increasing again soon after the minimum
point. For the focused position, an opposite behaviour can be
noticed, as its increase results in an increase in the lower width
too until the maximum limit, and then it continues to fall
gradually.
4.4.3. Middle width
Fig. 9 is a perturbation plot that illustrates the effect of laserwelding parameters on the middle width, and all of them have a
signicant inuence. From Fig. 9 it can be seen that the
relationships between both laser power and welding speed with
the middle width look like parabolas. In fact, as welding speed
increases, middle width slightly decreases until the minimum, but
it increases slightly after it. For the focused position a similar
behaviour can be noticed, as middle width decreases until
a limit point, and then starts increasing again. With variation in
the laser power, the middle width always decreases as it
increases, and it thus it has a positive effect on the goal of
weld-bead dimensions reduction. In Fig. 10 it is evident the
interaction between laser power and welding speed. From
consideration of the upper limit curve and the lower limit
curve, it can be concluded that to reach low values of middle
width it can be enough just to put welding speed on high values,
because the gap between the two curves gets narrower and the
width values get lower, being quite independent of the laser
power level used.
4.4.4. Area
Fig. 11 is a perturbation plot that illustrates the effect of laserwelding parameters on the area, and also in this case all of the
parameters have a signicant inuence. From this gure it can be
seen that the relationships between both laser power and welding
speed with the area look like parabolas, and they are similar to the
middle width perturbation plot, with the exception of the effect of
the laser power. In fact, comparing the two plots, here the

Perturbation
2.900

Wmed, mm

2.400

1.900
C
1.400

A
C
BA

0.900
-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Fig. 9. Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the middle width.

difference is that area increases linearly with increasing laser

power. Generally speaking, and comparing the laser power
relationships with both all the width and the area dimensions,
we can conclude that an increasing laser power involves a more
narrow middle width, larger upper and lower widths, and so a
larger area, as well.

4.4.5. Operating cost

Fig. 12 shows a perturbation plot that illustrates the effect of
laser-welding parameters on the cost. Only laser power and
welding speed have signicant effect on it. In fact, as the
welding speed increases, the costs decrease dramatically. The
costs slightly increase when laser power increases. Therefore,
we can say that increasing welding speed has a positive effect on
cost reduction goal, and increasing laser power has a little
negative effect on it. Finally, the focused position has no effect
on costs.

5. Optimisation
The optimisation tools in Design-Expert software looks for a
combination of factor levels that simultaneously match and
satisfy the requirements placed (called optimisation criteria) on
each of the responses and factors. The optimisation process
involves combining the goals into the overall desirability function.
Then, the numerical optimisation would nd one point or more
that maximize this function. In the numerical optimisation two
criteria were implemented, as presented in Table 12.
For every response there is a different importance, according to
the goal sought. Weight is given for all the factors, lying in the
range 1,0. The goal of the rst criteria is to minimize width values,
especially area and width values, with no constraints on the
process parameters, minimizing cost too. While, in the second
criteria there are constraints on the process parameters, and so
the goal is to reach the minimum value of both area and width,
giving more importance to the main factors; area and middle
width, minimizing laser power and maximizing welding speed,
and keeping cost as low as possible. The optimisation results are
presented in Tables 13 and 14 .
From the optimal solutions Tables (13 and 14), it is evident
that for both the criteria the working ranges are similar. In fact, to
reach any of the two criteria, laser power has to be 1.1 kW, and
this is its lower limit as well. If the process parameters are free to
change in order to minimize weld bead dimensions and keep the
cost low, the laser power will be set at 1.1 kW, the optimum
welding speed has to be around 72.6 cm/min and the focused
position around  0.43 mm. Under these conditions, the weld
bead area is set around 3.17 mm2, the middle width around
1.13 mm and cost is 0.16 h/m. Otherwise, putting constraints by
the second criteria, the laser power is always set to 1.1 kW, then
the welding speed reaches its maximum value at 75 cm/min and
the focused position is around the middle value of 0.44. The, weld
bead area is going to be around 3.21 mm2, the middle width is
1.13 mm and the cost is constant at 0.16 h/m. Therefore, the
differences are not as signicant as the constraints change, and
the process optimum conditions reach equilibrium. Comparing
the optimum weld bead area values for both criteria, the rst is
just a little smaller than the second, showing that the rst
criterion offers only a marginal benet. The same two criteria,
which have been proposed in the numerical optimisation, can be
introduced in any graphical optimisation technique. In fact, for
each response the upper and lower limits can be chosen and xed,
and the software can identify a region in the graphic were optimal
conditions lay on.

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

89

Interaction
Design-Expert Software
A: Laser power, kW

3.100

Wmed
Design Points
A- 1.100
A+ 1.425
X1 = B: Welding speed
X2 = A: Laser power
Actual Factor
C: Focus position = -0.50

Wmed

2.525

1.950

1.375

0.800
25.00

37.50
50.00
62.50
B: Welding speed, cm/min

75.00

Fig. 10. Interaction effect between S and P on the middle width at F  0.50 mm.

Perturbation

Perturbation

9.200

0.4300
Cost, Euro/m

Area, mm2

7.675

0.5200

6.150
A
C

0.3400

0.2500

4.625

A
B

0.1600

3.100
-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

-1.000

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Fig. 11. Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the area.

6. Conclusions
The following points were concluded from the study among
the limits considered:

1. Design-expert software can be used for optimising the weld

bead parameters and nding the corresponding optimum
process factors.
2. A laser power of 1.1 kW is an optimum input to obtain
excellent welded joints produced from austenitic stainless
steel AISI316 and low carbon steel.
3. The welding speed is the parameter that most signicantly
inuences the main weld bead dimensions, the middle width
and the area, and so it has to be set between 72.6 and 75 cm/
min, with the focused position being around  0.44 mm.
4. The welding operating cost achieved with these optimisation
conditions is cheaper than it was expected to be.

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Fig. 12. Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the cost.

Table 12
Optimisation criteria and importance.
Name

First criteria

Second criteria

Importance

Laser power
Welding speed
Focused position
Upper width
Lower width
Middle width
Area
Cost

is in range
is in range
is in range
minimize
minimize
minimize
minimize
is in range

minimize
maximize
is in range
minimize
minimize
minimize
minimize
minimize

3
5
3
3
3
5
5
5

5. Optimal, efcient and cheap welds could be realized using the

welding conditions drawn from the numerical optimisation
6. The numerical optimisation results can be used further,
designing a graphical optimisation, in order to achieve optimal
welding settings according to specic technical requirements.

90

A. Ruggiero et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 43 (2011) 8290

References

Table 13
Optimal solutions for the rst criteria.
No.

wu

wl

wm

1
2
3
4
5

1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1

72.63
72.65
72.79
72.7
72.74

 0.44
 0.43
 0.44
 0.42
 0.41

1.039
1.034
1.046
1.010
0.988

0.968
0.968
0.970
0.968
0.968

1.124
1.126
1.121
1.133
1.140

3.169
3.170
3.169
3.176
3.182

0.1643
0.1643
0.1643
0.1643
0.1643

0.9452
0.9452
0.9452
0.9451
0.9449

Table 14
Optimal solutions for the second criteria.
No.

wu

wl

wm

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1

75
75
75
75
75
74.95
75
75
75
75

 0.44
 0.44
 0.44
 0.45
 0.45
 0.43
 0.47
 0.47
 0.4
 0.39

0.976
0.970
0.988
0.995
1.002
0.963
1.032
1.042
0.881
0.876

0.994
0.994
0.994
0.994
0.993
0.993
0.992
0.991
0.989
0.989

1.128
1.130
1.125
1.123
1.121
1.133
1.113
1.112
1.162
1.164

3.204
3.215
3.202
3.202
3.201
3.206
3.200
3.200
3.232
3.234

0.1640
0.1640
0.1640
0.1640
0.1640
0.1640
0.1640
0.1641
0.1640
0.1640

0.9678
0.9678
0.9678
0.9678
0.9678
0.9677
0.9676
0.9673
0.9671
0.9670

Acknowledgements
The Erasmus Placement Programme/Lifelong Learning Programme is very gratefully acknowledged. The technical support
provided by Mr. Christopher Crouch, Mr. Michael May and Mr.
Martin Johnson in Dublin City University is also gratefully
acknowledged.

[1] Anawa EM, Olabi AG. Using Taguchi method to optimize welding pool of
dissimilar laser-welded components. Optics & Laser Technology
2008;40:37988.
[2] Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions.
Journal of Royal Statistical Society 1951;B13:145.
[3] Benyounis KY, Olabi AG, Hashmi MSJ. Multi-response optimization of CO2
laser-welding process of austenitic stainless steel. Optics & Laser Technology
February 2008;40(Issue 1):7687.
[4] Acherjee B, Misra D, Bose D, Venkadeshwaran K. Prediction of weld strength
and seam width for laser transmission welding of thermoplastic using
response surface methodology. Optics & Laser Technology November
2009;41(Issue 8):95667.
[5] Benyounis KY, Olabi AG. Optimization of different welding processes using
statistical and numerical approachesa reference guide. Advances in
Engineering Software June 2008;39(Issue 6):48396.
[6] Hunsung P, Sehun R. Estimation of weld bead size in CO2 laser welding by
using multiple regression and neural network. Journal of Laser Applications
1999:14350.
[7] Manonmani K, Murugan N, Buvanasekaran G. Effects of process parameters
on the weld bead geometry of laser beam welded stainless steel sheets.
International Journal for the Joining of Materials 2005:1039.
[8] Benyounis KY, Olabi AG, Hashmi MSJ. Effect of laser welding parameters on
the heat input and weld-bead prole. Journal of Material Processing
Technology 2005:97885.
[9] Liao YC, Yu MH. Effects of laser beam energy and incident angle on the pulse
laser welding of stainless steel thin sheet. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 2007:1028.
[10] Benyounis KY, Olabi AG, Hashmi MSJ. Mechanical properties, weld bead and
cost universal approach for CO2 laser welding process optimisation.
International Journal of Computational Materials Science and Surface
Engineering 2009;2(1):99109.
[11] Design-Expert Software, v7, Users Guide, Technical Manual, Stat-Ease Inc.,
Minneapolis, MN, 2000.
[12] Montgomery DC. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2nd ed.. New York:
Wiley; 1984.
[13] Myers RH, Montgomery DC. Response surface methodology process and
product optimization using designed experiment. Wiley; 1995.