OPTEST-2017 MANUSCRIPT FORMAT

Optimization of welding process parameters using

WASPAS method
Venkata Ajay Kumar. G1, Satish Kumar. V1, Savya. M1, Veerasivakrishna. D1,
Saikumar. K1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Annamacharya Institute of Technology & Sciences
Rajampet, Kadapa, India
ajay.ajay79@gmail.com

Abstract: In the present work, application of weighted aggregated sum product assessment
(WASPAS) to solve multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for optimization of welding
process. Here four decision making problems were selected in welding process, selection of
welding parameters in various welding processes such as gas metal arc welding, submerged
arc welding, friction stir welding and CO2 laser welding are presented in this paper. It was
observed that accurately ranking of the alternatives in all the selection problems. The
WASPAS method evidence the applicability, potentiality, and tractability of the method while
solving various complex decision-making problems.

KEYWORDS: MCDM (Multiple Criteria Decision Making), WASPAS (Weighted

Aggregated Sum Product Assessment), welding process parameters, ranking.

1.0 INTRODUCTION:
The selection of proper input parameters for the welding process plays a significant role in
determining the quality of the weld joint. Now the manufacturer need to control the
process parameters to attain good welded joint, in terms of the bead geometry and
maximizing the tensile strength. It is necessary to determine the input parameters for the
welding process for every new welded joint based on the manufacturers specification.
Many conventional methods are there where those are time consuming, some are trail and
error application and some depends on the manufacturer knowledge and skill in that
particular process. Selection of right process parameters for the good quality of weld is
important, it must be depend on choosing the right alternative so that decision making is
also crucial in such cases.
To select the appropriate input parameters, process engineer has to apply multi-criteria
decision making (MCDM) methods for evaluating and selecting suitable input parameters.
MCDM is a division of a broad class of operation research models allocating with
decision problems under the incidence of a surplus of attributes and alternatives. It
provides refined procedural tools that are concerned towards the provision of the decision
makers in facing complex real-world decisions. MCDM (Rao and Patel 2010) methods are
most important in solving the problems related to selection, presence of multiple and
generally conflicting criteria. MCDM methods have divided into two categories such as
 multi-objective decision making (MODM) and multi-attribute decision making (MADM).
MODM methods have decision variable values that are determined in a continuous or
integer domain with either an infinitive or a large number of alternative choices, the best
of which should satisfy the decision makers constraints and preference priorities. MADM
methods, on the other hand, are generally discrete, with a limited number of pre-specified
alternatives. Some of the methods applied to selection of equipment (Dadeviren 2008),
selection of robot (Bhangale et al. 2004), selection of material for femoral component
(Bahraminasab and Jahan 2011), selection of machine tool in flexible manufacturing
systems (Taha and Rostam 2012) etc., Many MCDM techniques are there, these
developed MCDM methods use different analysis models and have different decision
rules. In this paper, an attempt is made to justify the applicability and solution accuracy
for the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method. Here we have
chosen four welding process parameters optimization problems.

2.0 WASPAS METHOD:

Weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method was developed by

(Zavadskas et al. 2012), it is a combination of two methods weighted sum method
(WSM) (MacCrimmon 1968) and weighted product method (WPM).
The detail procedure of WASPAS method is as follow in steps.
Step 1: Initialize the matrix for solving the selection problem
Step 2: Normalize the decision matrix
xij
xij
max xij
(1)
min x ij
xij (2)
xij
Where xij is the assessment values, the eq. 1 and eq. 2 are used for maximization
(beneficial) and minimization (non-beneficial) criteria respectively.
Step 3: calculate the total relative importance based on WSM method with eq. 3
n
Qi(1) xij . w j (3)
j 1

Step 4: calculate the total relative importance based on WPM method with eq. 4
n
Qi( 2 ) xij
wj
(4)
j 1

Step 5: in order to have improved ranking accuracy and helpfulness of the decision
making process, in the WASPAS method, a more general equation for formative the total
relative significance of alternatives is given by eq. 5
Qi . Qi(1) (1 ) . Qi( 2 ) (5)
Where = 0, 0.1,1. Here for solving the problems value is considered as 0.5

3.0 DECISION MAKING PROBLEMS:

 In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of WASPAS method in solving multi-objective
decision making problems, the four following illustrative examples are considered.

3.1 Gas Metal Arc Welding:

(Achebo and Odinikuku 2015) have applied multi-objective optimization on the basis
of ratio analysis (MOORA) for solving multi-criteria optimization problems in optimizing the
process parameters in gas metal arc welding. The welding characteristics associated with
welding process are ultimate tensile strength, impact energy, bead penetration, bead height
and bead width which are shown in table. The input considered for this process are current
(A), voltage (V), electrode diameter (ED) and welding speed (WS). The ultimate tensile
strength (UTS), Charpy V-notch impact energy (CVN) and bead penetration (BP) which
correspond to higher-the-better criterion, where the higher values are preferred. On the
contrary, bead height (BH) and bead width (BW) which correspond to the lower-the-better,
where the lower values are preferred.

Table 1: Objective data for the attributes of gas metal arc welding process (Achebo
and Odinikuku 2015)
Electrode diameter (mm)

Maximum Minimum
Welding speed (mm/s)
Current (A)

Voltage (V)
Sl.No.

UTS CVN BP BH BW
(MPa) (J) (mm) (mm) (mm)

1 350 22 1.6 100 420 110 2.04 2.25 10.82

2 350 38 1.6 100 500 100 1.12 2.85 5.14
3 350 38 3.2 100 380 80 2.58 3.1 7.22
4 350 38 3.2 135 320 90 1.03 2.51 11.42
5 280 38 3.2 135 410 60 1.45 3.72 5.35
6 350 22 3.2 135 220 100 1.05 2.05 8.83
7 280 38 1.6 135 280 55 2.01 2.15 10.72
8 350 22 3.2 100 510 115 3.5 3.88 4.5
9 350 38 1.6 135 480 85 3.78 2.85 6.85
10 280 38 3.2 100 320 60 2.15 2.15 11.2
11 280 22 3.2 135 250 95 1.9 2.98 12.4
12 350 22 1.6 135 310 83 2.42 2.06 9.8
13 280 38 1.6 100 520 100 3.82 2.97 4.18
14 280 22 3.2 100 430 70 2.25 3.08 8.32
15 280 22 1.6 135 270 60 1.65 2.15 10.74
16 280 22 1.6 100 290 80 1.88 2.7 12.88
 Table 1 shows the normalized values of alternatives with respect to the above
considered attributes, which are obtained by using eq. Then further applying eq the
normalized assessement values (yi) for all the alternatives are computed. From the solution in
table for optimal process parameters selection in which sl. no. 13 has the first rank with
current (280 A), voltage (22 V), electrode diameter (1.6 mm) and welding speed (100 mm/s).
(Achebo and Odinikuku 2015) paper results also suggested the same process parameters by
MOOORA method.

Table 2: Normalized values, yi and the Ranking

UTS BP BH BW
Sl.No. CVN (J) yi Rank
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 0.8077 0.9565 0.5340 0.9111 0.3863 0.6957 5
2 0.9615 0.8696 0.2932 0.7193 0.8132 0.7068 4
3 0.7308 0.6957 0.6754 0.6613 0.5789 0.6671 6
4 0.6154 0.7826 0.2696 0.8167 0.3660 0.5431 16
5 0.7885 0.5217 0.3796 0.5511 0.7813 0.5967 9
6 0.4231 0.8696 0.2749 1.0000 0.4734 0.5715 11
7 0.5385 0.4783 0.5262 0.9535 0.3899 0.5600 12
8 0.9808 1.0000 0.9162 0.5284 0.9289 0.8634 2
9 0.9231 0.7391 0.9895 0.7193 0.6102 0.7902 3
10 0.6154 0.5217 0.5628 0.9535 0.3732 0.5878 10
11 0.4808 0.8261 0.4974 0.6879 0.3371 0.5491 14
12 0.5962 0.7217 0.6335 0.9951 0.4265 0.6576 7
13 1.0000 0.8696 1.0000 0.6902 1.0000 0.9104 1
14 0.8269 0.6087 0.5890 0.6656 0.5024 0.6342 8
15 0.5192 0.5217 0.4319 0.9535 0.3892 0.5448 15
16 0.5577 0.6957 0.4921 0.7593 0.3245 0.5508 13

3.2 Submerged arc welding

By applying multiple-criteria optimization problem in optimizing submerged arc

welding process with Taguchi method in with the grey relational analysis (GRA) by (Datta
and Bandyopadhyay 2008). A L16 taguchi orthogonal array conducted experiments by
varying four levels of current (C), % of slag-mix (S) and basisity index (B). The quality
characteristics studied are bead penetration (BP) in which high value should be consider. Bead
width (BW), reinforcement (R) and width of HAZ (W) lower values should be preferred.

Table 3: Objective data for the attributes of submerged arc welding process (Datta and
Bandyopadhyay 2008)

Minimum Maximum
Sl.No. C S B Bead Width of
Reinforcement Penetration
width HAZ
 1 150 0 0.8 9.36 3.28 2.11 1.58
2 150 10 1 9.04 3.14 1.62 1.84
3 150 15 1.2 10.72 3.75 1.98 1.91
4 150 20 1.6 13.12 3.94 2.31 1.98
5 200 0 1 11.65 3.43 3.65 2.37
6 200 10 0.8 12.47 4.16 2.59 1.88
7 200 15 1.6 13.75 4.32 3.1 2.26
8 200 20 1.2 10.11 3.71 2.25 2.3
9 250 0 1.2 16.09 4.3 4.41 2.8
10 250 10 1.6 15.55 4.41 4.1 2.51
11 250 15 0.8 13.18 4.6 3.84 2.4
12 250 20 1 15.36 4.06 4.02 3.4
13 300 0 1.6 16.25 4.68 4.91 3.01
14 300 10 1.2 16.25 4.62 4.3 3.3
15 300 15 1 15.73 4.5 4.02 3.9
16 300 20 0.8 13.61 4.96 4.16 3.05

Table 4: Normalized values, yi and the Ranking

Bead Width of
Sl.No Reinforcement Penetration Yi Rank
width HAZ
1 0.9658 0.9573 0.7678 0.4051 0.7532 3
2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4718 0.8484 1
3 0.8433 0.8373 0.8182 0.4897 0.7382 4
4 0.6890 0.7970 0.7013 0.5077 0.6693 6
5 0.7760 0.9155 0.4438 0.6077 0.6737 5
6 0.7249 0.7548 0.6255 0.4821 0.6421 9
7 0.6575 0.7269 0.5226 0.5795 0.6192 10
8 0.8942 0.8464 0.7200 0.5897 0.7577 2
9 0.5618 0.7302 0.3673 0.7179 0.5839 14
10 0.5814 0.7120 0.3951 0.6436 0.5763 15
11 0.6859 0.6826 0.4219 0.6154 0.5959 13
12 0.5885 0.7734 0.4030 0.8718 0.6458 8
13 0.5563 0.6709 0.3299 0.7718 0.5687 16
14 0.5563 0.6797 0.3767 0.8462 0.6020 12
15 0.5747 0.6978 0.4030 1.0000 0.6514 7
16 0.6642 0.6331 0.3894 0.7821 0.6077 11

Table 4 shows the optimal process parameters with the ranking of the values. The best
selection is sl. No. 2 and it has the first rank having the input process parameters as current
(C) 150 A, percentage of slag mix (S) 10, and basicity index (B) 1. The results were exactly
matched to those suggested by (Datta and Bandyopadhyay 2008).
3.3 Friction stir welding

(I. Dinaharan 2012) optimized friction stir welding process parameters by using
generalized reduced gradient method (GRG) to maximize the ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) and joint efficiency (Joint) for AA6061/ZrB2 in-situ Composite Butt Joints.
Cutting tool rotational speed, welding speed, axial force and weight percentage of
ZrB2 was considered as input parameters in the experiment, a total of 31 experiments
were conducted central composite rotatable full factorial design. In this study the
higher-the-better values are considered for ultimate tensile strength and joint
efficiency. Table 5 shows the performance measures considered, normalized values
and the rank of the trail experiments.

Table 5: Performance measures considered, calculated normalized values, yi and rank

(C)Zirconium boride
Rotational speed (N)

Welding speed (S)

Normalized
Axial force (F)

values
Sl.No

UTS
Joint Yi Rank
(MPa)
UTS
Joint
(MPa)

1 1,075 40 5 2.5 154.25 75.99 0.6383 0.7666 0.7010 15

2 1,225 40 5 2.5 162.65 80.12 0.6730 0.8082 0.7391 12
3 1,075 60 5 2.5 138.23 68.09 0.5720 0.6869 0.6281 26
4 1,225 60 5 2.5 153.06 75.4 0.6333 0.7606 0.6955 16
5 1,075 40 7 2.5 150.46 74.12 0.6226 0.7477 0.6837 18
6 1,225 40 7 2.5 145.61 71.73 0.6025 0.7236 0.6617 21
7 1,075 60 7 2.5 144.5 71.18 0.5979 0.7180 0.6566 23
8 1,225 60 7 2.5 145.78 71.81 0.6032 0.7244 0.6624 20
9 1,075 40 5 7.5 179.29 74.7 0.7419 0.7536 0.7477 11
10 1,225 40 5 7.5 180.36 75.15 0.7463 0.7581 0.7522 10
11 1,075 60 5 7.5 161.78 67.41 0.6694 0.6800 0.6747 19
12 1,225 60 5 7.5 157.92 65.8 0.6535 0.6638 0.6586 22
13 1,075 40 7 7.5 177.17 73.82 0.7331 0.7447 0.7389 13
14 1,225 40 7 7.5 166.28 69.28 0.6880 0.6989 0.6935 17
15 1,075 60 7 7.5 155.67 64.86 0.6441 0.6543 0.6492 24
16 1,225 60 7 7.5 173.83 72.43 0.7193 0.7307 0.7250 14
17 1,000 50 6 5 129.12 58.43 0.5343 0.5894 0.5615 31
18 1,300 50 6 5 143.25 64.82 0.5928 0.6539 0.6229 27
19 1,150 30 6 5 140.56 63.6 0.5816 0.6416 0.6112 28
20 1,150 70 6 5 133.65 60.48 0.5530 0.6101 0.5812 30
21 1,150 50 4 5 135.44 61.29 0.5604 0.6183 0.5890 29
22 1,150 50 8 5 145.12 65.67 0.6005 0.6625 0.6311 25
 23 1,150 50 6 0 190.33 99.13 0.7876 1.0000 0.8906 5
24 1,150 50 6 10 241.67 95.52 1.0000 0.9636 0.9817 1
25 1,150 50 6 5 199.23 90.15 0.8244 0.9094 0.8664 7
26 1,150 50 6 5 211.28 95.6 0.8743 0.9644 0.9188 2
27 1,150 50 6 5 200.19 90.58 0.8284 0.9137 0.8705 6
28 1,150 50 6 5 209.83 94.95 0.8683 0.9578 0.9125 3
29 1,150 50 6 5 196.12 88.74 0.8115 0.8952 0.8528 9
30 1,150 50 6 5 206.34 93.37 0.8538 0.9419 0.8973 4
31 1,150 50 6 5 198.65 89.89 0.8220 0.9068 0.8639 8

From the table 5, sr. no. 24 has the highest rank among the other trail experiments
which has highest ultimate tensile strength of 241.67 MPa and 95.52% joint efficiency with
the corresponding process parameters are tool rotational speed (1150 rpm), welding speed (50
mm/s), axial force (6 kN) and reinforcement of ZrB 2 (10 wt% ). The values obtained by
WASPAS method exactly matched with those suggested by (I. Dinaharan 2012).

3.4 CO2 welding

(Park and Rhee 2008) used genetic algorithm in parametric optimization of AA5182
aluminum alloy by CO2 welding process with AA5356 filler wire. The input parameters such
as laser power (LP), welding speed (WS) and wire feed rate (WFR) are considered for the
study. Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the weld is considered as the output, where higher
the better value is considered and are shown in table 6.

Table 6: Performance measures considered, calculated yi and rank

Wire
Laser Welding Tensile
feed
Sl.No power speed strength Yi Rank
rate
(kW) (m/min) (N/mm2)
(m/min)
1 2 4 6 282.13 0.9902 4
2 2 4 7.5 280.04 0.9828 6
3 2 4 9 275.48 0.9668 9
4 2 3.5 6 277.16 0.9727 8
5 2 3.5 7.5 273.55 0.9601 10
6 2 3.5 9 227.46 0.7983 18
7 2 3 6 283.15 0.9938 2
8 2 3 7.5 211.05 0.7407 19
9 2 3 9 166.68 0.5850 25
10 3 4 6 284.93 1.0000 1
11 3 4 7.5 281.62 0.9884 5
12 3 4 9 257.93 0.9052 14
 13 3 3.5 6 270.84 0.9505 11
14 3 3.5 7.5 256.1 0.8988 15
15 3 3.5 9 242.6 0.8514 17
16 3 3 6 267.28 0.9381 12
17 3 3 7.5 205.99 0.7229 20
18 3 3 9 177.63 0.6234 24
19 4 4 6 282.14 0.9902 3
20 4 4 7.5 278.11 0.9761 7
21 4 4 9 252.12 0.8848 16
22 4 3.5 6 261.37 0.9173 13
23 4 3.5 7.5 204.04 0.7161 21
24 4 3.5 9 187.09 0.6566 23
25 4 3 6 192.02 0.6739 22
26 4 3 7.5 159.09 0.5583 26
27 4 3 9 111.06 0.3898 27

The optimal process parameters from the WASPAS method are seen in table 6, the
parameters are wire feed rate (3 m/min), laser power (4 kW) and welding speed (6 m/min) for
this the ultimate tensile strength is 284.93 N/mm2. From the Park work, where the process
varibles optimized by genetic algorithm are wire feed rate (2.3871 m/min), laser power (4
kW) and welding speed (8.4762 m/min). For these conditions, the estimated UTS from the
NN model was 284.2 N/mm2. The WASPAS method showed the highest value of the ultimate
tensile strength.

4.0 CONCLUSION:

In this paper, four examples from the real time welding process with different types are
considered and solved by using WASPAS method. In all the four examples, it is observed that
top-ranked alternatives almost which match with those derived by the previous researchers.
This method is computationally very simple and robust. The main benefit of this method is
identied as its durable resistance against rank reversal of the measured alternatives. It is also
found that this method has the unique capability of dealing with both single and multi-
response optimization problems in various welding operations. This suggested methodology
can be used for any manufacturing selection problem.

5.0 REFERENCES:

Achebo J, Odinikuku WE, Optimization of Gas Metal Arc Welding Process Parameters Using
Standard Deviation ( SDV ) and Multi-Objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio
Analysis ( MOORA ). 298308, (2015).
Bahraminasab M, Jahan A, Material selection for femoral component of total knee
replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Mater Des 32:44714477, (2011).
Bhangale PP, Agrawal VP, Saha SK, Attribute based specification, comparison and selection
 of a robot. Mech Mach Theory 39:13451366, (2004).
Dadeviren M, Decision making in equipment selection: An integrated approach with AHP
and PROMETHEE. J Intell Manuf 19:397406, (2008).
Datta S, Bandyopadhyay A, Solving multi-criteria optimization problem in submerged arc
welding consuming a mixture of fresh flux and fused slag. 935942, (2008).
I. Dinaharan, Optimization of Friction Stir Welding Process to Maximize Tensile Strength of
AA6061 / ZrB2 In- Situ Composite Butt Joints. Met Mater Int 18:135142, (2012).
MacCrimmon KR, Decision making among multiple attribute alternatives A survey and
consolidated approach. Arpa Order 189, (1968).
Park YW, Rhee S, Process modeling and parameter optimization using neural network and
genetic algorithms for aluminum laser welding automation. 1014102, (2008).
Rao R V, Patel BK, A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making
method for material selection. Mater Des 31:47384747, (2010).
Taha Z, Rostam S, A hybrid fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE decision support system for machine
tool selection in flexible manufacturing cell. J Intell Manuf 23:21372149, (2012).
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, Zakarevicius A, Optimization of weighted
aggregated sum product assessment. Elektron ir Elektrotechnika 122:36, (2012).