International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

OPTIMIZATION ON FRICTION WELDING OF SUPER DUPLEX STAINLESS

STEEL 2507 USING DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
Sivakumar Velayutham1, M.Deepak kumar2
1Dept. of metallurgical Engineering, Government college of Engineering, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.
2 Asst .professor, Dept. of Metallurgical Engineering, Government college of Engineering, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract – The super duplex stainless steel 2507 were properties, can easily be joined by the friction welding
friction welded. The welded samples were prepared for tensile method. The main process parameters of friction welding are
test. The optimization of welding parameter is found by design rotation speed, friction load, friction time, forging load and
of experiments. The tensile strength of friction welded joint is forging time and these process parameters have significant
analyzed. The present work was focused on optimization of role in making good quality joints [3].
super duplex Stainless steel welds. This may lead to have a
So to get a good quality weld joint, it is significant to
difference in mechanical properties of weld joints with respect
select proper combinations of process parameters. To
to the varying parameters.
produce the expected response, the first step is to identify
Key Word: friction welding, super duplex stainless steel the suitable combinations of process variables and it
2507, tensile test, response surface methodology, analysis of requires many experiments, making this process time
variance and optimization of parameters. consuming and expensive [4]. So to overcome this situation,
mathematical models could be built which can adequately
1. INTRODUCTION predict the relation between input process parameters and
the responses. Response surface methodology (RSM) [5] is
Welding, as a technological process, is widely used in widely used for this purpose.
modern engineering. Without the ability to make strong and
durable connections between materials it would not be The super duplex stainless steel 2507 has plenty of
possible to produce the many different objects upon which industrial applications such as in desalination and food
we all rely in our everyday lives, from the very large to the processing equipment, shipbuilding because of its high
very small parts. In conventional welding process, a filler mechanical strength.
material is added to the joint with the help of an outside heat
From the literature study, Murti and Sundaresan [6]
source such as a torch flame. The welding processes
have studied friction welding of dissimilar materials using
currently used in fabrication and construction industry
statistical approach based on the factorial design of
basically involve the deposition of weld metal by arc welding
experiment through friction welding parameter
processes which may be manual, semi or fully mechanized.
optimization. Sahin and Akata [7] have done an experimental
All of these processes involve the preparation of the joint
study on application of friction welding for parts with
edges and multi-pass techniques in order to achieve full
different diameter and width by using tensile test. Sathiya et
penetration of the joints. The major demerit of above
al. [8] have done the optimization of friction welding
mentioned techniques are associated-with, possible use of
parameters using evolutionary computational techniques.
pre-heat, low joining rates, requirement of skilled labor, use
The methods suggested in this study were used to determine
of expensive filler materials restrictions on welding
the welding process parameters by which the desired tensile
positions and there are many other problems of
strength and minimized metal loss were obtained in friction
metallurgical nature concerned with weld defects and joint
welding. This study describes how to obtain the near optimal
properties, particularly toughness. However, the availability
welding conditions over a wide search by conducting
of a mechanized process capable of a high joining rate would
relatively a smaller number of experiments. The optimized
be a considerable breakthrough. It is considered that both
value obtained through these evolutionary computational
friction and electron beam welding offer great potential in
techniques were compared with experimental results. The
this area.
strength and micro structural aspects of the processed joints
Friction Welding (FRW) is a solid state welding process were also analyzed to validate the optimization. Paventhan
which produces weld by the compressive force contact of et al [9] have done the optimization of friction welding
work pieces which are either rotating or moving relative to process parameters for joining carbon steel and stainless
one another. Heat is produced due to the friction which steel. They developed an empirical relationship to predict
displaces material plastically from the faying surfaces [1,2]. the tensile strength of friction welded AISI 1040 grade
Friction welding can achieve high-production rates and medium carbon steel and AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel,
therefore it is economical in operation. It has widespread incorporating the process parameters such as friction load,
industrial applications and helps to weld materials which are forging load, friction time and forging time, which have great
difficult to join by fusion welding. Various ferrous and non- influence on strength of the joints. Response surface
ferrous alloys, which have circular or non-circular cross- methodology was applied to optimize the friction welding
sections and, having different thermal and mechanical process parameters to attain maximum tensile strength of
the joint.
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1707
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE and rotational speed are more important because these
parameters affect weld joint quality. These process
2.1 Material selection parameters are set based on the survey in the field. In the
present study, the process parameters selected are friction
Knowledge on material properties and applicability of load, friction time, forging load, forging time and rotational
metallic materials and material combinations for friction speed is kept constant. The working ranges of all selected
welding is not completely clear. Experimental studies and parameters were fixed by conducting trial runs. This was
practical applications have been given to address this carried out by varying one of the parameters while keeping
problem. Preliminary trials have been carried out in order to the rest of them at constant values. The working range of
determine optimum parameters of welding, the applicability each process parameter was decided upon by inspecting the
of welding process for every new material or material weld for a smooth appearance without any visible defects. By
combinations. The results of these studies are not concrete performing various trial runs the maximum and minimum
since they are experimental. They can be modified or levels of welding parameters for super duplex stainless steel
redefines as new facts come out. The main two parameters 2507 were found and given below in table 2.
needed for the test of suitability of a material to welding are
the strength of a material and its deformation capacity under Table -2: factors and levels
heat. The strength of material has to be high enough to resist
axial pressure and torque, which may occur due to excessive Factors
Level Level Level Level Level
deformation. Moreover, the material to be joined needs to 1 2 3 4 5
exhibit enough heat treatment deformation behavior for the Friction load (FrL) kg 850 900 950 1000 1050
quality of joining process. In this study super duplex Friction time (Frt) sec 28 29 30 31 32
stainless steel 2507 is used as the base material. The Forging load (FoL) kg 800 850 900 950 1000
chemical composition of the base material SS 2507 is given
Forging time (Fot) sec 5 6 7 8 9
in Table 1. The samples have 13 mm diameter extruded rod
and 76 mm length.
The Design of Experiments (DOE) was done by Response
Table -1: Chemical Composition of the Studied Alloy surface methodology (RSM) using Design Expert version
6.0.8 statistical software. The design matrix chosen to
conduct the experiment was a Central Composite Design
(CCD) having 31 experiments. Thus the 31 experimental
runs allowed the estimation of linear, square and two-way
interactive effects of the process parameters on tensile
2.2 Experimental design based on Response strength.
Surface Method
The test was designed based on a four factors-five levels
Engineers often wish to determine the values of the central composite rotatable design with full replication. The
process input parameters at which the responses reach their Friction welding input variables are friction time Frt, friction
optimum condition. RSM is one of the optimization load FrL, forging time Fot, forging load FoL as shown below in
techniques currently in widespread use in describing the table 3.
performance of the welding process and finding the
optimum of the responses. When all independent variables Table -3: Welded Input Variables
are measurable, controllable and continuous in the
experiments, with negligible error, the response surface can Friction Forging Friction Forging time
Exp no
load kg load kg time sec sec
be expressed by
1 900 850 29 6
y = f (x1, x2,……,xk) ---------------- (1) 2 1000 850 29 6
3 900 950 29 6
k is the number of independent variables. To optimize the
4 1000 950 29 6
response „„y‟‟, it is necessary to find an appropriate
approximation for the true functional relationship between 5 900 850 31 6
the independent variables and the response surface. Usually 6 1000 850 31 6
a second-order polynomial Eq. (2) is used in RSM. 7 900 950 31 6
8 1000 950 31 6
y = bo +ΣbiXi+ΣbiiX2ii+ΣbijXiXj+ --------------- (2)
9 900 850 29 8
Based on the literature survey it was observed that the 10 1000 850 29 8
process parameters have a significant effect on the tensile 11 900 950 29 8
strength. Process parameters like friction load, friction time, 12 1000 950 29 8
rotational speed, forging load, forging time, burn of length.
13 900 850 31 8
Among the above parameters, the friction load, forging load,

© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1708
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

14 1000 850 31 8 16 1000 950 31 8 817

15 900 950 31 8 17 850 900 30 7 751
16 1000 950 31 8 18 1050 900 30 7 790
17 850 900 30 7 19 950 800 30 7 717
18 1050 900 30 7 20 950 1000 30 7 819
19 950 800 30 7 21 950 900 28 7 765
20 950 1000 30 7 22 950 900 32 7 843
21 950 900 28 7 23 950 900 30 5 745
22 950 900 32 7 24 950 900 30 9 776
23 950 900 30 5 25 950 900 30 7 789
24 950 900 30 9 26 950 900 30 7 792
25 950 900 30 7 27 950 900 30 7 791
26 950 900 30 7 28 950 900 30 7 787
27 950 900 30 7 29 950 900 30 7 790
28 950 900 30 7 30 950 900 30 7 789
29 950 900 30 7 31 950 900 30 7 792
30 950 900 30 7
31 950 900 30 7 The mathematical model to establish the relationships
between input and output parameters were developed using
2.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Design expert software based on the experimental data
collected as per the Central Composite Design based on
The welded joints are machined to the dimensions as Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Tensile strength is
per ASTM guidelines are followed in preparing the tensile expressed in the form as a non-linear function of process
test specimens. Tensile test is carried out on a 100 kN parameters. The final empirical relationship was constructed
electromechanical controlled universal testing machine. The using only these coefficients, and the final empirical
specimen is loaded at the rate of 1.5 kN per minutes relationship obtained in un-coded values for tensile strength
according to the ASTM specifications. ‘TS’. The regression equations in terms of actual factors thus
obtained tensile strength is as follows
The tensile strength values are given with
corresponding friction welding process parameters in the Tensile strength (TS) = -2052 + 5.29 FrL + 1.98 FoL - 142 Frt
Table 4. + 300 Fot - 0.00149 FrL*FrL- 0.00167 FoL*FoL + 2.51 Frt*Frt
- 8.30 Fot*Fot - 0.00148 FrL*FoL - 0.0187 FrL*Frt -
Table -4: welding input parameters and corresponding 0.0844 FrL*Fot + 0.0798 FoL*Frt + 0.0696 FoL*Fot -
tensile strength 5.72 Frt*Fot

Tensile S = 17.8652; R-Sq = 85.33%; R-Sq (adj) = 72.50%; R-Sq

Exp Friction Forging Friction Forging
no load kg load kg time sec time sec
strength (TS) (pred) = 15.77%, where, (S = root mean squared deviation,
N/mm2 R-Sq = coefficient of correlation)
1 900 850 29 6 724
2 1000 850 29 6 745 Table -5: Estimated Regression Coefficients
3 900 950 29 6 791
Factors Estimated regression coefficient (tensile strength)
4 1000 950 29 6 762
Intercept 790
5 900 850 31 6 784
FrL -3.53
6 1000 850 31 6 811
FoL 44.96
7 900 950 31 6 848
FrT 45.65
8 1000 950 31 6 820
FoT -9.93
9 900 850 29 8 733
FrL * FrL -14.9
10 1000 850 29 8 721
FoL ⃰ FoL -16.7
11 900 950 29 8 769
FrT ⃰ FrT 10.0
12 1000 950 29 8 754
FoT ⃰ FoT -33.2
13 900 850 31 8 770
FrL ⃰ FoL -14.8
14 1000 850 31 8 722
FrL ⃰ FrT -3.7
15 900 950 31 8 818

© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1709
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

FrL ⃰ FoT -16.9

Surface Plots of TS
FoL ⃰ FrT 16.0 Hold Values
FrL 950
FoL ⃰ FoT 13.9 FoL 900
Frt 30
FrT ⃰ FoT -22.9 8 500
Fot 7
8 000 7 755
TS TS 8 000 TS 7 5 0
7500
10
1000 3
32 725 9.0
7500 7.5
700
00 9000 F oL 30 F rt 700
880 880 880 6.0 F ot

Table -6: ANOVA test results for the response tensile

960 800 96 0 28 960
F rL 1
1040 1040 1 0 40
F rL F rL

strength

SOURCE DF ADJ SS ADJ MS F P

MODEL 14 29709.8 2122.1 6.65 0.000 900
8000 850

LINEAR 4 25292.4 6323.1 19.81 0.000 TS 8 0 0

700
32
TS 7 5 0
700
7 .5
9.0
TS 8000
750
7 .5
9 .0
30 F rt 650 70 0
800 800 6 .0 F ot 28 6 .0 F ot
900 28 900 30

SQUARE 4 2926.7 731.7 2.29 0.104 F oL 1000 F oL 1000 F rt 32

2-WAY
6 1490.8 248.5 0.78 0.599
INTERACTION
RESIDUAL ERROR 16 5106.6 319.2
Fig -3: Surface plots for tensile strength
LACK OF FIT 10 5086.6 508.7 152.60 0.000
PURE ERROR 6 20.0 3.3 Interactive effects of process parameters on the
TOTAL 30 34816.5 response are shown using contour plots. Contour plots have
generated using Minitab 16 software for all pairs of factors.
Contour plots for Impact Strength are shown in the figure 2.
The normal probability plot of the residuals for tensile
strength is shown in Fig.1. It reveals that the residuals are Response surface methodology (RSM) is used to
falling on the straight line, which means the errors are optimize the friction welding parameters in this study. RSM
distributed normally [10]. is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques that
are helpful in designing a set of experiments, analyzing the
optimum combination of input process parameters,
developing a mathematical model, and expressing the values
graphically. Surface plots and contour plots are the
indications of possible independence of factors. To obtain
the nature of influence and optimized condition of the
process on tensile strength, surface plots and contour plots
have been developed for the empirical relation by
considering one process parameters in the middle level and
two process parameters in the X and Y axes. These response
contours can assist in the prediction of the response for any
Fig -1: Normal probability plot for tensile strength
zone in the experimental field. The apex of the response plot
shows the maximum achievable tensile strength. Fig. 2 show
Contour Plots of TS that, the tensile strength increases with increasing the
friction load/time and then decreases. But the tensile
1000
FoL*FrL
32
Frt*FrL
9
Fot*FrL TS
strength increases with increase the forging load and
< 700 decreases with increase in forging time.
950 31 8 700 – 750
750 – 800
900 30 7 800 – 850
> 850
A contour plot is produced to display the region of the
850 29 6
Hold Values
optimal factor settings visually. For second- order responses,
800 28 5 FrL 950 such a plot can be more complex compared to the simple
900 960 1020 900 960 1020 900 960 1020 FoL 900
Frt*FoL Fot*FoL Fot*Frt
Frt 30 series of parallel lines that can take place with first-order
32 9 9 Fot 7
models. Once the stationary point originates, it is generally
31 8 8
necessary to characterize the response surface in the
30 7 7 immediate vicinity of the point. Characterization involves
29 6 6 identifying whether the stationary point is a saddle point or
28 5 5
minimum response or maximum response.
800 900 1000 800 900 1000 28 30 32

Contributions made by the process parameters of

strength of the joint can be ranked from their respective ‘F’
Fig -2: Contour plots for tensile strength ratio value which is presented in Table 5. The higher F ratio
value implies that the respective term is more significant and
vice versa. From the F ratio values, it can be concluded that

© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1710
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

the friction time is found to have greater influence on tensile correlation graphs were plotted successfully. The regression
strength of the joints followed by forging load/time and equations were then plotted on tensile strength was
friction load within the range considered in this analyzed. The process parameters were then optimized
investigation. using RSM to yield maximum tensile strength. Based on the
experimentation and optimization the following conclusions
are stated:

1. The empirical relations were developed to predict

the tensile strength of the friction welded super
duplex stainless steel 2507 rods incorporating
process parameters at 85% confidence level.

2. The optimum condition for maximum tensile

strength could be attained in friction welded super
duplex stainless steel 2507 rods under the welding
conditions of Friction load (FrL) is 850 kg, Forging
load (FoL) is 995 kg, friction time (Frt) is 29 sec,
forging time (Fot) is 5 sec and rotational speed is
1100 rpm.

3. The process parameters have a significant effect on

tensile strength and friction time was found to have
greater influence on tensile strength of the joints
Fig -4: optimization plot for maximum tensile strength followed by forging load, forging time and friction
load.
The predicted tensile strength for the first friction
welded specimen is 723.355 N/mm2 could be attained under 4. The fusion zone of rotating side has more width
the welding conditions of Friction load (FrL) is 900kg, than the stationary side. This will lead the higher
Forging load (FoL) is 850kg, friction time (Frt) is 29 sec, hardness than the stationary side of the welded
forging time (Fot) is 6 sec and rotational speed is 1100 rpm. specimen.
The experimentally determined tensile strength for the first
friction welded specimen is found to be 724 N/mm2 and REFERENCES
could be attained under the welding conditions of Friction
load (FrL) is 900 kg, Forging load (FoL) is 850 kg, friction 1) AWS welding handbook. vol. 2. Miami: American
time (Frt) is 29 sec, forging time (Fot) is 6 sec and 1100 rpm Welding Society; 1991.
of rotational speed which shows the consistency of the
model. The optimized welding condition obtained by the 2) ASM handbook. vol. 6. Materials Park: ASM
response surface methodology is given in the table 7. International; 1995.

Table -7: Optimized conditions by Response Surface 3) Dunkerton SB. Toughness properties of friction
Methodology welds in steels. Weld J 1986:193–201.

Friction load (FrL) kg 850 4) Deb Kalyanmoy. Optimizations for engineering

Forging load (FoL) kg 995
design algorithm and examples. New Delhi: Prentice
Hall of India; 1996.
Friction time (Frt) sec 29
Forging time (Fot) sec 5 5) Khuri AI, Cornell JA. Response surfaces; design and
analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1996.
3. CONCLUSIONS 6) K.G.K. Murti, S. Sundaresan, Parameter optimization
In this study, Friction welding process parameters were in friction welding dissimilar materials, Met. Constr.
optimized by using response surface methodology. The (1983) 331–335.
friction welding process was carried out as per the design of
7) M. Sahin, H.E. Akata, An experimental study on
experiments by central composite design. Tension test was
application of friction welding for parts with
carried out for friction welded samples and the results of the
different diameters and width, in: Proceedings of
tests are recorded. Based on the experimental results,
the The Third International Congress of Mechanical
regression analysis has conducted with the help of Minitab-
Engineering Technologies’ 01, Sofya-Bulgaristan,
16 and Design-Expert softwares, to determine input–output
24-26 Haziran, 2001.
relationships of the process. Based on the mathematical
model developed, the responses were predicted and

© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1711
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

8) Sathiya, P., S. Aravindan, A. Noorul Haq and K.

Paneerselvam (2009) Optimization of friction
welding parameters using evolutionary
computational techniques. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 209, 2576–2584.

9) Paventhan, R., P. R. Lakshminarayanan And V.

Balasubramanian (2011) Prediction and
optimization of friction welding parameters for
joining aluminium alloy and stainless steel. Trans.
Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 21, 1480-1485.

10) T. Udayakumar, K. Raja, T.M. Afsal Husain, P.

Sathiya, ―Prediction and optimization of friction
welding parameters for super duplex stainless steel
(UNS S32760) joints Materials and Design 53
(2014) 226–235.

© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1712