1.

Introduction
A detailed Study has been done on theoretical aspects of Design of Experiments (DOE)
which gives the following understanding.
1.1

Designing Experiments

Using the factors and levels determined in the previous step, the experiments now can be
designed and the method carrying them out established. To design the experiment,
implement the following:
-Select the appropriate orthogonal array.
In the present study, the interaction between the welding parameters is considered.
Therefore, degrees of freedom owing to the three level welding process parameters were
evaluated. Tht degrees of freedom for the orthogonal array should be greater than or at
least equal to those for the process parameters. In this study, L 18 orthogonal arrays were
used.
1.2

Running Experiment

All the experiments of laser welding were carried out (during joining process only) in
random order of the developed matrices by the software to avoid any systematic error
during the experiments. After the joining process the responses, mentioned earlier in this
work, were tested and measured in sequential order following the standard procedures
when available for each response. An average of at least three (in most cases) recorded
measurements in calculated and considered for more analysis.
1.3

Analyzing Results

Before analysis, the raw experimental data might have to be combined into an overall
evaluation criterion. This is particularly true when there are multiple criteria of evaluation.
Analysis is performed to determine the following:
The optimum design.
Influence of individual factors.
Performance at the optimum condition.
Relative influence of individual factors.
The steps in this analyzing stage are following in this sequence:
1.3

Developing the mathematical model

Design expert software develops and exhibits the possible modules which can fit input data
and suggest the model that best fits the experiment data.
Estimating of the coefficients of the model independent factors
Regression analysis is carried out by software to estimate the coefficients for all factorsin
each experiment.

1.5

The Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio analysis

A signal to noise ratio in the ANOVA Table is presents as an Adequate Precision.

Equations 3.15 and 3.16 are applied to the model to compares the range of the predicted
values at the design points to the average prediction error. Ratios greater than 4 indicate
adequate model discrimination.
max(Y) min(Y)
4 (3.15)

V(Y)

Adequate Precision

V(Y)

1 n
P2
V(Y)

n f 1
n

(316)

P = number of model parameters, 2 = residual MS from ANOVA table, n = number of

experiments.
1.6

ANOVA Outputs

The analyses of variances (ANOVA) were applied to test adequacy of the developed
models. Each term in developed models was examined by the following statistical
significance tools using Eq. 3.15-3.20 [140]:
FV value: Test for comparing model variance with residual (error) variance. When the

variances are close to each other, the ratio will be close to one and it is less likely that any
of the factors have a significant effort on the response. Model FV =Value and associated
probability value (Prob.> FV ) to confirm model significance. FV value is calculated by
term mean square divided by residual mean square.
Prob.> FV : Probability of seeing the observed FV value if the null hypothesis is true (there
is no factor effect). If the Prob.> FV of the model and/or of each term in the model does not
exceed the level of significance (for chosen a = 0.05 in this work) then the model can be
considered adequate within the confidence interval (1-a).
Precision of a parameter estimate is based on the number of independent samples of
information which can be determined by degree of freedom (df ).
Degree of Freedom (df ) : the degree of freedom equals to the number of experiments minus
the number of experiments minus the number of additional parameters estimated for that
calculation.
The same tables show also the other adequacy measures R 2 , adjusted R 2 and adequacy
precision R 2 for each response. In this study, all adequacy measures were close to 1, which
indicates adequate models.
The Adequate Precision compares the range of the predicated value at the design points to
the average predicted error. The adequate precision ratio above 4 indicates adequate model
discrimination. In this study, the values of adequate precision are significantly greater than
4.
R2 1

SS r
SS M SS r

(3.17)

 n 1
2
Adj. R 2
(1 R )
n

(3.18)

PRESS
Pr edicted R 2 1

SS r SS M

(3.19)

PRESS (Yf Yi ,1 )2

(3.20)

f 1

1.7

Model reduction

Model reduction consists of eliminating those terms that are not desired or which are
statistically insignificant. In this case it was done automatically by the software used. For
each response regression the starting model can be edited by specifying fewer candidate
terms than the full model would contain. In the three automatic regression variations, those
terms which are forced into the model regardless of their entry/exit a value could be
controlled. There are three basic types of automatic model regression: Step-Wise: A term
is added, eliminated or exchanged at each step. Step-wise regression is a combination of
forward and backward regressions. Backward elimination: A term is eliminated at each
step. The backward method may be the most robust choice since all model terms will be
given a chance of inclusion in the model. Conversely, the forward selection procedure
starts with a minimal core model, thus some terms never get included. Forward selection:
A term is added at each step.
1.8

Development of final model form

The program automatically defaults to the Suggested polynomial model which best fits
the criteria discussed in the Fit Summary section. The responses could be predicted at any
midpoints using the adequate model. Also, essential plots, such as Contour, 3D surface,
and perturbation plots of the desirability function at each optimum can be used to explore
the function in the factor space. Also, any individual response
1.9

Running Confirmation Experiments

The final step is to predict and verify the improvement of the response using the optimal
level of the welding process parameters. In addition, to verify the satisfactoriness of the
developed models, at least three confirmation experiments were carried out using new test
conditions at optimal parameters conditions, obtained using the Design Expert software.

2. Proposed Parameters
2.1 Independent parameters along with their levels
Three types of parameters have been considered for the experiment. Machining
parameters, Material property parameter and Geometrical parameter. Machining
Parameters comprises of Cutting Speed (m/min), Feed rate (mm/rev) and Depth of cut
(mm). BHN (Brinell Hardness Number) has been considered as Material Property
parameter and Cutting point angle has been considered as Geometrical parameters.

All parameters along with their level have been shown below. Magnitude of parameter
quantity are proposed and subjected to change as per situation or requirement.
Sl
No.

Parameter (Unit)

Level 2

Level 3

100

150

200

0.5

0.7

1.0

0.2

0.25

0.3

Aliminium

MS

Iron

85

90

95

(m/min)
Feed rate

(mm/rev)
Depth of Cut

Level 1

Cutting Speed

Symbol

(mm)
Material (BHN)
Cutting point
angle (Degree)

2.2 Response variables

Two response variables have been considered for study. These are i) Avarage Surface
Roughness (ASR) measured in m and ii) Material Removal Rate (MRR) measured in
mm3/min

3. Proposed Orthogonal Array

Here in this study least array which will be considered is L27 and largest array which may
be considered is L64.
L27 Orthogonal array for ASR
Parameters
Exp
No.

ASR
D

Mean

SD

Log of
SD

S/N

100

0.5

0.20

Al

85

100

0.5

0.25

MS

90

100

0.5

0.30

Fe

95

100

0.7

0.20

Al

85

100

0.7

0.25

MS

90

100

0.7

0.30

Fe

95

100

1.0

0.20

Al

85

100

1.0

0.25

MS

90

100

1.0

0.30

Fe

95

10

150

0.5

0.20

Al

85

11

150

0.5

0.25

MS

90

12

150

0.5

0.30

Fe

95

13

150

0.7

0.20

Al

85

14

150

0.7

0.25

MS

90

15

150

0.7

0.30

Fe

95

16

150

1.0

0.20

Al

85

17

150

1.0

0.25

MS

90

18

150

1.0

0.30

Fe

95

19

200

0.5

0.20

Al

85

20

200

0.5

0.25

MS

90

21

200

0.5

0.30

Fe

95

22

200

0.7

0.20

Al

85

23

200

0.7

0.25

MS

90

24

200

0.7

0.30

Fe

95

25

200

1.0

0.20

Al

85

26

200

1.0

0.25

MS

90

27

200

1.0

0.30

Fe

95

References (collected after 1st RDC)

1.

Chorng-Jyh Tzeng et. al,Optimization of turning operations with multiple

performance characteristics using the Taguchi method and grey relation analysis,
2009, Journal of material processing technology, 2753-2759.

2.

Hartaj Singh, TAGUCHI OPTIMIZATION OF PROCESS PARAMETERS: A

REVIEW AND CASE STUDY, International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Research and Studies, E-ISSN22498974, Vol. I/ Issue III/April-June, 2012/39-41

3.

Reddy Srenivasulu and Dr. Ch. SrinivasaRao, APPLICATION OF GRAY

RELATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND ROUNDNESS
ERROR IN DRILLING OF AL 6061 ALLOY, International Journal of Lean
Thinking, Vol 3, Issue 2.

4.

B.Shivapragash, K.Chandrasekaran, C.Parthasarathy and M.Samuel, Multiple

Response Optimizations in Drilling Using Taguchi and Grey Relational Analysis,
International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), ISSN: 2249-6645,
Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-765-768

5.

Ajeet Kumar rai, Shalini yadav, Richa Dubey and Vivek Sachan, APPLICATION
OF

TAGUCHI

METHOD

IN

THE

OPTIMIZATION

OF

BORING

PARAMETERS, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and

Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online)
Volume 4, Issue 4, May June (2013).

6.

Raghuraman S, Thiruppathi K, Panneerselvam T, Santosh S, OPTIMIZATION

OF EDM PARAMETERS USING TAGUCHI METHOD AND GREY
RELATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR MILD STEEL IS 2026, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, ISSN: 2319-8753,
Vol. 2, Issue 7, July 2013

7.

Vinod Kumar Vankantia, Venkateswarlu Ganta, Optimization of process

parameters in drilling of GFRP composite using Taguchi method, J Mater Res
Technol, JMRTEC-61, 2013, No. of Pages 7

8.

M. Durairaj, D. Sudharsun and N. Swamynathan, Analysis of Process Parameters

in Wire EDM with Stainless Steel using Single Objective Taguchi Method and
Multi Objective Grey Relational Grade, Procedia Engineering 64 ( 2013 ) 868
877

9.

Kaining Shi, Dinghua Zhang, Junxue Ren, Changfeng Yao and Yuan Yuan,
Multiobjective Optimization of Surface Integrity in Milling TB6 Alloy Based on
Taguchi-Grey Relational Analysis, Advances in Mechanical Engineering Volume
2014, Article ID 280313, 7 pages.

10.

N. Senthilkumar, T. Tamizharasan and V. Anandakrishnan, Experimental

investigation and performance analysis of cemented carbide inserts of different
geometries using Taguchi based grey relational analysis, Measurement 58 (2014)
520536.

11.

Surendra Kumar Saini, Sharad Kumar Pradhan, Optimization of Multi-Objective

Response during CNC Turning using Taguchi-Fuzzy Application, Procedia
Engineering 97 ( 2014 ) 141 149.

12.

Applied Design of Experiment and Taguchi Method by K. Krishnaiah and P.

Shahabudeen. PHI Learning Private Ltd. Published in 2012.

13.

Optimization of Nd:YAG Leaser Welding using Grey Relational Analysis

(Taguchi Method Based GRA) by Rakesh Kumar Padhi, Amot Joyti Banerjee and
Asitbaran Puri. Lambert Academic Publishing. Published in 2012.