ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah the most gracious the most merciful First and foremost, I would like to Thank to Allah, the Most Gracious and The Most Merciful, blessing and help upon us, indeed nothing could be accomplished without His well, and peace and blessing be upon our prophet Mohammad, whom guided us the truth, and showed us the right path by Gods permission and the most grateful for giving me the source of power, knowledge and strength to further study and involving myself in this Final Year Project to fulfill my Mechanical Engineering courses syllabus. Then, my special gratitude my utmost appreciation to my supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Ing Yupiter HP Manurung, who for his willingness in accepting me as his project student also did a great attempt to expose me to the real welding world. He has given me a challenging but comprehensive task during period project. It has been privilege and a pleasure work under him throughout session especially on the engineering fields. I am especially indebted to Mr. Mohammad Ridzwan Abdul Rahim who is Co-supervisor of this Final Project Year for his immeasurable assistance and excellent management which help, understanding, concern, knowledge, experience, joy, advice, courage me a lot during my project days at Mechanical Engineering Faculty. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincerest gratitude to all Advance Mechanical Engineering Laboratory Department technicians and staff of Mechanical Engineering Faculty for their willingness and patience in guiding and teach me kindness in doing me a favor in getting additional knowledge on my experiments during my welding project period. Furthermore, I am extremely grateful to Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknolohi MARA (UiTM), because giving me opportunity and help me undergo my Final Project Year.
i

ABSTRACT

Robotic Welding (RW) is an ideal welding method to produce airtight joints. Welding parameters affect the way of the electrode transferred to the work piece, arc stability, spatter generation, weld bead geometry and overall weld quality. The main parameters are voltage (V), current (Amp), travel speed (mm/sec) and weaving (mm). In this project, these parameters will be utilized at thickness of 9 mm for Butt joint and Tjoints. GMAW is the welding type to run the experiment in which the process can readily be automated by using robots. This project implements Design of Experiment (DOE) in MINITAB software as the way to perform the experiment by using Taguchi Method and Factorial Design. These methods can approach the optimization of parameters design, although the number of experiments is reduced. Experiment parameters will be conducted by using Taguchi Method Orthogonal Array (AO). Taguchi method is to conduct the experiment then Multiple signal to noise ratio (MSNR) used to describe the effect of a process parameter or factor on the quality characteristics. Factorial Design is used to find critical factors that impact important response variables that supported by Pareto plot. Response Optimizer is used to obtain the optimum welding parameter. When the results of these experiments are analyzed, its help to identify optimal conditions, the factors that most influence the results, and those that do not, as well as details such as the existence of interactions and synergies between factors.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ABBREVIATION

i ii iii vii ix xii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Background of Project Problem Statement Objective Scope of Project Significant of Project

1 3 3 4 4

iii

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Introduction Robotic Welding and parameters Welding Discontinuities and Defects Welding distortion Implementation of Design of Experiment (DOE) 2.4.1 DOE in Taguchi Method 2.4.2 DOE in Factorial Design

5 5 7 9 10 11 14

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

Introduction Project Sequences Information Collection Data Implementation 3.3.1 Conduct Experiments 3.3.2 Experimental Session

17 18 20 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 25 25 25 26

3.4

Data Analysis 3.4.1 Specimens Testing 3.4.2 Macrostructure Analysis 3.4.3 Analysis Data and Results 3.4.4 Confirmation Experiment and Test 3.4.5 Results and Discussion 3.4.6 Conclusion 3.4.7 Thesis Writing

iv

CHAPTER IV

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND STUDY CASES

4.0 4.1 4.2

Introduction Experimental Setup Study Cases 4.2.1 Study Case I-Butt joint 4.2.2 Study Case II-T-joint

27 27 36 37 39 41 41 43 44

4.3

Analysis Data and Testing Method 4.3.1 Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) 4.3.2 Radiographic Test 4.3.3 Macrostructures Test

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.0 5.1

Introduction 9mm Butt joint 5.1.1 Best result of Butt joint 5.1.2 Using Multi-Response Taguchi Method (MRTM) 5.1.3 Factorial DOE

49 50 50

52 57 62 64 64

5.1.4 Response Optimizer Modeling 5.2 9mm T-joint 5.2.1 Best result of T- joint 5.2.2 Using Multi-Response Taguchi Method (MRTM) 5.2.3 Factorial DOE

66 73 78 80 86

5.2.4 Response Optimizer Modeling 5.3 5.4 Sample Calculation for Statistical Analysis Confirmation Test
v

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

92

REFERENCES

97

APPENDICES

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G

Taguchi Method Orthogonal Array (OA) Experiment of Butt Joint Experiment of T-Joint Multiple Responses Taguchi Method (MRTM) Response Optimizer by using Factorial Design Response Optimizer Modeling Confirmation Test

vi

LIST OF TABLE

TABLE Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12
Table 5.13

TITLE Factors and level for 9mm butt joint Factors and level for 9mm T-joint L16 OA Results of Sample 6 Experimental Observation 9mm Butt joint Quality loss values for distortion and undercut Normalized Quality loss values for distortion and undercut TNQL and MSNR for 9mm Butt joint Multiple S/N response (average factor at different levels) Result of ANOVA for Distortion and Defect 9mm Response Optimizer Modeling Results of Sample 16 Symbol for T-joint response Experimental Observation 9mm T-joint Quality loss values for D1, D2, U1 and U2
Normalized Quality loss values for D1, D2, U1 and U2

PAGE 29 29 30 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 63 65 66 67 68
69

Table 5.14 Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18

TNQL and MSNR for 9mm T- joint Multiple S/N response (average factor at different levels) Result of ANOVA for Distortion and Defect 9mm Response Optimizer Modeling Result of MRTM for Butt joint
vii

70 71 72 79 87

Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 5.21

Result of Factorial for Butt joint Result of MRTM for T-joint Result of Factorial for T-joint

88 89 90

viii

LIST OF FIGURE

FIGURE Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 4.1 Porosity

TITLE

PAGE 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 18 19

Lack of Fusion Lack of Penetration Undercut Burn through Distortion P-Diagram Project Methodology sequences Statistical analysis methodology flow chart Create Taguchi Orthogonal Array (OA) in MINITAB

28 31

Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3

T-joint Sample Dimension Cutting plate by using Horizontal Band Saw Cutting Machine

32 33 33 34

Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7

Butt joint Sample Dimension Bevel groove by using Milling Machine Tack weld by using GTAW KEMPPI PROMIG540r power source unit and Robotic Welding ABB IR6 2400/16

35 35 36

Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9

Butt joint experiment T-joint experiment

ix

Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 Figure 4.14 Figure 4.15 Figure 4.16 Figure 4.17 Figure 4.18 Figure 4.19 Figure 4.20

Sequence of Multiple Welding Process for Butt joint Clamping Point for Butt joint Distortion Cause from One Side Clamped a. Root Pass, b. Second Pass, c. Third Pass Clamping Point for T-joint Distortion on T-join Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) Measuring Points Results Radiographic Machine Specimens of experiment (Butt joint and T-joint) BUEHLER ABRASIMENT 2 Abrasive Cutting Machine

37 38 38 39 40 40 42 42 43 44

45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 58

Figure 4.21 Figure 4.22 Figure 4.23 Figure 4.24 Figure 4.25 Figure 4.26 Figure 4.27 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2

Samples after cutting process (Butt joint and T-joint) Special Silicon Carbide Grinding Paper Abrasive Grinding Machine Polishing Process equipment Etching process Stereozoom Microstructure Units Sample of Macrostructure Test Effects Pareto chart for Distortion Effects Pareto chart for Distortion (after elimination process)

59 60

Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4

Effects Pareto chart for Defect Effects Pareto chart for Defect (after elimination process)

60 61 73

Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7

Optimization Plot for Distortion and Defect Effects Pareto chart for Distortion 1 Effects Pareto chart for Distortion 1 (after elimination process)

74

Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9

Effects Pareto chart for Distortion 2 Effects Pareto chart for Distortion 2 (after elimination process)

75

75

Figure 5.10

Effects Pareto chart for Defect 2 (after elimination process) 76

Figure 5.11

Effects Pareto chart for Defect 3 (after elimination process) 76 77

Figure 5.12

Optimization Plot for Distortion and Defect

xi

LIST OF ABBREVATION

TM DOE OA SNR MSNR MRTM RSM ANOVA SS MS QLV NQLV GMAW LOP LOF

Taguchi Method Design of Experiment Orthogonal Array Signal To Noise Ratio Multiple Signal To Noise Ratio Multi Response Taguchi Method Response Surface Methodology Analysis of Variance Sum of Square Mean of Square Quality Loss Value Normalized Quality Loss Value Gas Metal Arc Welding Lack of Penetration Lack of Fusion

xii