Waam Ms Thesis PDF

Additive Manufacturing of Nickel components using CMT
process
Inês Planas Meunier Santos Pinto
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Mechanical Engineering
Supervisors: Prof. Eurico Gonçalves Assunção

Prof. Maria Luísa Coutinho Gomes de Almeida
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Rui Manuel dos Santos Oliveira Baptista

Supervisor: Prof. Eurico Gonçalves Assunção
Members of the Committee: Eur Ing Geoff Melton
Prof. Inês da Fonseca Pestana Ascenso Pires
May 2015
Resumo
Os processos de fabrico convencionais requerem uma quantidade elevada de maquinação para a remoção de
material, o que não satisfaz os requisitos de uma indústria moderna sustentável, de baixo custo e amiga do
ambiente.
Assim, Impressão 3D tem vindo a tornar-se um processo industrial revolucionário para a produção de
componentes metálicos no qual o desperdício de material é bastante reduzido. Neste processo são produzidos
componentes 3D por deposiçao de cordões em camadas.
Entre os inúmeros processos de Impressão 3D, Produção Aditiva por fio e arco,PAFA, tem a capacidade de
produzir componentes metálicos com volume reduzido, devido ao facto de ter grandes taxas de deposição. Por
sua vez, dentro dos processos PAFA, o processo de soldadura por arco eléctrico com protecção gasosa, GMAW,
tem vindo a destacar-se pelo sua eficiência bem como, por ter grandes taxas de deposição e proporcionar boas
propriedades mecânicas ao componente.
Durante este trabalho, estudou-se a utilização do processo Cold Metal Transfer, uma variante de GMAW que se
tem destacado em impressão 3D, com o objectivo de se comprender qual o seu potencial para a producão de
componentes 3D. O material utilizado foi uma liga de Niquel, pois este material é bastante utilizado na indústria
automóvel e aeroespacial e apresenta um custo relativamnete elevado.
Foram analisados dois parâmetros do processo CMT, corrente e velocidade de deslocamento, com o intuito de
se perceber qual a sua influência no resultado final, nomeadamente na taxa de deposição, a eficiência da
deposição, a largura média do componente, a área útil final, a dureza e, finalmente, a textura superficial. Durante
esta análise utilizou-se um software de design of experiments para confirmação e previsão do efeito destes
parâmetros nas respostas anteriormente referidas.
Os resultados obtidos permitem concluir de que forma os parâmetros analisados influênciam as características
dos depósitos obtidos.
Palavras chave: Impressão 3D, Produção Aditiva por fio e arco, GMAW, CMT (Cold Metal Transfer), Liga de
Niquel, Taxa de deposição, Eficiência de deposição, Área útil final, dureza, textura superficial.
II
Abstract
Conventional manufacturing processes often require a large amount of machining and cannot satisfy the
continuously increasing requirements of a sustainable, low cost, and environmentally friendly modern industry.
Thus, Additive Manufacturing (AM) has become an important and revolutionary industrial process for the
manufacture of custom-made metal work pieces. In this process 3D components are built by depositing beads of
weld in a layer by layer.
Among the different AM processes, Wire and Arc Additive Manufacture (WAAM) has the ability to
manufacture large, low volume metal work-pieces due to its high deposition rate. In turn, within the WAAM
processes, Gas Metal Arc Welding process (GMAW) has been highlighted by its efficiency, having large
deposition rates and provide good mechanical properties to the component, as well.
During this work, it was studied the use of CMT, a GMAW variant that has been highlighted in AM, with the
aim of understand its potential for 3D components manufacturing. The filler material used was a Nickel alloy,
which is commonly used in automobile and aerospace industry and has high cost.
Two CMT parameters have been analysed, which were current and travel speed, in order to understand their
effect in the final results which were the deposition rate, deposition efficiency, build-up average width, final
useful area, hardness and, finally, the surface texture. During this work a DoE software was used for
confirmation and perdition of the effect of these parameters on the responses previous referred. The results
obtained showed how the analysed parameters influence the characteristics of the deposits obtained.
Keywords: Additive Manufacturing, WAAM, GMAW, CMT (Cold Metal Transfer), Nickel alloy, Deposition
rate, Deposition efficiency, Final Useful Area, Hardness, Surface Texture.
III
Agradecimentos
Em primeiro lugar quero apresentar os meus sinceros agradecimentos aos membros industriais do TWI os quais
financiaram este trabalho.
Ao professor Eurico Assunção e à professora Maria Luísa Coutinho pela orientação, apoio e espírito crítico
construtivo demostrado durante a realização deste trabalho bem como, pela oprtunidade de o realizar na empresa
TWI.
Ao Dr. Andrew Woloszyn por me ter aceite no Twi e ao Dr. Geoff Melton que me acompanhou, ajudou e
ensinou.
Ao Carne Willsher o qual realizou os ensaios experimentais, ao Ashley Spencer pelo auxílio durante a
preparação das amostras para análise, ao Ben Robison o qual realizou as medições da textura superficial, ao Dr.
Marcus Warwick pela ajuda com o software Design Expert e a toda a secção AWE pelo seu apoio.
Aos meus pais e irmã pelo o apoio incondiconal durante este tempo.
Ao meu namorado Zé pela paciência, pela visita a Cambridge, pelas horas de Skype e por todo o apoio em dias
bons e menos bons durante estes seis meses.
À Bea que me aturou e partilhou tudo e mais alguma coisa durante o tempo em Cambridge bem como, pelo seu
apoio.
Por fim, a todos os meus amigos pelo seu apoio, em especial ao Bica.
IV
Contents
Resumo .......................................................................................................................................................... II
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... III
Agradecimentos ........................................................................................................................................... IV
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. IX
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. XIV
List of Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................. XV
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3. Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 2
2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2. Additive Manufacturing History .............................................................................................. 3
2.3. Additive Manufacturing ........................................................................................................... 4
2.4. Additive Manufacturing with Metal ......................................................................................... 6
2.5. Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing .................................................................................... 9
2.6. Gas Metal Arc Welding .......................................................................................................... 10
2.6.1. Short-circuiting transfer ......................................................................................................... 11
2.6.2. Pulsed arc transfer ................................................................................................................. 12
2.6.3. Globular transfer ................................................................................................................... 13
2.6.4. Spray transfer ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.7. Cold Metal Transfer, CMT..................................................................................................... 14
2.8. Nickel Alloy ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.9. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 16
3. Experimental Approach ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 17
3.2. Materials and Build-up appearance ....................................................................................... 17
3.3. Design of experiments, DoE .................................................................................................... 18
3.4. Procedure for perform the experimental trials ...................................................................... 19
3.5. Deposition Rate and Deposition Efficiency............................................................................. 20
V
3.5.1. Formulas ............................................................................................................................... 21
3.5.1.1. Deposition Rate, DR .......................................................................................................... 21

3.5.1.2. Deposition Efficiency, DE ................................................................................................... 21
3.5.1.3. Weight of Electrode used, WEU ......................................................................................... 21
3.5.1.4. Volume of electrode used, V ............................................................................................. 21
3.5.1.5. Length of wire used, LWU.................................................................................................. 21
3.6. Macrostructure ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.7. Width and Final Useful Area Measurements ......................................................................... 22
3.8. Hardness ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.9. Surface Texture ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.9.1. P-Profile Analysis ................................................................................................................. 27
3.10. Optimization ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.11. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 27
4. Equipment and Software..................................................................................................................... 28
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 28
4.2. Welding Laboratory Equipment ............................................................................................ 28
4.3. Macrostructure Analysis Equipment ..................................................................................... 29
4.4. Hardness Analysis Equipment ................................................................................................ 31
4.5. Surface Texture Analysis Equipment ..................................................................................... 32
4.6. Software .................................................................................................................................. 32
4.6.1. Scentis .................................................................................................................................. 32
4.6.2. Ecos ...................................................................................................................................... 33
4.6.3. Alicona associated software ................................................................................................... 33
4.6.4. Design Expert 9..................................................................................................................... 34
4.7. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 34
5. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 35
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 35
5.2. Experimental Tests results ...................................................................................................... 35
5.3. Experimental tests for Design Expert validation .................................................................... 36
5.4. Build-ups Appearance............................................................................................................. 36
5.5. Experimental data Obtained................................................................................................... 39
5.5.1. Experimental tests from Design Expert design ....................................................................... 39
VI
5.5.2. Experimental tests for Design Expert design validation .......................................................... 39
5.5.3. Heat Input ............................................................................................................................. 40
5.5.4. Current waveform ................................................................................................................. 41
5.6. Deposition Rate and Deposition Efficiency............................................................................. 42
5.6.1. Deposition Rate ..................................................................................................................... 43
5.6.1.1. Deposition Rate Analysis on Design Expert ........................................................................ 43

5.6.2. Deposition Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 44
5.6.2.1. Deposition Efficiency analysis on Design Expert ................................................................. 45

5.7. Macrostructure ....................................................................................................................... 46
5.8. Average Width and Minimum Width..................................................................................... 49
5.8.3. Average Width ...................................................................................................................... 53
5.8.3.1. Average Width Analysis on Design Expert .......................................................................... 54

5.8.4. Average Width Standard deviation......................................................................................... 55
5.8.4.1. Average Width Standard Deviation Analysis on Design Expert ............................................ 56

5.8.5. Minimum Width .................................................................................................................... 58
5.8.6. Minimum Width Standard Deviation ..................................................................................... 58
5.9. Final Useful Area .................................................................................................................... 59
5.9.2. Experimental tests for DoE design validation ......................................................................... 62
5.9.3. Final Useful Area .................................................................................................................. 63
5.9.3.1. Final Useful Area Analysis on Design Expert ....................................................................... 64

5.10. Hardness ................................................................................................................................. 66
5.10.1. Experimental tests from DoE ................................................................................................. 66
5.10.3. Average Hardness ................................................................................................................. 67
5.10.3.1. Average Hardness Analysis on Design Expert ................................................................. 68

5.11. Surface Texture ....................................................................................................................... 69
5.11.1. Experimental tests from DoE design ...................................................................................... 69
VII
5.11.2. Experimental tests for DoE validation .................................................................................... 70
5.11.3. Average standard deviation and sample average standard deviation ........................................ 70
5.11.3.1. Sample Average of Side Average Standard deviation on Design Expert........................... 71

5.12. Optimization on Design Expert software................................................................................ 77
5.12.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 77
5.12.1. Numerical Optimization ........................................................................................................ 77
5.13. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 78
6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 79
7. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 80
8. References............................................................................................................................................ 81
9. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 85
VIII
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 – Working principle of AM. ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2.2 – Qualitative situation of the LM components production relative to usual options. ........................... 5
Figure 2.3 – Growth of rapid prototyping .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.4 – Classification of AM for metals. .................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.5 – Scheme of a generic powder bed system ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.6 – AM powder feed system. ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.7 – Scheme of a wire feed unit. ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.8 – 3D metallic component made by WAAM process. ....................................................................... 10
Figure 2.9 – GMAW process. ......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.10 – GMAW equipment. ................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.11 – Cycle of short circuiting transfer................................................................................................ 12
Figure 2.12 – Scheme of pulsed arc transfer mode. .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.13 – Globular Transfer. ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.14 – Spray Transfer. ......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.15 – Values of current and voltage for the different metal transfer modes. .......................................... 14
Figure 2.16 – CMT process scheme. ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.17 – CMT welding phases. ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.18 – Comparison of voltages and currents used in each metal transfer mode and in CMT process. ...... 15
Figure 3.1 – Sample appearance...................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.2 – Recommended consumables for dissimilar materials joining. ....................................................... 17
Figure 3.3 – Scheme of the method used to perform the build-up. .................................................................... 20
Figure 3.4 – First cut. ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.5 – Second cut. ................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3.6 – Trace lines for width measurements. ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 3.7 – Method used for final useful area measurements. ......................................................................... 23
Figure 3.8 – Vickers hardness test scheme. ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.9 – Surface texture profiles. .............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.10 – Direction of surface texture measurements. ................................................................................ 26
Figure 4.1 – Laboratory equipment scheme ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.2 – Laboratory equipment ................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 4.3 – Kawasaki JS6.............................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 4.4 – AMV 5000 welding monitoring computer ................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.5 – First cut machine......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.6 – Second cut machine. ................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.7 – Grinder machine ......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.8 – Mounting machine. ..................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.9 – Manual polishing machine........................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.10 – Automatic polishing machine. ................................................................................................... 30
IX
Figure 4.11 – Fume Cabinet............................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 4.12 – Acid Container .......................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.13 – Camera used for macrostructure analysis. .................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.14 – Machine used for hardness test. ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.15 – Machine used for surface texture analysis. ................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.16 – Scentis software ........................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 4.17 – Ecos software. ........................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.18 – Alicona associated software....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.19 – Design Expert 9 software. ......................................................................................................... 34
Figure 5.1 – Experimental test using 90A and 600mm/min. ............................................................................. 35
Figure 5.2 – Experimental test using 80A and 260 mm/min. ............................................................................ 35
Figure 5.3 – Test 1.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.4 – Test 2.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.5 – Test 3.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.6 – Test 4.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.7 – Test 5.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.8 – Test 6.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.9 – Test 7.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.10 – Test 8........................................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 5.11 – Test 9........................................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 5.12 – Test 10...................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.13 – Test 11...................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.14 – Test 12...................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.15 – Test 13...................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.16 – Current and Travel Speed influence on Heat Input. .................................................................... 40
Figure 5.17 – CMT current waveform. ............................................................................................................ 41
Figure 5.18 – Current and Travel Speed influence on Deposition Rate ............................................................. 43
Figure 5.19 – Current and Travel Speed influence on deposition rate. .............................................................. 43
Figure 5.20 – Current and travel speed influence on Deposition Efficiency. ..................................................... 44
Figure 5.21 – Influence of current and travel speed on deposition efficiency. ................................................... 45
Figure 5.22 – Test 1 macro ............................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 5.31 – Test 10 macro ........................................................................................................................... 47
X
Figure 5.37 – Good fusion between two layers. ............................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.38 – Poor fusion between two layers. ................................................................................................ 49
Figure 5.39 – Test 1 width measurements........................................................................................................ 50
Figure 5.44 – Test 6 width measurements ....................................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.48 – Test 10 width measurements...................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5.52 – Test 15 width analysis. .............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 5.53 – Test 16 width analysis. .............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 5.54 – Current and Travel Speed influence on Average Width. ............................................................. 53
Figure 5.55 – Relation between deposition rate and average width................................................................... 54
Figure 5.56 – Influence of current and travel speed on average width. ............................................................. 54
Figure 5.57 – Current and travel speed influence on average width standard deviation. .................................... 55
Figure 5.58 – Relation between Average width standard deviation and deposition efficiency. .......................... 56
Figure 5.59 – Coefficients significance. .......................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5.60 – Influence of current and travel speed on width standard deviation. ............................................. 57
Figure 5.61 – Current and travel speed influence on minimum width. .............................................................. 58
Figure 5.62 – Current and travel speed influence in minimum width standard deviation. .................................. 59
Figure 5.63 – Test 1 final useful area measurements. ....................................................................................... 59
Figure 5.67 – Test 5 area final useful area measurements................................................................................. 60
XI
Figure 5.72 – Test 10 final useful area measurements. ..................................................................................... 61
Figure 5.78 – Current and travel speed influence in final useful area. ............................................................... 63
Figure 5.79 – Relation between Final Useful Area and Average Width Standard Deviation.´ ........................... 64
Figure 5.81 – Influence of current and travel speed on final useful area. .......................................................... 65
Figure 5.82 – Indentation mark on the left and sample photo on the right. ........................................................ 67
Figure 5.83 – Hardness variation along build-up height ................................................................................... 67
Figure 5.84 – Influence of current and travel speed on average hardness. ......................................................... 68
Figure 5.85 – Current and travel speed influence on sample average of side average standard deviation. .......... 71
Figure 5.87 – Influence of current and travel speed on surface standard deviation. ........................................... 72
Figure 5.88 – Build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness measurement average plan for test 1.
Top: face A, Bottom: face B. .......................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.97 – Build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness measurement average plan for test
10. Top: face A, Bottom: face B...................................................................................................................... 75
XII
13. Left: face A, Right: face B. ....................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.101 – Relation between sides’ height profile and final useful area. ..................................................... 77
Figure 5.102 – Optimization graph.................................................................................................................. 78
XIII
List of Tables
Table 2-1 – Various wire feed process. ............................................................................................................. 9
Table 2-2 – Chemical composition of IN625. .................................................................................................. 16
Table 3-1 – Characteristics of the substrate plate. ............................................................................................ 18
Table 3-2 – Wire technical features. ................................................................................................................ 18
Table 3-3 – Shielding gas features. ................................................................................................................. 18
Table 3-4 – Surface Texture parameter’s. ........................................................................................................ 26
Table 5-1 – Design of experiments generated by Design Expert....................................................................... 36
Table 5-2 - Design of experiments for Design Expert design validation. .......................................................... 36
Table 5-3 - Experimental data obtained for experimental tests from Design Expert design ............................... 39
Table 5-4 – Experimental data obtained for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation. ................ 40
Table 5-5 – Number of layers required and total heat input calculated for a 17mm height component. .............. 41
Table 5-6 - Calculations made for experimental tests from Design Expert design. ............................................ 42
Table 5-7 - Calculations made for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation. ............................... 42
Table 5-8 – Comparison between deposition rates obtained by experimental and by DoE................................. 44
Table 5-9 – Comparison between the deposition efficiencies obtained by experimental and DoE. .................... 46
Table 5-10 – Summary table of width analysis for experimental tests from Design Expert design..................... 52
Table 5-11 – Summary table of width analyses for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation. ...... 53
Table 5-12 – Comparison between the average widths obtained by experimental and by DoE. ......................... 55
Table 5-13 – Summary table for final useful area analyses for experimental tests from Design Expert design. .. 62
Table 5-14 – Summary table for final useful area analyses for experimental test for Design Expert design
validation. ...................................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 5-15 – Comparison between the final useful areas obtained by experimental and by DoE. ...................... 66
Table 5-16 – Average Hardness analysis for experimental tests from Design Expert design. ............................ 66
Table 5-17 – Average Hardness analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation. ............... 67
Table 5-18 – Comparison between the average hardness’ obtained by experimental and DoE. ......................... 68
Table 5-19 – P profile parameters analysed and standard deviation averages for experimental test from Design
Expert design. ................................................................................................................................................ 69
Table 5-20 - P-profile parameters analysed and standard deviation averages for experimental experiments for
Design Expert validation. ............................................................................................................................... 70
Table 5-21 – Height´s profile range variation of each test for each side. ........................................................... 76
Table 9-1 – Whole data needed to deposition rate and deposition efficiency analysis for experimental tests from
Design Expert design. ..................................................................................................................................... 85
Table 9-2 – Whole data needed to deposition rate and deposition efficiency analysis for experimental tests for
Design Expert validation. ............................................................................................................................... 85
Table 9-3 – Whole data needed to average hardness analysis for experimental tests from Design Expert design86
Table 9-4 – Whole data needed to average hardness analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert validation.
...................................................................................................................................................................... 88
Table 9-5 - Whole data needed to surface texture for experimental tests from Design Expert design. ................ 88
Table 9-6 – Whole data needed to surface texture analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert validation. 90
XIV
List of Nomenclature
AM – Additive Manufacturing
ALM – Additive Layer Manufacturing
RP – Rapid Prototyping
DMD – Direct Metal Deposition
FFF – Free Form Fabrication
HLM – Hybrid Layer Manufacturing
LM – Laser Melting
UAM – Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing
EBM – Electron Beam Melting
PD – Plasma Deposition
GMAW – Gas Metal Arc Welding
PBAM – Powder Based Additive Manufacturing
WAAM – Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing
CMT – Cold Metal Transfer
ASTM – American Society of Testing Materials
CAD – Computer Aided Design
SL – Stereo-Lithography
LOM – Laminated Object Manufacturing
FDM – Fused Deposition Modeling
3DP – 3D Printing
SLS – Selective Laser Sintering
DOE – Design of Experiments
DR – Deposition Rate
DE – Deposition Efficiency
WEU – Wire of Electrode Used
VEU – Volume of Electrode Used
LWU – Length of Wire Used
XV
E - Voltage
I – Current
S – Travel speed
DoE – Design of Experiments
XVI
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have over 80 years of history and it is becoming an increasingly
important technology in the manufacturing field for direct fabrication of structural metal components. AM
technology is also known as Additive Layer Manufacturing (ALM), Rapid Prototyping (RP), Direct Material
Deposition (DMD), Free Form Fabrication (FFF), and Hybrid Layer Manufacturing (HLM) (Kruth et al. 1998).
AM techniques can be classified by the heat source utilised for melting/sintering the raw material, feedstock
material, feedstock delivery and system configuration, leading to denominations, such as Laser Melting (LM),
Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing (UAM), Electron Beam Melting (EBM), Plasma Deposition (PD), Gas
Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), Powder Based Additive Manufacturing (PBAM), and finally, Wire and Arc
Additive Manufacturing (WAAM).
Nowadays, automotive and aerospace industries are continuously looking for applications that enable direct
production of complex full density metal parts, with low production volumes and high structural integrity. The
request for products and services from AM technology has been robust for more than twenty years (Wohlers T.
2010), leading to an increasing on the demand for WAAM process, in the lasts years. Thus, there has been a
growing interest in the research in the metal additive manufacturing field.
This growing interest is related with the advantages associated with this process. The main advantages are
minimum waste and tool-less production. The complete avoidance of tooling in AM techniques offers design
freedom and helps the design process to be further flexible, (Karunakaran et al. 2010).
The economic benefits and the environmental impact of AM processes used become even more significant in
the fabrication of components with high value material, such as nickel, when compared with traditional
machining processes. Nickel is an expensive material with growing use at about 4% each year, thus the use of
AM technology for Nickel parts is of interest in a large diversity of industrial sectors.
1.2. Motivation
Nickel is an expensive material used in a diversity of industries namely automobile and aerospace. The increase
of world consumption of nickel alloy the high cost of subtractive manufacturing technologies and the
environmental impact led to the consideration of an AM process as an alternative to manufacture nickel parts.
Due to the fact that arc welding is suitable for most commonly used metals and alloys, it was decided to look for
a process that fills this requirement. Among the GMAW process variants, it stands out a process denominated
Cold Metal Transfer process. This process is well known for good stability with all materials and precise
process control.
Accordingly to this the proposed project aims study of the CMT process in Additive Manufacturing of nickel
components.
1
1.3. Objectives
The objectives of the current project were:
 Investigate the influence of current and travel speed in the build-up width, surface texture, hardness,
deposition rate, final useful area percentage and finally, deposition efficiency.
 Optimize the process, finding the best combination of current and travel speed.
2
2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
In this chapter a review of the main fields related with the topic of this thesis is presented. It starts with a brief
summary of the Additive Manufacturing history with a description of the most popular Additive Manufacturing
process. After Additive Manufacturing technology it is explained, in detail, the application of this technology in
metals.
Moreover the Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing process, the Gas Metal Arc Welding process, and finally
the Cold Metal Transfer process are introduced.
A brief introduction of Nickel alloys and its weldability analysis is presented in the last part of the literature
survey.
2.2. Additive Manufacturing History
Additive manufacturing, AM, is defined by ASTM as the “process of joining materials to make objects, usually
layer by layer, from 3D CAD data”. The most popular AM processes are Stereo-Lithography (SL), Laminated
Object Manufacturing (LOM), Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), 3D Printing (3DP) and finally, Selective
Laser Sintering (SLS), (Kruth et al. 1998), which will be discussed in this chapter. Each technology is often
distinguished by the raw materials used or by the method of consolidation.
The first AM process appears in 1986 and was developed between 1986 and 1988 by 3D Systems (Wohlers &
Gornet 2011; Levy et al 2003; Wong & Hernandez 2012). The basic principle of this process is the photo
polymerization, which is the process where a liquid monomer or a polymer converts into a solidified polymer by
applying ultraviolet light which acts as a catalyst for the reactions. Briefly, this is a liquid-based process where
the curing or solidification of a photosensitive polymer occurs when an ultraviolet laser makes contact with the
resin. It starts with the design of the component in a CAD software and then this file is translated to a STL file
in which the pieces are “cut in slices” containing the information for each layer. A platform is built to anchor the
piece and supporting the overhanging structures. Then the UV laser is applied to the resin solidifying specific
locations of each layer. When the layer is finished the platform is lowered and finally when the process is done
the excess is drained and can be reused (Wong & Hernandez 2012).
In the same period of time the LOM process was developed. LOM is a process that combines additive and
subtractive techniques to build a part layer by layer. In this process the materials come in sheet form. The layers
are bonded together by pressure and heat application and using a thermal adhesive coating. A laser cuts the
material to the shape of each layer given the information of the 3D model from the CAD and STL file (Wong &
Hernandez 2012). The LOM concept was investigated by Nakagawa T. and Kunieda M. for laminated metal
sheet for tooling (Levy et al 2003).
Between 1988 and 1991 was developed by S. Scott Crump the FDM process which was commercialized by
Stratasys Inc. (Yan & Gu 1996; Levy et al. 2003). FDM is an additive manufacturing process in which a thin
filament of plastic feeds a machine where a print head melts it and extrude it in a thickness typically of 0.25mm.
It builds parts by depositing a stream of hot viscous material onto a base plate or previously deposited material
(Kruth et al. 1998; Wong & Hernandez 2012).
3
Since 1985 until 1997 was developed by MIT the 3D Printing process (Levy et al. 2003). It uses solid powder
material that is deposited in layers that are successively solidified by ink-jet printing droplets of binder onto the
powder material (Kruth et al. 1998).
In 1967-1992, SLS was developed by Carl Deckard and Joseph Beaman at the Mechanical Engineering
Department of University of Texas at Austin (Yan & Gu 1996). This is a three-dimensional printing process in
which a powder is sintered or fuses by the application of a carbon dioxide laser beam. The chamber is heated to
almost the melting point of the material. The laser fused the powder at a specific location for each layer
specified by the design. The particles lie loosely in a bed, which is controlled by a piston, that is lowered the
same amount of the layer thickness each time a layer is finished (Wong & Hernandez 2012).
AM technology has evolved significantly over the past three decades and by 2016, it is expected that AM
products and services reach $3.1 billion worldwide. By 2020, the industry is expected to hit $5.2 billion
(Wohlers T. 2011).
2.3. Additive Manufacturing
Additive Manufacturing is a process where parts are created from 3D CAD data by adding material layers upon
layers. The definition is opposite to subtractive manufacture methodologies (Hopkinson N. 2012), where parts
are manufactured by removal of material from raw blocks. In AM the component seems to grow from nothing to
completion. ‘’AM is also known as Additive Layer Manufacturing (ALM), Rapid Prototyping (RP), Direct
Material Deposition (DMD), Free Form Fabrication (FFF), Hybrid Layer Manufacturing (HLM)’’ (Karunakaran
et al. 2010).
The general working principle of AM is schematically represented in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 – Working principle of AM.
The first step is slicing the 3D geometric model into 2D layers, and the element of each layer is a 2D cross
section profile of the part. Then, each layer is built in a time and gets a near-net-shape component.
This technique started in the late 80’s and over the past decades, the development and application of AM has
been significantly increasing. Compared with traditional manufacturing technologies, AM has some significant
advantages as follow (Karunakaran et al. 2010):
4
 Reduce material waste (compared with traditional method).
 Can build near net-shape part with highly complex geometries directly from 3D CAD data without
tooling.
 Parts show good mechanical properties (compared with casting).
 Reduced leading time in the manufacturing process.
But the disadvantages of AM are as follow (Karunakaran et al. 2010):
 Manufacture speed is slow compared with traditional methods at present.

 The manufacturing process is difficult control.
 The process is without tooling, but a substrate is necessary.
 The surface quality is not excellent thus requires a finishing process.
This process is used to manufacture low quantities with medium to high geometric complexity as shown in
figure 2.2 (Levy et al. 2003).
Figure 2.2 – Qualitative situation of the LM components production relative to usual options.
Summary AM provides good material utilization, cost efficiency, a very energy-resourceful and environmental
approachable manufacturing way and a near net shape after part machining.
The aerospace industry is a vital sector embracing additive manufacturing, as this process can realise massive
savings of expensive material, give design freedom and manufacture more complex components easily. This
explains the increase on the demand and research in this technology which is proved by the graph presented in
figure 2.3 (Wohlers, 2010). As can be seen in figure 2.3 there is a growth in this technology with no signal to
decrease in system sales.
5
Sales
Year
Figure 2.3 – Growth of rapid prototyping
2.4. Additive Manufacturing with Metal
Due to the AM advantages such as, saving material, no tooling, enhancing complexity of the components,
cutting back the cost of manufacturing and environmentally friendly, this technology becomes a promising
alternative for manufacturing components made of expensive materials or difficult to machine materials, where
waste expect to be minimized (Mehnen et al. 2010).
AM for metal process is divided in direct process and indirect process (Karunakaran et al. 2010). An AM
technology is nominated indirect process when a casting process is involved in layer by layer processes,
otherwise it is a direct process.
With regard to how the additive material is supplied, currently popular AM technologies can be classified as
either a powder-feed process or a wire-feed process. The powder-feed process is capable of fabricating parts
with small size and high geometrical accuracy. On the other hand, the wire-feed approach is a cleaner and more
environmental friendly process, which does not expose operators to the potentially hazardous powder
environment (Ding et al. 2015).
Depending on the energy source used, AM for metals can be classified into three groups, namely laser based, arc
welding based, and electron beam based (Ding et al. 2015).
In figure 2.4 is presented the classification of AM for metal process.
6
Additive
AM technology Manufacturing
for Metals
Direct Indirect
Process
(layer by layer) (casting)
Feed Process Powder

Wire based
Material based
Electron
Energy Source Laser
beam
Arc
Figure 2.4 – Classification of AM for metals.
When the feed material used is a powder based material there are two feed systems possibilities, which are
powder feed system and powder bed system (Frazier 2014).
Figure 2.5 show a scheme of a generic powder bed system. A powder bed is created by raking powder across the
work area. The energy source (electron beam or laser beam) is programmed to deliver energy to the surface of
the bed melting or sintering the powder into the desired shape. Additional powder is raked across the work area,
and the process is repeated to create a 3D component (Frazier 2014).
Figure 2.5 – Scheme of a generic powder bed system
A generic illustration of AM powder feed systems is shown in figure 2.6.

In these systems, powders are conveyed through a nozzle onto the build surface. A laser is used to melt a
monolayer or more of the powder into the shape desired. This process is repeated to create a solid three
dimensional component (Frazier 2014).
7
Figure 2.6 – AM powder feed system.
As previously referred the powder-feed process is capable of fabricating parts with small size and high
geometrical accuracy. In addition, it is possible to produce parts with functionally graded materials (FGM)
(Ding et al. 2015).
The major advantages of the powder based methods are the precision, accuracy and surface finish obtained
which in some situations are near to machined surfaces. On the other hand, the main disadvantages of this
process are porosity problems which appear because of the porosity in the powder, and restricted deposition
rates because with the increase in the powder feed rate there is likelihood of formation of pores (Choi & Chang
2005). However, to improve the density of the product, heat treatment is essential (Rombouts et al. 2006).
A scheme of a wire feed unit is shown in figure 2.7. The feedstock is wire, and the energy source for these units
can include electron beam, laser beam, and arc. Initially, a single bead of material is deposited and upon
subsequent passes is built upon to develop a three dimensional structure. In general, wire feed systems are well
suited for high deposition rate processing and have large build volumes; however, the fabricated product usually
requires more extensive machining than the powder bed or powder fed systems do (Frazier 2014).
Figure 2.7 – Scheme of a wire feed unit.
Compared with the powder-feed process, it has higher material usage efficiency with up to 100% of the wire
material deposited into the component. Additionally, metal wires are lower in cost and more readily available
8
than metal powders having suitable properties for AM, making wire-feed technology more cost-competitive
(Ding et al. 2015).
Table 2-1 presents various existing technologies of wire feed process (Karunakaran et al. 2010).
Table 2-1 – Various wire feed process.
Energy Source Wire feed process

Direct metal deposition (DMD)
Directed light fabrication (DLF)
Laser Laser additive manufacturing (LAM)
Laser based direct metal deposition (LBDMD)
Rapid direct metal deposition
Electron beam Electron beam freeforming
3D welding
Hybrid layered manufacturing
Arc
Hybrid plasma deposition and milling (HPDM)
Shape deposition manufacturing
Among wire feed process, arc welding based AM has shown promise due to its combined advantages of higher
deposition rate, energy efficiency, safe operation and lower cost. Generally, the deposition rate of laser or
electron beam deposition is in the order of 2–10 g/min, compared with 50–130 g/min for arc welding based AM
technology. Laser is commonly used as the energy source in the AM system. However, it has very poor energy
efficiency (2–5%). Electron beam has a slightly higher energy efficiency (15– 20%), but it requires a high
vacuum working environment. Compared with the poor energy efficiency of laser and electron beam, the energy
efficiency of arc welding processes such as the gas metal arc welding (GMAW) or gas tungsten arc welding
(GTAW) processes can be as high as 90% in some circumstances (Ding et al. 2015). To increase the deposition
rate and mechanical properties these welding processes have been studied.
As a result, Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) using either the GMAW or the GTAW process is a
promising technology for manufacturing components with medium to large size in terms of productivity, cost-
competitiveness and energy efficiency (Colegrove et al. 2013).
Among the Arc process, shaped deposition manufacturing has a high potential in the fabrication of complex
structures especially in aerospace components (Clark et al. 2008).
2.5. Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing
Wire and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) process combines the arc as heat resource with wire feeding, to
create 3D components. The concept of WAAM has actually been around for almost a century – the first patent
was filed in 1920 by Baker (Baker 1925). However, it was until the last two decades that this idea was
extensively developed with modern welding and automation technologies, which has received distinctive
consideration since it has an advantage over the traditional manufacturing techniques (Lorant, 2010).
Over the past years, a number of studies have investigated the utilisation of arc welding methods, i.e. GTAW
and GMAW. WAAM Standard wire based welding processes such Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) and Gas
9
Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) are low cost solutions employed as heat source providing high deposition rate
by utilising high energy input. That is the reason why the demand for WAAM has been on the rise over the past
decades (Adebayo et al. 2013).
WAAM methods have the potential for manufacturing of big volume parts with high structural integrity at
reduced cost. (Mehnen et al. 2010) point out that by integrating welding deposition process with grinding
process in one machine and using of new welding technologies such as CMT (Cold Metal Transfer) or Inter
pulse Welding, the WAAM technique can be used to manufacture high quality components with precisely
defined surface geometries.
Some research works have been carried out by many universities. A research program named Wire and Arc
Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) has been done at Cranfield University
As shown in figure 2.8, in the WAAM process 3D metallic components are built by feeding wire metallic
material and depositing beads of weld metal in a layer by layer way.
Figure 2.8 – 3D metallic component made by WAAM process.
2.6. Gas Metal Arc Welding
The evolution of Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) technologies has become more significant for automation
and control of welding (Hudson 2004).
The GMAW process, figure 2.9, appeared in the 1920s, but only in 1948 was this process fully developed and
ready to be used by all types of industries. This process is an arc welding process that uses an electric arc
between a continuous filler material and the weld pool. In order to realize a weld this process needs the aid of
shielding gases that are supplied externally. These gases can be inert, Metal Inert Gas - MIG, or can be active,
Metal Active Gas – MAG.
10
Figure 2.9 – GMAW process.
This welding process has significant advantages when compared with other welding processes, it can weld all
types of commercially available metals and alloys, it can weld in all positions, it does not have the same
restrictions in electrode’s dimensions when compared with shielded metal arc welding, it has higher welding
speeds, does not need heavy slag removal operations. But it has its own limitations, it needs a more complex and
more costly equipment, figure 2.10, than shielded metal arc welding and needs to be protected against air drafts,
because of the shielding is performed by gases that can be blown away.
Figure 2.10 – GMAW equipment.
In this process exists four main metal transfer modes, which are short-circuiting, pulsed arc, globular and spray.
2.6.1. Short-circuiting transfer
Short circuiting transfer (Santos & Quintino 1993), also called dip transfer, in GMAW is determined by low arc
current and voltage, and characterized by low heat input. As a result of lower current and consequently heat
input this type of transfer mode is used to weld thin materials. This type of metal transfer produces a fast freeze
weld pool. The metal is transferred from the electrode to the work piece only during the time the electrode
contacts with the weld pool. There are about twenty to two hundred contacts per second between the electrode
and the weld pool. The complete cycle of short circuiting transfer is represented in figure 2.11.
11
Figure 2.11 – Cycle of short circuiting transfer.
There are three major phases in short circuiting metal transfer. The first phase, short, embraces the points A to
D, of figure 2.11, corresponds to an increase in welding current and voltage, when the molten tip of the
electrode is attached to the welding pool, ensuring a quick transfer of the molten drop to the weld pool. The
second phase, reignition, occurs on point E, of figure 2.11, the voltage is increased suddenly and it is when the
pinching forces separate the electrode melted tip from the weld pool. Finally, the third phase, arcing period,
occurs between point E and I of figure 2.11, the tip of the electrode is separated from the weld pool and the
beginning of a melted tip starts. In this phase the current needs to be as low as possible to avoid spatter
formation.
2.6.2. Pulsed arc transfer
For this transfer mode the high current pulses may be obtained from a single phase rectifier connected to a
rectifier power source as used for dip transfer. With pulse transfer the welding current alternates between high
and low levels. A high current density detaches droplets of metal and a low current density maintains the arc. By
this means a form of controlled spray transfer is obtained at low current values. The process is shown in figure
2.12.
Figure 2.12 – Scheme of pulsed arc transfer mode.
12
2.6.3. Globular transfer
Globular transfer, represented schematically in figure 2.13, it is often seen as the worst transfer mode in
MIG/MAG welding, because it tends to produce high heat, poor weld surface and spatter. This transfer mode is
characterized by drop size with a diameter bigger than the electrode diameter. This type of transfer occurs with
relatively low current. The main electrode forces acting in the droplet detachment are the pinching force and the
anode reacting force.
Figure 2.13 – Globular Transfer.
2.6.4. Spray transfer
With a current level above the transition current and with Argon shielding gas, it’s possible to achieve the
transition between globular transfer and spray transfer. This type of metal transfer, figure 2.14, it is
characterized by small droplets transferred between the electrode and the work piece, and by spatter free welds.
These small droplets are transferred at a rate of hundreds by second and are accelerated by electromagnetic
forces. This type of metal transfer mode can achieve deeper penetrations than other transfer modes. The spray
transfer is not used to weld thin sheets or to make root passes, because it needs high levels of current and
voltage, and so makes a big weld pool and tends to distort thin metal sheets.
Figure 2.14 – Spray Transfer.
In figure 2.15 is presented the different voltages and intensities used in all the different GMAW processes. The
correspondence between colors and the transfer mode is orange for spray transfer mode, grey for globular
transfer mode, green for pulsed arc transfer mode and light blue for short-circuiting transfer mode.
13
Pulsed Arc
Short-circuiting
Figure 2.15 – Values of current and voltage for the different metal transfer modes.
2.7. Cold Metal Transfer, CMT
The technological developments carried out in GMAW concerned the development of new power sources with
different waveform designs, such as Cold Metal Transfer (CMT).
In 2005, Fronius introduced a revolutionary new arc welding process called CMT. CMT is classified as a dip
transfer process and characterized by low heat input when compared to the conventional GMAW (Fronius
2005). The CMT presents an innovative solution, which is determined by the motion of the electrode directly
assisted by the process control mechanism. As described by Fronius (2005), when the arc plasma is developed
the filler wire moves to the weld pool until the wire touches the weld pool and short-circuiting takes place. Then
the current becomes lower and the electrode is retracted enhancing the droplet detachment.
This forward and backward motion takes place at a frequency of up to 70 Hz. The control system detects the
short-circuiting and then retracts the filler wire after droplet transfer. This process is schematized in figure 2.16.
Figure 2.16 – CMT process scheme.
The CMT process has two major phases, the arcing phase and the sort circuit phase, as show as figure 2.17
(Pickin & Williams 2011). This figure illustrates the current and voltage waveform which characterize the CMT
process.
14
Figure 2.17 – CMT welding phases.
The first phase, the Arcing phase, is characterized by an increase in voltage and a significant increase in welding
current. In this phase a molten droplet is formed on the end of the wire electrode and a weld pool is created.
After a set duration of time, the welding current decreases. This dropping in the welding current prevents the
globular transfer mode to occur. This value of current is maintained until the short circuit begins.
Finally, in the short circuit phase, the wire electrode is fed forward contacting the weld pool and the voltage
drops to zero. In this moment, in conventional MIG/MAG, the current rises and the electrical pinching forces
separate the electrode from the weld pool. Contrary, in CMT process, the current stays at low levels and the wire
is sent in a backward motion and a force is transmitted that separates the electrode from the welding pool. The
arc is then reignited and the cycle repeats.
Benefits of this new process include the possibility of simultaneous dip transfer and pulse arc welding, with heat
input lower than conventional MIG/MAG welding (Fronius 2005) and no spatter.
The lower heat input of this process can be observed in figure 2.18 that shows the different voltages and currents
of each metal transfer mode and of CMT process.
Figure 2.18 – Comparison of voltages and currents used in each metal transfer mode and in CMT process.
15
2.8. Nickel Alloy
Nickel and nickel alloys are among the toughest structural materials known. Nickel and nickel alloys are non-
ferrous metals with high strength and toughness, excellent corrosion resistance, and superior elevated
temperature properties.
In this thesis the filler material used was a nickel alloy Inconel 625. Table 2-2 presents the chemical
composition of this nickel alloy.
Table 2-2 – Chemical composition of IN625.
Alloy 625 Ni Cr Fe C Mn Si Mo Al Ti Nb P S
Min bal 21.0 - - - - 8.0 - - 3.2 - -
Max bal 23.0 4.0 0.025 0.40 0.40 10.0 0.40 0.40 3.8 0.010 0.010
Inconel 625 microstructure is formed by a Ni matrix with cubic face centred structure. This alloy has found
extensive use in many industries for diverse applications over a wide temperature range from cryogenic
conditions to ultra-hot environments over 1000◦C.
The alloy is endowed with good combination of yield strength, creep strength, fatigue strength and excellent
oxidation and corrosion resistance in aggressive environments. Moreover, its good weldability and procesability
foster its choice for many applications (Dinda et al. 2009). The main disadvantage of the use of these alloys is
its high cost, being used only when cheaper materials do not provide the necessary properties of wear resistance
required for special applications engineering.
The main problem associated with the nickel weldability is cracking. This problem is linked with heat input and
is associated with the concentration of Laves phase particles in the weld.
High heat input results in relatively slow cooling which causes the formation of a large volume of Laves phase
particles. Then, cracking can be avoided by reducing heat input during the welding process (Wilson et al. 1991).
2.9. Summary
In this chapter a brief history of Additive manufacturing and its used in metal manufacture were presented. Wire
and Arc Additive Manufacturing technology was introduced and Gas Metal Arc Welding process was discussed
with special attention as the Cold Metal Transfer process.
Finally a brief introduction of Nickel alloys and its weldability analysis was presented.
16
3. Experimental Approach
3.1. Introduction
In this chapter the experimental procedure is defined and explained in greater detail. It’s here that fixed
conditions of the process and variable parameters are defined. It is also defined the design measures of the build-
up and decisions made along each analysis.
3.2. Materials and Build-up appearance
In this project it was decided to build and compare several samples obtained by multi-layer linear welds,
commonly known as build-up. These build-ups were made on the top of a substrate plate, like shown in figure
3.1. The predefined dimensions for the build-ups are 120mm length and 20mm height.
Figure 3.1 – Sample appearance.
Using a nickel alloy, specifically Inconell 625, for substrate plate composition is a too expensive choice, so it
was decided to use a dissimilar material. According with figure 3.2, the recommended base material for using
with Inconel 625 is an austenitic stainless steel. The best and most widely used austenitic stainless steel is 304L
stainless steel. This material is cost effective when compared with Inconel 625 so it was chosen for the
constituent material of the substrate plate.
Figure 3.2 – Recommended consumables for dissimilar materials joining.
The substrate plates dimensions and their characteristics are presented in table 3-1.
17
Table 3-1 – Characteristics of the substrate plate.
Width [mm] Weight [Kg]

Density, 𝝆 Length Thickness
Material All Plate Plate All Plate Plate
[g/cm3] [mm] [mm]
plates n6 n10 plates n6 n10
304l stainless steel 8.03 250 50 56 52 10 1.003 1.12 1.043
The weight presented in table 3-1 was calculated based on 304l stainless steel density and on the volume of each
plate, according with the follow equation.
Mass
𝜌=
Volume
The filler material used to perform the build-ups was a nickel alloy with the physical characteristics shown on
table 3-2.
Table 3-2 – Wire technical features.
Material Type Density [g/cm3] Diameter [mm] Section Area [cm2]

Inconel 625 Wire 8.44 1 0.0079
The wire diameter was chosen based on the push-pull system. The wire sizes that work well on a push-pull
system vary in a range from 0.8 mm to 1.6 mm [1]. Once the focus is on finer detail the smallest practicable
diameter was chosen, corresponding to a small deposition. When a 0.8 mm wire diameter was used there were
some difficulties to feed the wire. Consequently, 1 mm diameter was tried and the feed was performed with no
problems. Thus, for this project a wire diameter of 1 mm was chosen.
For shielding gas pure Argon was chosen because it is recommended its use for the Nickel MIG welds [2].The
values of concentration and gas flow is present on table 3-3. These values are fixed and constant for all tests. A
gas flow of 20L/min was used so that during the tests the protection of the entire build-up was done, instead of
the protection of only the layer that was being made.
Table 3-3 – Shielding gas features.
Type Concentration [%] Gas Flow [L/min]

Argon 100 20
3.3. Design of experiments, DoE
After establishing all the fixed parameters, it was necessary to decide the variable parameters, which are the
current and the travel speed. In order to study the influence of these two parameters on the process, several
aspects will be analysed, the surface texture, average width, final useful area percentage, average hardness,
deposition rate and finally, deposition efficiency.
The values of the current on CMT process varies in a range of 80A to 130A (Dutra et al. 2013), and the travel
speed assumes values between 200mm/min and 600mm/min (Adebayo et al. 2013).
18
The first phase of the experimental setup was to decide how many samples are needed.
Considering a variation interval of 10A for current and 50mm/min for travel speed, it is concluded that 54
samples are needed. Since, to produce 54 samples would require the use of many resources such as material and
time, so it was decided to use an appropriate software that reduces significantly the number of samples required
for performing the same study. The software chosen was Design Expert software developed by Ease-Sat.
Design of experiments (DOE) is a powerful tool that can be used in a variety of experimental situations. DOE
allows for multiple inputs, factors, to be manipulated, determining their effect on a desired output. By
manipulating multiple inputs at the same time, DOE can identify important interactions that may be missed
when experimenting with one factor at a time.
Summarizing, introducing on the Design Expert software the operating range of the variable parameters of this
work, current and travel speed, as inputs, it is generated a design of experiments where based on the data
obtained for each response for each sample, predicts the influence of the variable parameters on the responses
previously referred.
Subsequently, are presented the steps made on Design Expert software. The first step was generate the design of
experiments. For this it was necessary, at first, to choose the study type, design type and introduced the range
values of each input. Bearing in mind that one of the project objectives is to optimize the process, a Response
Surface Methodology, RSM, was chosen for study type, due to this type of study be an experimental technique
to find the optimal response within specified ranges of the factors. After this, it was chosen the design type, was
chosen an optimal design for the same reason. Then, the variable parameters ranges were introduced and it was
generated by the software a design of experiments. Following this it was performed the second step that consists
on the analysis of each response. When the analysis is finished it was performed the third step, the optimization.
When is used a software of this kind is necessary to do its validation. This validation of the software consist on
performing a couple of experimental trials with different input values of the ones generated by Design Expert,
and compare the responses obtained, with the ones predicted by the software. In this project two experimental
trials were chosen.
3.4. Procedure for perform the experimental trials
After the first step of the design of experiments, the laboratory work phase was initiated.
On a first stage, the method to perform the build-up was planned. The scheme presented in figure 3.3 illustrates
the selected method. The sequence of points indicates the path made by robot.
19
Figure 3.3 – Scheme of the method used to perform the build-up.
The path performed by robot influences the solidifying structure, the thermal gradient and the tensions generated
by the deposition. In reverse direction depositions, the grain growth direction which follows heat flow, changes
every layer disrupting the growth of the dendrites. Stress generated during deposition by the thermal gradient
also vary depending on the trajectory used, and with the change of direction between layers, tensions along the
deposition tends to be lowers (Alberti et al. 2014).
The next step, after selecting the method to perform the build-up, is programming this path on robot. A fixed
step of 3mm between each layer was programed.
The average voltage and current, and the welding time were recorder in each experimental test.
Several passes were performed until the build-up reaches approximately 20 mm in height. The following
procedure was undertaken in each experimental trial:
 Place the plate on the work space
 Turn on the robot
 Start program
 Remove the sample from work space
 Measure the sample weight
3.5. Deposition Rate and Deposition Efficiency
The deposition rate is the rate that weld metal can be deposited by a given electrode or welding wire, expressed
in kilograms per hour. It is based on continuous operation, not allowing time for stops and starts caused by
inserting a new electrode, cleaning slag, termination of the weld or other reasons.
The deposition efficiency is the weight of the weld metal deposited compared to the weight of the electrode
consumed, expressed as a percentage.
In this chapter the formulas used for the deposition rate analysis and deposition efficiency analysis are
presented.
20
3.5.1. Formulas
3.5.1.1. Deposition Rate, DR
Kg Weight after − Weight before

DR [ ]= (1)
h Welding time
3.5.1.2. Deposition Efficiency, DE
Weight after − Weight before

DE[%] = ∗ 100 (2)
Weight of Electrode consumed
3.5.1.3. Weight of Electrode used, WEU
WEU [Kg] = IN625 Density ∗ Volume of electrode used (3)
3.5.1.4. Volume of electrode used, V
V[cm3 ] = Section Area of the wire ∗ lenght of wire used (4)
3.5.1.5. Length of wire used, LWU
LWU [cm] = welding time ∗ wire feed speed (5)
3.6. Macrostructure
In this project a destructive welding test was used in order to evaluate the characteristics of the weld.
Destructive welding test, as the name suggests, involves the physical destruction of the completed weld. This
method of testing is used frequently for a number of applications. Some of these applications include welding
procedure qualification and welder performance qualification testing, sampling inspection of production welds,
research inspection, and failure analysis work.
The destructive test used in this project was a Macro etch test. This test allows see a cross section of the weld,
and observe the arrangement of the grains in the weld material, in other words, the macrostructure of the weld. It
can also show defects such as porosity, inclusions and poor fusion.
This test was performed through 6 steps which were, cutting a sample from the welded build-up, deburr the
edges, mount in a resin, grinding and polishing, etching, and finally inspection .
Cutting: This step consists in cutting a sample from the build-up sample previous done. Two cuts were
performed. The first one, marked with two red lines in figure 3.4., consists on cut a portion from the original
sample discarding the beginning and end portions. The second one, highlighted with two red lines in figure 3.5,
consists on cut the excessive material of the substrate plate.
21
Figure 3.4 – First cut. Figure 3.5 – Second cut.
Deburring the edges: Eliminate the metal deburr that resulted from cutting process.
Hot Mounting: Mounting the sample on a phenolic hot mounting resin with carbon filler.
Grinding and polishing: Grinding the samples using progressively finer grades and after performing at first
manual polishing and secondly automatic polishing during 10 min.
Etching: The sample is placed inside a container with an acid solution. After a short time, the welded areas will
begin to discolour. When it doesn't occur, the procedure has to be repeated. If it discolours too much, it may
require re-polishing and reapplication of the acid. Once results are visible, the sample is rinsed off and carefully
dried.
Inspection: In this stage a picture which shows the number of the layers and the defects along the build-up is
taken.
3.7. Width and Final Useful Area Measurements
In this chapter the procedures to perform the width measurements and the final useful area measurements are
discussed.
Using the image resultant of macro test and with the support of Scentis software, the necessaries measurements
were performed.
For the width measurement, the previous image resultant from macro was opened on Scentis software and
several lines along the welded build-up were drawn. These lines were strategically traced in areas of greater
width and reduced width as shown in figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6 – Trace lines for width measurements.
22
When a line is drawn, the software automatically calculates the length of the line and displays it in the image as
can be seen in figure 3.6.
According to the goal of this project, it was necessary find a value that represents the width variation along the
build-up and that allows its comparison with the other samples. Thus, it was chosen to calculate the average
width and the width standard deviation, for each sample. For these calculations the width variation along the
first layer was negligible since, the width increased gradually from the bottom to the top of the layer.
Similarly, for the final useful area measurements, it was imported on Scentis software the same image provided
by macro test. Thereafter polygons were drawn over the area required to remove. For this step it was established
a machining depth equal to 0.5 mm since is considered a reasonable dimension. As it can be seen in figure 3.7,
this distance was established in relation to the most inner point of each side.
Figure 3.7 – Method used for final useful area measurements.
In the same way that the Scentis software calculates the width, it calculates the area of the drawn polygon. This
measurement is considered an approximation since there exists an error associated with the act of drawing the
polygon over the image. Then, it was summed the values of the removed areas required, which represent the
total removed area required. On the other hand, knowing the width and the height of the remaining section, the
inner rectangle, it was calculated the final area value. Adding these two values it was obtained the value for total
area of the build-up.
Due to the differences in heights obtained on each sample, it becomes important to find a value that could be
comparative. Thus, the final useful area according to the following expression was calculated.
Total Area [mm2 ] = Removed Area + Final Area (6)
Final Area
Final Useful Area [%] = × 100 (7)
Total Area
3.8. Hardness
In this project in order to analyse the hardness of each a Vickers hardness test sample was used. This is a
method to measure the hardness of materials that is often easier to use than other hardness test since, the
required calculations are independent of the size of the indenter. In this test the indenter can be used for all
23
materials independent of the hardness. The indenter composition is diamond and has a form of a square-based
pyramid, as shows figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 – Vickers hardness test scheme.
The test was performed using a load of 5 Kg during 10 seconds. Twelve indentations on each sample were
performed, 11 along the build-up and 1 on the substrate. It was used a 5 Kg load because for this material this is
an industry standard load.
This test was performed on appropriate equipment for this analysis and the value of the diagonals from each
indentation are shown on the software associated with this equipment, ECOS. Knowing the value of both
diagonals for each indentation it was calculated the hardness value for each indentation and then, the average
hardness for the build-up. This average represents the average hardness value of the sample, which will be used
to make the comparison with the other samples.
The formulas used for the hardness value calculation are present below.
Area
d2 d2
A= = (8)
136 1.8544
2 × sen ( 2 )
(d1 + d2)
d [mm] = (9)
2
Vickers Hardness
F[Kgf] 1.8544 × 5 × 105
HV = ↔ HV = (10)
A [mm2 ] (𝑑1 + 𝑑2) 2
( )
2
Average Hardness
∑ HV
Average HV = (11)
Number of identations made in the weld
24
3.9. Surface Texture
The term “surface texture” refers to the fine irregularities, peaks and valleys, produced by the forming process,
and their direction on the surface (Song, J.F.). This term, also known as surface topography or surface finish,
can be viewed from two different perspectives. From the machinist’s perspective, texture is a result of the
manufacturing process and, from the designers perspective, surface texture is a condition that affects the
functionality of the part.
On analysis, surface texture is defined by three characteristics which are lay, surface roughness and waviness.
Lay is the direction of the predominant surface pattern ordinarily determined by the production method used.
Surface roughness commonly shortened to roughness is a measure of the finely spaced surface irregularities.
Finally, waviness is the measure of surface irregularities with spacing greater than that of surface roughness.
The surface profile is measured two-dimensionally using a tracing system. The unfiltered primary profile, P-
profile, is the actual measured surface profile. Filtering this last profile in accordance with international
standards leads to the waviness profile, W-profile, and the roughness profile, R-profile. It can be seen in figure
3.9.
Figure 3.9 – Surface texture profiles.
Surface texture parameters were separated into three groups depending on the type of profile from which they
are calculated. P parameters are calculated on the primary Profile, R parameters are calculated on the roughness
profile and, W parameters are calculated on the waviness profile. In table 3-4 are presented the three surface
texture parameters groups.
25
Table 3-4 – Surface Texture parameter’s.
P parameters W parameters R parameters

Pa Average height of profile Wa Waviness average Ra Average roughness of
profile
Pq Root-Mean-Square height Wq Root-Mean-Square Rq Root-Mean-Square
of profile waviness of profile roughness of profile
Pt Maximum peak to valley Wt Maximum peak to valley Rt Maximum peak to valley
height of primary profile height of waviness profile height of roughness profile
Pz Mean peak to valley height Wz Mean peak to valley height Rz Mean peak to valley height
of primary profile of waviness profile of roughness profile
Pp Maximum peak height of Wp Maximum peak height of Rp Maximum peak height of
primary profile waviness profile roughness profile
Pv Maximum valley height of Wv Maximum valley height of Rv Maximum valley height of
primary profile waviness profile roughness profile
Pc Mean height of profile Wc Mean height of profile Rc Mean height of profile
irregularities of primary irregularities of waviness irregularities of roughness
profile profile profile
Psm Mean spacing of profile l Profile length l Profile length
irregularities of primary
profile
l Profile length lc Cut off wavelength lc Cut off wavelength
Initially, it was considered to analyse the waviness along the height direction and the surface roughness along
the length direction, as shown in figure 3.10, but, due to problems of filtering data correctly, it was decided to
analyse only the primary profile along the height direction, in other words, analyse the waviness profile and the
roughness profile together.
Height direction
Length direction
Figure 3.10 – Direction of surface texture measurements.
26
3.9.1. P-Profile Analysis
This analysis was performed using equipment appropriated for this type of analysis. The sample was positioned
on the equipment and it was scanned along a stated length. It was chosen a sample length of 2 cm, because it is
the maximum practical length that can be measured.
The scanned image was sent to a software associated with the equipment, Alicona associated software, where its
analysis was performed. It was drawn a line which represents the path that is analysed by the software. In this
analysis 3 lines were drawn to give an average of the surface profile. After drawing the lines, the software
obtained automatically the values of the parameters for the profile under study. Thereafter, their analysis was
performed.
Using this machine it’s only possible to obtain a scanned image of one of the build-up sides, at one time. Thus,
it is only possible to analyse one side at a time and consequently, get the values of the main parameters for only
one of the sides, at a time. It is important to find a calculation method to cross the information obtained for each
side, in order to obtain a single value that represents the sample and that can be comparative. It was decided to
calculate an average of the main parameters for each side and then calculate an average value of the two average
values obtained for each side. This last value represents the sample and will be the comparative value for this
analysis.
3.10. Optimization
The optimization it was the last step performed on this work. In this, it was performed a combination of the
whole results obtained for each test and it was got the optimum combination of the variable parameters under
study. It was used Design Expert software for this phase. The optimization on this software can be performed in
two ways, numerically and graphically.
Design-Expert software’s numerical optimization maximizes, minimizes, or targets a single response, subject to
upper and/or lower boundaries on other responses or combinations of two or more responses. After choosing the
goal for each response, the program constructs desirability indices. The desirability range is from 0 to 1 for any
given response. The program combines the individual desirability into a single number and then search for the
greatest overall desirability. A value of one represents the ideal case. A zero indicates that one or more
responses fall outside desirable limits.
On graphical optimization by shading out regions that fall outside of specified contours, it is possible identify
desirable sweet spots for each response – windows of opportunity where all specifications can be met.
3.11. Summary
In this chapter the experimental guidelines followed during this work were presented as the all decisions made.
27
4. Equipment and Software
4.1. Introduction
In this chapter it is explained in detail the equipment used during the experiments developed during this project.
The welding equipment, the recorder equipment, the macrostructure and surface texture analysis equipment and
finally, the software’s used.
The goal of this chapter is to give the main characteristics of the equipment and software used during this
project.
4.2. Welding Laboratory Equipment
The equipment used for perform the samples are described below.
It was used a total of three different equipment’s which are the CMT machine, Kawasaki robot and the recorder
equipment. In figure 4.1 is presented the scheme of the laboratory equipment and in figure 4.2 the real image of
the whole laboratory equipment.
Figure 4.1 – Laboratory equipment scheme
Figure 4.2 – Laboratory equipment
The CMT Advanced equipment comprises the following parts:
 CMT Power source

 Remote Control Unit
 Cooling Unit
 Wire feed unit
 Wire buffer
 Push-pull torch
The robot used was a Kawasaki JS6, shown on figure 4.3.
28
During the build-ups performance it was necessary to measure the current, voltage and verify if the waveform of
these parameters was in their regular form. To acquire this information the AMV 5000 equipment was used as
shown in figure 4.4. This is a welding monitoring computer that can be used to acquire recorded data.
Figure 4.4 – AMV 5000 welding monitoring computer

Figure 4.3 – Kawasaki JS6
4.3. Macrostructure Analysis Equipment
For the macrostructure analysis the first step was to cut the samples twice. During this work all the cuts were
wet cuts, where the liquid used is an oil based coolant.
For the first cut, which cut a sample from the original sample, the Struers Unitom-2 was used as shown in figure
4.5. This machine has a speed of 2775 rpm and it was used a 350x2.5x32mm abrasive cut-off wheel.
For the second cut which cut the excessive material on the substrate plate the Brilliant 220 was used as shown
figure 4.6. This machine has a speed of 3300 rpm and uses 150 mm abrasive cut-off wheels.
Figure 4.6 – Second cut machine.

Figure 4.5 – First cut machine.
The second step was deburring the edges of the sample. For this step it was used the Phoenix 3000, figure 4.7.
This grinder has a range of speeds from 50 rpm’s to 1200 rpm’s. The samples were grinded with a speed of 150
rpm’s. In this process a disk with 305 mm of diameter with a grain size of 60 was used.
29
The third step was mounting the sample into a phenolic hot mounting resin with carbon filler. For this step the
Struers LaboPress-3 was used, figure 4.8. This process was performed using a load of 50 KN, with a heating
time of 9 minutes at 180C and a cooling time of 9 minutes as well.
Figure 4.8 – Mounting machine.

Figure 4.7 – Grinder machine
The fourth step was grinding and polishing the samples already mounted in the resin. For grinding, it was used
the grinder shown in figure 4.7. The samples were ground in a range of speeds from 150 rpm’s to 300 rpm’s.
The sequence of the grain size of the disks with 305 mm diameter used was 60, 120, 320, 600, 1200 and 2500.
After grinding, the samples were polished. At first it was performed a manual polishing and secondly an
automatic polishing. The manual polishing was performed using the BUEHLER MetaSer2000, figure 4.9. This
polisher has a speed range from 50 rpms to 500 rpms. The speed used during the polishing was 250 rpm. The
automatic polishing was performed using ATA Saphir 560, figure 4.10. The polish was performed using a load
of 20N during 10 min. The set speed was 300 rpm for the base and 150 rpm for the top.
Figure 4.9 – Manual polishing machine. Figure 4.10 – Automatic polishing machine.
The fifth step was electrolytic etching of the sample. This process was made inside of Chemcap Ductless Fume
Cabinet, figure 4.11. The sample is placed inside a container which contains an acid solution, figure 4.12. This
solution is 20% sulphuric acid and 80% water. A range from 2.5V to 4V was used.
30
Figure 4.12 – Acid Container
Figure 4.11 – Fume Cabinet
The last step was the inspection. This step consists in taking an image from the cross section surface of the
sample. The equipment used was Leica DFC295, as show figure 4.13.
Figure 4.13 – Camera used for macrostructure analysis.
4.4. Hardness Analysis Equipment
The equipment used to perform the hardness test was the Struers Duramin-A300, figure 4.14. This test was
performed using a load of 5 Kg during 10 seconds.
Figure 4.14 – Machine used for hardness test.
31
4.5. Surface Texture Analysis Equipment
For this analysis Alicona InfiniteFocus SL3D surface profilometer was used, figure 4.15, with a 5x objective
lens, and an associated software IF Measure Suite Software.
Figure 4.15 – Machine used for surface texture analysis.
4.6. Software
During this project were used several different software’s which are, Scentis, Ecos, Alicona associated software
and Design Expert 9.
4.6.1. Scentis
After conducted the macro sections it was necessary to find the real dimensions of the build-up, in order to
perform the width analysis and the final useful area analysis. This software can measure the distances by draw
lines or areas over the image that is being analysed, previous sized. This sized is achieved with help of one
known dimension, in this case a ruler scale graduation incorporated on the provided image from macro. The user
trace a line between two point of the ruler graduation and inputs how much is its real length. Thus, the software
can make a relation between the distances in the image and the real distances. In figure 4.16, it is possible to see
the Scentis software with a macro section image and the scale already inserted.
Figure 4.16 – Scentis software
32
4.6.2. Ecos
The next software used was Ecos. This software is associated with Struers Duramin-A300 equipment. This
software measures the two diagonals of each indentation on the sample and displays them on the screen. In
figure 4.17, it is possible to see the Ecos software which presents an indentation image and the values of the
diagonals of each indentation already performed.
Figure 4.17 – Ecos software.
4.6.3. Alicona associated software
For the surface texture analysis it was used Alicona software. This is Alicona Infinite Focus SL3D surface
profilemeter associated software. This software scans the sample surface and by tracing a line on the scanned
image it measures the surface waviness, roughness or both. In figure 4.18, is possible to see the Alicona
associated software with a scanned image of build-up surface.
Figure 4.18 – Alicona associated software.
33
4.6.4. Design Expert 9
The software widely used during this project was the Design Expert 9, shown in figure 4.19. This is a design of
experiments software which is used to optimize a process. This software was used during this work to generate
the design of experiments and analyse and optimize the whole responses under study.
Figure 4.19 – Design Expert 9 software.
4.7. Summary
In this chapter the equipment´s and software´s used during this work were overviewed and described.
34
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter all data obtained during the project is presented and discussed.
5.2. Experimental Tests results
After generating the first design of experiments on DoE software tests were carried out. Figure 5.1 shows the
first test performed, in which the current had a value of 90A and the travel speed was of 600mm/min. For this
combination of parameters weld bead humping occurs, figure 5.1. Weld bead humping is a high speed welding
defect generally described as the phenomenon of formations of humps in a bead at regular intervals during
welding. It can also be described as a periodic undulation consisting of a hump and a valley. This defect is
consequence of high travel speeds (Adebayo et al. 2013). Therefore, it was decided to change the travel speed
range maintaining constant the current range. A new travel speed range, which assumed values from 200
mm/min to 300 mm/min, was used.
Introducing this new travel speed range on DoE, a new design of experiments was generated. Figure 5.2 shows
the test in which the current is 80A and the travel speed is 260 mm/min.
Hump Valley
Figure 5.1 – Experimental test using 90A and 600mm/min. Figure 5.2 – Experimental test using 80A and 260 mm/min.
As can be seen in Figure 5.2, there is a discontinuity in the formation of the first weld bead. Such defect is
justified by the utilization of low current value which correspond to low wire feed speed. At low wire feed
speeds, occurs feeding difficulties due to the stiffness of the wire [3]. Thus, it was concluded that 80A is a low
current value for this process using this material.
Consequently, it was decided to change the current range instead of the travel speed range. A current range from
90A to 130A was chosen.
Introducing this new current range a new design of experiments was generated, being this the final version. This
design is shown in table 5-1.
35
Table 5-1 – Design of experiments generated by Design Expert.
Test Number Current, [A] Travel Speed, [mm/min]

1 130 300
2 110 200
3 130 200
4 90 200
5 130 300
6 110 300
7 90 300
8 90 200
9 90 300
10 100 245
11 120 250
12 90 300
13 130 200
5.3. Experimental tests for Design Expert validation
Based on the design of experiments that will be analysed, two tests were chosen for validation. The tests chosen
are presented in table 5-2.
Table 5-2 - Design of experiments for Design Expert design validation .
Test Number Current, [A] Travel Speed, [mm/min]

15 100 200
16 100 300
5.4. Build-ups Appearance
In this section the appearance of the all build-ups performed is shown.
36
Figure 5.3 – Test 1 Figure 5.4 – Test 2
37
Figure 5.15 – Test 13
Following examination of the samples in figure 5.6, 5.9, 5.11, 5.14, it was observed that the same type of defect
was present. This defect can be described as a lack of fusion, causing disbonding of the build-up from the
substrate, which occurs due to insufficient fusion between the first weld bead and the substrate plate. Figure 5.9,
5.11 and 5.12 have the same variable parameters values, current of 90A and high travel speed of 300mm/min.
The low current implies insufficient penetration/fusion (de Resende et al. 2009), which is likely to be the main
reason for the disbonding defect. When cooling occurs the material shrinks, in consequence of the insufficient
penetration the disbonding defect appear. The sample presented in figure 5.6, which has a current and a travel
speed of 90A and 200mm/min, the disbonding effect occurs less pronounced when compared with the other
three test previous referred. At lower welding speeds there is an increase in deposition rate and in heat input in
the same period of time. The higher heat input leads to a lower cooling speed and thus to a decrease in
shrinkage. This decrease in the shrinkage is the main reason for the decrease on the pronouncement of this
defect (Raj. Baldev et al., 2002).
38
5.5. Experimental data Obtained
During the experimental tests performing were measured a few number of parameters, that characterize each
sample, which were the wire feed speed, weight after welding, welding time, number of passes and finally, the
current and voltage. Knowing the current, voltage and travel speed of each test, it was calculated the heat input
according to the following equation.
KJ 60 × E × I
Heat Input [ ]= × 0,8 (12)
mm 1000 × S
Where E is voltage [V], I is current [A], S is travel speed [mm/min].
5.5.1. Experimental tests from Design Expert design
Table 5-3, shows the data recorded during the test and the heat input calculated for each layer, for the
experimental tests from DoE design.
Table 5-3 - Experimental data obtained for experimental tests from Design Expert design
Wire Weight [Kg] AMV

Travel Welding Number Heat
Test Current, feed
Speed, Time of Input,
Number [A] speed Before After Current Voltage
[mm/min] [min] passes [KJ/mm]
[m/min] Welding Welding [A] [V]
1 130 300 6.9 1.003 1.14 3.28 8 101.9 11.9 0,19

2 110 200 5.8 1.003 1.14 3.69 6 99.6 12 0,29
3 130 200 6.9 1.003 1.12 3.6 6 102.8 12.1 0,30
4 90 200 4.5 1.003 1.12 4.31 7 84.7 11.6 0,24
5 130 300 6.9 1.003 1.12 2.91 7 100.4 11.7 0,19
6 110 300 5.8 1.12 1.24 3.30 8 97.9 11.9 0,19
7 90 300 4.5 1.003 1.08 3.27 8 84.1 11.9 0,16
8 90 200 4.5 1.003 1.12 4.27 7 84.1 11.9 0,24
9 90 300 4.5 1.003 1.08 3.28 7 84.3 11.9 0,16
10 100 245 5.1 1.043 1.14 3.54 7 96.3 12.6 0,24
11 120 250 6.5 1.003 1.16 3.97 8 104 12.4 0,25
12 90 300 4.5 1.003 1.08 2.93 7 84 12 0,16
13 130 200 6.9 1.003 1.16 3.7 6 107 12.8 0,33
5.5.2. Experimental tests for Design Expert design validation
Table 5-4, shows the data recorded during the test performed and the heat input calculated for each layer, for the
experimental tests for DoE design validation.
39
Table 5-4 – Experimental data obtained for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation.
Wire Weight [Kg] AMV

Travel Welding Number Heat
Test Current, feed
Speed, Time of Input,
Number [A] speed Before After Current Voltage
[mm/min] [min] passes [KJ/mm]
[m/min] Welding Welding [A] [V]
15 100 200 5.1 1.003 1.14 4.27 6 97 12.6 0,29

16 100 300 5.1 1.003 1.10 3.2 7 95 12.8 0,19
Table 5-3 and table 5-4, shows that an increase in current leads to an increase in wire feed speed.
Analysing the values measured by AMV for current and travel speed, a discrepancy between the measured
current and the set current was observed. It can be explained by the difference between the sapling rate and
averaging technique used by each equipment, since the current waveform is very irregular and difficult to
analyse. However the real value of current and voltage is the one measured by AMV, because it is the one that is
correctly calibrated.
5.5.3. Heat Input
In this section the influence of current and travel speed on the heat input is shown, figure 5.16, and the heat
input provided for each test was discussed.
Heat Input
0,35 C 130 TS 300

Heat Input, [KJ/mm]
y= 0,0008x + 0,0905 C 130 TS 200

0,30
C 120 TS 250
0,25 C 110 TS 300
C 110 TS 200
0,20
C 100 TS 245
0,15
C 90 TS 200
80 100 120 140
Current, A C 90 TS 300
Figure 5.16 – Current and Travel Speed influence on Heat Input.
To quantify the influence of travel speed on heat input the trend line was analysed. This trend line, equation 14,
was obtained in excel maintaining current constant. Based on equation 13 and equation 14 it was observed that
the travel speed and current has the same influence on heat input than current, once the slope is equal.
𝑦 = 0.0008𝑥 + 0.09 (13)
𝑦 = −0.0008𝑥 + 0.4 (14)
Due to the defects that may occur associated to high heat input, previous referred in chapter 2.8., an analysis to
quantify the heat input provided to each test until achieve a reference height was performed. As the minimum
40
height reached during the tests was 17mm, this value was considered as the reference point for this analysis. The
number of layers necessaries in each test to achieve this height of 17mm was counted. Then, the total heat input
provided for each test was calculated, table 5-5.
Table 5-5 – Number of layers required and total heat input calculated for a 17mm height component.
Travel Speed, Number of Layers Total Heat Input,

Test Number Current, [A]
[mm/min] required [KJ/mm]
1 130 300 7 1,36
2 110 200 5 1,43
3 130 200 6 1,79
4 90 200 6 1,41
5 130 300 7 1,32
6 110 300 7 1,30
7 90 300 7 1,12
8 90 200 6 1,44
9 90 300 6 0,96
10 100 245 6 1,43
11 120 250 7 1,73
12 90 300 7 1,13
13 130 200 5 1,64
Analysing table 5-5, it was observed that tests characterized by a current of 90A and a travel speed of
300mm/min presented the lowest heat input.
5.5.4. Current waveform
Using the current values recorded for a test with a current of 110A and a travel speed of 200mm/min, it was
obtained the general current waveform for this process. Figure 5.17 show this current waveform.
CMT Current Waveform

250
200
Current (A)
150 Current (A)
100
50
0
0,48 0,5 0,52 0,54 0,56 0,58
Time (s)
Figure 5.17 – CMT current waveform.
41
As expected the current waveform obtained presented the two phases that characterized the CMT process, the
arcing phase, represented by the red rectangular, and the short-circuiting phase, represented by green
rectangular.
In the arcing phase there is a big increase of current and after a set duration of time the current decrease to avoid
the globular transfer mode occur.
In the short-circuiting phase the current drops and stay at low levels. After this phase the cycle repeats.
5.6. Deposition Rate and Deposition Efficiency
After heat input analysis, it were calculated the deposition rate and deposition efficiency for each test.
In this chapter the deposition rate and deposition efficiency calculated for experimental tests from DoE design is
shown in table 5-6. The deposition rate and deposition efficiency calculated for experimental tests for DoE
design validation is shown in table 5-7. In appendix is introduced table 9-1 which presented the whole
calculations performed.
Table 5-6 - Calculations made for experimental tests from Design Expert design.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Deposition Rate, Deposition Efficiency,

Number [A] [mm/min] [Kg/h] [%]
1 130 300 2.51 91.32
2 110 200 2.23 96.62
3 130 200 1.95 71.06
4 90 200 1.63 91.05
5 130 300 2.42 88.03
6 110 300 2.11 91.38
7 90 300 1.41 78.94
8 90 200 1.65 91.94
9 90 300 1.41 78.70
10 100 245 1.64 81.09
11 120 250 2.37 91.83
12 90 300 1.58 88.19
13 130 200 2.55 92.77
Table 5-7 - Calculations made for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Deposition Rate, Deposition Efficiency,

Number [A] [mm/min] [Kg/h] [%]
15 100 200 1.93 94.91
26 100 300 1.82 89.66
42
5.6.1. Deposition Rate
This analysis was based on the results obtained for experimental tests from DoE design.
Deposition Rate
C 130 TS 300
3
Deposition Rate, [Kg/h]

C 130 TS 200
2,5 C 120 TS 250
2 C 110 TS 300
1,5 C 110 TS 200

𝑦= 0,0253𝑥 − 0,7975 C 100 TS 245
1
C 90 TS 200
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A] C 90 TS 300
Figure 5.18 – Current and Travel Speed influence on Deposition Rate
The point signalized by the red ellipse in figure 5.18, it was negligible for this analysis because wasn’t
consistent with the trend of the other test.
Based on figure 5.18 it was observed that an increase in current leads to an increase in deposition rate. This is
explained by the following reasoning:
 TS =Const and ↑ C  ↑ WFS ↑ material fed per unit of time ↑ material deposited per unit of time
Thus, the deposition rate is directly proportional to the current.
Regarding travel speed, this parameter only has influence in the material deposited per unit of length. This is
explained by the following reasoning:
 C =Const WFS = Const, when ↑TS  ↓ material deposited per unit of lenght.
The maximum deposition rate occurs for a test with a current of 130A and a travel speed of 200mm/min.
So to maximize deposition rate high currents should be used.
5.6.1.1. Deposition Rate Analysis on Design Expert
In this section is introduced the influence of current and travel speed on deposition rate, predicted by DoE. This
influence can be seen in figure 5.19.
Design-Expert® Software
Factor Coding: Actual Deposition Rate (Kg/h)
Deposition Rate (Kg/h) 300 2
Design Points
2.55
1.41
280
X1 = A: Current
X2 = B: Travel Speed
B: Travel Speed (mm/min)
260 1.6
1.8 2 2.2 2.4
240
220
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.19 – Current and Travel Speed influence on deposition rate.
43
Based on figure 5.19, it is possible to see that DoE predicted the same influence of current on deposition rate.
Thus, it was confirmed that the deposition rate is directly proportional to the current. Due to the inclination of
contour lines, it was also confirmed that the DoE prediction isn´t correct since the contour lines should be
verticals.
However DoE design validation was performed. For tests for DoE design validation, the values obtained for
deposition rate are shown on table 5-7. Table 5-8 shows the comparison between the deposition rates obtained
by experimental and DoE.
Table 5-8 – Comparison between deposition rates obtained by experimental and by DoE.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Experimental Deposition DoE Deposition rate,

Number [A] [mm/min] rate, [kg/h] [kg/h]
15 100 200 1.93 ≈2
16 100 300 1.82 ≈ 1.80
Table 5-8 shows that the DoE prediction for deposition rate is correct once the results obtained were close to the
ones obtained experimentally. Thus, the DoE prediction for deposition rate is validated.
5.6.2. Deposition Efficiency
Figure 5.20 shows the influence of current and travel speed in deposition efficiency.
Deposition Efficency
C130 TS 300
Deposition Efficiency,
100
C 130 TS 200
90 C 120 TS 250
[%]
80 C 110 TS 300
C 110 TS 200
70
C 100 TS 245
60 y=-0.014x2+3.183x-85.25 C 90 TS 200
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 C 90 TS 300
Current, [A]
Figure 5.20 – Current and travel speed influence on Deposition Efficiency.
Analysing carefully the graph presented in figure 5.20, it was observed that the deposition efficiency is directly
proportional to the current until a value of 110A and inversely proportional for higher values of current from the
same value. As the current increases the heat input increases so the material is continuously heating. As shown
in figure 5.20 the optimum case occurs for a current of 110A which present the highest deposition efficiency.
From this value onwards the increase in heat input leads to material evaporation and consequently to the
decrease in deposition efficiency. Also for high currents arc instability occurs (Palani & Murugan, 2006) which
is proportionally related to the amount of spatters (Kang et al., 2013). So for currents above 110A arc instability
occurs leading to an increase in spatters and consequently to a decrease in deposition efficiency.
Regarding travel speed, it was observed that an increase in travel speed leads to a light decrease in deposition
efficiency. So, the deposition rate is inversely proportional to travel speed.
44
Keeping the current constant, an increase in travel speed leads to a decrease in heat input. Then, with the
decrease in heat input the material doesn’t achieve an optimum heating point leading to a decrease in deposition
efficiency.
Test 3, signalized by a red ellipse in figure 5.20, is the one who isn’t in agreement with these conclusions
perhaps because, might have occurred a measurement error or an error during the test performing. For this
reason it was negligible.
The maximum deposition efficiency occurs for a test with a current of 110A and a travel speed of 200mm/min.
It’s known that this process has deposition efficiencies greater than 80% (Ding, J., 2012). For the deposition
efficiency calculations it was necessary calculate the length of wire used. This value was obtained through the
multiplication of welding time by wire feed speed.
The welding time measured and used was the time needed to perform the build-up from the beginning to the
end. Actually, it should be used the arcing phase time because represents the real time in which is consuming
wire. Using this time, the actual length of wire used is less than the one calculated and consequently the
deposition efficiency is greater than the one obtained.
5.6.2.1. Deposition Efficiency analysis on Design Expert
In this section is introduced the influence of current and travel speed on deposition efficiency, predicted by DoE
software. This influence can be seen in figure 5.21.
Factor Coding: Actual
300 2
Deposition Efficiency (%)
Deposition Efficiency (%) 2
Design Points
96.62
78.7
280
85
X1 = A: Current
260
93
90
240
95
220
96
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.21 – Influence of current and travel speed on deposition efficiency.
Based on figure 5.21, the previous analysis made for the deposition efficiency variation with travel speed and
current is correct. It was confirmed that the deposition efficiency is inversely proportional to travel speed.
Relative to current, it was confirmed that is directly proportional to current until 110A and inversely
proportional from the same value.
For the performed tests for DoE design validation, the values obtained for deposition efficiencies are shown on
table 5-7. Table 5-9 shows the comparison between the deposition efficiencies obtained by experimental and
DoE.
45
Table 5-9 – Comparison between the deposition efficiencies obtained by experimental and DoE.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Experimental Deposition DoE Deposition

Number [A] [mm/min] Efficiency, [%] Efficiency, [%]
15 100 200 94.91 ≈95
16 100 300 89.66 ≈86
Table 5-9 shows that the DoE prediction for deposition efficiency is correct once the results obtained were close
to the ones obtained experimentally. Thus, the DoE prediction for deposition efficiency is validated.
In order to maximize this parameter must be used currents close to 110A and low travel speeds.
5.7. Macrostructure
After analysis of the set data obtained during the experimental tests performed, it was performed a
macrostructure analysis. Through this analysis it was possible see the existent defects on the build-up cross-
section.
In this chapter the macros obtained for experimental tests from DoE design are presented.
Figure 5.22 – Test 1 macro Figure 5.23 – Test 2 macro
46
47
Figure 5.34 – Test 13 macro
In this chapter the macros obtained for experimental tests for DoE design validation are presented.
Observing the corresponding macros for each test, shown in figure 5.22 to figure 5.36, it was possible to see and
confirm how many layers make up each test. It was observed that test 3, figure 5.24, has a defect, a gap, near the
base of the build-up. This defect is due to the bulging of the second layer over the first. On test 9, figure 5.30,
there is a pore in the last layer.
48
Through macros it is also possible to identify poor and good fusion between layers. When the contact angle
between two consecutive layers is less than 90 degrees, it is considered poor fusion. Contrary, when the angle is
greater than 90 degrees, it is considered good fusion. Figure 5.37 and figure 5.38, show some examples of good
fusion and poor fusion between layers, respectively.
Figure 5.37 – Good fusion between two layers. Figure 5.38 – Poor fusion between two layers.
Looking into more detail the macros for each test, it was possible to see in whole tests that there are areas of
poor fusion and good fusion. In some test this effect is more pronounced than in other. It was observed that there
is a relation between the quality of fusion and the variable parameters, which are the current and the travel
speed. This is explained by the following reasoning obtained by macros comparison:
 C= Const. and ↑TS ↑ possibility of the poor fusion effect between layers
 TS=Const. and ↑C ↓ possibility of the poor fusion effect between layers
So the poor fusion effect is directly proportional to the travel speed and inversely proportional to current. To
optimize these two parameters high currents and low speed travel must be used.
It was also observed that, for whole samples, the first layer is always very narrow. The main reason for this
occurs is on the substrate thickness. When the first layer is performed the heat is conducted to the substrate large
cross area leading to an insufficient heating on the first layer. Thus, the first layer must be performed using a
different set of parameters to avoid too small widths in the first layer or used a thin substrate plate.
5.8. Average Width and Minimum Width
Following the macrostructure the average width and minimum width analysis was carried out. These analyses
consists on evaluate the width variation along the welded build-up and the width standard deviation and find a
correlation between these two parameters and the variable parameters.
In this chapter the measurements performed for experimental tests from DoE design are presented.
49
Figure 5.40 – Test 2 width measurements.
Figure 5.41 – Test 3 width measurements. Figure 5.42 – Test 4 width measurements.
Figure 5.43 – Test 5 width measurements. Figure 5.44 – Test 6 width measurements
50
51
Table 5-10 shows the whole significant values needed for this analysis.
Table 5-10 – Summary table of width analysis for experimental tests from Design Expert design.
Travel Average Average Width Minimum Minimum Width

Test Current,
Speed, Width, Standard Width, Standard
Number [A]
[mm/min] [mm] Deviation, [mm] [mm] Deviation, [mm]
1 130 300 7.71 0.86 6.08 1.90
2 110 200 8.13 0.54 7.52 0.84
3 130 200 9.62 0.64 8.97 0.94
4 90 200 5.83 0.95 4.36 1.81
5 130 300 7.63 0.50 7.34 0.58
6 110 300 6.72 0.64 5.66 1.28
7 90 300 4.96 0.69 4.01 1.21
8 90 200 6.51 0.78 5.60 1.24
9 90 300 5.21 1.44 3.50 2.31
10 100 245 7.58 0.79 6.60 1.29
11 120 250 8.4 0.80 7.58 1.17
12 90 300 5.21 0.50 4.51 0.88
13 130 200 9.23 0.60 8.55 0.92
In this chapter the measurements performed for experimental tests for DoE design validation are presented.
Figure 5.52 – Test 15 width analysis. Figure 5.53 – Test 16 width analysis.
For the experimental tests used for DoE validation, only the average width and the average width standard
deviation were analysed, table 5-11.
52
Table 5-11 – Summary table of width analyses for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Average Width, Average Width Standard
Number [A] [mm/min] [mm] Deviation , [mm]
15 100 200 7.65 0.56
16 100 300 6.61 0.71
5.8.3. Average Width
Based on the average width for each test, presented in table 5-8, it was created a graph, figure 5.54, for a better
understanding of the results obtained.
Average Width
10 C 130 TS 300
Average Width, [mm]
9 C 130 TS 200
8 C 120 TS 250
7
C 110 TS 300
6
C 110 TS 200
5 𝑦 = 0.0668𝑥 − 0.9058 C 100 TS 245
4
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 C 90 TS 300
Current, [A] C 90 TS 200
Figure 5.54 – Current and Travel Speed influence on Average Width.
Analysing figure 5.54, it was observed that an increase in current leads to an increase in the average width, and
an increase in travel speed leads to a decrease in average with. So the average width is directly proportional to
current and inversely proportional to travel speed.
The maximum value obtained occurs for a test with a current of 130A and a travel speed of 200mm/min, high
current and low travel speed.
It is also important to point that the current has more influence in average width than the travel speed, proven by
the trend line slope of equation 19 and equation 20 for current and travel speed, obtained in excel for each
parameter maintaining the other constant.
𝑦 = 0.0668𝑥 − 0.9058 (19)
𝑦 = −0.0141𝑥 + 10.95 (20)
It was also observed that there is a relation between deposition rate and average width. As shown in figure 5.55,
an increase in current leads to an increase in deposition rate and in average width. This can be explained by the
following reasoning:
 TS =Const and ↑ C  ↑ WFS ↑ material fed per unit of time ↑ material deposited per unit of time
↑ weld bead width ↑ average width
53
Deposition Rate vs Average Width
3 10
Deposition Rate, [Kg/h]
Average Width, [mm]

2,5 8
6
2
4
1,5 2
1 0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Deposition Rate C 130 TS 300 Deposition Rate C 110 TS 300
Deposition Rate C 90 TS 300 Average Width C 130 TS 300
Average Width C 110 TS 300 Average Width C 90 TS 300
Figure 5.55 – Relation between deposition rate and average width.
5.8.3.1. Average Width Analysis on Design Expert
In this section the influence of current and travel speed on average width, predicted by DoE is shown in figure
5.56.
AverageThickness
Average Width (mm)
(mm)
Average Thickness (mm) 300 2 2
Design Points
9.23
4.96
280
X1 = A: Current
6
260
7
8
240
220
9
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.56 – Influence of current and travel speed on average width.
Based on figure 5.56, it is possible to see that DoE predicted the same influence of current and travel speed on
average width. Thus, it was confirmed that the average width is directly proportional to current and inversely
proportional to the travel speed.
Due to the inclination of contour lines, it was confirmed that the current has a higher influence on average width
variation than the travel speed.
54
For the performed tests for DoE design validation, the values obtained for average width are shown on table 5-
11. Table 5-12 shows the comparison between the average widths obtained by experimental and DoE.
Table 5-12 – Comparison between the average widths obtained by experimental and by DoE.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Experimental Average DoE Average Width,

Number [A] [mm/min] Width, [mm] [mm]
15 100 200 7.65 [7,8]
16 100 300 6.61 [6,7]
Table 5-12 shows that the DoE prediction for deposition rate is correct once the results obtained were conform
to the ones obtained experimentally. Thus, the DoE prediction for deposition rate is validated.
5.8.4. Average Width Standard deviation
Based on the average width standard deviation for each test, in table 5-8, it was created a graph, figure 5.57, for
a better understanding of the results obtained.
Average Width Standard Deviation

1,6
Average Width Standard Deviation,
C 130 TS 300
1,4
C 130 TS 200
1,2
C 120 TS 250
1
C 110 TS 300
[mm]
0,8
C 110 TS 200
0,6 C 100 TS 245
0,4 C 90 TS 300
0,2 C 90 TS 200
𝑦=0.0007𝑥2−0.1545𝑥+8.5712
0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Figure 5.57 – Current and travel speed influence on average width standard deviation.
Figure 5.57 shows that an increase in current leads to a decrease in average width standard deviation until a
current close to 110A and to an increase from this value.
Regarding travel speed, it was observed that an increase in travel speed leads to a light increase in average width
standard deviation.
For this analysis the point symbolized by the red ellipse, test 9 shown in figure 5.47, it was negligible due to its
no consistency with the two other tests which present the same variable parameters. The same occurs for the test
marked by the red square, test 1 figure 5.39.
55
It was also observed that there is a relation between average width standard deviation and deposition efficiency.
Figure 5.58 shows that the deposition efficiency behaviour is similar to average width standard deviation
behaviour.
Average Width Standard Deviation and Deposition Efficiency

Average Width Standard Deviation, [mm]
2 100
Deposition Efficiency, [%]

80
1,5
y=-0.014x2+3.183x-85.25
60
1
40
0,5
20
0 0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Average Width Standard Deviation TS 300 AverageWidth Standard Deviation TS 200
Average Width Standard Deviation TS 250 Average Width Standard Deviation TS 300
Deposition Efficiency TS 300 Deposition Efficiency TS 200
Figure 5.58 – Relation between Average width standard deviation and deposition efficiency.
Following observation of figure 5.58, it was observed that the average width standard deviation is inversely
proportional to deposition efficiency. This can be explained by the following reasoning:
 ↑deposition efficiency  Good fusion between layers i.e. ↓ width discrepancy between layers ↓
average width standard deviations
5.8.4.1. Average Width Standard Deviation Analysis on Design Expert
In this section the influence of current and travel speed on average width standard deviation predicted by DoE is
presented.
During this analysis, one of the steps to perform was find the model that best suits the response under study. For
each model is generated a different equation with n coefficients. Then, it was performed an analysis for
understand how significant is each coefficient, i.e., its influence on the response. After selecting the model the
final graph which represents the prediction of the influence of variable parameters on the response under study
was generated. For an optimal prediction, coefficients has to be significant, i.e., p-value less than 0.05. Values
above 0.1 are insignificant, i.e., doesn’t have influence on the response.
For this response, the significance of each coefficient of the most appropriate model for this response is shown
in figure 5.59.
56
Figure 5.59 – Coefficients significance.
Figure 5.59 shows that all coefficients are insignificant, i.e., the prediction for the influence of current and travel
on the width standard deviation variation is not statistically correct. For this response is not possible with this
number of test get an optimal prediction of the influence of current and travel speed on width standard deviation
variation. However, it was opted to analyse the prediction obtained by this model, which is shown in figure 5.60.
Average Width
Thickness Standard
Standard Deviation
Deviation (mm) (mm)
300 2 2
Thickness Standard Deviation (mm)
Design Points
1.44
0.5
280
X1 = A: Current
X2 = B: Travel Speed 0.8
260
1.14 0.85
1
0.9 0.85
240 0.8
220
0.6
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.60 – Influence of current and travel speed on width standard deviation.
In figure 5.60 the blue colour represents the lower width standard deviation area and the yellow colour
represents the higher width standard deviation area.
For this prediction the lowers width standard deviations occurs for travel speed of 200mm/min and 300mm/min,
and for currents between 110A and 125A.
Until a current of 110A and after a current of 130A the current has more influence on width standard deviation
than travel speed. Between these two values the travel speed has more influence than current.
57
So to minimize the width standard deviation is need low or high travel speeds and currents between 110A and
125A.
5.8.5. Minimum Width
Based on the minimum width for each test, table 5-10, it was created a graph, figure 5.61, for a better
understanding of the results obtained.
Minimum Width
10 C 130 TS 300
Minimum Width, [mm]
C 130 TS 200
8
C 120 TS 250
6 C 110 TS 200
4 C 110 TS 300
C 100 TS 245
2
𝑦=0.0833𝑥−3.4875 C 90 TS 300
0 C 90 TS 200
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Figure 5.61 – Current and travel speed influence on minimum width.
Figure 5.61 shows that an increase in current leads to an increase in minimum width. For travel speed, an
increase in travel speed leads to a decrease in minimum width.
So the minimum width is directly proportional to current and inversely proportional to travel speed.
To maximize the minimum width high currents and low travel speed must be used.
It is also important to point that the current has more influence in minimum width than the travel speed, proven
by the trend line slope of equation 23 and equation 24 for current and travel speed, obtained in excel for each
𝑦 = 0.0833𝑥 − 3.4875 (23)

𝑦 = −0.0186𝑥 + 11.24 (24)
The minimum width it is an important parameter once is in it that it’s based the machining process. It represents
the maximum width that can be achieved after machining the component.
5.8.6. Minimum Width Standard Deviation
Based on the minimum width standard deviation for each test, table 5.10, it was created a graph, figure 5.62, for
a better understanding of the results obtained.
58
Minimum Width Standard Deviation
Minimum Width Standard Deviation, [mm]

2,5
C 130 TS 300
2 C 130 TS 200
C 120 TS 250
1,5
C 110 TS 300
1 C 110 TS 200
C 100 TS 245
0,5 C 90 TS 200
C 90 TS 300
0
80 100 120 140
Current, [A]
Figure 5.62 – Current and travel speed influence in minimum width standard deviation.
For this analysis the point marked by the red ellipse, test 9 shown in figure 5.47, it was negligible due to its no
consistency with the two other tests which present the same variable parameters. The same occurs for the test
marked by the red square, test 1 figure 5.39.
Figure 5.62 shows that the minimum width standard deviation is inversely proportional with current.
5.9. Final Useful Area
Following average width and minimum width analysis the final useful area analysis was carried out. This
analysis consists on evaluate the build-up useful area percentage after a machining process and find a correlation
between final useful area and the variable parameters.
Figure 5.63 – Test 1 final useful area measurements. Figure 5.64 – Test 2 final useful area measurements.
59
Figure 5.67 – Test 5 area final useful area measurements. Figure 5.68 – Test 6 final useful area measurements.
60
Figure 5.75 – Test 13 final useful area measurements.
Table 5-13 shows the significant values for this analysis.
61
Table 5-13 – Summary table for final useful area analyses for experimental tests from Design Expert design.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Total removal area Final Area, Final Useful
Number [A] [mm/min] required, [𝐦𝐦𝟐 ] [𝐦𝐦𝟐 ] Area, [%]
1 130 300 73.41 76.03 50.88
2 110 200 59.7 84 58.46
3 130 200 70.16 84.24 54.56
4 90 200 67.48 48.44 41.79
5 130 300 50.65 77.72 60.54
6 110 300 62.99 67.69 51.80
7 90 300 54.79 44.16 44.63
8 90 200 54.79 68.46 55.55
9 90 300 70.41 32.6 31.65
10 100 245 66.96 72.24 51.90
11 120 250 73.22 91.45 55.54
12 90 300 48.24 39 44.70
13 130 200 75.89 100.32 56.93
5.9.2. Experimental tests for DoE design validation
Table 5-14 shows the significant values for carried out DoE design validation.
Table 5-14 – Summary table for final useful area analyses for experimental test for Design Expert design validation.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Total removal area Final Area, Final Useful
Number [A] [mm/min] 𝟐 𝟐 Area, [%]
required, [𝐦𝐦 ] [𝐦𝐦 ]
15 100 200 64.11 77.76 54.81
16 100 300 60.39 48.98 44.78
62
5.9.3. Final Useful Area
Based on the results obtained for final useful area for each test, table 5-13, it was created a graph, figure 5.78,
for a better understanding of the results obtained.
Final Useful Area

100
C 130 TS 300
90
Final Useful Area, [%]
80 C 130 TS 200
70 C 120 TS 250
60
C 110 TS 300
50
40 C 110 TS 200
30 C C 100 TS 245
20
𝑦=−0.014𝑥2+3.2802𝑥−141.54 C 90 TS 300
10
C 90 TS 200
0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Figure 5.78 – Current and travel speed influence in final useful area.
For this analysis the point marked by the red circle, test 9 shown in figure 5.71, it was negligible due to its no
consistency with the two other tests which present the same variable parameters. The same occurs for the test
marked by the blue ellipse, test 1 figure 5.63.
Figure 5.78 shows that an increase in current leads to an increase in final useful area until a current of 110A and
a light decrease from the same value.
To travel speed, it was observed that and increase in travel speed leads to a decrease in final useful area.
So the final useful area percentage is directly proportional to current until a current of 110A and inversely
proportional from this value and inversely proportional to travel speed.
It is also important to point that the current has more influence in minimum width than the travel speed, proven
by the trend line slope of equation 25 and equation 26 for current and travel speed, obtained in excel for each
𝑦 = −0.014𝑥 2 + 3.2802𝑥 − 141.54 (25)

𝑦 = −0.0666𝑥 + 71.78 (26)
The maximum final useful area was obtained for a test which had a current of 110A and a travel speed of
200mm/min.
It was also observed that there is a relation between final useful area and deposition efficiency. Figure 5.79
shows that the final useful area behaviour is similar, i.e., had the same evolution, to deposition efficiency. So an
increase in current until 110A leads to an increase in final useful area and in deposition efficiency, and a
decrease in final useful area and in deposition efficiency from this value. Thus, the final useful area is directly
proportional to deposition efficiency.
63
Final Useful Area vs Deposition Efficiency
100 100
Deposition Efficiency, [%]

80 80
y=-0.014x2+3.183x-85.25
60 60
40 40
𝑦=−0.014𝑥2+3.2802𝑥−141.54
20 20
0 0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Final Useful Area TS 300 Final Useful Area TS 200
Deposition Efficienccy TS 300 Deposition Efficiency TS 200
Deposition Efficieny TS 300 Deposition Efficiency TS 200
Figure 5.79 – Relation between Final Useful Area and Average Width Standard Deviation.´
Regarding to material usage efficiency, i.e. weight of the build-up after machining compared to the weight of
the build-up, expressed as a percentage. Its behaviour/evolution is the same that the one presented by final
useful area once is obtained by multiplication of the final area with two constants, shown in equation 27. So it is
directly proportional to deposition efficiency.
ρ × final Area × part lenght

Material Usage Efficiency [%] = (27)
Total Area
5.9.3.1. Final Useful Area Analysis on Design Expert
In this section the influence of current and travel speed on final useful area, predicted by DoE is introduced.
For this response, the significance of each coefficient of the most appropriate model for this response is shown
in Figure 5.80.
64
Figure 5.80, shows that all coefficients are insignificant, i.e., the prediction of influence of the current and travel
speed on the average hardness variation isn’t statistically correct. It was observed that, for this response is not
possible with this number of test get an optimal prediction of the influence of current and travel speed on
thickness standard deviation variation.
However, it was opted to analyse the prediction obtained by this model, which is shown in figure 5.81.
Factor Coding: Actual Useful area (%)
Useful area (%) 300 2
Design Points
60.54
46
41.79
280
X1 = A: Current
260 48
54
50 52
56
240
220
58
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.81 – Influence of current and travel speed on final useful area.
Figure 5.81 shows that the highest useful area value is located around 120A and 130A. The orange colour
represents the highest final useful area percentage and the light blue colour represents the lesser final useful area
percentage.
It can be seen that the evolution of final useful area with current and travel speed is identical to the one
presented by deposition efficiency, figure 5.21, however slightly deviated to the current axis.
65
Even knowing that the DoE prediction isn’t statically correct, its comparison with the experimental was carried
out.
The values obtained for final useful area for the tests for DoE design validation are shown on table 5-14. Table
5-15 shows the comparison between the final useful areas obtained by experimental and DoE.
Table 5-15 – Comparison between the final useful areas obtained by experimental and by DoE.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Experimental Final Useful DoE Final Useful
Number [A] [mm/min] Area, [%] Area, [%]
15 100 200 54.81 [52, 54]
16 100 300 44.78 [50, 52]
Table 5-15 shows that the DoE prediction for final useful area is very near to reality.
5.10. Hardness
5.10.1. Experimental tests from DoE
Table 5-16 – Average Hardness analysis for experimental tests from Design Expert design.
Test Number Current, [A] Travel Speed, [mm/min] Average Hardness

1 130 300 201
2 110 200 185
3 130 200 202
4 90 200 185
5 130 300 198
6 110 300 191
7 90 300 186
8 90 200 190
9 90 300 190
10 100 245 178
11 120 250 186
12 90 300 181
13 130 200 178
66
Table 5-17 – Average Hardness analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert design validation.
Test Number Current, [A] Travel Speed, [mm/min] Average Hardness

15 100 200 186
16 100 300 177
Thereafter two images, figure 5.82, are presented which shows the indentation mark made during the hardness
test and the indentation marks along the sample after the hardness test.
Figure 5.82 – Indentation mark on the left and sample photo on the right.
5.10.3. Average Hardness
As can be seen is table 9-3 in appendix, there is no trend in the hardness variation along the build-up height and
the variation is insignificant. Figure 5.83 shows this observation.
Hardness, HV
220
210
Hardness, HV
200
190
180
170
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Identation Number
Hardness, HV
Figure 5.83 – Hardness variation along build-up height
Thus it was opted to analyse the average hardness.

Following analysis of average hardness, table 5-16, it was observed that the difference between the higher value
and the lower value is not significant, which was about 20.
67
5.10.3.1. Average Hardness Analysis on Design Expert
In this section the influence of current and travel speed on average hardness, predicted by DoE, is introduced,
figure 5.84.
Factor Coding: Actual Average Hardness (HV)
Average Hardness (HV) 300 2 2
Design Points
201 195
178
B : Travel S peed (m m /m in)

280
X1 = A: Current
X2 = B: Travel Speed 190
260
240
185
220
180
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.84 – Influence of current and travel speed on average hardness.
Figure 5.84 shows that DoE predicted the same influence of current and travel speed on average hardness. As
can been seen in figure 5.84, the large part of the graphic area is dominated by the green colour confirming that
the average hardness variation with the current and travel speed is insignificant. Even so, it is important to note
that for high currents of 130A and for high travel speed of 300mm/min, the average hardness assumes the
highest value, and for low travel speed of 200mm/min, the average hardness assumes the lowest value. This can
be explained by the following reasoning:
 C=const. and ↑TS ↓Heat Input ↑cooling rate ↑Hardness.
The values obtained for average hardness for the tests for DoE design validation are shown on table 5-17. Table
5-18 shows the comparison between the average hardness obtained by experimental and DoE.
Table 5-18 – Comparison between the average hardness’ obtained by experimental and DoE.
Test Current, Travel Speed, Experimental Average DoE Average

Number [A] [mm/min] Hardness, HV Hardness, HV
15 100 200 186 ≈185
16 100 300 177 190
Table 5-18 shows that the DoE prediction for average hardness isn’t valid once the experimental result for test
16 isn’t in agreement with the result obtained by DoE.
68
5.11. Surface Texture
From Alicona associate software several values of P-parameters was obtained which the most important for this
project are the average height of the profile standard deviation. It is presented the average of average height of
the profile standard deviation calculated for each side and the sample average of average height of the profile
standard deviation.
5.11.1. Experimental tests from DoE design
Table 5-19 – P profile parameters analysed and standard deviation averages for experimental test from Design Expert design.
Side Average profile Sample Average of Side Average

Test Current, Travel Speed,
height Standard profile height Standard
Number [A] [mm/min]
Deviation, [mm] Deviation, [mm]
A 0.2399
1 130 300 0.2913
B 0.3426
A 0.2862
2 110 200 0.3429
B 0.3995
A 0.4036
3 130 200 0.3426
B 0.2813
A 0.3838
4 90 200 0.3529
B 0.3219
A 0.2538
5 130 300 0.3171
B 0.3804
A 0.2010
6 110 300 0.2711
B 0.3412
A 0.2384
7 90 300 0.3255
B 0.4126
A 0.2087
8 90 200 0.1461
B 0.3756
A 0.2826
9 90 300 0.3547
B 0.4268
A 0.3606
10 100 245 0.3386
B 0.3165
A 0.2134
11 120 250 0.3094
B 0.4054
A 0.2842
12 90 300 0.2963
B 0.3083
A 0.2740
13 130 200 0.3411
B 0.4082
69
5.11.2. Experimental tests for DoE validation
In this chapter the measurements performed for experimental tests from DoE validation are presented.
Table 5-20 - P-profile parameters analysed and standard deviation averages for experimental experiments for Design Expert
validation.
Side Average profile Sample Average of Side Average

Test Current, Travel Speed,
height Standard profile height Standard
Number [A] [mm/min]
Deviation, [mm] Deviation, [mm]
A 0.3959
15 100 200 0.4670
B 0.5380
A 0.2054
16 100 300 0.2679
B 0.3303
5.11.3. Average standard deviation and sample average standard deviation
In a first analysis of the results presented in the table 5-19, it was observed that there is a large discrepancy
between the average profile height standard deviation measured for each build-up side, and consequently,
between the side average profile height standard deviation.
The discrepancy between the values presented in table 5-19 can be originated by two different reasons, which
are a slight slope of the robot torch in relation to the work table perpendicular plane, i.e., have a different angle
of 90º with the work table perpendicular plane, and the magnetic arc blow.
When there is a slight slope of the robot torch, the arc is located more in one side than the other of the build-up,
leading to good fusion in one of the sides than the other. Thus, there is a higher roughness of one side than the
other one, and consequently a higher standard deviation in one of the sides than the other one.
On the other hand, this discrepancy between values can be also justified by the magnetic arc blow which is
caused by an unbalanced condition in the magnetic field surrounding the arc. In this phenomenon the arc is
deflected away from the normal arc path. It can deflect forward, backward, or sideways with respect to electrode
and welding direction, and consequently guide the melted material in the direction of the magnetic field. Thus,
the formed droplets are pushed / guided to the same side of the build-up leading to a build-up side more
irregular than the other. Therefore, there is a higher roughness on one of the sides than the other one and
consequently a greater standard deviation of one of the side than the other one.
In a second analysis, it was intended to study the influence of the variable parameters in the variation of the
sample average side average profile height standard deviation. Based on sample average side average standard
deviation for each test, table 5-19, it was created a graph, figure 5.85, for a better understanding of the results
obtained.
70
Sample Average of side Average Standard
Deviation
Average Height of the profile

Standard Deviation, [mm]
0,4
TS 300
0,35
TS 200
0,3
TS 250
0,25 TS 300
0,2 TS 200
0,15 TS 245
0,1 TS 300
0,05 TS 200
0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Current, [A]
Figure 5.85 – Current and travel speed influence on sample average of side average standard deviation.
The test marked by the red ellipse in figure 5.85, it was negligible for this analysis because wasn’t consistent
with the trend of the other test.
Figure 5.85 didn’t show a clear influence of current and a travel speed on sample average of side average
standard deviation.
Then, it was considered evaluate this influence from the prediction obtained by DoE.
Analysing only the points represented by triangles, it’s suggests that this response is inversely proportional to
deposition efficiency.
5.11.3.1. Sample Average of Side Average Standard deviation on Design Expert
For this analysis was needed previously determinate the best value to consider in DoE. Among the average
standard deviation for each side and the sample average side average profile height standard deviation, was
chosen the highest side average standard deviation. The sample average side average profile height standard
deviation was negligible once was considered a rude approximation because the greater discrepancy between the
average standard deviation for each side. It was chosen between the side average profile height standard
deviation the highest standard deviation since conducts to a best prediction.
The significance of each coefficient of the most appropriate model for this response is shown in figure 5.86.
71
Figure 5.86 shows that all coefficients are insignificant, i.e., the prediction for the influence of current and travel
speed on the side average profile height standard deviation isn’t statistically correct. So for this response is not
possible with this number of tests get an optimal prediction. However, it was opted to analyse the prediction
obtained by this model, which is shown in figure 5.87.
Factor Coding: Actual Surface stand dev average (mm)
Surface stand dev average (mm) 300 2
0.36
Design Points
0.4126
0.37
0.3412
280
X1 = A: Current 0.39 0.38

260
0.388
240 0.39
0.388
220
0.4
0.41
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.87 – Influence of current and travel speed on surface standard deviation.
In figure 5.87 the light blue colour represents the lowest side average standard deviation area and the red colour
represents the highest side average standard deviation area.
The lowest average profile height standard deviation occurs for high travel speed of 300mm/min and for high
currents of 130A. In turn, the highest side average profile height standard deviation occurs for low travel speed
of 200mm/min and high currents of 130A.
Once it was observed any influence of the variable parameters in the sample average of side average profile
height standard deviation, it was considered to perform a second analysis which relates the height profile range
variation for each side with the final useful area.
From figure 5.87 to figure 5.99, it is shows the build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness
measurement average plan, for each side of each test from DoE.
72
Figure 5.89 – Build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness
measurement average plan for test 2. Top: face A, Bottom: face B.
Figure 5.90 – Build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness Figure 5.91 – Build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness
measurement average plan for test 3. Top: face A, Bottom: face B. measurement average plan for test 4. Top: face A, Bottom: face B.
73
74

75
Figure 5.100 – Build-up surface distance variations to the surface roughness measurement average plan for test 13. Left: face A,
Right: face B.
In order to facilitate the analysis of these parameters, it was created table 5-21 which presented the whole
significant values.
Table 5-21 – Height´s profile range variation of each test for each side.
Travel Speed, Side A variation Side B variation

Test Number Current, [A]
[mm/min] range, [mm] range[mm]
1 130 300 1.8 2.4
2 110 200 1.3 2.4
3 130 200 2.6 2.2
4 90 200 2.2 2.4
5 130 300 1.4 2.6
6 110 300 1.4 2.2
7 90 300 2 1.6
8 90 200 1.2 1.6
9 90 300 1.8 2.2
10 100 245 3 2.2
11 120 250 1.6 3
12 90 300 1.6 1.8
13 130 200 2.4 2.4
Based on table 5-16, it was created the graph shown in figure 5.102, which presented the relation between each
side height´s profile variation range with the corresponding final useful area.
76
Relation between Sides' height profile and Final Useful
Area
3,5 70
Variation Range, [mm]

3 60
2,5 50
2 40
1,5 30
1 20
0,5 10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Test Number
Side A Side B Final Useful Area
Figure 5.101 – Relation between sides’ height profile and final useful area.
Following observation of figure 5.101, it was observed that there is no relation between side´s height profile and
the final useful area, once it was obtained a high final useful area for a test with a high side´s height profile
variation range, test 13, as for a test width low height profile, test 8.
5.12. Optimization on Design Expert software
5.12.1. Introduction
In this section the results obtained for the optimization phase are present. It was performed a numerical
optimization which is explained in detail.
5.12.1. Numerical Optimization
In this phase, the intended purpose of each response was selected, i.e., if it is want to maximize or minimize
each response. According to the objective of this work, it was decided to minimize the sample average standard
deviation, minimize the width standard deviation, maximize the final useful area percentage, maximize the
deposition rate and maximize the deposition efficiency.
The responses missing, average thickness and average hardness, were discarded since haven’t great influence on
the objective of this work. The optimal situation is the intended point has a desirability of 1.
The result for the optimization is presented in figure 5.102.
77
Factor Coding: Actual Desirability
Desirability 300 2
Design Points
1 Prediction 0.723991
X1 124.633
0 X2 300
275 0.617516
X1 = A: Current

0.587117
0.2
250
0.364218 0.491363 0.553763
0.553763
225
0.587117
0.491363
0.2
0.617516
200 2
90 100 110 120 130
A: Current (A)
Figure 5.102 – Optimization graph.
Based on the analysis of each response for the variable parameters ranges, the optimal point provided by Design
Expert is illustrated in figure 5.102. This point is characterized by a current of 124.6A and a travel speed of 300
mm/min. It is also observed that this point had a desirability of 0.724. The numerical optimization was
performed using the whole analysis, whole with the same weight. This explains the desirability of 0.724
obtained, because some analyses are insignificant and has the same importance/weight as the others, which are
significant.
5.13. Summary
In this chapter the results were presented and discussed in great detail.
78
6. Conclusions
Additive manufacturing of Nickel components using CMT process has been developed showing promise for
automotive and aerospace industries. The whole proposal objectives for this project were reached and the main
conclusions of the build-ups carried out in this work to develop this process are:
1. To obtain a build-up layer the minimum current used was 90A. For lower values no homogenous layer
was achieved welding speeds between 200 and 300 mm/min.
2. The first layer a different set of parameters must be used to avoid too small widths in the first layer,
high current and low travel speed.
3. For relatively low currents of 90A and for relatively high travel speeds of 300mm/min, disbonding
defect occurs.
4. The maximum deposition rate, 2.55Kg/h, occurs for a test with a current of 130A and a travel speed of
200mm/min. This response is directly proportional to current and inversely proportional to travel
speed. Current has a higher influence on deposition efficiency than travel speed.
5. The maximum deposition efficiency, 96%, occurs for a test with a current of 110A and a travel speed
of 200mm/min. The deposition efficiency is directly proportional to the current until a value of 110A
and inversely proportional from this value. Regarding to travel speed, deposition efficiency is inversely
proportional to travel speed. It was also concluded that the current has more influence in deposition rate
than the travel speed.
6. The poor fusion effect is directly proportional to the travel speed and inversely proportional to current.
Accordingly to maximize this parameter must be used high currents and low speed travel.
7. Average width is directly proportional to current and inversely proportional to travel speed. For this
parameter, the maximum value obtained, 9mm, occurs for a test with a current of 130A and a travel
speed of 200mm/min.
8. Average width standard deviation is inversely proportional to deposition efficiency.
9. Minimum width is directly proportional to current and inversely proportional to travel speed. This
parameter has the same behaviour that the average width according to current and travel speed.
10. Minimum width standard deviation is inversely proportional to current.
11. The final useful area percentage is directly proportional to current until a current of 110A and inversely
proportional from this value and inversely proportional to travel speed. It is influenced by deposition
efficiency. The maximum final useful area occurs for a test which has a current of 110A and a travel
speed of 200mm/min.
12. High current and low travel speed implies high heat input that leads to good fusion between layers.
High good fusion between layers implies high final useful area percentage
13. The influence of the variable parameters, current and travel speed, on average hardness is insignificant
for the range analysed.
14. It was concluded any influence of the variable parameters in the sample average of side average
standard deviation.
15. It was conclude that there is no relation between side´s height profile and final useful area.
79
16. The optimal point provided by Design expert had a desirability of 0.724, is characterized by a current
of 124.6A and a travel speed of 300mm/min.
7. Recommendations
Although the multi-layer build-ups performed by CMT process have been developed by the current work, more
process development work is required before application. This includes:
 Further optimization of welding parameters, current and travel speed, based on the optimum areas
obtained during this work.
 Design, build and test different shapes performed by this process.
 Application of the process to materials of other potential interest.
80
8. References
Adebayo. A, Mehnen, J. & Tonnellier, X., 2013. Limiting Travel Speed in Additive Layer Manufacturing.
Trends in Welding Research: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, 3, pp.1038–1044.
Alberti, E.A., Silva, L.J. Da & d’Oliveira, A.S.C.M., 2014. Manufatura Aditiva: o papel da soldagem nesta
janela de oportunidade. Soldagem & Inspeção, 19, pp.190–198.
Baker, R. (1925), Method of Making Decorative Articles, US Patent 1,533,300, filed Nov. 12 1920, patented
14th April 1925
Choi, J. & Chang, Y., 2005. Characteristics of laser aided direct metal/material deposition process for tool steel.
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 45, pp.597–607.
Clark, D., Bache, M.R. & Whittaker, M.T., 2008. Shaped metal deposition of a nickel alloy for aero engine
applications. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 203, pp.439–448.
Colegrove, P. a. et al., 2013. Microstructure and residual stress improvement in wire and arc additively
manufactured parts through high-pressure rolling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 213(10),
pp.1782–1791.
Dinda, G.P., Dasgupta, a. K. & Mazumder, J., 2009. Laser aided direct metal deposition of Inconel 625
superalloy: Microstructural evolution and thermal stability. Materials Science and Engineering A, 509,
pp.98–104.
Ding, D. et al., 2015. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing A multi-bead overlapping model for
robotic wire and arc additive manufacturing ( WAAM ). Robotics and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 31, pp.101–110.
Dutra, J.C., Gonçalves e Silva, R.H. & Marques, C., 2013. Características de fusão e potência de soldagem com
a transferência MIG - CMT versus MIG convencional para alumínio 5183. Soldagem e Inspecao, 18,
pp.12–18.
Frazier, W.E., 2014. Metal additive manufacturing: A review. Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, 23(June), pp.1917–1928.
Fronius. CMT: Cold Metal Transfer. Technical Report, Austria: Fronius International GmbH, 2005.
Hopkinson N (2012), Additive Manufacturing: Technology and Applications, British Educational

Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)
81
Hudson, M. G. (2004), Welding of X100 Linepipe, Cranfield University, Cranfield Press
J.F.Song , T.V.Vorburguer, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Kang, J. G., Ryu, G. S., Kim, D. C., Kang, M. J., Park, Y. W., & Rhee, S. (2013). Optimization of arc-start
performance by wire-feeding control for GMA welding. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,
27(2), 501–509. doi:10.1007/s12206-012-1240-7
Karunakaran, K.P. et al., 2010. Low cost integration of additive and subtractive processes for hybrid layered
manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 26(5), pp.490–499.
Kruth, J.-P., Leu, M.C. & Nakagawa, T., 1998. Progress in Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Prototyping.
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 47(I), pp.525–540.
Levy, G.N., Schindel, R. & Kruth, J.P., 2003. Rapid Manufacturing and Rapid Tooling With Layer
Manufacturing (Lm) Technologies, State of the Art and Future Perspectives. CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology, 52(Lm), pp.589–609.
Lorant, E. (2010), Effect of microstructure on mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V structures made by Additive
Layer Manufacturing , Phd thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield.
Mehnen, J. et al., 2010. Design for wire and arc additive layer manufacture. , pp.19–21.
Palani, P. K., & Murugan, N. (2006). Selection of parameters of pulsed current gas metal arc welding. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 172, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.07.013
Pickin, C.G., Williams, S.W, M.L., 2011. Characterisation of the cold metal transfer (CMT) process and its
application for low dilution cladding. , 211(3), pp.496–502.
Raj, Baldev; Jayakumar, T.; Thavasimuthu, M. ,2002, Practical non-destructive testing (2nd ed.), Woodhead
Publishing, ISBN 978-1-85573-600-9.
De Resende, A.A. et al., 2009. Influência das correntes de soldagem do processo plasma-MIG sobre a geometria
do cordão de solda e taxa defusão do arame. Soldagem e Inspecao, 14(5), pp.320–328.
Rombouts, M. et al., 2006. Fundamentals of selective laser melting of alloyed steel powders. CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology, 55(1), pp.187–192.
Santos, J. Oliveira e Quintino, Luísa. Processos de Soldadura. Edições Técnicas do Instituto de Soldadura e
Qualidade, 1993. ISBN 972-9228-17-5.
82
Wilson, I.L.W. et al., 1991. the Effect of Heat Input on Microstructure and Cracking in Alloy 625 Weld
Overlays. Superalloys 718, 625 and Various Derivatives, pp.735–747.
Wohlers, T. (2010), Additive manufacturing state of the industry, in Wohlers associates, USA.
Wohlers, T. (2011), Wohlers report, Additive manufacturing state of the industry, Annual worldwide progress
report, Wohlers associates, USA.
Wohlers, T. & Gornet, T., 2011. History of additive manufacturing Introduction of non-SL systems Introduction
of low-cost 3D printers. Wohlers Report 2011, pp.1–23.
Wong, K. V. & Hernandez, A., 2012. A Review of Additive Manufacturing. ISRN Mechanical Engineering,
2012, pp.1–10.
Yan, X. & Gu, P., 1996. A review of rapid prototyping technologies and systems. CAD Computer Aided
Design, 28(4), pp.307–318.
Sites
[1] http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-gb/support/process-and-theory/Pages/aluminum-feeding-detail.aspx,
accessed on the 20th October, 2014.
[2] http://www.weldreality.com/STEELS%20NICKEL%20ALLOYS.htm, accessed on the 20th October ,

2014.
[3] http://www.californiametal.com/Inconel_625_Sheet_Plate_Pipe_Tube_Rod_Bar_Tech_Data.htm, accessed

on 10th April 2015.
General References
Adebayo, A., 2013. Characterisation of Integrated WAAM and Machining Processes. Cranfield University.
Ding, J., 2012. Thermo-mechanical Analysis of Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing Process. Cranfield
University.
Jianing Guo, 2012. Feature Based Cost and Carbon Emission Modelling for Wire and Arc Additive
Manufacturing. Cranfield University.
Pépe, N.V. da C., 2010. Advanves in Gas Metal Arc Welding and Application to Corrosion Resistant Alloy
Pipes. Cranfield University.
83
Simões. Thiago Mesquita, 2014. Curvas S-N da Camada de Inconel 625 Depositada por Soldagem em Tudos
Cladeados. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Zhai, Y., 2012. Early Cost Estimation for Additive Manufacture. Cranfield University.
84
9. Appendix
Table 9-1 – Whole data needed to deposition rate and deposition efficiency analysis for experimental tests from Design
Expert design.
Weight of
Test Deposition Length of wire Volume of wire Deposition
Electrode used,
Number rate, [Kg/h] used, [cm] used, [𝐜𝐦𝟑 ] Efficiency, [%]
[Kg]
1 2.51 2263.2 17.78 0.150 91.32
2 2.23 2139.04 16.80 0.142 96.62
3 1.95 2484 19.51 0.165 71.06
4 1.63 1938.6 15.23 0.129 91.05
5 2.42 2005.14 15.75 0.133 88.03
6 2.11 1914.93 15.04 0.127 91.38
7 1.41 1471.5 11.56 0.098 78.94
8 1.65 1919.7 15.08 0.127 91.94
9 1.41 1476 11.59 0.098 78.70
10 1.64 1804.64 14.17 0.120 81.09
11 2.37 2579.2 20.26 0.171 91.83
12 1.58 1317.15 10.34 0.087 88.19
13 2.55 2553 20.05 0.169 92.77
Table 9-2 – Whole data needed to deposition rate and deposition efficiency analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert
validation.
Weight of
Test Deposition Length of wire Volume of wire Deposition
Electrode used,
Number rate, [Kg/h] used, [cm] 𝟑 Efficiency, [%]
used, [𝐜𝐦 ]
[Kg]
15 1.93 2177.7 17.10 0.144 94.91
16 1.82 1632 12.82 0.108 89.66
85
Table 9-3 – Whole data needed to average hardness analysis for experimental tests from Design Expert design
Indentation Number
Test
Data Weld Substrate
Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
d1 218 209 207 216 215 215 215 212 209 206 205 206
d2 227 216 215 219 219 222 217 218 216 213 215 207
1 HV 187 205 208 196 196 194 199 200 205 211 211 217
Average
201
HV
d1 209 214 223 219 223 225 235 226 230 222 206 223
d2 221 216 225 238 228 228 244 228 233 225 220 225
2 HV 201 201 185 178 182 180 162 180 173 186 204 185
Average
185
HV
d1 215 219 221 208 215 217 211 213 212 204 198 196
d2 217 221 226 214 216 219 214 221 219 217 199 197
3 HV 198 192 185 208 200 195 205 197 200 210 235 240
Average
202
HV
d1 219 207 214 228 215 232 216 255 215 210 228 227
d2 228 214 223 228 228 240 225 261 221 211 239 228
4 HV 186 209 194 179 189 167 191 140 195 209 171 180
Average
185
HV
d1 213 218 216 215 215 216 219 213 212 212 208 218.5
d2 220 225 216 225 216 223 219 214 214 220 210 218.8
5 HV 198 189 199 192 200 192 194 203 204 199 212 194
Average
198
HV
d1 211 216 216 228 214 218 222 215 222 218 208 220
d2 211 220 221 234 223 222 224 220 233 236 215 222
6 HV 208 195 194 174 194 191 186 196 179 180 207 189
Average
191
HV
d1 223 214 221 217 212 243 220 215 228 224 214 231.7
d2 224 225 225 225 219 250 224 221 230 235 216 231
7 HV 185 192 186 190 200 153 188 195 177 176 201 173
Average
186
HV
86
d1 212 221 225 218 216 221 221 219 217 216 206 222
d2 223 224 226 226 232 228 225 223 230 222 211 223
8 HV 195 188 182 188 184 184 186 190 185 190 213 188
Average
190
HV
d1 211 214 221 218 224 223 211 208 213 220 225 230
d2 216 220 223 244 228 234 228 215 223 225 229 233
9 HV 203 197 188 174 182 177 192 207 195 188 180 173
Average
190
HV
d1 222 222 223 225 222 273 227 225 221 218 195 228
d2 242 237 239 240 227 281 230 230 239 220 201 234
10 HV 172 176 173 172 184 121 177 179 175 194 236 174
Average
178
HV
d1 216 219 219 221 232 223 225 217 218 213 230 217
d2 221 224 223 228 232 225 235 222 220 220 232 223
11 HV 195 189 190 184 172 185 175 192 194 198 174 191
Average
186
HV
d1 218 223 227 223 225 224 215 225 219 221 217 232
d2 240 240 234 230 234 228 223 232 236 231 218 235
12 HV 177 173 175 181 176 181 194 177 179 182 196 171
Average
181
HV
d1 221 228 228 209 233 233 239 221 224 226 218 229
d2 221 232 236 212 241 234 250 236 229 229 226 230
13 HV 190 175 173 210 165 170 155 177 181 179 188 176
Average
178
HV
87
Table 9-4 – Whole data needed to average hardness analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert validation.
Indentation Number
Test
Data Weld Substrate
Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
d1 202 219 239 229 222 218 212 222 227 213 205 228
d2 240 221 243 232 229 231 224 250 229 217 205 230
15 HV 190 191 160 175 182 184 195 167 179 201 221 176
Average
186
HV
d1 208 246 228 215 226 228 232 223 219 221 214 234
d2 242 250 232 224 235 248 241 236 230 231 213 235
16 HV 183 151 175 192 174 163 166 176 184 182 203 169
Average
177
HV
Table 9-5 - Whole data needed to surface texture for experimental tests from Design Expert design.
Side
Sample Average of
Average height Standard Average of
Measurement side average
Test Face of profile, Pa, Deviation, Standard
number Standard
Number [um] [mm] Deviation,
Deviation, [mm]
[mm]
1 229.0451 0.2859
0.2399
A 2 128.5922 0.1688
3 200.2888 0.2651
1 0.2913
1 215.3467 0.2987
0.3426
B 2 223.1935 0.2791
3 325.1192 0.4501
1 220.0389 0.2855
0.2862
A 2 206.3944 0.3001
3 210.2436 0.2732
2 0.3429
1 357.5817 0.4367
0.3995
B 2 204.6795 0.3467
3 151.1401 0.4153
1 314.7889 0.3982
0.4036
A 2 442.8586 0.5634
3 3 183.5957 0.2493 0.3426
1 190.4391 0.2913
B 0.2813
2 238.4789 0.2917
88
3 157.2719 0.2610
1 365.2114 0.4280
0.3838
A 2 217.2717 0.3102
3 253.2548 0.4133
4 0.3529
1 265.8164 0.3278
0.3219
B 2 291.8194 0.3827
3 207.5491 0.2553
1 153.7244 0.1807
0.2538
A 2 179.2304 0.2931
3 177.0780 0.2878
5 0.3171
1 227.6505 0.2936
0.3804
B 2 126.0387 0.5606
3 214.9657 0.2872
1 180.0694 0.2326
0.2010
A 2 138.6732 0.1747
3 151.8925 0.1959
6 0.2711
1 250.7876 0.3620
0.3412
B 2 162.0937 0.2527
3 211.7311 0.4091
1 254.9255 0.3251
0.2384
A 2 149.1923 0.2196
3 144.9446 0.1707
7 0.3255
1 351.6914 0.4122
0.4126
B 2 401.6311 0.4734
3 295.9631 0.3524
1 172.7199 0.2253
0.2087
A 2 145.5567 0.2012
3 159.7004 0.1996
8 0.1461
1 301.4706 0.3643
0.3756
B 2 339.0864 0.4164
3 283.7295 0.3463
1 167.1603 0.3077
0.2826
A 2 169.4425 0.2871
3 201.3170 0.2530
9 0.3547
1 517.0840 0.5867
0.4268
B 2 217.7809 0.2789
3 322.4554 0.4148
1 306.0072 0.3760
0.3606
10 A 2 289.4433 0.3847 0.3386
3 256.1415 0.3211
89
1 294.1108 0.3531
0.3165
B 2 98.1219 0.1501
3 194.6508 0.4463
1 142.0734 0.1681
0.2134
A 2 174.9274 0.2869
3 137.7984 0.1852
11 0.3094
1 289.3109 0.3960
0.4054
B 2 147.5953 0.4126
3 235.1504 0.4078
1 126.8940 0.3476
0.2842
A 2 176.2542 0.2753
3 108.8193 0.2297
12 0.2963
1 304.3287 0.3675
0.3083
B 2 174.1661 0.2110
3 269.5481 0.3465
1 196.7611 0.3384
0.2740
A 2 123.0195 0.2601
3 160.2039 0.2236
13 0.3411
1 251.1859 0.3508
0.4082
B 2 209.8259 0.3366
3 423.8277 0.5374
Table 9-6 – Whole data needed to surface texture analysis for experimental tests for Design Expert validation
Average height Standard Average Sample Average

Test Measurement
Face of profile, Pa, Deviation, Standard Standard
Number number
[um] [mm] Deviation, [mm] Deviation, [mm]
1 260.3418 0.3790
0.3959
A 2 231.8422 0.3534
3 292.3854 0.4553
15 0.4670
1 378.6510 0.5107
0.5380
B 2 379.2507 0.5352
3 324.7609 0.5682
1 166.9682 0.2107
A 2 167.6250 0.2008 0.2054
3 167.6120 0.2048
6 0.2679
1 216.3268 0.2681
B 2 257.0169 0.3590 0.3303
3 286.3952 0.3637
90

Waam Ms Thesis PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Waam Ms Thesis PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Additive Manufacturing of Nickel components using CMT

Inês Planas Meunier Santos Pinto

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Supervisors: Prof. Eurico Gonçalves Assunção

Chairperson: Prof. Rui Manuel dos Santos Oliveira Baptista

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... III

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. XIV

List of Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................. XV

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3. Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2. Additive Manufacturing History .............................................................................................. 3

2.3. Additive Manufacturing ........................................................................................................... 4

2.4. Additive Manufacturing with Metal ......................................................................................... 6

2.5. Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing .................................................................................... 9

2.6. Gas Metal Arc Welding .......................................................................................................... 10

2.6.1. Short-circuiting transfer ......................................................................................................... 11

2.6.2. Pulsed arc transfer ................................................................................................................. 12

2.6.3. Globular transfer ................................................................................................................... 13

2.6.4. Spray transfer ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.7. Cold Metal Transfer, CMT..................................................................................................... 14

2.8. Nickel Alloy ............................................................................................................................. 16

2.9. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 16

3. Experimental Approach ...................................................................................................................... 17

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 17

3.2. Materials and Build-up appearance ....................................................................................... 17

3.3. Design of experiments, DoE .................................................................................................... 18

3.4. Procedure for perform the experimental trials ...................................................................... 19

3.5. Deposition Rate and Deposition Efficiency............................................................................. 20

3.5.1.1. Deposition Rate, DR .......................................................................................................... 21

3.7. Width and Final Useful Area Measurements ......................................................................... 22

3.8. Hardness ................................................................................................................................. 23

3.9. Surface Texture ....................................................................................................................... 25

3.9.1. P-Profile Analysis ................................................................................................................. 27

3.10. Optimization ........................................................................................................................... 27

3.11. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 27

4. Equipment and Software..................................................................................................................... 28

4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 28

4.2. Welding Laboratory Equipment ............................................................................................ 28

4.3. Macrostructure Analysis Equipment ..................................................................................... 29

4.4. Hardness Analysis Equipment ................................................................................................ 31

4.5. Surface Texture Analysis Equipment ..................................................................................... 32

4.6. Software .................................................................................................................................. 32

4.6.1. Scentis .................................................................................................................................. 32

4.6.2. Ecos ...................................................................................................................................... 33

4.6.3. Alicona associated software ................................................................................................... 33

4.6.4. Design Expert 9..................................................................................................................... 34

4.7. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 34

5. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 35

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 35

5.2. Experimental Tests results ...................................................................................................... 35

5.3. Experimental tests for Design Expert validation .................................................................... 36

5.4. Build-ups Appearance............................................................................................................. 36

5.5. Experimental data Obtained................................................................................................... 39

5.5.1. Experimental tests from Design Expert design ....................................................................... 39

5.5.3. Heat Input ............................................................................................................................. 40

5.5.4. Current waveform ................................................................................................................. 41

5.6. Deposition Rate and Deposition Efficiency............................................................................. 42

5.6.1. Deposition Rate ..................................................................................................................... 43

5.6.1.1. Deposition Rate Analysis on Design Expert ........................................................................ 43

5.6.2.1. Deposition Efficiency analysis on Design Expert ................................................................. 45

5.7.1. Experimental tests from Design Expert design ....................................................................... 46