optimization of arc brazing process parameters for exhaust system … · 2015-05-06 ·...

Optimization of arc brazing process parameters

for exhaust system parts using box-behnken

design of experiment

Yong Kim, Pyeong-Won Park, Ki-Young Park and Jin-Chul Ryu

Journal of Welding and Joining(Vol. 33, No. 2)

2015. 4

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal of Welding and Joining, Vol.33 No.2(2015) pp23-31http://dx.doi.org/10.5781/JWJ.2015.33.2.23

23

Optimization of arc brazing process parameters for exhaust

system parts using box-behnken design of experiment

Yong Kim*,†, Pyeong-Won Park**, Ki-Young Park* and Jin-Chul Ryu***

*Institute for Advanced Engineering, Yongin 449-863, Korea**Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Geoje 656-710, Korea

***HICO Co. Ltd., Asan 336-873, Korea

†Corresponding author : [email protected] (Received October 1, 2014 ; Accepted April 13, 2015)

Abstract Stainless steel is used in automobile muffler and exhaust systems. However, in comparison with other steelsit has a high thermal expansion rate and low thermal conductivity, and undergoes excessive thermal deformationafter welding. To address this problem, we evaluated the use of arc brazing in place of welding for the processingof an exhaust system, and investigated the parameters that affect the joint characteristics. Muffler parts STS439 and hot-dipped Al coated steel were used as test specimens, and CuAl brazing wire was used as the filler metal for the cold metal transfer (CMT) welding machine, which is a low heat input arc welder. In addition, a Box-Behnken design of experiment was used, which is a response surface methodology. The main process parameters (current, speed, and torch angle) were used to determine the appropriate welding quality and the mechanical properties of the brazing part was evaluated at the optimal welding condition. The optimal processing condition for arc brazing was 135A current, 51cm/min speed and 74° torch angle. The process was applied to an actual exhaust system muffler and the prototype was validated by thermal fatigue, thermal shock, and endurance limit tests.

Key Words : Arc brazing process, Muffler, Design of Experiment, Box-Behnken, Composite desirability

ISSN 1225-6153Online ISSN 2287-8955

1. Introduction

Casting steel and aluminum coated steel have been pre-viously used in exhaust systems, but demand for eco-friendly and lightweight materials has led to a com-plete conversion to corrosion-resistant stainless steel. However, stainless steel has a high thermal expansion rate and low thermal conductivity compared to other steels. As a result, the final product undergoes excessive thermal de-formation after welding. The arc brazing process may be used to solve this problem, and also reduce spatter, fume, and welding smut. Arc brazing uses a low melting point wire and a metal inert gas (MIG) power source. This not only minimizes the effect of heat input on the base metal, but also results in higher productivity than a conventional brazing process, as well as enabling digital quality control. Due to these advantages, arc brazing is widely used in the

automobile industry, despite the cost of the expensive wire1-4). However, the arc brazing process has some draw-backs, such as production costs and weak mechanical strength (e.g. tensile strength). Furthermore, it is difficult to determine the initial conditions because of the use of filler metals with low melting points, unlike those in tradi-tional welding, and the process was developed only recently. In addition, it is difficult to achieve high joint quality, because the joint quality depends on various factors. Therefore, it is important to determine the process conditions that obtain an optimal joint quality with a mini-mal number of experiments. For this reason, Box-Behnken design methodology was used in this study to find the optimal parameters. The final conditions were then applied to manufacture a prototype exhaust muffler. Finally, the prototype was validated using thermal fatigue, thermal shock, salt spray, and endurance limit tests.

Research Paper


130 Journal of Welding and Joining, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2015

24

SACD 0.8t× 2 sheet

④ CTRMFL′R

STS439 1.0t× 2 sheet

Total 3.6t

25mm overlap

Torchangle

⑤ MAINMFL′R

Fig. 1 Processed part of main muffler and geometry of the specimen

200

Cutting

Unit(mm)

Toggle

100

Fig. 2 Experimental set-up for arc brazing test

C Si Mn P S Cr

0.03 1.0 1.0 0.04 0.03 17-19

Table 2 Chemical composition of SACD (wt%)

C Si Mn P S Ti

0.02 1.0 1.6 0.13 0.09 0.37

Table 3 Chemical composition of brazing filler wire (wt%)

Cu Zn Mn Fe Si Al Pb

rem 0.01 0.1 0.85 0.06 9.2 0.01

+1

-1

-1 +1

-1

+1

Fig. 3 Principle concept of the Box-Behnken design

Table 1 Chemical composition of STS439 (wt%)2. Experimental Methods and Design

2.1 Materials and Methods

The location of the exhaust muffler and its shape are shown in Fig. 1. The outer two layers of the muffler case are made from hot-dipped aluminum coated steel (SACD) and the inner two layers are formed from STS439 pipes. In order to reproduce the joint, geometry of the specimen was prepared as shown in Fig. 2. The specimen was fixed using toggle clamp and to measure deformation, a section from the center of the specimen was cut down as shown in Fig. 2. CuAl-A2 wire was used as the brazing filler metal and its diameter was 1.2mm. A low heat input MIG pulse arc welding power source was used in this study. The chemical compositions of the base metal and the brazing wire used in the experiment are given in Tables 1 to 3.

2.2 Box-Behnken Design

In this study, we used a Box-Behnken (B-B) design of ex-periment (DOE) at the specimen level, to optimize the arc braze welding of exhaust muffler parts and to determine optimal processing condition. The B-B DOE, which was first proposed by Box and Behnken in 1961, does not use any experimental points at the vertices as shown in Fig.3. If the factors are quantita-tive with the three levels, then the DOE produces a sec-

ond-order regression equation to yield the optimal condition. For k factors, this DOE has fewer experimental points than a 3k factorial design, allows facile orthogonal blocking, and produces a second-order regression equation. Due to these advantages, a B-B DOE is used in the surface response methodology5). For k=3 factors, a B-B DOE is more eco-nomical than 3k factorial design (which requires 27 experi-ments), does not require experiments at very high or low levels, and conducts experiments at the center of the edges of a polyhedron and at the center of the whole experimental region6). Response surface methodology, such as B-B design, is used to identify a relationship between one or more re-sponse variables and a quantitative experimental variable or a group of factors, and its goal is to determine the con-dition for the factor that optimizes response variable. Several applications of the response surface methodology are as follows: (1) To determine the condition for optimal response (2) To determine the condition for the factor that satisfies

a given work condition or process specification (3) To model the relationship between the quantitative

factor and the response variable (4) To confirm a new condition for improved quality

Optimization of arc brazing process parameters for exhaust system parts using box-behnken design of experiment

한용 ․ 합학회지 제33권 제2호, 2015년 4월 131

25

Level Current(A) Brazing speed(cm/min)

Torch angle(°)

−1 120 30 45

0 140 45 60

1 160 60 75

Table 4 Factors and levels for B-B design

Fig. 4 Result of tensile strength test

Width

Height

(a) Definition of bead width and height at no deformation cross-section

Deformation sizemeasurement [ex) No.10]

5.18 – 3.6 = 1.58mm

5.18mm

(b) Definition of deformation size

Fig. 5 Measurements for bead geometry

2.3 Process Parameters and Regions of Interest

For a complex phenomenon governed by multiple varia-bles, it is necessary to conduct experiments for different combinations of the variables in order to examine the ef-fect of each variable on the whole. During this process, the variable combination must be carefully selected in order to guarantee the reliability of the analysis7-9). A welding proc-ess involves multiple inputs and outputs, and involves cou-pled interactions of input variables. Therefore, adjusting a welding process parameters by trial and error would result in using up a great deal of time and resources. To avoid this problem, it is necessary to build a model for the input and output variables of the welding process, and then use the model to determine the optimal welding process pa-rameters5) . The process parameters for the arc brazing of the exhaust muffler studied in this research are as follows: (1) Current (A) (2) Brazing speed (cm/min) (3) Torch angle (degree) First, a pilot study was conducted to select the region of interest for the process parameters of the B-B DOE. From this study, it was shown that for currents below 120 A heat input was too low and the bead deposit was insufficient, whereas for current above 160 A heat input was too high and the bead became excessively large. Furthermore, the optimal brazing speed and torch angles were expected to be within 40–60cm/min and 45–75°, respectively. Based on the pilot study, we divided each process parameter into three levels, as shown in Table 4, and used the B-B design to construct an experimental design with a total of 15 ex-periments, as shown in Table 5. The lap joint arc brazing was performed using the conditions of the experiment design.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Desirability Function Setting

As a result of the tensile shear test at room temperature and at high temperatures (450°C, and 600°C) after accom-plishing arc-brazing with a total of 15 experiments using the plan created by the B-B design, fracture did not occur from the joint in all conditions as in Fig. 4, but occurred

from the base material of STS439. The reason why fracture of base material occurred in all the conditions was that brazing was done within the range, selected through preliminary experiments, that forms ap-propriate beads and also the tensile strength (560MPa) of Cu-Al filler metal was not only higher than base metal (400MPa) but also larger in the adhesive joint area (leg length) than in the cross-section area of the base material. Also, although the heat input variation was higher in the experiment based on the experiment designs, burn through of base material did not occur unlike in general arc welding. Instead, at the center of the specimen that was not fixed by toggle clamp as shown in Fig. 3, a huge deforma-tion of the base material occurred as shown in Fig. 5(b). This is because the brazing process has a great gap bridg-ing ability and since the melting point of the brazing wire is lower than the base material, although heat input varia-



26

Types and features of response variables

Response variable set-point Individual desirability Graph

Bead Width(Larger-the-better)

Target T = 5.4Lower limit L = 3.6

Weight w = 1

1

3.6 5.4

Bead height(Normal-the-best)

Target T = 3.25Upper limit U = 3.9Lower limit L = 2.6

Weight w = 12.6 3.25

1

3.9

Deformation(Smaller-the-better)

Target T = 0Upper limit U = 5.2

Weight w = 3

1

0 5.2

Table 5 Forms of response variables and ranges of individual desirability

tion is high, the molten pool permeates into the gaps in the sheets of the base materials due to capillary action, instead of the base material being melted. Therefore, response var-iables were set for conditions where all the adhesive strengths are satisfied with regard to appropriate area, height of beads and minimized deformation of the specimen. Finally, optimization of process condition was accomplished through the following stages.

(1) Individual desirability “di” deduced for each response variables (bead area, height and deformation)

(2) Composite desirability “D” value deduced by combin-ing individual desirability

(3) Deduction of optimal design solution by maximizing composite desirability

Fig. 5 explains the measurement methods for each partic-ular value of the response variables. First, the bead area and height was measured in the parts without deformation (fixed with toggle clamp). However, deformation was measured from the center of the specimen and it was calcu-lated after deducting 3.6mm, which is the thickness of 4 layers of raw materials, from the final deformed height. Individual desirability is a function designed to indicate the level of desirability regarding the response variable in values between [0, 1]. The values that express individual desirability, including T, L, U and w, are chosen by the users and in case of w, it indicates the importance of each response variable. Individual desirability is closer to “1” if the desirability of the response is higher and it is closer to “0” if the desirability is lower. The range of individual de-sirability was set based on the standard of the ISO 5817

and the result of the preliminary experiment. Firstly, it was defined as ‘larger-the-better’ in case of individual desir-ability for bead areas. Usually, there are problems of with deformation from welding in under high temperatures when the bead area is larger, but since it is the function controlled by ‘deformation’, another individual desir-ability, it was not considered in the bead area. Therefore, the lowest limit was L:3.6 considering the total thickness of the specimen, 3.6mm. The target was set as T:5.4, which was 1.5 times bigger than the thickness of the specimen, considering the difference existing between the filler metal and the interface, and all the above was set to have an in-dividual desirability of 1. The bead height has the feature of nominal-the-best, and its lowest limit was set as L:2.6, target as T:3.25, and high-est limit as U:3.9. The lowest limit was set according to the height of the specimen, 2.6mm, excluding the lower valve, as the standard and the highest limit was set below 3.9mm, according to the ISO 5817 regulation that the height of the weld reinforcement should not exceed 50% of the thickness. Therefore, the target was set as the median value of the highest and the lowest value. Weight values of both bead area and height were set as 1. Meanwhile, deformation has the feature of smaller-the- better. Therefore, there is no L, the lowest limit, and the target was set as T:0 and the highest limit as U:5.2. The highest limit was set twice the thickness of base material to limit the deformation to twice the thickness of the higher value material. Also, because it is the best with no de-formation, the weight was given to the deformation closer to 0, and its value was set as w:3. In Table. 5, forms ac-cording to each response variable and ranges of individual


한용 ․ 합학회지 제33권 제2호, 2015년 4월 133

27

No. Current (A) Brazing speed (cm/min) Torch angle (°)

Bead shape (mm) Deformation size (mm)

Geometric meanwidth height

1 160 30 60 8.18 3.38 4.50 0.12

2 120 45 75 5.00 2.99 0.88 0.64

3 160 60 60 5.74 2.78 1.52 0.46

4 140 45 60 5.87 2.87 0.87 0.62

5 120 60 60 4.09 2.73 0.35 0.35

6 140 45 60 5.12 2.89 1.86 0.46

7 160 45 45 7.40 3.10 3.57 0.29

8 140 45 60 6.21 2.83 1.34 0.52

9 140 30 45 8.15 3.00 3.13 0.33

10 120 45 45 5.10 2.91 1.58 0.51

11 140 60 75 5.04 2.91 0.56 0.65

12 140 60 45 4.89 2.87 0.36 0.62

13 120 30 60 6.24 2.91 2.66 0.38

14 140 30 75 6.73 3.25 3.03 0.42

15 160 45 75 6.24 3.07 2.27 0.51

Table 6 Experimental design and the results of Box-Behnken method

desirability are expressed. The value of composite desirability was deduced by com-bining the weighted geometric mean as shown in equation (1) with each calculated individual desirability.

× ∙∙∙∙

(1)

3.2 Results of B-B DOE

The weld bead shape, deformation size, and response var-iable from the arc brazing experiment are given in Table 6. Fig. 6 shows the cross-sectional shape for each experimental condition, and the cross-section and bead shape for the de-formed part. As can be seen from figure, deformation was observed along the specimen’s height for the high heat in-put condition.

3.3 Regression Analysis

A regression analysis examines the relationship between variables. It involves building a regression model, estimat-ing coefficient of regression from the observed samples, and producing a regression equation that describes the re-lationship between the variables. Based on the arc brazing experiments chosen by the B-B DOE, we determined a re-gression equation for the response variable bead shape and the process parameters (current, brazing speed, and torch angle). Eq. (2) is the second-order regression equation that

describes the relationship between the response variable and the process parameters.

(2)

Table 7 shows the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) that was used to validate the regression equation. The val-idity of the regression equation may be tested by the F-test. An F-test compares the residual sum of squares (RSS) from the unrestricted original model to the RSS of the null hypothesis model. In the ANOVA table, the F0 statistic is the ratio of the sum of mean squares from regression (MSR) to the sum of mean squares from the residual (MSE). A large F0 signifies that the MSR is larger than the MSE, implying that relationship between input and output is significant. Critical values (φR, φE; α) can be obtained for a given significance level and degree of freedom (φR, φE), and the regression equation is considered to be sig-nificant when F0 > F (φR, φE; α)3). In this regression analy-sis, test statistic of F0 = MSR/MSE is 4.90, which is bigger than the critical value of (critical value) F (9, 5; 0.05) = 0.047, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis that regression does not exist. Therefore, regression reduced from Eq. (2)



28

No. Cross section

Deformationcross section Bead shape

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Fig. 6 Rsults of bead and cross section shape dependingon Box-Behnken design

Source of variance

Degree of freedom

Sum of squares

mean squares F0 F

Regression 9 0.275 0.031 4.90 0.047

Residual(error) 5 0.031 0.006 - -

Total 14 0.306 - - -

Lack of fit 3 0.019 0.006 0.98 0.54

Table 7 NOVA (analysis of variance) of bead geometry

as a result of experiment could be considered as the similar shape in significant level α= 0.05. The coefficient of determination describes the extent to which the regression line estimated from the samples can explain the observation. In other words, the coefficient of determination measures how well the regression line repre-sents the actual observed values, and the coefficient has a value between 0 and 1. The coefficient of determination is equivalent to the square of correlation coefficient, and is

denoted by R2. R2 is equal to the sum of squares from re-gression (SSR) divided by the total sum of squares (SST). When R2=1, all observations are on the regression line, and the estimated regression line completely describes the rela-tionship between the variables. Conversely, when R2=0 the regression line does not describe the relationship between variables. From the ANOVA of the experimental results, R2=SSR(0.27513)/SST(0.30630)=0.8982, implying that the regression equation is valid with about 89% confidence level.

3.4 Response Surface Analysis

Response surface analysis is used to identify the relation-ship between the response variable and a quantitative ex-perimental variable or a group of factors. In this study, this analysis was used to determine the factor conditions that would optimize bead shape as the response variable. The results of the analysis are given in Figs. 7 to 9. Fig. 7 shows the response surfaces of the current and brazing speed for fixed torch angles. The response variable was high when the current was at 130–140A and the braz-ing speed was above 55cm/min. Fig. 8 shows the response surfaces of the current and torch angle for fixed brazing speeds. The response variable was high when the current was approximately 130-140 A and the torch angle was above 70°. Fig. 9 shows the response surfaces of brazing speeds and torch angles for fixed currents. The response variable was high when the brazing speed was approximately 55 ~60cm/min and the torch angle was above 70°. The results of response surface analysis were combined for the opti-mization of the response variable, which determined that the optimal condition for arc brazing was 135 A, 51 cm/min, and 74° as shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 11 shows the bead and cross-section shapes after a specimen had been treated by arc brazing with the opti-mized processing condition of 135 A, 51cm/min and 74°. As seen in the bead shapes, the optimized arc brazing did not result in deformation after processing. Table 8 shows the result of measuring bead size of optimal brazing joint and scale of deformation, and a stable shape of bead al-


한용 ․ 합학회지 제33권 제2호, 2015년 4월 135

29

Weld

ing S

peed

60

55

50

45

40

35

30120 130 Current

140 150 160

Current165150135120

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

3040

5060

Welding

Speed

Bead Geometry

(a) Torch angle 45°

Weld

ing S

peed

60

55

50

45

40

35

30120 130

Current140 150 160

Current165150135120

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

3040

5060

Welding

Speed

Bead Geometry

(b) Torch angle 60°

Weld

ing S

peed

60

55

50

45

40

35

30120 130

Current140 150 160

Current165150135120

0.2

0.4

0.6

3040

5060

Welding

Speed

Bead Geometry

(c) Torch angle 75°

Fig. 7 Response surface of current and speed

Torc

h a

ngle

75

70

65

60

55

50

45120 130 Current140 150 160

Current165150135120

0.00

0.15

0.30

0.45

5060

70

Torch an

gle

Bead Geometry

(a) Brazing speed 30cm/min

Torc

h a

ngle

75

70

65

60

55

50

45120 130

Current140 150 160

Current165150135120

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

5060

70

Torch

angle

Bead Geometry

(b) Brazing speed 45cm/min

Torc

h a

ngle

75

70

65

60

55

50

45120 130 Current140 150 160

Current165150135120

0.4

0.5

0.6

5060

70

Torch a

ngle

Bead Geometry

(c) Brazing speed 60cm/min

Fig. 8 Response surface of current and torch angle

Torc

h a

ngle

75

70

65

60

55

50

4530 35

Welding speed45 50 55

Welding speed60504030

0.4

0.5

0.6

5060

70

Torch a

ngle

Bead Geometry

40 60

(a) Current 120A

Torc

h a

ngle

75

70

65

60

55

50

4530 35

Welding speed45 50 55

Welding speed60504030

0.30

0.45

0.60

5060

70

Torch

angle

Bead Geometry

40 60

(a) Current 140A

Torc

h a

ngle

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

30 35Welding speed

45 50 55

Welding speed

60504030

0.2

0.6

5060

70

Torch a

ngle

Bead Geometry

40 60

0.4

0.0

(c) Current 160A

Fig. 9 Response surface of speed and torch angle

OptimumD

0.39665

HiCurLo

Current160.0

[135.4135]120.0

Welding60.0

[51.3409]30.0

Torch An75.0

[74.5866]45.0

Bead GeoMax

y=0.6682d = 0.39665

Fig. 10 Optimal condition of arc brazing process

Table 8 Result of optimal condition

Current (A) Brazing speed (cm/min) Torch angle (°)

135 51 74

Bead shape (mm) Deformation size

(mm) Geometric mean

Width Height

7.63 2.91 0.26 0.668



30

Cross sectionDeformationCross section

Optimum condition bead shape

Fig. 11 Bead and cross section shape of the optimal

Salt Water Spray Tees / 5%NaCI_72hr

MIG

1

Arc brazing

2

MIG

1

Arc brazing

2

Fig. 12 Result of salt water spray test, comparing arc brazing and MIG welded joints (5% NaCl, 72 h)

Thermal fatigue test Thermal shock test

450℃±30 ℃

Surface℃

80

0 3min 6min 15min1Cycle 3min

1Cycle10sec

Stop

10sec

Waterinjection

Waterinjection

Fig. 13 Thermal fatigue & shock test

View1 View2 View3

View4 View5 View6

Fig. 14 Result of thermal fatigue test

View1 View2 View3

View4 View5 View6

Fig. 15 Result of thermal shock test

most without any deformation was found.

3.5 Evaluation of Prototype Reliability

After conducting arc brazing on an actual exhaust muffler under optimized conditions, various reliability tests were performed. The tests consisted of a salt spray test, thermal fatigue and shock tests, and endurance limit test. The pass-ing standard was determined as the Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) quality standards. All of the reliability tests for the exhaust muffler prototype produced by arc brazing were conducted using HMC standard ES28600-09. Fig. 12 shows the results of the salt spray test, comparing the corrosion resistance of parts welded by MIG welding or arc brazing after 72 h exposure to 5% NaCl. The MIG welded part experienced significant corrosion, whereas the arc brazed part did not show any corrosion. This is due to the copper component of the brazing wire, which has strong corrosion resistance. The test demonstrated that arc brazing provides excellent corrosion resistance. Fig. 13 describes the thermal fatigue and thermal shock tests that were conducted with the exhaust muffler treated by arc brazing. For the tests, 200 cycles were conducted at

a muffler surface temperature of 450 °C. Fig. 14 and 15 show the muffler after the thermal fatigue test. The brazed part did not exhibit any cracks from thermal fatigue and shock tests, and did not undergo harmful deformation or oxidation, thereby satisfying the reliability standards.

4. Conclusion

In this study, we used a Box-Behnken design of experi-ment in order to apply arc brazing to a stainless steel muf-fler of an exhaust system. An optimized processing con-dition and joint quality were obtained, and the following conclusions were drawn:


한용 ․ 합학회지 제33권 제2호, 2015년 4월 137

31

1) The Box-Behnken design was used to develop a re-gression model, with the bead shape as the response varia-ble, and the current, brazing speed, and torch angle as the process parameters of the arc brazing. 2) In order to minimize the deformation of the specimen after arc brazing and to obtain a stable bead shape, a re-gression equation between the process parameters and the response variable was produced, and its validity was con-firmed by ANOVA. 3) Correlations between the process parameters were ana-lyzed by response surface analysis. An optimization of the response variable determined that optimal processing con-ditions for arc brazing were 135A, 51cm/min and 74°. 4) After conducting the arc brazing of an actual exhaust muffler using the optimized conditions, various reliability tests were conducted to validate the arc brazed prototype for an exhaust muffler.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Small & Medium Business Administration (grant number: S2044904)

References

1. S. M. Cho et al. : The arc brazing variable polarity AC Pulse MIG welding machine, Journal of KWS 21(2003), 426-432 (in Korean)

2. T. Y. Lee et al. : A study of heat flow and residual stress analysis in pipe-plate Gas Metal Arc Brazing, Journal of KWS 9(2001), 413-422 (in Korean)

Yong Kim graduated from Korea Aerospace University for B.S and M.S in department of mechanical engineering. He is working at Robot & Manufacturing center in Institute for Advanced Engineering (IAE). His current research interests include dis-similar metal joining and laser welding

process for light weight component. He was awarded the 1st Young Fellow Award in 2013.

Pyeong-Won Park received the in weld-ing system engineering from University of Hanyang, Korea, in 2009. His research focus on the welding process control for automobile and shipbuilding component.

3. H. S. Kong et al. : Effect of variable polarity AC pulse waveform to influence MIG arc brazing characteristic for brass, Journal of KOSME, 02B017(2002), 109-113 (in Korean)

4. Norbert Knopp et al. : Arc brazing-innovative safe and eco-nomical, EWM HIGHTEC WELDING Gmbh. (2003)

5. H. J. Park et al. : Study on the optimization of pulse GTAW process for diaphragm with thin thickness, Journal of KWJS .26(2008), 63-68 (in Korean)

6. B. M. Cho et al. : A study machining errors by Box- Behnken design in ball-end milling, Journal of KSMTE (2010), 432-436 (in Korean)

7. S. J. Lee : A study on a selection of the optimal welding bid grind working condition using design of experiment, Journal of KSPE 07A283(2007), 289-290 (in Korean)

8. H. S. Choi : Optimization of resistance spot weld condition for single lap joint of hot stamped 22MnB5 by taking heat-ing temperature and heating time into consideration, Journal of KSME 34(2010), 1367-1375 (in Korean)

9. S. Y. Baek : A Study on GMA welding automation of STS301L joint using design of experiment, Journal of KWJS 28(2010), 403-408 (in Korean)

10. Y. H Cho : Microstructures and tensile properties in arc brazed joints of ferritic stainless steel using Cu-8.6%Al insert metal, Journal of KWJS 29(2011), 447-454 (in Korean)

11. H. S Bang : A Study on the Prediction of the Optimal Welding Condition for Automotive Steel Sheets in MAG Welding Process, Journal of KWJS 27(2009), 270-275 (in Korean)

Ki-Young Park received the degree in mechanical engineering from Hanyang University, Korea, in 1998. His research focus on the metal transfer of Arc welding.

Jin-Chul Ryu received the in mechanical engineering from University of Ulsan, Korea, in 2003. He is currently working for the company as a director since 2003. His company produces muffler exhaust system components and he is particularly interested in the arc welding process about stainless steel.

optimization of arc brazing process parameters for exhaust system … · 2015-05-06 ·...

Documents