ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimization of welding process parameters

using MOORA method
V. S. Gadakh & V. B. Shinde & N. S. Khemnar
Received: 6 December 2010 / Accepted: 8 July 2013 / Published online: 20 July 2013
#Springer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract In the present work, application of multi-objective
optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method
has been applied for solving multiple-criteria (objective) op-
timization problemin welding. Six decision-making problems
which include selection of suitable welding parameters in
different welding processes such as submerged arc welding,
gas tungsten arc welding, gas metal arc welding, CO
2
laser
welding, and friction stir welding are considered in this paper.
In all these cases, the results obtained using the MOORA
method almost corroborate with those derived by past re-
searchers which prove the applicability, potentiality, and flex-
ibility of this method while solving various complex decision-
making problems in present-day manufacturing environment.
Keywords Decision making
.
MOORAmethod
.
Multi-
objective optimization
.
Welding
1 Introduction
Welding input parameters play a very significant role in
determining the quality of a weld joint. Generally, the quality
of a weld joint is directly influenced by the welding input
parameters during the welding process; therefore, welding
can be considered as a multi-input and -output process.
However, a common problem that has faced the manufactur-
er is the control of the input process parameters to obtain a
good welded joint with the required bead geometry and weld
quality with minimal detrimental residual stresses, distor-
tion, and maximum tensile strength. However, it has been
necessary to determine the weld input parameters for every
new welded product to obtain a welded joint with the re-
quired specifications. To do so requires a time-consuming
trial and error development effort, with weld input parame-
ters chosen by the skill of the engineer or machine operator.
Then, welds are tested to determine whether they meet the
specification or not. Finally, the weld parameters can be
chosen to produce a welded joint that closely meets the joint
requirements, since welds can often be produced with very
different parameters [1].
Decision makers in the manufacturing sector frequently
face the problem of assessing a wide range of alternative
options and selecting one based on a set of conflicting criteria.
It must be noted that in choosing the right alternative, there is
not always a single definite criterion of selection, and decision
makers have to take into account a large number of criteria.
There is a need for simple, systematic, and logical methods or
mathematical tools to guide decision makers in considering a
number of selection criteria and their interrelations [2]. The
objective of any selection procedure is to identify appropriate
selection criteria and obtain the most appropriate combination
of criteria in conjunction with the real requirement. Thus,
efforts need to be extended to identify those criteria that
influence an alternative selection for a given problem by using
simple and logical methods, to eliminate unsuitable alterna-
tives, and to select the most appropriate alternative to strength-
en existing selection procedures. Although a lot of multi-
objective decision-making (MODM) methods is now avail-
able to deal with varying evaluation and selection problems,
this paper explore the applicability of a new MODM method,
i.e., the multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio
analysis (MOORA) method to optimize different welding
parameters. This method is observed to be simple and com-
putationally easy, which helps the decision makers to elimi-
nate the unsuitable alternatives, while selecting the most
V. S. Gadakh (*)
:
V. B. Shinde
:
N. S. Khemnar
Department of Production Engineering, Amrutvahini College of
Engineering, Sangamner, Maharashtra 422 608, India
e-mail: gadakh_vijay@rediffmail.com
V. B. Shinde
e-mail: vbshinde11@rediffmail.com
N. S. Khemnar
e-mail: narayan.khemnar@rediffmail.com
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039
DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-5188-2
appropriate alternative to strengthen the existing selection
procedures.
To prove the applicability, potentiality, and flexibility of
the MOORA method, several researchers have tried to use
this method for different applications. Brauers [3] first intro-
duced this method for evaluating stakeholder's society de-
sign, then for privatization in a transition economy [4],
evaluating road design [5, 6], evaluating contractor's ranking
[7], evaluating the contractor's alternatives in the facilities
sector in Lithuania [8], evaluation of inner climate [9], and
evaluating project management in a transition economy
[10]. Chakraborty [11, 12] has applied the method for
solving six different problems such as selection of (a) an
industrial robot, (b) a flexible manufacturing system, (c) a
computerized numerical control machine, (d) the most suit-
able nontraditional machining process for a given work ma-
terial and shape feature combination, (e) a rapid prototyping
process, and (f) an automated inspection system. Gadakh [13]
applied the method for parametric optimization of milling
process.
2 The MOORA method
Multi-objective optimization (or programming), also known
as multi-criteria or multi-attribute optimization, is the pro-
cess of simultaneously optimizing two or more conflicting
attributes (objectives) subject to certain constraints. The
MOORA method, first introduced by Brauers [3], is such a
multi-objective optimization technique that can be success-
fully applied to solve various types of complex decision-
making problems in the manufacturing environment. The
MOORA method [510, 14] starts with a decision matrix
showing the performance of different alternatives with re-
spect to various attributes (objectives).
X
X
11
X
12
::: ::: ::: ::: X
1n
X
21
X
22
::: ::: ::: ::: X
2n
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
X
m1
X
m2
::: ::: ::: ::: X
mn
2
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
5
1
where x
ij
is the performance measure of i
th
alternative
on j
th
attribute, m is the number of alternatives, and n is
the number of attributes. Then a ratio system is devel-
oped in which each performance of an alternative on an
attribute is compared to a denominator which is a rep-
resentative for all the alternatives concerning that attri-
bute. Brauers et al. [5] considered various ratio systems,
such as total ratio, Schrlig ratio, Weitendorf ratio,
Jttler ratio, Stopp ratio, Krth ratio etc. and concluded
that for this denominator, the best choice is the square
root of the sum of squares of each alternative per
attribute. This ratio can be expressed as follows:
X
ij
a
X
ij
.

X
i1
m
s
X
2
ij
j 1; 2; ::::; n 2
where x
ij
is a dimensionless number which belongs to the
interval [0, 1] representing the normalized performance of i
th
alternative on j
th
attribute. For multi-objective optimization,
these normalized performances are added in case of maximi-
zation (for beneficial attributes) and subtracted in case of
minimization (for nonbeneficial attributes). Then the optimi-
zation problem becomes
Y
i

X
j1
g
X
ij
a

X
jg1
n
X
ij
a
3
where g is the number of attributes to be maximized, (ng) is
the number of attributes to be minimized, and y
i
is the nor-
malized assessment value of i
th
alternative with respect to all
the attributes. In some cases, it is often observed that some
attributes are more important than others. In order to give
more importance to an attribute, it could be multiplied with
its corresponding weight (significance coefficient) [8]. When
these attribute weights are taken into consideration, Eq. (3)
becomes as follows:
Y
i

X
j1
g
W
j
X
ij
a

X
jg1
n
W
j
X
ij
a
j 1; 2; ::::; n 4
where w
j
is the weight of j
th
attribute, which can be determined
by applying analytic hierarchy process or entropy method.
The y
i
value can be positive or negative depending of the
totals of its maxima (beneficial attributes) and minima
(nonbeneficial attributes) in the decision matrix. An ordinal
ranking of y
i
shows the final preference. Thus, the best alter-
native has the highest y
i
value, while the worst alternative has
the lowest y
i
value.
3 Decision-making problems
In order to demonstrate the applicability and potentiality of
the MOORA method in solving multi-objective decision-
making problems, the following six illustrative examples
are considered.
3.1 Submerged arc welding
Optimization of welding input parameters has always been an
open research area for many researchers. Datta et al. [15] have
applied the Taguchi method (TM) in combination with the
grey relational analysis (GRA) for solving multiple-criteria
(objective) optimization problem in submerged arc welding.
2032 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039
The quality characteristics associated with bead geometry and
heat affected zone (HAZ) were bead width, reinforcement,
depth of penetration, and HAZ width as shown in Table 1. The
process input parameters considered are current (C), percent-
age of slag mix (S), and basicity index (B). In this study, the
quality characteristics considered are bead width, reinforce-
ment, and HAZ width, which correspond to the lower-the-
better (LB) criterion. On the contrary, bead penetration should
follow the higher-the-better (HB) criterion.
Table 1 shows the normalized performance scores of the
alternatives with respect to the considered attributes, as
obtained using Eq. (2). Then applying Eq. (4), the normal-
ized assessment values (y
i
) of all the alternatives with respect
to the considered attributes are computed. Table 1 also ex-
hibits these results of the MOORA method-based analysis
which gives a comparative ranking of the alternative when
arranged according to the descending order of their assess-
ment values. Table 1 shows the MOORA method-based
Table 1 Objective data of the attributes of example 3.1 (after Datta et al. [15])
Sr. no. C S B Bead width Reinforcement Penetration Width of HAZ
1 150 0 0.8 9.36 3.28 1.58 2.11
2 150 10 1 9.04 3.14 1.84 1.62
3 150 15 1.2 10.72 3.75 1.91 1.98
4 150 20 1.6 13.12 3.94 1.98 2.31
5 200 0 1 11.65 3.43 2.37 3.65
6 200 10 0.8 12.47 4.16 1.88 2.59
7 200 15 1.6 13.75 4.32 2.26 3.1
8 200 20 1.2 10.11 3.71 2.3 2.25
9 250 0 1.2 16.09 4.3 2.8 4.41
10 250 10 1.6 15.55 4.41 2.51 4.1
11 250 15 0.8 13.18 4.6 2.4 3.84
12 250 20 1 15.36 4.06 3.4 4.02
13 300 0 1.6 16.25 4.68 3.01 4.91
14 300 10 1.2 16.25 4.62 3.3 4.3
15 300 15 1 15.73 4.5 3.9 4.02
16 300 20 0.8 13.61 4.96 3.05 4.16

j1
16
xij
2
2,910.005 275.3812 108.9221 194.2643

j1
s
16
x
ij
2
53.94 16.59 10.44 13.94
Normalized decision-making matrix and results of multi-objective analysis
Bead width Reinforcement Penetration Width of HAZ
y
Rank
1 0.1735 0.1977 0.1514 0.1514 0.3712 3
2 0.1676 0.1892 0.1763 0.1162 0.2967 1
3 0.1987 0.2260 0.1830 0.1421 0.3837 4
4 0.2432 0.2374 0.1897 0.1657 0.4567 5
5 0.2160 0.2067 0.2271 0.2619 0.4574 6
6 0.2312 0.2507 0.1801 0.1858 0.4875 8
7 0.2549 0.2603 0.2165 0.2224 0.5211 10
8 0.1874 0.2236 0.2204 0.1614 0.3520 2
9 0.2983 0.2591 0.2683 0.3164 0.6055 14
10 0.2883 0.2657 0.2405 0.2942 0.6077 15
11 0.2443 0.2772 0.2300 0.2755 0.5671 12
12 0.2847 0.2447 0.3258 0.2884 0.4920 9
13 0.3012 0.2820 0.2884 0.3523 0.6471 16
14 0.3012 0.2784 0.3162 0.3085 0.5720 13
15 0.2916 0.2712 0.3737 0.2884 0.4775 7
16 0.2523 0.2989 0.2922 0.2985 0.5574 11
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039 2033
solution for optimal process parameter selection in which sr.
no. 2 has the first rank having the process parameters current
(C) 150 A, percentage of slag mix (S) 10, and basicity index
(B) 1. The results were exactly matched to those suggested
by Datta et al. [15].
3.2 Gas tungsten arc welding
Tarng and Yang [16] have determined the welding process
parameters for obtaining optimal weld bead geometry in gas
tungsten arc welding using TM. In their study, they have
Table 2 Objective data of the attributes of example 3.2 (after Tarng and Yang [16])
Exp. no. A B C D E FH FW BH BW
1 2.4 30 24 1.5 80 0.149 6.09 0.672 5.664
2 2.4 30 35 2 95 0.094 6.665 0.613 6.304
3 2.4 30 46 2.5 110 0.01 6.396 0.536 6.197
4 2.4 70 24 15 95 0.553 9.757 0.852 9.993
5 2.4 70 35 2 110 0.396 9.652 0.782 10.277
6 2.4 70 46 2.5 80 0.38 5.231 0.397 2.817
7 2.4 70 24 2 80 0.213 7.424 0.806 7.026
8 2.4 70 35 2.5 95 0.107 7.055 0.696 7.24
9 2.4 70 46 1.5 110 0.249 7.719 0.492 7.706
10 3.2 30 24 2.5 110 0.557 12.348 1.139 12.403
11 3.2 30 35 1.5 80 0.108 5.173 0.34 3.418
12 3.2 30 46 2 95 0.155 6.002 0.351 4.922
13 3.2 70 24 2 110 0.74 12.273 1.148 12.71
14 3.2 70 35 2.5 80 0.12 5.85 0.626 4.989
15 3.2 70 46 1.5 95 0.09 5.892 0.399 5.319
16 3.2 70 24 2.5 95 0.168 10.348 0.708 10.193
17 3.2 70 35 1.5 110 0.564 9.67 0.743 9.952
18 3.2 70 46 2 80 0.219 5.538 0.363 2.857

j1
18
xij
2
2.0450 1131.6075 8.1244 1068.291

j1
s
16
x
ij
2
1.4300 33.6393 2.85033 32.6847
Normalized decision-making matrix and results of multi-objective analysis
FH FW BH BW
y
Rank
1 0.1036 0.1781 0.2295 0.1707 0.682 9
2 0.0654 0.1950 0.2093 0.1900 0.660 8
3 0.0070 0.1871 0.1830 0.1868 0.564 5
4 0.3846 0.2854 0.2909 0.3012 1.262 16
5 0.2754 0.2823 0.2670 0.3098 1.135 14
6 0.2643 0.1530 0.1356 0.0849 0.638 7
7 0.1481 0.2172 0.2752 0.2118 0.852 12
8 0.0744 0.2064 0.2377 0.2183 0.737 10
9 0.1732 0.2258 0.1680 0.2323 0.799 11
10 0.3874 0.3612 0.3889 0.3739 1.511 17
11 0.0751 0.1513 0.1161 0.1030 0.446 1
12 0.1078 0.1756 0.1199 0.1484 0.552 4
13 0.5147 0.3590 0.3920 0.3832 1.649 18
14 0.0835 0.1711 0.2138 0.1504 0.619 6
15 0.0626 0.1724 0.1362 0.1603 0.532 3
16 0.1168 0.3027 0.2418 0.3073 0.969 13
17 0.3923 0.2829 0.2537 0.3000 1.229 15
18 0.1523 0.1620 0.1240 0.0861 0.524 2
2034 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039
considered five different process parameters such as arc gap, A
(in millimeter); polarity ratio, B (%); welding speed, C (in
centimeter per minute); filler speed, E (in millimeter per minute);
and welding current, F (in ampere). The quality characteristics
considered are front height, FH (in millimeter); front width, FW
(in millimeter); back height, BH (in millimeter); and back width,
BW (in millimeter), as shown in Table 2. In this study, the LB
quality characteristic for the FH, FW, BH, and BWof the weld
bead is considered.
Table 2 shows the normalized performance scores of the
alternatives with respect to the considered attributes, as obtained
using Eq. (2). Then applying Eq. (4), the normalized assessment
values (y
i
) of all the alternatives with respect to the considered
attributes are computed. Table 2 also exhibits these results of the
MOORA method-based analysis which gives a comparative
ranking of the alternative when arranged according to the de-
scending order of their assessment values; the exp. no. 11 have
the highest rank, and the corresponding process parameters are
arc gap (A, 3.2 mm), polarity ratio (B, 30 %), welding speed (C,
35 cm/min), filler speed (D, 1.5 mm/min), and welding current
(E, 80 A). The optimal parameter setting suggested by Tarng and
Yang [16] was almost matched, which is obtained using the
MOORA method with the only difference in the value of the
welding speed (46 cm/min).
3.3 Gas metal arc welding
Holimchayachotikul et al. [17] have used support vector regres-
sion (SVR) for modeling gas metal arc welding process and
optimizing the parameter setting. The obtained optimum setting
was confirmed with response surface methodology. SVR iden-
tifies the optimumcondition that provides high-quality weld with
maximum tensile strength (UTS). Thus, optimizing the parame-
ter setting selection problem consists of a single performance
measure, three optimizing parameters or factors (current, voltage
and speed), and 20 alternatives, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Objective data of the attributes of example 3.3 (after Holimchayachotikul et al. [17])
Run Factor UTS Avg. UTS
y
Rank
Current Voltage Speed Replication
A B C 1 2 3
1 170.92 25.77 12.77 460 475 455 463.33 0.2056 14
2 170.92 28.22 15.22 470 485 465 473.33 0.2101 13
3 125 27 14 580 630 570 593.33 0.2633 4
4 125 27 14 570 570 580 573.33 0.2545 6
5 79.07 25.77 12.77 375 360 375 370 0.1642 19
6 125 27 14 585 580 585 583.33 0.2589 5
7 79.07 28.22 15.22 420 375 450 415 0.1842 16
8 170.92 25.77 15.22 480 485 490 485 0.2153 11
9 170.92 28.22 12.77 470 475 500 481.67 0.2138 12
10 79.07 28.22 12.77 410 385 345 380 0.1686 17
11 79.07 25.77 15.22 450 406 430 428.67 0.1902 15
12 125 27 14 585 580 630 598.33 0.2656 3
13 50 27 14 270 270 275 271.67 0.1205 20
14 125 27 14 590 640 600 610 0.2707 2
15 200 27 14 385 380 375 380 0.1686 18
16 125 29 14 545 540 548 544.33 0.2416 9
17 125 27 12 540 548 546 544.67 0.2417 8
18 125 25 14 535 548 538 540.33 0.2398 10
19 125 27 14 630 620 595 615 0.2730 1
20 125 27 16 545 550 545 546.67 0.2426 7

j1
20
xij
2
5,074,545.136

j1
s
20
x
ij
2
2,252.675
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039 2035
Table 3 exhibits the results of the MOORA method-based
analysis which gives a comparative ranking of the alternative
when arranged according to the descending order of their
assessment values. The results were matched to those sug-
gested by Holimchayachotikul et al. [17]. Here, the process
parameter selection problem suggests that the optimal pro-
cess parameters are current of 125 A, voltage of 27 V, speed
of 14 in./min, and average UTS of 615 N/mm
2
.
3.4 CO
2
laser welding
Park et al. [18] have used genetic algorithm (GA) to deter-
mine optimal welding parameters in laser welding AA5182
of aluminum alloy with AA5356 a filler wire.
A neural network (NN) model was proposed to predict the
UTS. In this problem, the input parameters considered are wire
feed rate (WFR), laser power (LP), welding speed (WS), and
output performance measure is the UTS, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows the MOORA method-based solution for
process parameter selection problem which suggests that op-
timal process parameters are WFR of 3 m/min, LP of 4 kW,
WS of 6 m/min, and UTS of 284.93 N/mm
2
. The process
variable values optimized by the GA by Park et al. [18] were
as follows: WFR was 2.3871 m/min, LP was 4 kW, and WS
was 8.4762 m/min. For these conditions, the estimated UTS
from the NN model was 284.2 N/mm
2
. It was concluded that
fromthe design matrix given by Park et al. [18], the MOORA-
based method shows the optimal parameter setting for the
Table 4 Objective data of the
attributes of example 3.4 (after
Park et al. [18])
Sr. no. WFR LP WS UTS
y
Rank
1 2 4 6 282.13 0.2230 4
2 2 4 7.5 280.04 0.2214 6
3 2 4 9 275.48 0.2178 9
4 2 3.5 6 277.16 0.2191 8
5 2 3.5 7.5 273.55 0.2163 10
6 2 3.5 9 227.46 0.1798 18
7 2 3 6 283.15 0.2238 2
8 2 3 7.5 211.05 0.1668 19
9 2 3 9 166.68 0.1318 25
10 3 4 6 284.93 0.2253 1
11 3 4 7.5 281.62 0.2226 14
12 3 4 9 257.93 0.2039 5
13 3 3.5 6 270.84 0.2141 11
14 3 3.5 7.5 256.1 0.2025 15
15 3 3.5 9 242.6 0.1918 17
16 3 3 6 267.28 0.2113 20
17 3 3 7.5 205.99 0.1628 12
18 3 3 9 177.63 0.1404 24
19 4 4 6 282.14 0.2231 3
20 4 4 7.5 278.11 0.2199 7
21 4 4 9 252.12 0.1993 16
22 4 3.5 6 261.37 0.2066 13
23 4 3.5 7.5 204.04 0.1613 21
24 4 3.5 9 187.09 0.1479 22
25 4 3 6 192.02 0.1518 23
26 4 3 7.5 159.09 0.1258 26
27 4 3 9 111.06 0.0878 27

j1
27
xij
2
1,600,012.066

j1
r
27
x
ij
2
1,264.9158
2036 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039
considered design matrix. However, the NN model is an
iteration-based algorithm which tries for optimal solution
where optimality is reached. Now, in this context, the
MOORA method shows the highest value of UTS at
284.93 N/mm
2
corresponds to the given parameter setting.
3.5 Friction stir welding (a)
Dinaharan and Murugan [19] have developed a mathemati-
cal model to predict the UTS for friction stir welding (FSW)
process parameters, and the FSW process is optimized using
generalized reduced gradient method (GRG) to maximize
the UTS. In their study, they considered the input parameters
tool rotational speed, welding speed, axial force, and weight
percentage of ZrB
2
. The performance measures considered
are UTS and joint efficiency (
Joint
) as shown in Table 5. In
this study, the HB quality characteristic for the UTS and

Joint
of the weld bead are considered. Table 5 shows the
normalized vector and corresponding ranking of each trial
run. In Table 5, T24 shows that higher values of normalized
Table 5 Objective data of the attributes of example 3.5 (after Dinaharan and Murugan [19])
Trial run Rotational speed Weld speed Axial force ZrB
2
UTS (MPa)
Joint
y
Rank
T01 1,075 40 5 2.5 154.25 75.99 0.3389 15
T02 1,225 40 5 2.5 162.65 80.12 0.3573 13
T03 1,075 60 5 2.5 138.23 68.09 0.3037 26
T04 1,225 60 5 2.5 153.06 75.4 0.3363 16
T05 1,075 40 7 2.5 150.46 74.12 0.3306 18
T06 1,225 40 7 2.5 145.61 71.73 0.3199 21
T07 1,075 60 7 2.5 144.5 71.18 0.3175 23
T08 1,225 60 7 2.5 145.78 71.81 0.3203 20
T09 1,075 40 5 7.5 179.29 74.7 0.3622 11
T10 1,225 40 5 7.5 180.36 75.15 0.3644 10
T11 1,075 60 5 7.5 161.78 67.41 0.3268 19
T12 1,225 60 5 7.5 157.92 65.8 0.3190 22
T13 1,075 40 7 7.5 177.17 73.82 0.3579 12
T14 1,225 40 7 7.5 166.28 69.28 0.3359 17
T15 1,075 60 7 7.5 155.67 64.86 0.3145 24
T16 1,225 60 7 7.5 173.83 72.43 0.3512 14
T17 1,000 50 6 5 129.12 58.43 0.2716 31
T18 1,300 50 6 5 143.25 64.82 0.3013 27
T19 1,150 30 6 5 140.56 63.6 0.2957 28
T20 1,150 70 6 5 133.65 60.48 0.2812 30
T21 1,150 50 4 5 135.44 61.29 0.2849 29
T22 1,150 50 8 5 145.12 65.67 0.3053 25
T23 1,150 50 6 0 190.33 99.13 0.4307 5
T24 1,150 50 6 10 241.67 95.52 0.4762 1
T25 1,150 50 6 5 199.23 90.15 0.4191 7
T26 1,150 50 6 5 211.28 95.6 0.4445 2
T27 1,150 50 6 5 200.19 90.58 0.4211 6
T28 1,150 50 6 5 209.83 94.95 0.4414 3
T29 1,150 50 6 5 196.12 88.74 0.4126 9
T30 1,150 50 6 5 206.34 93.37 0.4341 4
T31 1,150 50 6 5 198.65 89.89 0.4179 8

j1
31
xij
2
905,813.2 184,678.6

j1
r
31
x
ij
2
951.7422 429.7425
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039 2037
vector have the highest rank among other trial runs which
indicates the highest UTS and
Joint
(241.67 MPa and
95.52 %), and the corresponding process parameters are tool
rotational speed of 1,150 rpm, welding speed of 50 mm/s,
axial force of 6 kN, and reinforcement of ZrB
2
at 10 wt%.
The values obtained by the MOORA method were exactly
matched to those suggested by Dinaharan and Murugan [19].
3.6 Friction stir welding (b)
Kalaiselvan and Murugan [20] have optimized the process
parameters in FSW for the welding of Al-B
4
C composite
plates using GRG. They have considered the input parame-
ters rotational speed, N (in rpm); welding speed, S (in milli-
meter per second); axial force, F (in kilonewton); and rein-
forcement, R (in weight percent). A single output character-
istic is considered, i.e., UTS (in megapascal). The design
matrix (not shown here due to space limitation) consists of
31 experimental runs. From the design matrix, just by closely
looking at the values of UTS, one can directly select the
value of UTS which has the HB quality characteristics, i.e.,
203.1 MPa, and the corresponding process parameters are
rotational speed of 1,000 rpm, welding speed of 1.3 mm/s,
axial force of 10 kN, and reinforcement of 12 wt%.
From the above discussions, it can be concluded that
for the six considered decision-making problems, the
MOORA method fulfills almost all the conditions as
suggested by Brauers and Zavadskas [8], and hence, this
method would be quite robust under diverse manufactur-
ing environments.
4 Results and discussion
In examples 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6, there is a unique performance
characteristic or attribute, i.e., UTS where higher values are
desirable (HB). In such case, the decision maker can directly
select the parameter which gives higher performance (here
UTS) without applying any statistical tool or method and
rank them in descending order of their preference. An attri-
bute which ranks first, selecting the corresponding parame-
ters gives the optimum parameters for the given problem. In
general, for any one alternative, having all the attributes or
factors is either beneficial or nonbeneficial in nature. In that
case, an alternative candidate is the first or best choice for the
given application, i.e., no need to apply any other method.
However, the selection will be different if more than one
performance attributes occur. The results of this method will
be more fruitful when there is more number of quality
characteristics.
It is observed that in comparison to other MODM
methods, like SVR, NN, GA, TM, GRA, GRG, etc., the
MOORA method is very simple and easy to implement. As
this method is based only on simple ratio analysis, it involves
the least amount of mathematical calculations, which may be
quite useful and helpful to the decision makers who may not
have a strong background in mathematics. Also, the compu-
tation time of the MOORA method would obviously be less.
Similarly, other MODM methods require separate software
to perform the task, but the MOORA method can even work
on MS Excel. For this reason, the MOORA method is highly
stable for varying decision-making problems.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, the selection of optimal process parameters in
different welding processes using the MOORA method is
presented. Six illustrative examples are considered to dem-
onstrate the applicability of this method. In all the cases, it is
observed that the top-ranked alternatives almost match with
those derived by past researchers. The MOORA method can
consider all the attributes along with their relative impor-
tance, and hence, it can provide a better accurate evaluation
of the alternatives. This method is computationally very
simple, easily comprehendible, and robust, which can simul-
taneously consider any number of quantitative and qualita-
tive selection attributes. But it is not so efficient when the
decision matrix contains a large number of qualitative attri-
butes. The method is a general method and can consider any
number of quantitative and qualitative selection criteria si-
multaneously. The suggested methodology can be used for
any type of selection problem involving any number of
selection criteria. Application of this method in a wider range
of selection problems in real-time manufacturing environ-
ment remains as a future research scope of this paper.
Acknowledgments The authors are extremely thankful to the referees
for their valuable comments and suggestions which contributed signif-
icantly to the improvement of the quality of the paper.
References
1. Benyounis KY, Olabi AG (2008) Optimization of different welding
processes using statistical and numerical approachesa reference
guide. Adv Eng Softw 39:483496
2. Rao RV (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environ-
ment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making methods. Springer, London
3. Brauers WKM (2004) Optimization methods for a stakeholder soci-
ety: a revolution in economic thinking by multiobjective optimiza-
tion. Kluwer Academic, Boston
4. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2006) The MOORA method and its
application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern
35:445469
2038 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039
5. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2008)
Multiobjective decision-making for road design. Transport 23:183
193
6. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2008)
Multi-objective optimization of road design alternatives with an
application of the MOORA method. In: Proceedings of the 25th
international symposium on automation and robotics in construc-
tion, Lithuania, 541548
7. Brauers WKM (2008) Multi-objective contractor's ranking by ap-
plying the MOORA method. J Bus Econ Manag 4:245255
8. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2009) Robustness of the
multiobjective MOORA method with a test for the facilities sector.
Technological and economic development of economy. Balt J
Sustain 15:352375
9. Kalibatas D, Turskis Z (2008) Multicriteria evaluation of inner
climate by using MOORA method. Inf Techol Con 37:7983
10. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2010) Project management by
MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Tech-
nological and economic development of economy. Balt J Sustain
16(1):524
11. Chakraborty S (2010) Applications of the MOORA method for
decision making in manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 54(912):11551166
12. Chakraborty S (2010) A decision making framework for selecting
non-traditional machining processes using the moora method. In:
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on advances in
mechanical engineering, Sept. 2325, 2010 S.V. National Institute
of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India
13. Gadakh VS (2011) Application of MOORA method for parametric
optimization of milling process. Int J Appl Eng Res 1(4):743758
14. Lootsma FA (1999) Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and
difference judgement. Springer, London
15. Datta S, Bandyopadhyay A, Pal PK (2008) Solving multi-criteria
optimization problem in submerged arc welding consuming a mixture
of fresh flux and fused slag. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:935942
16. Tarng YS, Yang WH (1998) Optimisation of the weld bead geom-
etry in gas tungsten arc welding by the Taguchi Method. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 14:549554
17. Holimchayachotikul P, Laosiritaworn W, Jintawiwat R, Limcharoen
A(2007) Optimization of gas metal arc welding parameters for ST 37
steel using support vector regression. The IE network conference 24
26 October 2007
18. Park YW, Rhee S (2008) Process modeling and parameter optimi-
zation using neural network and genetic algorithms for aluminum
laser welding automation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 37:10141021
19. Dinaharan I, Murugan N (2012) Optimization of friction stir
welding process to maximize tensile strength of AA6061/ZrB
2
in-
situ composite butt joints. Met Mater Int 18(1):135142
20. Kalaiselvan K, Murugan N (2012) Optimizations of friction stir
welding process parameters for the welding of Al-B
4
C composite
plates using generalized reduced gradient method. Procedia Eng
38:4955
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 69:20312039 2039