Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK SIMULATION AND PARTICLE

SWARM OPTIMISATION OF FRICTION WELDING
PARAMETERS OF 904L SUPERAUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL
Fo
Journal: Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

Manuscript ID: MMMS-07-2013-0050.R1

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

r

904L, super austenitic stainless steel, friction welding, friction welding,

Keywords:
Pe

ANN, PSO, Microstructure

er
Re
vi
ew
Page 1 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3 ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK SIMULATION AND PARTICLE SWARM
4
5 OPTIMISATION OF FRICTION WELDING PARAMETERS OF 904L
6 SUPERAUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL
7
8 Abstract
9
10 Purpose- Friction welding is a solid state joining process. Super austenitic stainless steel is the
11
12 preferable material for high corrosion resistance requirements. These steels are relatively cheaper
13
14 than austenitic stainless steel and it is expensive than nickel base super alloys for such
15 applications. This paper deals with the optimization of the friction welding parameters of super
16
17 austenitic stainless steel using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) simulation and Particle Swarm
18
Optimization (PSO).
Fo
19
20 Design/methodology/approach – The friction welding experiments were conducted based on
21
22 Taguchi L-18 orthogonal array. In friction welding, rotational speed (RS), Friction pressure (FP),
r
23
24 Upsetting pressure (UP) and Burn-off length (BOL) are the important parameters which
Pe

25 determine the strength of the weld joints. The friction welding trials were carried out on a friction
26
27 welding machine and the welding time was recorded for each welding trial from the computerized
28
control unit of the welding machine. The left partially deformed zone (L.PDZ) and right partially
er

29
30
deformed zone (R.PDZ) were identified from the macrostructure and their values are considered
31
32 for the output variables. The tensile test was carried out, and the yield strength and tensile
Re

33
34 strength of the joints were determined and their fracture surfaces were analyzed through Scanning
35
Electron Microscope (SEM).
36
vi

37 Findings – The tensile test was carried out, and the yield strength and tensile strength of the
38
39 joints were determined and their fracture surfaces were analyzed through Scanning Electron
ew

40
Microscope (SEM). An ANN was designed to predict the weld time, L.PDZ, R.PDZ and tensile
41
42 strength of the joints accurately with respect to the corresponding in put parameters. Finally, the
43
44 friction welding parameters were optimized using Particle Swarm optimization (PSO) technique.
45 Research limitations/implications –There is no limitations, difficult weld by fusion welding
46
47 process material can easily weld by friction welding process.
48
49 Originality/value – The research work described in the paper is original.
50
51
52 Keywords -AISI 904L super austenitic stainless steel, friction welding, ANN, PSO, optical and
53
54 SEM microstructures
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 2 of 26

1
2
3
4
5
1. INTRODUCTION
6
7
8 Friction welding (FW) is a class of solid-state welding process that generates heat through
9
10
mechanical friction between a moving work piece and a stationary component, with the addition
11 of a lateral force called "upset" to plastically displace and fuse the materials. To produce a good
12
13 quality joint it is important to set up the proper welding process parameters. The welding process
14
15
is a multi-input and multi-output process in which joints are closely associated with welding
16 parameters. Therefore, identifying the suitable combinations of process input parameters to
17
18 produce the desired output require many experiments thereby making this process time
Fo
19
20
consuming and costly. There had been many studies to analyze the failure mode during
21 mechanical testing and the simulation of the process. The studies on effective optimization of the
22
r
23 friction welding parameters are very scarce. An overall idea of optimization of friction welding
24
parameters using different techniques were presented bysathiya et al., (2009). An expert system
Pe

25
26 based ANN for predicting the tensile behavior of Tailor welded blanks were reported by
27
28 veerababu et al., (2009). Many studies were carried out by the researchers during the recent past
er

29
30
(Ahmet et al., 2010; Bendzsak et al., 2000; Akbari et al., 2008; Kubiszyn et al., 2003). They dealt
31 with the numerical modeling of friction welding and friction stir welding process and these works
32
Re

33 had proposed mathematical models which were validated experimentally. A self-adaptive learning
34
35
based particle swarm optimization techniques had proposed by Yu Wang et al., (2011). The
36 tensile properties of similar AISI 304 austenitic and AISI 430 ferritic stainless steels joined by
vi

37
38 friction welding process was evaluated and studied the metallurgical properties of the friction
39
ew

40 processed joints by Sathiya et al.,(2008). Luis et al., (2011) proposed a method for multi-
41 objective optimization of welding process by the estimation of a Pareto optimal set. The weld
42
43 bead geometry plays an important role in determining the mechanical properties of the welded
44
45 joints. Therefore, the selection of the welding process parameters is very essential for obtaining
46 optimal weld bead geometry (Zhang et al., 1996; Bull et al., 1993; Tarng et al., 1998). The main
47
48 challenge for the manufacturer is how to choose the process input parameters that would produce
49
50 an excellent weld joint. Conventionally, defining the weld input parameters (for newly welded
51 products) to produce a welded joint with the required specifications is a time consuming trial
52
53 involving error development effort and the skill of the welding engineer or welding machine
54
55 operator in choosing the right weld input parameters. Then the weld is inspected to determine
56 whether it meets the specification or not. Eventually the chosen parameters would produce a
57
58 welded joint close to the required specification. Also, what are often not considered, or achieved
59
60
2
Page 3 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3 are optimized welding parameters combinations. In other words, there are many other alternative
4
5 ideal welding parameter combinations that can be used if they can only be determined. To predict
6 the welding parameters accurately without consuming time, materials and labour effort, there are
7
8 various methods of obtaining the desired output variables through the development of models.
9
10 During the last two decades, the use of design of experiment (DOE) has grown rapidly and been
11 adapted for many applications in different areas. Design of experiments (DOE) and statistical
12
13 techniques are widely used to optimize process parameters. Basically, the classical process
14
15 parameter design is complex and not easy to use. This is particularly true when the number of the
16 process parameters increases, the number of experiments that are to be carried out also increases.
17
18 To solve this task, Taguchi method with a special design of orthogonal arrays can be used to
Fo
19
20 study the entire process parameter with equal level with a small number of experiments only
21 (Montgomery, 1984; Benjounis et al.,2005). Cook, (1990) preliminarily worked on the
22
r
23 development of intelligent welding control systems incorporating ANN. Juang et al., (1998)
24
explored the back-propagation and counter-propagation networks to associate the process
Pe

25
26 parameters with the features of the bead geometry, and concluded that the counter-propagation
27
28 network has better learning ability for the tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding process than the back
er

29
30 propagation network. Nagesh and Datta, (2002) applied the back propagation neural network to
31 predict the bead geometry and penetration in shielded metal-arc welding without considering the
32
Re

33 structure of the neural network. They claimed that the neural network appears to constitute a
34
35 workable model to predict the bead geometry and penetration under a given set of welding
36 conditions. Many researchers (Li et al., 1997; Tang et al., 1999; Jeng et al., 2000; Srikanthan and
vi

37
38 Chandal, 1988; Kim et al., 2000) have attempted to use the neural network to model various
39
ew

40 applications in the welding area.However, there are no visible literatures that discuss the
41 modeling and optimization of friction welding parameters using particle swarm optimization.
42
43
44 In the current research, an attempt has been made to experimentally conduct the friction welding
45 of AISI 904L super austenitic stainless steel and optimizes the welding parameters using PSO.
46
47 The joint was prepared and the tensile properties and others were simulated using Artificial
48
49 Neural Network. The aim of the paper is to propose an alternate simulation method, which
50
requires less time and knowledge in specialist software, when compared to other simulation
51
52 methods like simulation in ANSYS/SYSWELD.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 4 of 26

1
2
3 2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
4
5
2.1 Friction Welding
6
7
8 Friction welding was carried out using a continuous drive friction welding machine with a
9
10
maximum 60 tones capacity. The friction welding machine set up is shown in Figure 1. The
11 machine has an advantage of adjusting the burn-off length, unlike other friction welding machines
12
13 where the burn-off length was an output parameter. The base material's (AISI904L super
14
15
austenitic stainless steel) chemical composition is presented in Table 1.
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35 Figure 1. Friction welding machine
36
vi

37
38 Table 1. Chemical composition of the base material (wt. %)
39
ew

40 Elements Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo C Cu
41
42
43 Composition
44
0.374 1.522 0.018 0.004 19.893 25.557 4.124 0.018 1.650
(%)
45
46
47
48
49
In this study, the experiments were conducted based on Taguchi L-18 orthogonal array. The
50
51 rotational speed, friction pressure, upset pressure and burn off length were the input parameters
52
53 with three levels each. The individual welding parameters and their levels are presented in Table
54
2. For each experiments two sets trials were performed and their average values were taken in to
55
56 the output results. The welded joints are shown in Figure 2.
57
58
59
60
4
Page 5 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3 Table 2. Welding parameter levels
4
5
Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
6
7
8 Speed (rpm) 1000 1500 2000
9
10
Friction pressure –
11 40 80 120
12 FP (MPa)
13
14
15 Upset pressure –
125 150 175
16 UP (MPa)
17
18
Fo
19 Burn-off Length –
20 2 4 6
21
BOL (mm)
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43 Figure 2. Welded specimens
44
45 The weld profiles were prepared by machining process, and cut into a cross section of 10 x 10
46
47 mm and polished with suitable abrasive and diamond paste. Weld samples were etched with 10%
48 oxalic acid, an electrolyte, to state and increase the contrast of the fusion zone with the base
49
50 metal. The typical macrostructure of the friction welds are shown in Figure 3 (a-d). In this
51
52 macrostructure, the Dexil Imagine ver 1.3.2 software were used and measured the width of weld
53 zone, left partially deformed zone (L.PDZ) and right partially deformed zone (R.PDZ). The weld
54
55 zone and partially deformed zones were distinguished with grain size. The finer grain size is
56
57 obtained in all the welds and coarse grains were obtained in both left and right partially deformed
58 zones.
59
60
5
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 6 of 26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 (a)
Fo
19
20 (LPDZ=0.575 mm, WELD ZONE=0.575 mm and RPDZ=0.637 mm)
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
(b)
vi

37
38 (LPDZ=0.534 mm, WELD ZONE=0.390 mm and RPDZ=0.596 mm)
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 (c)
57
58 (LPDZ=0.617 mm, WELD ZONE=0.534 mm and RPDZ=0.575 mm)
59
60
6
Page 7 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19 (d) (LPDZ=0.513 mm, WELD ZONE=0.493 mm and RPDZ=0.678 mm)
20
21 Figure 3 (a-d). Macrograph of the weld joints
22
r
23 2.2 Tensile test
24
Pe

25
26 The tensile samples were prepared according to the ASTM E8 standards. The tensile tested
27
28
samples are shown in Figure 4. The tensile strength and yield strength of the joints and measured
er

29 values of the left and right side width of the partially deformed zones are tabulated in Table 3.
30
31 And also the weld time for individual set of welding was recorded and is presented in Table 3.
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 Figure 4 Fractured tensile specimens
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
7
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 8 of 26

1
2
3 Table 3. Experimental results
4
5 Burn-
Rotational Friction Upsetting Yield Tensile
6 Exp. off Welding L.PDZ R.PDZ
7 speed pressure pressure strength strength
No. length time (s) (mm) (mm)
8 (rpm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(mm)
9
10 1 1000 40 125 2 62.78 0.575 0.637 442.92 660.97
11 2 1000 80 150 4 33.5 0.534 0.596 438.83 709.67
12
3 1000 120 175 6 17.25 0.308 0.452 485.94 695.4
13
14 4 1500 40 125 4 196.43 0.658 1.006 448.21 621.87
15 5 1500 80 150 6 36.64 0.493 0.411 473.21 692.47
16 6 1500 120 175 2 15.63 0.431 0.575 438.83 709.67
17 7 2000 40 150 2 128.63 0.617 0.575 438.83 648.82
18 8 2000 80 175 4 24.47 0.658 0.678 443.16 669.88
Fo
19
9 2000 120 125 6 20.5 0.78 0.76 453.77 746.48
20
21 10 1000 40 175 6 81.05 0.596 0.678 441.21 656.9
22 11 1000 80 125 2 24.41 0.513 0.678 473.5 677.18
r
23 12 1000 120 150 4 15.02 0.514 0.596 459.22 709.93
24 13 1500 40 150 6 119.17 0.534 0.699 448.62 647.13
Pe

25 14 1500 80 175 2 35.64 0.37 0.493 471.25 685.28

26
15 1500 120 125 4 17 0.534 0.555 499.67 709.67
27
28 16 2000 40 175 4 209.07 0.493 0.431 445.51 639.14
2000 80 125 6 31.89 0.555 0.596 443.51 701.34
er

29 17
30 18 2000 120 150 2 20.52 0.555 0.699 442.88 750.18
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
2.3 SEM Fractography
vi

37
38 The fracture surfaces of the tensile tested specimens were further analyzed by JEOL JSM-5610
39 LV scanning electron microscope (SEM) in order to identify the nature of failure occured in each
ew

40
41 welds.
42
43
44
2.4 ANN Simulation
45
46
47 The simulation using ANN was done with the help of MATLAB 6.5 software. No inbuilt tools
48
49 were used and the codes for ANN simulation were newly generated. The schematic diagram of
50
51 ANN used in this study is shown in Figure 5.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
8
Page 9 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22 Figure 5. Schematic diagram of ANN used for simulation
r
23
24 The parameters of the ANN were to be selected initially. The parameters to be selected
Pe

25
26 were: the number of input parameters, the number of hidden layers, the goal (accuracy), number
27
28 of epochs and the number of output parameters. In this study, each of the different outputs was
er

29
30 simulated one at a time. So the number of output was taken as 1. The number of inputs was 4. The
31
32
maximum number of epochs was taken as 1000 and the goal was taken as 0.001. So, either the
Re

33
34
35 program would be trained for 1000 iterations or up to an accuracy of 3 decimal places. The graph
36
vi

37 of the accuracy verses the number of iterations is shown in Figure 6. The number of hidden layers
38
39 is the most important parameter to be determined. This was determined by trial and error method.
ew

40
41
The number of hidden layers for weld time, L.PDZ and R.PDZ were selected as four, six and
42
43
44 three respectively. The number of hidden layers for percentage of elongation, final diameter, yield
45
46 strength and ultimate strength were three, four, four and five respectively.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
9
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 10 of 26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25 Figure 6. Accuracy vs number of iterations

26
27 The MATLAB codes for the ANN simulation of all the output variables were written
28
er

29 separately with the selected input parameters being given inside the program. The training inputs
30
31
and the training outputs were also entered in the program in their normalized form, to reduce the
32
Re

33
34 error. After the MATLAB codes were written, each of the programs was run in the software. The
35
36 training was performed for the selected number of iterations or the selected accuracy value,
vi

37
38 whichever came first. After the ANN was trained, the input variables were given to the program
39
ew

40 to simulate the respective output parameter. The values were obtained from the program and then
41
42
43 compared with the experimental values.
44
45
46 2.5 Particle Swarm Optimisation
47
48 The friction welding parameters such as rotational speed, friction pressure (FP), upsetting
49
50 pressure (UP) and burn-off length (BOL) highly influences the tensile properties of the weld
51
52 which in turn dictate the qualities of the joints. Increased tensile strength and reduced welding
53
54
55
time, L.PDZ & R.PDZ are the main objectives of this study. The PSO flowchart is as shown in
56
57 Figure 7. The program for optimization was written using MATLAB 6.5. The objective function
58
59 was a sum of four different ANN functions of the above mentioned outputs. The weightage for
60
10
Page 11 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3 welding time, L.PDZ and R.PDZ were taken as 0.1 each and the weightage for tensile strength
4
5 was taken as 0.7. This is done because the tensile strength is the most significant parameter to be
6
7 optimized.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42 Figure 7. Flow chart of PSO
43
44
Every time the PSO worked, it started with a random initial value and arrived at the optimum
45 final value. Since the initialization was random, each time the PSO took different routes to arrive
46
47 at the optimum value.
48
49 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
50
51 3.1 Microstructural examination
52
53
54 The typical microstructures of the friction joints are shown in Figure 8 (a-b). The base
55
56
metal and the weld zone can be clearly distinguished from the microstructures. The base metal
57
58
59 microstructure which had dendrite grain structure was observed and also easily visible in the
60
11
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 12 of 26

1
2
3 partial deformation zones. A mixture mode of equiaxed dendrite grain structures and slight long
4
5 columnar structures were observed in the weld zone. Relatively high amount of secondary
6
7 interdendrite phase (darker area) was also observed in the weld zone of the joints.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
(a) Specimen no. 4 (b) Specimen no. 12
Pe

25
26
27
Figure 8. Microstructures of the weld zone
28
3.2 Tensile tested fracture surfaces
er

29
30
31
The photographs of the fracture surfaces of the tensile tested specimens are presented in Figure 9.
32
Re

33 It is clearly seen that, the reduced cross section had occurred in the fracture region. And further
34
35 the fracture surfaces were analyzed through SEM. The tensile tested fracture surface of the SEM
36
structures is presented in Figure 10 (a-d).
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Figure 9. Photographic view of the Fracture surfaces of tensile specimens
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
12
Page 13 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 (a) (b)
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33 (c) (d)
34
35 Figure 10. SEM microstructures of the joints (a) exp. no. 3; (b) exp. no. 4; (c) exp. no. 13; (d) exp. no. 18
36
vi

37 From Figure 10, it is clearly seen that, the shear flow of material and also miner dimples were
38
39 observed in the micrographs. Due to shear flow of material the necking took place in the joints
ew

40
41
42 and failure occured, with ductile mode of fractures.
43
44
45 3.3 Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Simulation
46
47
48 The simulation of the welding process was carried out to obtain the values of welding
49
50 time, L.PDZ, R.PDZ, elongation percentage, yield strength & tensile strength of the joints. The
51
52 simulation was carried out using MATLAB 6.5. For training the ANN, 2/3rd of the experiment
53
54 sets were fed into the ANN model. The technique of random selection was employed to select the
55
56
57
experiments for training purpose. In this work, the experiments were selected for training
58
59 purpose, and the experiments numbers were 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 & 17. The
60
13
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 14 of 26

1
2
3 remaining experiments were directly taken for testing the ANN model. The results obtained from
4
5 experiments and simulation results for welding times were tabulated and also compared with both
6
7 the results and the calculated % of error is presented in Table 4. The comparison graphs for
8
9
10 welding time with respect to the experimental and simulated result are shown in Figure 11.
11
12
13 Table 4. Comparison of experimental and ANN simulated welding time
14
15 Exp. Measured welding time ANN simulated welding time Percentage error
16 No. (s) (s) (%)
17
18 Training experiments
Fo
19
20 1 62.78 63.18 -0.64
21
22 2 33.5 33.69 -0.58
r
23
24 4 196.43 196.55 -0.061
Pe

25
26 5 36.64 36.97 -0.91
27
28 7 128.63 129.19 -0.43
er

29
30 8 24.47 24.87 -1.66
31
32 10 81.05 81.00 0.04
Re

33
34 11 24.41 24.89 -1.99
35
36 14 35.64 36.17 -1.49
vi

37
38 15 17 17.04 -0.25
39
ew

40 16 209.07 208.18 0.42

41
42 17 31.89 32.44 -1.74
43
44 Testing experiments
45
46 3 17.25 15.63 9.39
47
48 6 15.63 16.27 -4.09
49
50 9 20.5 21.59 -5.35
51
52 12 15.02 15.9 -5.85
53
54 13 119.17 115.87 2.77
55
56 18 20.52 20.38 0.67
57
58
59
60
14
Page 15 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3 140

4 120
Experimental
ANN Simulated
5
6 100

Welding Time (sec)

7 80
8
60
9
10 40

11
20
12
13 0

14 0 3 6 9 12 13 18

Experiment Number
15
16
17 Figure 11. Plot of Experimental welding time and Simulated welding time vs. experiment
18 number
Fo
19
20 The results obtained from experiments and simulation results for both partial deformed zones (left
21
22 and right) are tabulated and also compared with both the results and the calculated % of error is
r
23
24
presented in Table 5. The comparison graphs for both partial deformed zones (left and right) with
Pe

25
26
27 respect to the experimental and simulated results are shown in Figures 12&13.
28
er

29
30 Table 5. Comparison of experimental and ANN-simulated bead profile
31
32 L.PDZ (mm) R.PDZ (mm)
Re

33 Exp.
34 ANN ANN
No. Experimental Percentage Experimental Percentage
35 simulated simulated
values error (%) values error (%)
36 values values
vi

37
38 Training experiments
39
ew

40 1 0.575 0.577 -0.36 0.637 0.577 9.42

41
42 2 0.534 0.533 0.074 0.596 0.633 -6.21
43
44 4 0.658 0.640 2.64 1.006 0.94 6.56
45
46 5 0.493 0.494 -0.20 0.411 0.394 4.14
47
48 7 0.617 0.621 -0.76 0.575 0.621 -8.00
49
50 8 0.658 0.650 1.12 0.678 0.65 4.13
51
52 10 0.596 0.595 0.03 0.678 0.695 -2.51
53
54 11 0.513 0.514 -0.29 0.678 0.614 9.44
55
56 14 0.37 0.370 -0.05 0.493 0.47 4.67
57
58 15 0.534 0.533 0.05 0.555 0.533 3.96
59
60
15
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 16 of 26

1
2
3 16 0.493 0.493 -0.06 0.431 0.453 -5.10
4
5 17 0.555 0.555 0 0.596 0.555 6.88
6
7 Testing experiments
8
9 3 0.308 0.327 -6.17 0.452 0.494 -9.40
10
11 6 0.431 0.445 -3.38 0.575 0.549 4.36
12
13 9 0.78 0.742 4.80 0.76 0.771 -1.53
14
15 12 0.514 0.500 2.70 0.596 0.588 1.34
16
17 13 0.534 0.530 0.73 0.699 0.631 9.62
18
Fo
19 18 0.555 0.593 -6.97 0.699 0.671 3.87
20
21 1.0
1.0
22
r
23 0.8
0.8
24
Pe

25
L.PDZ (mm)

0.6
R.PDZ (mm)

26 0.6

27
0.4
28 0.4
er

29
30 0.2
Experimental 0.2
ANN Simulated
31 Experimental
ANN Simulated
32 0.0
0.0
Re

0 3 6 9 12 13 18
33 0 3 6 9 12 13 18
Experiment Number Experiment Number
34
35
36 Figure 12. Plot of Experimental L.PDZ and Figure 13. Plot of Experimental R.PDZ and
vi

37 Simulated L.PDZ vs. experiment number Simulated R.PDZ vs. experiment number
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45 The results obtained from experiments and simulation results for tensile tests are tabulated
46
47
48
and also compared with both the results and the calculated % of error is presented in Table 6. The
49
50 comparison graphs for tensile test with respect to the experimental and simulated results are as
51
52 shown in Figure 14.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
Page 17 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
4
5 Table 6. Comparison of experimental and ANN-simulated tensile properties
6
7 Exp No. Experimental ANN simulated Error %
8 values values
9
10 Training experiments
11
12 1 660.97 660.40 0.08
13
14 2 709.67 701.05 1.21
15
16 4 621.87 625.28 -0.54
17
18 5 692.47 688.75 0.53
Fo
19
20 7 648.82 647.18 0.25
21
22 8 669.88 684.07 -2.11
r
23
24 10 656.9 653.74 0.47
Pe

25
26 11 677.18 684.69 -1.10
27
28 14 685.28 685.45 -0.02
er

29
30 15 709.67 703.28 0.89
31
32 16 639.14 644.63 -0.85
Re

33
34 17 701.34 696.96 0.62
35
36 Testing experiments
vi

37
38 3 695.4 708.60 -1.89
39
ew

40 6 709.67 699.91 1.37

41
42 9 746.48 691.11 7.41
43
44 12 709.93 697.61 1.73
45
46 13 647.13 649.28 -0.33
47
48 18 750.18 705.09 6.01
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
17
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 18 of 26

1
2
3 800

4
5 700
6

Tensile strength (MPa)

7
8 600

9
10
500
11
Experimental
12 ANN Simulated
13 400
14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 Experiment Number

16
17 Figure 14. Plot of Experimental Tensile strength and Simulated Tensile strength vs.
18 experiment number
Fo
19
20 Figure 11 shows the comparison of experimental and simulated values of welding time. It can
21
22 be seen from the figure that the experimental and simulated welding times are in equal agreement
r
23
24
with each other with a maximum error of ± 10 %. Figure 12 shows the comparison of
Pe

25
26
27 experimental and simulated values of L.PDZ. It can be seen from Figure 12, that the experimental
28
er

29 and simulated values of L.PDZ are in equal agreement with each other with a maximum error of ±
30
31 10 %. Figure 13 shows the comparison of experimental and simulated values of R.PDZ. It can be
32
Re

33 seen from the figure that the experimental and simulated welding values of R.PDZ are in equal
34
35
36 agreement with each other with a maximum error of ± 10 %.Figure 14 shows the comparison of
vi

37
38 experimental and simulated values of tensile strength. It can be seen from the figure that the
39
ew

40 experimental and simulated values of tensile strength are in equal agreement with each other with
41
42 a maximum error of ± 10 %.
43
44
45 3.4 Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
46
47
48 The welding parameters are optimized using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) by
49
50
51 coding in MATLAB software. The properties to be optimized are welding time, left partially
52
53 deformed zone, right partially deformed zone and tensile strength. Since tensile strength was the
54
55 significant parameter, it was given more weightage for optimization. Tensile strength was given a
56
57
58
59
60
18
Page 19 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3 weightage of 0.7, and the remaining properties such as L.PDZ, R.PDZ and welding time were
4
5 given an equal weightage of 0.1 each. The results obtained are shown in Table 7.
6
7
8 Table 7. Optimum parameter values
9
10 Speed
11 Frictional Upsetting Burn-off Length
12 (rpm) Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa) (mm)
13
14
15
1827.27 78.252 173.53 4.4118
16
17
18
The near optimum friction welding parameters are: speed – 1850 rpm, FP – 80 MPa, UP –
Fo
19
20 175 MPa and BOL – 4.5 mm. The confirmation test was carried out using the same ETA friction
21
22 welding machine and the results are tabulated in Table 8.
r
23
24 Table 8. Output values corresponding to optimum parameter values
Pe

25
26
27 Welding time (s) L.PDZ (mm) R.PDZ (mm) Tensile strength (MPa)
28
er

29 43.17 0.516 0.609 685.71

30
31
32
Re

33
34 5. CONCLUSIONS
35
36 The following important conclusions are drawn from this work.
vi

37
38
39 • The dendrite and interdendrite grain structures were observed in the weld zone. The fine
ew

40
41 dendrite arm spacing resulted in higher tensile strength of the weld joints.
42
43
• The tensile tested samples were fractured at the nearby joint zone and partly penetrated
44
45
46 through the parent material.
47
48 • In all the tensile samples, fracture appeared like shear flow type pattern and revealed small
49
50 dimples. It is confirmed that, the ductile mode fractures occurred.
51
52
53
• The simulated results obtained are in good agreement with the experimental results.
54
55 • The friction welding parameters are optimized and the values are: Speed – 1827.2 rpm
56
57 FP- 78.252 MPa, UP – 173.53 MPa, Burn-off Length – 4.41 mm.
58
59
60
19
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 20 of 26

1
2
3
4
• The welding was performed with optimized parameters and their results are as follows:
5
6 Welding time – 43.17 s, L.PDZ – 0.516 mm, R.PDZ – 0.609 mm, Tensile strength – 685.71
7
8 MPa.
9
10
11 REFERENCES
12
13 Ahmet Can, Mümin Sahin and Mahmut KücüK (2010), "Modelling of friction welding",
14
15 International Scientific Conference, Vol 2, pp 135-142.
16
17 Akbari Mousavi, S. A. A. and Rahbar Kelishami, A. (2008), "Experimental and Numerical
18
Analysis of the Friction Welding Process for the 4340 Steel and Mild Steel
Fo
19
20 Combinations", Welding Research, Vol 87, pp 178-186.
21
22 Bendzsak, G.B., North, T.H. and Smith, C.B. (2000), "An experimentally validated 3D model for
r
23
24 friction stir welding", Proceedings of the second International Symposium on Friction
Pe

25
26 Stir Welding, Sweden.
27
Benjounis, K.Y., Olabi, A.G. and Hasmi, M.S.J. (2005), "Effect of laser welding parameters on
28
er

29 the heat input and weld-bead profile", Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
30
31 Vol. 164–165, pp.978–85.
32
Bull, C.E., Stacey, K.A. and Calcraft, R. (1993), "On line weld monitoring using ultrasonic",
Re

33
34
35
Journal of Non-destructive Test, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 57–64.
36
vi

37 Cook, G.E. (1990), "Feedback and adaptive control in automated arc welding system", Metal
38
39 Construction, Vol. 13(9), pp. 551–6.
ew

40
41
42 Jeng, J.Y., Mau, T.F. and Leu, S.M. (2000), "Prediction of laser butt joint welding parameters
43 using Back-propagation and learning vector quantization networks", Journal of Materials
44
45 Process Technology, Vol. 99, pp. 207–18.
46
47 Juang, S.C., Tarng, Y.S. and Lii, H.R. (1998), "A comparison between the back propagation and
48
49 counter-propagation networks in the modeling of the TIG welding process", Journal of
50
Materials Process Technology, Vol. 75, pp.54–62.
51
52 Kim, I.S. and Park, C.E. (2000), "Use of a neural network to control bead width in GMA
53
54 welding", Australian Welding Journal, Vol. 45, pp.33–43.
55
56 Kubiszyn, I. and Pietras, A. (2003), "Numerical modeling of the friction-welding process",
57
58
Welding International, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp 425–430.
59
60 20
Page 21 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
Luis M. Torres-Treviño, Felipe A. Reyes-Valdes, Victor López and Rolando Praga-Alejo,
4
5 (2011), "Multi-objective optimization of a welding process by the estimation of the
6
7 Pareto optimal set", Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 8045-8053.
8
9 Li, P., Fang, M.T.C. and Lucas, J. (1997), "Modeling of submerged arc welding bead using self
10
11
adaptive offset neural network", Journal of Materials Process Technology, Vol. 71,
12 pp.228–98.
13
14 Montgomery, D.C. (1984), "Design and analysis of experiments", 2nd edition New York,
15
16 Wiley.
17
18
Nagesh, D.S. and Datta, G.L. (2002), "Prediction of weld bead geometry and prediction in
Fo
19
20 shielded metal-arc welding using artificial neural networks", Journal of Materials Process
21
22 Technology, Vol. 79, pp.1–10.
r
23
24 Sathiya, P., Aravindan, S. and Noorul Haq, A. (2008), "Tensile properties of similar AISI 304
Pe

25
26 austenitic and AISI 430 ferritic stainless steels joined by friction welding",
27 Multidiscipline Modelling in Mat. and Str., Vol 4, pp 141-154.
28
er

29 Sathiya, P., Aravindan, S., Noorul Haq, A. and Paneerselvam, K. (2009),"Optimization of

30
31 friction welding parameters using evolutionary computational techniques", Journal of
32
Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 209, pp 2576-2584.
Re

33
34
Srikanthan, L.T. and Chandel, R.S. (1988), "Neural network based modeling of GMA welding
35
36 process using small data sets", In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
vi

37
38 Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Singapore, pp. 474–482.
39
ew

40 Tang, Y.S., Tsai, H.L. and Yeh, S.S. (1999), "Modeling, optimization and classification of weld
41
42
quality in tungsten inert gas welding", International Journal of Machine Tools &
43 Manufacture , Vol. 39, pp. 1427–38.
44
45 Tarng, Y.S. and Yang, W.H. (1998), "Optimization of the weld bead geometry in gas Tungsten
46
47 Arc welding by the Taguchi Method", Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
48
49 Vol.14, pp.549–54.
50
Veera Babu, K., Ganesh Narayanan, R. and Saravana Kumar, G. (2009), "An expert system
51
52 based on artificial neural network for predicting the tensile behaviour of tailor welded
53
54 blanks", Expert Systems with Applications , Vol 36, pp 10683–10695.
55
56
57
58
59
60 21
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 22 of 26

1
2
3
Yu Wang, Bin Li, Thomas Weise, Jianyu Wang, Bo Yuan and Qiongjie Tian (2011), "Self-
4
5 adaptive learning based particle swarm optimization", Information Sciences, Vol. 181,
6
7 No. 20, pp. 4515-4538.
8
9 Yu Wang, Bin Li, Thomas Weise, Jianyu Wang, Bo Yuan and Qiongjie Tian (2011), "Self-
10
11
adaptive learning based particle swarm optimization", Information Sciences, Vol 181,
12 No. 15, pp. 4515-4538.
13
14 Zhang, Y.M, Kovacevic, R and Li, L. (1996), "Characterization and real time measurement of
15
16 geometrical appearance of the weld pool", International Journal of Machine Tools &
17
18 Manufacture Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 799–816.
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 22
Page 23 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
The manuscript has been modified according to the Reviewers' comments
4
5
6 Reviewer-1 comments and its responses are as follows
7
8
9 1. The authors are request to improve the manuscript based on the following points:
10 The English, punctuation, and grammar needs to be corrected in nearly every
11 paragraph!
12
13
14 The corrections for the English, punctuation and grammar were carried out completely
15 throughout the revised manuscript.
16
17 2. Besides these language errors, the authors use some technical words in a wrong way.
18 For example they use "optimisation" and "optimization" which are acceptable
Fo
19
20
words.
21 The wrong technical words are corrected in the revised manuscript.
22
r
23 3. The aims of research work should be more evidently in introduction section.
24
Pe

25
As suggested by the reviewer the aims of research work is clearly presented in the
26
27 introductory section in the revised manuscript.
28
er

29 4. More optimization techniques for welding process including Genetic Algorithms (GAs)
30 should be presented in introduction section. Hence, this section should be increased
31
32
The introductions of the Genetic Algorithm details are elaborately presented in the revised
Re

33
34 manuscript.
35
36 5. The Figures and Tables do not have sufficient descriptive information underneath
vi

37 them! The quality of the figures (3, 5-10) should be improved!!

38
39
ew

40 The required descriptions are added and the quality of figures’ (3, 5 – 10) has been improved
41 in the revised manuscript.
42
43 6. Conclusion section should be improved.
44
45
46
Conclusion is rewritten in the revised manuscript.
47
48 7. The citations in the “Results and Discussion” section should be increased
49
50 The detailed and sufficient results and discussion are presented in the revised manuscript.
51
52
53 8. Also a more extensive set of results should be obtained to demonstrate the benefit of
54 your optimization.
55
56 The required extensive set of results was obtained and presented in the revised manuscript.
57
58
59
60
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 24 of 26

1
2
3
4
5 9. The references should be increased.
6
7 The references were increased in the revised manuscript.
8
9 8. There are some mistakes in references; please follow the format in reference section.
10
11
This is a growing research area with increasing number of publications, the authors
12 had better keep their reference section updated with new publications while
13 preparing the new version of their work.
14
15 The references are corrected as per the author guidelines.
16
17
18
Fo
19 Reviewer-2 comments and its responses are as follows
20
21
22
r
23 1. Abstract is too long. It should more compact and it contained specific quantitative
24
results.
Pe

25
26 Abstract is modified by including specific quantitative results in the revised
27 manuscript.
28
er

29
30 2. In introduction, the necessity of the paper should be included and it is also inserted that
31
the results of the paper could be applied.
32
Re

33 As suggested by the reviewer the necessity of the paper is included in the introduction
34 section of the revised manuscript. The application of the results of the paper is also inserted
35
36
in the appropriate section.
vi

37
38 3. The captions of figures and tables should follow the guide lines.
39
ew

40 The captions of figures and tables are modified as per the journal guidelines.
41
42 4. In fig 3, detailed explanation should be written in text such as follows: welding
43
44 conditions, full scale of cross section, figure position, definition of L.PDZ and R.PDZ ,
45 how to measure and influence an weld quality.
46 The details of the welding conditions and cross section views and definition for L.PDZ- Left
47
48 partially Deformed Zone & R.PDZ- Right Partially Deformed Zone and their influences are
49 presented in the revised manuscript.
50
51
52 5. The author made the model for estimating welding time, L.PDZ, R.PDZ and tensile
53 strength . In using the ANN, the evaluation of influence of the input factors on the
54
55 output factors should be investigated in advance.
56
57
58
59
60
Page 25 of 26 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures

1
2
3
The scope of the study was to compare the result of ANN and experimental values and to
4
5 comment on the reliability of ANN for this study. Since a number studies were done on
6 friction welding and effect of parameters, it was not incorporated to avoid repetition.
7
8
9 6. In figs 11, 12, 13 and 14, it is difficult to understand the graph, Especially the meaning
10 of X-axis and data matching between graph and real data are obscure.
11
12 In the above mentioned figures, there are two graphs in each figure, one for experimental
13 values and the other for ANN simulated values. Corresponding to each validation
14 experiment number the output parameters are matched. The graph is drawn to give the
15
16 impression that for each of the testing experiments, the values obtained in real experiment
17 and the values obtained from ANN are matching. This shows that the proposed ANN model
18 is intelligent enough to give the output value for any input in the domain under study.
Fo
19
20 7. Tensile test should be carried out by procedure of international or national standard
21 regulation. So the related standard and size of the test specimen should be stated in the
22
text.
r
23
24 As per ASTA E8 the tensile test was carried out in the present study and it is stated in the
Pe

25 revised manuscript as suggest by the reviewer.

26
27
28 8. Standard tools for ANN are available in MATLAB higher version. Still why did the
er

29 author go forward with coding in MATLAB.

30
31 Standard tools in MATLAB can be used for ANN. But the result of ANN is directly used in
32 PSO technique, which cannot be done with the help of standard tools. This is the reason why
Re

33 coding was used.

34
35
36 9. Restricting the no of iterations to 1000 results in reducing in accuracy in some cases,.
vi

37
38
What criterion was followed to take the no of iterations as 1000?
39 The number of iteration can be increased to any values. But it will unnecessarily increase the
ew

40 time of running the program. Moreover, increasing the no. of iterations won’t give
41
42
significant increase in accuracy.
43
44 10. Author suggested the optimal welding condition in the main body, but the explanation
45
46 for “why this point is optimal “should be inserted.
47 The optimal welding conditions are the values of the input parameters at which the ultimate
48 tensile strength was found as maximum. Since, we do not have a relationship connecting the
49
50 input parameters and the output parameters; ANN was used to simulate the tensile strength
51 for any value of input parameters given. PSO will find out the value of inputs at which the
52
tensile strength is maximum. It was proved experimentally by doing the validation test. In
53
54 actual case, we need to input each and every value of inputs, which will give uncountable
55 number of combinations, and is not practical and monetarily feasible. The values given are
56
57
58
59
60
 Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures Page 26 of 26

1
2
3
optimum because; there won’t be another combination available for input values, which will
4
5 give a higher value for tensile strength, within the limit of input values used.
6
7
8
9
10 Authors acknowledge the reviewers for giving the positive comments and valuable suggestions to
11
12 improve the quality of the paper.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60