Model based optimisation of friction stir

welding processes
T. W. Liao* and S. Daftardar
This paper proposes a model based approach for the optimisation of friction stir welding
processes. The proposed approach starts with building a model of the process. For this study, the
thermal model developed by Chao and his associate for friction stir welding of AA 2195-T8 is
replicated using Fluent. Once developed, the thermal model is then used to simulate the process.
Two surrogate models, one linear and one non-linear, are constructed to relate three process
parameters with maximum temperature at a selected location, using the simulation data
generated by the thermal model. A constrained optimisation model is next formulated, which is
eventually solved by five population based metaheuristrics to find the optimal solutions for the
studied friction stir welding process. The optimal solutions are primarily constrained by the lower
bound of the temperature. The lower this lower bound temperature is the higher travel speed can
go. The linear surrogate model results in a slightly better optimal solution than the non-linear
model when the temperature constraint is loose and the converse is true when the temperature
constraint is tight. Comparing all five metaheuristics, differential evolution has the best
performance, followed by particle swarm optimisation, ant colony optimisation, genetic algorithm,
and lastly harmony search.
Keywords: Friction stir welding, Thermal model, Metaheuristic, Ant colony optimisation, Differential evolution, Genetic algorithm, Harmony search, Particle
swarm optimisation, Finite volume

Introduction below. Squillace et al. (2006) investigated the effects of

Since its invention in 1991, friction stir welding (FSW)
has been and still is the subject of research and
development for various applications worldwide. The
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for
Friction Stir Processing was started in 2004, with the
support of the National Science Foundation. The Center
involves five university institutions, including the South
Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Brigham
Young University, the University of South Carolina,
Wichita State University and the Missouri University of
Science and Technology, and a number of industrial
partners. Entering ‘friction stir welding’ as the topic on
31 January 2009, the Web of Science database returns
733 entries whereas Google search generates 109 000
hits. Interested readers can refer to the review by
Nandan et al. (2008a) for the state of the art in FSW.
Among the existing body of studies published, there
have been only a few attempts to optimise FSW pro-
cesses so far. This is understandable because optimisa-
tion will not become a major concern until that a new
processing technology, like FSW in this case, reaches a
mature state ready for mass production. The past studies
on optimising FSW are reviewed in chronological order
Department of Construction Management and Industrial Engineering,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
*Corresponding author, email ieliao@lsu.edu
rotating speed and welding speed on two mechanical
properties, i.e. tensile strength and fatigue strength, of
AA 6056 joints made by FSW. The correlation between
process parameters and weldment properties was carried
out by an analysis of variance of the experimental data.
Meng et al. (2006) applied genetic algorithm to deter-
mine the shoulder diameter and pin diameter of stirring
tool for maximising the tensile strength of friction stir
welds of aluminium–lithium alloy. The objective func-
tion employed was an analytically derived mathematical
model that relates heat input coefficient with tool
parameters. Fratini and Corona (2007) investigated the
optimisation problem of FSW lap joints for automotive
applications. They applied an integrated approach that
combines the gradient technique and the finite difference
method to determine the optimal rotating speed and
welding speed to maximise the joint strength per unit
length. Lakshminarayanan and Balasubramanian (2008)
used the Taguchi technique to determine the effect of
three process parameters, i.e. tool rotational speed,
traverse speed and axial force on the tensile strength
of friction stir welded RDE-40 aluminium alloy.
Elangovan et al. (2008) used the response surface
method to develop the model of relationship between
four process parameters and the tensile strength of weld.
The model was then optimised using the Hooke and
Jeeves search technique to achieve maximum tensile
strength.

ß 2009 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 8 December 2008; accepted 3 February 2009
DOI 10.1179/136217109X425847 Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2009 VOL 14 NO 5 426

A possible reason for the lack of studies on the
optimisation of FSW processes is that some researchers
might not be familiar with optimisation techniques. To
fill in this gap, this paper proposes a model based
approach to show how a FSW process can be optimised.
The proposed approach starts with building a model of
the process. For this study, the thermal model developed
by Chao and his associates for FSW of AA 2195-T8 is
replicated using Fluent. The authors’ focus on thermal
model is grounded on the well established research that
good weld properties could not be achieved without
appropriate thermal history, which in turns depends
upon proper selection of process parameters. Further-
more, thermal model is the basis of other process models
such as microstructural, computational fluid dynamics
and thermomechanical from the modelling viewpoint.
Once developed, the thermal model is then used to
simulate the process. Two surrogate models, one linear
and one non-linear, are constructed to relate three
process parameters with maximum temperature at a
selected location, using the simulation data obtained
from the finite volume thermal model. A constrained
optimisation model is next formulated, which is
eventually solved by five population based metaheur-
istrics to find the optimal solutions for the studied FSW
process.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. In
the next section, the finite volume thermal model
implemented for this study is described. The section on
‘Formulation of optimisation models’ presents the
formulations of optimisation models. The section on
‘Population based metaheuristics’ briefly describes the
five population based metaheuristics employed. The test
results are presented in the section on ‘Results’, followed
by the section on ‘Discussion’. Finally, the paper is
concluded.
Finite thermal model of FSW
For this study, the thermal model of Chao et al. (2003)
for FSW of butt joints on two plates of heat treatable
aluminium alloy 2195-T8 with each having length of
610 mm, width of 102 mm and thickness of 8?1 mm is
reproduced using Fluent. Fluent is a general purpose
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code based on the
finite volume method on a collocated grid. Here the
workpiece is discretised into a finite set of control
volumes or cells. All functions required to complete a
solution and display the results are accessible in Fluent
through an interactive, menu driven interface. The
geometry and grid creation is an independent activity
and can be developed using various standard modelling
software packages like ICEM-CFD and GAMBIT.
Once the grid is imported into the Fluent, all remaining
operations like defining material properties, setting
boundary conditions, executing the solution, etc., are
carried out in the Solver.
In Fluent, boundary conditions are associated with
zones and not with individual cells or faces. The type of
boundary condition selected is wall boundary condition
according to equation (1), which is set for all the
zones of the model. Since convective heat losses occur
across all free surfaces, a convection coefficient of
30 W m22 uC21 was applied to the top and side surfaces
of the workpiece
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes
1 Comparison of simulated results obtained by authors’
model with FEM results and test data obtained by
Chao et al.
LT
{k ~h? (T{T? ) (1)
Ln
In equation (1), n represents the direction coordinate, h‘
is the ambient convection coefficient, k is the thermal
conductivity of the workpiece material and T‘ is the
ambient temperature. Since the contact condition
between the bottom surface of the workpiece and the
backing plate is not known, a high heat transfer
coefficient was assumed off the bottom face of the
workpiece. Researchers have come to this assumption
due to the fact that the exact contact resistance between
the backing plate and bottom surface of the workpiece is
difficult to quantify. Owing to complexity in accounting
for the conductive heat loss through the bottom surface,
a convection coefficient value of h5350 W m22 uC21,
estimated by trial and error based on measured
temperatures by Chao et al. (2003), was applied to the
bottom surface of the workpiece in equation (2)
{k
LT
~h(T{T? ) (2)
Lz
The boundary condition at the tool/workpiece interface
is calculated from frictional heat. Since the temperature
at the top surface of the workpiece changes with respect
to time, constant boundary conditions cannot be defined
at the top surface. Such non-uniform boundary condi-
tions are defined as profile functions instead of constant
values. Thus a user defined function (UDF) has to be
written in order to apply transient boundary condition
on top surface of the workpiece. Details are omitted
here, but can be found in Daftardar (2009).
The developed three-dimensional thermal FSW model
is verified with the experimental and numerical results
obtained by Chao et al. (2003), using the following
process parameters: tool shoulder diameter of 25?4 mm,
tool pin diameter of 10 mm, tool rotational speed of
240 rev min21 and linear feedrate of 2?36 mm s21. Note
that two uncertain model parameters, i.e. the total rate
of heat input (1740 W) and the convective heat transfer
coefficient at the bottom surface of the workpiece
(350 W m22 uC21), in their thermal model, were fitted
with maximum temperatures measured during FSW
experiments. The fitted values are used in the authors’
model as well.
Figure 1 shows the variation in temperature with
respect to time at location (305,5,4) of the workpiece for
2009 VOL 14 NO 5 427
 Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes

be time consuming, especially for complicated finite

2 Comparison of temperature profiles perpendicular to
weld line
both the results obtained by Chao et al. and by the
model developed in this study. In Fig. 1, the maximum
temperature reached is 410 uC, which is very close to
that in the model of Chao et al. Figure 2 shows the
maximum temperatures obtained along the direction
perpendicular to the weld line at X5305 mm and
Z54 mm from the top surface, i.e. the middle layer.
The highest temperature is observed at the weld centre.
The overall trend of the developed model is similar to
that of Chao et al. In summary, the simulated results of
the authors’ model are in good agreement with the
model of Chao et al. and their experimental results, thus
verifying the validity of the model that the authors
developed for this study.
element models involving many model parameters. In
addition, most commercial finite element software
packages provide neither an optimisation module nor
adequate interface to facilitate the incorporation of an
external optimisation program. Therefore, optimisation
is often carried out on surrogate models instead and the
same approach is taken here. To obtain a set of
simulated data necessary for setting up surrogate
models, the thermal model implemented in Fluent was
used by varying three process parameters, i.e. heat input
H, welding speed S and tool shoulder diameter D, at
three or two levels each and recording the maximum
temperature T at a selected location, i.e. X5305 mm,
Y55 mm and Z54 mm, as the response. Table 1 gives
the summary of the simulated data.
A range of methods can be used to construct
surrogate models given a set of data. These modelling
methods could be linear or non-linear regression, neural
networks, support vector regression, and so on. In this
study, linear and non-linear regression methods are used
to construct surrogate models because of their simplicity
and adequacy. The fitted linear regression model with R2
of 0?967 is
T~308z0:200H{49:6S{5:31D (3)
On the other hand, the fitted nonlinear regression model
with R2 of 0?973 is
T~ (4)
exp(0:0005135H{0:12829S{0:0137966Dz5:7471)

Formulation of optimisation models Formulation of optimisation model

In this section, models used to optimise the targeted
FSW process are formulated. Before presenting the
optimisation formulation, surrogate models are first
constructed to establish the relationship between three
process parameters and an output response.
Surrogate models of FSW
Theoretically, optimisation can be carried out directly
on a finite element model. This approach, however, will
Table 1 Summary of simulated data from thermal model of friction stir welding
For any manufacturing process, it is desirable to achieve
maximum throughput, good quality and minimum cost.
The FSW process of concern in this paper is no
exception. Therefore, to determine the optimal process
parameters, the authors formulate the optimisation
models as follows:
Max throughput
Min cost
subject to (i) good quality

Heat input, W Welding speed*, mm s21 Tool shoulder W, mm Max. temperature, uC

1760 2?33 25?4 401?434

1760 1?5 25?4 448?36
1760 4?2 25?4 325?28
1860 4?2 19 349?97
1500 4?2 19 293?355
1500 1?5 25?4 390?58
1760 2?33 19 462?934
1860 1?5 19 507?3
1500 2?33 19 403?07
1760 1?5 19 483?04
1860 4?2 25?4 340?54
1760 4?2 19 334?22
1860 2?33 19 486?03
1500 2?33 25?4 350?7
1860 1?5 25?4 470?65
1500 4?2 25?4 285?72
1860 2?33 25?4 421?01
1500 1?5 19 420?13
*Welding speed: 1?5, 2?33 and 4?2 mm s21 are equivalent to weld pitch 0?375, 0?5825 and 1?05 mm rev21 respectively, for constant
rotational speed of 240 rev min21.

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2009 VOL 14 NO 5 428


(ii) bounds of process parameter values.
In welding, throughput for some duration of time can be
measured by the length of weld completed that depends
much on the welding speed used. Without energy input,
welds cannot be made. Given that equipment cost and
labour cost are fixed, energy input is the dominant cost
component. Since weld quality is the result of thermal
history during welding, the weld quality constraint can
be equated with a temperature constraint. Of course, the
possible values of a process parameter are often limited
to the range available in the system used to carry out the
process. This range can be further reduced as knowledge
in operating the system for a particular job is gained
over time.
In this study, the two conflicting objectives are
handled by combing them into one single objective
function. The weights applied to each of the two
objectives are assumed equal. To offset the magnitude
difference between the two objectives, the objective with
lower magnitude is multiplied by a constant of 500.
Except GA, all metaheuristics attempt to minimise the
aggregated objective. Specifically, two optimisation
models to be solved by the five population based
metaheuristics have the following form
Min(H{500S)½or Max({Hz500S) in the case of GA

s.t. TLB(T(TUB
1500(H(1860
1?5(S(4?2
19(D(25?4
The two models differ primarily on the equation for T:
called model 1 if equation (3) is used and model 2 if
equation (4) is used instead, for easy reference later. The
bounds for T will be varied to investigate the effect
of setting a tighter bound on the optimal solution and
the optimal objective value in the section on ‘Results’.
The bounds for the three process variables are taken as
the lowest and highest experimented values in this study,
as given in the last three constraints.
Population based metaheuristics
Metaheuristics are high level strategies for exploring
search spaces using different methods. Many metaheur-
istics have been proposed so far and there are different
ways to classify them. Based on the number of solutions
used at the same time as the classification criterion,
metaheuristics can be grouped into two major cate-
gories: single point search metaheuristics and population
based metaheuristics. Single point search metaheuristics
include simulated annealing, tabu search, iterated local
search, variable neighbourhood search, etc. Population
based metaheuristics include ant colony optimisation,
differential evolution, genetic algorithm, harmony
search, particle swarm optimisation, etc. Generally,
population based metaheuristics are more effective for
constrained function optimisation problems than single
point search metaheuristics. Population based meta-
heuristics are selected for this study because optimisa-
tion of FSW processes is a constrained function
optimisation problem.
Five population based metaheuristics were implemen-
ted for this study. They are ant colony optimisation,
differential evolution, genetic algorithm, harmony
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes
search and particle swarm optimisation. The specific
algorithms implemented or toolbox used are the ACOR
algorithm proposed by Socha and Dorigo (2008), the
differential evolution (DE) algorithm proposed by Storn
and Price (1997), the GA toolbox developed by Houck
et al. (1995), the improved harmony search (IHS)
algorithm developed by Mahdavi et al. (2007) and the
adaptive PSO algorithm proposed by Iwasaki et al.
(2006). To handle constraints, the parameterless penalty
method proposed by Deb (2000) is incorporated into
each metaheuristic mentioned above. The resultant
algorithms are called ACORz, DEz, GAz, IHSz
and APSOz respectively.
Major parameters associated with the ACORz
algorithm include number of ants n, maximum number
of function evaluations maxnfe, a parameter that
controls intensification v. diversification q and a positive
parameter that has an effect similar to that of the
pheromone evaporation rate j, the size of solution
archive T. For this study, they are fixed at 30, 150 000,
0?7, 0?7 and 15 respectively. Major parameters asso-
ciated with the DEz algorithm include number of
parameter vectors n, maximum number of function
evaluations maxnfe, a parameter [0, 2] that controls the
amplification of differential variation F, and a crossover
parameter [0, 1] that is used to construct a trial vector,
CR. For this study, they are fixed at 30, 150 000, 0?5 and
0?95 respectively. Major parameters associated with the
GAz algorithm include number of parameter vectors in
the population n and maximum number of function
evaluations maxnfe. All other GA parameters are taken
as the default values. Major parameters associated with
the IHSz algorithm include harmony memory size n,
maximum number of function evaluations (improvisa-
tions) maxnfe, harmony memory considering rate
HMCR, maximum and minimum pitch adjusting rates
PARmax and PARmin, and maximum and minimum
bandwidths, bwmax and bwmin. In this study, they are
fixed at 30, 150 000, 0?9, 0?99, 0?45, 4 and 0?00001
respectively. Major parameters associated with the
APSOz algorithm include number of particles n,
maximum number of function evaluations maxnfe, two
positive constants associated with the velocity update
equation c1 and c2, and six parameters associated with
the adapting scheme wmax, wmin, wdelta, vstart, vinit and
Tend. For this study, they are fixed at 30, 150 000, 1?3,
1?3, 0?9, 0?4, 0?1, 2, 4 and 4000 respectively.
Results
Since the global optimal objective function value of the
targeted FSW process is unknown, a relatively high
maximum number of total function evaluations of
150 000 was consistently used as the stopping criterion
for each metaheuristic to prevent premature stopping of
the search. Generally, the higher the population size, the
better the chance to find the optimal solution. However,
the computational cost is also higher with larger
population size. For fair comparison, each metaheuristic
employs the same population size of 30. The parameter
values associated with each metaheuristic were set at the
values recommended by the original authors, as given in
the previous section. Since all five metaheuristics are
stochastic in nature, 30 runs were made to produce
sufficient statistical data. The best, worst and median
results of objective values and amounts of CPU time
2009 VOL 14 NO 5 429
 Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes

Table 2 Optimisation results of model 1 with TLB5425 and TUB5475

ACORz DEz GAz IHSz APSOz

Objective value Best 306?4718 306?4718 306?4718 306?5115 306?4718

Median 306?4718 306?4718 306?4718 307?2443 306?4718
Worst 314?5196 306?4718 1097?139 313?0252 306?4718
Best solution H 1860 1860 1860 1859?961 1860
S 3?107056 3?107056 3?107056 3?106899 3?107056
D 19 19 19 19 19
CPU time taken, s Best 22?687 68?766 24?031 14?813 19?36
Median 23?109 69?0075 24?297 14?86 20?719
Worst 24 70?813 24?671 14?922 24?672

taken for each metaheuristic were computed. The
solutions for the best result obtained by each metaheur-
istic were also recorded. All programs were coded in
Matlab and all experiments were carried out using Dell
Latitude D830 with Intel Core2 Dual CPU T9300 at
2?5 GHz.
Results of model 1
Model 1, the optimisation model that uses the fitted
linear regression equation of T, i.e. equation (3), was
solved using a wider range of T, i.e. TLB5425 and
TUB5475. This temperature range and bound values
should be set in consideration of material properties,
particularly the melting temperature and its sensitivity to
heat input variation. A material with higher sensitivity
to heat input would have a narrower workable
temperature range. For example, AA 5083-O can have
a wider temperature range than AA 2024-T6 and
AA 7075-T6 because it is not as sensitive to heat input
as reported by Nakata et al. (2000). The melting
temperature of AA 2195-T8 is y540 uC. The authors
are not aware of any study that investigated the range of
temperature in AA 2195-T8 that led to good welds.
Further experiments are such needed to investigate the
sensitivity of AA 2195-T8 to heat input. To enable this
study, the bound values selected are a rough guess
around known good temperature value.
Table 2 summarises the results obtained by all five
population based metaheuristics. The results indicate
that:
(i) the best objective value is 306?4718, which is
achieved by four algorithms: ACORz, DEz,
GAz and APSOz. The optimal solution is
H51860 W, S53 ?107056 mm s21 and
D519 mm
(ii) both DEz and APSOz algorithms found the
best objective value in all 30 runs. However, the
DEz algorithm requires more CPU time than
the APSOz algorithm
(iii) comparing ACORz with GAz, ACORz
seems to have better overall performance in
terms of objective value, CPU time taken and
number of runs found the best solution (23 v.
21) than GAz
(iv) the IHSz algorithm has the worst perfor-
mance. It seems not able to converge to the
best solution. Nevertheless, the solution found
is very close to the best. In fact, the deviation
away from the best solution might be insignif-
icant because it might be less than the accuracy
of the welding system to implement the solu-
tion. Two notable properties about the IHSz
algorithm are fast and small variance in its
solutions.
To investigate the effect of narrowing the range of
maximum temperature, model 1 is again solved using a
narrower range of T, i.e. TLB5450 and TUB5475. Table 3
summarises the results obtained by all five population
based metaheuristics. The results indicate that:
(i) the best objective value is 558?4879, which is
achieved by four algorithms: ACORz, DEz,
GAz and APSOz. The optimal solution is
H51860 W, S52 ?603024 mm s21 and
D519 mm
(ii) both DEz and APSOz algorithms found the
best objective value in all 30 runs. However, the
DEz algorithm is more time consuming than
the APSOz algorithm
(iii) comparing ACORz with GAz, ACORz
seems to have better overall performance in
terms of objective value, CPU time taken and
number of runs found the best solution (27 v.
22) than GAz
(iv) the IHSz algorithm again has the worst
performance. It seems not able to converge to
the best solution. But the solution found might
be good enough in practice because the devia-
tion might be less than the accuracy of the

Table 3 Optimisation results of model 1 with TLB5450 and TUB5475

ACORz DEz GAz IHSz APSOz

Objective value Best 558?4879 558?4879 558?4879 558?5637 558?4879

Median 558?4879 558?4879 558?4879 559?4875 558?4879
Worst 558?8642 558?4879 754?2805 564?9603 558?4879
Best solution H 1860 1860 1860 1859?925 1860
S 2?603024 2?603024 2?603024 2?602723 2?603024
D 19 19 19 19 19
CPU time taken, s Best 22?672 68?61 23?75 14?89 15?485
Median 22?719 68?789 24?2815 14?922 32?328
Worst 22?875 70?391 24?578 14?985 40?86

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2009 VOL 14 NO 5 430

 Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes

Table 4 Optimisation results of model 1 with TLB5470 and TUB5475

ACORz DEz GAz IHSz APSOz

Objective value Best 760?1008 760?1008 760?1008 760?1287 760?1008

Median 760?1008 760?1008 760?1008 761?3756 760?1008
Worst 876?4465 760?1008 784?2385 768?6718 936?45
Best solution H 1860 1860 1860 1859?973 1860
S 2?199798 2?199798 2?199798 2?199688 2?199798
D 19 19 19 19 19
CPU time taken, s Best 22?703 69?328 23?641 14?968 19?734
Median 22?75 69?4845 23?8905 15?0315 30?594
Worst 22?906 71?422 24?172 15?11 41?656

system implementing the solution. The proper-
ties of fast and small variance are again
observed
(v) with increasing TLB, the lower bound of
maximum temperature, the welding speed is
forced to reduce in order to provide more heat
input, which in turn leads to a higher objective
value.
The above reduction in temperature range does not seem
to affect the search ability of any metaheuristic too
much. From the physical viewpoint, the reduction in
temperature range means a tighter control of the
thermal field, which shall lead to more consistent weld
quality. From the search viewpoint, the reduction in
temperature range means fewer feasible solutions, thus
making it more difficult to find the optimal solution. To
show this effect, model 1 is again solved using an even
narrower range of T, i.e. TLB5470 and TUB5475.
Table 4 summarises the results obtained by all five
population based metaheuristics. The results indicate
that:
(i) the best objective value is 760?1008, which is
achieved by four algorithms: ACORz, DEz,
GAz and APSOz. The optimal solution is
H51860 W, S52 ?199798 mm s21 and
D519 mm
(ii) DEz is the only algorithm that found the best
objective value in all 30 runs. APSOz found
the best objective value in 28 of 30 runs. The
search ability of the APSOz algorithm is
apparently reduced as the result of further
reducing the temperature range
(iii) comparing ACORz with GAz, ACORz
seems to have better overall performance in
terms of objective value, CPU time taken and
number of runs found the best solution (24 v.
20) than GAz
(iv) the IHSz algorithm again has the worst
performance. It seems not able to converge to
the best solution, but close enough practically.
Table 5 Optimisation results of model 2 with TLB5425 and TUB5475
It is also fast and the variance of solutions
found is relatively small
(v) with further increasing TLB, the welding speed is
forced to further reduce in order to provide even
more heat input, which in turn leads to an even
higher objective value.
Results of model 2
Just like model 1, model 2, the optimisation model that
uses the fitted non-linear regression equation of T, i.e.
equation (4), was solved using a wider range of T, i.e.
TLB5425 and TUB5475. Table 5 summarises the results
obtained by all five population based metaheuristics.
The results indicate that:
(i) the best objective value is 347?8579 with optimal
solution of H51860 W, S53?024284 mm s21
and D519 mm which is achieved by four
algorithms: ACO R z, DEz, GAz and
APSOz. Note that this objective value is higher
than that obtained using model 1 and the
welding speed is lower. This result seems to
indicate that optimisation on model 1 leads to a
better solution
(ii) both DEz and APSOz algorithms found the
best objective value in all 30 runs. However, the
DEz algorithm requires more CPU time than
the APSOz algorithm
(iii) comparing ACORz with GAz, ACORz
seems to have better overall performance in
terms of objective value, CPU time taken and
number of runs found the best solution (26 v.
21) than GAz
(iv) the IHSz algorithm has the worst perfor-
mance. It seems not able to converge to the
best solution. Nevertheless, the solution found
is very close to the best. The deviation away
from the best solution might be insignificant if it
is less than the accuracy of the welding system
to implement the solution. It should be noted
that the IHSz algorithm is fast and its
solutions do not vary much.

ACORz DEz GAz HISz APSOz

Objective value Best 347?8579 347?8579 347?8579 347?8586 347?8579

Median 347?8579 347?8579 347?8579 348?646 347?8579
Worst 358?103 347?8579 776?8067 357?4192 347?8579
Best solution H 1860 1860 1860 1859?999 1860
S 3?024284 3?024284 3?024284 3?024281 3?024284
D 19 19 19 19 19
CPU time taken, s Best 22?672 69?359 23?985 15?031 36?641
Median 22?75 69?5155 24?3985 15?0785 39?656
Worst 22?938 71?938 25?125 15?156 42?531

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2009 VOL 14 NO 5 431

 Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes

Table 6 Optimisation results of model 2 with TLB5450 and TUB5475

ACORz DEz GAz IHSz APSOz

Objective value Best 570?6282 570?6282 570?6282 570?646 570?6282

Median 570?6282 570?6282 570?6282 571?2135 570?6282
Worst 640?1506 570?6282 729?1028 576?7983 570?6282
Best solution H 1860 1860 1860 1859?982 1860
S 2?578744 2?578744 2?578744 2?578673 2?578744
D 19 19 19 19 19
CPU time taken, s Best 22?719 69?421 24?125 15 16?531
Median 22?797 69?4925 24?3205 15?078 39?617
Worst 23?015 72?047 25?141 15?172 42?187

To investigate the effect of narrowing the range of
maximum temperature, model 2 is again solved using a
narrower range of T, i.e. TLB5450 and TUB5475, just
like model 1. Table 6 summarises the results obtained by
all five population based metaheuristics. The results
indicate that:
(i) the best objective value is 570?6282 with optimal
solution of H51860 W, S52?578744 mm s21
and D519 mm, which is achieved by four
algorithms: ACO R z, DEz, GAz and
APSOz. Note that this objective value is higher
than that obtained using model 1 and the
welding speed is lower. This result seems to
indicate again that optimisation on model 1
leads to a better solution
(ii) both DEz and APSOz algorithms found the
best objective value in all 30 runs. However, the
DEz algorithm consumes more CPU time than
the APSOz algorithm
(iii) comparing ACORz with GAz, ACORz
seems to have better overall performance in
terms of objective value, CPU time taken and
number of runs found the best solution (27 v.
22) than GAz
(iv) the IHSz algorithm again has the worst
performance. It seems not able to converge to
the best solution. But it can be argued again
that this deviation might be insignificant in
practice
(v) with increasing TLB, the lower bound of max-
imum temperature, the welding speed is forced to
reduce in order to provide more heat input,
which in turn leads to a higher objective value.
Just like model 1, the above reduction in temperature
range does not seem to affect the search ability of each
metaheuristic too much. Therefore, model 2 is again
solved using an even narrower range of T, i.e. TLB5470
and TUB5475. Table 7 summarises the results obtained
by all five population based metaheuristics. The results
indicate that:
(i) the best objective value is 740?1079 with optimal
solution of H51860 W, S52?239784 mm s21
and D519 mm, which is achieved by four
algorithms: ACO R z, DEz, GAz and
APSOz. Note that unlike the previous two
cases, this objective value is lower than that
obtained using model 1 and the welding speed is
higher. This result seems to indicate that
optimisation on model 2 leads to a better
solution in this particular case with the tightest
temperature range
(ii) DEz is the only algorithm that found the best
objective value in all 30 runs. APSOz found
the best objective value in 27 of 30 runs. The
search ability of the APSOz is slightly com-
promised as the result of further reducing the
temperature range
(iii) comparing ACORz with GAz, ACORz
seems to have better overall performance in
terms of objective value, CPU time taken and
number of runs found the best solution (23 v.
17) than GAz
(iv) the IHSz algorithm again has the worst
performance. It seems not able to converge to
the best solution. The deviation of 0?111 W in
heat input and ,0?001 in welding speed away
from the best solution might be insignificant in
practice. The HISz algorithm is the fastest
among all five metaheuristics. The variance of
solutions found is relatively small
(v) with further increasing TLB, the welding speed is
forced to further reduce in order to provide even
more heat input, which in turn leads to an even
higher objective value.
Discussion
There have been a few studies that focused on the
friction stir welding of AA 2195-T8. Seidel and
Reynolds (2001) investigated the material flow using a

Table 7 Optimisation results of model 2 with TLB5470 and TUB5475

ACORz DEz GAz IHSz APSOz

Objective value Best 740?1079 740?1079 740?1079 740?2187 740?1079

Median 740?1079 740?1079 740?1079 740?9133 740?1079
Worst 821?8779 740?1079 779?3721 743?6584 925?1764
Best solution H 1860 1860 1860 1859?889 1860
S 2?239784 2?239784 2?239784 2?239341 2?239784
D 19 19 19 19 19
CPU time taken, s Best 22?765 69?328 23?782 14?985 28?438
Median 22?843 71?1955 24?0155 15?0465 39?9995
Worst 22?938 71?86 24?781 15?156 41?828

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2009 VOL 14 NO 5 432


marker insertion technique. Kroninger and Reynolds
(2002) examined the fracture resistance of friction stir
welds in AA 2195-T8. Prangnell and Heason (2005) used
the ‘stop action technique’ to observe grain structure
formation during FSW of AA 2195-T8. Schneider et al.
(2005) attempted to correlate the microstructure with
the variation in thermal history the material experiences
during the FSW process. Fonda and Bingert (2006)
analysed the microstructure to reveal precipitation
processes, grain evolution mechanisms and crystallo-
graphic texture within the weld. This study is the first
attempt to optimise the process of FSW of AA 2195-T8.
Note that the corresponding temperature values of all
of the best solutions obtained in all cases tested in the
section on ‘Results’ take on the lower bounds of the
temperature constraint. This implies that weighting more
heavily on the objective of maximising the throughput
than the objective of minimising heat input, instead of
equally weighted, will not change the best solutions at all.
This observation was confirmed with experimental runs.
Hence, to maximise productivity, the lower bound of
temperature thus should be set as low as possible to the
point that good weld can be made. The three lower bound
values used in this study are 425, 450 and 470 uC, which
are about 79, 83 and 88% of the melting temperature
(,540uC). It seems that a ,425uC lower bound could be
set to allow the use of higher travel speed. But further
experiments will be needed to confirm this.
Comparing the two surrogate models, the results
indicate that optimisation on model 1 produces better
results when the temperature range is loose whereas
optimisation on model 2 produces better results when
the temperature range is tight. This statement holds true
regardless which metaheuristic is used.
The test results presented in the previous section
clearly indicate that in terms of objective value, the
DEz algorithm has the best performance and the
remaining four metaheuristics can be ranked in
the following order: APSOz, ACORz, GAz and
IHSz. Even though losing its search ability a bit when
the tightest temperature range is used, the APSOz
algorithm found as many good solutions as DEz and in
less CPU time. Therefore, APSOz seems to be a strong
contender as well. Though not as good as DEz and
APSOz, both the ACORz and GAz algorithms
found the best solutions in all cases, for more than half
of the runs. Therefore, both the ACORz and GAz
algorithms are also good metaheuristics to use with the
ACORz algorithm slightly better than the GAz
algorithm. As far as IHSz algorithm is concerned, it
does not converge to the best solution found by the
other four metaheuristics. However, the best solution it
Table 8 Optimisation results with assumed global optimum as additional stopping criterion
DEz
No. of function
Objective value CPU time, s evaluation
Model 1 Best 306?4718 1?36 3000
Medium 306?4718 1?812 3960
Worst 306?4719 69?391 150 000
Model 2 Best 347?8579 1?297 2850
Medium 347?8579 1?7575 3825
Worst 347?8616 69?359 150 000
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes
found is close enough. It can be argued that the
deviation is insignificant because it might be less than
the accuracy of the physical system used to implement
the solution.
In terms of CPU time, the IHSz requires the least
and the remaining four metaheuristics can be roughly
ranked in ascending order as follows: ACORz, GAz,
APSOz and DEz. Note that this order is nearly
opposite to the ranking order obtained based on
objective values. Since process optimisation is often
carried out offline, CPU time requirement is not
necessarily a major concern. Therefore, ranking based
on objective values is favoured in this study.
To further investigate how many function evaluations
taken by DEz and APSOz respectively to find the best
solution, an additional criterion is used as the stopping
criterion other than the maximum number of function
evaluation. This criterion compares the best solution
found so far during search with the global optimum,
which is set to be the best solutions reported in the
section on ‘Results’. The stopping criterion is triggered
when the best solution found so far is less than the
global optimum. Both models 1 and 2 with the wider
temperature range, TLB5425 and TUB5475, are solved
by DEz and APSOz one more time for this investiga-
tion. Table 8 summarises the results. The results indicate
that:
(i) on average, DEz takes y4,000 function evalua-
tions and 1?8 s CPU time whereas APSOz takes
y1500 function evaluations and 0?4 s to con-
verge to the assumed global optimum. DEz thus
requires higher CPU time and converges slower
than APSOz. The maximum number of function
evaluation of 150 000 used in the previous section
is apparently an overkill for both algorithms
(ii) owing to its stochastic nature, the DEz algo-
rithm did not find the global optimum in all 30
runs this time, but only 29 times.
It should be pointed out that the proposed model based
optimisation approach is general in nature. Despite of
the authors’ choice of Chao’s model, other thermal
models developed for FSW processes by Gould and
Feng (1998), McClure et al. (1998), Chao and Qi (1998),
Khandkar et al. (2003), Simar et al. (2006), Vilaça et al.
(2005, 2007), Colegrove et al. (2007), Hamilton et al.
(2008) and Schmidt and Hattel (2008) can also be
optimised similarly. Actually, more sophisticated models
such as coupled or uncoupled thermomechanic models
or models considering material flow and microstructural
formation can also be optimised. The main differences
lie in the number of variables and constraints involved
and may be in the objective functions, too.
APSOz
No. of function
Objective value CPU time, s evaluation
306?4718 0?141 870
306?4718 0?3985 1455
306?4718 0?703 2460
347?8579 0?172 870
347?8579 0?43 1605
347?8579 1?922 6360
2009 VOL 14 NO 5 433

Finally, it should be stated that other approaches have
been proposed for process optimisation. For example, a
neural network approach was proposed by Liao and
Chen (1994, 1998) to model and optimise grinding
processes. Nearly all process optimisation approaches
including those used in this study are general in nature.
Therefore, other approaches can be used for the
optimisation of FSW. Savvy readers may detect that
metaheuristics are overkill for the two optimisation
models solved. Surely, any conventional gradient based
technique could solve them in less time. Actually, the
fmincon function available in the Matlab optimisation
toolbox was applied to confirm that the solutions found
by metaheuristcs were indeed correct. The review of all
previous process optimisation studies is a task beyond
the scope of this study and would be tackled in a
separate study.
Conclusions
This paper has presented a study to optimise a relative
new welding process, i.e. FSW, using five population
based metaheuristics, which include ant colony optimi-
sation, differential evolution, genetic algorithm, har-
mony search and particle swarm optimisation. To
handle the constraint, the parameterless penalty method
proposed by Deb was used and integrated into each
metaheuristic. Various optimisation models were for-
mulated using different process models and operating
constraints. The data used to establish the process
models were generated from a finite volume method
based thermal model, which in turns was constructed for
a friction stir welding process selected for the study,
specifically FSW of AA 2195-T8.
The optimisation results obtained by all five meta-
heurstics were presented and compared. The results
suggest that:
1. In terms of ability to find the best solution, the five
metaheuristics can be ranked in the decreasing order as
DEz, APSOz, ACORz, GAz and IHSz.
2. Optimisation on model 1 produces better results
when the temperature range is loose whereas optimisa-
tion on model 2 produces better results when the
temperature range is tight.
3. By raising TLB, the lower bound of maximum
temperature, the welding speed is forced to reduce in
order to provide more heat input, which in turn leads to
a lower throughput and higher objective value.
4. Weighting more heavily on the objective of
maximising throughput will not improve the solution
because the temperature cannot be further lowered
without violating the constraint.
The metaheuristics developed in this paper are generic
in nature and can be applied to other models and
processes. Potential topics for future study could
include:
(i) conduct experiments to investigate the sensitiv-
ity of AA 2195-T8 to heat input in FSW
(ii) carry out multiobjective optimisation to find the
set of non-dominated solutions
(iii) perform optimisation on a larger process
model that includes more variables and more
responses
(iv) repeat the same study on other processes to see
whether the same conclusion holds.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of NSF EPSCoR
Pfund (2006–2007), administrated by the Board of
Regent of Louisiana. They also appreciate the con-
structive comments made by the anonymous reviewers
to greatly improve the quality of the paper.
References
1. Y. J. Chao and X. Qi: J. Mater. Process. Manuf. Sci., 1998, 7, 215–
233.
2. Y. J. Chao, X. Qi and W. Tang: J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 2003, 125,
138–145.
3. P. A. Colegrove, H. R. Shercliff and R. Zettler: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2007, 12, (4), 284–297.
4. S. Daftardar: ‘Laser assisted friction stir welding: finite volume
modeling and metaheuristic optimization’, Master thesis, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
5. K. Deb: Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2000, 186, 311–
338.
6. K. Elangovan, V. Balasubramanian, S. Babu and
M. Balasubramanian: Int. J. Manuf. Res., 2008, 3, (3), 321–334.
7. R. W. Fonda and J. F. Bingert: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2006, 37A,
3593–3604.
8. L. Fratini and V. Corona: J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 2007, 129, 985–990.
9. D. E. Goldberg: ‘Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and
machine learning’; 1989, Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley.
10. J. E. Gould and Z.-L. Feng: J. Mater. Process. Manuf. Sci., 1998, 7,
185–194.
11. C. Hamilton, S. Dymek and A. Sommers: Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf., 2008, 48, 1120–1130.
12. C. Houck, J. Joines and M. Kay: ‘A genetic algorithm for function
optimization: a Matlab implementation’, NCSU-IE TR 95-09,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2009.
13. N. Iwasaki, K. Yasuda and G. Ueno: Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng.,
2006, 1, 353–363.
14. M. Z. H. Khandkar, J. A. Khan and A. P. Reynolds: Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join., 2003, 8, (3), 165–174.
15. H. R. Kroninger and A. P. Reynolds: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater.
Struct., 2002, 25, 283–290.
16. A. K. Lakshminarayanan and V. Balasubramanian: Trans.
Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 2008, 18, 548–554.
17. T. W. Liao and L. J. Chen: Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 1994, 34,
(7), 919–937.
18. T. W. Liao and L. J. Chen: J. Manuf. Sci. Technol., 1998, 120, (1),
109–119.
19. M. Mahdavi, M. Fesanghary and E. Damangir: Appl. Math.
Comput., 2007, 188, 1567–1579.
20. J. C. McClure, Z. Feng, T. Tang, J. E. Gould, L. E. Murr and
X. Guo: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on ‘Trends in welding research’,
Pine Mountain, GA, USA, June 1998, ASM International, 590–
599.
21. Z. Meng, H. Chen and X. Yue: in ‘International Federation for
Information Processing (IFIP)’, Vol. 207, ‘Knowledge enterprise:
intelligent strategies in product design, manufacturing, and manage-
ment’, (eds. K. Wang et al.), 483–491; 2006, Boston, MA, Springer.
22. K. Nakata, Y. G. Kim, M. Ushio, T. Hashimoto and S. Jyogan:
ISIJ Int., 2000, 40, S15–S19.
23. R. Nandan, T. DebRoy and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Prog. Mater.
Sci., 2008a, 53, 980–1023.
24. R. Nandan, T. J. Lienert and T. DebRoy: Int. J. Mater. Res.,
2008b, 99, (4), 434–444.
25. P. B. Prangnell and C. P. Heason: Acta Mater., 2005, 53, 3179–
3192.
26. H. B. Schmidt and J. H. Hattel: Scr. Mater., 2008, 58, 332–337.
27. J. A. Schneider, A. C. Nunes, Jr, P. S. Chen and G. Steele: J. Mater.
Sci., 2005, 40, 4341–4345.
28. T. U. Seidel and A. P. Reynolds: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2001,
32A, 2879–2884.
29. A. Simar, J. Lecomte-Beckers, T. Pardoen and B. de Meester: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 11, (2), 170–177.
30. K. Socha and M. Dorigo: Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2008, 185, 1155–1173.
31. A. Squillace, T. Segreto, U. Prisco, R. Teti and G. Campanile: Proc.
3rd IPROMS NoE Virtual Int. Conf. on ‘Intelligent production
machines and systems’, Internet, July 2006, IPROMS NoE.
32. R. Storn and K. Price: J. Global Optim., 1997, 11, 341–359.
2009 VOL 14 NO 5 434
 Liao and Daftardar Model based optimisation of FSW processes

33. P. Vilaça, L. Quintino and J. F. dos Santos: J. Mater. Process. 34. P. Vilaça, L. Quintino, J. F. dos Santos, R. Zettler and S. Sheikhi:
Technol., 2005, 169, 452–465. Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2007, A445–A446, 501–508.

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2009 VOL 14 NO 5 435