Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426
DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-8634-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Investigation of the joint length of weldment
of environmental-friendly magnetic pulse welding process
Akhil Garg 1 & Biranchi Panda 2 & K. Shankhwar 3
Received: 7 February 2016 / Accepted: 17 March 2016 / Published online: 30 March 2016
# Springer-Verlag London 2016
Abstract Among various sustainable processes, the magnetic
pulse welding (MPW) is gaining popularity over the years due
to its ability of joining two similar/dissimilar metals using the
electromagnetic forces. Past studies extensively reported the
use of experiments but limited numerical modeling based on
finite element analysis for studying the quality of the weld
with respect to individual and/or combined effect of impact
velocity, impact angle, current, frequency, and electromagnet-
ic force distribution. One such important application of this
process is in the refrigerant tube where determining the de-
sired Al/Cu joint length is essential. It was noticed that the
extensive studies were done for selecting the desired joint
length along the circumferential direction under specific ma-
terials, while very limited studies were carried on the joint
length along the longitudinal direction. Therefore, the present
work introduces the experimental and numerical framework
based on genetic programming (GP) to measure and quantify
the joint length along the longitudinal direction for refrigerant
tube as a function of the gap between coil and outer tube,
positions of the tube and impact angle. Further, the perfor-
mance of the three complexity terms used in objective func-
tions of GP was investigated in the formation of joint length
models. The main and interactive relationships between the
* Biranchi Panda
biranchipanda@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
1
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Shantou University,
Shantou 515063, China
2
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa,
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1040-001 Lisboa, Portugal
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalinga Institute of
Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar 751024, India
joint length and gap between coil and outer tube, positions of
the tube, and impact angle are revealed. The experiment find-
ings, model formulation, and the relationships of joint length
will assist experts in monitoring the MPW effectively to obtain
a high quality weld characteristic.
Keywords Magnetic pulse welding . Environmental .
Sustainable manufacturing . Joint length . Genetic
programming
1 Introduction
The development of newer sustainable manufacturing processes
including the hybrid machining, magnetic finishing processes,
incremental sheet forming processes, magnetic welding process-
es, etc. reveals the mood of developing economies shifting to-
wards cleaner production in view of rising energy costs and
shortage of materials [1]. The ways of the efficient use of energy
and materials are widely explored [2]. Among these processes,
the process based on joining two similar/dissimilar metals is
widely deployed in the manufacturing operations [1].
Environmental-friendly magnetic pulse welding (MPW) process
(Fig. 1) is widely used because it uses the cleanest form of
driving electromagnetic forces to join two dissimilar materials
and, thus, enabling the manufacturers to have the greater advan-
tage and flexibility of combining the lower cost, higher strength,
and light weight dissimilar materials [3, 4]. This advantage of
MPW process significantly improves the product designs and
productivity of the process [3]. Unlike conventional welding
process, it does not melt the interface of materials and, therefore,
is free from pollutant emissions in the form of fume, spatter, and
heat [5]. Because of these peculiar advantages of MPW, it has
diversified applications in nuclear [6], automobile [7], electrical
and electronics [8, 9], and construction industry [10].
2416
Before Impact
Magnetic coil
Actuator
Outer tube
Inner tube
Eddy current
Electric current
Magnetic field
pressure
Fig. 1 Phenomenon of magnetic pulse welding process
MPW, solid-state welding process, joins the dissimilar ma-
terials by the magnetic pressure impact created due to strong
electromagnetic forces between the coils and the materials [5,
11]. Thus, it is a non-contact technique and results in the
formation of solid-state cold weld. There are many factors
such as input current, coil design, positions of the tube, impact
velocity, standoff distance, gap between the coil and outer
tube, voltage, and impact angle, that have impact on the qual-
ity of weld joint [1]. Literature studies extensively based on
the experiments have been conducted to investigate the effect
of these factors on weldment quality such as structural
strength or the joint length [1, 12–15]. This objective of the
experiment was to study the physics of the process, phenom-
enon at the weld interface, and investigate any metallurgical
effect on weldment [16–21]. Many studies [16–18] pointed
out that the temperature at the weldment is lower than the
melting point temperature of the materials or is not high
enough to bind the two metals/tubes and forms the microstruc-
ture or intermetallic compounds [19, 20]. This is also true
because MPW process uses the magnetic pressure and not
the heat to bind tubes and sheet metals [17]. However, recent-
ly, Raoelison [22] demonstrated the properties of weld at the
interface of dissimilar materials on Al-Cu using the experi-
mental procedure. An intermetallic compound was observed
at the interface consisting of pores and cracks in several direc-
tions. The reasons attributed to this porous intermetallic sur-
face were found to be cavitation. Studies were also conducted
to examine the structural strength of the weld, and it was found
that the weldment yield higher strength from MPW [23].
Mechanical testing done on the weld reveals that the failure
occurs in the main metal and not the weld interface [23]. The
inputs such as standoff distance, coil dimensions, and
discharged voltage were found to be vital in determining the
structural strength of weldment [14, 24]. Enough distance
should be allowed between the flying metal and the targeted
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426
After Impact
Solid-state cold
weld
induced
metal so that it attains sufficient velocity and kinetic energy
before it strikes the target metal [14]. Similarly, discharge
voltage supplied the necessary current which supplies energy
to the weldment in the form of joule heat [24].
Besides the experimental studies, the numerical investiga-
tion based on finite element analysis (FEA) were conducted to
perform the electromagnetic field analysis for the accurate
prediction of discharged current, frequency, dimensions of
coil, and materials. MPW is a complex phenomenon which
requires the coupling of the electromagnetic and structural
models [1]. A study by Casalino and Ludovico [25] did
FEA to generate the temperature distribution along the weld-
ment and studied the effect of varying input parameters on the
quality of weld. A numerical study by Shim et al. [26] was
conducted to develop a model for predicting the electromag-
netic force distribution that can reduce the coil deformation
and improve its lifetime. Studies on developing the model for
estimating the new coil design for improving its geometrical,
thermal, and load-carrying capacity was suggested [27]. A
combined experimental and numerical approach by Elsen
et al. [28] was performed to study the formation of solid-
state cold weld in the interface. Wavy type characteristics were
observed at the mating interface of the two metals. It was also
found that the impact velocity and impact angle contribute
maximum to the formation of cold weld.
The past studies summarize that the main focus of research
was to analyze the MPW process by experiments or the
numerical-based FEA approach. The experiments are useful
for studying the physics of the problem and finding the im-
portant effect of each input on the quality of weld [1]. The
important inputs identified from the literature studies were
voltage, electromagnetic force, gap between the materials, coil
dimensions, and the materials dimensions. On the other hand,
FEA provides an alternative source to experiments for validat-
ing the experimental findings. The quality of the weld has
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426
been studied for several materials along the circumferential
direction of magnetic force [5]. However, the life span of the
joint is determined by the quality of weld along the longitudi-
nal direction. The quality of weld or the joint length is deter-
mined by the selection of optimum relevant input variables. In
this context, the present work will explore the ability of the
evolutionary algorithm of genetic programming (GP) in
performing the task of formulating the decision support
models for joint length. The potential advantage of using GP
is that it uses the minimal information (only the data) about the
nature of the process and can provide an explicit and general-
ized relationship for the input-output parameters [29–32]. The
decision support model for joint length can not only
extrapolate/predict but also suggest the precise selection of
process variables for the improvement of joint length.
Past quantitative studies [33–36] involving the applications
of GP in modeling of complex systems have reported that the
performance of the GP models including the search mecha-
nism for solutions, and convergence of the optimum solutions
depends on the complexity term used in its objective func-
tions. Thus, it will be interesting to explore the performance
of the complexity terms in the objective functions of GP in
evolving the generalized models.
Therefore, in this work, the experimental work followed by
an evolutionary algorithm of GP is applied to derive the func-
tion of the joint length of weld of Al-Cu metals with respect to
the three inputs (gap between the magnetic coil and outer tube
(mm), positions of the outer tube (mm), and the impact angle
(degree)). The procedure involving the experimentation plan-
ning and the modeling procedure of the joint length with re-
spect to the three inputs is shown in Fig. 2. The joint length of
Al-Cu weldment is evaluated first by performing the experi-
ments on the W-MPW machine of the WELMATE Co. Ltd.
Experimental procedure resulting in the data generation is
further input into the GP framework for the processing and
analysis. The three complexity terms such as number of
nodes, regression splines, and polynomial in the objective
function of the structural risk minimization principle (SRM)
[37] is used to investigate the generalization ability of the GP
models. In this way, the cross-validation and statistical
error metrics are used to validate the comparison of the
performance of complexity terms in SRM objective
function of the formulated GP models. The complexity
term in the objective function that gives the best perfor-
mance of the GP model is plotted against the experi-
mental data to determine its goodness of fit. The main
(2-D), interactive effect (3-D) relationships and the amount of
influence of each input are determined based on the sensitivity
and parametric approach. The information mined from the
statistical analysis and the sensitivity and the parametric ap-
proach will be useful for the manufacturing experts for the
effective monitoring of the MPW process resulting in higher
quality of weld and higher productivity.
2417
2 Experimental set-up of MPW
The complete set-up including the experimental proce-
dure for performing the MPW process on Al-Cu tubes
is referred from the work by Shim and Kang [5]. The
settings for the W-MPW machine used in this work are
kept the same which makes it easy for the comparison
of the model analysis. This machine was designed and
manufactured by WELMATE co Ltd [5] with maximum
charging capacity of 20 kV.
The setting for the MPW experiments includes the
charged voltage kept at 10 kV. The magnetic coil used
in the work for detecting the waveform is the Rogowski
coil. Workpieces used have specifications AA1070 for
the outer tube while C12200 for the inner tube.
Dimensions of the outer tube include a 0.70-mm thick-
ness, 110-mm length, and 4-mm radius. The inner tube
having a radius of 2.5 mm was used. For the joint of
tubes, the gap between the outer and inner was kept at
0.8 mm and an overlap distance of 10 mm. An emery paper
and acetone were used to remove any machine marks and
grease, respectively, from the tubes and prepared for experi-
mentation plan [5].
Experimentation plan for the input settings include the set-
tings of the energy source and the specimen as shown in
Table 1. For a given setting, a data sample was collected using
the micro-observation of joint length by measuring the wavy
pattern. In this way, a total of 40 samples were collected from
the study measuring different joint length based on the varying
the three inputs as given in Shim and Kang [5]. Figure 3a, b
shows the nature of joint length of the weldment of Al-Cu
materials with respect to the three inputs. Initially, 80 % of
the total samples are randomly selected for training and test-
ing. These samples are used in training and formulation of GP
models based on the three complexity terms. Further,
the validation of comparison of the GP models is done
by analyzing it on five randomly generated training and
testing data sets. This approach is followed so as to
remove the ambiguity of the selection of the training
data set for the effective training of the GP framework.
The statistical analysis comprising of the evaluation of error
metrics and parametric and sensitivity analysis on the best GP
models is then performed. In the following section, the details
of the GP is discussed in brief.
3 Evolutionary algorithm based on three complexity
terms
In this work an evolutionary algorithm based on genetic pro-
gramming (GP) [38] is used to analyze the MPW processed
data. GP algorithm takes the data of input–output form and
processes it to generate the functions representing the relation
2418 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426

Fig. 2 Procedure of
quantification of the joint length
of MPW process Magnetic Pulse
Welding Process Experiment
Set-Up Procedure

Input factors Evolutionary algorithm

(gap between Response
outer tube and (Joint
coil, positions length)
of outer tube,
impact angle)
of Genetic Programming
(GP) based on three GP based Joint
complexity terms of Length models
SRM objective function

Fitting Selection of best Statistical error

performance, 2-D, complexity term in metrics and cross-
3-D relationships SRM objective validation approach
and Dominant input function

between the output and the three inputs. Generally, these func-
tions are illustrated by the tree structures [31]. The framework
of this evolutionary algorithm is implemented in four steps
given as follows:
Step 1 Firstly, the elements of the terminal (three inputs of
MPW process) and the functional set (arithmetic op-
erations) is selected based on the problem given.
These are combined and a population of models is
generated. The population size is also preset by the
user.
Step 2 After the generation of initial population size, the
performance or the objective values of the models
is evaluated by the objective function structural risk
minimization (SRM).
The objective function in the SRM comprise of
the empirical error and the complexity term. The
complexity of the GP model can be measured by:
(a) Number of nodes of the GP tree
(b) Minimum polynomial order that best fits the
GP model
(c) Minimum number of basis functions that best fits the
GP model
Based on the trial-and-error approach, the polyno-
mial is chosen of the order in the range of 1 to 6 and
the number of basis functions in the range of 1 to 21
including the intercept term. The proposed complex-
ity measure is then incorporated into the widely used
regularized SRM objective function. By the incorpo-
ration of the complexity measure, new fitness func-
tions (Fnew) are thus formulated. Table 2 shows the
old and formulated (new) fitness functions, Fold and
Fnew, which uses the three criteria of complexity
measure: nodes of the tree (k), optimum order of
polynomial (r), and number of basis functions (b).
In Table 2, j equals to r or b depending upon the
complexity measuring criteria used, E is the mean
square error, SSE is the sum of square of error, m is
the GP model, n is the size of the training set, and σ is
the standard deviation of the additive noise. These
three complexities are designated by GP_n for
nodes, GP_b for basis functions and GP_r for poly-
nomial, respectively.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426 2419

Table 1 Experimental data from MPW process

Gap between the magnetic Positions of Impact angle Joint length

coil and outer tube (mm), the outer tube (degrees) (X3) (mm)
(mm) (X1) (mm) (X2)

2 −1 0 2.004174
2 1 6 0.00051
2 −1 6 0.294978
1.5 0 3 3.999962
1.5 0 −2 1.499984
1.5 0 3 3.999962
2 1 0 2.000463
1.5 0 3 3.999962
1.5 −1.7 3 5.000698
1 1 0 4.995684
0.7 0 3 7.000471
1 1 6 2.50422
2.3 0 3 0.499471
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
1.2 0 3 1.301768
1.2 −1.7 −2 3.278141
2.1 −1 0 2.909029
2.1 1 6 1.107217 Fig. 3 Line graph (a) and scatter matrix (b) showing the nature of joint
length with respect to three inputs
2.1 −1 6 1.401685
1.2 0 3 1.301768

The GP simulations are performed in MATLAB

Step 3 The next generation comprises of the children
models produced by genetic operations such as
crossover, reproduction, and mutation. The
crossover used is subtree crossover where a ran-
domly selected branch from one model is ex-
changed with randomly selected branch from
other models. The mutation used is subtree mu-
tation and reproduction allows the direct copy
of best performing individual with the lowest
fitness value into the next generation.
Step 4 The procedure allows generation of new popu-
lations and the generations continues as long as
the terminal criterion is not met. The termina-
tion criterion is the threshold error or the max-
imum number of iterations/runs (whichever is
achieved earlier) as designed by the user. If
none of the models in the population fit the criterion,
then the next generation is produced and continues
till the generations are over. The algorithm terminates
once the criterion is met.
R2010 with the parameters such as population size,
number of generations, depth of the tree, tournament
size, number of iterations set at 400, 120, 8, 6 and
10, respectively. The crossover, mutation, and direct re-
production probabilities are taken as 0.85, 0.1, and 0.05,
respectively. The bar graph shown in Fig. 4 reveals that
the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE, Eq. 1) cor-
responding to dataset 4 is minimum and therefore the
best GP models for all three complexities (Eqs. 6 to 8
in the appendix) based on this data set is selected. The
performance of these three best joint length based GP
models is discussed in Section 4.
Mean absolute percentage error ðMAPE Þ ð%Þ
 
1 X  Ai −M i 
¼  100 ð1Þ
n i  Ai 
where Mi is the value predicted by a model, and Yi is
the actual value of the output.
2420 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426

Table 2 Fitness functions and

their mathematical formula Fitness function Fold Fnew
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!!−1
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!!−1
s
SRM k   j LogðnjÞ
SSE k k Log ðknÞ SSE j j
n 1− n − n Log n þ 2n n 1− n − n Log n þ 2n

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 Performance analysis for joint length-based GP u N
uX
u
models for three complexities u jM i −Ai j2
t i¼1
Root mean square error ðRMSEÞ ¼ ð3Þ
In this section, the statistical performance of the three best GP N
models (Eqs. 6 to 8 in the appendix) for three complexity
terms, respectively, is discussed. In addition, the role of com-
plexity terms in the framework is discussed by comparing the MAPE þ RMSE
Multiobjective error ðMOÞ ¼ ð4Þ
error metrics and the size of the model evolved. The following R2
statistical metrics is used to evaluate the performance of the
joint length-based GP models against the actual data (Table 1)
jM i −Ai j
and from literature [5]. Relative error ð%Þ ¼  100 ð5Þ
Ai
 
Coefficient of determination R2
0 12 Table 3 shows the values of error metrics (R2, RMSE,
n    MAPE, and MO) of the joint length-based GP models
X
B Ai −Ai M i −M i C (GP_n, GP_b, and GP_r) on the training and testing data. It
B C
B C
¼ B vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi C
B i¼1
C ð2Þ clearly shows that all the three GP models is able to learn
u
B uX  n 2 X  n 2 C effectively because they have lower values of MAPE,
@t Ai −Ai M i −M i A RMSE, and MO and a higher value of R2. The performance
i¼1 i¼1 of all the three models on the testing data is also found to be

Fig. 4 Br graph showing data set

4 with the lowest MAPE of the
GP models for complexity. a
number of nodes (GP_n). b
Number of basis functions (GP_
b). c Order of polynomial (GP_r)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426 2421

Table 3 Statistical metrics of the three joint length models (GP_n, GP_b, GP_r)

Models R2 RMSE (%) MAPE (%) Multi-objective error (MO)

Training phase Testing phase Training phase Testing phase Training phase Testing phase Training phase Testing phase

Joint length (mm)

GP_n 0.95 0.89 0.34 0.88 3.10 14.65 3.62 17.44
GP_b 0.98 0.96 0.09 0.19 1.53 5.65 1.65 6.08
GP_r 0.96 0.92 0.17 0.28 2.9 11.45 3.19 12.75

Among the three models, the GP_b (shown in italic) based on having the same complexity as the number of basis functions of regression splines in the
SRM objective function has performed the best

satisfactory. However, among the three models, the GP model predictions obtained from the three models (GP_n,
(GP_b shown in italic in Table 3) based on having the same GP_r, and GP_b) do not differ significantly from the
complexity as the number of basis functions of regres- actual experimental values [5]. Figure 5 shows the com-
sion splines in the SRM objective function has per- parison of the accuracy based on MAPE and complexity
formed the best with the value of R2 of 0.97, close to (size of the model) for the three models. It is clear that
its ideal value of 1. Between the GP model having the GP model having a complexity as number of nodes
complexity as number of nodes (GP_n) and the GP have performed poorer among the three models with the
model having complexity of minimal order of the poly- number of nodes of the model tree as high as 75. The
nomial (GP_r), the GP_r model has shown better per- GP model having a complexity as number of basis
formance on the testing data because the values of co- functions of splines has performed the best among the
efficient of determination are higher and have lower three models with a complexity of only six basis func-
values for MAPE, RMSE, and MO when compared to tions is achieved.
the GP_r. Table 4 shows that the actual and predicted From above, it is clear that the GP model (GP_b)
joint length values from the three models. From this, having a complexity as number of basis functions of
Table 4, it is found that the GP_b has performed the splines has performed the best. Figure 6a shows the
best among the three models. Between GP_r and GP_n, curve fitting of the GP_b model with respect to the
GP_r has shown better performance with values close to training data and the testing data. The curve shows the
the experimental data. Goodness of fit (hypothesis) tests accurate fitting behavior of the GP_b model in the over-
(t test for mean and f test for variance) have been con- all data. This is also justified by the high correlation
ducted to verify if the predictions of joint length obtain- values achieved for the GP_b model. Figure 6b shows
ed from the three models is significantly close to the the statistical distribution of the GP_b model. It shows
actual values or not. Table 5 shows that p values for all that the variations (mean, median, maximum and mini-
the three models is >0.05, which justify that the mum) of the training and testing relative error is quite
low.
Thus, the statistical analysis reveals that the GP model hav-
Table 4 Actual and model values obtained from three models (GP_n, ing the number of basis functions as its complexity is able to
GP_b, GP_r) generalize the joint length values satisfactorily based on the
three inputs. In the following section, the main (2-D plots)
No. Actual (mm) GP_n (mm) GP_b (mm) GP_r (mm)
and interactive (3-D plots) effects on the joint length of
1 3.27 3.38 3.31 3.46 Al-Cu weldment is revealed by performing the sensitivity and
2 2.90 3.14 2.96 2.68 parametric procedure.
3 1.10 0.82 1.20 0.94
4 1.40 1.16 1.33 1.17 Table 5 Goodness of fitness tests of the three joint length models
5 3.65 3.91 3.70 3.76 (GP_n, GP_b, GP_r)
6 2.22 2.07 2.21 2.28
95% CI p values
7 5.61 5.77 5.65 5.54
GP_n GP_b GP_r
8 3.80 3.71 3.88 3.81
9 4.09 4.06 4.01 4.03 Mean paired t test 0.46 0.67 0.52
10 7.09 6.60 7.10 7.47 Variance F test 0.60 0.92 0.83
2422
Fig. 5 Complexity and MAPE of the proposed GP models (GP_n,
GP_b, GP_r)
5 2-D and 3-D plots for the main and interaction
effect from the GP-based joint length model
To measure the individual and the interaction effects of the three
inputs (gap between the magnetic coil and outer tube (mm),
positions of the outer tube (mm), and impact angle (degree))
on joint length, the GP based-joint length model (GP_b) is
analyzed by adopting the parametric and sensitivity procedure.
The mathematical formulas and the notations used in the para-
metric and sensitivity analysis is discussed in Garg et al. [31].
To evaluate the main effects of each input, the three inputs
are varied from their minimum to their maximum values. For
the main effect of the first input, the first input is only varied
while the other two inputs are kept at their mean values. The
joint length values are then computed from the GP model
(GP_b) using the values of these given inputs. In this way,
this procedure when repeated for each of the three inputs, it
results in generation of the 2-D plots (Fig. 7a). Figure 7a
Fig. 6 a Curve fitting of the GP_b model on the data set. b Statistical distribution of relative error of the GP_b model of training and testing data set
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426
illustrates the main effect of each of the input on the joint
length computed from the GP_b model. It clearly shows that
the joint length behaves highly non-linear with respect to the
X1 and X3, where X1 and X3 are the gap between the mag-
netic coil and the outer tube and impact angle respectively.
There was hardly any change in joint length noticed with
respect to the positions of the outer tube (X2). The interaction
effect between the two inputs on the joint length is evaluated
by varying the two inputs at one time while keeping the other
fixed at its mean value. This procedure is same for measuring
the individual effects except that in this, the two input combi-
nation is chosen and varied. The interactive procedure based
on the parametric analysis approach results in 3-D plots
(Fig. 7b). Figure 7b shows that the combined effect of the
gap between the magnetic coil and the outer tube (X1), and
the impact angle (X3) produces the highest variations in joint
length of the AL-Cu weldment followed by the combined
effect of pairs ((impact angle (X3) and positions of the outer
tube (X2)) and (positions of the outer tube (X2) and gap be-
tween magnetic coil and outer tube (X1))). The variations are
indicated by the computing the number of peaks in Fig. 7b.
Further, the sensitivity analysis (Fig. 8) measuring the
amount of impact of inputs on the joint length is conducted
on the GP model (GP_b). This is done by finding the maxi-
mum and minimum from 2-D plots (Fig. 7a) and counting the
number of peaks from 3-D plots (Fig. 7b). It is found from
Fig. 8 that the gap between the magnetic coil and outer tube
(X1) influences the joint length the most, followed by the
impact angle (X3) and gap between the magnetic coil and
outer tube (X2). This interpretation from the sensitivity anal-
ysis is also in line with the findings from the parametric anal-
ysis. Thus, based on this analysis appropriate values of the gap
between the magnetic coil and outer tube can be selected that
can result in the desired joint length for Al-Cu weldment
interface.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426 2423

Fig. 7 2-D and 3-D plots showing the relationships of the joint length of the weldment with respect to each of the input
2424 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426

having complexity equal to the number of basis functions

Fig. 8 Percentage contribution of the three inputs to the joint length
6 Conclusion
This work emphasizes the need of studying the sustainable
manufacturing processes in the context of promoting the
cleaner production and environment. In this work, the
environmental-friendly MPW process is chosen and the mo-
tivation of studying the joint length along the longitudinal
direction of the Al-Cu tubes based on the three inputs (gap
between the magnetic coil and outer tube, positions of the
outer tube, and impact angle) is highlighted. An evolutionary
algorithm framework based on GP is proposed for forming
decision support models for joint length. Further, the perfor-
mance of the three complexity terms (number of nodes, num-
ber of basis functions of the splines, and the minimal order of
the polynomial) in SRM objective function is investigated in
the formation of these models. Statistical analysis based on the
cross-validation approach and error metrics of the three GP
models (GP_n, GP_b and GP_r) concludes that the GP model
(GP_b) have performed the best followed by GP models hav-
ing complexity as order of the polynomial (GP_r) and the
number of nodes (GP_n). This is because the splines known
for fitting the data based on piece-wise cubic functions have
higher tendency of fitting than the order of polynomial where
the degree/order of the polynomial function is fixed. This can
be the reason that the GP model having the number of basis
functions of the splines as a complexity measure performs
better when compared to other complexity terms. On the other
hand, the number of nodes is not an accurate measure.
Because if this is true, then Sin (x) and –x should have same
complexity, but it is different. Thus, the GP model formulated
using the number of basis functions in the SRM objective
function improves its search mechanism and gives a better
generalization ability of the joint length. This GP model based
on splines in SRM objective function can be used by experts
offline to determine the joint length of Al-Cu based on the
three inputs and make expert decisions. It was also found that
the gap between the magnetic coil and the outer tube influ-
ences the joint length the most, followed by the impact angle
and positions of the outer tube. The analysis based on 2-D and
3-D plots concludes that there is high non-linear interaction
effect between the gap between the magnetic coil and the outer
tube and the impact angle. Future work for authors is to in-
clude additional parameters of electromagnetic coil such as
current, inductance, discharged voltage, and coil design
in the study. The performance of the proposed GP can
be further compared to those of advanced neural net-
works [39–45] and any empirical differences can be
further evaluated.

Appendix

   
Joint LengthGP n ðmmÞ ¼ 65:191 þ ð−40:1905Þ*ðtanhðsinðx3ÞÞÞ þ ð−54:063Þ* tanh sin ðx1Þ−ðplogððsinðx1ÞÞ*ðx1ÞÞÞ

þ ð0:86177Þ*ððcosðsinðx1ÞÞÞ−ðx3ÞÞ þ ð33:9749Þ*ðsinðx3ÞÞ þ ð−20:1762Þ*ðcosðcosðx1ÞÞÞ

   ð6Þ
þ ð−5:4853Þ* tanh ðexpðcosðexpððx1Þ*ðx3ÞÞÞÞÞ−ðcosðcosðcosðtanhðx1ÞÞÞÞÞ
   
þ ð0:48901Þ* ðcosðcosðcosðcosðx3ÞÞÞÞÞ* ðx2Þ* ðtanðtanhðx1ÞÞÞ*ðplogðcosððx1Þ*ðx3ÞÞÞÞ

Joint LengthGP b ðmmÞ ¼ 22:0937*cosðtanðtanhðexpðx1*x3ÞÞÞÞ − 3:7504*cosðexpðx1*x3ÞÞ

− 63:8897*tanhðcosðtanhðcosðx1ÞÞÞÞ þ 12:5506*tanhðtanhðx1*x3ÞÞ
ð7Þ
− 0:69249*tanðtanhðtanðplogðplogðx3ÞÞÞÞÞ−3:3523*tanhðexpðx1 − 1:0*tanðx1ÞÞÞ

þ 0:74945*x2*plogðtanðsinðx2Þ þ tanðx2ÞÞÞ þ 41:0496

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426
Joint LengthGP r ðmmÞ ¼ 19:76 þ ð0:61576Þ*ðexpððx1Þ*ðtanðplogðx1ÞÞÞÞÞ þ ð−5:4752Þ*ðx1Þ þ ð0:038913Þ*ððx1Þ*ðexpðtanðx3ÞÞÞÞ
þ ð−0:38694Þ*ðx2Þ þ ð−4:1686Þ*ðcosðexpððx1Þ*ðx3ÞÞÞÞ þ ð0:29899Þ*ðtanhðtanðx2ÞÞÞ
þ ð3:2721Þ*ðððð5:902018ÞÞ*ðtanðð5:902018ÞÞÞÞ−ðplogðtanðplogðtanðx3ÞÞÞÞ
References
1. Kapil A, Sharma A (2015) Magnetic pulse welding: an efficient and
environmentally friendly multi-material joining technique. J Clean
Prod 100:35–58
2. Velchev S, Kolev I, Ivanov K, Gechevski S (2014) Empirical
models for specific energy consumption and optimization of cutting
parameters for minimizing energy consumption during turning. J
Clean Prod 80:139–149
3. Raoelison RN, Buiron N, Rachik M, Haye D, Franz G,
Habak M (2013) Study of the elaboration of a practical
weldability window in magnetic pulse welding. J Mater Process
Technol 213:1348–e1354
4. Jassim AK (2011) Comparison of magnetic pulse welding with
other welding methods. J Energy Power Eng 5:1173e1178
5. Shim JY and Kang, BY (2015) Selection of optimal process vari-
ables for improving the Al/Cu joint length in magnetic pulse
welding. Int J Eng Sci Innov Technol (IJESIT) 4(2)
6. Tomas BMC (2010) Magnetic pulse welding MPW (PhD thesis).
Universidade Nova de Lisboa; Lisbon
7. Kastensson A (2014) Developing lightweight concepts in the auto-
motive industry: taking on the environmental challenge with the
SaNatt project. J Clean Prod 66:337–e346
8. Mori KI, Bay N, Fratini L, Micari F, Tekkaya AE (2013) Joining by
plastic deformation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 62:673–e694
9. Aizawa T, Okogawa K, Kashani M (2013) Application of magnetic
pulse welding technique for flexible printed circuit boards (FPCB)
lap joints. J Mater Process Technol 213:1095–e1102
10. Kochan A (2000) Magnetic pulse welding shows potential for au-
tomotive appli-cations. Assem Autom 20(2):129–e131
11. Zhang P (2009) Joining enabled by high velocity deformation. The
Ohio state university (Ph.D. thesis)
12. Zhang P, Kimchi M, Shao H, Gould JE, Daehn GS (2004) Analysis
of the electromagnetic impulse joining process with a field concen-
trator. Numiform 712:1253–e1258
13. Okagawa K, Aizawa T (2004) Impact seam welding with magnetic
pressure for aluminum sheets. Mater Sci Forum 465:231–236
14. Aizawa T, Kashani M (2014) Experimental and numerical study on
magnetic pulse welding to improving the life time of one-turn flat
coil. In: Proc. Int. Symposium on Interfacial Joining and Surface
Technology (IJST2013), IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, p. 61. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/61/1/012028
15. Kore SD, Date PP, Kulkarni SV, Kumar S, Kulkarni MR, Desai SV,
Rajawat RK, Nagesh KV, Chakravarty DP (2009) Electromagnetic
impact welding of Al-to-AleLi sheets. J Manuf Sci E e Trans
ASME 131:1–e4
16. Shribman V, Tomer Y (2006) Magnetic pulse technology for im-
proved tube joining and forming. Tube Pipe Technol 91-e95
17. Brown WF, Bandas J and Olson NT (1978) Pulsed magnetic
welding of breeder reactor fuel pin end closures. Trans Am Nucl
Soc (United States), 30(CONF-7811109-)
18. Uhlmann E, Ziefle A (2010) Modelling pulse magnetic welding
processes–an empirical approach. 4th International Conference on
High Speed Forming, Columbus, pp 108–116
2425
ð8Þ
19. Serizawa H, Shibahara I, Rashed S, Murakawa H (2009) Numerical
study of joining process in magnetic pressure seam welding. Trans
JWRI 38(1):63–68
20. Kore SD, Imbert J, Worswick MJ, Zhou Y (2009) Electromagnetic
impact welding of Mg to Al sheets. Sci Technol Weld Join 14(6):
549–553
21. Wu X, Shang J (2014) An investigation of magnetic pulse
welding of Al/Cu and interface characterization. J Manuf Sci
Eng 136(5):051002
22. Raoelison RN, Racine D, Zhang Z, Buiron N, Marceau D, Rachik
M (2014) Magnetic pulse welding: interface of Al/Cu joint and
investigation of intermetallic formation effect on the weld features.
J Manuf Process 16(4):427–434
23. Psyk V, Risch D, Kinsey BL, Tekkaya AE, Kleiner M (2011)
Electromagnetic forming—a review. J Mater Process Technol
211(5):787–829
24. Kore SD, Date PP, Kulkarni SV (2007) Effect of process parameters
on electromagnetic impact welding of aluminum sheets. Int J
Impact Eng 34(8):1327–1341
25. Casalino G, Ludovico AD (2008) Finite element simulation of high
speed pulse welding of high specific strength metal alloys. J Mater
Process Technol 197(1):301–305
26. Shim JY, Kang BY, Kim IS, Kang MJ, Park DH, Kim IJ (2010) A
study on distributions of electromagnetic force of the dissimilar
metal joining in MPW using a FEM. Adv Mater Res 83:214–221
27. Zaitov O, Kolchuzhin VA (2014) Bitter coil design methodology
for electromagnetic pulse metal processing techniques. J Manuf
Process 16(4):551–562
28. Elsen A, Groche P, Ludwig M, Schaefer R (2010) Fundamentals of
EMPT-welding
29. Garg A, Lam JSL (2015) Improving environmental sustainability
by formulation of generalized power consumption models using an
ensemble evolutionary approach. J Clean Prod 102:246–263
30. Garg A, Lam JSL, Gao L (2015) Energy conservation in
manufacturing operations: modelling the milling process by
a new complexity-based evolutionary approach. J Clean Prod.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.043
31. Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Lam JSL, Singru MP, Gao L (2015) A
molecular simulation based computational intelligence study of a
nano-machining process with implications on its environmental
performance. Swarm Evol Comput 21:54–63
32. Baykasoğlu A, Özbakır L (2015) Discovering task assignment rules
for assembly line balancing via genetic programming. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 76(1–4):417–434
33. Saeidi S, Solimanpur M, Mahdavi I, Javadian N (2014) A multi-
objective genetic algorithm for solving cell formation problem
using a fuzzy goal programming approach. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 70(9–12):1635–1652
34. Garg A, Lam JSL, Savalani MM (2015) A new computational
intelligence approach in formulation of functional relationship of
open porosity of the additive manufacturing process. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 80(1–4):555–565
35. Garg A, Lam JSL and Savalani MM (2015) Energy component in
the density of selective laser melting fabricated prototype. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 1–9 Doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-8162-3
2426
36. Griffin J (2014) The prediction of profile deviations when creep
feed grinding complex geometrical features by use of neural net-
works and genetic programming with real-time simulation. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 74(1–4):1–16
37. Vapnik V (1992) Principles of risk minimization for learning theory.
In: Advances in neural information processing systems 831–838
38. Koza JR (1994) Genetic programming II: automatic discovery of
reusable programs. MIT USA
39. Zhao D, Ni W, Zhu Q (2014) A framework of neural networks
based consensus control for multiple robotic manipulators.
Neurocomputing 140:8–18
40. Zhao D, Zhu Q, Li N, Li S (2014) Synchronized control with neuro-
agents for leader-follower based multiple robotic manipulators.
Neurocomputing 124:149–161
41. Zhao D, Zhu Q, Dubbeldam J (2015) Terminal sliding mode control
for continuous stirred tank reactor. Chem Eng Res Des 94:266–274
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 87:2415–2426
42. Panda BN, Babhubalendruni MR, Biswal BB, Rajput DS (2015)
Application of Artificial Intelligence Methods to Spot Welding of
Commercial Aluminum Sheets (BS 1050). In Proceedings of
Fourth International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem
Solving. Springer, India, pp. 21–32
43. Panda BN, Bahubalendruni MR, Biswal BB (2014) Comparative
evaluation of optimization algorithms at training of genetic pro-
gramming for tensile strength prediction of FDM processed part.
Procedia Materials Science 5:2250–2257
44. Panda BN, Garg A, Shankhwar K (2016) Empirical investigation of
environmental characteristic of 3-D additive manufacturing process
based on slice thickness and part orientation. Measurement 86:293–
300
45. Panda B, Bahubalendruni MR, Biswal BB (2015) A general regres-
sion neural network approach for the evaluation of compressive
strength of FDM prototypes. Neural Comput & Applic 26(5):
1129–1136