Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

45th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference, NAMRC 45, LA, USA

Experimental Determination of the Effective Viscosity of

Plasticized Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 during Friction Stir Welding
Daniel J. Frankea, Justin D. Morrowa, Michael R. Zinna, Neil A. Duffiea, and Frank E.
Pfefferkorna *
a
University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI 53706, United States

Abstract

Friction stir forming (FSF) refers the process variant of friction stir welding (FSW) where a joint is achieved through the creation
of mechanical interlocking between two constituents by plasticizing one material through the use of the FSW process and in turn
forcing said material to flow into the second material. In order to increase the understanding of material flow within this process,
a method of quantifying the plasticity of flowing material during the FSF process is needed. A method is proposed in which a
capillary hole is drilled into a backing plate used for FSW, and material is extruded through the capillary during processing. The
flow of material is characterized and related back to an effective viscosity using the models that form the basis of a capillary
rheometer. Initial testing shows promising agreements with CFD simulations of the FSW process (effective viscosity values
within the range of 105 to 5×106 Pa-s). Furthermore, a promising initial agreement is shown when using effective viscosity values
determined from the capillary method in a previously derived model that describes the infiltration for carbon fiber with
plasticized aluminum produced by the FSW/FSF process.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review underresponsibility
responsibility of the
of the Scientific
organizing Committee
committee of theof45th
NAMRI/SME.
SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference

Keywords: Friction Stir Forming; Effective Viscosity; Dissimilar Joining; Aluminum;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-608-263-2668

E-mail address: frank.pfefferkorn@wisc.edu

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 45th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.050
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 219

1. Introduction

Friction stir welding (FSW) is a solid-state joining process developed at The Welding Institute in 1991 [1].
During FSW, metallic components are plastically deformed and mechanically intermixed under high pressure and
elevated temperature. A specifically designed non-consumable friction stir tool rotates and plunges into the base
material. Initially, the tool generates heat through friction, which facilitates plastic deformation of the workpiece
material. Once plastic deformation occurs, heat is generated by both friction and heat dissipation due to plastic
deformation. The tool traverses along the joint path intermixing the constituents by forcing the plasticized material to
flow around the tool. Significant research has shown that FSW can be used as an energy efficient method of creating
high-quality joints in lightweight alloys such as aluminum and magnesium [1-3].
The joining of dissimilar materials is one area where the FSW process excels. A variant of FSW referred to as
friction stir forming (FSF) is an interesting application developed specifically for the joining of dissimilar materials.
Nishihara [4, 5] describes the development of the FSF process. FSF involves plasticizing one material using the
FSW process, and extruding that plasticized material into geometries cut into the surface of the other material to
create mechanical interlocking between the two dissimilar materials. This process has been most widely studied in
terms of joining aluminum to steel, but can be applied to any two dissimilar materials as long as one is receptive to
the FSW process and the other is harder and has a higher melting temperature. Lazarevic et al. [6] used a pinless
friction stir spot welding (FSSW) tool to plasticize an aluminum component and in turn forced the aluminum to flow
into holes drilled within a steel component. The study examined the effect of the number of holes and the role of the
intermetallic compound on the resultant strength. Ahuja et al. [7] examined the use of FSF to encase tungsten blocks
within copper to form a tungsten-copper composite. Evans et al. [8] examined the process of cutting different shaped
grooves into a steel plate, then in the lap joint configuration, friction stir welding within the aluminum plate above
the groove to extrude material into the steel. It was determined that changing the tool and profile of the groove
altered the resulting strength of the joint. Evans et al. [9] also examined a method of applying an FSSW process to
both sides of a joint that consisted of two aluminum sheets sandwiching a steel sheet (with through holes) in the
center. The key to a successful joint was assuring that the plasticized aluminum flowing from each side of the hole
consolidated in the middle of the steel layer generating a riveting effect. The friction stir process has also been used
to introduce mechanical interlocking between dissimilar materials through the process known as friction stir blind
riveting (FSBR) [10-13]. This process is similar to FSF in that the friction stir process is used to generate a riveting
effect, but different in that it uses an actual rivets whereas FSF uses the base material.
One area of interest to the authors is utilizing a concept similar to FSF to join aluminum to a carbon fiber
composite by extruding the plasticized aluminum produced by FSW around carbon fibers to form mechanical
interlocking between the aluminum and fibers. Franke et al. [14] lay out the framework for examining the process of
aluminum flowing around carbon fibers. The authors showed that a model developed for describing the infiltration
of carbon fibers with epoxy resins during resin transfer molding also appears to describe the infiltration of carbon
fibers with plasticized aluminum produced by FSW. One key term in the model is the effective viscosity of the
plasticized aluminum. Values of effective viscosity were taken from CFD simulations of the FSW process found in
literature. The analysis of the effective viscosity in such literature is limited since it is not the main focus of such
studies. Therefore, the focus of this study is to explore the effective viscosity of plasticized aluminum produced by
the FSW process and to develop a simple experimental method to quantify the plasticity of the material. Such a
technique would have direct application in the situation of modeling the flow around carbon fibers and could be
useful in understanding the growing area of friction stir forming where plasticized aluminum is extruded into
geometries to create mechanical interlocking.
FSW is a solid-state process, meaning the bulk material remains below the solidus temperature. However,
localized melting can occur, usually when eutectics form. There is a long history of modeling the solid-state flow of
the material during the process as a fluid. He et al. [15] have prepared a comprehensive review of recent progress in
modeling material flow in FSW numerically. The majority of studies are multiphysics models that use a combination
of computational solid mechanics (CSM) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Many different constitutive
equations have been applied to the simulation of the FSW process. Nourani et al. [16] have provided a review and
comparison of several different constitutive equations. There appears to be a trend toward using the Perzyna model
of dynamic viscosity with temperature compensated flow stress determined from the Zener-Hollomon model of
220 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

viscoplasticity. This involves modelling the material as a non-Newtonian viscoplastic fluid with strain rate and
temperature dependent viscosity [17]. The most descriptive numerical simulation studies, specifically in terms of the
effective viscosity of aluminum 6061 during FSW, were performed by Crawford et al. [18], Arora et al. [19], and
Nandan et al. [20]. All three studies used the Zener-Hollomon and Perzyna models to calculate values of the
effective viscosity of aluminum 6061 during FSW. At varying parameters, all viscosity values fell within the range
of 104 to 107 Pa-s. The most descriptive study performed by Nandan et al., comprised of specific welding parameters
of a tool rotational rate of 637 rpm and a traverse rate of 95 mm/min. The study showed viscosity values changing
from 105 to 5×106 Pa-s as a function of distance from the tool with lower viscosity closer to the tool and an increase
in viscosity further away from the tool. Moving further away from the tool will eventually result in solid material at
the edge of the stir zone (infinite viscosity). Effective viscosity values for the plasticized material at the edge of the
stirred zone were taken from this range found in the literature (106 to 107 Pa-s) and used in the fiber infiltration
model, agreeing with experimental measurements of fibers infiltrated with plasticized aluminum produced by FSW
[14].
The utilization the fiber infiltration model as a predictive tool relies on the development of a tool to examine how
the plasticity of the material changes as a function of FSW process parameters (rotational and traverse rate), and as a
function of distance below the tool probe. Limited experimental work has focused on the effective viscosity of
material flow during FSW. North et al. [21] performed plunge testing similar to viscosity testing performed with
polymers, except with a steel pin plunging into aluminum alloy 6061. The viscosity was calculated based on a
similar principle used for most rotary viscometers, which involves using the relationship of the input power, angular
velocity, and dimensions of the cylinder of flowing material. This gives a bulk measurement of viscosity during the
plunging process. The goal of the present work is to experimentally estimate the effective viscosity during the actual
process of friction stir welding and at different locations below the tool. A simple method of estimating the effective
viscosity has potential to quantify how changes in the friction stir welding process (different welding
parameters/different tools) affect the plasticity of the material, and thus how it will flow into different geometries
during the friction stir forming process. It also has potential as a partial validation of CFD simulations of the FSW
process.

Nomenclature

CFD computational fluid dynamics

CSM computational solid mechanics
Ș apparent effective viscosity
FSW friction stir welding
FSF friction stir forming
FSSW friction stir spot welding
FSBR friction stir blind riveting
ߛሶ shear rate
ID interface distance (distance between bottom of probe and backing plate interface)
l contact length of capillary
P pressure drop across the capillary
Q volume flow rate
r radius of capillary
ıs flow stress
th thickness of the aluminum workpiece

2. Model

All The method of estimation of the effective viscosity relies on the basic principles of a capillary rheometer. A
capillary was created in the steel backing plate used for friction stir welding by drilling a specifically designed hole
in said backing plate. When aluminum is friction stir welded above this hole, the plasticized material is extruded
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 221

through the capillary. The flow of material is quantified and related back to an effective viscosity using the standard
equations of capillary flow. Morrison [22] lays out the equations used to describe capillary flow, along with the
typical corrections that are applied in a rheometer measurement process. The apparent rate of shear of the material
flowing through the capillary is described as:

4Q
J (1)
Sr 3
where ߛሶ is the shear rate, Q is the volumetric flow rate through the capillary, and r is the radius of the capillary.
The apparent shear stress is described as:

r
Vs P (2)
2l

where ı s is the flow stress, P is the pressure drop across the capillary, and l is the contact length of the capillary.
The apparent viscosity is then calculated based on the definition of viscosity:

Vs
K (3)
J

where Ș is the apparent viscosity. To improve the accuracy of rheometry measurements three corrections can be
applied. These corrections have to be applied in the following order. First, a correction for the slip at the wall is
applied (Mooney Analysis), which involves plotting the shear rate versus the inverse of the radius of the capillary
for experimental data with consistent shear stress. Second, accounting for the entrance and exit effects on the
process pressure (Bagley Analysis), this involves plotting pressure versus the contact length to radius ratio keeping
shear rate constant. The third correction involves accounting for the non-Newtonian nature of the velocity profile
(Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch Correction). Accurately modeling the corrections involves creating situations of
constant shear stress and constant shear rate while altering the variables used in the calculation of each correction.
Accomplishing this with the friction stir process is much more difficult than with an actual rheometer because it is
difficult to control the rate of flow and the applied pressure during the process. Future work will attempt to
incorporate the corrections (requires modifying experimental apparatus) in order to better capture the physics of the
process. In the case of the Mooney analysis, slip at the wall will result in additional frictional forces at the wall. The
magnitude and relevance of such a friction force can be estimated using the pressure applied to the system and a
representative coefficient of friction between the two materials. The effect of this friction on the flow of material
could be examined by altering the coefficient of friction by coating the capillary walls.
Plasticized material produced by the FSW process is most widely modeled as a viscoplastic fluid with an
effective viscosity that is temperature and shear rate dependent. The overarching assumption that allows for the use
of this capillary method is that the shear rate and temperature imparted by the FSW process defines the effective
viscosity of the material, and that the flow into the capillary is resultant of that plasticity imparted. During the FSW
extrusion process, there will be two shear rates, the shear rate imparted by the FS tool and the shear rate within the
capillary. In this work, it is assumed that the shear rate of the FSW process defines the effective viscosity and that
the shear rate within the capillary is resultant of that effective viscosity (flow rate into capillary is resultant of the
plasticity of material). Future work will examine how the shear rate within the capillary affects the plasticity of the
material within the capillary.
The challenge with implementing the capillary extrusion method (as a means to measure effective viscosity)
arises from the concept that the aluminum will start to lose its plasticity once it leaves the stir zone and flows into
the capillary where it begins to cool and is no longer sheared by the FS tool. To combat this effect, the contact
length of the capillary was limited in length to minimize heat loss due to heat conduction from the plasticized
aluminum pin to the walls of the capillary. A short contact length was created by drilling a larger diameter hole from
222 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

the bottom of the backing plate then a smaller diameter hole from the top of the backing plate. When welding over
the hole, plasticized material was extruded through the smaller hole, and in turn took the shape of a cylindrical pin
with the same diameter as that small hole. The process is depicted in Figure 1. An ideal capillary rheometer would
have a greater contact length to radius ratio in order to capture characteristics of the flow over a greater area. The
shorter capillary lengths used in this study due to the aforementioned plasticity constraint appear similar to an
extrusion die. Prior research has used these specific capillary flow equations to describe the flow through extrusion
dies with short aspect ratios [23]

Figure 1: Diagram of friction stir capillary extrusion process, th is the thickness of the plate (varied between 5.2 and 5.7 mm), ID is the interface
distance between the bottom of the probe and capillary interface (varied depending on plate thickness), l is the contact length of the capillary, and
r is the radius of the pin and capillary.

3. Method

3.1. Apparatus and Materials

The backing plate was constructed out of a mild steel plate with a width of 76 mm (3”), a length of 203 mm (8”),
and a thickness of 6.35 mm (1/4”). Three different size capillaries were drilled into the backing plate: 1.10 mm (#57
drill bit), 0.61 mm (#73 drill bit), and 0.47 mm (#78 drill bit) in diameter. These holes were specifically arranged
into three rows within the backing plate with six holes per row (two of each size). Each weld was performed over
one of the three rows to produce six data points for each weld. Holes were specifically arranged as shown in Table
1. Each capillary size was placed at each particular position in the row (1-6) in at least one of the rows in an attempt
to separate the effect of capillary size and the effect of position along the weld. The holes are spaced 15 mm on
center throughout each row. Larger diameter holes (3.3 mm) were drilled from the back side of the backing plate to
create shortened contact lengths. The contact lengths were randomized across the holes, varying between 0.1 mm
and 0.4 mm. Table 1 shows the contact length of each respective capillary. All values of diameter and contact length
were measured using a focus variation microscope (Alicona InfiniteFocus). FSW was performed in aluminum 6061-
T6 plates that are 104 mm (4”) wide and 203 (8”) long, and are machined to a specific thickness to alter the distance
from the bottom of the pin the FS tool to the backing plate where the capillary holes are located (interface distance,
Figure 1). Welding was performed on a commercial three-axis CNC mill (HAAS TM-1). An angled clamping
fixture was used to fixate the workpiece and backing plate and to allow for a constant 3-degree travel angle for all
welds. This fixture was mounted atop a three-axis piezoelectric force dynamometer (Kistler model 9285), which
measured the real-time welding forces. Electrical charges from the dynamometer were fed to charge amplifiers,
which in turn fed voltage signals that are linearized with respect to force to the data acquisition system (LabView).
The H13 tool steel FS tool is designed with a concave shoulder and conical threaded probe with three flats that
tapers from 7 mm in diameter down to 5 mm in diameter at the tip. The diameter of the FS tool shoulder is 15 mm
and the length of the probe is 5 mm.
Table 1: Capillary hole pattern for each row. The welding direction was in ascending order (Position 1 to 6).
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 223

Row 1 Row 2 Row 3

Position Capillary Contact Capillary Contact Capillary Contact
in Row Diameter, 2r length, l Diameter, 2r length, l Diameter, 2r length, l
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 1.10 0.36 0.47 0.18 0.61 0.28
2 0.61 0.27 0.47 0.26 1.10 0.10
3 1.10 0.44 0.61 0.34 0.47 0.23
4 0.47 0.28 0.61 0.37 1.10 0.10
5 0.61 0.25 1.10 0.30 0.47 0.22
6 0.47 0.24 1.10 0.31 0.61 0.25

3.2. Experimental Procedure

Welding in the first set of samples (Set 1) was performed at the same welding parameters as the simulation
performed by Nandan et al. (637 rpm rotational rate and 95 mm/min traverse rate). In order to vary the position
below the probe that the capillary interface resides at (position within the weld zone below the tool), aluminum
plates were machined to thicknesses ranging from 5.2 mm to 5.7 mm in increments of 0.1 mm, and within a
tolerance of ±0.03 mm. Three plates were machined to each thickness resulting in eighteen total samples. Three
welds were performed at each thickness, one for each of the three rows. The FS tool was centered on each particular
row for that particular sample. Each weld was 120 mm in length starting at 30 mm before the first hole to allow the
weld to reach steady state prior to arriving at the first capillary. The eighteen total welds were randomized in terms
of thickness and row. For each weld, a zero position was set in the axial plunge direction by first firmly clamping
the workpiece in place, placing a precision-ground gage block on top of the workpiece near the weld start position,
bringing the trailing edge of the FSW tool shoulder into contact with the gage block surface, and loading to a
defined preload of 20 N. Shoulder plunge depths of 0.2 mm at the center of the tool was commanded for each weld.
The commanded plunge depth is from the top of the aluminum workpiece. Therefore, a thicker workpiece will result
in a larger distance between the bottom of the probe and the interface of the steel backing plate (see Figure 1).
The second set of welds (Set 2) consisted of mimicking the parameters used by Franke et al. [14] to extrude
aluminum 6061-T6 around carbon fibers. Two combinations of welding parameters were used, 2500 rpm rotational
rate with a traverse rate of 50 mm/min and 1250 rpm rotational rate with a traverse rate of 25 mm/min. Two tests
were performed at each set of parameters, one test over row 1 of holes and another over row 2. Welds were
performed at the full plate thickness of 6.32 mm, with a commanded plunge depth of 0.3 mm, and with the same FS
tool used in [14].
Post-welding, the aluminum plate was separated from the steel backing plate by clamping the backing plate and
lightly tapping upward on the aluminum plate. This action straightened out any pins that are curled within the
backing plate. The length of each pin was measured using a caliper. In some cases, the longer pins created by the 1.1
mm hole are detached from the aluminum plate during separation. In this event, the separated pins are straightened
out and measured. Due to the compliance of the machine, the actual interface distance cannot be accurately
predicted from the plunge depth, pin length, and plate thickness. Therefore, sections of the exit hole were taken at
each plate thickness in order to measure the actual distance from the bottom of the probe (at the center of the probe)
to the backing plate interface. These distances were measured using focus-variation optical metrology (Alicona
InfiniteFocus G4). It was determined that a plate thickness of 5.2 mm and a plunge depth of 0.2 mm resulted in an
interface distance of 0.45 mm, and that increasing the plate thickness 0.1 mm increased the interface distance 0.1
mm. Therefore, thicknesses of 5.2-5.7 mm result in interface distances of 0.45-0.95 mm. One sample weld at each
interface distance was cross-sectioned, polished, and etched in order to determine the size of the stir zone at the
backing plate at each respective interface distance, as well as to determine the point at which the interface lies
outside the stir zone. Furthermore, cross-sections of welds performed at the 0.95 mm interface distance with the pins
still connected were polished and etched in order to examine the grain structure of the material flow into the pin. All
224 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

etching was performed using Poulton’s reagent (5 parts) with extra nitric acid (2 parts) and a chromic acid solution
(4 parts) that consist of 3 grams of chromic acid per 10 ml of water.

4. Results and Discussion

All Examples of the pins created during this process are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Figure 2 shows how larger
diameter capillaries result in a longer pin length (at same interface distance), which is consistent with expectations
based on the capillary flow equations. If the material is at the same effective viscosity, then more of it will flow
through a larger capillary.

Figure 2: Pins produced by welding above Row 1 with a plate thickness of 5.4 mm (weld Set 1). Welding direction is right to left.

Figure 3 shows pins created by the same capillary diameter but with three different plate thicknesses (different
interface distances). A clear trend of decreasing pin height with increased interface distance can be seen. Initially,
this observation supports the hypothesis that viscosity will increase as the position of the point of examination
moves further away from the bottom of the FS tool. This is due to the idea that material is flowing at a slower rate
further away from the tool, and that the viscosity is dependent on the strain rate (higher strain rate results in lower
viscosity).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3: Pin created by 0.61 mm diameter capillary for (a) 5.2 mm thick (0.45 mm interface distance) (b) 5.4 mm thick (0.65 mm
interface distance) and (c) 5.6 mm thick (0.85 mm interface distance) plate (all weld Set 1).

The variation in contact length is relatively small. Therefore, it had a relatively small effect on the length of pin
extruded, and in turn the viscosity measurement. Figure 4 shows the pins created by the two 1.1 mm diameter
capillaries from Row 1, one with a contact length of 0.36 mm (a) and one with a contact length of 0.44 mm (b).
After performing one weld over the two capillaries, the contact length of 0.36 mm resulted in a pin length of 9.7 mm
and the contact length of 0.44 resulted in a pin length of 9.2 mm. It’s expected that a longer capillary length will
resist the flow of material and produce a shorter pin. In this case, a variation of 0.08 mm in the contact length
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 225

resulted in a variation in pin length of approximately 0.5 mm, which is roughly five percent of the total length of the
pin. This was one of the larger variations in contact lengths examined between comparable diameters. The contact
lengths were purposely kept short and with small variances in this study. Future work will examine the effect of
larger changes in contact length in order to examine the effect of the secondary shearing process that the capillary
imparts upon the material.

(a) (b)
Figure 4: Pins created by the 1.1 mm diameter capillaries in Row 1 for a plate thickness of 5.4 mm (a) pin created by capillary with 0.36 mm
contact length (b) pin created by capillary with 0.44 mm contact length.

Several assumptions were made when calculating the effective viscosity using the capillary model. The volume
flow rate used in Equation 1 was calculated as the volume of the pin divided by the time of the extrusion process.
The volume of the pin was calculated from the length of the pin and the cross-sectional area of the pin (circle
defined by the diameter of a capillary). The time of extrusion was calculated from the traverse rate and a
characteristic length describing the width of the process over which the material is expected to extrude into the
capillary. These characteristic lengths were taken from the cross sections of the welds at each interface distance. The
characteristic length was defined as the average of the width of the stir zone at the bottom surface of the FS tool
probe tip and the length of the stir zone at the backing plate interface. An example of this is shown in Figure 5,
which shows the two distances for a weld with an interface distance of 0.45 mm. The two distances are averaged and
divided by the traverse rate (95 mm/min) resulting in 2.94 s of process time. At an interface distance of 0.55 mm,
the width of the stir zone at the interface is reduced leading to a reduced process time of 2.75 s. At interface
distances greater than 0.55 mm, the location of the bottommost surface of the stir zone is too close to the backing
plate interface to produce a meaningful characteristic length. Process times were taken to be 2.75 s for all interface
distances above 0.55 mm. The characteristic length is a meaningful metric only well within the stir zone. This length
is an approximation, as it is unknown exactly when the material will start to flow down into the capillary. If one
were to imagine the tool traveling left to right it would be expected that the flow of material will start somewhere
between the two points that bound the two lengths shown in Figure 5 on the right side, and then would stop between
the two points bounding the lengths on the opposite side of the stir zone. In Figure 5 the tool is traveling in the
direction perpendicular to the plane of the image (out of the image). Therefore, it must also be assumed that the
width of the stir zone is the same in the travel direction as it is perpendicular to the travel direction.
226 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

Figure 5: Cross section of weld performed at an interface distance of 0.45 mm used to determine the characteristic length over which material is
expected to flow into the capillary.

The pressure value used in equation 2 was approximated as the averaged steady state measured axial force
divided the axial area of the FS tool (area of a circle defined by FS tool shoulder). Axial forces ranged between
7,000 and 8,000 N depending on the weld, and the tool has an axial area of 1.767×10-4 m2. These values resulted in
pressures between 40 and 45 MPa. In the future, this approximation could be improved upon by numerically
simulating the local pressure under the FS tool probe at the backing plate. The rest of the values used in the
equations are length values that were measured directly (radius and contact length), a combination of all values leads
to an effective viscosity value for each pin. With six pins for eighteen samples, 108 viscosity values were calculated.
Another significant assumption that must be made when varying the interface distance is that placing the backing
plate interface further within the weld zone (effectively removing part of the weld zone) does not have a large effect
on the nature of the process within the weld zone that is being measured.
Initial examination showed that the values resulting from the two 1.1 mm capillaries in Row 3 with contact
lengths of 0.1 mm are substantial outliers from the rest of viscosity values at their respective interface distances. In
theory, all values of viscosity should be the same at the same interface distance with the same welding parameters.
This difference is more apparent at smaller interface distances; at an interface distance of 0.45 mm, the two
particular capillaries resulted in values of approximately 3×106 Pa-s while the rest of 1.1 mm capillaries at that
condition resulted in values of approximately 1×106 Pa-s. As the interface distance increases, the values determined
for the two capillaries in question begin to align with the values determined from the other 1.1 mm diameter
capillaries. It is hypothesized that this effect is related to a limitation in the volume of material available to be
extruded. When examining the pin lengths, at the 0.45 mm interface distance the two 1.1 mm diameter capillaries
with contact lengths of 0.1 mm resulted in pin lengths of approximately 16 mm, whereas the 1.1 mm capillaries in
Rows 1 and 2 with contact lengths of 0.3-0.4 mm resulted in pin lengths of 13 mm. This shows that the smaller
contact length does result in more flow. However, there is a finite volume of plasticized material around the tool that
is available for extrusion through the capillary. With the larger diameter capillaries, the weld is depleted of material
that is available to flow through the capillary resulting in artificially larger values of viscosity (less volume of
material results in a lower volume flow rate). This effect is exaggerated with the short contact length resulting in
erroneous values for those two particular holes. Therefore, the data for those two particular capillaries was ignored
in further analysis.
When examining the effect of the capillary diameter on the resultant value of viscosity, the volume limitation
previously mentioned is apparent with all values calculated from the 1.1 mm diameter capillaries at small interface
distances. This can be seen in Figure 6 which shows all viscosity values for each specific capillary diameter (0.47,
0.61, and 1.10 mm) averaged at each interface distance and plotted along with the standard deviation of that average.
At small interface distances of 0.45 to 0.65 mm, the 1.1 mm capillary results in much larger values of viscosity than
smaller capillaries. This is because the volume of material that must be extruded through the larger capillary to
accurately describe the effective viscosity at those interface distances is larger than the volume of material available
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 227

from the process. A clear indicator of this is the value of viscosity for the 1.1 mm capillary at 0.45 mm being higher
than the value at 0.55 mm (Figure 6). In theory, the viscosity should be lower closer to the tool, but since there is a
smaller volume of material below the tool at the shorter interface distance the volume extruded was less, resulting in
a fictitious higher viscosity. The values for the two smaller capillaries at short interface distances are consistent
because a smaller volume of material is required to flow through a smaller diameter capillary to accurately describe
the process.

Figure 6: Relationship between the position within the welding zone (interface distance) and the resultant effective viscosity at various capillary
diameter sizes.

In theory, the viscosity should increase asymptotically towards infinity as the edge of the thermo-mechanically
affected zone is approached (solid material). As can be seen in Figure 6, the viscosity increases rapidly with the
smallest diameter capillary, but as the diameter of the capillary is increased the increase in viscosity is not as drastic.
This is attributed to the concept that the larger diameter resulted in more of a global measurement, meaning it allows
more material from above the interface (at a lower viscosity closer to the tool) to flow down into the capillary. With
a smaller diameter, a more localized measurement was achieved because only a smaller volume of material closer to
the interface is allowed to flow into the capillary. This is best exemplified through the comparison of the pin
resultant of the 0.47 mm diameter capillary and the pin resultant of the 1.1 mm capillary at the 0.95 mm interface
distance. Figure 7 (a) shows a cross section of the pin formed by the 0.47 mm capillary at the 0.95 mm interface
distance. As can be seen, the interface lies outside the stir zone of the process, which has been defined by the refined
grain structure resultant of the dynamic recrystallization during FSW. In this case, the coarse grain structure is
deformed into the capillary due to the high localized pressure but quickly plugs the capillary. As shown in Figure 7
(b), the large diameter capillary allows the unprocessed base material to be completely pushed through the capillary
allowing for an influx of the material sheared by the FSW process above it. This clearly shows how the smaller
diameter capillary better describes the material at the actually interface and that the larger diameter capillary results
in a more global measurement of the condition of more material above the interface. This effect and the effect seen
at the small interface distances are both related to the volume of material and the fact that a greater volume will flow
into a larger capillary. It appears that a smaller diameter capillary is superior for estimating the effective viscosity at
a particular position within the stir zone in both cases.
228 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

(a) (b)
Figure. 7: Cross sections of pins produced at the 0.95 interface distance (a) 0.47 mm capillary plugged by coarse grain structure of
base material (b) 1.10 mm capillary resulting in flow of refined material sheared by the FSW process.

Welds were performed at the same parameters used by Nandan et al. [20] so that comparisons could be drawn
between the viscosity values calculated using the extrusion method and the viscosity values estimated in the CFD
simulation. Nandan et al. predicted that for a weld performed in aluminum 6061-T6 (637 rpm, 95 mm/min) the
effective viscosity of the material will be as low as 105 Pa-s near the tool and will increase up to 5×106 Pa-s where it
reaches the limit at which significant stirring stops (edge of the stir zone). The experimental values of viscosity as a
function of position from the tool for the 0.47 mm capillary are shown in Figure 8. At a distance of 0.45 mm from
the bottom of the tool the viscosity was calculated to be 3.65×105 Pa-s, the viscosity increases up to 1.64×106 Pa-s at
a distance of 0.75 mm below the tool (Figure 8 (b)). These values appear to fit well within the range proposed by
Nandan et al. It is reasonable to assume that at positions close to the tool than 0.45 mm the viscosity would
decrease, resulting in viscosity values closer to 105 Pa-s. At interface distances greater than 0.75 mm, it appears that
the capillary method starts to struggle with producing consistent pin lengths as seen in Figure 8 (a). The viscosity
values at interfaces distances above 0.75 mm lie above the cutoff of 5×106, meaning the material the capillary
process is measuring lie outside the edge of the stir zone. Evidence of this is shown in Figure 7 (a) where the base
material below the stir zone (defined by the coarse grain structure) is pushed down into the capillary resulting in
short pins. The variance appears to increase due to the fact that the absolute variance between pin lengths for each
condition is fairly consistent when comparing a group of long pins or a group of short pins, but as the pin length
decreases the relative variance in pin length compared to the total length of the pins increases. The interface distance
of 0.75 mm is the furthest interface distance at which material sheared by the FSW process will flow into the
capillaries resulting in values below 5×106 Pa-s. The fact that the effective viscosity values that the method struggles
with are just above 5×106 Pa-s, as well as the fact that the edge of the dynamic recrystallized zone of material lies
above the capillary interface in the case of values above 5×106 Pa-s (Figure 7 (a)) correlates well with what is
proposed in the CFD simulation. In the CFD simulation, 5×106 Pa-s is the proposed upper limit of the effective
viscosity of the material fully sheared by the FSW process.
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 229

(a) (b)
Figure 8: Effective Viscosity vs Interface Distance, calculated using only the 0.47 mm capillary values: (a) all positions, and (b)
zooming in on values below 0.8 mm.

The purpose of developing this method is to determine effective viscosity values that can then be used in models
that describe the flow of material in an applicable situation. This concept was tested by determining the effective
viscosity at the same FSW parameters that were examined by Franke et al. [14] to extrude aluminum around carbon
fibers. That particular study showed that an infiltration model developed to describe the infiltration of carbon fibers
during resins transfer molding also appears to describe the infiltration of fibers by plasticized aluminum produced by
FSW. Using the same plate thickness and tool used in the fiber study, the capillary extrusion method was used to
determine an effective viscosity of 8.86×106 Pa-s at 1250 rpm and 25 mm/min and 2.49×106 Pa-s at 2500 rpm and
50 mm/min. These values are plugged in the fiber infiltration model and the infiltration distance is predicted.
Outside of the viscosity, the infiltration model is dependent on the pressure of the process, the radius of the fibers,
and the volume fraction of the fibers. The pressure is estimated using the axial welding force in the same manner
that it is estimated in the capillary extrusion method describe in this study. The fiber radius and volume fraction can
be measured and estimated directly from the cross sections of the infiltrated fiber samples. A volume fraction of
50% was used in the model prediction. Figure 9 shows the model predictions (at the two specific sets of parameters)
plotted against distance measurements taken from physical samples of infiltrated carbon fibers processed at the same
exact parameters [14]. Qualitatively the model with measured viscosity appears to show the distinct difference in
plasticity produced by the two sets of welding parameters and how that plasticity affects the flow of material around
the fibers.

Figure 9: Comparison of distance of infiltration for model using viscosity values determined by capillary extrusion method and experimentally
measured values of infiltrated fibers.
230 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231

Development of an experimental method to quantify the plasticity of material during FSW will allow for the
examination of how changes in the FSW process result in changes in plasticity. Effective viscosity is typically
modeled as a function of strain rate and temperature, with higher strain rates and higher temperatures resulting in a
lower viscosity. Therefore, it is hypothesized that increasing the rotational rate of the tool will increase the
temperature and strain rate, thus reducing the effective viscosity. In terms of welding traverse rate, a slower traverse
will allow for the temperature to build up creating material with a lower effective viscosity. Furthermore, changing
the material will result in drastic changes in effective viscosity. For example, aluminum alloy 7075-T6 has a higher
hot strength than aluminum alloy 6061-T6, which effects how it is friction stir processed as shown by Cole et al.
[24]. It is hypothesized that the higher hot strength will result in higher effective viscosity values within the stir zone
making it harder for the material to flow into a feature in a secondary material.

4. Conclusions

A method of determining the effective viscosity of plasticized material produced by FSW was developed from
the basic principles of a capillary rheometer. Capillaries were created in the backing plate used for friction stir
welding, and the flow rate and pressure of the process were estimated from measured values, which in turn can be
used in standard capillary flow equations to calculate an effective viscosity. Viscosity values were calculated at
various positions within the stir zone below the probe. It was determined that reducing the capillary diameter
resulted in a more localized measurement. For a tool with a shoulder diameter of 15 mm, and a probe diameter of 5
mm, and a probe length of 5 mm, a capillary diameter of 0.47 mm provided reasonable results whereas a capillary
diameter of 1.1 mm provided results negatively affected by certain aspects of the process. Effective viscosity values
produced by the 0.47 mm capillary correlated well with a CFD model that utilized the same welding parameters.
Furthermore, the viscosity values calculated at the same welding parameters used to extrude material around carbon
fibers were used in a fiber infiltration model. Qualitatively, the infiltration model prediction matches the measured
values of fiber infiltration distances found in an earlier study. The capillary extrusion model appears to be a simple
an effective experimental method of quantifying the plasticity of material produced during FSW. Currently, the
method is limited to areas of the weld zone below the probe. Increasing the complexity of the backing plate
geometry could allow access to other areas of interest within the weld zone. This method can be used to examine
how changing welding parameters, tools, or material affects the effective viscosity of the FSW process. This method
has the potential to help understand material flow during the process of friction stir forming where one material is
forced to flow into another to form mechanical interlocking. Future work will investigate how the effective viscosity
changes as a function of position into the capillary, as well as using the viscoplastic models typically used to
describe the FSW process to describe the flow within the capillary.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this work by the National Science Foundation (grant CMMI-
13327338), the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin Madison, and colleagues in
the Advanced Manufacturing Lab.
 Daniel J. Franke et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017) 218 – 231 231

References

[1] W.M. Thomas, E.D. Nicholas, J.C. Needham, M.G. Murch, P. Temple-Smith, and C.J. Dawes, Friction Stir ButtWelding. GB Patent No.
9125978.8, (1991).
[2] R.S. Mishra, & Z.Y. Ma, Friction Stir Welding and Processing. Mater. Sci. Eng, 50 (2005) 1-78.
[3] P.L. Threadgill, et al., Friction Stir Welding of Aluminium Alloys. Int. Mat. Rev, 54 (2009) 49-93.
[4] T. Nishihara, Development of Friction Stir Forming. Materials Science Forum, 426-432 (2003) 2971-2978.
[5] T. Nishihara, A. Ito, Measurement of Die Temperature during Friction Stir Forming. Welding in the World, 49 (2005) 22-26.
[6] S. Lazarevic, S.F. Miller, J. Li, B.E. Carlson, Experimental analysis of friction stir forming for dissimilar material joining application. Journal
of Manufacturing Processes, 15 (2013) 616-624.
[7] Y. Ahuja, R. Ibrahima, A. Paradowska, D. Riley, Friction stir forming to fabricate copper–tungsten composite. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 217 (2015) 222-231.
[8] W.T. Evans, B.T. Gibson, J.T. Reynolds, A.M. Strauss, G.E. Cook, Friction Stir Extrusion: A new process for joining dissimilar materials.
Manufacturing letters, 5 (2015) 25-28.
[9] W.T. Evans, C. Cox, B.T. Gibson, A.M. Strauss, G.E. Cook, Two-sided friction stir riveting by extrusion: A process for joining dissimilar
materials. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 23 (2016) 115-121.
[10] D. Gao, U. Ersoy, R. Stevenson, P.C. Wang, A New One-Sided Joining Process for Aluminum Alloys: Friction Stir Blind Riveting. J. Manuf.
Sci. Eng, 131(6), (2009) 061002:1-12.
[11] C.Q. Zhang, X.J. Wang, B.Q. Li, A Technological Study on Friction Stir Blind Rivet Jointing of AZ31B Magnesium Alloys and High-
Strength DP600 Steel. Advanced Materials Research, 183-185 (2011) 1616-1620.
[12] S. Lathabai, V. Tyagi, D. Ritchie, T. Kearney, et al., Friction Stir Blind Riveting: A Novel Joining Process for Automotive Light Alloys.
SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf, 4(1), (2011) 589-601.
[13] J. Min, J. Li, Y. Li, B.E. Carlson, J. Lin, W.M. Wang, Friction stir blind riveting for aluminum alloy sheets. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 215 (2015) 20-29.
[14] D. Franke, J.D. Morrow, M. Zinn, N.A. Duffie, F.E. Pfefferkorn, Towards Improved Hybrid Joining Of Aluminum Alloys to Carbon Fiber
Composites With Friction Stir Welding. Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference,
June 27 – July 1 2016, Blacksburg, VA. MSEC2016-Paper No.8747.
[15] X. He, F. Gu, A. Ball, A review of numerical analysis of friction stir welding. Progress in Materials Science, 65 (2014) 1-66.
[16] M. Nourani, A.S. Milani, S. Yannacopoulos, On the Effect of Different Material Constitutive Equations in Modeling Friction Stir Welding:
A Review and Comparative Study on Aluminum 6061. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 7(1), (2014) 1-20.
[17] M. Nourani, Integrated Multiphysics Modeling, Testing and Optimization of Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum Alloys. Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of British Columbia, Okanagan, BC, October, 2013.
[18] R. Crawford, G.E. Cook, A.M. Strauss, D.A. Hartman, M.A. Stremler, 2006. Experimental defect analysis and force prediction simulation of
high weld pitch friction stir welding. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining , 11(6), (2006) 657-665.
[19] A. Arora, R. Nandan, A.P. Reynolds, T. Debroy, Torque, power requirement and stir zone geometry in friction stir welding through
modeling and experiments. Scripta Materialia, 6 (2009) 13-16.
[20] R. Nandan, G.G. Roy, T. Debroy, Numerical Simulation of Three Dimensional Heat Transfer and Plastic Flow During Friction Stir Welding.
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, 37(A), (2006) 1247-1259.
[21] T.H. North, G.J. Dendzsak, C. Smith, Material Properties Relevant to 3-D FSW Modeling. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium
on Friction Stir Welding, 26-28 June 2000, Gothenburg, Sweden.
[22] F.A. Morrison, Understanding Rheology, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
[23] F.N. Cogswell, Converging Flow of Polymer Melts in Extrusion Dies. Polymer Engineering and Science, 12 (1972) 64-73.
[24] E.G. Cole, A. Fehrenbacher, N.A. Duffie, M.R. Zinn, F.E. Pfefferkorn, N.J. Ferrier, Weld temperature effects during friction stir welding of
dissimilar aluminum alloys 6061-t6 and 7075-t6. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol, 71 (2014) 643-652.