2005-01-1251

Thermo-Mechanical Modeling of Friction Stir Spot Welding

(FSSW) Process: Use of an Explicit Adaptive Meshing Scheme
M. Awang, V. H. Mucino
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Dept. West Virginia University

Z. Feng, and S. A. David

Metals and Ceramic Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Copyright © 2005 SAE International

ABSTRACT Recently, a new technology called friction stir spot

welding (FSSW) has been developed that has a several
This paper presents on-going finite element modeling advantages over the electric resistance welding process
efforts of friction stir spot welding (FSSW) process by an widely used in automotive industry in terms of weld
explicit finite element code. Adaptive meshing and quality and process efficiency [3]. This welding
advection schemes, which makes it possible to maintain technology involves a process similar to FSW, except
mesh quality under large deformations, is utilized to that, instead of moving the tool along the weld seam, the
simulate the material flow and temperature distribution in tool only indents the parts, which are placed on top of
FSSW process. The predicted overall deformation each other as illustrated in Figure 1.
shape of the weld joint resembles that experimentally
observed. Temperature and stress graphs in the radial Angular velocity
direction as well as temperature-deformation distribution
plots are presented. However, refinements of several
modeling aspects are needed for more realistic
prediction of the FSSW process. Normal
force Tool
and
motion
INTRODUCTION
Work pieces
Friction stir welding (FSW) is a solid state joining
process suitable for joining aluminum alloys developed
by The Welding Institute (TWI), UK in 1991 as reported
by Thomas et al. [1]. The process consists of a spinning Backing
cylindrical pin with a stepped shoulder, which is pressed Anvil
against the seam line of the two parts to be welded. As
the pin rotates, it penetrates the plates inducing a plastic
deformation and then translates along the weld line. The Figure 1 Schematics of friction stir spot welding process
friction between the tool and the parts produces material
stirring motion that results in the weld. Thus far, the
FSW process has been successfully developed and
applied in various cases, but the process itself is not yet
fully understood. Effective and reliable computational
models of the FSW process would greatly enhance the
study of material flow and microstructure evolution
around a tool pin as well as temperature distribution
along a weld line. Approaches for the computational
modeling of the FSW process, however, are still under
development [2] and much work is needed particularly
a) Plunging b) Stirring c) Retracting
the application of explicit finite element codes for a Figure 2 Three stages of friction stir spot welding process (after Pan et
verifiable simulation. al [4])
The FSSW process consists of three phases; plunging,
stirring, and retraction as shown in Figure 2. The
process starts with spinning the tool and slowly plunging
it into a weld spot until the shoulder contacts the top
surface of work piece. Then, the stirring phase enable
the materials of two work pieces mix together. Lastly,
once a predetermined penetration is reached, the
process stops and the tool retracts from the work piece.
The resulting weld has a characteristic hole in the middle
of the joint, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Cross-section view of a typical friction stir spot weld, Al6111-
T6 (After Mitlin et al. [5])
MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF FSSW
The FSW process involves coupled thermo-elasto-
plastic response of the tool-work piece system, in which
the constitutive model of the material and the non-linear
temperature dependent transient heat transfer response
produce both plastic deformations and a temperature
distribution as the material flows and stirs forming the
weld.
The governing equation describing heat transfer process
during FSSW can be written as
∂T ∂ ⎡ ∂T ⎤ ∂ ⎡ ∂T ⎤ ∂ ⎡ ∂T ⎤
ρc = kx + ky + kz +G
∂t ∂x ⎢⎣ ∂x ⎥⎦ ∂y ⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦ ∂z ⎢⎣ ∂z ⎥⎦
where, ρ is the material density, c is the material specific
heat, k is heat conductivity, T is the temperature, t is the
time and G is the heat generation.
Generally, the main heat generation source in FSW is
considered to be the friction between the rotating tool
and the work piece and the plastic straining in vicinity of
the tool as discussed in previous studies [6,7].
According to the assumption of Coulomb’s friction law,
the local friction force, Ff can be calculated as
Ff = µFn
where, µ is the friction coefficient between the tool
shoulder surface and the work piece, and Fn is the
normal force applied to the work piece.
Frictional heat then can be formulated as
qf = FfV
where, qf is the frictional heat, and V is the rotational
velocity of the pin.
The rotational velocity of the pin, V can be computed
from
V = 2πRN
where, R is the distance of the calculated point from the
tool axis and N is the rotational speed of the tool.
Thus, the frictional heat qf can be written as
qf = 2πµRNFn
The heat formulation due to plastic deformation, qp is
given as
q p = ησε& pl
where, η is a fraction heat dissipitate due to plastic
straining which carries values between 0 and 1, σ is the
pl
shear stress, and ε& is the plastic straining rate. As
indicated farther down, the material properties are
temperature dependent and provide the basis for the
constitutive model used in this simulation.
FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION OF FSSW
PROCESS
The FE model of FSSW process has been done using
ABAQUS/EXPLICIT software [8, 9]. A 3-D dynamic fully
coupled thermal-stress analysis was performed to obtain
thermo-mechanical responses of FSSW process. Two
features in the FE package were deployed in order to
obtain the results.
1. The adaptive mesh scheme that automatically
regenerates the mesh once the elements are
severely distorted due to large deformation.
2. The mass scaling technique that modifies the
densities of the materials in the model and improves
the computational efficiency while retaining the
accuracy of the results.
The FE analysis has been conducted by prescribing
displacement and angular velocity of the pin tool, and by
imposing appropriate boundary conditions. The rate of
pin penetration was prescribed in two time steps, based
on an actual experimental setup. In Step 1, the pin was
plunged with a rate of 2.668 mm/sec, In step 2, the
plunge rate was set at 0.493 mm/sec.
MESH AND GEOMETRY
In FSSW, the work pieces are spot welded in lap-joint
configuration as shown in Figure 4. In order to have a
biased mesh seed for better analysis near the tool, the
work pieces have been modeled in circular geometry
with diameter of 50 mm and the thickness of 1 mm.
They have been meshed using element type C3D8RT,
which has 8-node tri-linear displacement and
temperature and reduced integration with hourglass
control. A total of 104,640 elements and 111,652 nodes
have been generated in the model. The pin and the
backing anvil have been modeled as isothermal
(adiabatic) analytical rigid surfaces.
10 mm
Tool
Workpieces
(2 pcs.)
Backing Anvil
15 mm
Pin (dia. 3 mm, height 1.5 mm)
1 mm
50 mm
Figure 4 Mesh representation of 2 layers of work piece with a pin and
an anvil
ASSUMPTIONS
To model the actual physics phenomena of the FSSW
process is rather complicated. Therefore, several
simplifying assumptions have been made.
1. Only the work pieces were assumed to be made of
deformable material (aluminum).
2. The pin tool and the backing anvil were considered
rigid, to reduce the computing time requirements.
3. Perfect elastic-plastic behavior of the work pieces
material was assumed also to reduce computer time
requirements.
4. The work pieces and pin were assumed to
experience frictional contact described by
Coulomb’s frictional law with temperature dependent
friction coefficient, µ .
5. The friction coefficient, µ at material melting point is
zero following the tendency from the experimental
chart [11].
6. 90 % of the nonrecoverable work because of
plasticity was assumed to heat the work pieces. This
is the fraction of inelastic dissipation rate that
appears as a heat flux per unit volume.
7. 100 % of dissipated energy caused by friction
between parts was converted to heat and distributed
evenly between the two interacting surfaces.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Boundary conditions that were imposed on the FE model
are described in the following paragraph. Figure 5
depicts a schematic diagram of the boundary conditions.
1. No heat transfer through the edge of the work
pieces.
2. Heat convection coefficients on the top and the
bottom surfaces were assumed to be 30 W/m2-oC,
from Chao and Qi [10], and the ambient temperature
was 22 oC.
3. Initial temperatures for both work piece and pin were
assumed at 22 oC.
4. Backing anvil was fixed in all degree of freedom
(DOF).
ω = 210 rad/s
Convection, h
Prescribed
= 30 W/m2-0C
Displacement
Pin
Work
Pieces
Backing
Anvil
Figure 5 Boundary conditions
MATERIAL MODEL AND PROPERTIES
Aluminum alloy 6061-T6 was chosen as a material for
workpieces. The temperature dependent material
properties for Al 6061-T6 as used by Chao and Qi [9]
are tabulated in Appendix A. Temperature dependent
friction coefficient between the aluminum workpiece and
the steel pin tool is listed Appendix B. Note that the
values of the friction coefficient at room temperature and
melting point were taken from Avallone and Baumeister
[11] and curve fitting was used to get values in between.
An elastic perfectly-plastic model was used to simulate
the work pieces material behavior in the analysis.
Generally, the strain rate can be represented as
summation of elastic and plastic strain rates.
ε& = ε& el + ε& pl
where ε& is total strain rate, ε& is elastic strain rate
el
and ε&
pl
is plastic strain rate.
Principal stress in the X direction versus radial distance
from the center of the tool is shown in Figure 10.
As mentioned, the predicted maximum temperature at
the tool/workpiece was too high for the Al alloy. A
primary reason would be the approximated friction
coefficients used. Also as mentioned above, the heat
absorbed and released by the tool and anvil are actually
being absorbed by the work pieces thus overestimating
the temperature. These issues are being addressed in
this on-going modeling effort.

Temperature Distribution History

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
1000
900

Temperature in deg. C
As previously mentioned, the tool and the anvil in the 800
model were considered rigid and for computer efficiency 700

purposes, adiabatic. This assumption implies that the 600

500
heat absorbed and released by the tool and anvil is 400
actually absorbed and released by the two work pieces. 300
The temperature predictions on the plates are 200

consequently overestimated. However, the trends 100

observed are the expected ones. 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Radial Distance from the Center (mm)

Figure 6 shows that at the end of the simulation the
edges of two workpieces separated. Overall, the Figure 7 Graph of temperature versus radial distance from the center
deformed shape resembles that experimentally of the tool
observed (Figure 3). It suggests that the explicit FEM
modeling approach used in this study was capable of
handling the extremely large deformation of the FSSW
process. However, the maximum temperature at the Von Mises Stress Distribution History
center of the tool was 948 oC, which is unrealistically 300
higher temperature at the tool and material interface for
von Mises Stress (MPa)

250
the Al alloy used in the model. While direct
measurement of the temperature of FSSW is not 200

available, many experiments on linear friction stir 150

welding of Al alloys [12, 13, for example] suggest that
100
the actual temperatures in the stir region would be in the
range of 400 oC.. 50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Radial Distance from the Center (mm)

Figure 8 Graph of von Mises stress versus radial distance from the
center of the tool

Figure 6 Deformation and temperature distribution at t=1.9 sec.

Figure 7 shows the temperature profile along the radial

direction while the von Mises stress profile and Figure 9 Von Mises stress distribution cross section
distribution are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
 Principal Stress-X Distribution History
400
200
0
-200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stress-X (MPa)
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
Radial Distance from the Center (mm)
Figure 10 Plot of principal stress in X direction versus radial distance
from the center of the tool
CONCLUSION
A finite element modeling approach has been described
for the simulation and analysis of the friction stir welding
process, which makes use of adaptive meshing and
advection algorithms using an explicit code (ABAQUS).
The combined features of this approach allow the
coupled thermo-elasto-plastic response to be obtained,
which clearly shows the extent of the thermo-
mechanically affected zone and the temperature profile
immediately after the operation is completed. Without
the adaptive meshing and advection schemes severe
elements distortion during the welding process would
prevent the simulation from converging.
While the predicted overall deformation shapes are
reasonable considering the assumptions made, further
needed refinements are underway to include the tool
(pin) and the anvil as elements that absorb and release
heat during the operation. Also more realistic
representation of the temperature dependent elasto-
plastic material behavior would be expected to decrease
the predicted temperatures to more realistic values.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was sponsored by the 2004 SURA/ORNL
Summer Program funded by the Division of Materials
Science and Engineering, US Department of Energy,
under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle,
LLC.
This manuscript has been authored by a contractor of
the U.S. Government. Accordingly, the U.S. Government
retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or
reproduce the published form of the contribution, or
allow others to do so for U.S. Government purposes.
REFERENCES
6 1 Thomas, M., Nicholas, J., Needham, J., Murch, M.,
Templesmith, P., and Dawes, C., Friction Stir
Welding, GB Patent Application No. 9125978.8 Dec.
1991, US Patent No. 5460317, 1991.
2 Askari, A., Silling, S., London, B., and Mahoney, M.,
2001, “Modeling and Analysis of Friction Stir
Welding Processes”, Friction Stir Welding and
Processing, p. 43-54.
3 Hancock, R., 2004, "Friction welding of Aluminum
Cuts Energy Cost by 99%," Welding Journal, vol. 83,
pp. 40.
4 Pan, T.-Y., Joaquin, A., Wilkosz, D. E., Reatherford,
L., Nicholson, J. M., Feng, Z., and Santella, M. L.
2004. "Spot Friction Welding for Sheet Aluminum
Joining." 5th International Symposium on Friction
Stir Welding, P. Threadgill, ed., The Welding
Institute, Metz, France, Paper No 11A-1.
5 Mitlin, D, Radmilovic, V, Pan, T., Feng, Z, Santella,
M.L., 2005, "Structure-Properties Relations in Spot
Friction Welded 6111 T4 Aluminum." TMS 2005
Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Feb 13-17, 2005.
6 Feng, Z., Gould, J. E., and Lienert, T. J. "A Heat
Flow Model for Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum
Alloys." Hot Deformation of Aluminum Alloys II, 149-
158.
7 Chen, C. M., and Kovacevic, R. 2003. "Finite
element modeling of friction stir welding--thermal
and thermomechanical analysis." International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 43(13),
1319-1326.
8 Abaqus/Explicit User’s Manual, version 6.2, Hibbit,
Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., 2001.
9 Abaqus Theory Manual, version 6.2, Hibbit, Karlsson
& Sorensen, Inc., 2001.
10 Chao, Y., and Qi, X., 1998, “Thermal and Thermo-
Mechanical Modeling of Friction Stir Welding of
Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6”, Journal of Materials
Processing & Manufacturing Science, vol. 7, p. 215-
233.
11 Avallone, E., and Baumeister, T., 1987, Mark’s
Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 9th
Ed.
12 McClure, J. C., Feng, Z., Tang, W., Gould, J. E.,
Murr, L. E., and Guo, X. 1998, "A Thermal Model for
Friction Stir Welding." 5th International Conference
on Trends in Welding Research, p. 590-595.
13 Schmidt, H., Hattel, J., and Wert, J., 2004, “An
Analytical Model for the Heat Generation in Friction
Stir Welding”, Modeling and Simulation in Materials
Science and Engineering, p. 143-157.
APPENDIX A

Table A1: Temperature dependent material properties for Aluminum alloy 6061-T6 [9].
0
Temperature C 37.8 93.3 148.9 204.4 260 315.6 371.1 426.7
W/m0
Thermal Cond. 0.0162 0.0177 0.0184 0.0192 0.0201 0.0207 0.0217 0.0223
C
Heat Capacity J/Kg0C 945 978 1004 1028 1052 1078 1104 1133
3
Density Kg/m 2685 2685 2667 2657 2657 2630 2630 2602
Young’s Modulus GPa 68.54 66.19 63.09 59.16 53.99 47.48 40.34 31.72
Yield Strength MPa 274.4 264.6 248.2 218.6 159.7 66.2 34.5 17.9
0
Thermal Exp. µ/ C 23.45 24.61 25.67 26.60 27.56 28.53 29.57 30.71

APPENDIX B

Table B1: Temperature dependent friction coefficient of aluminum and steel

Temperature (0C ) 22.0 34.7 93.3 147.5 210.6 260.0 315.6 371.1 426.7 582.0*
Friction Coefficient,
0.610 0.545 0.259 0.115 0.064 0.047 0.035 0.020 0.007 0
µ
* melting point of Al 6061-T6 [11].