Title: Friction Stir Welding for the 21st Century Automotive Industry

By: J. F. Hinrichs, C. B. Smith, B. F. Orsini, R. J. DeGeorge, B. J. Smale, P. C. Ruehl

Friction Stir Link, Inc.
Waukesha, WI USA

Introduction

The Friction Stir Welding process is now 13 years old and the interest in it and its’
potential continues to increase dramatically. FSW can be applied to a multitude of
products with varying material types and thicknesses. However, a continuous weld is not
always required to meet the product performance requirements. Thus, one can consider
some form of intermittent weld, such as Friction Stir Spot Welding. Friction Stir Spot
Welding (FSSW) can be considered for many of the applications presently performed
with traditional resistance spot welding (RSW), riveting, or mechanical clinching. FSSW
can be performed with a robot either using a C-Frame or in the poke welding mode
(single sided). Another approach involves the robot manipulating a part through one or
more pedestal FSSW machines. This process compares very favorably with RSW,
riveting and clinching with respect to speed, performance, cost and robustness. This
paper reviews a FSSW process development case study to quantify the expected
mechanical properties and tool life on typical aluminum alloy and thickness. The process
development cycle includes an initial feasibility study, followed by a Design of
Experiments (DOE) and then a tool life study. This is all performed to determine the
viability of FSSW on a particular alloy and thickness combination. Additionally, this
procedure can be used to determine optimum welding parameters

Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) Overview

FSSW is a variant of FSW where the traverse part of the FSW process is eliminated, i.e.
the tool is only plunged into the material and retracted. The resulting weld is a point or
‘spot’ weld. FSSW can typically be used in applications where less strength is required,
material is thin, and parts are highly contoured. Thus, it is very similar to resistance spot
welding (RSW). It is also similar to RSW and other spot joining processes (e.g. riveting)
in that FSSW requires significant forces. Therefore, equipment solutions will have
similarities, since backing is required to support these forces. Thus, a majority of
applications are suited to C-Frame or pedestal solutions. A discussion of equipment
types and where they are best applied follows.

One could ask the question, “Why does the industry need another joining method when
RSW and a variety of mechanical methods are available?” FSSW has some distinct
potential advantages on aluminum over other welding processes such as RSW, MIG-Spot
and Laser - spot as well as performing better than mechanical joining techniques such as
Toggle-loc. FSSW tends to have much lower operating costs due to improved energy
efficiency and a virtual lack of a consumable. Additionally, FSSW equipment requires
significantly less surrounding infrastructure. That is, FSSW requires no water, no
compressed air, nor complex electrical transforming equipment.

1
Robotic FSSW - Poke Welding

The poke welding version of FSSW can be accomplished with a conventional robotic
FSW system that is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a heavy duty robot, electric or
hydraulic power source, spindle, tool and special software. Poke spot welds are made by
plunging the FSSW tool into the part, similar to the start of a conventional friction stir
weld. This robotic plunge method is best employed where access to the back of the part
is restricted or where a combination of FSW and FSSW is required. However, one still
needs to provide sufficient backing at the points the “Poke” welding takes place. This
method of making FSSW welds is most comparable to the “Poke” method in resistance
welding frequently used in automotive floor pan welding.

Figure 1: FSSW in the Robotic Poke Welding Configuration

Robotic FSSW-C-Frame Design

This version of robotic FSSW requires access to both sides of the part, similar to most
robotic RSW. In this case, the spot welding is performed via a special robotic end-
effecter (similar to RSW and riveting), where all of the motion and forces required for the
spot weld is contained within the end-effector. This is referred to as the robotic C-frame
configuration (See Figure 2). The big advantage of the C-Frame approach is the
reduction in loading that is placed on the robot arm, which allows use of a conventional
material handling robot without special force-control software. The typical sequence of
operation involves 1) moving the robotically held C-frame to the desired weld location,
2) moving the lower side of the C-frame flush with the back side of the part, 3) starting
the tool rotation and plunging to a set depth, 4) maintaining the tool rotation for the
required time and 5) retracting and moving to the next weld location, as shown in Figure
3 (FSSW Process Description).

2
 Figure 2: FSSW in the Robotic C-Frame Configuration

Figure 3: FSSW Process Description

Pedestal FSSW Machines for Manual, Automatic or Robotic Use

The final variation of FSSW, which again parallels RSW, involves the pedestal and/or
bench-top type unit. A bench-top unit is shown in Figure 4. These systems are built to
be very stiff employing a variety of throat heights and depths, which are dependent on the
type of part to be welded. These systems can be used in either a manual, automatic or
robotic manner. In the manual mode, a person typically uses a foot pedal to activate the
FSSW tool and holds the part manually. In an automatic set-up, one or more pedestal

3
units are activated automatically as a part is automatically placed under the FSSW system.
The sequencing is generally controlled by a PLC or robot controller. When a robot is
used for material handling it can maneuver the part through one or more pedestal welders
with each capable of using a different tool.

Figure 4: Bench-top FSSW Unit

Process Development Procedure

One challenge of FSSW is the lack of definitive test results or production experience
confirming the advantages of this process. That is, there is no handbook or database of
weld parameters and tool designs for users to employ to setup a welding process. Like
with FSW, the optimal parameters for FSSW are alloy and material thickness dependent,
and highly dependent on FSSW tool geometry. At this point in time, a process
development study must be performed for every alloy and thickness combination to
determine the appropriate tool design and weld parameters for this process. A systematic
process development sequence is described, from initial feasibility, to a Design of
Experiments (DOE), followed by a tool life study. The goal is to generate quantifiable
results to produce new mechanical property information and to establish a robust
production capable process. This paper will describe one process development
methodology and related case study that has been successfully used for this purpose.

The focus of this particular study was on a 5754-O alloy of 1.1mm thickness. The
recommended process development procedure is described as well as results from this
particular study. In this study, initially four FSSW tool configurations were used.
However, it was quickly determined that two of the four designs were not going to be
acceptable. Thus, the results and recommended procedure concentrate on data from two
of the four tools.

The procedure used is a multi-step process, which has been successfully used to develop
a robust FSSW process. It is a process that gets successively more involved to determine
the capability of the FSSW process that is to be established. Since it is unknown how any

4
particular FSSW tool design will behave, the process concentrates on simple tests at first,
that get more complex and involved. This will help avoid potential wasted effort.

Before beginning the study, a preliminary review of past FSSW experience is used to
establish the first rough estimate as to the process parameter range and tool designs to be
considered. Several tools are then design and fabricated for the study. After the tools
are received, the process development procedure begins. During these steps and all
subsequent steps the welding forces and resulting depths of the FSSW ‘hole’ are recorded.

Step 1 – Initial Feasibility – Lap Shear Strength vs. Plunge Depth

The first step is to perform a plunge depth versus lap shear strength study with initial tool
designs and parameters (rotation speed and plunge rate). This is a very simple test that is
not time consuming. This is the easiest and quickest test to determine if one is in the
“ballpark”. If the results are acceptable from one or more of the FSSW tools, then step 2
can be performed. If none of the FSSW tools generate acceptable results, then
consideration should be given to redesigning the tools andtarting over. Figure 5 displays
the results from one particular tool used in this study. It shows an upward trend in
strength, as the tool is plunged further into the part, followed by a reduction at the
greatest depths. It should be noted that the shape of this curve is dependent on the length
of the pin that is used. Use of a shorter pin will cause a larger reduction in weld strength
at the higher depths. That is the curve will show more of a definite peak, in some mid
range of depths.

FSSW - 1.1 mm 5754-O - Tool A

2000 RPM - Plunge Rate 3.75 mm /s
2
1.8
1.6
Lap Shear Strength (kN)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Plunge Depth (mm)

Figure 5: Lap Shear Strength vs. Plunge Depth at Fixed Rotation Speed and Plunge Rate

5
Step 2 – Initial Feasibility – Cross Tension Strength vs. Lap Shear Strength

Once it is confirmed that the FSSW tool is capable of producing acceptable lap shear
strength, the next step is to determine if the FSSW tool is capable of generating welds
with acceptable cross tension strength. FSSW has both lap shear strength requirements
and cross-tension strength requirements. It should be noted that acceptable lap shear
strength does not guarantee acceptable cross section strength and the ratio of the strengths
can vary significantly depending on tool design. Figure 6 shows a description of a lap
shear test and a cross-tension test. The basic difference is that the cross-tension test
places the weld in tension as opposed to shear. The cross-tension testing is not done in
the very first step, because it is significantly more time consuming.

Figure 6: Cross-Tension and Lap Shear Tension Test Description

It can be determined if the FSSW tools generate acceptable cross tension strength by
performing a small study of plunge depth versus lap-shear and cross tension strength.
The rotation speed and plunge rate are fixed at values based on previous experience and
required cycle times. Figure 7 displays the cross tension and lap shear results from
FSSW Tool A and Figure 8 the results from FSSW Tool B. Both show results as a
function of plunge depth. The results are acceptable, because the cross-tension strength
is a significant percentage of the lap shear strength. Generally cross-tension strength is
less than lap-shear. Cross tension strength should be greater than 50% of lap shear
strength. If the results are acceptable from one or more of the FSSW tools, then step 3
can be performed. If none of the FSSW tools generate acceptable results, then
consideration should be given to redesigning the tools and starting over.

6
 FSSW - 1.1 mm 5754-O Al - Tool A
2000 RPM - Plunge Rate = 2.5 mm/s
2.5

2
Stength (kN)

1.5

Lap Shear
0.5 Cross Tension

0
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1
Plunge Depth (mm)

Figure 7: Lap Shear Strength and Cross Tension Strength for FSSW Tool A

FSSW - 1.1 mm 5754-O Al - Tool B

2000 RPM - Plunge Rate = 2.5 mm/s
3

2.5

2
Stength (kN)

1.5

1
Lap Shear
Cross Tension
0.5

0
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1
Plunge Depth (mm)

Figure 8: Lap Shear Strength and Cross Tension Strength for FSSW Tool B

7
Step 3 – Initial Feasibility – Rotation Speed Variation

The next step is to determine if the FSSW tool is capable of generating acceptable welds
at the extremities of desired plunge rates (cycle times). These are the plunge rates that
will generate welds at an acceptable rate for production. This can be done by
determining weld strength versus rotation speed at a high plunge rate (fast cycle time)
and at a slow plunge rate (slower cycle time). Another important result that is generated
from this step is the appropriate rotation speed range for a larger DOE study. If the
results are acceptable from one or more of the FSSW tools (reasonable strength over a
range of rotation speeds), then the DOE can be performed. If none of the FSSW tools
generate acceptable results, then consideration should be given to redesigning the tools
are starting over.

Figure 9 shows lap shear strength results for Tool B with over a range of rotation speeds
and plunge depths of 2.5 mm/sec and 5 mm/sec. This indicates that at the higher plunge
rates the results are more consistent over a large range of rotation speeds. However, it
indicates that better peak performance can be achieved at lower plunge rates.
Additionally, the results vary more significantly as a function of rotation speed.

FSSW - 1.1 mm 5754-O Al - Tool B

2.5
Lap Shear Strength (kN)

1.5

1
Plunge Rate 2.5 mm /s
Plunge Rate 5 mm / s
0.5

0
1500 2000 2500 3000
Rotaion Speed (RPM)

Figure 9: Rotation Speed vs. Lap Shear Strength at Two Plunge Rates.

Step 4 - DOE

The next step is to perform a DOE using various rotation speeds, plunge rates and plunge
depths, which will help define the sensitivity of the process and the optimal parameters

8
for the FSSW tool. A matrix of 5 plunge depths, 5 rotations speeds, and 3 plunge rates
for each FSSW tool has been successfully be used. Lap shear strength and cross-tension
strength can be recorded. Figures 10 and 11 show topographical charts indicating lap
shear strength versus rotation speed and plunge depth for FSSW Tools A and B. The
plots show a greater sensitivity with Tool A (sharper peak). Furthermore, the charts
indicate an optimal rotation speed range and plunge rate. Away from these optimal
values the strength is reduced.

2.5-2.6 5
2.4-2.5

Plunge Rate (mm/s)

2.3-2.4
2.2-2.3
2.1-2.2
3.75
2-2.1
1.9-2
1.8-1.9
1.7-1.8
1.6-1.7 2.5
1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Lap Shear Rotation Speed (RPM)
Strength (kN)
FSSW - 1.1 mm 5754-O Al - FSSW Tool A
Figure 10: Lap Shear Strength vs. Rotation Speed and Plunge Rate at Fixed Depth for
Tool A

5
2.5-2.6
2.4-2.5 Plunge Rate (mm/s)
2.3-2.4
2.2-2.3
2.1-2.2 3.75
2-2.1
1.9-2
1.8-1.9
1.7-1.8
1.6-1.7 2.5
1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Lap Shear
Strength (kN) Rotation Speed (RPM)
FSSW - 1.1 mm 5754-O Al - FSSW Tool B
Figure 11: Lap Shear Strength vs. Rotation Speed and Plunge Rate at Fixed Depth for
Tool B

Step 5 – Repeatability Study

After determining that the FSSW tool(s) allow for a robust FSSW process, it is important
to determine if the develop process is repeatable. It is important to establish confidence

9
in the process and prove that some unanticipated variable is not present. Typically
creating 10 to 20 welds at a set of specific parameters appears to be sufficient to
determine repeatability. Typical repeatabilities of a developed FSSW process should be
within a ±0.1kN range.

Step 6 – Process Sensitivity

To determine production robustness of process, studies should be performed at selected

parameters to determine the effects of outside variables that would potentially have a
detrimental affect on the process in a production situation. These outside variables can
include,
a. Lubricant on surface. Results indicate the FSSW process is fairly insensitive to
lubricants, with less than 10% reduction in strength with the presence of
forming lubricants.
b. Oxide as a result of typical production storage procedures: No sensitivity has
been found, given standard production storage procedures. No loss in
properties is observed over time, given acceptable storage procedures.
c. Heavy oxide as a result of water contamination: Generally the process is more
sensitive to heavy oxides because the strength decreases up to 20%.
c. Clamping conditions. Strength is affected minimally, but the visual appearance
is more significantly affected
d. Gaps: If clamped out, gaps are not an issue. The FSSW tool has ability to
clamp out gap, unless parts are very stiff.
e. Other Alloys: In general, 6xxx series alloys in the same thickness will achieve
10 to 20% increase in strength vs. 5xxx alloys. This is may be due to the
relative extrudability of the alloys.

Step 7 - Life Cycle Test

Once optimal parameters have been determined from the DOE, a tool life cycle test
should be performed. The goal is to determine how long a FSSW tool would last before
the mechanical properties would significantly decline. To provide a worse case scenario,
the FSSW tool in this particular study was not heat treated to an optimum hardness and it
did not having any coating to prevent wear. This was intended to represent a ‘lowest
cost’ FSSW tool. The tool life study was also performed at typical production speeds,
with the spot to spot time being 2.5 seconds. Figure 12 shows a typical test sample on
which 750 friction stir spot welds were made.

10
 Figure 12: Typical FSSW Tool Life Study Panel

During this study, lap shear strength and cross-tension strength were recorded.
Additionally, visual observations were made of weld surface quality and tool wear.
Lastly, cross-sections of welds were made to determine any affects on the internal weld
quality. In this particular test, it was stopped after 100,000 cycles with the following
results/observations being noted.

1. The lap shear strength decreased about 10% over the 100,000 welds while the cross
tension results increased 10%. See Figure 13.
2. Visual quality did not degrade over time.
3. The wear mechanism appears to be limited to the inner part of the FSSW tool
shoulder. The tool becomes “cupped” shaped. See Figure 14a and 14b showing
the two weld cross sections demonstrating this phenomenon. This indicates that
complex shoulder features would not be of much benefit.
5. Due to the fact that the mechanical test results were still acceptable at the
termination of the test and the fact that the tool used was not heat treated or coated,
it is safe to say that a minimum FSSW tool life is 100,000 welds, with the
likelihood of many more 100,000’s of welds, given an optimal tool.

11
 Tool Life Study

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Weld Number

Lap Shear Cross Tension

Figure 13: Lap Shear and Cross-Tension Strength for Tool A vs. Number of Welds

Figure 14: (a) Cross-Section at Start of Tool Life Testing (b) Cross Section after
100,000 Welds

Conclusions

The following conclusions have been made as a result of this work

1. FSSW is a robust process, with capability to generate welds of good strength over
a wide range of welding parameters.
2. FSSW quality is highly dependent on tool design. All of these strength results are
tool design dependent as well as alloy and thickness dependent.
3. FSSW tool life cycle testing demonstrated that even with a worst case
scenario, 100,000 cycles (which equates to 6 full days of production in a typical
automotive production plant) is achievable with a single tool
4. FSSW tool designs required to weld quickly (acceptable automotive
production speeds) are different than those at slower speeds.

References

1. Sakano, R., Murakami, K., Yamshita, K., Hyoe, T., Fujimoto, M., Inuzuka, M.,
Nagao, Y. and Kashiki, H., “Development of Spot FSW Robot System for

12
 Automobile Body Members”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of
FSW, Kobe, Japan, September 2001.
2. Iwashita, T., “Method and Apparatus for Joint”, US Patent 6602751 B2, August 5,
2003.
3. Kashiki, H., Nagao, Y., Inuzuka, M., Hyoue, T., “Friction Stir Joining Apparatus”,
US Patent Application US2003/0029903 A1, February 2003.
4. Smith, C.B., “Friction Stir Welding using a Standard Industrial Robot”,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on FSW, June 2000.
5. Hinrichs, J.F. and Smith, C.B., “Friction Stir Welding - Lean, Mean and Green
Welding Process”, AWS Detroit Sheet Metal Conference, May, 2004
6. Strombeck, A.V., Shilling, C., and Dos Santos, J.F., “Robotic Friction Stir
Welding – Tool Technology and Applications”, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on FSW, June 2000.
7. Smith C. B., Hinrichs, J. F., and Crusan, W. A., “Robotic Friction Stir Welding –
The State of the Art”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on FSW,
May 2003.
8. Smith C. B., Hinrichs, J. F., and Crusan, W. A., “Friction Stir Welding Stirs Up
Process Competition”, Forming and Fabricating, Feb. 2003

13