j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l .

2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.jmrt.com.br

Original Article

CFD modelling of friction stir welding (FSW)

process of AZ31 magnesium alloy using volume of
fluid method

A.F. Hasan ∗
College of Engineering, University of Diyala,Baqubah, Iraq

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, a validate couple-thermo flow model of the FSW process is generated using
Received 12 September 2018 the CFD software FLUENT, with this model, then being developed to model the flash for-
Accepted 5 November 2018 mation phenomena that occur during the FSW process using the volume of fluid method.
Available online 1 February 2019 From both models, pressure distribution on the tool surface was predicted at different radial
positions. A comparison was made between single and multiple phase flow models. A signif-
Keywords: icant reduction of the pressure values was seen when using a two-phase flow model. Volume
Friction stir welding fraction contour showed the changing in the metal phase when increased the welding time
Computational fluid dynamics steps. A modelling procedure of this work is presented in details to utilize it in the further
Two-phase flow numerical investigation as a guide. This work could be used to afford more understanding
Modelling of surface flash formation phenomena. Moreover, the outcome of this study can be a useful
technique to aid the tool failure and increase the tool life during the FSW process.
© 2019 Brazilian Metallurgical, Materials and Mining Association. Published by Elsevier
Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

been achieved which initially start with a pure an experi-

1. Introduction mental work to get a full understanding and to optimize the
process parameters. Those works include flow visualization
It is well-known that friction stir welding (FSW) is a thermo-
and producing less defect welding joints [2,3]. Nevertheless, it
mechanical process, in which generates heat reaches to 0.8
needs much effort in terms of economic perspective.
from the work-pieces melting point. As the heat gener-
An alternative approach has been establishing since the
ates from friction contact between the tool and work-pieces
invention of this friction base welding technique (FSW pro-
material, a complex phenomenon occurs. This phenomenon
cess), which is a numerical simulation. Numerical simulation
includes high viscous flow motion with a large amount of
approach started with a simple heat transfer model [4], follow
shear deformation. Assidi, Fourment [1]. Many works have
that a couple-thermomechanical model. In which based on
finite element method (FEM) or control volume method (CVM)
[5,6]. It has been reported that a FSW process is considered
∗
. to be a multiphasic phenomenon that involves high plastic
E-mail: ahmedfalh.eng@gmail.com deformation, high viscous flow regime, and solid state joining
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2018.11.016
2238-7854/© 2019 Brazilian Metallurgical, Materials and Mining Association. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1820 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827
method occurs at elevated temperatures [7]. Therefore, several
numerical works have been carried out in the order to pro-
vide more understanding of the underlying physics of many
observation that occurs during the process [8].
It is important to mention that the FSW process has three
stages, which are plunge, dwelling and steady-state weld-
ing. The main points that have been investigated by the
researchers and need to further understanding are flow pat-
terns, void formation, flash formation (bulge formation), and
tool work-piece interface conditions and microstructures evo-
lution [9,10].
According to what has been reported in the literature
since the invention of this welding process in terms of
numerical simulation, a fully coupled thermo-mechanical
model is widely used. In which, based on solid mechan-
ics and fluid mechanics theories [11]. With regard, to solid
mechanics, two main formulations have been utilized, Cou-
ple Eulerian–Lagrangian (CEL) formulation and Arbitrary
Lagrangian (CEL) formulation. In which have the ability to sim-
ulate the three stages of the welding process and could model
the free surface movement during welding stages (Defor-
mation on the top surface of the work-pieces). Numerical
simulation researches of the deformation at upper surface of
the plate during the FSW process or two-phase flow behaviour
have been reported in the literature relatively few since the
last two decades. The body of these studies provides a useful
information that can help to understand some phenomena
that occur during the FSW process. Guerdoux and Fourment
[12] developed a FE model using ALE formulation implemented
in FORGE FE software. The study used re-meshing technology,
Hansel Spittel as a material model and Norton’s Law for the
simulating the friction contact between tool and work-pieces.
The main outcomes of the study were modelling the flash
formation on the top surface of the welding plate and void for-
mation during the welding process. The model was validated
base on experimental data of the welding torque and welding
force, the study predicted the flash and voids formation. The
model provides more important details related to the welding
stages and flow of the material. They suggested that further
efforts are needed to study the friction contact and thermal
profile.
The voids formed during the process were predicted by
Schmid and Hattel [13] through the numerical simulation
of the FSW process. ALE formulation with re-meshing tech-
niques was utilized to perform the FSW process modelling.
The model was implemented in the ABAQUS FE software.
Coulomb’s Law of friction was used for implementation of
the contact and friction. The model was validated with exper-
iments data of temperature and plunge force. It provided
an information and description about how the filling cav-
ity behind the tool. Couple Eulerian–Lagrangian formulations
were used by Hoßfeld and Roos [14] to simulate the FSW pro-
cess, the model was implemented by ABAQUS FE software.
The study used Johnson–Cook constitutive material law as a
material model. The study focused on the voids formation and
weld zone shape. The study showed that the FE model with
CEL formulation was able to model the large deformations,
void formation, and material flow during the FSW process. The
results of the predicted temperature were not validated and
more works are required to develop friction model by including
the slip-stick condition.
Assidi et al. [15] developed FE base model of the FSW pro-
cess implemented by FORGE 3 FE software, employing ALE
approach. The study focused on the contact conditions of the
tool work-piece interface and flash formation that occurs dur-
ing the welding process. For the constitutive model, the study
used Hansel–Spitter material model and both of Norton’s and
Colombo law for friction contact modelling. The study showed
a good agreement for the predicted of welding forces and
temperatures distribution with experiential data. The work
provided a more insight into the FSW process in terms of
surface flash occurrence and tool work-piece interface con-
ditions.
Recently, Zhi et al. [9] predicted the voids formation
and plastic deformation zone using the threaded and non-
threads tool during the modelling of the FSW process. A
couple thermo-mechanical model FEA based model was
used employing a CEL formulation. The model taking in to
account the elements distortion issue, high plastic defor-
mation and flow behaviour that occurs during the welding
process. Johnson–Cook constitutive material law was used to
model the plastic material during the welding stage. Their
results showed that it could be predicted the void formation
and weld zone shape using different process parameters.
With regard to fluid mechanics theory, it used a Eule-
rian approach that utilizes Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) technique, which showed a valuable understanding for
the FSW process in terms of high viscous flow behaviour
during the welding process. Generally, Couple Thermal Flow
numerical modelling has been used to simulate the FSW pro-
cess. It has been used to investigate the different regimes
and prediction the thermal history during this process. A
work by Colegrove and Shercliff [16] aimed to analyze the
flow differences, temperature and pressure distribution using
different tool geometries A slip-stick conditions were con-
sidered and Zener-Holman material model as a material
model. The paper showed a useful information regard-
ing the tool–material interface and the ability to use this
model prevent the overprediction of the welding process
power.
Nandan [17] used CFD based model to predict the veloc-
ity profile and temperature distribution during the welding
process. In his work more insight was provided in terms of slip-
stick interface conditions. Hasan, Bennett [18] modelled the
FSW process using a CFD model to compare the flow behaviour
and shape-size of the deformation zones using unworn and
worn tool geometries.
More recently, a novel work can be considered was pre-
sented by Lin 2017, who developed a couple-thermo flow
model using commercial CFD code FLUENT. He predicted the
material distribution of the dissimilar material welded by FSW
and temperature distribution during the steady-state stage of
the welding process. The study adopted the multi-phase flow
theory and Volume Of Fluid method (VOF) to highlight the
stirring and distribution of the metals being welded as each
metal assumed to be a different phase from the other metal.
The two phases of the welding metals were assumed to be
Non-Newton’s high viscous flow.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827
Hasan, Bennett [10] used a CFD based model to develop a
methodology to predict the tool wear that associated with the
high viscous flow during the FSW process. Their work ana-
lyzed the flow during the process and pressure predicted on
the tool surface then used to calculate the tool wear based
on the modified Richard equation. The study showed how the
bifurcation of the flow around the tool causes an increasing
pressure value on the tool surface. The methodology can be
considered a novel work that predicted the tool wear associ-
ated with the high viscous flow behaviour during the welding
process. While some inconsistency was seen in the results
during the validation practically near the shoulder edge (Near
the top surface of the work-piece). The study argued this
duo for using single-phase flow model, which caused a local-
ized pressure near the shoulder edge. The study highlights
the fact that VOF can be used to model two-phase flow for
the further investigation to predict the flash formation which
can cause a pressure drop at the top surface of the welding
plate.
In the highlight of the literature discussed above, it can be
seen that different modelling approaches have been demon-
strated to predict the forces, torque and welding temperatures.
Additionally, flow analysis has been also investigated in
those approaches and some occurrence phenomena. This
phenomenon such as void and flash formation, which have
been investigated in these presented works. In contrast,
research papers considering two-phase flow modelling and
predicted pressure distribution on the tool surface associ-
ated with high viscous flow behaviour of the FSW relatively
few.
In this current study, a validate couple- thermo flow model
(single-phase flow) is presented. The outcome of this model is
to predict temperature and dynamic viscosity values on the
deformation zone. After that, they will be used to conduct
a two-phase flow model (Air-Metal phases). This work could
be used to provide more understanding of surface flash for-
mation phenomena. Moreover, hopefully, the outcome of this
study can be used in further instigation to develop tool wear
model.
2. Model description
In this work, two 3D FSW process models are generated
and implemented in commercial CFD software FLUENT. The
first one is used for the validation process and to determine
some variables that will be used later in the second model.
Model 2 is used for modelling the two-phase flow approach
and for predicting the pressure distribution on the tool sur-
face.
2.1. Assumptions
In the current pieces of work, the study focuses on the mod-
elling of a steady state welding stage based on Eulerian
formulation. The flow model that used in this study vis-
cous laminar with an incompressible fluid flow. As the tool
has been considered to be a main heat source of the heat
generation, therefore, thermal model is implemented with
transit model and the temperature value will be predicted
1821
and compared with an experimental study that has been
generated by Albakri et al. [19], with using same sensors loca-
tions.
In order to avoid the differences length scale, double preci-
sion is used to avoid convergence error as was recommended
[11,20]. Regarding the solver, a pressure-velocity coupling algo-
rithm (Semi-Implicit Method For Pressure Linked) SIMPL is
utilized to solve pressure gradient, incompressible flow and a
viscous term as used previously [21]. In order to state the gra-
dient of the cells variables the least squares cell base approach
is selected for spatial discretization.
The convergence of the solution is assessed by using
points monitoring, two points were used. They are located
in the deformation zone for the velocity and temperature,
while for the second model (VOF) model the point is located
at the interface between the two phases. Essentially those
locations represent the interested area and were monitored
throughout the solution until the difference reach less than
0.05% per iteration for any particular variables that speci-
fied.
The blocking strategy is used for generating the mesh
with ICEM software. The hexahedral cell shape is used for
the two models. The total numbers of the first model are
1,350,000 cells. While for the model two is 2,350,000 cells. It
is worth to mention that the study maintained fine mesh near
the deformation zone and the interface with a minimum cell
size of 0.2 mm and the average aspect ratio for both models is
kept below 7 as recommended by [20,22].
2.2. Geometry
In this study, two geometries of the computational domain
of the FSW models were used, both of there were rectangu-
lar cuboid. The model parts of model 1consist of a welding
work-piece, tool and a backing plate. While model 2 tool
includes air domain and neglected the backing plate. The
dimensions of both models are shown in Table 1; while,
Figs. 1 and 2 represent the geometries that were used for both
models.
Model 1 has been used to conduct the validation study
and to extract the average viscosity and temperature values
in the deformation zone. After that, those values were used
to implement the two-phase flow model (VOF model) with an
isothermal assumption to avoid any complexity might occur
during the modelling.
2.3. Boundary conditions
It is important to mention that the boundary conditions of
the CFD model play a significant role in the prediction of the
results. It should represent the real physical situation of the
welding process. The parts and boundary conditions of both
models are presented schematically in Figs. 1 and 2.
Flow inlet boundary condition has been defined as:
u = uinlet , v = 0, w = 0 (1)
where u, v, and w are the magnitude of the velocities in the x,
y and z directions respectively, uinlet is the welding traverse
speed. Work-pieces upper, lower and sides surfaces of the
1822 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827

Table 1 – Explanation of the dimensions of the model.

Parts Length Width Thickness Tool shoulder Tool pin Tool pin
(mm) (mm) (mm) diameter (mm) diameter (mm) length (mm)

Welding plate (AZ31 Mg) 250 180 3 13 6 2.9

backing plate (AISI 4142 steel) 270 200 10
Air domain 450 180 80

a
Total rotational speed
(rpm)

Inlet
Side wall
Advancing side
AS
Tool

Retreating side
RS

Fixed frame
sheet

Outlet

Fixed frame
backing plate

b
Tool Center line Retreating line 1
Advancing Line (RL1)
6.35 mm
(AL1)
5mm 5mm
AL1 RL1
Advancing side Retreating side
(AS) (RS)

Transverse
Sheet cross section

Fig. 1 – Computational domain and boundary conditions (a) schematic illustrate model 1 (b) tool design and sensor location
adapted from [23].

domain have been defined a free slip wall. A pressure out- Phase 2.Volume Fraction
Contour 2

let was assumed for the outlet boundary with a zero pressure Rotational tool
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

value.
Air phase 1
In this paper, the velocity components on the tool surface
are specified as tool angular translation in x and z directions
(u and w) that are shown in Eqs. (2) and (3):

u = (1 − ı) (ωr sin  − uweld ) (2)

Metal phase 2 Y
w = (1 − ı) (ωr cos ) (3) 0 50.00 100.00 (mm) z x
25.000 75.00

where ω is the tool speed rotation,  represents the angle from

the direction of the tool movement with the x-axis, and the
value of r between the range of rpin < r < rshoulder .
It is important to mention that in the current work the
slip-stick condition is implemented on the tool surface as in
Eqs. (2) and (3) by including contact slip condition ı term,
u and w refer to the velocity of the welded material at the
tool interface. It was assumed the value of contact slip to
has a value of 0.07 according to the study of Chen et al.
[24].
Another important point that needs to be specified cor-
rectly in the most powerful CFD model of the FSW process is a
dynamics viscosity (). It is well-known that during this weld-
ing process the material is subjected to sever strain rate with
high plastic deformation. The viscosity of the non-Newton’s
Fig. 2 – Computational domain illustrated model 2.
fluid in this model temperature-strain rate dependent. There-
fore, the most powerful material model that has been used
and suggested in such case of process modelling is the one
that developed by Sheppard and Jackson [25]. This constitu-
tive material model includes Zener-Hollomon parameter, flow
stress (e ), strain rate and temperature as shown in Eqs. (4)–(7).
Table 2 presents the most material properties that needed to
be specified in such model.
In this paper, the equations of the material constitutive
model, tool velocity and heat generations model have been
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827 1823

8 polylines from input file singlephase.csv

Table 2 – Material properties for the all parts domain
x 10-3
[26,27].
Value 2

0
Material property (Workpiece Mg AZ31)
−3

Y
, density 1777 kg m -2

 R , material constant 53.3 MPa -4

˛,material constant 7.78 × 108 s−1
5
m, the material constant 4.36 -5 0
0
Q, activation energy 129 kJ mol−1 5 -5 x 10-3

x 10-3 Z
Material property Tool H13 steel X
, density 7800 kg m−3
Thermal conductivity 24.3 W/(mK) Fig. 3 – Eight polylines represent tool surface data (positions
Specific heat 460 J/kg K and pressure); in the Cartesian coordinate system.
Material property Backing plate AISI 4142 steel
Density 7800 kg/m3 7800 kg/m3
Thermal conductivity 42.6 W/(mK)
throughout the solution until the change in the velocity was
Specific heat 473 J/kg K
less than 0.05% per iteration.

formulated and implemented in the commercial software
(ANSYS-Fluent); as User Defined Functions (UDF).
e
=
3ε
2 1/2
ε= εij εij
3 and mesh.
 1/m 
Z speed values 3, 7 and 15 mm s−1 .
e = R sinh−1
˛ • Validation the predicated data with Albakri et al. [19] work
Q
Z = ε exp
RT
where dynamics viscosity (. flow stress (e ), ε effective strain
rate and εij εij are strain rate tensor. As presented earlier, the
current work is couple-thermoa a fluid model that means heat
generation equations need to be specified. A transient thermal
model was implemented and the temperature was calculated
in the domain at specific locations as shown in Fig. 1 to validate
the model with the work by Albakri et al. [19]. Full details of this
heat generation model has been presented by the author else-
where [10]. The heat flux Qpin or shoulder was obtained from Wang
et al. [28] to had a total value of 1300 W. (0.75 from shoulder and
0.25 from pin) and heat input rate qr (pin or shoulder) is used to
implement the heat generation during the FSW process which
is given by Eq. (8):
3Qpin or shoulder r
qr (pin or shoulder) =  
3
2 rshoulder 3
− rpin
This model has been widely effectively used in the litera-
ture [4,29]. Besides, free air convection was assumed for the
convection thermal boundary condition, it was applied on the
top surface and sides of the work-piece and took a value of
40 W/(m2 K−1 ). While the backing plate heat transfer coeffi-
cient had a value of 35 W/(m2 K−1 ) e m2 K−1. Those values
were taken from [28,30]. In order to assess convergence of
the steady-state solution, the value of velocity at two points
(upstream near the tool and in the free stream) was monitored
3. Modelling procedure
A description of the modelling procedure for this paper is
listed in these steps as shown below:
(4)
• Generate a CFD model (Single phase model); replication of
Albakri et al. [19] work. This step included CAD geometry
(5)
• Solve the CFD model for the stated parameters (Traverse
(6)
in terms of peak temperature.
• Estimated the average temperature and dynamic viscosity
(7)
values in the deformation zone.
• Run Model 1 (single phase) predicted the pressure values
on the tool surface using 3 mm s−1 translation velocity,
1000 rpm tool rotation speed, dynamic viscosity 2.3E5 Pas
and 706 K as welding temperature.
• Generate CFD model 2 (two-phase flow), VOF, using the same
parameters for mode 1.
• Processing pressure date as described below:
Once the CFD model has been solved for both models, a
data file was exported to CFD post software in order to extract
the pressure distribution on the tool surface. To do this, eight
polylines were set on the tool surface, which represent the
pressure profiles, as shown in Fig. 3. By using a MATLAB code
that was written to process the data; in which, the tool sur-
face data is in the Cartesian coordinate system then it was
converted to the cylindrical coordinate system in order to get
(8)
tool surface data as a function to radial position. It has been
used to obtain an average data file, which provides a set of
values as a function of tool radial position, demonstrating one
tool surface as shown in Fig. 4.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Model validation results
It is important to get a validated CFD model results that can
be used to predict confident results for this study. Generally,
1824 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827

x106 Result of interpolation and averaging of pressure data 800

4
Input polylines a Experiments AS
Average result Predicted AS
3.5 750

3
700
Pressure (Pa)

Temperature (K)
2.5
650
2

600
1.5

1 550
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
rcyl (m) x10-3

500
Fig. 4 – Tool surface data after processing and obtaining a 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Traverse speed (mms-1)
verge set of data in the cylindrical coordinate system.

800
Experiments RS
b Predicted RS

many numerical studies have validated their models through 750

the comparison of the temperature distribution. In this part,

the study started with a replication of the work by Albakri et al. 700

Temperature (K)
[19] to validate the peak temperature that measured at sensors
locations that showed in Fig. 5. Model one was used to pre- 650
dict the peak temperature at specific locations as determined
by the experiments. The model was run at three welding tra- 600
verse speeds and then temperature values were taken on the
advancing and retreating sides. 550
In Fig. 5 the results of the predicted and experiments val-
ues were plotted at 3, 9 and 15 mm s−1 welding traverse speed
500
with a constant rotation speed of 1000 rpm. From the figure, it 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Traverse speed (mms-1)
can be seen that peak temperature decreased with increas-
ing the traverse speed of the weld this due to the inverse
Fig. 5 – Simulation and experimental values of the peaks
proportional between peak temperature and traverse speed
temperature, which obtained from Albakri et al. [19] at
which was determined by the study of [31,32]. Also, it has
different translational speeds and a constant rotational
been found that by increasing the welding traverse speed, heat
speed of 1000 rpm and (a) position of welding advancing
input rate decreased and causes an increase in the cooling
side and (b) retreating side.
rate during the welding stage.[31]. Another observation from
the figure is that the peak temperature on the advancing side
was higher than the retreating side which was showed an
agreement with what has been reported by the [33]. It can
be argued to the material in the advancing side existence in
the solid state then it undergoes to deform with high plastic Temperature
Contour 1
7.500e+002
deformation in the entire shear zone and more heat is gen- 7.050e+002

erated there. In addition, the tool components (traverse and 6.600e+002

6.150e+002
tangential) are in opposite which leading to low friction forces 5.700e+002
5.250e+002
resulting an increase in the temperature value in the advanc- 4.800e+002
4.350e+002
ing side [30,34]. From the figures, it can be seen a difference 3.900e+002
3.450e+002
between predicted and experiments values. The average dif- 3.000e+002
[K]
ferences were calculated to have a value of 11%. This miss
matching could probably due to experiments setting or (data
noise) or further developments need to be done for this model
2
in terms of heat generation model and the assumption that
0 50.00 100.00 (mm) x
has been made. 25.000 75.00

4.2. Obtaining the average temperate and viscosity
Fig. 6 shows the predicted temperature contour on the top sur-
face of the welding work-pieces. Clearly, it can be observed
that circular contours were seen and the peak temperature
Fig. 6 – Temperature contours over the top surface of the
work-piece at a translation speed of 3 mm s−1 and rotation
speed of 1000 rpm (Time step is 350 s).

0 3.000
1.500 4.500
Fig. 7 – Deformation zone shape at a translation speed of
3 mm s−1 and rotation speed of 1000 rpm using the value of
iso-viscosity surface (2.3E5 Pa s).
x 106
3.5
3
2.5
Pressure (Pa)
2 using two-phase flow model. It can be attributed to the surface
1.5
1 allows to the welded material to flows on the upper surface
0.5
0 surface of the plate was assumed a non-deforming wall, which
0 1 2 3 4 5
Radial distance (mm)
Fig. 8 – Average pressure distributions as a function of tool
positions for single-phase flow model and two-phase flow
model.
is 750 K, which is slightly higher than Albakri et al. [19], the
predicted contour is consistency with work conducted by [19]
for the temperature distribution. It is necessary to note that
the validation of the peak temperature has been done for the
specific location as in experiments. Function calculator was
used in CFD post to estimate the average temperature using
volume average method. In which, volume (volume of cells)
has been generated in the deformation zone. The deforma-
tion zone was approximately chosen as a conical shape with
a radius slighter higher than shoulder radius as it has been
reported and investigated by [18].
Correspondingly, the value of dynamic viscosity was esti-
mated in a similar way by using function calculate and volume
of cells. Fig. 7 shows the iso-viscosity surface using the aver-
age value of the dynamic viscosity of 2.3E5 Pas. It worth to
mention that the value of volume was selected to has a value
of slightly less than the shoulder diameter, due to what has
been reported in the literature in terms of size and shape of
weld deformation zone [18].
4.3. Predictions of the pressure
The pressure distribution on the tool surface was predicted for
the two models, (single and two-phase) and a comparison has
been presented. A comparison of the pressure distribution on
the tool surface is shown in Fig. 8 for both models. From the
graph, it can be seen that for both models there is no signifi-
cant difference in pressure trends from a radial value from 0 to
3 mm, this distance is a pin bottom surface. However, for the
single phase model the pressure trend is slightly decreasing;
j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827 1825
thereafter, the trend showed similar behaviour as in the pin
bottom surface. Following that, at r = 6.5 mm the pressure
values decreased to has a value of 2.8 E6 Pa. Regarding the
Y
two-phase model, the pressure trend at r = 3 mm is in contrast
6.000 (mm) z X
with what has been seen in a single phase model. In this
model, the pressure at that radial position increased to reach
a value of 0.6 E6 pa. Flowing that, decreased slightly to reach
a similar trend as in the single-phase model.
From the figure, it can be observed that the average single
phase pressure value has an order of magnitude of 3.2E6 Pa,
while for the two-phase model the value is 0.25 E6 Pa. It is
worth to highlight the difference between both models, in
terms of pressure distribution trends on the tool surface at dif-
ferent radial positions. The main differences that have been
seen are in the order magnitude of the pressure value, a sig-
Single Phase
nificant reduction on the pressure values has occurred when
Two Phases
flash formation phenomena that occur during the process; as
it has been reported by [28,35]. In that case, the VOF model
of the work-pieces that causing a reduction on the pressure
profile. However, in the case of single-phase model, the top
6 7
prevents material flow past the boundary and causes to an
increase in the pressure at that position.
It has been seen another interesting point in Fig. 8, at
r = 3 mm it is a sharp edge between the pin side bottom region.
There is a drop in behaviour was seen in a single-phase model,
while an increase in pressure trends was observed in the sec-
ond model. It might be argued that to a spiral motion and flow
separation at that particular position that occurs when using
such those tool design as investigated by [11,36] when using
tool has a sharp edge at the intersection between tool bottom-
side and shoulder intersection. Finally, the drop in pressure
values at shoulder outer edge (r = 6.5 mm) is due to the high-
velocity gradient with increasing in the slip velocity. It is clear
that the peripheral velocity of the welding tool has the highest
value out towards shoulder edge which, leading to decreasing
in pressure at the outer edge. To summarize the main key point
that was seen in this graph is that the VOF model seems to be
more realistic to predict the tool wear in a future study.
4.4. Predictions of the volume fraction
As mention earlier, the simulation is for the steady-state
welding stage. To get an understanding for the surface flash
formation that occurs during this welding process, transient
simulation of the two-phase flow (metal-air) is shown in Fig. 9.
It can be seen that there is two colour; blue which represents
the air phase and red for metal phase. Fig. 9 shows the initial-
ized case when t = 0, and the then when welding started with
the time Fig. 9a to d, the gradient of the volume fraction (phase
change) started to change within increasing the time.
In Fig. 9 it can be seen the time-dependent VOF formulation
that utilized to track the formation of the surface flash forma-
tion during this welding process. It can be observed how the
pattern of the metal and air around the tool shoulder outer
edge have changed. Fig. 9 explains the volume fraction con-
tours at different time steps. Fig. 9a to d, show the changing in
the metal phase when increasing the time. The metal phase
1826 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827

• The time-dependent volume fraction contour showed how

the metal phase near the shoulder outer edge has risen
above the initialized level.
• From the study, it can be concluded that the VOF model
Advancing side Tool Retreating side
seems to be more realistic to predict the surface formation.
• Further efforts are needed to develop the VOF model, which
Air phase
could include a mesh sensitivity study at the interface and
Metal phase
more simulation using range of time steps.
a • Utilizing the ANSYS FLUENT-CFD code to study the effect of
the high viscous flow, which has not widely drawn attention
in the previous studies in order to predict the tool wear in
b the FSW process. That could be a useful technique to aid
the tool failure and increase the tool life during the FSW
process.
c

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

d

references

Gradient of metal phase

[1] Assidi M, et al. Friction model for friction stir welding
e process simulation: calibrations from welding experiments.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2010;50(2):143–55.
[2] Colligan K. Material flow behavior during friction welding of
aluminum. Weld J 1999;75(7):229s–37s.
[3] Liechty B, Webb B. The use of plasticine as an analog to
Phase 2.Volume Fraction explore material flow in friction stir welding. J Mater Process
Technol 2007;184(1):240–50.
[4] Chao YJ, et al. Heat transfer in friction stir
welding—experimental and numerical studies. J Manuf Sci
00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

00
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

Fig. 9 – Volume fraction contour of the two phases (Air and
metal) for the (a) initialize case and (b, c and d) time steps
of 150, 250 and 350 s respectively; (e) is a magnification of
the right shoulder region for case (d).
near the shoulder outer edge has risen above the initialized
level. The formation of the flash occurs due to tool rotation
which, leading to metal rising up at that particular position.
This behaviour has been reported in the literature during the
FSW process as in [28].
Unworn tool velocity vectors at 2 mm plane below the
shoulder
5. Conclusions
From the study, some findings can be summarized as shown
below:
• The results of the temperature distribution on the welding
plate were experimentally validated and the average differ-
ence was seen with experiments to had a value of 11%.
• For both tool models, pressure distribution on the tool sur-
face is almost similar, with differences near pin -bottom
side intersection.
Eng 2003;125(1):138–45.
[5] Soundararajan V, et al. Thermo-mechanical model with
adaptive boundary conditions for friction stir welding of Al
6061. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2005;45(14):1577–87.
[6] Aljoaba S, et al. Modeling the effects of coolant application in
friction stir processing on material microstructure using 3D
CFD analysis. J Mater Eng Perform 2012;21(7):1141–50.
[7] He XC. Thermo-mechanical modelling of friction stir
welding process. in Advanced Materials Research. Trans
Tech Publ; 2013.
[8] Liu X, et al. Computational fluid dynamics modeling on
steady-state friction stir welding of aluminum alloy 6061 to
TRIP steel. J Manuf Sci Eng 2017;139(5):051004.
[9] Zhu Z, et al. A finite element model to simulate defect
formation during friction stir welding. Metals 2017;7(7):256.
[10] Hasan A, et al. A numerical methodology for predicting tool
wear in Friction Stir Welding. J Mater Process Technol
2017;241:129–40.
[11] Hasan AF. Modelling of tool wear and metal flow behaviour in
friction stir welding (FSW). University of Nottingham; 2016.
[12] Guerdoux S, Fourment L. A 3D numerical simulation of
different phases of friction stir welding. Model Simul Mater
Sci Eng 2009;17(7):075001.
[13] Schmidt H, Hattel J. A local model for the thermomechanical
conditions in friction stir welding. Model Simul Mater Sci
Eng 2004;13(1):77.
[14] Hoßfeld M, Roos E. A new approach to modelling friction stir
welding using the CEL method; 2013.
[15] Assidi M, Fourment L. Accurate 3D friction stir welding
simulation tool based on friction model calibration. Int J
Mater Forming 2009;2(1):327.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(2):1819–1827
[16] Colegrove P, Shercliff H. Development of Trivex friction stir
welding tool Part 2–three-dimensional flow modelling. Sci
Technol Weld Joining 2004;9(4):352–61.
[17] Nandan R. Computational modeling of heat transfer and
visco-plastic flow in Friction Stir Weld, in Materials Science
and Engineering. USA: The Pennsylvania State University;
2008. p. 198.
[18] Hasan A, et al. A numerical comparison of the flow
behaviour in Friction Stir Welding (FSW) using unworn and
worn tool geometries. Mater Des 2015;87:1037–46.
[19] Albakri A, et al. Thermo-mechanical and metallurgical
aspects in friction stir processing of AZ31 Mg alloy—a
numerical and experimental investigation. J Mater Process
Technol 2013;213(2):279–90.
[20] ANSYS® AR. Release 14.0 ANSYS Fluent User’s Guide.
ANSYS, Inc; 2011.
[21] Duan G, Chen B. Stability and accuracy analysis for viscous
flow simulation by the moving particle semi-implicit
method. Fluid Dynam Res 2013;45(3):035501.
[22] Ing. Václav Dostal, I.V. Ž. a. I. P. Z., SIMULATIONS OF
TWO-PHASE FLOW IN FLUENT in ANSYS konference
2008.[2008:] listopadu.
[23] Albakri A, et al. Modelling of friction stir processing with in
process cooling using computational fluid dynamics
analysis. Adv Sustain Manuf 2011:99–105.
[24] Chen Z, et al. Shear flow and formation of Nugget zone
during friction stir welding of aluminium alloy 5083-O. Mater
Sci Eng A 2008;474(1):312–6.
[25] Sheppard T, Jackson A. Constitutive equations for use in
prediction of flow stress during extrusion of aluminium
alloys. Mater Sci Technol 1997;13(3):203–9.
[26] Pinter T, El Mehtedi M. Constitutive equations for hot
extrusion of AA6005A, AA6063 and AA7020 alloys. Key Eng
Mater 2012;491:43–50.
1827
[27] Nandan R, et al. Numerical simulation of three-dimensional
heat transfer and plastic flow during friction stir welding.
Metal Mater Trans A 2006;37(4):1247–59.
[28] Wang W, et al. Influence of tool rotation rates on
temperature profiles and mechanical properties of friction
stir welded AZ31 magnesium alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2017;88(5–8):2191–200.
[29] Hamilton C, et al. A thermal model of friction stir welding in
aluminum alloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
2008;48(10):1120–30.
[30] Kim D, et al. Numerical simulation of friction stir butt
welding process for AA5083-H18 sheets. Eur J Mech-A/Solids
2010;29(2):204–15.
[31] Barenji RV. Effect of tool traverse speed on microstructure
and mechanical performance of friction stir welded 7020
aluminum alloy, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part L. J Mater Des Appl 2016;230(2):663–73.
[32] Zhang Z, et al. Effective predictions of ultimate tensile
strength, peak temperature and grain size of friction stir
welded AA2024 alloy joints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2014;73(9–12):1213–8.
[33] Li Y, et al. A review: effect of friction stir welding on
microstructure and mechanical properties of magnesium
alloys. Metals 2017;7(12):524.
[34] Siddiquee AN, Pandey S. Experimental investigation on
deformation and wear of WC tool during friction stir welding
(FSW) of stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2014;73(1–4):479–86.
[35] Chowdhury S, et al. Friction stir welded AZ31 magnesium
alloy: microstructure, texture, and tensile properties. Metal
Mater Trans A 2013;44(1):323–36.
[36] Michael E. The Effects of Tool Texture on Tool Wear in
Friction Stir Welding of X-70 Steel. Ohio State University;
2012.