J Mech Behav Mater 2017; aop
C.B. Jagadeesha*
Analysis and design of friction stir welding tool
DOI 10.1515/jmbm-2017-0006
Abstract: Since its inception no one has done analysis
and design of FSW tool. Initial dimensions of FSW tool
are decided by educated guess. Optimum stresses on tool
pin have been determined at optimized parameters for
bead on plate welding on AZ31B–O Mg alloy plate. Fatigue
analysis showed that the chosen FSW tool for the welding
experiment has not ∞ life and it has determined that the
life of FSW tool is 2.66 × 105 cycles or revolutions. So one
can conclude that any arbitrarily decided FSW tool gener-
ally has finite life and cannot be used for ∞ life. In general,
one can determine the suitability of tool and its material
to be used in FSW of the given workpiece materials in
advance by this analysis in terms of fatigue life of the tool.
Keywords: fatigue analysis; friction stir welding; friction
stir welding tool design.
1 Introduction
FSW was invented by TWI England and has become wide-
spread. By FSW one can weld similar materials (Al, Mg,
Steel, etc.) as well as, dissimilar materials (Al to Mg, steel
to Al, etc.) [1–14]. Advancing side (AS) of the tool is the side
where linear velocity vector of tool and welding direction
are one and same, retreating side (RS) is the side where
these directions are opposite to each other. Weld nugget
(WN) is the central core of the FSW volume, in which mate-
rial has dynamically recrystallized. Thermomechanically
affected zone (TMAZ) is beside WN and has experienced
plastic deformation but not recrystallized, and beside
TMAZ is the heat affected zone (HAZ) which has experi-
enced only thermal cycle; beside HAZ is the base metal on
either side of weld volume.
No study has been done to determine the strength of
FSW tool during (after fixing the dimensions of FSW tool,
by educated guess) FSW process. If the tool material is
costly then one has to ensure the intact of the tool. Trav-
erse force opposite to welding direction is the main force
which causes the breakage of pin from the shoulder of the
*Corresponding author: C.B. Jagadeesha, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Bengaluru
560012, India, Tel.: +91 9880 529 105, Fax: +91 80 2360 0648,
e-mail: jagscb1966@gmail.com
tool. So if one fixes the optimum traverse force, then that
itself ensures the rigidity of the tool. It has observed that
traverse force reaches highest at low rpm compared to that
of at high rpm. If the tool is safe for low rpm then in turn it
is safe for higher rpm, since workpiece material flow stress
will be lower for higher rpm.
Prado et  al. [15] has set the optimum shape of the
tool experimentally; this type of tool has preferred for
all welds. Here the author has made a maiden attempt to
analyse and design of FSW tool.
2 Experimental
Indigenously developed computer controlled FSW
machine (BiSS Bangalore) was used for FSW experi-
mentation. The base metal used is AZ31B–O m ­ agnesium
alloy; composition of AZ31B–O Mg alloy: ­ 2.5%–3.5%,
aluminum; 0.7%–1.3%, zinc and 0.20%–1.0%,
­
­manganese. This has tensile strength = 240  MPa, yield
tensile strength = 140  MPa, elongation = 10%, Young’s
modulus = 45  GPa. HDS material was used for FSW tool;
HDS tool material has ultimate tensile strength = 1200–
1590  MPa, yield strength = 1000–1380  MPa, melting
point = 1427°C, Young’s modulus = 215 GPa.
Size of Mg alloy plate used was 250 mm × 80 mm × 5 mm
where 5  mm was the thickness of Mg alloy plate. A few
200 mm length plates were sufficient to determine optimum
parameters. Later FSW was carried out by using these
optimum parameters by noting various stresses or forces
and torques on the tool at these optimum parameters.
FSW tool has pin with top diameter 6 mm, bottom dia-
meter 4 mm, average diameter 5 mm, pin length 4.7 mm,
tool shoulder diameter 15  mm. Bead on plate FSW was
conducted on Mg alloy plate for the following parameters:
rotational speed varied from 300 to 500 rev min−1, welding
speed was 60  mm min−1, backward tool tilt angle was 2°
and plunge depth of tool was 4.9 mm.
After welding, plate were cut transversely to the weld
line, along the length of weld at equal length intervals;
samples polished, etched by using solution of 10  ml
nitric acid in 100 ml distilled water and macro image was
taken. For Mg alloy plate defect free weld was obtained at
340 rev min−1 (Figure 1). For this rpm, the following readings
corresponding to the above optimized parameters have
been taken from FSW machine computer; traverse force
Brought to you by | New York University
Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/17 9:58 AM
2      C.B. Jagadeesha: Analysis and design of friction stir welding tool

AS

Figure 2: FSW tool with various quantities.

340 RPM 2 mm

Figure 1: Macro image of Mg alloy plate welded cross section From Figure 2,
sample at 340 rpm.
FAp + FAsh = FA = 12.326 × 103 N (from FSW machine computer
and see Figure 2)
(FAp/FAsh) = (Ap/Ash) = (π × 52/4)/[π (152 – 52)/4] = 0.125
on FSW tool perpendicular to tool axis (Ftr) = 1.838 × 103 N,
FAp = 0.125 FAsh
total torque on FSW tool (Tt) = 19.66 × 103 N · mm, total
FAsh = 10956.444 N
axial force acting on FSW tool (FA) = 12.326 × 103 N.
FAp = 1369.555 N
σAp = 1369.555/(π × 2.52) = 69.75  N/mm2 (compressive)
(taking = 70 MPa)

3 Results and discussion Total torque Tt = 19.66 × 103 N · mm, from FSW machine
computer.
In Figure 2,
Here average pin diameter taken = 5  mm, which is equal
A1 = π × 2.52 = 19.634 mm2
to thickness of workpiece = 5 mm. Tool geometry has to be
A2 = π × 5 × 4.6 = 72.256 mm2
decided by thickness of workpiece. Same tool geometry
A3 = π ×(7.52–2.52) = 157.079 mm2
(but may be different tool material) for a particular thick-
As = A1 + A2 + A3 = 248.97 mm2
ness of workpiece material (or for different workpiece
T1 = Tt ×(A1/As); T2 = Tt ×(A2/As); T3 = Tt ×(A3/As);
materials). It is assumed that the tool shoulder with over-
Torque on only pin = Ttp = T1 + T2 = 19.66 × 103 ×(19.634 + 72.2
hanging length L and diameter dsh is rigid enough to with-
56)/248.97 = 7.256 × 103 N · mm
stand all type of forces and torque and moments since pin
has been designed to be safe, in turn shoulder is always
Maximum shear stress (τ) occurs at the root of the pin τ 
safe, since dsh > dp.
= Ttp × r/J = 7.256 × 103 × 2.5 × 32/(π × 54) = 295.6411 N/mm2
One has to determine the temperature (T) of tool
(=296 MPa). This estimate could be a higher value, since
during FSW. T of tool depends on rpm, workpiece material
shoulder area A3 is located at a higher radius; torque
and tool material. T can be measured by inserting ther-
shared by shoulder is higher than that of pin.
mocouple inside the tool pin through centre of shoulder
In Figure 2, maximum bending moment at the root of
or by other means. T is the maximum temperature of tool
pin of length L is M = Ftr × L/2:
pin during plunging of tool pin into the workpiece and
then dwell and afterwards tool just starts to traverse after M = 1.838 × 103 × 4.7/2 = 4319.3 N · mm.
giving a very slow (2 mm/min) traverse speed. For harder
Completely reversed maximum bending stress (σb)
materials (such as steel) highest rpm yielding highest
occurs at points 1, 2 (Figure 2):
weld nugget temperature should be selected.
σb = M × y/I = 4319.3 × 2.5 × 64/(π × 54) = 351.968  N/mm2
(= ± 352 MPa).

3.1 Case study All the following equations are extracted from [16].
We know that,
FSW tool is simultaneously subjected to axial force, trans-
(Sut)T = (ST/SRT)T ×(Sut)RT
verse (in the direction opposite to welding ­ direction)
and torque. The following applies to experiment in If T°C is the highest temperature of the friction stir
­experimental Section 2. welded volume and of the FSW tool, then (Sut)T is the

Brought to you by | New York University

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/17 9:58 AM
 C.B. Jagadeesha: Analysis and design of friction stir welding tool      3

tensile strength of the tool material at T°C (=400°C),

(Sut)RT is the minimum tensile strength of the tool material
(=1200 MPa) at room temperature and (ST/SRT)T is the ratio
at 400°C = 0.9; then

(Sut)400 = 0.9 × 1200 = 1080 MPa.
τ = 296 MPa; σb = 352 MPa; σAp = 69.75 MPa.
Se| = 0.5 × 1080 = 540 MPa.
ka = 4.51 (1080)−0.265 = 0.708; kb = kc = kd = ke = 1.
Se = ka × kb × kc × kd × ke × Se| = 0.708 × 540 = 382.57 MPa.

From Figure 2, filet radius = 1.5 mm; (D/d) = (15/5) = 3;

(r/d) = (1.5/5) = 0.3.
Therefore Kt = 1.3; q = 0.95, for bending.

(Kf )bend = 1 + q (Kt–1) = 1 + 0.95 (1.3–1) = 1.3 for bending

stress; Figure 3: S–N curve on a log–log graph paper.
(Kf )Ax = 1 + q (Kt–1) = 1 + 0.95 (1.55–1) = 1.52 for axial stress; Sf is the fatigue strength. N is number of cycles.
(Kfs)tor = 1 + qs (Kt–1) = 1 + 0.95 (1.2–1) = 1.2 for torsion stress;

where Kf ’s are fatigue stress concentration factors.

(σa)bend = σb = 352; (σa)ax = 0.0; (τa)tor = 0.0;

(σm)bend = 0.0; (σm)ax = σAp = 69.75; (τm)tor = τ = 296.
σa| = {[(Kf )bend (σa)bend +(Kf )Ax (σa)ax/0.85]2 + 3 [(Kfs)tor (τa)tor]2}1/2 
= 1.3 × 352 = 457.6 MPa.
σm| = {[(Kf )bend (σm)bend +(Kf )Ax (σm)ax]2 + 3 [(Kfs)tor (τm)tor]2}1/2
 = {[1.3 × 0.0 + 1.5 × 69.75]2 + 3 [1.2 × 296]2}1/2
 = 624.057 MPa.
Since Se = Sa the fatigue factor of safety nf is nf = (Sa/σa|) = 
(382.57/457.6) = 0.836; so pin design is not safe for ∞ life of
pin.
Stress concentration at filet can be reduced by
increasing the filet radius. Tool can be made stronger
by increasing the pin diameter. But both of these
decrease the effective flow of material around the tool,
as the path length around the tool pin at the shoulder
increases by the increase of these (filet radius and pin
diameter) two quantities. This will result in formation
of defects in weld volume, so both of these cannot be
changed.
Life cycles of the tool, if the tool has been used at
the above stated optimum parameters can be found as
follows [17]. See Figure 3,
0.9 Sut = 0.9 × 1080 = 972
Log10 (0.9 Sut) = Log10 (972) = 2.987
Log10 (Se) = Log10 (382.57) = 2.5827
Log10 (Sf ) = Log10 (457.6) = 2.66
EF = (DB × AE)/AD = (6–3)(2.987–2.66)/(2.987–2.5827) = 2.426
Log10N = 3 + EF = 3 + 2.426 = 5.426
N = 105.426 cycles = 2.66 × 105 cycles.
4 Conclusions
–– Initial dimensions of FSW tool are assumed by edu-
cated guess.
–– Optimum stresses on tool pin have been determined
at optimized parameters for bead on plate welding on
AZ31B–O Mg alloy plate.
–– Fatigue analysis showed that the chosen FSW tool for
the welding experiment has not ∞ life and it has deter-
mined that the life of FSW tool is 2.66 × 105 cycles or
revolutions.
–– So one can conclude that any arbitrarily decided FSW
tool generally has finite life and cannot be used for ∞ life.
–– In general, one can determine the suitability of tool
and its material to be used in FSW of the given work-
piece materials in advance by this analysis in terms of
fatigue life of the tool.
Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to DRDO, India
(grant no. DRDO/MME/SVK/0618), and Indian Institute of
Science, for their financial backing for this work.
References
[1] Dawes CJ, Thomas WM. Weld J. 1996, 75, 41–45.
[2] Somasekharan AC, Murr LE. Mater. Charact. 2004, 52, 49–64.
[3] Sato YS, Seung CH, Michiuchi M, Kokawa H. Scripta Mater.
2004, 50, 1233–1236.
[4] Yan J, Xu Z, Li Z, Li L, Yang S. Scripta Mater. 2005, 53, 585–589.
[5] Hirano S, Okamoto K, Doi M, Okamura H, Inagaki M, Aono Y.
Q. J. Jpn. Weld. Society 2003, 21, 539–545.

Brought to you by | New York University

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/17 9:58 AM
4      C.B. Jagadeesha: Analysis and design of friction stir welding tool

[6] Zettler R, da Silva AAM, Rodrigues S, Bianco A, dos Santos JF.
Adv. Eng. Mater. 2006, 8, 415–421.
[7] Khodir SA, Shibayanagi T. Mater. Trans. Jpn. Inst. Met. 2007,
48, 2501–2505.
[8] Venkateswaran P, Xu ZH, Li X, Reynolds AP. J. Mater. Sci. 2009,
44, 4140–4147.
[9] Kwon YJ, Shigematsu I, Saito N. Mater. Lett. 2008, 62,
3827–3829.
[10] Kostk A, Coelho RS, dos Santos J, Pyzalla AR. Scripta Mater.
2009, 60, 953–956.
[11] Li Y, Murr LE, McClure JC. Scripta Mater. 1999, 40, 1041–1046.
[12] Scialpi A, Giorgi MD, Filippis LACD, Nobile R, Panella FW. Mater.
Des. 2008, 29, 928–936.
[13] Lee WB, Yeon YM, Jung SB. Scripta Mater. 2003, 49, 423–428.
[14] Watanbe T, Takayama H, Yanagisawa A. J. Mater. Process.
­Technol. 2006, 178, 342–349.
[15] Prado RA, Murr LE, Soto KF, McClure JC. Mater. Sci. Eng. A
2002, 349, 155–165.
[16] Shigley JE. Mechanical Engineering Design, 8th ed., Tata
McGraw Hill: New Delhi, 2008.
[17] Bhandari VB. Design of Machine Elements, 3rd ed., Tata
McGraw Hill: New Delhi, 2010.

Brought to you by | New York University

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/17 9:58 AM