Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015) 528 – 533

2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IRIS 2015)

A Review of Force Control Techniques in Friction Stir Process

Nur’Amirah Busu, M. Shamil Jaffarullah, Cheng Yee Low*, M. Saiful Bahari Shaari,
Armansyah and Ahmed Jaffar
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

This paper reviews current force control techniques in friction stir welding for aluminium alloys. In the context of friction stir
process, travel force control, axial force control and torque control are studied in accordance to the control technique, tool
geometry and process parameters such as travel speed, tool rotational speed and tilt angle that significantly affect the welding
process. Thus, this study highlights the potentials and shortcomings of this control strategy which eventually leads to better
performance in friction stir process. It provides insights on ways to improve the quality of welding in terms of microstructure and
consistency of weldment formation as well as the elimination of wormhole generation.

©
© 2015
2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier B.V.B.V.
Elsevier 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 organizing committee of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent
Sensors(IRIS
Sensors (IRIS2015)
2015).

Keywords: Force Control; Friction Stir Welding; Travel Force Control; Torque Control; Axial Force Control

1. Introduction

Friction stir welding (FSW) was firstly invented by Wayne Thomas in 1991 at The Welding Institute (TWI),
Cambridge, United Kingdom1. The process of FSW consists of three sequential phases which are plunge phase,
welding phase and retract phase. This process is commonly used for welding soft metals or alloys such as
aluminium alloy. The technique is advantageous as it is more environmentally-friendly. It requires no filler metal
and supplies less energy compared to conventional welding. Furthermore, no fumes are produced during aluminium
welding hence shielding gas is not required 2.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 0060 3 5543 6276; fax: 0060 3 5543 5160.
E-mail address: chengyee.low@salam.uitm.edu.my

1877-0509 © 2015 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 organizing committee of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IRIS 2015)
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.331
 Nur’Amirah Busu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015) 528 – 533 529

1.1. Force Contributions in FSW

The most relevant loads subjected to the tool during FSW are axial force, travel force and torque. Axial force is
one of the main process parameters that will produce friction between the tool and the work piece. This friction is
the main factor of the generation of heat in the entire welding process. In order to perform a successful FSW
process, a force controller of the welding direction is required. Hence, proper contact between the tool and the work
piece should be maintained so that excessive flash that will lead to welding defects such as surface voids and
wormholes can be avoided3. Consistent axial force is required to produce weld microstructures of good quality4.
Meanwhile, travel force is a consequence of the material’s resistance to the tool traveling along the joint line.
This force is mostly affected by the travel speed where an increase in speed will increase the force generation.
Therefore, by controlling this travel force, the presence of gaps and wormhole generation can be eliminated5.
Lastly, torque is a consequence of friction between the tool and the work piece and corresponds to the heat input
into the system. Higher friction and wider contact area yield more torque. The motor which drives the tool must
have enough power to ensure a stable rotation of the tool with unexpected speed fluctuations6.

2. Force Control in FSW

For years scientists and engineers have investigated and analyzed the force controller for FSW to obtain weld
microstructures of good quality by regulating the axial force and travel force simultaneously during the process.
The vertical position, the travel speed, and the tool rotational speed are the main parameters that control the forces in
this FSW process7. Several techniques using the feedback controller are widely applied for force control technique
in FSW. According to B. T. Gibson et al.8 FSW uses a rotating tool which is similar to milling machine using an
end mill. Thus, several experimentation methods were used to validate the results that will be discussed in this
section. Other researches on the contribution of force control in FSW are presented in Table 1 with different
contributions in terms of process parameters, type of workpieces and tool geometry.

2.1. Travel Force Control

Xin Zhao et al.5 proposed the feedback controller for travel force by using Polynomial Pole Placement (PPP)
technique to regulate the travel force at a constant value. They focused on designing the controller based on the
empirical dynamic models using Smith Predictor – Corrector (SPC) structure to compensate inherent equipment
communication delays for 6061 - T6 aluminium alloy, butt welded. The threaded tool contains three flats and a
scrolled shoulder was used. The tilt angle was zero and the force signal was filtered via a low pass filter. The
controller closed-loop system block diagram is shown in Fig. 1 where Fr indicates the reference force, E represents
the error between the reference and measured forces, C refers to the controller transfer function, U is the control
signal, G represents the model force process transfer function, F is the measured force and n stands for the number
of equipment delay periods5.
This travel force controller was validated using experiments. The data revealed that the controller was able to
track constant reference path forces, plunge depth, tool travel speed and was able to eliminate the wormholes during
the welding process.

Fig. 1. Closed-Loop Force Control System Block Diagram5.

530 Nur’Amirah Busu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015) 528 – 533

2.2. Axial Force Control

Thomas Oakes et al.3 proposed a method for force filtering, developed a dynamic process model, designed and
implemented a general tracking controller for the regulation of axial force for both constant and sinusoidal reference
signals in FSW processes. They used a general tracking controller that was implemented using Smith Predictor -
Corrector Structure to compensate for pure communication delay. The controller worked on bead - on - plate welds
using a 6.35mm thick plate of 6061 aluminium alloy. The tool was tapered, threaded and contains three flats. The
process parameters of plunge depth (4.191 - 4.716mm), travel rate (2.0mm/s v 3.2mm/s) and tool rotational
speed (1300rpm N 1900rpm) were taken into consideration. Tilt angle was constant. This research proved that
as the plunge depth increased, the axial force increased and eventually reached a steady value.
Fig. 2 shows a block diagram of the system with general tracking controller implemented in the SPC structure.
Significant variations were presented in the plunge depth to maintain constant reference force. Besides that, this
general tracking controller provided an effective means to compensate for these errors and hence, successfully
tracked a number of desired reference forces. The experimental results demonstrated good performance of tracking
all reference signals with minimum error.

Fig. 2. Closed - loop system block diagram with general tracking controller in SPC structure3.

2.3. Torque Control

William R. Longhurst et al.9 introduced and examined torque as a control parameter instead of the axial force
since the feedback signal of torque provided a better indicator of tool depth into the work piece compared to the
axial force. Fig. 3 shows an overview of the closed-loop torque control system that was used in his work. According
to this research, torque was more sensitive to tool depth compared to axial force.
This work was performed by using the torque controller retrofitted on the Milwaukee Model K milling machine.
Butt joint with full penetration was performed on aluminium 6061 with threaded tool. The threaded pin was
5.969mm long with a diameter of 6.35mm across its threads while the shoulder was a hybrid nature with a flat
diameter of 15.875mm acting as the forging surface. The remaining portion of the shoulder was 7° taper. The travel
speed selected was 152.4mm/min or 76.2mm/min and the plunge depth of 0.000 to 0.051mm was measured from the
work piece surface. Meanwhile, the tool rotational speed was maintained at 1400 rev/min. The tool’s plunge depth
was adjusted in reaction to 1mm step and ramp disturbances on the work piece surface. It shows that the torque was
controllable with a standard deviation of 0.231Nm.
This research revealed that torque control was an attractive option as an alternative to force control. It is proved
statistically that the torque is maintained at about 15.57Nm with a standard deviation of 0.231Nm, where the desired
torque was expected to be about 15.52Nm. Conclusively, to control the torque, the plunge depth must be well
controlled during the process. This proves that torque control was more representative to measure the actual plunge
depth compared to axial force. Thus, weld formation of good quality can be achieved.
 Nur’Amirah Busu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015) 528 – 533 531

Fig. 3. Block diagram of torque control via plunge depth9.

Table 1. Summary of force control analysis in FSW with varying types of materials, tools and process parameters.

Authors Objective(s) Workpiece and Tool Parameters Findings

Raza Evaluation of the tool Workpiece Tool rotational speed: z Rotational speed of 800rpm,
Moshwan, rotational speed effect z Material: 800rpm, 1000rpm, 1000rpm, 1500rpm and 2000rpm
Farazila on the tool force AA 5052 - O 1500rpm, 2000rpm and produced sound welded joints
Yusof, et generation, mechanical z Dimension: 3000rpm with smooth surface appearances
al.10 and microstructural 100mm x 50mm x 3mm except 3000rpm.
behavior of AA 5052 - Traverse speed: z The tool rotational speed
O alloy plates. Tool 120mm/min increased, the downward force
z Type: decreased and the longitudinal
Flat shoulder and pin Tilt angle: 0º force increased when operating
under the same condition.
Joint configuration: z The tool rotational speed had no
Butt joints significant effect on travel speed.
A. Roth, Development of torque Workpiece Tool rotational speed: z Torque and axial force decreased
T. Hake, modelling in FSW z Material: 500rpm, 1200 rpm and with increasing of temperature,
M. F. based on a AA 5083 - H 111 1750rpm thus, softening the material in the
Zaeh11 sliding/sticking z Dimension: shear layer and vice versa.
condition in the Ø 40mm x 40mm Tilt angle: 0º z Friction coefficient increased
contact interface when the rotation speed
correlating the Tool Joint configuration: decreased and dropped with
fundamental response z Type: Butt joints abrupt step - ups of the plunge
variables temperature Flat shoulder with a depth.
and axial force to conical thread pin with z Friction coefficient = 0.3 - 0.4.
torque. three flats equally spaced
on the circumference.
D. Focused on measuring Workpiece Tool rotational speed: z Maximum forces occur during the
Trimble, J. and fully z Material: 450rpm plunge stage and reduce by 35%
Monaghan characterising the AA 2024 - T3 during the translational stage.
, G. E. different forces acting z Dimension: Traverse speed: z A pin with a threaded designs
O’Donnell on the tool during the 260mm x 80mm x 180mm/min increased material deformation
532 Nur’Amirah Busu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015) 528 – 533

12
FSW and establishing 4.8mm and mixing of the work piece
the magnitude of their Tilt angle: 2º material better compared to a
impact on the FSW Tool Joint configuration: smooth pin design.
process. z Type: Butt joints z Variation of the pin did not have
Concave shoulder with 7º a significant effect on the torque.
recess angle and two z All forces reached almost steady
different pin; threaded state values during the
cylindrical and smooth translational stage.
cylindrical.
Rajneesh The studies of the Workpiece Tool rotational speed: z Tool rotational speed, welding
Kumar, process forces and heat z Material: 420rpm and 500rpm speed and tool shoulder diameter
Kanwer input with varying AA 5083 were the most significant
Singh, parameters. z Dimension: Traverse speed: parameters affecting axial force
Sunil 12mm x 100mm x 80mm/min and and heat input.
Pandey13 1000mm 120mm/min z Longitudinal force was
significantly affected by welding
Tool Tilt angle: 2º speed and probe diameter and
z Type: interaction of tool diameter and
Flat shoulder with Joint configuration: rotational speed.
cylindrical pin having Butt joints z Heat input was affected by
half of depth machined as welding speed, tool diameter and
an equilateral triangle. rotational speed.
Tyler A. Presented an observer Workpiece Tool rotational speed: z As the tool approaches the edge
Davis, - based adaptive robust z Material: 2000rpm and 2500rpm of the work piece, heat generated
Yung C. control (ARC) AA 7075 by the tool can no longer be
Chin, et approach for the axial z Dimension: Traverse speed: transferred away from the tool in
al.14 force of FSW to 76mm x 101mm x 120mm/min , 180mm/min all directions.
overcome process 6.35mm and 240mm/min z Method used to calculate axial
disturbances and force from spindle motor power
model errors. Tool Tilt angle: 0º does not consider all the
z Type: necessary variables.
Flat shoulder with a Joint configuration: z The effective control of FSW
tapered pin that was Butt joints axial force was by manipulating
threaded and has three the travel velocity.
flats. z The combined ARC/ADDF
approach performed well even in
the presence of significant
process variation and model error.

3. Conclusion

Friction stir welding offers a number of advantages in manufacturing. The control forces in the friction stir
process are required critically. During the friction stir process, the travel force control performed well in tracking
constant path and eliminated wormholes. The axial force control was a better technique to maintain proper frictional
contact between the tool and workpieces and also prevents welding defects and excessive flash. Compared to axial
force and travel force control, torque control has the potential to increase the range of process variables suitable for a
stable control due to its sensitivity to the tool plunge depth into the work piece. Therefore, a combination of both the
travel force control and the axial force control with torque control is viable to produce a highly stable and robust
force control strategy in friction stir welding.
 Nur’Amirah Busu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015) 528 – 533 533

Acknowledgments

The research team wishes to thank the Ministry of Education Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi MARA for the
financial support under the grant numbers 600-RMI/ERGS 5/3 (16/2013) and 600-RMI/DANA 5/3/PSF (9/2015),
and the Research Management Institute (RMI) for the management assistance.

References

1. Neto DM and Neto P. Numerical Modeling of Friction Stir Welding Process: A Literature Review. The International Journal of Advance
Manufacturing Technology; 2012. p. 115–126.
2. De Backer J and Verheyden B. Robotic Friction Stir Welding for Automotive and Aviation Applications. Master Thesis of University West;
2009.
3. Thomas Oakes and Landers RG. Design and Implementation of a General Tracking Controller for Friction Stir Welding Processes. 2009
American Control Conference; 2009.
4. Zhao X, Kalya P, Landers RG, Krishnamurthym K. Empirical Dynamic Modeling of Friction Stir Welding Processes. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering - Transactions of the ASME; 2009.
5. Xin Zhao, Prabhanjana Kalya, Landers RG, Krishnamurthy K. Path Force Control for Friction Stir Welding Processes. AFRL - RX - WP -
TP - 2009 - 4127, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate; 2009.
6. Jeroen De Backer. Feedback Control of Robotic Friction Stir Welding. PhD Thesis Production Technology; 2014.
7. Longhurst WR, Strauss AM, Cook GE, Cox CD, Hendricks CE, Gibson BT et al. Investigation of Force Controlled Friction Stir Welding for
Manufacturing and Automation. Journal of Engineering Manufacture; 2010.
8. Gibson BT, Lammlein DH, Prater TJ, Longhurst WR, Cox CD, Ballun MC, Dharmaraj KJ, Cook GE, Strauss AM. Friction Stir Welding:
Process, Automation and Control. Journal of Manufacturing Processes; 2014.
9. Longhurst WR, Strauss AM, Cook GE, Fleming PA. Torque Control of Friction Stir Welding for Manufacturing and Automation.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology; 2010.
10. Raza Moshwan, Farazila Yusof, Hassan MA, Rahmat SM. Effect of Tool Rotational Speed on Force Generation, Microstructure and
Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Welded Al – Mg – Cr – Mn (AA 5052 – O) Alloy. Materials and Design 66; 2015. p. 118 – 128.
11. Roth A, Hake T, Zaeh MF. An Analytical Approach of Modelling Friction Stir Welding. International Conference on Manufacture of
Lightweight Components – ManuLight2014, Procedia CIRP 18; 2014. p. 197 – 202.
12. Trimble D, Monaghan J, O’Donnell GE. Force Generation during Friction Stir Welding of AA2024 – T3. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology 61; 2012. p. 9 – 12.
13. Rajneesh Kumar, Kanwer Singh, Sunil Pandey. Process Forces and Heat Inputs as Function of Process Parameters in AA5083 Friction Stir
Welds. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 22; 2012. p. 288 – 298.
14. Davis TA, Shin YC, and Bin Yao, Member, IEEE. Observer – Based Adaptive Robust Control of Friction Stir Welding Axial Force.
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics; 2011.