54 TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM

TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY

IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM

M. Soron
ESAB AB Welding Equipment (Sweden)
E-mail: mikael.soron@esab.se

ABSTRACT

Robotic Friction Stir Welding (FSW) of complex seams involves a chain of tasks in which the process undergoes
several stages. At first, a planning stage in which a proper path is planned and the welding parameters are adjusted.
Secondly, the actual welding in which the emphasis lies on control, but also including monitoring. At the end of the
task chain we find evaluation, which may include techniques using the collected data during the run to determine
the manipulator’s performance. In this paper we propose an overall strategy towards a flexible FSW solution using
an industrial robot, including welding equipment and software to support all three stages in the system.

IIW-Thesaurus Keywords: Controls; Friction stir welding; Friction welding; Robots; Reference lists.

1 INTRODUCTION proven its value, are in the aerospace industry and in

Friction Stir Welding (FSW) is a welding technology,
invented at TWI (The Welding Institute, Cambridge, UK)
in 1991 [1]. It is a welding process, which is distin-
guished by being a solid-state joining technology. The
superiority compared to traditional fusion welding tech-
niques in terms of joint quality, especially in aluminium
alloys such as 7xxx and 2xxx, have created a good
reputation for FSW within the welding community. Pro-
blems often associated with aluminium welding, such
as shrinkage, porosity and distortions are eliminated to
a great extent, since the material is not melted nor is
any filler material added [2, 3].
Since the commercial introduction on the market a
decade ago, the main interest for FSW has been in
joining either extruded material or large plates. Typical
application areas have been the marine [4] and railway
industries, in which joining of aluminium panels is a
common operation. Other industries, in which FSW has
Doc. IIW-1870-07 (ex-doc. III-1432r1-07) recommended
for publication by Commission III “Resistance welding,
solid state welding and allied joining processes”.
Welding in the World, Vol. 52, n° 9/10, 2008 – Research Supplement
nuclear waste management [5]. In such applications,
the joint quality must meet extreme demands, due to
safety reasons. And another important aspect, within
this application area, is high repeatability. Obviously,
since an unsatisfactory weld in such application most
likely would result in high costs.
A typical welding approach, in order to draw bene-
fits from FSW, have been to apply this technique on
straight, preferably long, butt-joint geometries. In such
cases, the FSW process has been proven to decrease
production time and thereby the costs, due to minimi-
zed joint preparations as well as limited finishing work
[6]. The previously mentioned marine industry has typi-
cally gained productivity by using the FSW process,
due to these reasons.
Another welding geometry, often associated with FSW,
is circumferential welding. In such application a sym-
metric object is rotated, while a fixed (or with a limited
motion capability) welding head is performing the weld.
This approach has been applied in production of rocket
fuel tanks as well as in similar applications.
The one thing in common with almost all production
implementations of FSW, is the lack of a (or heavily
TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM
restrained) multidimensional workspace. Due to high
forces, most FSW machines are constructed using
prismatic (linear) axes, which results in a very limited
dextrous workspace. To overcome this limitation to
some extent, there exists a possibility to use a specially
designed tool, which may be oriented perpendicular to
the work object’s surface to weld 2-dimensional paths
and overcome the missing rotational capability of the
machine. But in many cases a slight tilt angle of the
tool (compared to the surface normal) may increase the
performance by preventing too much heat to be gene-
rated at the leading edge of the tool. And for objects
having a curved surface, the tilt capacity is needed in
order to apply a proper trajectory.
One approach used to overcome the limited workspace
of a linear axes machine, is to simply add rotational
axes. A five axes machine based on a linear gantry and
two rotational axes is commonly used. Such machine
may theoretically have enough dexterity to access the
complete 3-dimensional workspace for FSW. The main
issue with such solution is instead that the dextrous
workspace is dependent on the configuration of the
linear axes. This implies that there is often only one way
to achieve a desired location and orientation, which
may interfere with the layout of the application. It can
also be noted that many of these solutions have a hea-
vily limited rotational capacity, but the combination of a
rigid machine with a 3-dimensional workspace may be
a sound solution for e.g. complex planar welds.
To gain access to a greater 3-dimensional workspace,
one needs a more complex mechanical solution.
This has led to several implementations using indu-
strial robots for FSW. A standard industrial robot has
a 3-dimensional workspace, it is normally considered
as cost-effective and it has a highly developed user
interface for rapid programming adjustments. The
major drawback however, with a robot application is
the lack of force/load capability. And since the forces
involved with FSW are known to be high, a standard
robot might not have the capacity for FSW or have only
a very limited usage without undergoing changes in
both the mechanical design as well as with the control
system software.
The research efforts in this area during recent years have
shown that FSW using a standard or slightly modified
robot is feasible. In [7] a parallel kinematics robot, Neos
Tricept 600, showed successful results. The mecha-
nical design of the Tricept robot is well-known for its
stiffness and accuracy, which can increase the limited
application area for robots and add robustness. The
main issue with such robot is the relatively small and
complex workspace due to its design [8]. And another
drawback is the high cost, which may limit the pos-
sibilities for a widespread usage. The serial designed
industrial robot, the type commonly referred to when
discussing industrial robots, has been implemented
by several. In [9] an ABB IRB-6400 was used, later
switched to an IRB-7600 in [10], which has a higher
payload capacity. The main issue with this type of
robot, due to its design, is the compliance or said in
55
other words, lack of stiffness. This results in inaccu-
rate position control when the robot is in contact with
an object. These conclusions were also drawn in [11]
using a KUKA KR500, which has called for advanced
force control techniques to be implemented in order to
perform FSW using such a type of robot design.
The control solution proposed for this type of appli-
cation is typically a force/position hybrid control [12],
in which one or more motion directions are to be
controlled by force while the others are controlled by
position. The ability to apply a desired axial force on
the object, while moving along the weld seam, is the
preferred solution for FSW. Cook et al. [13] also pro-
pose this strategy to effectively handle the compliance
issues, confronted with a robot solution.
A force control solution may add robustness to FSW,
disregarding the machine issues. Even if the path is
programmed correctly and the machine is performing
its motion accurately, the material surface may contain
small deflections due to irregularities. Such surface
deviations may have a unique pattern, varying from
piece to piece and therefore call for an adaptive motion
to maintain a precise contact with the object, which is
obtained using the proposed force feedback solution.
2 IMPLEMENTING
THE FSW ROBOT SYSTEM
The proposed implementation of the FSW robot system
consists of both a modified mechanical unit and soft-
ware to control, plan and evaluate the system’s perfor-
mance. By integrating all parts into a system solution,
rather than keeping them separate, a higher level of
flexibility may be achieved. That is, by including rela-
ted tasks, such as e.g. robot path planning, within the
FSW process, the adaptiveness to rapid changes in
production could increase. And by including evalua-
tion feedback, errors could be corrected at a planning
stage based on analytic conclusions rather than the
operator’s intuition.
Below three stages are proposed for welding with the
FSW robot system:
1. Planning, which consists of path generation as well
as a weld parameter setup.
2. Welding, with emphasis on control (force control)
and signal monitoring.
3. Evaluation of the welded sample by destructive or
non-destructive methods as well as evaluation of the
control by the stored signal data.
The system required to fulfil such demands, consists
of both a mechanical part and several software imple-
mentations.
The robot used in this implementation is an ABB
IRB7600-500, which has a 500 kg payload capacity
and is based on the serial design, as discussed in the
previous section. The compliance issue is compensated
for by force control, but to minimize the unstable beha-
Welding in the World, Vol. 52, n° 9/10, 2008 – Research Supplement
56
viour of the manipulator, the mechanical configuration
is re-arranged. In FSW the 6th axis of the robot is red-
undant and may be replaced with welding equipment
(Figure 1). By applying this approach the distance from
the TCP (tool centre point) to the body of the robot
is minimized, which implies a reduced torque applied
on the robot’s axes. This implementation is discussed
in details by Soron et al. in [14], in which the welding
package consists of a motor, an angular gearbox, a
spindle and a force/torque sensor. The sensor reads
not only the z-axis component, but also the perpendi-
cular components, x and y, which are transmitted to the
control system. The latter components may be used to
compensate for path deviations caused during the weld
as a result of the side forces.
The force/position hybrid used to control the axial force
in this solution is based on the force control option
from ABB, which is embedded on the IRC5 control-
ler. This solution is well suited for FSW, having a high
sampling frequency (approximately 2 kHz), even though
the actual purpose of this implementation aims for a
different application area. To complement the axial
set-point controller, an implementation handling the
XY-plane deviations discussed earlier has been added.
In this case a high sampling frequency is not needed
since the response does not aim to minimize a measu-
red error. Instead the measurement may be used as
an input to a compliance model which calculates the
approximate correction needed to compensate for the
produced deviation.
By reviewing the earlier statement in which three tasks
were classified, planning should be the initial stage. By
planning the weld properly, we may minimize the trial
and error process, which is likely present in complex
scenarios. The task is initialized with an object for online
planning or even more preferably a geometric model of
the object (CAD), matching the real object’s geometric
characteristics for off-line planning. Such model consists
of topological features among which nodes are founded,
connecting as edges, edges connecting to wires and
wires connecting to frames, which bounds the corre-
sponding geometries such as curves and surfaces. By
extracting this information, significant reference know-
ledge is gained to build a detailed path without putting
trust to the skills of the human operator.
Figure 1 – FSW robot with integrated welding
equipment as a replacement of the 6th axis
Welding in the World, Vol. 52, n° 9/10, 2008 – Research Supplement
TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM
In FSW the surface determines the orientation of the
welding tool. Either the tool is to be oriented perpen-
dicular to the surface or with a slight tilt, by which the
surface may act as a reference geometry. On a flat
surface, only the orientation of the workobject plane
is needed. But on a complex surface the orientation
of the tool is to be calculated aligned (or tilted) to the
surface normal, as:
f f
u v,
nˆ ( u, v ) (1)
f f
u v
where
f(u,v) denotes the parameterized surface.
To access this information with a minimum amount of
effort, the topological relation between edges and faces
are used. By using the edge as a path reference and its
parent face for the tool orientation definition, the desi-
red information may be extracted from the object model
into a path model. The edge is originally modelled (at
the design stage of the object) as either a straight line,
an arc, a spline curve or a combination of such. The
path is then designed based on these underlying seg-
ments, to match the real object with high accuracy.
The next important step is to simulate the weld or at
least simulate the motion of the welding tool. This to
make sure that the path is planned accordingly and
that the robot is capable of executing it. When the path
is simulated and approved the system automatically
creates executable code for the robot controller. And
by using an Ethernet service, in this case ftp, the pro-
gram is uploaded on the controller, ready to be laun-
ched by the operator.
During the weld, a background task is monitoring a set
of signals on the controller. The values of these signals
are displayed in an HMI (human-machine-interface) on
the robot’s TeachPendant. And in parallel with the dis-
play, the values are stored by a logging service. The
signals available are:
– current frame (position and orientation);
– current joint vector;
– current force measurement;
– current torque measurement;
– path correction vector;
– spindle motor current;
which are monitored at a selected sampling interval
limited to a maximum value of 10 Hz. The monitor has
two different setups which
i) store the data in a local buffer on the controller, or
ii) transmit the data via TCP/IP to a remote computer.
In the first alternative a buffer of a pre-defined size is
used to store the values. At the end of a weld, the buf-
fer is stored to a file on the controller’s memory, which
later may be transferred to a remote computer via ftp.
Since this approach does not involve an online network
connection nor a transmission protocol, it may be con-
sidered a reliable solution. The main drawback, howe-
ver, is that the buffer must be allocated in advance due
to the lack of dynamically allocated arrays in the RAPID
TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM
language. This simply means that the buffer size needs
to be determined in advance, based on the sampling
interval and time needed to complete the weld. The
second alternative offers a little bit more, as it allows us
to monitor the signals on an external computer connec-
ted via Ethernet. To apply this strategy a software has
been developed, which includes an interface to con-
troller as well as a graphical monitoring context. The
solution is based on a client/server approach using a
TCP/IP socket, in which the remote computer acts as a
server. As a client (the controller) attempts to connect,
a new monitoring session is launched on the server (if
accepted). When receiving an <INITIALIZE/> request
from the client, the server automatically creates a new
window frame in the monitoring software, in which the
streaming data is presented. The transmission protocol
in the application is based on XML (Extensible Markup
Language [15]), which is a standard for representing
and transmitting data over the internet. This standard
allows us to transmit text based messages using a
pre-defined structure of elements. Below an example
structure is displayed in which the service has been
initialized to transmit the current frame and the force
measurement.
<INITIALIZE/>
<PARAMS>
<FORCED unit=”N”>2500</FORCED>
<SPEED unit=”mmpsec”>8</SPEED>
<ROTATION unit=”rpm”>1500</ROTATION>
<TILT unit=”deg”>2</TILT>
<PLUNGESPEED unit=”mmpsec”>0.2</PLUNGESPEED>
<DWELL unit=”sec”>0</DWELL>
</PARAMS>
<LOGREC>
<LOGP unit=”mm”>[100.0,25.0,250.0]</LOGP>
<LOGQ unit=”qat”>[1.000,0.000,0.000,0.000]</LOGQ>
<LOGF unit=”N”>[100,-250,1100]</LOGF>
</LOGREC>
…
</FINALIZE>
When reviewing the XML transmission, it is found that
the session is started with the <INITIALIZE/> request from
the client and that the welding parameters were sub-
mitted. One feature available in XML is the ability to
use attributes for the tags. In the parameter list, the
attributes define which units are used, e.g. in <FORCE
unit=”N”>, the N defines that the unit Newton is used for
the desired force value. By using such approach both
flexibility, since optional units may be used, as well as
reliability is gained, as the units used on the controller
are verified by the monitoring system.
After a weld is performed, an evaluation procedure
takes place. Depending on the application, different
strategies are performed in order to evaluate. Tradi-
tionally the operator visually inspects the weld seam
and in standard trials a few samples undergo a more
careful inspection, e.g. with bend test etc. There exists,
of course, a variety of seam inspection methods, both
destructive and non-destructive, where among the
common approaches include optical examination of
57
the microstructure [16] or inspection using ultrasonic
phased array techniques [17]. Yet another evaluation
performed, is on the force error. That is, how much the
measured force values deviate from the desired values.
This is rather an evaluation on the machine, but as the
heat input model for FSW highly depends on the axial
force [18], weld error may be derived through force
error. And since one of the drawbacks using an indu-
strial robot for FSW is the high compliance and limited
force capability, the force error evaluation becomes an
important performance measure of the robot system.
The force evaluation in the monitor system is presented
as the mean square error (MSE) [19]:
m
1
MSE ( xi T ) 2, (2)
m i 1
where
T is the target value,
xi is the i:th sample in the total collection of m values.
In order to avoid measurements (to some extent) which
are not a part of the actual weld, the MSE evaluation is
triggered based on the desired value. As the measure-
ment is launched, the MSE evaluation disregards the
readings until a threshold value is obtained, based on
the desired force value (or portion of it).
3 CASE-STUDY EVALUATION
The implementation of the system, as proposed in the
earlier section, may be evaluated as a case study in
which a weld is performed on a typical object. As the
procedure is initialized, a CAD model of the object is
obtained as in Figure 2. The object, consisting of two
parts where the bottom hollow part is made out of
die-cast aluminium and the lid out of AA5xxx, has a
length of 500 mm, a width of 100 mm and a height of
10 mm.
To generate a proper path for the application the lid of
the weld object is imported into the path generating
software. The lid’s outer boundaries represent the weld
seam exactly, which makes it an excellent reference
geometry for the weld path. When imported into the
software’s context, the topological data structure is
extracted and the upper surface is selected as a refe-
rence plane. Within the frame identified by the face,
8 edges are found representing the four sides and the
four radius corners. In this case the planning stage is
simple since
i) the path is to be located exactly on the edge of the
plate, and
ii) the edges are represented as executable segments,
that is as linear or arc shaped segments.
By selecting the edges one-by-one from the topological
list and exporting them as path segments, the positio-
nal definition of the weld is completed. When exported
previously, the edges included their topological parent
(face) and its geometry in order to apply tool orientation
Welding in the World, Vol. 52, n° 9/10, 2008 – Research Supplement
58
Figure 2 – The case study weld object consisting
of two pieces where the lid is AA5xxx
and the box is die-cast aluminium
normal reference. If a Frenet frame [20] is considered,
describing the tool’s moving coordinate system, then
Eq. (1) may define the frame’s normal, . The frame’s
tangent, , is easily extracted from the edges as:
dC( u ) dx ( u ) dy ( u ) dz ( u )
t , , issue is solved by defining the configuration quadrants
du du du du ,
t
tˆ
|t|
where
C(u) is the parametric curve representing the edge.
We may now form the bi-normal:
bˆ tˆ nˆ , (4)
to be used for re-orienting the frame by a tilt angle,
θ. By calculating the quaternion vector q = <η, ε >,
where:
cos , may be simplified in order just to resolve the 1st and
2 4th axes.
sin bˆ
b̂
2
and
υ=π-θ
for each segment end-point.
The path is then evaluated through simulation where
the FSW tool is included (Figure 3). If the path is misin-
terpreted by any reason, e.g. flipped due to surface
parameterization, this will show on the simulation. The
one thing not evaluated at this stage by the system, is
the robot’s kinematics. Instead issues, such as reach-
ability and singularities, have to be avoided using a
priori knowledge. It is, however, possible to use a robot
motion simulator, e.g. ABB’s Robot Studio to verify the
path from a kinematics point of view at a later stage.
The path is verified by the path planning system and
needs to be represented as executable code for the
robot controller. Due to the sound geometric definition
of the path on the modelling context, the correspon-
ding end-points may be converted to the RAPID pose
format directly. Any duplicates, due to end-start point
Figure 3 – The path simulated in an off-line
environment using a FSW tool to verify the path
Welding in the World, Vol. 52, n° 9/10, 2008 – Research Supplement
TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM
relations, are removed automatically, as they represent
the exact same target.
The data format used in the RAPID language consists
not only of the pose values (positions and orientations)
given by the model context, but also of axes configura-
tion and external axes values. The external axes values
are used to synchronize the TCP motion with up to six
external axes, e.g. positioners. This feature is at this
stage not used, which results in a default value setup.
The configuration values, on the other hand, cannot
be neglected. These values are used in order to avoid
the ambiguity of the multiple axes configuration corre-
sponding to the same Cartesian pose. For a six axes
manipulator (still considering the robot having six axes
from a control point of view) the maximum solutions
for the inverse kinematics are 16 solutions [21]. This
(3)
for axes 1, 4 and 6 (denoted cf1, cf4 and cf6) as well
as the robot’s position relative three different singula-
rity configurations (denoted cfx). To resolve this (to a
satisfactory extent) a few assumptions about our envi-
ronment have to be made. First, the weld is normally
applied within a bounded space in which the robot may
produce its largest amount of force, which implies that
the cfx variable should be set to 0. The cf6 values may
be neglected in this case and set to a default value.
Finally the two remaining values need to be calculated
via an inverse kinematics strategy, which in this case
(5)
The segment type to be implemented is inherited from
the modelling context without any difficulties. In this
case being constructed by arcs and lines, the controller
(6) implementation of the segment may be defined without
any further interpretation. The RAPID motion instruction
also relies on information about the TCP speed, zone,
tool and coordinate system, which have to be defined
explicitly. And the FSW motion instruction does also
include a force definition as well as optional data to
handle XY-plane deviations, which may also be defined
if needed. The variables that actually affect the welding
motion are in this case included in one data record, the
welding parameter list, which may be defined either in
the path modelling context or online on the controller.
The tools and coordinate systems used are pre-defined
on the controller and accessed through their variable
names. In case that the tool is not included in advance,
it may be converted based on its geometric layout and
be included in the module created by the path planning
system.
In the next step the RAPID module is transferred to the
control system via FTP and ready to be executed. One
issue that often comes in play for all off-line program-
ming is the calibration or rather the computer model vs.
real world. It is not unlikely that the real work object’s
location and orientation does not exactly match the
computer model, it therefore requires a calibration pro-
cedure, which in this case is not too demanding since
it is only one robot and one work object that requires
calibration.
TOWARDS MULTIDIMENSIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN FSW USING AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT SYSTEM
Before the actual weld is launched the path may be
tested without making contact with the object. The
path modelling system has automatically generated a
test procedure using the same path but with an added
offset. This type of testing should only be used if uncer-
tainties exist, as with the first time a complex path is
to be performed, to make sure that the path model
corresponds to the real world with accuracy. After the
test run has verified the path, the actual weld instruc-
tion is executed and the selected signals monitored.
The weld result is visually examined and the force log
and data is evaluated.
4 CONCLUSIONS
When performing FSW on more complex paths, con-
sisting of either complex or multiple segments, a pro-
cedure of planning, execution and evaluation may be
considered. By utilizing appropriate tools for each task,
the system gains flexibility and reliability. In this paper
a system is described in which we:
– use a modelling context, based on CAD models, to
plan and simulate the weld (motion);
– weld in calibrated environment;
– verify the result by object inspection and data eva-
luation.
One of the main aspects by implementing a robot
solution for FSW is to gain flexibility. But the ability to
e.g. apply changes in the production rapidly is heavily
depending on adequate tools to do so. Although, when
running in production only a limited use of the planning
context and evaluation is needed, but an ability to con-
nect the results from the evaluation to the model may
be used to e.g. adjust the parameter settings for the
next model to come.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author’s research is financed by the KK-foun-
dation and ESAB AB Welding Equipment. Their sup-
port is highly appreciated. The author is grateful for
the technical support provided by ESAB AB Welding
Equipment, ABB Robotics and the research centre for
Applied Autonomous Sensor System (AASS) at Örebro
University.
REFERENCES
[1] Thomas W.M., Nicholas E.D., Needham J.C., Church
M.G., Templesmith P., Dawes C.J., 1991, International
Patent Application no. PCT/GB92/02203 and GB Patent
Application no. 9125978.9, 1991.
[2] Chao Y.J., Qi X., Tang W.: Heat transfer in friction stir
welding – Experimental and numerical studies, Manufactu-
ring Science and Engineering, 2003. 125, pp. 138-145.
[3] Lomolino S., Tovo R., Dos Santos J.: On the fatigue
behaviour and design curves of friction stir butt-welded
59
Al alloys, International Journal of Fatigue, 2005, 27, 3, pp.
305-316.
[4] Dahl O.A.: Putting a new spin on fabricating ships’
hulls, Welding and Metal Fabrication, 1999, pp. 10-13.
[5] Cederqvist L., Andrews R.E.: A weld that last for
100000 years: FSW of copper canisters, In Proceedings
of the 4th International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding,
Park City, Utah, 2003.
[6] Stefani S.: Lighter weldments – Friction drives the
means, Welding and Metal Fabrication, February 2002,
pp. 8-14.
[7] Strombeck A.V., Shilling C., Dos Santos J.: Robotic
Friction Stir Welding – Tool technology and applications,
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Fric-
tion Stir Welding, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2000.
[8] Siciliano B.: The Tricept robot: Inverse kinematics,
manipulability analysis and closed-loop direct kinematics
algorithm, Robotica, 1999, 17, 4, pp. 437-445.
[9] Smith C.B.: Robotic friction stir welding using a stan-
dard industrial robot, In Proceedings of the 2nd Interna-
tional Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Gothenburg,
Sweden, 2000.
[10] Smith C.B., Hinrichs J.F., Crusan W.A.: Robotic Fric-
tion Stir Welding: The state of the art, In Proceedings of
the 4th International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding,
Park City, Utah, 2003.
[11] Voellner G., Zaeh M.F.: 3-dimensional Friction Stir
Welding using a modified high payload robot, in Procee-
dings of the 6th International Symposium on Friction Stir
Welding, Saint-Sauveur, Canada, 2006.
[12] Raibert M.H., Craig J.J.: Hybrid position/force con-
trol of manipulators, ASME Journal of Dynamics Systems,
Measurement and Control, 1981, 103, 2, pp. 126-133.
[13] Cook G., Crawford R., Clark D.E., Strauss A.M.:
Robotic friction stir welding, Industrial Robot: An Interna-
tional Journal, 2004, 31, 1, pp. 55-63.
[14] Soron M., Kalaykov I.: A robot prototype for Friction
Stir Welding, in Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics,
Bangkok, Thailand, 2006.
[15] Ray E.T.: Learning XML, O’Reilly, 2003.
[16] Cavaliere P., Cerri E., Marzoli L., Dos Santos J.: Fric-
tion Stir Welding of ceramic particle reinforced aluminium
based metal matrix composites, Applied Composite Mate-
rials, 2004, 11, 4, pp. 247-258.
[17] Bird C.R.: Ultrasonic phased array inspection tech-
nology for the evaluation of Friction Stir Welds, Insight
- Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring, 2004,
46, 1, pp. 31-36.
[18] Schmidt H., Hattel J., Wert J.: An analytical model
for the heat generation in Friction Stir Welding, Modelling
and simulation in materials science and engineering, 2004,
12, pp. 143-157.
[19] Battaglia G.J.: Mean square error, AMP Journal of
Technology, 1996, 5, pp. 31-36.
[20] Hanson A.J.: Quaternion Frenet frames: Making opti-
mal tubes and ribbons from curves, Technical report,
Computer Science Department, Indiana University, 1994.
[21] Manocha D., Zhu Y.: A Fast algorithm and system for
the inverse kinematics of general serial manipulators, in
Proceedigs onf IEEE Conference on Robotics and Auto-
mation, 1994.
Welding in the World, Vol. 52, n° 9/10, 2008 – Research Supplement