Available online www.jsaer.

com

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

ISSN: 2394-2630
Research Article CODEN(USA): JSERBR

Influence of Tool Pin Geometry in Friction Stir Spot Welded Polymer Sheets

Mustafa Kemal Bilici1, Ahmet Irfan Yükler2, Memduh Kurtulmuş2

1
Marmara University Applied Science High School, Goztepe Campus, Istanbul
2
Marmara University Technology Faculty, Goztepe Campus, Istanbul
Abstract The effect of important welding parameters and tool properties that are effective on static strength in
friction stir spot welds of polymer sheets were studied. Different tool pin profiles with different pin length and
pin angle were used to fabricate the joints. The tool rotational speed, tool plunge depth and dwell time were
determined welding parameters. All the welding operations were done at the room temperature. Lap-shear tests
were carried out to find the weld static strength. Weld cross section appearance observations were also done.
From the experiments, the effect of pin profile, pin length, pin angle and tool rotational speed on friction stir
spot welding formation and weld strength was determined.

Keywords polymers (thermoplastics), friction-stir spot welding, polymer welding, welding parameters
Introduction
In 2001, friction stir spot welding (FSSW) was developed in the automotive industry to replace resistance spot
welding for aluminum sheets [1]. FSSW of metals is a solid-state welding process. The friction stir spot welding
(FSSW) process has been successfully applied to thermoplastic sheets since 2003 [2]. The FSSW process of
thermoplastics consists of four phases; plunging, stirring, solidifying and retracting as shown in Figure 1 [3].
The rotating tool is plunged into the attached work pieces with force to a certain depth. In the stirring phase the
tool doesn’t plunge. Frictional heat is generated in the plunging and the stirring phase and thus, the material
adjacent to the tool is heated and melted [3]. The melted upper and lower work piece materials mix together in
the stirring phase. When a predetermined amount of melt is obtained, the tool rotation stops. The tool is held for
a while in the work pieces to solidify the liquid material under tool pressure and to form the nugget which joins
the work pieces. The holding time of the tool was named as the dwell time. Then the tool is retracted. FSSW of
polymers is not a solid-state welding process, it is a fusion welding method.

Figure 1: Four phases of friction stir spot welding process: (a) plunging, (b) stirring, (c) solidifying and (d)
retracting [3].
During FSSW the heat is generated at the interface of rotating tool and the work piece due to friction. The tool
geometry and welding parameterseffect heat generation, joint formation and strength of welds in FSSW [4]. The
tool consists of two parts [5]: the shoulder and the pin.The pin generates friction heat, deforms the material
around it and stirs the heated material [6]. The size of the pin [7], the pin angle [8], pin thread orientation [9],

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

15
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

pin length [10] and pin profile [11] were found important in nugget formation. The shoulder of the tool
generates heat during the welding process, forges the heated material, prevents material expulsion and assists
material movement around the tool [12]. The size of the shoulder and its concavity are also important in friction
stir spot welding [13].

Figure 2: (a) Schematic illustration of the cross section of a friction stir spot weld, (b) Geometry of the weld
bond area[4]: X, nugget thickness; Y, the thickness of the upper sheet[14].
The weld zone of a FSSW joint is schematically shown in Figure 2a [4]. The resulting weld has a
characteristic keyhole in the middle of the joint as shown in Figure 2a. From the appearance of the weld cross
section, two particular points can be identified: (1) The thickness of the weld nugget (X) and (2) The thickness
of the upper sheet under the shoulder indentation (Y). The thickness of the weld nugget is an indicator of the
weld bond area (Figure 2b). The weld bond area increases with the nugget thickness. The size of the thickness
of the weld nugget and the weld bond area determine the strength of a FSSW joint [3]. The size of the upper
sheet thickness under the shoulder indentation also determines the strength of a FSSW joint [14].
In this study we intended to investigate the effects of tool pin geometry on weld properties of high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) FSSW joints. In this paper, we focused on the effects of the pin
profile, size of the pin, the pin angle and pin lengthon weld nugget formation and the weld strength.

Materials and Methods

In this investigation, 4 mm thick HDPE and PP sheets were used. The specimens were welded in a milling
machine. A spot weld joint was obtained in the middle of the specimen. Figure 3 illustrates a magnified cross
sectional view of the SAE 1050 steel tool used in the welding. The tool dimensions are shown in Figure 3. In all
tools the shoulder diameter was 30 mm and concavity angle was 6 degrees. Three different tool pin profiles
(straight cylindrical, tapered cylindrical and threaded cylindrical) were used to fabricate the joints (Figure 4). In
straight cylindrical, tapered cylindrical and threaded cylindrical pins, the pin diameter wasdetermined by
measuring the bottom diameter of the pin. The threaded cylindrical pin was produced bya standard M8 thread
cylindrical pin was formed and then, the pin of the tool was milled to a 7.5 mm diameter. The tool dimensions
and their ranges employed in this study are given in Table 1. In every welding the rotating tool plunged into the
workpieces with a 3.3 mm/s constant plunge rate down to the 0.2 mm depth at an accuracy of ±0.02 mm.The
welding parameters and the shoulder geometry was chosen according to the published FSSW results of HDPE
and PP sheets[3,4,15-21].All the welding operations were done at the room temperature. At each welding
condition 6 lapshear test specimens were produced. Five of them were mechanically tested and the sixth one
was metallographically examined.
Welded lap-shear specimens were tested on an Instron machine at a constant crosshead speed of 5 mm/s. The
load and displacement were simultaneously recorded during the test. The lap-shear strength was obtained by
averaging the strengths of five individual specimens, which were welded with identical welding parameters.
Weld cross section appearance observations of the joints were done with a video spectral comparator at
12.88magnification. For macro structure studies, thin slices (30 m) were cut from the welded specimens using a
Leica R6125 model rotary type microtome. These thin slices were investigated using VSC-5000 model video
spectral comparator. The photographs of the cross sections were obtained.

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

16
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

Table 1: Welding parameters and their ranges.

Parameters Units Ranges
Tool geometry 3 types 5-11.25
Pin diameter millimeter (mm) 7.5
Pin angle degrees 0-25
Pin length millimeter (mm) 4-7

Figure 3: Friction stir spot welding tool design showing geometric parameters.

Figure 4: FSSW tool profile and pin size (a) straight cylindrical, (b) tapered cylindrical and (c) threaded
cylindrical.
Conclusion
The effect of the tool pin profile on weld strength of HDPE welds was shown in Figure 5. The tapered pin gave
the best strength. This joint was broken with an average force of 3580 N. The straight cylindrical pin profile
gave the poorest strength. The importance of the tool pin profile in PP welds was shown in Figure 6. In these
tests, each pin had a 7.5 mm pin diameter. The tapered cylindrical pin had a 15° pin angle. The maximum
fracture load was obtained with the tapered cylindrical pin (4032 N). The straight cylindrical pin profile gave the
lowest fracture load (3305 N). PP and HDPE welds gave the same result. The reason of this difference between
the pins can be easily explained with the weld nugget thicknesses of HDPE welds which are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 5: The effect of the tool pin profile on weld strength of HDPE welds.

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

17
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

Figure 6: The effect of the tool pin profile on weld strength of PP welds.

Figure 7: Effect of pin angle on weld nugget formation HDPE welds (a) straight cylindrical pin, (b)15 o pin
angled tapered cylindrical pin and (c) threaded straight cylindrical pin.
The nugget thickness of the straight cylindrical is 6.1 mm, thenugget thickness of the threaded straight
cylindrical pin is 6.4 mm and the nugget thickness of the 15° tapered cylindrical pin is 7.0 mm (Figure 8). These
photographs show that the tapered pin produced the biggest weld bonded area and the straight cylindrical
produced the smallest weld bonded area. The lap-shear fracture force of a FSSW joint is directly proportional to
the nugget thickness and the weld bonded area [22]. In FSSW the generated heat in the operation determines the
weld size. The more heat produced the bigger weld size is obtained. The straight cylindrical pin produced the
least friction heat and the smallest, so it gave the minimum lap-shear fracture load. The threaded straight
cylindrical pin mixes the heated material better than the straight cylindrical pin therefore, more friction heat was
generated with this pin. A bigger weld size and a higher lap-shear fracture load was obtained with the threaded
straight cylindrical pin. In FSSW of thermoplastics the welding force increases with the pin angle [4]. The
tapered pin produces more friction heat and a bigger nugget thickness than the threaded straight cylindrical
pinas shown in Figure 8. The heat produced in the weld area is directly proportional to the welding force [23]. A
higher welding force produces more heat and a bigger weld bonded area which causes a high weld strength
[14,24]. Therefore, the tapered pin produced a higher welding force than the threaded straight cylindrical pin

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

18
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

[13]. Therefore, the strength of the 15° tapered pin was higher than that of the threaded straight cylindrical pin
(Figure 6 & 7).

Figure 8: The effect of pin angle on the lap-shear fracture load of PP welds.

Figure 9: The effect of pin angle on weld stir zone formation of PP welds (a) threaded straight cylindrical pin,
(b) 15° pin angled tapered cylindrical pin and (c) 25° pin angled tapered cylindrical pin.
The effect of the lap-shear tensile fracture load and the tool pin angle on welding zone of PP welds are shown in
Figure 8 and Figure 9. Each pin had a 7.5 mm diameter at the bottom. The photographs illustrate that the size of
the keyhole which formed in the welding zone was directly dependent on the pin profile. The wall slope of the
keyhole changed with the pin angle of the tool. The nugget thickness is 7.5 mm for the straight cylindrical pin,
8.4 mm for the 15° pin angled tapered pin and 8.9 mm for the 25° pin angled tapered pin. The tapered pins cause
an increase in welding tool force, heat generation and weld size. The effect of the tapered pin is directly
proportional to the pin angle as explained in the previous paragraph. The tapered pins created thicker nuggets
than the straight cylindrical pin. The straight cylindrical pin which had a 0° pin angle gave the least fracture load
because of the smallest weld size. The fracture load increased with the pin angle up to 15° and then the fracture
load reduced with the bigger pin angle. The nugget thickness increased with the pin angle as shown in Figure 9.
Although the 25° tapered cylindrical pin had a 8.9 mm weld nugget thickness, weld strength was lower than the
others. The 25° tapered cylindrical pin has produced more heat than the other pins. If a liquid thermoplastic
material is heated to a high temperature and then a high pressure is applied to it, a decrease in the molecular
weight of the material occurs which lowers the mechanical properties of the thermoplastic material [25]. This
event that happens in thermoplastics is named as mechanical scission [26]. So, excessive pin angle caused very
high-pressure and heat generation which lowered the weld strength FSSW of thermoplastics.

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

19
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

Figure 10 shows the effect of the pin length on the weld fracture load of PP welds. The tools used for these tests
had a 15° pin angle and 7.5 mm pin diameter. The pin length was varied between 3.8–6.5 mm. The fracture load
was 100 N when the weld was made with the 3.8 mm pin length tool. The pin worked as a drill. The pin did not
plunge into the lower work piece. Most of the drilled material of the upper sheet was expelled out, so a very
weak joint was formed with this pin. The big size nugget formation can start with the melting of the lower sheet.
The lap-shear fracture load increased with the pin length from 4.5 mm up to 5.5 mm. These pins plunged into
the lower work piece and melted the lower work piece. The maximum lap-shear fracture load was obtained with
the tool which had a 5.5 mm pin length. The pins which were longer than 5.5 mm gave smaller fracture loads.
The weld cross sections of these welds are shown in Figure 11. The nugget thickness increased with the pin
length. More friction heat generated with longer pin length and bigger weld size were produced as shown in
Figure 11. A long pin has a disadvantage which lowers the weld strength. The thickness of the upper sheet gets
smaller with the pin length. The weld strength decreases with the decrease of the thickness of the upper sheet
[3,4,13,14]. The photographs of Figure 11 and 12 reveal how the thickness of the upper sheet gets smaller with
the pin length. In PP welds the nugget thickness was 8.9 mm for 6.5 mm pin length and the nugget thickness
was 8.4 mm for 5.5 mm pin length. Although, a thicker nugget was produced with 6.5 mm long pin, the weld
strength was lower than the weld of 5.5 mm pin length. This difference is coming from the variance of
thickness of the upper sheet. Excessive pin length lowers the weld strength. The tool which had a 5.5 mm pin
length was found optimum for PP and HDPE welds.

Figure 10: The effect of the pin length on the lap-shear fracture load of PP welds.

Figure 11: The effect of the pin length on the weld cross sections of PP welds (a) 4.5 mm pin length, (b) 5.5 mm
pin length and (c) 6.5 mm pin length.

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

20
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

Figure 12: The effect of pin length on the thickness of the upper sheet of HDPE welds(a) 5.5 mm pin length and
(b) 6.5 mm pin length.
References
[1]. Aota, K.,Ikeuchi, K. (2009). Development of friction stir spot welding using rotating tool without
probe and its application to low carbon steel plates.Welding International, 23: 572-58.
[2]. Strand, S., Sorensen, C., Nelson, T. (2003). Effects of friction stir welding on polymer microstructure.
ANTEC 2003 proceedings, 2:1078-1082.
[3]. Bilici,M.K, Yukler, A. (2012). Effects of welding parameters on friction stir spot welding of high
density polyethylene sheets.Materials and Design,33: 545-550.
[4]. Bilici, M.K., Yukler, A. (2012). Influence of tool geometry and process parameters on macrostructure
and static strength in friction stir spot welded polyethylene sheets.Materials and Design,33:145-152,
2012.
[5]. Mishra, R.S., Ma, Z.Y. (2005). Friction stir welding and processing.Materials Science and
Engineering,50: 1-78.
[6]. Gerlich, A., Su, P., North, T., Bendzsak, G. (2005).Friction stir spot welding of aluminumand
magnesium alloys.Materials Forum, 29:290-294.
[7]. Kulekçi, M, Sık, A., Kaluç, E. (2008). Effects of tool rotation and pin diameter on fatigueproperties of
friction stir welded lap joints. International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology,36:877-
882.
[8]. Hirasawa, S., Badarinarayan, H., Okamoto, K., Tomimura, T., Kawanami, T. (2010).Analysisof effect
of tool geometry on plastic flow during friction stir spot welding usingparticle method.Journal of
Material Processing Technology,210:455-463.
[9]. Chowdhury, S., Chen, D., Bhole, S., Cao, X. (2010).Effect of pin tool thread orientationon fatigue
strength of friction stir welded AZ31B-H24 Mg butt joints.Procedia Engineering, 2:825-833.
[10]. Tozaki, Y., Uematsu, Y., Tokaji, K. (2017). Effect of tool geometry on microstructure andstatic
strength in friction stir spot welded aluminium alloys.International Journal of Machine Tools
Manufacturing,47: 2230-2236.
[11]. Vijay.S,.Murugan, N. (2010).Influence of tool pin profile on the metallurgical andmechanical
properties of friction stir welded Al–10 wt.% TiB2 metal matrixcomposite.Materials and Design,31:
3585-3589.
[12]. Yang, Q., Mironov, S., Sato, Y., Okamoto, K. (2010).Material flow during friction stir
spotwelding.Materials Science and Engineering A,527: 4389-4398.
[13]. Badarinarayan, H., Yang, Q., Zhu, S. (2009). Effect of tool geometry on static strength offriction stir
spot spot-welded aluminum alloy.International Journal of Machine Tools Manufacturing,49:142-148.
[14]. Santella, M., Grant, G., Feng, Z., Hovanski, Y. (2006).Friction stir spot welding of advanced high
strength steel.FY Progress Report, OakRidge National Laboratory, USA.
[15]. Bilici, M.K., Yukler A.I., Kurtulmus, M. (2011). The optimization of welding parameters for friction
stir spot welding of high density polyethylene sheets.Materials and Design, 32: 4074-4079.
[16]. Bilici, M.K. (2012). Application of Taguchi approach to optimize friction stir spot welding parameters
of polypropylene.Materials and Design, 35: 113-119.
[17]. Kurtulmus, M. (2012). Friction stir spot welding parameters for polypropylene sheets.Scientific
Research and Essays,7:947-956.
[18]. Arıcı, A., Mert, S. (2008). Friction Stir Spot Welding of Polypropylene.Journal of Reinforced Plastics
and Composites,1: 1-4.
[19]. Mert, S., Arıcı, A. (2011). Design of optimal joining for friction stir spot welding of polypropylene
sheets.Science and Technology of Welding and Joining,16:522-527.
[20]. Bilici, M.K. (2012). Effect of tool geometry on friction stir spot welding of polypropylene
sheets.eXPRESS Polymer Letters, 6:805-813.
[21]. Bilici, M.K., Yukler, A., Kaştan, A. (2014). Effect of the tool geometry and welding parameters on the
macrostructure, fracture mode and weld strength of friction stir spot welded polypropylene
sheets.Materials and Technology, 48:705-711.

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

21
Bilici MK et al Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2016, 3(4):15-22

[22]. Feng, Z., Santella, M., David, S., Steel, J., Packer, S., Pan, T., Kuo, M., Bhatnagar, R. (2005). Friction
stir spot welding of advanced high-strength steels - A feasibility study. SAE Technical Paper,01:1248-
1256.
[23]. Ma, N., Kunugi, A., Hirashima, T., Okubo, K., Komiaka, M. (2009).FEM simulation for friction spot
joining process.Welding International,23:9-14.
[24]. Vijay, S., Murugan, N. (2010).Influence of tool pin profile on the metallurgical and mechanical
properties of friction stir welded Al–10 wt.% TiB2 metal matrix composite.Materials and Design, 31:
3585-3589.
[25]. Capone, C.,Landro, L., Inzoli, F., Penco, M., Sartore, L. (2007).Thermal and mechanical degradation
during polymer extrusion processing.Polymer Engineering Science, 47: 1813-1819.
[26]. Lim, S., Kim, C., Chung, H., Choi, H., Sung, J. (2004).Mechanical degradation kinetics of
polyethylene oxide in a turbulent flow.Korea Australia Rheology Journal, 2: 57-62.

Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

22