Int J Adv Manuf Technol

DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-7652-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Numerical analysis of effect of coolant on the transient

temperature in underwater friction stir welding of Al6061-T6
Malihe Hajinezhad 1 & Abdolhamid Azizi 2

Received: 2 September 2014 / Accepted: 23 July 2015

# Springer-Verlag London 2015

Abstract Underwater friction stir welding is an alternative Keywords Finite element method . Friction stir welding
method to improve the mechanical properties of the weld- (FSW) . Underwater friction stir welding (UFSW) .
ments by controlling the temperature level. Owing to the lim- Temperature . Cooling
itation of temperature measurement in practice, the finite ele-
ment modeling is the best tool to investigate the process. It is
still not clearly known as to what extent the temperature field Nomenclature
of joint is influenced by operational parameters in underwater cp Heat capacity
friction stir welding. In this paper, finite element modeling of h Convection coefficient
friction stir welding in the air and underwater were performed k Heat conductivity
for Al6061-T6 alloys to control the thermal cycles. In addition l Pin length
to cooling effect, the influence of welding speed and rotational M Torque
speed on the maximum temperature in workpiece was inves- N Rotational speed
tigated. For this purpose, three-dimensional modeling has n Normal vector
been done with ANSYS. The model results were then exam- P Pressure
ined by experimental data, and a reasonable agreement was q Heat flux
observed. It is found that due to water cooling effect, heat is Rp Pin radius
dissipated in faster rate which leads to low peak temperature in Rs Shoulder radius
underwater welding compared to normal welding in air, while t Temperature
such relationship was not seen in high welding speeds. The T Time
reason is that at high welding speeds, workpiece temperature T0 Initial temperature
decreases, and region of boiling water in underwater welding Tamb Ambient temperature
is reduced. This causes that heat will be dissipated from work- V Welding speed
piece surface in faster rate. Tool rotational speed has signifi- x,y,z Spatial coordinate
cant effect on thermal cycles than welding speed. Moreover, in ρ Density
normal friction stir welding, the peak temperature diminishes μ Friction coefficient
with respect to welding speed in faster manner in comparison ω Angular velocity
with welding in underwater.

1 Introduction
* Abdolhamid Azizi
ah.azizi@ilam.ac.ir
The welding method, one of the joining methods that cannot
be disassembling, is widely used in many industrial areas. In
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Islamic Azad University the conventional welding method, two different materials are
Dezfull Branch, Dezful, Iran heated up to melting temperature. Especially the difficulties
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran encountered in the join of new materials recently have led
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

research to look for new welding methods [1]. Friction stir Table 1 Thermal
properties of A16061-T6 T(°C) K(W/m°C) Cp(J/kg°C)
welding (FSW), as an innovative solid-state joining process,
[14]
has received increasing attentions in many industrial fields for −17.8 162 904
joining lightweight structural materials, such as aluminum and 37.8 162 645
magnesium alloys, which are widely applied in aerospace, 93.3 177 978
automotive, and ship building industries [2–4]. Some of the 148.9 184 1004
advantages of FSW process include low shrinkage and distor- 204.4 192 1028
tion, desired mechanical properties, producing less fumes, and 260 201 1052
ability in welding of alloys such as 2xxx and 7xxx series of 315.6 207 1078
aluminum that cannot be welded by other conventional 371.1 217 1104
methods [5]. Fundamental of friction stir welding is depicted 426.7 223 1133
in Fig. 1.
In this procedure, two plates are firmly clamped on the
backing plate. The spinning tool slowly comes down into
the connecting plates until tool shoulder touches the upper microstructures and mechanical properties in the HAZ during
surfaces of the plates. While spinning, the tool moves forward underwater FSW. Fu et al. [10] performed submerged friction
on the workpiece, and this causes generating heat due to the stir welding in cold and hot water, as well as in air, for 7050
friction between them. The tool starts to move after pausing aluminum alloys. The results showed that for a given opera-
for warm-up of the plates. During forward moving, the tool tional parameters, the peak temperature at welding in air was
forges the materials by. 380 °C, while the peak temperature at welding in cold and hot
Spinning and as a result, a strong connection will take place water was about 220 and 300 °C, respectively. Benavides et al.
between the plates [6]. Although the low generated input heat [11] developed FSW experiment of 2024 aluminum alloy
during FSW does not lead to the melting of the base metal, using liquid nitrogen cooling to decrease the initial tempera-
thermal cycles applied on the samples result in the reduction ture of plates to be welded from 30 to −30 °C resulting in the
of mechanical properties [7, 8]. Therefore, the welding heat grain size decrease in the central weld zone from 10 to 0.8 μm.
input control seems to be very important for the welding per- It was found that the hardness of the HAZ was remarkably
formance. Previous investigation has shown that the welding improved, but void defect was formed in the weld nugget zone
performances could be improved by employing external liq- (WNZ), and the hardness-microstructure relationship was not
uid cooling during FSW. Liu et al. [8] performed underwater clarified.
friction stir welding of 2219 aluminum alloy in order to further Because of the experiment restrictions on the temperature
improve the joint performances by varying welding tempera- measurements at deformed zones, it is necessary to develop a
ture history. The results revealed that the tensile strength of the numerical model to predict the thermal history in FSW. To
joint is improved whereas the plasticity is deteriorated by un- investigate the cooling effects, Zhang et al. [12] performed
derwater FSW. The heat-affected zone (HAZ) is generally the thermal modeling of underwater friction stir welding by using
intrinsic weakest location of the normal friction stir welded the MSC MARC software and Al2219-T6 workpiece. The
precipitate hardened aluminum alloys. Zhang et al. [9], in results indicated that the maximum peak temperature of un-
order to improve the mechanical properties of the HAZ by derwater joint (UFSW) is significantly lower than normal joint
controlling the temperature level, performed underwater fric- (NFSW), the high-temperature distribution area is dramatical-
tion stir welding of an Al-Cu aluminum alloy. The results ly narrowed, and the welding thermal cycles in different zones
indicated that the controlling of welding thermal cycles by are effectively controlled in contrast to the normal joint.
the water cooling effect is intrinsic reason for variations of Many research works were carried out to simulate the nor-
mal friction stir welding obtained in air using various FEA
softwares to determine the temperature distribution for a given

Table 2 Thermal
properties of CPM1V T(°C) K(W/m°C) Cp(J/Kg°C)
tool steel [14]
25 24.2 470
100 25.9 475
300 27.3 506
400 28.1 519
540 28.3 555
Fig. 1 Schematic of friction stir welding process [2]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 2 SOLID70 3D thermal

solid element

set of conditions in weldments. Very few attempted to deter- calculate the transient temperature field that is developed in
mine the optimal temperature by varying the input parameters the workpiece during friction stir welding. The heat transient
using ANSYS in underwater joint. The objective of this re- temperature (T) which is a function of time and spatial
search is to develop a finite element simulation with improved coordinate(x, y, and z) is estimated by the three-dimensional
capability to predict temperature evolution in Al 6061-T6 nonlinear heat transfer (Eq. (1)).
workpiece underwater friction stir welding. In addition, to
investigate the cooling effect, the aim of the present study is



∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T
to explore the maximum temperature and temperature history ρcp ¼ kx þ ky þ kz ð1Þ
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z
of workpiece in various tool rotational and welding speeds,
which assumed that the whole workpiece was kept immersed Where T is the temperature, Cp is the heat capacity, ρ is the
in the water environment during the welding. The simulation density, and ki is the heat conductivity in i direction that varies
model is to be tested with existing experimental results obtain- with temperature in the calculations.
ed by Zhang et al. [12] on Al2219-T6 and Soundararajan et al. Thermal modeling for heat generation is based on the fol-
[13] on Al6061-T6 workpiece. lowing assumption:

& Workpiece material is isotropic and homogeneous.

2 Finite element modeling
2.1 Thermal modeling
In the friction stir welding process, friction between rotational
tool and the welded workpieces is considered as a heat source
during welding. The purpose of the thermal modeling is to
& No melting occurs during the welding process.
& Thermal boundary conditions are symmetrical across the
weld centerline.
& Transferring heat from the workpiece to the clamp is
negligible.
& Two symmetry planes are applied on lateral sides of the
workpiece.

Fig. 3 SURF 152 3D surface Q (Extra node, oponal) M (Extra node, oponal)
element
L
Z
P
O Z
Y
I K Y
X
Z N X
M
J
Y

X

Fig. 4 Geometry of tool and plates
2.2 Material properties
Due to the fact that thermal conductivity and specified heat
capacity are temperature-dependent, in this paper for exact
modeling, thermal properties of Al6061-T6 alloy and tool
material are considered corresponding to Tables 1 and 2, re-
spectively [14]. A value of 2700 kg/m3 was used for the den-
sity of workpiece, and the value of 7920 kg/m3 was consid-
ered for tool material.
A major problem in modeling of heat flow phenomena in
friction stir welding is obtaining an adequate description of the
input energy. This is due to the friction coefficient, μ, which is
changed continuously during welding from about one on the
dry sliding at the start toward zero when the temperature
reached the melting point at the interface [15]. A wide range
of published values for friction coefficient in friction stir
welding is within 0.3–0.85 [5]. In this paper, for welding in
air and water, the considered friction coefficients are 0.5 and
0.68, respectively.
Fig. 5 Grid mesh for model
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2.3 Element selection
The SOLID 70 element, which is a three-dimensional thermal
solid, is used as the element type for analysis. SOLID70 has a
three-dimensional thermal conduction capability. The element
has eight nodes with a single degree of freedom, temperature,
at each node. The element is applicable to a three-dimensional,
steady-state, or transient thermal analysis. In order to include
convection heat transfer, the element SURF152 is used with
extra node option. SURF152 was overlaid onto the upper face
of the workpiece. Figures 2 and 3 show SOLID 70 and SURF
152 elements, respectively. The convection heat loss was con-
sidered to be handled by SURF152, while heat flux was ap-
plied on SOLID70. In this paper, according to the symmetry of
the workpiece as shown in Fig. 4, simulations were performed
for one of the plates and half of the backplate. Elements with
various sizes for meshing of model were considered, and after
achieving mesh independent solution, a nonuniform grid mesh
is generated by using the ANSYS APDL 14 software. Near the
junction due to high temperature and microstructure, finer
meshing with finer elements was performed (Fig. 5). The num-
ber of elements and nodes are 74,894 and 14,622, respectively.
2.4 Boundary condition
The initial boundary conditions for the calculation in air and
underwater are same and expressed as follows:
T ðx; y; z; t Þ ¼ T 0 ¼ 25∘ C ð2Þ
The heat flux boundary condition at the tool and workpiece
interface is given by Eq. (3):
∂T
k ¼q ð3Þ
∂n
The convective boundary condition for all the surfaces of
work piece is as follows:
Fig. 6 Subdivision of tool shoulder into a series of volume elements of
varying strengths [16]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 3 Thermal evolution between the tool and workpiece is an important step
properties of Al2219-T6 T(°C) K(W/m°C) Cp(J/Kg°C)
in understanding how it affects material flow and microstruc-
[12]
19 130.08 863 ture modification within and surrounding the weld. For an
100 137.94 963.14 ideal case, the torque required to rotate a circular shaft relative
200 150.41 1046.3 to the plate surface under the action of an axial load is given by
300 168.56 1129.6 Eq. (5) [16]:
400 168.56 1171.1
Z MR Z R
2
dM ¼ μPðrÞ2πr2 dr ¼ μπPR3 ð5Þ
0 0 3
∂T
k ¼ hðT −T amb Þ ð4Þ
∂n
where M is the interfacial torque, μ is the friction co-
where h is the convection coefficient, Tamb is the ambient tem- efficient, R is the surface radius, and P is the pressure
perature, and n is the normal direction vector of the boundary. distribution across the interface (here assumed constant).
In this paper, temperature of air is considered as 25 °C. In most During friction stir welding process, heat is generated
of the previous investigations [12], the convection coefficient resulting friction between shoulder/pin and workpiece.
for the surfaces of workpiece exposed to the atmosphere and If all the shearing work at the interface is converted into
backing plate is assumed 10–30 W/(m2 °C) and 200–1000 W/ frictional heat, the average heat input per unit area and time
(m2 °C), respectively, for thermal modeling of normal FSW of becomes
aluminum alloys. Based on this, the convection coefficient is
set to be 15 W/(m2 °C) for the top and side surfaces of the plates Z MR Z R
and 200 W/(m2 °C) for backing plate in this study. In underwa- Qs ¼ ωdM ¼ ω2πμPðrÞr2 dr ð6Þ
ter friction stir welding, heat dissipation condition for all sides 0 0

of workpiece is different from those under normal condition.

where Qs is the net power at the tool shoulder/workpiece in-
For the top surface near welding tool, the contact water is in the
terface in watts and ω is the angular velocity in rad/s.
boiling state under the effect of elevated temperature (above
The next step is to express the angular velocity in terms of
120 °C), leading to intense heat transfer between the workpiece
the rotational speed N (rotations/s). By substituting ω=2πN
and the boiling water. While for the other surfaces that expose
into Eq. (6):
to the nonboiling water, the heat is dissipated from the work-
piece by natural convection of water. Therefore, prior to every
step of simulation, the temperature of each node should be Z R
4 2
detected first, based on which appropriate heat transfer coeffi- Qs ¼ 4π2 μPN r2 dr ¼ π μPN R3 ð7Þ
0 3
cient is chosen and exerted on the node. For underwater FSW
convection coefficient of nonboiling water, boiling water and
In order to describe the heat source in the numerical model,
interface of workpiece and backing plate are chosen as 850,
it is more convenient to express the heat generation as a sum
3000, 1000 W/(m2 °C), respectively.
of individual contributions [16].
2.5 Heat generation
4 X n

Accurate modeling of the friction stir welding process is es- Qs ¼ π2 μPN R3i −R3i−1 ð8Þ
3
sential to represent heat generation correctly. Modeling heat i¼1

Fig. 7 Exact locations of thermal

couples (unit, mm) [12]
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

(a) (b)
450 450
400 NFSW Exprimental 400 UFSW Simulaon
simulaon
350 350
Temperature(c°)
Experimental

Temperature(c°)
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Fig. 8 Comparison of the predicted temperature history with experimental results in a normal FSW (NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)

where Ri-1 and Ri are as shown in Fig. 6. where Rs and Rp are the tool shoulder and tool pin radius,
respectively. The heat generation increases as the distance
X
n
from the center increases. However, for simplicity, a uniform
QðRi Þ ¼ Qs ð9Þ
i¼1 distribution of heat across the surface of the shoulder is as-
sumed. Hence, for uniform distribution, the average value of
Hence, the energy generated from positions Ri-1 to Ri is radius of tool shoulder and tool pin was taken [16],
equal to
Rs þ Rp
4   r¼ ð12Þ
ΔQs ¼ π2 PN R3i −R3i−1 ð10Þ 2
3
From Schmidt et al. [17], the ratio of heat generated from
From above equation, we find that in the FSW process, the the pin Qp, and the heat generated from the shoulder Qs, was
heat distribution is radial and in the form of concentric circles. 0.128. Hence, heat flow per unit area of the pin qp is also 0.128
Since in this paper the radius of the pin and shoulder is as- times qs. These qs and qp were given as inputs to the finite
sumed constant and the pressure on the tool pin/workpiece element model for simulation purpose.
interface surface is less than the pressure on the tool Heat generated between the tool and the workpiece was
shoulder/workpiece interface surface, the heat generated be- considered as the 2D main source of heat. For the finite ele-
tween the shoulder and the workpiece per unit area qs can be ment modeling of FSW, instead moving heat source, a local
calculated using Eq. (11): cylindrical coordinate system for moving heat source was de-
fined. The tool was removed; heat flux over a circular area of
3Q :r elements in size of radius shoulder was applied. To simulate a
qs ¼  s  Rp ≤ r ≤ Rs ð11Þ mobile device, in every step, must delete the old coordinate
2π R3s −R3p
system, and create again coordinate system in the new

(a) (b)
500
450
UFSW
400
Peak temperature (cº)

350
300
250
200
Simulated
150
100 Experimental
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from weld centerline (mm)
Fig. 9 Comparison of the predicted peak temperature with experimental results in a normal FSW (NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 10 Comparison of the varying temperature with respect to time
predicted from simulation and experimental results at point (6, −2, 118)
from starting welding position
position, then the heat flux insert in new position at the circu-
lar surface.
3 Simulation result and discussion
3.1 Model validation
Friction stir welding of material Al2219-T6 was simulated and
compared with the experimental results of Zhang et al. [12].
To maintain consistency, the dimensions of the workpiece,
material properties, radius of the shoulder and pin, length of
the pin, rotational speed, and welding speed used were same
as Zhang et al. [12]. FSW experiments were carried out under
two kinds of conditions. One was in air, and the other was
under water. For the convenience of statement, the FSW per-
formed in air was defined as normal FSW, while the one
performed underwater was defined as underwater FSW. The
Fig. 11 Temperature distribution in welding process in a normal FSW NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)
joints (welds) formed under these two conditions were called
normal and underwater joints (welds), respectively. FSW was
performed along the longitudinal direction of the samples using
an FSW machine. The workpiece had dimensions of 300×
100×7.5 mm3; the tool had a shoulder diameter of 22.5 mm,
conical right-hand screwed pin with the length of 7.4 mm, and
the median diameter of 7.4 mm. During the FSW, a 2.5° tilt
angle and an axial load of 4.6 KN were applied to the welding
tool. The rotational speed and welding speed for both normal
and underwater FSW were 800 rpm and 100 mm/min, respec-
tively. In verification procedure, the workpiece is AL2219-T6,
in which its material properties are given in Table 3. A value of
2840 kg/m3 was used for density. K-type thermocouples were
used to measure the temperature of the samples during FSW.
The measured locations were started at the heat-affected zone
(8 mm from the weld center) and then extended to the BM at the
weld mid-thickness on the advancing side. The space was
3 mm between the adjacent measured locations. The exact lo-
cations of the thermal couples are shown in Fig. 7.
Considering the origin (0,0,0) at the intersection of the
center line and the edge line on the top surface where FSW
begins, Fig. 8 shows the variation of temperature with respect
to time at location 8 mm from the joint line. Figure 9 also
shows the variation of peak temperature with distance from
weld centerline in normal and underwater FSW. The results of
the simulation are in a good agreement with the experimental
results which verified the validity of the presented model.
According to Fig. 8a, the relatively low predicted temperature
at the initial stage of normal FSW can be explained as follow.
During the modeling, the temperature of air is set at a constant
value (25 °C), but in fact, the temperature of the air near the
workpiece is increased during the welding due to the gradual
accumulation of heat input. For this reason, the heat dissipa-
tion is weakened compared with that in the practical situation,
and thus, the modeling temperature shows lower values than
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 12 Comparison of varying (a) (b)

temperature with respect to time 500
at normal and underwater FSW in 500 NFSW
UFSW
different regions of a TMAZ 400

Temperature(cº)
400 HAZ UFSW

Temperature(cº)
TMAZ NFSW
(point (16, −2, 118) from starting 300
welding position) and bHAZ 300
(point (16, −2, 94) from starting 200 200
welding position)
100 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Time(s) Time(s)

the experimental data at the temperature rise period. Regard-
ing the underwater FSW, the heat dissipation conditions for all
sides of the workpiece are different from those under normal
condition. For the top surface near welding tool, the contact
water is in the boiling state under the effect of elevated tem-
perature (above 120 °C), leading to intense heat transfer be-
tween the workpiece and the boiling water. This is the reason
of less difference between the predicted and experimental re-
sults at the initial stage of underwater FSW (Fig. 8b). This is in
line with Zhang et al. [12] findings.
In order to better verify the presented model, the normal
friction stir welding of material Al6061-T6 was also simulated
and compared with the experimental results presented by
Sundararajan et al. [13]. To maintain consistency, the dimen-
sions of the workpiece, material properties, radius of the
shoulder and pin, length of the pin, rotational speed, and
welding speed used were same as Sundararajan et al. [13].
In this way, the workpiece had dimensions 200 × 50 ×
6.4 mm3, the tool had a shoulder radius of 12 mm, pin radius
of 2.6 mm, and pin length of 5.9 mm. A welding speed of
2.2 mm/s and rotational speed of 344 rpm were used for car-
rying out the simulation. Considering the origin (0, 0, 0) at the
intersection of the center line and the edge line on the top
600
surface where FSW begins, Fig. 10 shows the variation of
temperature with respect to time at point (6, −2, 118) from
starting welding position. It can be concluded that the predict-
ed results are in good comparison with the experimental re-
sults which prove the correctness and effectiveness of the
proposed model.
3.2 Effect of cooling
Underwater friction stir welding of material Al6061-T6 was
simulated and compared with the simulation results in the
normal friction stir welding. The used rotational speed,
welding speed, and axial load were the same in two processes.
Under the conditions employed in this work (the rotational
speed 344 rpm and welding speed 2.2 mm/s), the maximum
peak temperature of the normal joint is 513.19 °C, while in
underwater, it reaches to only 441.22 °C (see Fig. 11). By
comparing the temperature history shown in Figs. 12 and
13, it can be concluded that in underwater FSW, thermal cycle
is under a better controlling. The difference between the max-
imum temperature experienced by workpiece in normal FSW
and underwater FSW in HAZ region (point (16, −2, 94) from
starting welding position) is more than maximum temperature
in TMAZ region (point (16, −2, 118) from starting welding

500 NFSW
peak temperature(cº)

450
UFSW
400 400
Temperature (c)

350
300 Retreang side Advancing side
300
250 NFSW
200
200
UFSW
100 150
100
0 50
0 20 40 60
0
Distance from weld centerline (mm) -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Distance from welding centerline(mm)
Fig. 13 Comparison of varying peak temperature with respect to
distance from weld centerline in normal (NFSW) and underwater FSW Fig. 14 Comparison of temperature distribution along transverse
(UFSW) direction welding line in NFSW and UFSW
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

(a) (b)
700

600 UFSW ω=500rpm

ω=150rpm
500 ω=250rpm

Temperature(c°)
ω=344rpm
400 ω=450rpm

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80
Time(s)
Fig. 15 Variation of temperature with respect to time and rotational speed at point (6, −2, 118) from starting welding position (welding speed 2.2 mm/s):
a normal FSW (NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)

position). This can be explained by the narrow high-
temperature distribution area in underwater FSW which can
be concluded from Fig. 11.
Figure 14 shows temperature distributions on the trans-
verse cross-section of the joints. Notably, the temperature
distributions at the advancing and retreating edges of the
tool are asymmetrical with respect to the tool axis for
normal FSW. The temperature at advancing side is rela-
tively high and exhibits low gradient. Clearly, the material
on the advancing side experiences a longer flow distance
and thus reaches higher temperatures than that on the
retreating side. In contrast, the isothermals of underwater
FSW severely move toward the tool axis, and the moving
extent at the retreating edge is larger than that at the
advancing edge. For this reason, the underwater FSW pre-
sents higher temperature gradient at both tool retreating
and advancing edges than the normal FSW; furthermore,
the temperature distributions are more symmetrical with
respect to the tool axis between the both edges.
3.3 Effect of tool rotational speed and welding speed
To study the effect of tool rotational speed on the FSW tem-
perature field distribution, the rotational speed was changed
from 150 to 500 rpm with the fixed welding speed of 2.2 mm/
s. The axial force, coefficient of friction, and radius of the
shoulder and pin are considered as constant values for the
current investigation. Figure 15 shows the temperature distri-
bution at different rotational speeds for normal and underwa-
ter welding. It can be seen that in normal FSW and underwater
FSW, the time for reaching the peak temperature at different
rotational speed is almost the same. In two welding processes,
increasing the rotational speed causes the peak temperature to
increase. This is due to increasing the generated heat flux at
the interface of the tool and the workpiece. In underwater
FSW, due to the severe heat absorption capacity of water,
the peak temperature in different rotational speed is lower than
peak temperature in normal FSW, and the cooling procedure
takes place in faster manner. According to Fig. 16 in

(a) (b)
800
700 UFSW ω=500rpm
ω=150rpm
Peak temperature(c°)

600 ω=250rpm
ω=344rpm
500 ω=450rpm
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from weld centerline (mm)
Fig. 16 Variation of peak temperature with respect to distance from weld centerline and tool rotational speed at point (6, −2, 118) from starting welding
position (welding speed, 2.2 mm/s): a normal FSW (NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

(a) (b)
600 600
NFSW UFSW
500 500
v=1mm/s

Temperature(c°)
Temperature(cº)

400 400 V=5.5mm/s

V=4mm/s
300 300 V=3mm/s
v=2.2mm/s
v=1mm/s
V=5.5 mm/s V=1.5mm/s
200 200
V=4 mm/s
v=3mm/s
100 V=2.2 mm/s 100
V=1.5mm/s
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Time(s) Time(s)
Fig. 17 Variation of temperature with respect to time and welding speed at point (6, −2, 118) from starting welding position (tool rotational speed,
344 rpm): a normal FSW (NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)

underwater FSW, due to less width of thermal cycles, increas-
ing distance from weld centerline leads the temperature to
reduce faster and finally reached to the ambient temperature.
To study the effect of welding speed on the FSW temper-
ature field, the welding speed was changed from 1 to 5.5 mm/s
with the fixed rotational speed at 344 rpm. Figure 17 shows
the variation of temperature with respect to time in normal
FSW and underwater FSW at point (6, −2, 118) from starting
welding position. Changing welding speed influenced the
needing time for reaching the peak temperature in both normal
and underwater FSW. By increasing the welding speed, this
time becomes shorter, and because of less accumulated heat,
the value of peak temperature decreases. Figure 18 shows the
variation of peak temperature with respect to distance from
welding centerline on top surface in normal FSW and under-
water FSW. It is worth noting that the amounts of generated
heat decrease as the welding speed increases. This is because
the higher the tool traveling speed, the less time spends to spin
on the workpiece and less energy is produced. Thus, as the
welding speed increases, the effect of thermal cycles on joint
properties is weakened; so, increasing welding speed to a cer-
tain extent leading to an improvement in welding quality and
very high speeds may not provide sufficient heat for the pro-
cess. Thus, a defective weld is created. In normal FSW, vari-
ation of welding speed has severe effect on peak temperature.
However, in underwater FSW, the peak temperature variation
with respect to welding speed is smoother than normal one.
For normal FSW at speeds of 1 and 1.5 mm/s, the workpiece
temperature exceeds the melting temperature and the work-
piece melts. However, in underwater welding, joining occurs
at lower temperature without melting. By increasing speed,
the temperature difference between the normal and underwa-
ter welding reduced. In speeds of 4 and 5.5 mm/s, the peak
temperature of normal welding gets lower than the peak tem-
perature in underwater welding (Fig. 19a). The reason is that
at high speeds, workpiece temperature decreases and region of
boiling water in underwater welding is reduced. This causes
the heat to be dissipated from workpiece surface in faster rate.
Based on predicted data in Fig. 19, it can be found that for
both welding procedures, the welding speed has a less

(a) (b)
800
UFSW V=5.5mm/s
700
Peak temperature(c°)

V=1mm/s
600 V=1.5mm/s
500 V=2.2mm/s
V=3mm/s
400 V=4mm/s
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from centerline(mm)
Fig. 18 Variation of peak temperature with respect to distance from weld centerline and tool traverse speed at point (6, −2, 118) from starting welding
position (tool rotational velocity, 344 rpm): a normal FSW (NFSW) and b underwater FSW (UFSW)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 19 Effect of a welding speed and b tool rotational speed on maximum temperature in underwater and normal FSW
significant effect on the peak temperature than rotational
speed. For example, according to Fig. 19, one can say that in
constant rotational speed 344 rpm, when welding speed in-
creases from 2.2 to 3 mm/s, the peak temperature decreases as
much as 20 and 80 °C in underwater and normal FSW, respec-
tively. However, in constant welding speed of 2.2 mm/s, when
rotational speed decreases from 344 to 250 rpm, the peak
temperature decreases about 110 and 130 °C in underwater
and normal FSW, respectively. Thus, according to the indicat-
ed results, it can be concluded that rotational speed has a more
profound effect on peak temperature compared to the welding
speed under the welding conditions employed in this work.
Another finding is that in normal FSW, the welding speed has
more effect on peak temperature than performing FSW in
underwater situation.
4 Conclusions
The thermal modeling of normal FSW and underwater FSW of
Al6061-T6 was conducted based on a 3D numerical finite
element model with considering the temperature-dependent
properties of the material. The experimental values validate
the efficiency of the thermal model. Effects of cooling, tool
rotational, and welding speed on the thermal behavior of the
weldments were studied. The following conclusion can be
drawn:
– Because of setting air temperature at a constant value, the
modeling temperature shows lower values than the exper-
imental data at the temperature rise period during normal
FSW, which this behavior is not seen during underwater
FSW modeling.
– Due to experiencing a longer flow distance, the tempera-
ture at advancing side is relatively high and exhibits low
gradient than retreating side. The underwater FSW pre-
sents higher temperature gradient at both tool retreating
and advancing edges, and it can be concluded that in
underwater FSW, the temperature distributions are more
symmetrical with respect to the tool axis.
– The coolant has a significant influence on the peak tem-
perature. More heat is dissipated by using water as cool-
ant during FSW. In addition, the times for reaching the
peak temperatures at the same point in underwater and
normal welding are almost the same. After the tool moves
away, the water produces strong cooling effect on the
workpiece, leading to a sudden decrease in temperature
in underwater FSW.
– The maximum peak temperature of underwater joint is
considerably lower than that of normal joint due to the
severe heat absorption capacity of water. Additionally,
compared with the normal joint, the underwater joint ex-
hibits a narrower high-temperature distribution area and
lower welding thermal cycles in different zones. This
leads to that in HAZ region, the difference between peak
temperatures experienced by weldment performing in un-
derwater and in air to be more than in TMAZ region.
– In this work, it was seen that decreasing in temperature
took place on the workpiece with increasing in welding
speed and decreasing in tool rotational speed. The in-
creasing in welding speed decreases the contact time,
and therefore, this situation results in a reduction in input
heat. Decreasing in tool rotational speed made the gener-
ated frictional heat input get lower. It is found that, com-
paring to the welding speed, the tool rotational speed
significantly affects the amount of maximum tempera-
ture, while welding speed mainly changes the thermal
aspect in normal FSW.
– In normal FSW, variation of welding speed has severe
effect on peak temperature. However, in underwater
FSW, the peak temperature variation with respect to
welding speed is smoother than normal one. By increas-
ing welding speed, the temperature difference between
the normal and underwater welding reduced.

References
1. Gok K, Aydin M (2013) Investigation of friction stir welding pro-
cess using finite element method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68:775–
780
2. Mishra RS, Ma ZY (2005) Friction stir welding and processing.
Mater Sci Eng R 50:1–78
3. Nandan R, Debroy T, Bhadeshia HKDH (2008) Recent advances in
friction-stir welding-process, weldment structure and properties.
Prog Mater Sci 53:980–1023
4. Simar A, Brechet Y, de Meester B, Denquin A, Gallais C (2012)
Integrated modeling of friction stir welding of 6xxxSeries Al alloys:
process, microstructure and properties. Prog Mater Sci 57:95–183
5. Jweeg MJ, Tolephih MH, Abdul-Satta M (2012) Theoretical and
experimental investigation of transient temperature distribution fric-
tion stir welding of AA 7020-T53. J Eng 6:693–709
6. Riahi M, Nazari HR (2010) Analysis of transient temperature and
residual thermal stress in friction stir welding of aluminum alloy
6061-T6 via numerical simulation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 55:
143–152
7. She WK, Lei WJ, Wen W (2012) underwater friction stir welding of
ultrafine grained 2017 aluminum alloy. J Cent South Univ 19:
2081–2085
8. Liu HJ, Zhang HJ, Huang Yand L (2009) Mechanical properties of
underwater friction stir welded 2219 aluminum alloy. Trans
Nonferrous Metals Soc China 20:1387–1391
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
9. Zhang HJ, Liu HJ, Yu L (2011) Effect of water cooling on the
performances of friction stir welding heat- zone. JMEPEG 21:
1182–1187
10. Fu R, Sun Z, Sun R, Li Y, Liu H (2011) Improvement of weld
temperature distribution and mechanical properties of 7050 alumi-
num alloy butt joints by submerged friction stir welding. Mater Des
32:4825–4831
11. Benavides S, Li Y, Murr LE, Brown D, McClure JC (1999) Low-
temperature friction-stir welding of 2024 aluminum. Scr Mater 41:
809–815
12. Zhang HJ, Liu HJ, Yu L (2013) Thermal modeling of underwater
friction stir welding of high strength aluminum alloy. Trans
Nonferrous Metals Soc China 23:1114–1122
13. Soudararajan V, Zekovic S, Kovacevic R (2005) Thermo-
mechanical model with adaptive boundary conditions for friction
stir welding of Al 6061. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1577–1587
14. Kıral BG, Tabanoğlu M, Serindağ HT (2013) Finite element model-
ing of friction stir welding in Aluminum alloys Joint. Appl Math
Comput 18:122–131
15. Vepakomma KH (2006) Three dimensional thermal modeling of
friction stir processing. Msc thesis, department of mechanical engi-
neering, Florida State University
16. Prasanna P, Subba Roa B, Krishna Mohana Rao G (2010) Finite
element modeling for maximum temperature in friction stir welding
and its validation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51:925–933
17. Schmidt H, Hattel J, Wert J (2004) An analytical model for the heat
generation in friction stir welding. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 12:
143–157