4th International Conference on Welding and Failure Analysis of Engineering Materials (WAFA-2018),

November 19-22, 2018, Aswan, Egypt

Comparative Study on Different Tool Geometrics in Friction Stirred Aluminum

Welds Using Response Surface Methodology
Ibrahim Sabry1 and Ahmed M. El-Kassas2
1 Production Eng., Modern Academy for Engineering & Technology, Egypt
2 Production Eng., Faculty of Eng., Tanta University, Egypt

Abstract
A systematic approach was presented to discuss the modeling of tool geometry effects on the
friction stir 6061 aluminum pipes welds using response surface methodology(RSM). The tool
design with the different pin probe geometries tool designing was made for two pins of tools, based
on two types of probes such as conical Pin, and triangular Pin. Then, the influences of pin
geometries on friction stirred aluminum welds were experimentally scrutinized with respect to
hardness(HVN) , tensile strength(UTS) and surfaces roughness(Ra) in order to demonstrate the
feasibility of friction stir welding for joining Al 6061 aluminum alloy welding was performed on
pipe with different axial force 1 ,1.5 and 2 KN, rotational speeds 1000,1400 and1800 rpm and a
traverse speed 4 ,8 and10 mm/min was applied, The response surface methodology was found to
be appropriate for locate the FS weldment properties. The developed mathematical model can be
used effectively at 98% and 99% confidence level D1( conical pin) and level D2(triangular pin).
The result conical pin profile is better than the triangular pin profile because the obtained hardness
values are higher for friction stir welded joint. The surfaces roughness created by FSW of conical
profile tool better than triangular pin profile
Keywords: FSW; Conical pin; triangular pin ,Tensile strength; Hardness; Surfaces roughness; RSM.

1. Introduction
For thirteen years, Friction Stir Welding (FSW) has increasingly attracted interest in both
industry and academia for welding of aluminium alloys and other low melting temperature metals.
Friction stir welding is classified as solid-state because the base pipe material does not exceed its
melting point throughout the process. Friction stir welding employs a nonconsumable tool
composed of shoulder and a pin. The tool’s purpose is to generate sufficient heat such that the base
material will soften. Heat is created by means of friction, pressure, and localized plastic
deformation of the substrate. As the tool travels through the softened base plate it will also serve
to mix the material near the pin and shoulder to create a joint. A common configuration of FSW is
a butt weld where the FSW tool is inserted in between the edges of two sheets and traverses along
the joint Mishra et.el [1] have summarized FSW as an environmentally green process due to its
energy adequacy. FS welding uses significantly less energy than traditional arc welding processes,
requires no filler metal, and does not need shielding gas.
Khourshid et.el[2] This work displays the optimization of friction stir welding for pipe and also
highlights the effect of microstructure and mechanical properties of FSW 6063 Al alloy. The
parameter processing rotational speeds 1400 and traverse speed of 4 mm/min were applied .The
mechanical characterization of welded joints was scrutinized employ different mechanical tests.
Sabry et.el[3] This work displays the optimization of friction stir welding for pipe and also
highlights the effect of microstructure and mechanical properties of FSW 6061 Al alloy. The
parameter processing rotational speeds 485 to 1400 and traverse speed of 4 mm/min were applied
.The mechanical characterization of welded joints was scrutinized employ different mechanical
tests.
Gap tolerance and its bridge-ability has been given attention in the past but without close
consideration on the influence of varying the tool profles, process parameters and the welding
sequence in FSW. The presence of pin participant countenance in uences the pulsating stirring
effect [4].When welding two abutted pipe in FSW, the presence of gap between the faying surfaces
of the pipe is a reality and common problem for manufacturing reasons. This gap between pipe
may be due to improper alignment, mismatch or clamping and is limited to a percentage of the pipe
thickness above which the weld quality will be compromised [5].
However unheeding of tool pin geometry and shape of tool shoulder the dwell time is considered
a substantial technical parameter in the welding process to maximise the effective weld length
hereby shortening the time and mileage to reach weld settlement.This implies that commencing the
welding operation too soon after plunging, the time and distance to reach a stable threshold for a
suitable weld will in fact be longer.Hence, the heat generated during the dwell phase must be high
enough to ensure suffcient plasticity of the material in contact with the shoulder and tool-pin before
traversing the tool ingenerate the weld. This resulted in less force was being applied on The tool
through the ramp up initial traverse and hence will lessen the possibility of tool pin breakage
(failure).
Fujii [6] studied the effect of tool design on mechanical properties and microstructure of friction
stir welded aluminum alloys. Arora [7] particular the pin geometry from it the load-bearing
capacity for a given adjust of welding variables and pin and workpiece materials. “pin” and pinless
tool arrangement were utilized for thin sheets in az31 magnesium alloy FS welding . A different
metal flow was observed depending on the presence or absence of the pin [8].
Maria Asli Sicilan [9]. This work plays highlights the influence of surfaces roughness tester of
FSW 6061 Al plate alloy. The images are digitally processed and analyzed employ MATLAB to
study the variations in the surface quality of weld under various process parameters The surface
roughness of the samples is estimated using roughness tester and compared with image data.
Scaling analysis of FSW has been utilized to develop prediction models as well. Scaling analysis
is described as a methodical procedure for nondimensionalizing independent and dependent
variables, and their derivatives, in a set of governing equations for describing a physical problem
[10]. Dong et al. [11] determined that rotational velocity must be proportional to the translation
velocity to achieve good weld quality in FSW. Colegrove et.el [12] used a scaling analysis to show
that power is proportional to the tool surface area and travel speed. sabry et al. [13] were able to
come up with equations to estimate the tensile strength, elongation, and hardness of Al 6063 pipe
for friction stir welding by the artificial neural network. Buck et.el [14] were able to characterize
flow around the tool using asymptotic analysis. kassas et.el [15] were able to come up with
equations to total cost estimate for friction stir welding Al 6061 pipe.
Generality of the work FSW on plate, little work be conductive friction stir welding pipe, is based
on the above literature the work on friction stir welding for different pin is very little, In this work,
Al 6061 alloy was comparative study between council tool and triangular tool and the tensile
properties, hardness and surface roughness of the joints were studied.
 2. Material and Methods
2.1 Material
Two pipes of 6061 and 6061 Al-alloys were obtained to carry out the experimental program. The
alchemical installation and mechanical characterization of the two alloys, listed in Table 1 and
table 2 respectively was checked using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) portable, analyzer. The pipe
sections, 30mm, and relatively thin walled 3 mm.

Table (1) Chemical composition (wt. %) of Al 6061

Weight% Al Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Zn Ti
6061 Bal 0.4 0.70 0.15 0.15 0.9 0.04 0.25 0.15
Table (2) the mechanical properties of Al 6061
Alloy σ UTS M pa EL% VHD
6061 252.690 8 86

2.2 Tool Material and Design

The material used for the tool steel (ST316L).it has a yield strength 170 MPa , ultimate tensile
strength 485 MPa and hardness 95 HB . The geometry of the tool is presented in Fig.1.the pin has
a conical shape and triangular shape . In present study the tool length were 50mm,and pin length(L)
(3mm), pin diameter(d) 1mm and shoulder Diameter(D) (10mm).

Fig 2.Friction stir welding tool dimensions,(a) concail pin (b) tangulair pin

3. Friction Stir Welding Process

We need milling machine to start the process, The operating principle of FSW is shown in Fig.3.
the rotational tool with a central probe is pressed into the pipe joint and traversed along the weld
line. Frictional heat, created especially under the tool's shoulder, softens the material. The shoulder
also action to contain the softened material which is forced to the back of the tool. Providing the
components are adequately restrictive, a high-quality solid phase weld is formed following big hot
working of the material at the pipes joint.The parameter of friction stir welding shown as table
3.During the present study welding (FSW) for joining of AL 6063 alloy were performed on pipe
parts with thickness 3mm,rotational speeds1800 r.p.m and a traverse speed 4mm/min was applied.
The process can be described in five stages as follows:
1. The pin tool is loaded into the spindle, and the pipe joint clamped to the machine bed.
2. The pin tool is accelerated to the required rotational speed and then slowly plunged into the
pipe joint under the required axial force until the tool shoulder makes contact with the pipe
joint.
3. The tool then travels along the weld axis, forming the weld in its path.
4. At completion, the pin tool is removed from the work piece, to settle under inertia.
5. The welded pipe joint is unloaded and the cycle repeated for further pipe joint.

a b

Figure 3. Milling machine used in FSW for pipe joint, (a)Setup friction stir welding for pipes
parts ,(b) friction stir welding

3.1 FSW process variables

Based on preliminary trials and previous studies, the independent process parameters affecting
the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) ,hardness(VHN) and surfaces roughness(Ra) were identified as
rotation speed (N), axial forces (F) and travel speed (S). The friction stir welding parameters are
shown Table 3. Trial runs proceeded to find the upper and lower limit of process parameters for al
6061 alloy by changing one parameter only at each time. A parameter range was tuned in such a
way that the final welded joint has no defects recognized by visual screening. The upper limit of a
factor was coded as 1 and lower limit as −1. The intermediate coded values were calculated using
Eq. 1.
+
=2 − (1)
−

Where , , and are the wished-for coded value, the variable value, the lower limit of
the variable and the upper limit of the variable respectively. [P. K. Palani, and N. Murugan,
“Optimization of weld bead geometry for stainless steel claddings deposited by FCAW[14]The
considered process parameters with their limits, units and notations are specific in Table 4.
Table 3 Parameters Process and Their Levels in FSW
Unit Levels
Process Parameters Symbol
-1 0 1
Rotation speed RPM N 1000 1400 1800
Travel speed mm/min S 4 8 10
Axial forces KN F 1 1.5 2
3.2 Making experiments
Separate experiments were made according to the design matrix. A FSW machine. Samples of the
welded pipe are shown in Fig. 4. Specimens of required size were cut from the welded pipe to
execute out metallurgical studies as explain in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

Figure 4. A sample of FSW welded pipe (3 mm/min)

Figure 5.The tensile test sample geometry.

Figure 6.Photos of sample tensile test specimens

3.3 Acquiring responses

The samples tensile test were design as per ASTM D3039 standard. Tensile properties as the
ultimate tensile strength of the FSW welded pipe joints were estimated employ computerized
universal testing machine. For each welded pipe, four specimens were prepared and tested. The
average values of the results acquired from those specimens are tabulated and presented in Table
5 as experimental values. Specimens for surfaces roughness tests were fabricated with dimensions.
4. Mathematical Models
4.1 Establishing the mathematical models
Ultimate tensile strength, hardness and surfaces roughness of the FSW joints is function of rotation
speed, travel speed and axial force, and it can be expressed as in Eq. 2.
= ( , , ) (2)
where Y is the response; N is the rotation speed; F is the axial force and S is the travel speed. For
the three factors, the chosen polynomial could be expressed as in Eq. 3.
 =( + + + + + + + + + )
+( + + + + + + + +
+ )
Where is the free term of the regression equation; the coefficients , and are linear terms;
the coefficients , and are quadratic terms; the coefficients, , and are
interaction terms. The values of the coefficient of the polynomial are calculated by regression
analysis with the help of following equations [12]:
= 0.1663 ∑( ) − 0.0568 ∑∑( ) (4)
= 0.0732 ( ) (5)
= 0.0625 ∑( ) + 0.00689 ∑∑( ) − 0.0568 ∑( ) (6)
= 0.1250 ∑( ) (7)
Where i; j = 1, 2, 3 and i < j

DESIGN EXPERT 8.0.4 software package was used to estimate the values of those coefficients
for different responses and the results are presented in Table 5. The finalist mathematical models
determined by the above analysis in the coded form are represented:
Table 5 Calculated regression coefficients of mathematical model
Model
Regression factor Tensile Strength (Y = UTS) Hardness (Y = VHN) Surfaces roughness (Y =Ra)
( 1) 66.54 53.3 2.424
( 1) 0.1150 0.007729 -0.01067
( 1) 3.901 -2.141 5.133
( 1) -3.529 3.712 0.2216
( 1) -2.418E-005 -1.547E-006 2.811E-006
( 1) -0.3726 -0.06782 -0.2027
( 1) 5.458 -0.0300 -0.3790
( 1) -0.0008298 0.00123 -0.0009889
( 1) -0.002837 -0.0004771 0.0003420
( 1) 0.2008 0.1820 0.05344
( 2) 130.3 39.68 3.142
( 2) 0.02670 0.009025 -0.01078
( 2) 3.966 -2.246 5.506
( 2) 3.251 5.675 0.146
( 2) -2.418E-005 -1.547E-006 2.811E-006
( 2) -0.3726 -0.06782 -0.2027
( 2) 5.458 -0.03000 -0.370
( 2) -0.0008298 0.001231 -0.0009889
( 2) -0.002837 -0.0004771 0.0003420
( 2) 0.2008 0.1820 0.05344
4.2 Checking the adequacy of the developed models using ANOVA
Checking the sufficiency of the advanced models employ ANOVA The sufficiency of the models
developed was then tested by employ the analysis of variance technique (ANOVA). The p amount
of regression analysis signalizes the linear square and interaction of the FSW process parameters
with the response functions and these p values are employ to identify the significant parameters on
the response functions [16].The results for tensile strength model of the ANOVA are given in Table
6. The model F-value of 704.4 for tensile strength implies the model is significant. There is only a
0.01% chance that a model F-value could occur due to noise. Values of p value less than 0.05
indicate that model terms are significant. In this case, N, F,S, N2, F2,S2 , NF ,ND and SD are
significant model terms. Values better than 0 1 indicate that the model terms are not significant

Table 6 ANOVA test results for tensile strength model

Sum of
Sources DF Mean Square F-Value p value Result
Squares
Model 4.769E+004 13 3669. 704.4 < 0.0001 Significant
N 272.0 1 272.0 52.23 < 0.0001
F 1489. 1 1489. 285.8 < 0.0001
S 1652. 1 1652. 317.1 < 0.0001
D
3.209E+004 1 3.209E+004 6161. < 0.0001
N2 179.6 1 179.6 34.49 < 0.0001
F2 102.8 1 102.8 19.74 < 0.0001
S2 22.34 1 22.34 4.289 0.04485
NF 24.68 1 24.68 4.739 0.03546
NS 7.729 1 7.729 1.484 0.2303
ND 1.122E+004 1 1.122E+004 2155. < 0.0001
FS 2.259 1 2.259 0.4337 0.5140
FD 0.3610 1 0.3610 0.06931 0.7937
SD 103.4 1 103.4 19.86 < 0.0001
Residuals 208.3 40 5.208
Cor Total 4.790E+004 53
The results for hardness model of the ANOVA are given in Table 7. The model F-value of 241.1for
hardness implies the model is significant. There is exclusive a 0 01% prospect that a model f value
could happen due to the noise the p values less than 0 05 indicate that model terms are significant.
In this case, N , S,F ,D,NF and CD are significant model terms. Values greater than 0.10 indicate
that the model terms are not significant.
Table 7 ANOVA test results for hardness model
Sum of
Sources DF Mean Square F-Value p value Result
Squares
Model 2895. 13 222.7 241.1 < 0.0001 Significant
N 807.6 1 222.7 874.3 < 0.0001
F 426.1 1 807.6 461.3 < 0.0001
S 240.0 1 426.1 259.8 < 0.0001
D
1235. 1 240.0 1337. < 0.0001
N2 0.7351 1 1235. 0.7959 0.3777
F2 3.407 1 0.7351 3.688 0.06194
 S2 0.0006750 1 3.407 0.0007308 0.9786
NF 54.29 1 0.0006750 58.78 < 0.0001
NS 0.2185 1 54.29 0.2366 0.6293
ND 2.418 1 0.2185 2.618 0.1135
FS 1.855 1 2.418 2.009 0.1641
FD 0.9219 1 1.855 0.9981 0.3238
SD 8.673 1 0.9219 9.390 0.003895
Residuals 36.95 40 8.673
Cor Total 2932. 53

The results for surfaces roughness model of the ANOVA are given in Table 8. The model F-value
of 271.4for surfaces roughness implies the model is significant. There is exclusive a 0 01% prospect
that a model f value could happen due to the noise the p values less than 0 05 indicate that model
terms are significant.
In this case, N , F ,D,N2, F2 ,FD and NF are significant model terms. Values greater than 0.10
indicate that the model terms are not significant.

Table 8 ANOVA test results for surfaces roughness model

Sum of
Sources DF Mean Square F-Value p value Result
Squares
Model 2895. 13 97.03 271.4 < 0.0001 Significant
N 485.9 1 485.9 1359. < 0.0001
F 449.4 1 449.4 1257. < 0.0001
S 0.08874 1 0.08874 0.2482 0.6211
D
125.2 1 125.2 350.1 < 0.0001
N2 2.427 1 2.427 6.787 0.01283
F2 30.42 1 30.42 85.08 < 0.0001
S2 0.1077 1 0.1077 0.3012 0.5862
NF 35.05 1 35.05 98.03 < 0.0001
NS 0.1123 1 0.1123 0.3140 0.5784
ND 0.01583 1 0.01583 0.04428 0.8344
FS 0.1599 1 0.1599 0.4473 0.5075
FD 11.71 1 11.71 32.74 < 0.0001
SD 0.01282 1 0.01282 0.03586 0.8508
Residuals 14.30 40 0.3575
Cor Total 1276. 53

The coefficient of determination R2 values gives the goodness of fitness of the model. The
determined values of the developed model are presented in Table 9. The (The tensile strength ) R2
value is always between 0 and 1, and its value indicates the accuracy of the model. For a good
model, R2 value should be close to 1. In this model, the calculated R2 is 0.9957. This implies that
99.4% of experimental data confirms the compatibility with the data predicted by the developed
model. In this study, the ratio is 96.28, which indicates an adequate signal.
The hardness value of the adjusted R2 of 0.96515 is also high to adherent for a high significance
of the model. The predicted R2 of 0.975 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R2 of 0.9833.
Adequate precision measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. In this
study, the ratio is 63.95, which indicates an adequate signal.
The surfaces roughness value of the adjusted R2 of 0.96515 is also high to adherent for a high
significance of the model. The predicted R2 of 0.975 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted
R2 of 0.9855. Adequate precision gauges the indicative to noise ratio a ratio greater than four is
desirable [13] in this study the ratio is 58 01 which ticks a suitable signal

Table 9 Coefficient of determination values for tensile strength, hardness and surfaces roughness
R2 Adusted R2 Predicted R2 Adequate Precision
Tensile strength model 0.9957 0.9942 0.9921 96.28
Hardness model 0.9874 0.9833 0.975 63.95
surfaces roughness model 0.9888 0.9851 0.9802 58.10

4.3 Effect of FSW process parameter

The tensile strength, hardness and surfaces roughness of FSW welded aluminium alloy 6061 pipes
were predicted by the mathematical models using the experimental observations presented in Fig.
7, showing the general trends between predicted and actual.
Predicted vs. Actual Predicted vs. Actual Predicted vs. Actual
205.0 69.00
20.76

Predicted of surface roughness

Predicted of tensile strength

176.2 61.05
Predicted of hardness

16.32

147.4 53.11 11.89

118.5 45.16 7.454

89.72 37.22 3.019

89.72 118.5 147.4 176.2 205.0 37.22 45.16 53.11 61.05 69.00 3.019 7.454 11.89 16.32 20.76

Actual of tensile strength Actual of hardness Actual of surface roughness

Figure 7. Scatter diagram of predicted and actual (a)tensile strength (b)hardness (c) surfaces
roughness

4.4 Optimization of parameters of FSW on responses

One of the most important aims of this investigation was to maximize the tensile strength ,hardness
and surfaces roughness of FS welded joints of Al 6061 pipe and also, find the optimum process
parameters[14-18] from the mathematical model developed. In which the desirability ranges
between 0 and1.The predicted optimal results from above technique(D1) are tensile strength
,hardness and surfaces roughness that can be obtained shown in Fig.8. Using Design Expert
software gives the combined desirability value of 0.675.shown Fig.8. The predicted optimal results
from above technique(D2) are tensile strength ,hardness and surfaces roughness that can be
obtained shown in Fig.8. Using Design Expert software gives the combined desirability value of
0.5569 shown Fig.9.
Rotati on speed

travel speed

Axi al force

Tensile strength

Hardness

Roughness

Combined

0.0000 0.2500 0.5000 0.7500 1.000

Figure 8.Bar graph showing the maximum desirability of 0.694 for the combined objective

Rotation speed

travel speed

Axial force

Tensile strength

Hardness

Roughness

Combined

0.0000 0.2500 0.5000 0.7500 1.000

Figure 9.Bar graph showing the maximum desirability of 0.5569 for the combined objective

4.5 Comparison of Conical pin and Triangular pin profile tools

 The major assignment of the nonconsumable rotating tool pin is to stir the plasticized metal and
move the same back it to have the good joint. The Pin profile plays a decisive role in material
flow and in turn, adjust the travel speed of the FSW processes. From the above major effect plot,
anova and interaction plot it is spotted that the conical pin profile tool is better than a triangular
pin profile tool which hardness ,tensile strength and surfaces roughness
The main effect plots for type tool triangular tool and conical pin for the responses are shown in
Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.It is observed from Fig.10 (a)tensile strength (b) hardness, and (c) surfaces
roughness that the effect of tool conical and rotation speed, axial forces and travel speed on friction
surface is significant in defining the weld tensile strength and hardness .
The effect of type tool conical is more important in knowing the weld tensile strength and hardness.
and weld surfaces roughness. as compared to the shoulder friction surface as spotted in Fig .11 .
The effect of tool conical is least significant for the hardness determination of surfaces roughness.
as indicated. The surface response regression relations between the tool conical, and responses
like weld hardness, tensile strength, hardness and weld surfaces roughness. are shown in RS plots
in Fig. 10.

Main Effects Plot for Tensile strength Main Effects Plot for Surfaces roughness Main Effects Plot for Hardness
Data Means Data Means Data Means
Rotation speed Travel speed Axial force Rotation speed Travel speed Axial force Rotation speed Travel speed Axial force
150 15
60
14

140 13 58

12

Mean
Mean
Mean

11 56
130

10
54
9
120
8
52

7
110
6 50
1000 1400 1800 4 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0 1000 1400 1800 4 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0
1000 1400 1800 4 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0

Figure 10. Main effect plot of conical pin (a)tensile strength (b) surfaces roughness (c) hardness

Main Effects Plot for Tensile strength Main Effects Plot for Hardness Main Effects Plot for Surfaces roughness
Data Means Data Means Data Means

Rotation speed Travel speed Axial force Rotation speed Travel speed Axial force Rotation speed Travel speed Axial force
56 16
150

55 15

140 54 14

53
13
Mean
Mean
Mean

130
52
12
51
11
120
50
10
49
110
9
48
1000 1400 1800 4 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0
1000 1400 1800 4 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0 1000 1400 1800 4 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0

Figure 10. Main effect plot of pin tringolar (a)tensile strength (b)hardness (c) surfaces roughness

5.Conclusions

On the basis of experimental investigation and mathematical model carried out on

welded joints of Al 6061 pipes prepared according to FSW processes, the following
conclusions are given:
 1. conical profile of the tool may produce a high peak temperature. The reason being triangular
pin profile and high time for flow of metal as the welding progresses. A high hardness and
tensile strength are observed.
2. Finally it is observed that Conical pin profile is better than Triangular pin profile because
the obtained hardness values are higher for Friction stir welded joint
3. investigation can be successfully applied for different types of FSW tool geometries to
forecasting their effects on aluminum alloy welds. The quadratic surface response
regression equations developed for each type of FSW tool were found to be appropriate
sufficient to forecasting the responses tensile strength and hardness
4. The surfaces roughness decreases with decrease travel speed ,and increase rotation speed
,axial forces of FS welded.
5. The surfaces roughness created by FSW of conical profile tool better than triangular pin
profile.
Acknowledgment
The corresponding Author would like to express his gratitude to Eng. Dena Ibrahim, Engineers Syndicate
Egyptian for had invaluable support in this paper.
References
[1] R.S. Mishra and Z.Y. Ma "Friction stir welding and processing" Materials Science and
Engineering R 50 (2005) 1–78
[2] Khourshid and I. Sabry, “Friction Stir welding Study of Aluminum Pipe”, International Journal
of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2013
[3] A.M. Khourshid and I. Sabry, “Analysis and Design of Friction Stir Welding”, International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2013.
[4] Dawes, C. J. "Faster and faster welding speed increases with tool development - one of a series
of steps." TWI Bulletin. 41(4), pp. 51-55. 2000.
[5] Arbegast, W. J., Mirshra, R. S., Mahaney, M. W. "Friction Stir Welding and
Processing." ASM International, Materials Park, OH. pp 273-308. 2007.
[6]. Fujii H., Cui L., Maeda M., Nogi K. Effect of tool shape on mechanical properties and
microstructure of friction stir welded aluminium alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2006;419:25–31. doi:
10.1016/j.msea.2005.11.045.
[7]. Arora A., Mehta M., De A., DebRoy T. Load bearing capacity of tool pin during friction stir
welding. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2012;61:911–920. doi: 10.1007/s00170-011-3759-7.
[8] Forcellese A., Gabrielli F., Simoncini M. Mechanical properties and microstructure of joints in
AZ31 thin sheets obtained by friction stir welding using “pin” and “pinless” tool configurations.
Mater. Des. 2012;34:219–229. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.08.001.
[9] Maria Asli Sicilan and S. Senthil Kumar"Analysis of Surface Quality of Friction Stir Welding
Joints using Image Processing Techniques "International Conference on Emerging Trends in
Engineering & Technology, Travancore Engineering College,Kollam, Kerela, India. 03/2014
[10] Colligan, K.J., "Relationships Between Process Variables Related to Heat Generation in
Friction Stir Welding of Aluminium" in: Mishra, R.S., Mahoney, M.W., Lienert, T.J., Jata, K.V.
(Eds.), Friction Stir Welding Processing IV, TMS. pp. 39–54.
[11] Xu, S., Dong, X., Reynolds, A.P., Seidel, T.U., "Finite element simulation of material flow in
friction stir welding" Science And Technology Of Welding and Joining 6,2001.
[12] P. A. Colegrove & H. R. Shercliff"Experimental and numerical analysis of aluminium alloy
7075-T7351 friction stir welds" Science and Technology of Welding and Joining Vol. 8, Issue 5
, 2003 .
[13] Ibraheem Sabry, Ahmed. M. El-Kassas and A.M. Khourshid, “Comparison of RSM and RA
with ANN in Predicting Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Welded Aluminum Alloy Pipes”,
Engineering and Technology in India, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017.
[14] Buck, G., Langerman, M., "Non-Dimensional Characterization of the friction stir/spot welding
process using a simple couette flow model" Part I: Constant property Bingham Plastic solution, in:
Ghosh, S., Castro, J., Lee, J. (Eds.), American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 2004, pp.
1283–1288.
[15] Ibraheem Sabry and Ahmed. M. El-Kassas, “Cost estimation of Pipe Friction Stir Welding”
International Journal of Advance Research and Innovation, Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2017, pp. 121-127,
[16] Ibraheem Sabry and Ahmed. M. El-Kassas, “A New Approach of Aluminum Oxide Addition
for Friction Stir Welding”, European Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2017.
[17] AM Khourshid, Ahmed M El-Kassas, Ibraheem Sabry, Integration between Artificial Neural
Network and Responses Surfaces Methodology for Modeling of Friction Stir welding,
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS), 2(3) 2015
[18] Ibraheem Sabry, Ahmed. M. El-Kassas and A.M. Khourshid “Comparison of RSM and RA
with ANN in Predicting Mechanical properties of Friction Stir Welded Aluminum Alloy pipes
“Engineering and technology in India, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017.