Proceedings of the Twenty-first (2011) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Maui, Hawaii, USA, June 19-24, 2011
Copyright © 2011 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-96-8 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set); www.isope.org
Challenges of Friction Stir Welding of Thick-Section Steel
John M. Seaman, Brian Thompson
EWI
Columbus, Ohio, USA
ABSTRACT
The welding industry is increasingly interested in applying the solid-
state welding benefits of friction stir welding (FSW) to thick-section
steel. Recent advancements in tungsten-based FSW tools have resulted
in full-penetration welds in steel up to 19 mm (0.75 in.) thick. At
increased thicknesses, friction stir welds generate higher forces and
have a lower cooling rate due to higher heat input. Considerations must
be made in terms of weld thermal management, tool material, tool
design, and parameter selection. The ability to produce a fully
consolidated weld in thick-section steel is a careful balance of heat
input, tool design, and weld parameters.
KEY WORDS: Friction Stir Welding, Steel, PcBN, Tungsten,
Rhenium, Tool Wear, Defects
INTRODUCTION
Over the course of the last 20 years, friction stir welding (FSW) has
been established as a fundamental joining method for a wide variety of
soft metals, aluminum alloys in particular. Since its invention in 1991
by TWI (Thomas, Nicholas, Needham, Murch, Templesmith, Dawes),
it has become a well-established welding process for all grades of
aluminum. Due to the hardness differences between the friction stir tool
and the material being joined, the development process has been wide
and successful. These development efforts have demonstrated
significant benefits to using FSW over arc welding in aluminum
applications. With FSW, thicknesses in aluminum of up to 76 mm (3
in.) have been joined in a single pass (Colligan, 2007). In addition, the
solid-state nature of this process allows for the joining of aluminum
alloys which are challenging to join with arc welding, such as 2195, to
be joined with ease. The low heat input of the FSW process results in
low distortion and excellent weld mechanical properties (Konkol and
Mruczek, 2007). With benefits like these, the FSW of aluminum alloys
has been adopted by several industries including the defense,
aerospace, railroad, and shipping industries.
However, the development of the FSW process for hard metals such as
steel, titanium, and nickel-based alloys has been much more limited.
This is due to the restricted number of tool materials that are capable of
withstanding the welding forces without fracturing, wearing, or
deforming. The prospect of joining these hard metals with a non-
486
consumable tool is challenging, considering peak welding temperatures
are in excess of 1200°C and the flow stress of these materials remains
high, even at elevated temperatures. These factors all contribute to a
very degrading environment for any material to withstand.
Despite these challenges, interest in the FSW of steel continues to
increase. Potential users see the benefits FSW afforded to the joining of
aluminum and wish to see these benefits applied to hard metals
structures. In contrast to the FSW of aluminum, almost the entire
gambit of steels is readily arc welded due to its long history of
development and use by industry. The prolific availability of arc
welding equipment, the portability of these systems, the significant
quantity of knowledge, and the low start-up costs of arc welding of
steel offers significant advantages. In order for FSW to be accepted as a
suitable joining technology for steel, a significant benefit in these areas
must be offered. The traditional FSW benefits of low distortion and
improved mechanical properties alone are not enough to justify the
switch from arc welding to FSW of steel.
An inspection of arc welding processes versus FSW has been
accomplished by several authors (Konkol and Mruczek, 2007, Defalco
and Steel, 2009). General consensus is that the arc welding costs must
be offset by lack of consumables, reduction in the number of skilled
welders, and decreased joint preparation time. An examination of
potential arc welding costs versus those of friction stir welding of the
same part was made by Defalco (2006). In this study, the use of FSW
offered a 40% reduction over arc welding. A final cost savings benefit
over arc welding is the reduction of energy consumption. Defalco and
Steel (2009) report that a reduction of up to 80% may be realized. In
addition to this cost benefit, FSW has also been shown to produce
almost zero weld byproducts, such as hexavalent chrome (Mahoney,
Nelson, Sorenson, and Packer, 2010).
In order for FSW of steel to gain industry acceptance as a replacement
process for any arc-welding process, it is necessary for the costs of
welding to swing wide in favor of FSW over the arc welding. A
potentially significant way of accomplishing this is to simply out-
perform arc welding in terms of weld completion rate. FSW travel
speeds are slower than those of arc welding, but it is capable of
consuming a thick-section joint in a single pass whereas arc-welding
requires multiple passes and a more complicated joint preparation to
complete. An admittedly simple evaluation of a 19 mm (0.75 in.)-thick