Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Tensile behavior of dissimilar friction stir welded joints of aluminium alloys

N. Shanmuga Sundaram a,*, N. Murugan b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641 004, India
b
Welding Research Cell, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology, Coimbatore 641 014, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The heat treatable aluminium alloy AA2024 is used extensively in the aircraft industry because of its high
Received 26 January 2010 strength to weight ratio and good ductility. The non-heat treatable aluminium alloy AA5083 possesses
Accepted 12 April 2010 medium strength and high ductility and used typically in structural applications, marine, and automotive
Available online 24 April 2010
industries. When compared to fusion welding processes, friction stir welding (FSW) process is an emerg-
ing solid state joining process which is best suitable for joining these alloys. The friction stir welding
Keywords: parameters such as tool pin profile, tool rotational speed, welding speed, and tool axial force influence
A. Non-ferrous metals and alloys
the mechanical properties of the FS welded joints significantly. Dissimilar FS welded joints are fabricated
D. Welding
E. Mechanical properties
using five different tool pin profiles. Central composite design with four parameters, five levels, and 31
runs is used to conduct the experiments and response surface method (RSM) is employed to develop
the model. Mathematical regression models are developed to predict the ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) and tensile elongation (TE) of the dissimilar friction stir welded joints of aluminium alloys 2024-
T6 and 5083-H321, and they are validated. The effects of the above process parameters and tool pin pro-
file on tensile strength and tensile elongation of dissimilar friction stir welded joints are analysed in
detail. Joints fabricated using Tapered Hexagon tool pin profile have the highest tensile strength and ten-
sile elongation, whereas the Straight Cylinder tool pin profile have the lowest tensile strength and tensile
elongation. The results are useful to have a better understanding of the effects of process parameters, to
fabricate the joints with desired tensile properties, and to automate the FS welding process.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction aircraft industries for applications such as fuselage skins, fuselage

The conventional fusion welding of aluminium and its alloys
has always been a great challenge for designers and technologists.
The difficulties associated with this kind of joints are mainly re-
lated to the presence of a tenacious oxide layer, high thermal con-
ductivity, high coefficient of thermal expansion, solidification
shrinkage, and high solubility of hydrogen and other gases in mol-
ten state [1]. The fusion welding of aluminium alloys leads to the
melting and re-solidification of the fusion zone which results in
the formation of brittle inter-dendritic structure and eutectic
phases. The formation of brittle structure in the weld zone leads
to the drastic decrease in the mechanical properties like lower in
hardness, strength and ductility [2,3].
Generally the 2xxx (Al–Cu alloy) series of aluminium alloys
have poor weldability because of the copper content which causes
hot cracking, poor solidification microstructure and porosity in the
fusion zone. Therefore, the fusion welding processes are not suit-
able for joining of these alloys. Among the 2xxx series aluminium
alloys AA2024 is heat treatable, and it is used extensively in the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nss.mechanical@gmail.com (N. Shanmuga
drnmurugan@rediffmail.com (N. Murugan).
frames, and wings due to its high strength to weight ratio and duc-
tility [4–6]. The heat provided by the fusion welding processes is
responsible for the decay of mechanical properties of AA2024
due to phase transformations and softening induced in this alloy
[7–10]. Aluminium alloys with magnesium as the major alloying
element constitute a group of non-heat treatable alloys with med-
ium strength, high ductility, and excellent corrosion resistance. The
aluminium alloy AA5083 is used typically in the structural, marine,
automotive, and construction industries [11]. In order to obtain
strength levels approaching the regime of the precipitation hard-
ening alloys, high Mg levels are maintained in Al–Mg alloys. Such
high levels of Mg impose processing challenges due to their in-
creased susceptibility to stress corrosion cracking [12].
The aluminium alloys AA2024 and AA5083 are used in fabrica-
tion of aircraft structures and other structural applications. There-
fore, dissimilar welding of these two alloys has wide range of
applications in the fabrication industries. Since fusion welding pro-
cesses are not suitable for the dissimilar welding of aluminium al-
loys AA2024 and AA5083, FS welding process could be the best for
the dissimilar welding of these alloys.
Friction stir (FS) welding is a new joining technique developed
Sundaram), by TWI, Cambridge, in 1991 [13]. This new technology can join alu-
minium alloys that are difficult to weld by traditional fusion tech-

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.04.035
 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193 4185

niques, for example aluminium alloys belonging to the 2xxx series cess; where T6 heat treatment consists of solution heat treated
with limited weldability [7,8]. FSW creates the welded joint with- and artificially aged at 190 °C for 12 h, and H321 denotes strain
out bulk melting. Thus, an inherent advantage of FSW over the widely hardened and stabilized condition, with the alloy approximating
used fusion welding is that FSW is immune to the defects and the quarter-hard state after the thermal stabilisation treatment.
property deteriorations associated with the fusion welding such The chemical composition and mechanical properties of the alu-
as melting and coarsening of strengthening phases. In addition, minium alloys are given in Tables 1 and 2. Aluminium rolled plates
the extensive thermomechanical deformation induces dynamic of 5 mm thickness are used to fabricate dissimilar FS welded
recrystallization and recovery that refine the microstructure of square butt joints of 100 mm length. The longitudinal direction
the stir region [14]. Therefore, welds made by FSW have shown to of the FSW is perpendicular to the rolling direction of both the alu-
have improved mechanical properties such as the tensile strength, minium alloy plates. The side where the tool rotation is in the same
ductility, and hardness than the corresponding fusion welds [15–17]. direction as translation of the welding tool is referred as the
A number of successful trials have been performed on the FS advancing side. However, when the direction of tool rotation and
welding of various aluminium alloy series. Cavaliere et al. [10] translation motion of the tool is counter with each other, it is re-
investigated the tensile behavior of dissimilar FS welded joints of ferred as the retreating side. Since the weld nugget is predomi-
aluminium alloys 2024-T3 and 7075-T6; and reported that both nantly occupied by the retreating side metal [16]; dissimilar FS
the ultimate strength and elongation of the dissimilar joints are welding process is carried out by placing the high strength alumin-
lower than both the base metals 2024-T3 and 7075-T6. Amancio- ium alloy AA2024-T6 at the retreating side, and by placing the alu-
Filho et al. [18] determined the tensile strength of the dissimilar minium alloy AA5083-H321 at the advancing side of the dissimilar
FS welded joints of aluminium alloys AA2024-T351 and AA6056- friction stir weld.
T4 as 56% of the AA2024-T351 and 90% of the AA6056-T4. It is re- Based on the number of trial experiments and from the litera-
ported that the poor tensile strength observed in these joints are ture, the predominant FS welding process parameters which have
due to the thermal softening of the base metals; and the poor duc-
tility observed in these joints is due to the stress concentration
caused by the large difference in strength between base metals,
leading to confined plasticity and then failure. Leitao et al. [19]
indicated the microstructural heterogeneity characteristic of dis-
similar FS welded joints of Al alloys 5182 and 6016, due to which
there is a drastic drop in the elongation of the joints. The elonga-
tion of the joints drops up to 65% when compared to the base metal
elongations. Oyuang and Kovacevic [20] observed that the axial
force is directly responsible for the plunge depth of the tool pin
into the work piece and load characteristics associated with linear
FS weld. When the axial force is relatively low, there is a tunnel de-
fect found at the bottom. While with higher axial force, the weld is
sound with full penetration. It showed that sufficient axial force is
required to form good weld. Lomolino et al. [21] indicated that
higher welding speeds are associated with low heat inputs, and re-
sulted in faster cooling rates of the welded joint. This can signifi-
cantly reduce the extent of metallurgical transformations taking
place during welding (such as solubilisation, re-precipitation and
coarsening of precipitates); and hence, the local strength of indi-
vidual regions across the weld zone in FS welding of Al alloys.
However, very few systematic studies have been performed on Fig. 1a. Photograph of the friction stir welding machine.
dissimilar FS welding, and the relationships between the various
welding parameters and the resulting weld properties have not
been identified. Dissimilar welding of aluminium alloys is a core de-
mand of the Aircraft industries to substitute the traditional joining
technologies with low costs and high efficiency ones such as friction
stir welding in the future advanced design [10]. It is observed that
very few research works are carried out in dissimilar FS welding
of aluminium alloys [18,19]; and those researches are not discuss-
ing about dissimilar FS welding of AA2024 and AA5083. Hence, the
present research work focuses on the development of mathematical
models to predict the tensile strength and ductility of dissimilar FS
welded joints of aluminium alloys AA2024 and AA5083; and the
prediction of effects of various process parameters viz. tool pin pro-
file, tool rotational speed, welding speed, and tool axial force on
mechanical properties (like tensile strength, ductility) of dissimilar
FS welded joints using the developed models.

2. Experimental work

The FSW machine used for the dissimilar welding of aluminium

alloy plates is shown in Fig. 1. The aluminium alloys AA2024-T6 Fig. 1b. Photograph showing the work pieces fitted on the table with specially
and AA5083-H321 are selected for the dissimilar FS welding pro- designed fixtures.
4186 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193

Table 1
Chemical composition (wt.%) of the base metals.

Al Cu Mg Mn Si Fe Zn Cr Ni Ti
2024-T6 93.35 4.424 1.315 0.522 0.09 0.116 0.041 0.005 0.005 0.013
5083-H321 93.68 0.067 4.87 0.744 0.1 0.231 0.096 0.092 0.009 0.017

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the base metals AA2024-T6 and AA5083-H321.
Yield Ultimate tensile Tensile
strength strength, elongation,
(MPa) UTS (MPa) TE (%)
2024-T6 382.0 410.0 20.0
5083-H321 300.0 355.0 18.0
the greater influence on the tensile behavior of dissimilar FS
welded joints are identified as tool pin profile (P), tool rotational
speed (N), welding speed (S), and tool axial force (F) [22–28]. Five
different tools made of high speed steel (HSS) having different pin
profiles are used to fabricate the joints. They are shown in Fig. 2
viz. tapered Cylinder with Grooves (CG), Tapered Square (TS), Ta-
pered Hexagon (TH), Paddle Shape (PS), and Straight Cylinder
(SC). Trial experiments are conducted to determine the working
range of the above process parameters. Feasible limits of the
parameters are chosen in such a way that the dissimilar friction stir
welded joints are free from any visible external defects and inter-
nal defects in macroscopic structure. The important process
parameters that influence the tensile properties of FS welded joints
and their working range for dissimilar FS welding of AA2024-T6
and AA50583-H321 are presented in Table 3. Good quality dissim-
ilar FS welds fabricated within their working range of the parame-
ters are shown in Fig. 3.
Due to wide range of factors, it is decided to use four factors,
five levels, central composite design matrix to conduct the experi-
ments. Table 4 shows the 31 sets of coded conditions used to form
the design matrix. First 16 experimental conditions are derived
from full factorial experimental design matrix (24 = 16). All the
variables at the intermediate (0) level constitute the center points
Micro while the combinations of each process variable at either their
hardness lowest (2) or highest (+2) level with the other three variables of
(VHN) the intermediate levels constitute the star points. Thus the 31
185.0 experimental conditions allowed the estimation of the linear, qua-
125.0 dratic and two-way interactive effects of the variables on the ten-
sile strength and tensile elongation of FS welded joints. For the
convenience of recording and processing experimental data, upper
and lower levels of the factors have been coded as +2 and 2,
respectively. Dissimilar FS welded joints of Al alloys are prepared
as per the design matrix at random to avoid any systematic error
creeping into the system. They are machined perpendicular to
the longitudinal direction of the FS weld using power hacksaw
and milling machine, and three tensile testing specimens are pre-
pared from each dissimilar FS welded plates. The tensile specimens
are prepared as per the American Society for Testing of Materials
(ASTM E8M-04) standards whose geometry and dimensions are
shown in Fig. 4. The tensile testing of the FS welded joints is con-
ducted in a precise Universal Testing Machine (make – ALFRED J.
Amsler & Co., Switzerland) and their ultimate tensile strength
and tensile elongation are measured and the averages of the three
specimens are presented in Table 4.
3. Developing mathematical models
The response functions representing the ultimate tensile
strength (UTS) and tensile elongation (TE) of the dissimilar FS
welded joints are functions of tool pin profile (P), tool rotational

Fig. 2. Different profiles of the friction stir welding tools used to fabricate the joints.
 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193 4187

Table 3
Dissimilar FS welding operating parameters and their levels selected.

S. no. Operating parameter Symbol Unit Levels

2 1 0 +1 +2
1 Tool pin profile P – CG TS TH PS SC
2 Tool rotational speed N rpm 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
3 Welding speed S mm/min 40 50 60 70 80
4 Tool axial force F kN 15 20 25 30 35

Fig. 3. Typical defect free dissimilar friction stir welds: (a) with P-TS, N = 1200 rpm, S = 60 mm/min, and F = 25 kN (b) with P-TH, N = 1200 rpm, S = 60 mm/min, and F = 25 kN.

Table 4
Design matrix with its experimental results and predicted model values.

Trial run FSW process parameters UTS (MPa) TE (%)

P N S F Experimental Predicted Error % Experimental Predicted Error %
1 1 1 1 1 281.9 269.4 4.6 12.1 12.1 0.0
2 1 1 1 1 260.3 256.5 1.5 11.6 11.7 1.0
3 1 1 1 1 263.4 256.5 2.7 9.6 9.3 3.3
4 1 1 1 1 274.5 269.4 1.9 9.4 8.9 5.4
5 1 1 1 1 282.7 269.4 4.9 14.5 14.2 1.8
6 1 1 1 1 261.2 256.5 1.8 14.1 13.9 1.7
7 1 1 1 1 264.3 256.5 3.0 12.0 12.4 2.9
8 1 1 1 1 275.0 269.4 2.1 11.9 12.0 0.7
9 1 1 1 1 272.2 269.4 1.0 11.5 11.1 3.3
10 1 1 1 1 249.4 256.5 2.8 11.2 10.8 4.1
11 1 1 1 1 253.6 256.5 1.1 8.9 9.1 2.2
12 1 1 1 1 264.0 269.4 2.0 8.8 8.7 0.9
13 1 1 1 1 270.8 269.4 0.5 11.3 11.6 3.0
14 1 1 1 1 260.6 256.5 1.6 11.2 11.3 0.6
15 1 1 1 1 274.2 256.5 6.9 10.7 10.5 1.5
16 1 1 1 1 269.0 269.4 0.1 10.5 10.2 3.3
17 2 0 0 0 260.2 261.7 0.6 10.5 10.4 0.8
18 2 0 0 0 245.8 261.7 6.1 9.2 9.7 4.8
19 0 2 0 0 246.3 257.2 4.2 13.2 13.4 1.7
20 0 2 0 0 250.6 257.2 2.6 9.3 9.5 2.2
21 0 0 2 0 251.4 265.9 5.4 9.6 9.7 0.8
22 0 0 2 0 262.9 265.9 1.1 13.8 13.3 4.0
23 0 0 0 2 263.7 267.1 1.3 12.8 12.9 0.5
24 0 0 0 2 253.0 267.1 5.3 10.0 10.1 0.8
25 0 0 0 0 302.2 301.7 0.2 11.2 11.5 2.4
26 0 0 0 0 306.1 301.7 1.5 11.3 11.5 1.5
27 0 0 0 0 297.4 301.7 1.4 10.9 11.5 5.0
28 0 0 0 0 298.3 301.7 1.1 11.6 11.5 1.1
29 0 0 0 0 303.7 301.7 0.7 11.5 11.5 0.3
30 0 0 0 0 299.5 301.7 0.7 11.7 11.5 2.0
31 0 0 0 0 304.8 301.7 1.0 11.1 11.5 3.2

UTS – ultimate tensile strength; TE – tensile elongation.

speed (N), welding speed (S), and tool axial force (F) which can be UTS ¼ f ðP; N; S; FÞ ð1Þ
expressed as TE ¼ f ðP; N; S; FÞ ð2Þ
4188 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193

b0 ¼ 0:142857ðRY Þ  0:035714RRðX ii YÞ ð4Þ

bi ¼ 0:041667RðX i YÞ ð5Þ
bii ¼ 0:03125RðX ii YÞ þ 0:00372RRðX ii YÞ  0:035714ðRY Þ ð6Þ
bij ¼ 0:0625RðX ij YÞ ð7Þ
For four factors, the selected polynomials could be expressed as

UTS ¼ b0 þ b1 ðPÞ þ b2 ðNÞ þ b3 ðSÞ þ b4 ðFÞ þ b11 ðP2 Þ þ b22 ðN2 Þ

Fig. 4. Dimensions of the tensile specimen (ASTM E8M-04).
þ b33 ðS2 Þ þ b4 4 ðF 2 Þ þ b12 ðPNÞ þ b13 ðPSÞ þ b14 ðPFÞ

þ b23 ðNSÞ þ b24 ðNFÞ þ b34 ðSFÞ ð8Þ

The second order polynomial regression equation used to repre-
TE ¼ b0 þ b1 ðPÞ þ b2 ðNÞ þ b3 ðSÞ þ b4 ðFÞ þ b11 ðP2 Þ þ b22 ðN2 Þ
sent the response surface ‘Y’ for K factors is given by
þ b33 ðS2 Þ þ b44 ðF 2 Þ þ b12 ðPNÞ þ b13 ðPSÞ þ b14 ðPFÞ
Y ¼ b0 þ Rbi xi þ Rbii x2i þ Rbij xi xj ð3Þ
þ b23 ðNSÞ þ b24 ðNFÞ þ b34 ðSFÞ ð9Þ
where b0 is the average of responses and bi, bii and bij are the coef- The values of the coefficients in the polynomial Eqs. (8) and (9)
ficients that depend on respective main and interaction effects of are calculated with the help of the statistical softwares MINITAB
the parameters. The values of the coefficients are calculated using (version 15) and SYSTAT (version 12). The values of the regression
the following expressions [22,28–32]. coefficients thus obtained are used to formulate the second order
polynomial regression equations. The regression equations in
coded form are given in Eqs. (10) and (11).
Table 5 UTS ¼ 301:714  9:998 P 2  11:136 N2  8:961S2  8:661 F 2
Statistical results of the developed models.
þ 6:444 PN ð10Þ
Response R-Sq Adj. R-Sq SE
TE ¼ 11:471  0:188 P  0:979 N þ 0:896 S  0:696 F  0:358 P2
UTS 0.826 0.792 8.661
TE 0.962 0.948 0.338 þ 0:231 NS þ 0:194 NF  0:406 SF ð11Þ

R-Sq: R-square; SE: standard error. The predicted tensile strength and tensile elongation from the
Adj. R-Sq: adjusted R-square. models, and its deviation from the experimental values for the

Table 6
ANOVA results for the developed models.

Response Source Sum-of-squares DF Mean-square F-ratio (calculated) F-ratio (tabulated) P-value*

UTS Regression 8925.2 5 1785.0 23.798 2.6 0.0
Residual 1875.2 25 75.008
TE Regression 62.612 8 7.826 68.68 2.4 0.0
Residual 2.507 22 0.114

DF – degrees of freedom; F-ratio = mean sum-of-squares for regression/mean sum-of-squares for residual.
*
P-value – the smallest level of significance at which the data are significant.

a 320
b 15
Ultimate tensile strength - Predicted, MPa

Tensile elongation - Predicted, %

14

300
13

12
280

11

260 10

240
8
240 260 280 300 320
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Ultimate tensile strength - Experimental,
Tensile elongation - Experimental, %
MPa

Fig. 5. (a) Scatter diagram for the developed model of ultimate tensile strength; (b) scatter diagram for the developed model of tensile elongation.
 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193 4189

Table 7
Results of confirmity experiments.

S. no Parameters Experimental values Predicted values % Error

P N S F UTS TE UTS TE UTS TE
1 0 0.25 0.75 1.5 270.3 10.5 276.5 10.0 2.2 5.0
2 2 1.5 1.25 0.5 207.6 12.1 201.2 12.6 3.2 3.7
3 1 0.75 0.25 0.5 282.7 9.6 277.9 10.1 1.7 4.7
4 2 1.25 1.5 1.25 190.4 7.5 194.5 7.2 2.1 3.9
5 1 0.5 0.75 0.75 271.0 11.0 275.8 11.2 1.7 1.6

31 runs are presented in Table 4. The error in the predicted model
values are calculated as [(experimental value – model
value)  100/model value], and it is found that the error in the
model values is within ±10%.
3.1. Checking the adequacy of the models developed
The statistical results of the models are presented in Table 5. If
the value of ‘R-Sq’ is 1.0, then the predicted model values exactly
coincide with the experimental results. The higher values of ‘R-
Sq’, and lower values of standard error (SE) of the models indicate
that the regression models are quite adequate and can be used to
predict the responses (UTS, TE) without appreciable error [32].
The adequacy of the models developed is also tested by using the
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which is presented in Table 6. It is
observed that the calculated values of F-ratio are greater than
the tabulated values at 95% confidence level and hence, the models
are considered to be adequate. Further, the validity of the models is
tested by drawing scatter diagrams as shown in Fig. 5. The ob-
served values and predicted values from the models are scattered

a 14
a 300
13
Ultimate tensile strength, MPa

280
12
Tensile elongation, %

260
11

240
10

220
9

200 8

180 7
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Tool rotational speed (N), rpm Tool rotational speed (N), rpm

CG TS TH PS SC CG TS TH PS SC

b b

Fig. 6. (a) Effects of tool rotational speed (N) on UTS (at S = 60 mm/min, F = 25 kN); Fig. 7. (a) Effects of tool rotational speed (N) on TE (at S = 60 mm/min, F = 25 kN);
(b) Response surface for the effects of N on UTS. (b) Response surface for the effects of N on TE.
4190 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193

both sides and close to 45° line, indicating the perfect fitness of the
developed empirical models.
3.2. Validation of the developed models
Experiments are conducted to verify the developed regression
model equations. Five weld runs are made using different values
of the process parameters, other than those used in the design ma-
trix. Experimental values of the responses UTS and TE are com-
pared with the predicted values of the responses from the
models, and they are provided in Table 7. The deviation of the pre-
dicted values from the actual experimental results is within ±10%,
which shows that the developed models fit closer to the experi-
mental results.
4. Results and discussions
From the regression models developed, the effects of FS welding
process parameters viz. tool rotational speed, welding speed and
tool axial force on ultimate tensile strength and tensile elongation
of dissimilar FS welded joints are evaluated for various tool pin
profiles. They are presented graphically from Figs. 6–11. From
the graphs, it is found that the ultimate tensile strength of dissim-
ilar FS welded joints is lower than both the base metals irrespec-
tive of the operating parameters used to fabricate the joints. The
four operating parameters considered directly affect the magni-
tude of frictional heat generated and plastic flow of material. It is
observed that when the combinations of parameters create very
low or very high frictional heat and material flow, then lower ten-
sile strength is observed.
The tensile elongation of dissimilar FS welded joints is lower
than both the base metals irrespective of the operating parameters
used to fabricate the joints. The FS welding process leads to the
clustering of the strengthening precipitates in the regions of TMAZ,
HAZ and weld nugget (especially in AA2024-T6) and plastic flow of
material in the regions of WN and TMAZ. Therefore, dissimilar FS
welded joints of aluminium alloys AA2024-T6 and AA50583-
H321 have lower tensile elongation than that of both the base met-
als. The decrease in elongation is also due to the effect arising from
the localization of strain occurring in the regions softened by the
friction stir welding process resulting in a comparatively low over-
all strain-to-failure, i.e. elongation [33]. When the combination of

a a 14

300

13
Ultimate tensile strength, MPa

280
Tensile elongation, %

12

260
11

240
10

220 9

200 8
40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80
Welding speed (S), mm/min Welding speed (S), mm/min

CG TS TH PS SC CG TS TH PS SC

b
b

Fig. 8. (a) Effects of welding speed (S) on UTS (at N = 1200 rpm, F = 25 kN); (b) Fig. 9. (a) Effects of welding speed (S) on TE (at N = 1200 rpm, F = 25 kN); (b)
Response surface for the effects of S on UTS. Response surface for the effects of S on TE.
 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193 4191

a a 14

300

13
Ultimate tensile strength, MPa

280

Tensile elongation, %
12

260
11

240
10

220
9

200 8
15 20 25 30 35
15 20 25 30 35
Tool axial force, kN Tool axial force (F), kN

CG TS TH PS SC CG TS TH PS SC

b b

Fig. 10. (a) Effects of tool axial force (F) on UTS (at N = 1200 rpm, S = 60 mm/min); Fig. 11. (a) Effects of tool axial force (F) on TE (at N = 1200 rpm, S = 60 mm/min); (b)
(b) Response surface for the effects of F on UTS. Response surface for the effects of F on TE.

operating parameters increase the plastic flow of material and fric-
tional heat generated, then there is a corresponding decrease in the
tensile elongation of the joints is observed.
The possible causes for the effects of different welding parame-
ters on tensile strength and tensile elongation are interpreted and
presented as follows.
viz. Paddle Shape, Tapered Square and Tapered Hexagon produce
the joints with increasing order of tensile properties. There is no
pulsating effect in the case of tapered Cylinder with Grooves or
Straight Cylinder which produces the joints with poor tensile
properties.

4.2. Effects of tool rotational speed (N)

4.1. Effects of tool pin profile (P)
The dissimilar joints fabricated using the Tapered Hexagon tool
has higher tensile strength and tensile elongation compared to the
joints made using other four tools. The same behavior is observed
at most of the operating parameters used, and this is observed
from Figs. 6–11. These figures also represent the effects of operat-
ing parameters for the five tool pin profiles. The Tapered Square
tool produces joints with better tensile properties than Paddle
Shaped tool, Cylinder with Grooves tool, and Straight Cylinder tool.
The dissimilar FS welded joints have very lower tensile strength
and tensile elongation, if they are fabricated using the tool tapered
Cylinder with Grooves or Straight Cylinder. The tool pin profile
with flat faces produces pulsating effect and better plastic flow of
material [27]. Therefore, the FS welding tools with 2, 4 and 6 faces
The Figs. 6 and 7 reveal the effects of tool rotational speed for
various tool pin profiles. The increase in tool rotational speed re-
sults in the increase in tensile strength of the FS welded joints.
The tensile strength reaches a maximum value, and further in-
crease in tool rotational speed leads to the decrease in tensile
strength. At lowest rotational speed (800 rpm) frictional heat gen-
erated is lowest which results in poor plastic flow of the materials
being FS welded; and therefore, lower tensile strength is observed.
The highest rotational speed (1600 rpm) results in the metallurgi-
cal transformation such as solubilisation, re-precipitation, and
coarsening of strengthening precipitates at the weld zone [34],
and lowering of dislocation density [35,36] which decrease the
tensile strength of the FS welded joints. The variation in tensile
strength at different tool rotational speed for a same tool pin
4192 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193

profile is due to the variation in the material flow behavior and tool into the work pieces [20,37,38]. Therefore, the increase in
frictional heat generated. Tapered Hexagon tool produces smooth the tool axial force encourages the clustering effect of the strength-
material flow when compared to the tools Tapered Square and Pad- ening precipitates, intense plastic flow of base materials, and local-
dle Shape which enhances the joint strength at most of the tool ization of strain. The increase in tool axial force leads to the
rotational speeds. The highest tensile strength of the dissimilar decrease in the tensile elongation of the FS welded joints. Joints
FS welded joint is obtained by using the Tapered Hexagon tool at made with Tapered Hexagon tool have the highest tensile elonga-
a tool rotational speed of 1200 rpm. tion at all the tool axial forces.
The increase in tool rotational speed enhances the plastic flow
in the WN and TMAZ; intense clustering of strengthening precipi-
5. Conclusions
tates in WN, TMAZ and HAZ [2,7,8,17,33]; and localization of strain
[33]. Therefore, increase in the tool rotational speed decreases the
1. Friction stir welding tools with five different pin profiles are
tensile elongation of the dissimilar FS welded joints. Dissimilar
developed successfully which are suitable for the dissimilar FS
weldments fabricated using Tapered Hexagon tool have the high-
welding of aluminium alloys. The working range of operating
est tensile elongation irrespective of the tool rotational speed.
parameters for a good quality dissimilar FS welded joints of alu-
The next higher tensile elongation is obtained by using the tool Ta-
minium alloys AA2024-T6 and AA5083-H321 are found.
pered Square whereas Straight Cylinder tool produces the lowest
2. Regression modeling equations are developed based on the
tensile elongation.
experimental values of ultimate tensile strength and tensile
elongation of the dissimilar FS welded joints of aluminium
4.3. Effects of welding speed (S)
alloys AA2024-T6 and AA5083-H321, and they are validated.
The developed models can be used to predict the ultimate ten-
The effects of welding speed for various tool pin profiles are
sile strength and tensile elongation of the dissimilar FS welded
shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The increase in welding speed leads to
joints of the above alloys within ±10% of their experimental val-
the increase in the tensile strength up to a maximum value; and
ues at 95% confidence level.
further increase in welding speed results in the decrease in the ten-
3. Based on the regression models the effects of operating param-
sile strength of FS welded joints. At lowest welding speed (40 mm/
eters on ultimate tensile strength and tensile elongation of the
min) and highest welding speed (80 mm/min) lower tensile
dissimilar FS welded joints are presented and interpreted in
strengths are observed. This is due to the increased frictional heat
detail. The Tapered Hexagon tool produces higher pulsating
and insufficient frictional heat generated respectively [37]. The
effect and smooth material flow which resulted in the highest
lowest welding speed encourages the metallurgical transforma-
tensile strength and tensile elongation, whereas the Straight
tions of the weld zone and this leads to the lower tensile strength
Cylinder tool produces the lowest tensile strength and tensile
of the FS welded joints. Joints made by the Tapered Hexagon tool
elongation of the dissimilar FS welded joints.
have the highest tensile strength irrespective of the welding speed
4. The increase in the tool rotational speed or welding speed leads
used to fabricate the joints. The decreasing order of tensile strength
to the increase in the tensile strength; and it reaches a maxi-
is obtained using the tools viz. Tapered Square, Paddle Shape, Cyl-
mum value and then decreases. The increase in the tool axial
inder with Grooves, and Straight Cylinder at all the welding speeds.
force leads to the increase in the tensile strength of the dissim-
All the five different tools produce the FS welds of lowest tensile
ilar FS welded joints. Tensile strength decreases after it attains a
strength at the lowest welding speed of 40 mm/min.
maximum value.
The increase in the welding speed discourages the clustering ef-
5. The dissimilar FS welded joints fabricated with Tapered Hexa-
fect of strengthening precipitates, plastic flow of materials
gon tool have the highest tensile elongation, whereas Straight
[2,7,8,17,33], and localization of strain [33]. Therefore, increase in
Cylinder tool have the lowest tensile elongation, irrespective
the welding speed results in the increase of tensile elongation.
of the operating parameters used.
The decreasing order of tensile elongation of the joints are fabri-
6. The increase in tool rotational speed results in the decrease in
cated by using the tools viz. Tapered Hexagon, Tapered Square,
the tensile elongation, whereas tensile elongation increases
Paddle Shape, tapered Cylinder with Grooves, and Straight Cylin-
with increase in the welding speed. The tensile elongation
der. The same behavior is observed at all the welding speeds.
decreases with increase in tool axial force.
4.4. Effects of tool axial force (F)

The Figs. 10 and 11 indicate the effects of tool axial force for var-
ious tool pin profiles. The increase in tool axial force leads to the
increase in the tensile strength and it reaches a maximum value,
and further increase in the axial force makes the tensile strength
of the joints to decrease. The lowest frictional heat is generated
with the lowest tool axial force (15 kN) and consequently, lower
tensile strength is recorded. At highest axial force (35 kN) the
plunge depth of the tool into the work pieces is higher which re-
sults in lower tensile strength [20,37,38]. The Tapered Hexagon
tool produces the joints with higher tensile strength irrespective
of the tool axial force. The decreasing order of tensile strength is
obtained by using the tools viz. Tapered Square, Paddle Shape, Cyl-
inder with Grooves, and Straight Cylinder. All the five different
tools produce the joints with lowest tensile strength when the tool
axial force is highest (35 kN), which is due to the higher plunge
depth of the tool into the work pieces.
The increase in the tool axial force leads to the increase in the
frictional heat generated and increase in the plunge depth of the
Acknowledgements
Friction Stir Welding of the work pieces and its Characteriza-
tions were performed at Welding Research Cell, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore, India. The authors are grateful to all the staff members
of Welding Research Cell. The authors would like to thank DRDO-
Naval Research Board, INDIA, for providing financial support to
procure the FSW machine for Welding Research Cell, CIT,
Coimbatore.
References
[1] Matrukanitz RP. Selection and weldability of heat-treatable aluminum alloys.
ASM Handb – Wel Braz Sold 1990;6:528–36.
[2] Su JQ, Nelson TW, Mishra R, Mahoney M. Microstructural investigation of
friction stir welded 7050-T651 aluminium. Acta Mater 2003;51:713–29.
[3] Rhodes CG, Mahoney MW, Bingel WH. Effect of friction stir welding on
microstructure of 7075 aluminium. Scripta Mater 1997;36:69–75.
 N. Shanmuga Sundaram, N. Murugan / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 4184–4193
[4] Starke Jr EA, Staley JT. Application of modern aluminum alloys to aircraft. Prog
Aero Sci 1996;32(2-3):131–72.
[5] Guillaumin V, Mankowski G. Localized corrosion of 2024-T351 aluminium
alloy in chloride media. Corros Sci 1999;41(3):421–38.
[6] Campestrini P, Van Westing EPM, Van Rooijen HW, De Wit JHW. Relation
between microstructural aspects of AA2024 and its corrosion behaviour
investigated using AFM scanning potential technique. Corros Sci
2000;42(11):1853–61.
[7] Flores OV, Kennedy C, Murr LE, Brown D, Pappu S, Nowak BM. Microstructural
issues in a friction-stir-welded aluminum alloy. Scripta Mater
1998;38(5):703–8.
[8] Murr LE, Liu G, Mc Clure JC. A TEM study of precipitation and related
microstructures in friction-stir-welded 6061 aluminum. J Mater Sci
1998;33(5):1243–51.
[9] Ulysse P. Three-dimensional modeling of friction stir-welding process. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 2002;42:1549–57.
[10] Cavaliere P, Cerri E, Squillace A. Mechanical response of 2024-7075 aluminium
alloys joined by friction stir welding. J Mater Sci 2005;40:3669–76.
[11] Dickerson TL, Przydatek J. Fatigue of friction stir welds in aluminium alloys
that contain root flaws. Int J Fatigue 2003;25:1399–409.
[12] Lathabai S, Lloyd PG. The effect of scandium on the microstructure, mechanical
properties and weldability of a cast Al–Mg alloy. Acta Mater 2002;50:4275–92.
[13] Thomas WM, Nicholas ED, Needham JC, Murch MG, Temple-Smith P, Dawes CJ.
Friction stir butt welding. 1991: International patent no. PCT/GB92/02203.
[14] Mahoney MW, Rhodes CG, Flintoff JG, Spurling RA, Bingel WH. Properties of
friction-stir-welded 7075-T651 aluminum. Metall Mater Trans A
1998;29A:1955–64.
[15] Berbon PB, Bingel WH, Mishra RS, Bampton CC, Mahoney MW. Friction stir
processing: a tool to homogenize nanocomposites aluminium alloys. Scripta
Mater 2001;44:61–6.
[16] Lee WB, Yeon YM, Jung SB. The improvement of mechanical properties of
friction-stir-welded A356 Al alloy. Mater Sci Eng 2003;A355:154–9.
[17] Sato YS, Urata M, Kokawa H, Ikeda K. Hall–petch relationship in friction stir
welds of equal channel angular-pressed aluminium alloys. Mater Sci Eng
2003;A354:298–305.
[18] Amancio-Filho ST, Sheikhi S, Dos Santos JF, Balfarini C. Preliminary study on
the microstructure and mechanical properties of dissimilar friction stir welds
in aircraft aluminium alloys 2024-T351 and 6056-T4. J Mater Process Technol
2008;206:132–42.
[19] Leitao C, Emilio B, Chaparro BM, Rodrigues DM. Formability of similar and
dissimilar friction stir welded AA5182-H111 and AA6016-T4 tailored blanks.
Mater Des 2009;30:3235–42.
[20] Ouyang JH, Kovacevic R. Material flow and microstructure of the friction stir
butt welds of the same and dissimilar aluminum alloys. J Mater Eng Perform
2002;11(1):51–63.
4193
[21] Lomolino S, Tovo R, Dos Santos J. On the fatigue behavior and design curves of
friction stir butt welded Al alloys. Int J Fatigue 2005;27:305–16.
[22] Shanmuga Sundaram N, Murugan N. Dependence of ultimate tensile strength
of friction stir welded AA2024-T6 aluminium alloy on friction stir welding
process parameters. Int Sci J Mechanika 2009;78(4):17–24.
[23] Shanmuga Sundaram N, Murugan N, Suresh S. Mathematical modeling of
ductility of friction-stir-welded AA5083-H321. Int J Mech Eng
2009;2(2):141–6.
[24] Shanmuga Sundaram N, Murugan N. Tensile behavior of friction-stir-welded
AA5083-H321. Int J Mech Intell Manuf 2010;2(1/2):81–95.
[25] Krishnan KN. The effect of post weld heat treatment on the properties of 6061
friction stir welded joints. J Mater Sci 2002;37:473–80.
[26] Lakshminarayanan AK, Balasubramanian V, Elangovan K. Effect of welding
processes on tensile properties of AA6061 aluminium alloy joints. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2007:1–11.
[27] Elangovan K, Balasubramanian V, Valliappan M. Influences of pin profile and
axial force on the formation of friction stir processing zone in AA6061
aluminium alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2008;38(3-4).
[28] Elangovan K, Balasubramanian V, Babu S. Predicting tensile strength of friction
stir welded AA 6061 aluminium alloy joints by mathematical model. Mater
Des 2009;30:188–93.
[29] Gunaraj V, Murugan N. Prediction of heat-affected zone characteristics in SAW
of structured steel pipes. Weld J 2002;81(1):94s–8s.
[30] Palani PK, Murugan N. Ferrite number optimization for stainless steel cladding
by FCAW using Taguchi technique. Int J Mater Prod Technol
2007;33(4):404–20.
[31] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 5th ed. New York: John
Wiley and Sons; 2001.
[32] Ramasamy S, Gould, Workman D. Design of experiments study to examine the
effect of polarity on stud welding. Weld J 2002;81(2):19s–26s.
[33] Srivatsan TS, Satish Vasudevan, Lisa Park. The tensile deformation and fracture
behavior of friction stir welded aluminum alloy 2024. Mater Sci Eng A
2007;466:235–45.
[34] Lomolino S, Tovo R, Dos Santos J. On the fatigue behavior and design curves of
friction stir butt welded Al alloys. Int J Fatigue 2005;27:305–16.
[35] Benavides S, Li Y, Murr LE, Brown D, McClure JC. Low-temperature friction-stir
welding of 2024 aluminum. Scripta Mater 1999;41(8):809–15.
[36] Threadgill P. Friction stir welds in aluminium alloys preliminary
microstructural assessment, TWI Bulletin-The Welding Institute, Abington,
UK; 1997: Industrial report no: 513/2/97.
[37] Colligan J, Paul J, Konkol, James J, Fisher, Pickens Joseph R. Friction stir welding
demonstrated for combat vehicle construction. Weld J 2003:1–6.
[38] Zhang Z, Zhang HW. Numerical studies on effect of axial pressure in friction
stir welding. Sci Technol Weld Joining 2007;12(3):226–48.