Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

277 (2020) 116482

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

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

Mechanical behavior of FSW joint welded by a novel designed stationary T

shoulder tool
Sunil Sinhmar*, Dheerendra Kumar Dwivedi
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, Uttarakhand, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Associate Editor: R Mishra A novel stationary shoulder friction stir welding (SSFSW) tool was developed with provision for automatic
Keywords: removal of plasticized material entering into the shoulder during the welding. Main objective of this tool design
Aluminium was to obtain a symmetrical weld joint with narrow heat affected zone. Mechanical and metallurgical properties
Stationary shoulder of AA2014 aluminium alloy SSFSW joint were compared with the conventional FSW joint. Sound weld joint with
Friction stir welding enhanced mechanical properties were obtained by the stationary shoulder tool. Optical microscopy, FESEM
Heat generation analysis along with EDS, transmission electron microscopy, XRD analysis, microhardness and toughness test
Mechanical properties were performed on both types of weld joint. Weld thermal cycle and heat generation were analyzed for sta-
tionary shoulder and conventional FSW tool and it was found that the SSFSW tool shoulder generates lesser heat
than conventional FSW tool.

1. Introduction
Friction stir welding was developed in 1991 and it became popular
among the researchers all over the world. Number of variants has been
developed for friction stir welding. Most of the variants were related to
the tool design. Recently, a new variant with stationary/non-rotating
shoulder came into picture. Earlier, it was assumed that a rotating
shoulder is necessary to produce a sound FSW joint. Development of the
stationary shoulder friction stir welding (SSFSW) tool has changed this
notion.
Conventional FSW (CFSW) tool uses a rotational shoulder which
produces large amount of heat input, which in turn leads to a wider
heat affected zone (HAZ). Generally, heat affected zone of the alumi-
nium alloys (especially heat treatable) shows degradation in the various
mechanical properties as well as corrosion performance. Rotation of the
shoulder in SSFSW is restricted, which facilitates the welding very low
heat input and narrow HAZ. Moreover, SSFSW tool produces almost
symmetrical weld joint with little or no flash (Ji et al., 2014). Thinning
of cross-section of the SSFSW joint was found negligible as compared to
the conventional FSW joint (Martin, 2013). Stationary shoulder slides
over the plates during the SSFSW which gives smooth upper surface as
compared to the rotating tool (Li et al., 2015). Different zones formed in
a SSFSW joint are similar to conventional FSW joint. These zones are
more symmetrical and narrower than the conventional FSW joint. Re-
gion at the abutting surface which experiences the plastic deformation
and recrystallization is called nugget zone (NZ). Region next to the NZ
which experiences the thermal cycles along with the mechanical force
and shows deformed grains is called thermo-mechanical affected zone
(TMAZ). Heat affected zone (HAZ) experiences only microstructural
variation due to heat without any effect of plastic deformation.
Stationary shoulder FSW was developed in early 2005 by TWI
(Martin et al., 2011). Initially, stationary shoulder was used for FSW of
Ti alloys to reduce the temperature gradient along the thickness due to
low thermal conductivity (Davies et al., 2011). Development of fillet
and corner joints was found to be easier with SSFSW than the con-
ventional FSW. Widener et al. (2006) investigated that the fatigue life
of AA7075 SSFSW joint enhanced due to higher compressive stress than
the conventional FSW. Ahmed et al. (2011) found that the stationary
shoulder tool enhanced the formability of AA6082. Non-rotating
shoulder reduced the width of the TMAZ and improved the mechanical
properties of the AA2219 weld joint. Liu et al. (2013) found that the
non-rotating shoulder reduced the asymmetricity and heterogeneity of
the weld joint. Effect of the rotational and traverse speed was in-
vestigated on the stationary shoulder FSW of AA6061. Li et al. (2014)
observed that the rotational speed was more effective on joint proper-
ties than the traverse speed. Wu et al. (2015) compared the conven-
tional FSW and SSFSW of AA7050 using experimental and simulation
studies and it was observed that SSFSW required 30% less heat input
than the conventional FSW. Ji et al. (2015) performed vertical com-
pensation FSW using interlayer (1–2 mm thickness) of AA2024 in the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sun25.dme2014@iitr.ac.in, ssinhmar@me.iitr.ac.in (S. Sinhmar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.116482
Received 28 December 2018; Received in revised form 20 September 2019; Accepted 27 October 2019
Available online 04 November 2019
0924-0136/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi
gap between two plates of AA6061 and it was observed that the SSFSW
was better than the conventional FSW. Sun et al. (2016) investigated
the properties of different zones of SSFSW joint (AA6061) and found
that the HAZ possess lower strength and toughness than the other
zones. Sun et al. (2017) found that the longitudinal residual stress was
lower in SSFSW than the conventional FSW (bead on plate of AA7010)
and ‘M’ shape residual stress profile was observed in both cases.
Despite having number of advantages of SSFSW over conventional
FSW, stationary shoulder friction stir welding has not been prominently
used due to the issue related with the extrusion and sticking of the
material into the stationary shoulder and overheating during the
welding. Due to the limitation of ingress of plasticized material, these
tools need cleaning and hence, cannot be used continuously for long
run weld. Current tool design is free from the problem of overheating
and ingress of plasticized material. It can be the best replacement of the
earlier used stationary shoulder tool which were facing material ingress
problem. Additionally, presented tool design prevents the formation of
the wide HAZ and offer improved mechanical properties.
2. Experimental procedure
AA2014 aluminium alloy plate of 6 mm thickness was used for the
friction stir welding. Plate was machined to the dimension of
70 mm x 50 mm x 6 mm. Welding was performed in butt joint config-
uration. A vertical milling machine was used for the welding. Both
plates were cleaned and firmly clamped in the fixture. A non-consum-
able rotating tool of ‘H13 tool steel’ was used for the conventional FSW.
FSW tool comprises pin and shoulder as its major components. Relative
size of the pin and shoulder of the FSW tool is the main design aspect
from heating point of view (Mishra and Ma, 2005). Schematic and
details of the SSFSW tool are given in next section. Welding process
parameters were kept same for the both type of welding. Process
parameters and tool details are shown in Table 1. SSFSW tool was
plunged in the same way as the conventional FSW tool until the sta-
tionary shoulder of the tool touched to the plate to be welded. Dwell
time (it is the time after plunge of the rotating tool before traverse) for
the conventional FSW was kept 60 s while it was kept 90 s for the
SSFSW joint. Sample from the transverse direction of the weld joint was
cut for the microstructural analysis. Sample was ground and polished
upto 2000 grade emery paper. Rough and fine cloth polishing was
carried out using slurry of magnesium oxide powder to obtain the
mirror like surface finish. Keller’s etchant was used for 25 s on the
polished surface to reveal the grain boundary. Stereo microscope
(Nikon SMZ 745 T) was used for the macrostructure analysis. ‘Dewinter
LT-23B’ microscope was used for the optical microstructural analysis of
the weld joints. Microstructure of the weld joints was taken from the
various regions. Line intercept method and ‘Image J’ software were
used for the grain size and precipitate size measurement, respectively.
Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) of the po-
lished samples was performed along with the EDS (energy dispersive X-
ray spectroscopy) analysis. EDS was performed for the elemental ana-
lysis of the weld joint. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was
performed for high magnification study of fine strengthening pre-
cipitates. Further, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was carried out to
identify the second phase particles using CuKα radiation. Peak
Table 1
Tool dimensions and welding parameters for conventional FSW and SSFSW.
Tool dimensions (mm) Friction stir welding parameters
Shoulder Pin diameter Pin length Rotational Traverse
diameter speed (rpm) speed (mm/
min)
Top Bottom
16 6 3 5.8 931 13
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482
temperature was measured during the welding at 5 mm and 10 mm
distance away from the center of the weld using K-type thermocouple
wires. Holes of 1.5 mm diameter and 3 mm depth were drilled at the
back side of the plates. Thermocouple wires were inserted and fixed in
the drilled hole. A backing plate with special slots was prepared to
adjust the thermocouples wires during the welding. Data acquisition
system (Make – National Instruments, NI 9211) was used for data re-
cording. Microhardness study was performed on the transverse cross-
section of the weld joints using Vicker’s microhardness tester. Load for
the microhardness testing was kept 100 g for the dwell time of 10 s.
Distance between two consecutive indentations was kept 0.5 mm.
Indentations were taken at the mid-thickness of the weld joint. Samples
for the tensile testing were prepared along the transverse direction of
the weld joint and nugget zone was kept in center. Tensile testing was
performed using universal testing machine (UTM) of ‘Instron USA, M-
5980’. Capacity of the UTM was 100 kN at room temperature.
Crosshead speed rate was kept 0.5 mm/min during the testing.
Fractured surfaces were analyzed using FESEM. Tensile test samples
were tested in triplicate and prepared according to ASTM E8. Charpy
impact test was performed to study the toughness of the weld joints.
Two samples were prepared for each of NZ and HAZ of the both type of
weld joints. Samples were prepared according to the ASTM E23 and in
the transverse direction of the weld joint. Nugget zone was kept in the
center of sample to determine the toughness of this region. Similarly,
heat affected zone was kept in the center of sample to determine the
toughness of this region. V-notch was machined at the center of the
sample and the depth of the notch was kept 2 mm. Length, width and
thickness of the toughness samples were kept 55 mm, 10 mm and 5 mm,
respectively. Fractured surface was analyzed using FESEM. All the tests
were carried out at room temperature.
3. Results
3.1. Development of SSFSW tool
An indigenous tool with stationary shoulder was developed for FSW
with facility of automatic cleaning of the plasticized material entered
through the gap between rotating shoulder and stationary shoulder
without overheating of tool. Schematic of the SSFSW tool is shown in
Fig. 1. Tool has mainly three parts namely stationary shoulder body,
rotating tool with breaking mechanism for material entered through the
gap and stationary shoulder holder. Small rods were fixed (for breaking
mechanism) at the shank of rotating tool, which were rotating with
rotation of the tool. Those rods were capable to break the entered
material, which was moving in upward direction through the gap. Slots
were produced in the stationary shoulder body to provide the exiting
path to the entered material broken by rods on rotating tool. Dimen-
sions of the stationary shoulder tool were kept same as the conventional
Tilt
angle
(β)
0°
Fig. 1. Schematic showing SSFSW tool.
2
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi
Fig. 2. Images of the welded plates using a) conventional FSW, b) SSFSW process, and corresponding macrograph of c) conventional FSW joint, and d) SSFSW joint.
FSW tool (Table 1). Shoulder having 16 mm diameter was rotating in
case of conventional FSW, whereas same was stationary (just sliding) in
case of the SSFSW. Furthermore, current tool was able to produce sound
weld joint without overheating.
3.2. Macrostructure
Sound weld joints were produced using conventional FSW and
SSFSW. Welded plates of conventional FSW and SSFSW are shown in
Fig. 2a and b, respectively. Macrographs of the transverse cross-section
of conventional FSW and SSFSW are shown in Fig. 2c and d, respec-
tively. Large ‘shoulder affected region’ can be observed at the upper
part of the stir zone in conventional FSW joint. Fig. 2c is also evident of
a wider heat affected zone which became clearer after etching. On
contrary, SSFSW joint showed more uniform stir zone and small
‘shoulder affected region’ as compared to the conventional FSW. A quite
large stirred region developed at the upper part of nugget zone than the
pin stirred region due to the presence of the rotating sub-shoulder
(Fig. 2d). Sliding of the stationary shoulder did not affect the cross-
section of the SSFSW joint and therefore, no evidence of macrostructure
change due to sliding of stationary shoulder was observed.
3.3. Microstructure
Optical micrographs were taken from the various regions of con-
ventional and stationary shoulder friction stir weld joints at different
magnifications. Images from the NZ/TMAZ interface, NZ and HAZ of
the conventional FSW and SSFSW joints are shown in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively. Nugget Zone/TMAZ interface of the conventional FSW
joint is more clear (Fig. 3a) while in case of SSFSW joint, NZ/TMAZ
interface is mixed (Fig. 4a). The α-Al grain size of NZ and HAZ of the
conventional FSW joint was 7.17 ± 1.07 μm and 143.2 ± 16.61 μm,
respectively (Fig. 3b and c). The α-Al grain size of NZ and HAZ of the
SSFSW joint was 5.62 ± 0.66 μm and 127.5 ± 26.17 μm, respectively
Fig. 3. Microstructure of conventional FSW joint a) NZ/TMAZ interface, b) NZ, and c) HAZ.
3
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482
(Fig. 4b and c). Small difference in the grain size was observed in both
the weld joints. Fine grains were observed in the nugget zone of the
SSFSW joint. Nugget zone and HAZ of the conventional FSW joint
showed coarser grain structure as compared to the SSFSW joint.
High magnification microstructural study and elemental analysis
were performed using FESEM. Images along with EDS analysis of con-
ventional FSW and SSFSW are shown in Fig. 5 and 6, respectively.
Second phase particles were identified as Al2Cu precipitates using EDS,
and further confirmed by using XRD analysis. A peak of the Al2Cu
precipitates was observed in the XRD graph (Fig. 7). Nugget zone of the
conventional FSW joint (CNZ) is shown in Fig. 5a, which is showing the
recrystallized grains along with the fine precipitates. Heat affected zone
of the conventional FSW shows (Fig. 5b) precipitates along the grain
boundary. Inset image (in Fig. 5b) shows the magnified view of the
rectangle exhibiting the precipitates present at the grain boundary of
the CHAZ (HAZ of conventional FSW). Fig. 5c is showing the EDS
analysis of the precipitate present in the CHAZ indicated by the arrow.
Large amount of copper along with the aluminium was observed in
these precipitates, suggesting the presence of the Al2Cu as second phase
particles.
Nugget zone of the SSFSW joint (SSNZ) also showed (Fig. 6a) fine
precipitates. Heat affected zone of the SSFSW joint (SSHAZ) is showing
precipitates arranged along the grain boundary (Fig. 6b). Inset image
(in Fig. 6b) shows precipitates present at the grain boundary of the
SSHAZ. Fig. 6c is showing the EDS area analysis of the SSHAZ shown in
the Fig. 6b. Copper was found as the major alloying element in the
aluminium matrix.
Further, strengthening precipitates present in the conventional FSW
joint and SSFSW joint were studied using transmission electron mi-
croscopy. TEM images of NZ and HAZ of conventional FSW joint are
shown in Fig. 8a and b, respectively. Strengthening precipitates ob-
served in the matrix of NZ and HAZ of conventional FSW joint were
found to be in the range of 60 nm – 83 nm, and 94 nm – 197 nm, re-
spectively. TEM images of NZ and HAZ of SSFSW joint are shown in
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi
Fig. 4. Microstructure of SSFSW joint a) NZ/TMAZ interface, b) nugget zone, and c) HAZ.
Fig. 9a and b, respectively. Strengthening precipitates observed in the
matrix of NZ and HAZ of SSFSW joint were in the range of
35 nm – 65 nm, and 61 nm – 124 nm, respectively. Thus, size of the
strengthening precipitates in the SSFSW joint is finer than the con-
ventional FSW joint. Precipitate density (number of precipitates per
unit area) in the NZ and HAZ of conventional FSW joint is 89 pre-
cipitates/μm2 and 40 precipitates/μm2, respectively. Similarly, pre-
cipitate density in the NZ and HAZ of SSFSW joint in 122 precipitates/
μm2 and 67 precipitates/μm2, respectively. Density of the fine
strengthening precipitates in the NZ and HAZ of SSFSW (Fig. 9) was
higher than the respective zone of the conventional FSW joint (Fig. 8).
Strengthening precipitates present in the HAZ of the conventional FSW
joint were coarser and low dense than the HAZ of the SSFSW joint and
this is discussed in ‘Discussion’ section in detail.
3.4. Weld thermal cycle
Weld thermal cycle was measured at 5 mm and 10 mm distance
from the center of weld during welding using both type of tools and the
peak temperature was also recorded. Thermocouple wires were not
embedded at the center of the weld to avoid the damage of wire by
rotating pin. So, the wire was inserted into the nearest possible region
of the nugget zone. Weld thermal cycle observed for the conventional
friction stir welding is shown in Fig. 10a. Peak temperatures recorded
during conventional FSW joint at 5 mm and 10 mm distance from the
center of the weld were 445 °C and 355 °C, respectively. Weld thermal
cycle observed for the SSFSW is shown in Fig. 10b. Peak temperatures
recorded in SSFSW joint at 5 mm and 10 mm distance from the center of
the weld were 360 °C and 282 °C, respectively. Initially, at plunging
stage of conventional FSW (see Fig. 10a) the rate of increase in tem-
perature at thermocouple wire location was almost same at 5 mm and
10 mm (approximately up to the 175 °C). In case of SSFSW, the rate of
increase in temperature during plunging of the tool pin at 10 mm dis-
tance was lower than at the 5 mm distance due to use of stationary
shoulder (see Fig. 10b). So, absence of frictional effect of large rotating
shoulder as in case of conventional FSW can be observed. Peak tem-
perature attained at 5 mm and 10 mm distance away from the center of
the weld was higher for conventional FSW joint than SSFSW joint.
Fig. 5. FESEM images of conventional FSW joint a) NZ, b) HAZ, and c) EDS analysis of a particle in inset of ‘b’.
4
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482
Contribution in the heat generation by the different parts of the tool
was investigated. Tool geometry based analysis was presented using
ratio of heat generation by surface of different part of the tool (e.g.
shoulder, vertical surface of pin, pin tip) to the total heat generation
(Schmidt et al., 2004). Ratio of the heat generation is given as:
(RS3 − RP3)(1 + tanα )
QS =
(RS3 − RP3)(1 + tanα ) + RP3 + 3RP2 HP (1)
3RP2 HP
QPS =
(RS3 − RP3)(1 + tanα ) + RP3 + 3RP2 HP (2)
RP3
QPT =
(RS3 − RP3)(1 + tanα ) + RP3 + 3RP2 HP (3)
where, QS, QPS and QPT are showing the contribution of the shoulder,
vertical surface of pin and bottom of pin tip to the heat generation,
respectively. Radius of the shoulder (RS), radius of the pin (RP) and
height of the pin (HP) were taken in ‘m’, whereas angle of concavity of
the shoulder (α) was taken in ‘degree’. Radius of the pin was considered
from the middle because of its trapezoidal shape. Radius of sub-
shoulder was considered to calculate the contribution of stationary
shoulder tool in heat generation. Values of the different parameters
considered in above equations along with the results are shown in the
Table 2.
3.5. Microhardness
Microhardness distribution across the transverse cross-section of the
both weld joints are shown in Fig. 11. Reduction in the hardness of the
weld zone as compared to the base metal was observed in case of the
both (conventional and SSFSW) weld joints. Average hardness of the NZ
of the conventional FSW and SSFSW joint was 79 HV and 85 HV, re-
spectively. Minimum hardness observed in the conventional FSW and
SSFSW joint was 73 HV and 80 HV, respectively. Minimum hardness
zone in the conventional weld joint was observed in the HAZ, away
from the NZ while in case of the SSFSW joint it was observed at the NZ/
TMAZ interface. Further, low hardness region found in the conventional
weld joint was wider than the SSFSW joint. A steep increase in the
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi
Fig. 6. FESEM images of SSFSW joint a) NZ, b) HAZ, and c) EDS analysis of whole area shown in ‘b’.
Fig. 7. XRD analysis of NZ and HAZ of conventional FSW and SSFSW joint.
hardness was observed on moving away from the TMAZ/HAZ interface
in case of the SSFSW joint. Conventional FSW heat affected zone
showed gradual increase in the microhardness on moving away from
minimum hardness region toward the base metal. Heat affected zone in
case of the conventional FSW joint was wider than SSFSW joint as
suggested by softening (hardness drop). Nugget zone and HAZ of the
SSFSW joint showed higher microhardness as compared to the con-
ventional FSW joint.
3.6. Tensile test
Tensile properties of the conventional FSW and SSFSW joint were
Fig. 8. TEM images of conventional FSW joint a) nugget zone, and b) heat affected zone.
5
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482
also studied. Ultimate tensile strength, yield strength and percentage
elongation observed in the conventional FSW joint and SSFSW joint are
shown in Table 3. Stationary shoulder FSW weld joint showed slightly
higher strength than the conventional FSW joint. However, the differ-
ence in elongation of both welds joint was marginal. Stress strain curve
(Fig. 12) is showing the comparative UTS and % elongation of the both
type of weld joints. Images of few fractured samples of conventional
FSW and SSFSW are also shown in Fig. 12. Fracture location of the
conventional FSW joint was far away from the NZ and it was in the
HAZ, whereas the fracture location of the SSFSW joints was at the NZ/
TMAZ interface. These results are in agreement with the minimum
hardness region. The fracture location site moved from the HAZ of the
conventional FSW joint to the NZ/TMAZ interface in case of the SSFSW
joint. Fractographs of the fractured surface of conventional FSW and
SSFSW joints are shown in Fig. 13(a–d). Large size dimples were ob-
served in conventional FSW joint (Fig. 13b), whereas small size dimples
were witnessed in SSFSW joint (Fig. 13d).
3.7. Toughness study
Charpy impact test (V-notch) was performed to measure the impact
toughness of NZ and HAZ of the conventional FSW and SSFSW joint.
Results were compared with the toughness of base metal. Toughness of
the NZ and HAZ of the both weld joints along with the base metals is
shown in Table 4. There was not much difference in the toughness
values of both (conventional and SSFSW) weld joints. However, sig-
nificant improvement in the toughness of the weld joint was observed
as compared to the base metal. Fractographs of the toughness test
sample of NZ and HAZ of the conventional FSW joint and SSFSW joint
along with the base metal are shown in Fig. 14(a–e). Photographs of the
toughness test samples of NZ of conventional FSW and SSFSW joints
after fracture are shown in Fig. 14f. Low magnification image of the
fractured surface is shown in inset of each fractograph. Presence of the
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482

Fig. 9. TEM images of SSFSW joint a) nugget zone, and b) heat affected zone.

dimples in the fractographs indicates the ductile fracture behavior of Table 2

the weld joint and base metal. Value of the variable considered in heat generation equation, and heat con-
tribution by surfaces.
Variable RS (CFSW) RS (SSFSW) RP HP αCFSW αSSFSW
4. Discussion
−3 −3 −3 −3
8 × 10 m 4 × 10 m 2.25 × 10 m 5.8 × 10 m 5° 0°
Present SSFSW tool was designed with the ability of automatic re-
moval of the plasticized material during the welding. It is suitable for Heat Contribution Conventional FSW (%) Stationary shoulder FSW (%)
long run weld without heating problem. Rotating shoulder of the con-
Shoulder 84 35
ventional FSW tool directly affects the stirring of the weld joint. Stirred
Pin surface 14 58
region in the macrostructure (Fig. 2c) covered a large area from the top Pin tip 2 7
section, while this region seems to be uniform in case of SSFSW joint
(Fig. 2d). Rotating shoulder resulted into high heat generation due to
the friction in case of the conventional FSW. Contribution of the
shoulder in heat generation was higher (84%) than the other parts of
the conventional FSW tool while in case of the stationary shoulder tool
(Table 2) higher heat was generated by the pin surface (58%). Sub-
shoulder of the stationary shoulder tool was also considered, and found
responsible for the partial heat generation (35%). Rotating shoulder
was found to be a major source of heat generation in case of conven-
tional FSW joint while same was not true for the SSFSW joint. This
prevented stationary shoulder from unnecessary flow of the material
which in turn resulted into more symmetrical joint. Bottom tip of the
pin generated only small amount of the heat in both type of weld joints.
Plastic deformation caused by the friction of the rotating shoulder re-
sulted into the higher peak temperature in conventional FSW joint.
Large difference was observed in the peak temperature of the conven-
tional FSW joint and the SSFSW joint.
High heat input affected the microstructure of the conventional FSW
Fig. 11. Microhardness profile of conventional FSW joint and SSFSW joint.
joint and resulted in to the grain growth. Dissolution and coarsening of
the second phase particles was observed in the conventional FSW joint.

Fig. 10. Weld thermal cycle of a) conventional FSW joint, and b) SSFSW joint.

6
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482

Table 3 Table 4
Tensile properties of conventional FSW joint and SSFSW joint. Impact toughness value (J) of the conventional FSW joint and SSFSW joint.
Type of Ultimate tensile strength Yield strength Elongation (%) Type of welding Nugget zone Heat affected zone
welding (MPa) (MPa)
CFSW 16 J 11 J
CFSW 274 158 11.51 SSFSW 15 J 12 J
SSFSW 298 180 12.23 Base metal 6J –

size shows higher microhardness as given by the ‘Hall-Petch relation-

Fig. 12. Stress stain curve of conventional FSW and SSFSW joint with fractured
samples.
On the other hand, sliding of the stationary shoulder generated less heat
and that was not enough to make any major microstructural change in
the SSFSW joint. Heat generation was limited to the nugget zone and
nearby region, which in turn resulted into the narrow heat affected
zone of the SSFSW joint. Wider heat affected zone was evident from the
microhardness profile of the conventional FSW joint (Fig. 11). Soft re-
gion was wider due to the influence of rotating shoulder into the heat
generation. However, in case of SSFSW joint the soft region was re-
stricted to the NZ/TMAZ interface. Sub-shoulder of the rotating tool of
the SSFSW was expected to be active in this region. There was a minute
gap between the rotating sub-shoulder and the stationary shoulder of
the SSFSW tool. Plasticized material moves through this gap into the
upward direction from this region. Stationary shoulder FSW joint
showed finer grain size of α-Al and precipitates. Generally, small grain
ship’ (Sinhmar and Dwivedi, 2018). Presence of precipitates also helped
to improve the microhardness. Hence, the SSFSW joint showed higher
microhardness than the conventional FSW joint.
Nugget zone of the both type of weld joints showed higher tensile
strength than the HAZ. In both type of the joints, fracture location was
outside of the NZ. Fracture location can be correlated with the micro-
hardness of the weld joints. Tensile test samples obtained from the
conventional FSW joint were fractured from the HAZ, far away from the
NZ/TMAZ interface. This location was the softest region of the con-
ventional FSW joint observed from the microhardness profile (Fig. 11).
On the other hand, tensile sample obtained from the SSFSW joint was
fractured from the NZ/TMAZ interface. This location was the softest/
weakest region of the SSFSW joint observed from the microhardness
profile (Fig. 11). Fine precipitates improve the tensile strength. Pre-
sence of fine precipitates impedes the dislocation movement through
pinning effect at grain boundary during the tensile test (Aydin et al.,
2010). These factors improved the tensile strength of the SSFSW joint.
Fractograph of the SSFSW joint showed small dimples as compared to
the conventional joint, which suggested the higher strength and duc-
tility offered by the joint.
Charpy impact test showed that the toughness of the NZ was higher
for the both type of weld joints as compared to the HAZ. Significant
improvement in the impact toughness was observed in the weld zone
than the base metal. Factors like yield strength, percentage elongation,
recrystallization and presence of second phase particles affect the im-
pact toughness. Reduction in the yield strength and increase in the
percentage elongation lead to the high impact toughness (Tajally et al.,
2010). Similarly, recrystallization also helps to improve the impact
toughness. Recrystallization in the nugget zone of the weld joints
during the friction stir welding leads to the higher impact toughness
than the HAZ and base metal. On the other hand, yield strength of the
AA2014 base metal is quite higher and percentage elongation is lower

Fig. 13. Tensile fractographs of conventional FSW joint at a) lower magnification, b) higher magnification; and SSFSW joint at c) lower magnification, and d) higher
magnification.

7
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi
Fig. 14. Impact toughness fractographs of a) NZ of CFSW, b) HAZ of CFSW, c) NZ of SSFSW, d) HAZ of SSFSW, e) base metal, and f) fractured samples of NZ of
conventional FSW and SSFSW. Low magnification image of the fractured surface is shown in inset.
than the conventional and stationary shoulder weld joints. These factors
adversely affected the impact toughness of the base metal. Tensile
properties of AA2014 base metal were reported in previous work
(Sinhmar and Dwivedi, 2017). Difference in the percentage elongation
of the both weld joint was insignificant (Table 3). Similarly, difference
in the toughness of the HAZ of the both weld joint was small. Ductility
and toughness of the SSFSW joint was found higher than the conven-
tional FSW joint. Moreover, concentrated material flow reduced the arc
corrugation and flash in the SSFSW joint, which in turn reduced the
possibility of the tunnel defect.
5. Conclusions
Stationary shoulder FSW was performed on AA2014 aluminium
alloy and joint performance was compared with the conventional FSW
joint. On the base of this study, following conclusion can be drawn:
1 Novel stationary shoulder FSW tool was developed with feature of
automatic removal of the plasticized material entered in the
shoulder during the welding. Present tool did not experience heating
problem and capable to perform long run welds.
2 SSFSW tool produced sound and symmetrical weld joint with
narrow heat affected zone. Cross-section thinning and flash forma-
tion problem was eliminated due to sliding of the stationary
shoulder without rotation.
3 Grains (α-Al) and precipitate size in case of SSFSW joint was fine
than the conventional FSW joint due to less heat input during the
welding.
4 Peak temperature reached in the weld thermal cycle of SSFSW joint
was lower than the conventional FSW joint. Contribution of the
various surfaces of the both type of tool into the heat generation was
calculated. Rotating shoulder generated maximum heat in case of
conventional FSW joint while pin surface generated maximum heat
in case of SSFSW joint.
5 Microhardness and tensile strength of the SSFSW joint was more
than the conventional FSW joint. SSFSW tool shifted the soft region
towards nugget zone while in case of conventional FSW joint this
region was far away from the nugget zone and same soft region was
the fracture location during tensile test.
6 Impact toughness of the nugget zone of both types of weld joints was
higher than the HAZ and base metal. Recrystallization in the nugget
zone was the leading factor to improve the impact toughness of the
weld joint.
8
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the help from Dr. Sunny
Zafar (IIT-Mandi) for preparation of TEM samples.
References
Ahmed, M.M.Z., Wynne, B.P., Rainforth, W.M., Threadgill, P.L., 2011. Through-thickness
crystallographic texture of stationary shoulder friction stir welded aluminium. Scr.
Mater. 64, 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2010.08.060.
Aydin, H., Bayram, A., Durgun, I., 2010. The effect of post-weld heat treatment on the
mechanical properties of 2024-T4 friction stir-welded joints. Mater. Des. 31,
2568–2577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.030.
Davies, P.S., Wynne, B.P., Rainforth, W.M., Thomas, M.J., Threadgill, P.L., 2011.
Development of microstructure and crystallographic texture during stationary
shoulder friction stir welding of Ti-6Al-4V. Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall.
Mater. Sci. 42, 2278–2289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-011-0606-2.
Ji, S., Meng, X., Ma, L., Lu, H., Gao, S., 2015. Vertical compensation friction stir welding
assisted by external stationary shoulder. Mater. Des. 68, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.matdes.2014.12.009.
Ji, S.D., Meng, X.C., Liu, J.G., Zhang, L.G., Gao, S.S., 2014. Formation and mechanical
properties of stationary shoulder friction stir welded 6005A-T6 aluminum alloy.
Mater. Des. 62, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.016.
Li, D., Yang, X., Cui, L., He, F., Shen, H., 2014. Effect of welding parameters on micro-
structure and mechanical properties of AA6061-T6 butt welded joints by stationary
shoulder friction stir welding. Mater. Des. 64, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2014.07.046.
Li, D., Yang, X., Cui, L., He, F., Zhang, X., 2015. Investigation of stationary shoulder
friction stir welding of aluminum alloy 7075-T651. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 222,
391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.03.036.
Liu, H.J., Li, J.Q., Duan, W.J., 2013. Friction stir welding characteristics of 2219-T6
aluminum alloy assisted by external non-rotational shoulder. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 64, 1685–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4132-1.
Martin, J.P., 2013. Stationary Shoulder Friction Stir Welding, Proceedings of the 1st
International Joint Symposium on Joining and Welding. Woodhead Publishing
Limitedhttps://doi.org/10.1533/9781782421641.477.
Martin, J.P., Stanhope, C., Gascoyne, S., 2011. Novel techniques for corner joints using
friction stir welding. Friction Stir Welding and Proceesing VI. p. 179.
Mishra, R.S., Ma, Z.Y., 2005. Friction stir welding and processing. Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep.
50, 1–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2005.07.001.
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. https://doi.org/10.
1088/0965-0393/12/1/013.
Sinhmar, S., Dwivedi, D.K., 2018. A study on corrosion behavior of friction stir welded
and tungsten inert gas welded AA2014 aluminium alloy. Corros. Sci. 133, 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2018.01.012.
Sinhmar, S., Dwivedi, D.K., 2017. Enhancement of mechanical properties and corrosion
resistance of friction stir welded joint of AA2014 using water cooling. Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 684, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.12.087.
Sun, T., Roy, M.J., Strong, D., Withers, P.J., Prangnell, P.B., 2017. Comparison of residual
stress distributions in conventional and stationary shoulder high-strength aluminum
alloy friction stir welds. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 242, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.11.015.
Sun, Z., Yang, X., Li, D., Cui, L., 2016. The local strength and toughness for stationary
shoulder friction stir weld on AA6061-T6 alloy. Mater. Charact. 111, 114–121.
S. Sinhmar and D.K. Dwivedi
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2015.11.020.
Tajally, M., Huda, Z., Masjuki, H.H., 2010. A comparative analysis of tensile and impact-
toughness behavior of cold-worked and annealed 7075 aluminum alloy. Int. J. Impact
Eng. 37, 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.08.009.
Widener, C., Talia, J., Tweedy, B.M., Burford, D.A., 2006. High-rotational speed friction
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 277 (2020) 116482
stir welding with a fixed shoulder. 6th Int Symp Frict Stir Weld.
Wu, H., Chen, Y.C., Strong, D., Prangnell, P., 2015. Stationary shoulder FSW for joining
high strength aluminum alloys. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 221, 187–196. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.02.015.