Features of the stir zone formation during

the friction stir welding of AA5056 sheets of

various thicknesses
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2310, 020129 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0034090
Published Online: 14 December 2020

K. N. Kalashnikov, V. A. Beloborodov, and L. L. Zhukov

AIP Conference Proceedings 2310, 020129 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0034090 2310, 020129

© 2020 Author(s).
 Features of the Stir Zone Formation during the Friction
Stir Welding of AA5056 Sheets of Various Thicknesses
K. N. Kalashnikova), V. A. Beloborodovb), and L. L. Zhukovc)
Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science SB RAS, Tomsk, 634055 Russia
a)
Corresponding author: kkn@ispms.tsc.ru
b)
vabel@ispms.ru
c)
mcleon@inbox.ru

Abstract. In this work, samples of friction stir welded AA5056 sheets with a thickness of 2, 5 and 10 mm were studied to
determine features of the stir zone formation. It was found that samples with a thickness of 2 and 5 mm have common
features of the weld structure formation, while 10 mm samples have a different stir zone structure. The main difference is
the presence of the tool shoulder effect area in the stir zone. The dimensions of this area change for each thickness
depending on the welding mode.

INTRODUCTION
Since the end of the last century, the friction stir welding has come a long way from the most advanced
development with a limited application to the most widely used solid-state welding method. It happened because the
friction stir welding provides a number of advantages for welding of aircraft- and spacecraft-grade aluminum and
titanium alloys [1, 2]. First of all, with this method it is possible to weld long welds in one pass in automatic mode.
Secondly, gas protection is not required for welding of aluminum alloys, and no defects typical for fusion welding
are formed in welds [3–5]. The third advantage is a high strength of welded joints of aluminum alloys, including
those that are heat-hardenable [6, 7]. Advantages of this method are the consequence of temperature conditions in
the process of friction stir welding, as the material is not heated to the melting point, and the joining of plates is
performed by stirring the plasticized material with a special rotating tool, which is usually made of high-speed steel
[8, 9].
The use of friction stir welding in different industries leads to the challenge of selecting modes for different plate
thicknesses. Thus, in the automotive industry, it is often necessary to weld thin sheets of material up to 5 mm thick,
and in the marine and aerospace industries, sheets of large thicknesses up to 30–35 mm are used. In this regard, the
actual task is to assess the impact of the thickness of the welded workpiece on the formation of friction stir welded
joints.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this work the study of samples of non-heat-hardenable aluminum alloy AA5056 with a thickness of 2, 5, and
10 mm was performed. Samples were produced at a special machine for the friction stir welding at the Institute of
Strength Physics and Material Science SB RAS, Tomsk, Russia. One sample of each thickness was selected for
analysis of peculiarities of welded joint structure formation, which demonstrate high mechanical characteristics, and
one sample with poor properties. The threshold condition of weld tolerance is the value of the ultimate tensile
strength over or equal to 90% of the base metal strength. Thus, samples for testing mechanical properties under
tension were cut out of the resulting joints at first, and then metallographic specimens in the cross-section of the
weld were cut out for the structure analysis. Cutting of specimens was carried out on the DK7500 electrical
discharge machine.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Physical Mesomechanics. Materials with Multilevel Hierarchical Structure and Intelligent Manufacturing Technology
AIP Conf. Proc. 2310, 020129-1–020129-4; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0034090
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4046-3/$30.00

020129-1
 TABLE 1. Friction stir welding modes
Mode
Parameter
2.1 2.2 5.1 5.2 10.1 10.2
P, kg 1100 700 2800 2200 2750 2700
V, mm/min 350 300 500 650 180 180
ω, rpm 900 900 500 550 600 350

Metallographic specimens were examined with the Altami MET 1C optical microscope, tensile testing was
performed with the UTS-110M-100 testing system. Parameters of the friction stir welding for studied samples are
given in Table 1. The numbering of modes is constructed as follows: the first digit is a thickness of a workpiece, the
second one is a number of a sample.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Carried out metallographic studies have shown that samples produced by modes 2.1, 5.1 and 10.1 demonstrate
different features of welded joint formation. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the welding area can be divided into several
characteristic zones. The stir zone, which can be conditionally divided into the zone of tool pin stirring (1) and the
zone of tool shoulders stirring (2), is the weld nugget. The second characteristic zone affecting the material
properties is the thermomechanically affected zone (3). Samples 2.1 and 5.1 show the formation of a stir zone with a
wide area of the tool shoulder influence (Figs. 1a, 1b). Consequently, the shape of the weld for 2- and 5-mm-
thicknesses is the same. In its turn, sample 10.1 has no tool shoulder zone. However, sample 10.1 shows the obvious
presence of a layered structure of the stir zone known as onion rings (Fig. 1c). In samples 2.1 and 5.1, onion rings
were not detected.

(a)

(b)

(c)
FIGURE 1. Macrographs of AA5056 welded joints produced by mode 2.1 (a), 5.1 (b), and 10.1 (c):
1—tool pin stir zone, 2—tool shoulder stir zone, 3— thermomechanically affected zone.

020129-2
 Samples discussed above demonstrate a high level of mechanical properties, as they were produced under
optimal welding conditions. Sample 2.1 has an average ultimate tensile strength of about 327 MPa, sample 5.1—
323 MPa, and sample 10.1—302 MPa. Probably, the lower tensile strength of specimen 10.1 is caused by the
absence of the tool shoulder influence area and a rather wide thermomechanically affected zone in comparison with
other specimens, in which the joint material usually fractures.
As for samples produced by modes 2.2, 5.2 and 10.2, these samples differ in the presence of defects in the stir
zone, which are mainly formed in the zone of tool shoulder influence. As can be seen from Fig. 2, samples with a
thickness of 2 and 5 mm have a tunnel-type defect on the advancing side of the weld (marked with a red dashed line).
At the same time, the 10 mm thick sample has the same type of defect across the entire width of the stir zone.
Moreover, the shape of the stir zone of the defective 10 mm sample is close to the shape of 2- and 5-mm-thick
samples. Apparently, a failure of the tool shoulder influence leads to inhomogeneous heating of the material, which
leads to the formation of defects in the weld. Besides, it is seen from Table 1 that the cause of such material
behavior can be both insufficient welding load and mismatching welding and tool rotation speeds. Transfer of the
material during FSW in defective samples is also affected. This is especially pronounced in specimen 10.2, where
the typical structure of onion rings is not formed compared to a defect-free sample.
The average ultimate tensile strength of such joints is obviously low: 180 MPa for sample 10.2 (Fig. 3), 280 MPa
for sample 5.2 and 283 MPa for sample 2.2.
Obviously, in addition to the presence of defects, the shape of the stir zone and the size of the thermomecha-
nically affected zone also differ in comparison with defect-free samples. If in the samples with a thickness of 2 and
5 mm, produced at optimal welding modes, a wide stir zone is formed by the tool shoulder at a relatively narrow pin
stir zone. In samples with defects the pin stir zone is practically equal to the zone of tool shoulder influence. For
example, for sample 2.1, the width of the shoulder effect zone is 9.5 mm, and the width of the pin effect zone is 5.3
mm. At the same time, for sample 2.2, these values are 5.6 and 5.1 mm, respectively. A similar feature is observed
in 5 mm thick samples. At the same time, 10 mm specimens show an inverse tendency, when the defective sample
has a zone of shoulders influence, in which the defects are formed.

(a)

(b)

(c)
FIGURE 2. Macrographs of AA5056 welded joints produced by mode 2.2 (a), 5.2 (b), and 10.2 (c).

020129-3
 FIGURE 3. Test diagrams for specimens of 10-mm-thick welded joints in comparison with the base metal.

CONCLUSION
As a result, the following conclusions were drawn from the conducted studies.
Welded joints with a thickness of 2 and 5 mm are characterized by common features of the stir zone formation in
both defective and defect-free samples. Both thicknesses are characterized by the formation of a wide tool shoulder
stir zone and a narrower tool pin stir zone in defect-free samples, and a reduced tool shoulder area in samples with
defects of the stir zone.
10-mm-thick samples are characterized by the absence of the tool shoulder effect area in the stir zone of the
defect-free sample, as well as by the formation of a clearly visible “onion rings” structure. At non-optimal modes
and the defect formation in the stir zone, the area of tool shoulder influence is formed, but defects are formed in this
zone. The onion type of the layered structure of the weld in the defective sample is most likely affected by uneven
heating and material transfer by the tool.
Regardless of the welded joint thickness, samples produced under optimal conditions have the ultimate tensile
strength exceeding 300 MPa. At modes, leading to the formation of macrodefects, the weld material strength can
vary from 180 to 280 MPa.
The main defect formed in welded joints of all thicknesses is the defect of tunnel type, which is formed in the
upper part of the stir zone under the shoulders of the tool.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work was performed according to the Government research assignment for ISPMS SB RAS, project
No. III.23.2.4.
REFERENCES
1. S. W. Kallee, in Frict. Stir Weld., edited by D. Lohwasser and Z. Chen (Woodhead Publishing, 2010), pp. 118–
163.
2. P. Singh, H. Pungotra, and N. S. Kalsi, Mater. Today Proc. 4, 8971 (2017).
3. W. S. AbuShanab and E. B. Moustafa, Mater. (Basel, Switzerland) 11, 2437 (2018).
4. M. A. Wahab, M. W. Dewan, D. J. Huggett, A. M. Okeil, T. W. Liao, and A. C. Nunes, Adv. Mater. Process.
Technol. 5, 258 (2019).
5. P. Kah, R. Rajan, J. Martikainen, and R. Suoranta, Int. J. Mech. Mater. Eng. 10, 26 (2015).
6. P. Carlone and G. S. Palazzo, Metallogr. Microstruct. Anal. 2, 213 (2013).
7. S. A. Khodir and T. Shibayanagi, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 148, 82 (2008).
8. W. S. AbuShanab and E. B. Moustafa, Mater. (Basel, Switzerland) 11, 2437 (2018).
9. V. RajKumar, M. VenkateshKannan, P. Sadeesh, N. Arivazhagan, and K. D. Ramkumar, Proc. Eng. 75, 93
(2014).

020129-4