Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Dissimilar friction stir lap welding of AA 5754-H22/AA 6082-T6

aluminium alloys: Influence of material properties and tool geometry on
weld strength
M.I. Costa a, D. Verdera c, C. Leitão a, D.M. Rodrigues a,b,⁎
a
CEMUC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luis Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
b
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luis Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
c
AIMEN, Relva 27A Torneiros, 36410 Porriño, Spain

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

Article history: Dissimilar friction stir welding (FSW) of heat (AA 6082-T6) and non-heat (AA 5754-H22) treatable aluminium
Received 25 May 2015 alloys, in lap joint configuration, was performed in this work. The base material plates were 1 mm thick. Welds
Received in revised form 27 July 2015 were performed combining different plates positioning, relative to the tool shoulder, in order to assess the
Accepted 16 August 2015
influence of base materials properties on welds strength. Three different tools were tested, one cylindrical and
Available online 23 August 2015
two conical, with different taper angles. Welds strength was characterized by performing transverse and
Keywords:
tensile–shear tests. Strain data acquisition by Digital Image Correlation (DIC) was used to determine local weld
FSW properties. The results obtained enabled to conclude that the dissimilar welds strength is strongly dependent
Microstructure on the presence of the well-known hooking defect and that the hooking characteristics are strongly conditioned
Mechanical behaviour by base materials properties/positioning. By placing the AA 6082-T6 alloy, as top plate, in contact with the tool
Aluminium alloys shoulder, superior weld properties are achieved independently of the tool geometry. It is also concluded that
the use of unthreaded conical pin tools, with a low shoulder/pin diameter relation, is the most suitable solution
for the production of welds with similar strengths for advancing and retreating sides.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Friction Stir Lap Welding (FSLW) is a Friction Stir Welding (FSW) re-
lated technique which is being studied as an alternative to riveting
[1–3] and fusion welding technologies [3]. Due to its importance in
the chemical, nuclear, aerospace, transportation, power generation
and electronics industries, the lap joining of dissimilar alloys become
one of the most important topics under analysis on FSLW research
and development. The joining of alloys of titanium and aluminium
(e.g. [4]), magnesium and aluminium (e.g. [5]), magnesium and steel
(e.g. [6]), copper–nickel and steel (e.g. [7]), aluminium and steel (e.g.
[8]), titanium and steel (e.g. [9]), aluminium and copper (e.g. [10]),
dissimilar steels (e.g. [11]) and dissimilar aluminium alloys, was already
addressed by several authors. In Fig. 1 are provided the references on
dissimilar aluminium alloys welding, highlighting the scarcity of
works on this subject and the limited number of base materials combi-
nations tested.
As shown in Fig. 1, Dubourg et al. [1], Ciliberto et al. [3], Cederqvist
and Reynolds [12], and Song et al. [13] analysed the joining of AA
7075 and AA 2024 alloys. Despite the different tool geometries and
⁎ Corresponding author at: CEMUC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Coimbra, Rua Luis Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal.
E-mail address: dulce.rodrigues@dem.uc.pt (D.M. Rodrigues).
process parameters tested by the different authors (see Fig. 2), hooking
and top sheet thinning defects were reported in all the works. In order
to suppress the hooking defect, Cederqvist and Reynolds [12] and
Dubourg et al. [1] performed double pass welding. The presence of
kissing bond was also detected by Dubourg et al. [1] and Ciliberto
et al. [3]. The authors argue that this defect, which is not currently re-
ported in FSLW literature, has an important influence on the mechanical
and electrochemical behaviours of the welds. Velotti et al. [14] also re-
ported the presence of kissing bond in dissimilar AA 7075–AA 2198 al-
loys lap welds.
In addition to the presence of the above described defects, the lap
joints strength also depends on the base materials relative positioning.
This issue was already addressed by some authors which analysed
different material combinations and welding conditions, as described
in Figs. 1 and 2. Soundararajan et al. [16] reported superior performance
for the welds performed with the AA 6022 alloy on the top of the joint,
in contact with the FSLW tool. These authors highlight the importance
of the base materials thermal properties on welds quality. Lee et al.
[17], in accordance with Soundararajan et al. [16], also reported superior
mechanical strength for welds performed with the AA 6061 alloy placed
on the top of AA 6061–AA 5052 alloys lap joints. However, these authors
justify the mechanical performance of the welds based on the different
thicknesses of the plates. Finally, Song et al. [13] also analysed the rela-
tive positioning of the base materials, in dissimilar lap joining of AA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.066
0264-1275/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
722 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731

Fig. 1. Dissimilar aluminium alloys FSLW: base materials combinations [15].

Fig. 2. Dissimilar aluminium alloys FSLW: tool geometries and welding parameters [15].

2024 and AA 7075 aluminium alloys, concluding that the hook size was
increased when the AA 7075 alloy was placed on the top of the joint. In
current work dissimilar lap welding of 1 mm thick plates of AA 6082-T6
and AA5754-H22 aluminium alloys is analysed. The influence of base
materials relative positioning and tool geometry on welds strength
will be explained based on weld morphology and base materials plastic
properties.
2. Materials and methods
In this work dissimilar friction stir lap welding of 1 mm thick plates
of AA 6082-T6 and AA 5754-H22 aluminium alloys was carried out in a
MTS I-Stir Pds equipment. From Fig. 3, where are compared tensile
stress–strain curves for both base materials, it is possible to conclude
that, at room temperature, the AA 6082-T6 alloy displays much higher
yield and tensile strength than the AA 5754-H22 aluminium alloy. The
welds were performed using three different tools, with a 12 mm diam-
eter conical shoulder, and 1.3 mm long pins, but different pin geome-
tries, as summarized in Table 1. In the text, the tools will be labelled
according to the pin geometry (CL and CN for the cylindrical and conical,
respectively) and top diameter, e.g., the cylindrical pin tool will be
labelled CL6 tool.
The welds were performed in position control, at the constant
welding (υ) and rotational (ω) speeds of 350 mm/min and 600 rpm,
respectively, tool tilt angel of 2° and plunge depth of 1.2 mm. In order
to analyse the influence of the base materials properties on weld
strength, the positioning of the alloys relatively to the tool shoulder

Table 1
Tools geometries and dimensions.

Tool Pin Pin top Pin bottom Illustration

designation geometry diameter [mm] diameter [mm]

CL6 Cylindrical 6 6

CN6 Conical 6 3

CN8 Conical 8 4

Fig. 3. Base materials tensile stress–strain curves.

 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731 723

Fig. 4. Scheme of the transverse tensile samples (a) and of advancing (b) and retreating (c) tensile–shear samples.

was alternated, i.e., welds were performed by placing alternately the AA In Fig. 5.a and b are compared, respectively, the NYL and NML
6082-T6 and the AA 5754-H22 aluminium alloys at the top of the lap values obtained for all the D56 and D65 welds performed. From
joint. In this text the welds performed with AA 6082-T6 and AA 5754- Fig. 5 it is possible to conclude that, for most of the welds, the
H22 aluminium alloys as top plates will be named as D65 and D56,
respectively.
Metallographic examinations were done in transverse, longitudinal
and horizontal sections of the welds. The metallographic specimens
were polished and etched with two different reagents (modified
Poulton's and Hatch) and observed using the Zeiss Stemi 2000-C and
Leica DM4000M LED microscopes. Scanning electron microscopy/
energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) was performed
using a Philips XL30 SE. Hardness measurements were performed in a
Struers Duramin equipment, applying a 200 g load, for 15 s.
Welds strength was assessed by performing tensile–shear tests as
well as uniaxial tensile tests of transverse weld samples (Fig. 4.a). At-
tending to the well-known strength asymmetry between the advancing
(AS) and retreating (RS) sides of the lap welds, two different types of
tensile–shear samples were tested, as schematized in Fig. 4.b) and c).
At least three samples of each type were tested. All tests were
performed in quasi-static loading conditions (5 mm/min), using a 5kN
universal testing machine (Shimadzu Autograph AG-X). Local strain
fields were acquired by Digital Image Correlation (DIC) using the GOM
Aramis 5 M system. Before testing, the specimens were prepared by
applying a random black speckle pattern, over the previously mat
white painted surface, in order to enable strain data acquisition by
DIC. All the procedures adopted for plotting local TMAZ stress–strain
curves are explained in [18].

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Tensile–shear tests

As described in the experimental procedure, the strength of the

dissimilar joints was assessed by performing tensile–shear tests of
advancing (Fig. 4.b) and retreating (Fig. 4.c) side samples. Two parame-
ters were calculated in order to characterize the welds strength, the
Normalized Yield Load (NYL) and the Normalized Maximum Load (NML)
parameters, determined according to the equations:

F weld
yield
NYL ¼ ; ð1Þ
F 5754
yield

F weld
max
NML ¼ : ð2Þ
F 5754
max

In Eqs. (1) and (2), F weld weld

yield and F max correspond to the yield and
maximum loads registered in the tensile–shear tests of the welds,
respectively, and F 5754 5754
yield and F max correspond, respectively, to the yield
and maximum loads registered for the weakest base material, the AA
5754-H22 aluminium alloy, in uniaxial tension of samples of the same Fig. 5. NML and NYL versus weld speed for retreating and advancing side tensile–shear
width of the tensile–shear weld samples. samples.
724 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731
Fig. 6. DIC strain distribution maps for advancing side tensile–shear samples of CN8 and CL6 welds.
strength of the retreating side (RS) was higher than that of the ad-
vancing side (AS). It is also possible to conclude that the difference
between the strengths of the AS and RS sides was higher for the
D56 than for the D65 welds.
3.1.1. Strength of the advancing side
According to the results in Fig. 5, the strength of the advancing
side of the D56 welds was the lowest among all the samples tested,
being around 65% and 40% of the yield and maximum strength, re-
spectively, of the weakest base material. Another interesting finding
is that the strength of the advancing side of the D56 welds was inde-
pendent of the tool geometry, displaying very low values for all the
samples tested. On the other hand, for the welds performed using
the D65 base materials combination, the strength of the advancing
side varied among the welds performed with the different tool
geometries, being in any case higher than that registered for the
welds performed using the D56 materials configuration. For the
D65 welds, the strength of the advancing side varied between
minimum and maximum values of 85% and 100%, of the weakest
base material yield strength, and 60% and 90%, of the weakest base
material maximum strength, for the welds performed with the CL6
and CN8 tools, respectively.
3.1.2. Strength of the retreating side
Regarding the strength of the retreating side, it is possible to
conclude, from Fig. 5, that the differences in strength between the
welds performed with the D56 and D65 material configurations
were much less significant than that reported for the advancing
Fig. 7. DIC strain distribution maps for retreating side tensile–shear samples of CN8 and CL6 welds.
side. The retreating side yield and maximum strengths were always
higher than 90% and 75% of the yield and maximum strengths, re-
spectively, of the weakest base material. It is also possible to con-
clude that the maximum NYL and NML values, for the retreating
side samples, were always higher for the welds performed with
the CN8 tool. Actually, the best mechanical efficiency, in both
retreating and advancing side strength, was always obtained for
the welds performed with the CN8 tool adopting the D65 material
combination. For these welds no differences between retreating
and advancing side strengths were reported as highlighted in the
graphs using a red circle.
In Figs. 6 and 7 are compared the strain distribution maps, corre-
sponding to the maximum load, for advancing and retreating side
tensile–shear samples, respectively, of CN8 and CL6 welds. As shown
by the sketches provided in both figures, the strain maps correspond al-
ways to the strain distribution in the top plate, i.e., to the AA 6082-T6
alloy, in the case of D65 welds, and to the AA 5754-H22 alloy, in the
case of D56 welds. Fig. 6 shows that almost all the advancing side
samples, except that of the D65 CN8 welds, failed almost without plastic
deformation, which is in accordance with the very small NYL values
reported in Fig. 5 for almost all the welds. For the D65 CN8 samples,
which displayed NYL and NML values close to 100%, it is possible to
see a larger plastic deformation area spreading from the necking region
(red colour area).
Analysing now the strain distribution maps in Fig. 7, corresponding
to the retreating side samples of the same welds of Fig. 6, it is possible
to conclude that these samples failed for plastic deformation values
much larger than that registered for the advancing side samples.
 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731
Actually, for the D56 welds it is possible to see that plastic deformation
spread across the top plate before necking took place at the retreating
side of the weld, which proves the excellent performance of these
welds. For the D65 welds important plastic deformation was only regis-
tered in the proximity of the necking area, as it was registered for the
D65 CN8 advancing side sample.
In order to enable a better understanding of the D65 welds strain
distribution maps, hardness and strain profiles for the D65 welds per-
formed with the CL6 and CN8 tools, are compared in Fig. 8. The strain
profiles in the graphs correspond to the strain distribution, at maximum
load, in the top plate, along the longitudinal axis of the samples, and the
hardness profiles correspond to the hardness measurements performed
in the transverse cross-section of the welds, in the top plate. Analysing
the figure it is possible to conclude that the hardness profiles are similar,
for the CN8 and CL6 welds, displaying the traditional W shape charac-
teristic of the AA 6xxx alloys friction stir welds [19]. The strain profiles
Fig. 8. Hardness profiles, for the AA 6082-T6 top plate, of the D65 welds performed with
the CN8 (a) and CL6 (b) tools.
725
corresponding to the retreating side samples are also similar, for the
CN8 and CL6 welds, displaying very high strain values in the same
location where minimum hardness values were registered, i.e., in the
heat affected zone (HAZ). For the advancing side samples, the strain
profiles for the CN8 and CL6 welds are no longer similar, being possible
to observe higher plastic deformation values in the HAZ for the CN8
sample than for the CL6. This result indicates that plastic deformation
took place in the lower plate, which corresponds to the lower strength
AA 5754 alloy, before necking started in the AA 6082 alloy top plate,
at the advancing side of the weld. Plastic deformation of the lower
plate base material, together with the plastic deformation of the top
plate HAZ, conducted to the higher strength values reported in Fig. 5
for the D65 CN8 welds.
3.2. Transverse tensile tests
The tensile–shear tests revealed not only the superior performance
of the D65 welds, performed with the CN8 tool, in terms of advancing
and retreating side mechanical efficiency, but also important differences
in strength between the welds performed using D56 and D65 material
combinations. In order to determine any possible influence of local
weld properties, on the dissimilar joints performance, transverse tensile
tests were also performed (Fig. 4.a). These tests enabled to determine
the local strength of the TMAZ material, for each weld, as well as to
better assess the importance of base materials positioning on welds
performance.
In Fig. 9.a and c are shown the load–displacement curves obtain-
ed in the transverse tensile test of D56 and D65 samples, respective-
ly, and in Fig. 9.b and d are shown the strain distribution maps
corresponding to points 1 to 4 in the graphs of Fig. 9.a and c. The
strain maps represent the plastic deformation in the lower plate of
CN6 welds, i.e., the AA 6082-T6 alloy, in the case of the D56 samples,
and the AA 5754-H22 alloy, in the case of the D65 samples. From the
load–displacement curves in Fig. 9.a it is possible to conclude that all
the transverse D56 samples failed for similar values of load and dis-
placement. As is exemplified in Fig. 9.b, all the D56 welds failed in
the top plate, the AA 5754-H22 alloy plate, at the advancing side,
after very small plastic deformation took place in the weld (image
1). After that, the load decreased almost instantaneously, due to
the load transfer to a single plate, the AA 6082-T6 alloy lower plate.
Strain localization in the HAZ was almost immediate (image 2),
and the final rupture occurred before the plastic deformation had
spread across the lower plate. These results confirm the extreme
fragility of the advancing side of the D56 welds already reported
when analysing Fig. 5.
Analysing now the load–displacement results in Fig. 9.c, correspond-
ing to the transverse D65 welds, it is possible to conclude that the welds
produced with the different tools displayed different mechanical behav-
iour. Actually, despite all the welds failed at the advancing side, in the
top plate, like the D56 welds, the CN6 transverse samples failed for
load–displacement values much lower than that registered for the
CN8 samples. As shown by the strain maps in Fig. 9.d, for the D65
welds, top plate failure occurred after some plastic deformation took
place in the weld. After top plate failure, the load dropped drastically
and the plastic deformation proceeded in the lower plate, the AA
5754-H22 alloy, until its maximum strength was reached. For the
welds produced with the CL6 and CN8 tools, plastic deformation in
the weld, before failure at the advancing side, was even higher than
that registered for the CN6 weld, as can be inferred from the load–
displacement curves in Fig. 9.c.
Using the strain data acquired by DIC, local stress–strain curves
corresponding to the tensile behaviour of the TMAZ material, of
each weld, were calculated being plotted in Fig. 10. In the same
graphs are also plotted the stress–strain curves corresponding to
the uniaxial tensile behaviour of the weakest base material, the AA
5754-H22 alloy. Analysing the stress–strain curves it is possible to
726 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731
Fig. 9. Load–displacement curves and strain distribution maps, at maximum load, from transverse tensile tests of D56 (a and b) and D65 (c and d) samples.
conclude that all the welds were in slight under-match relative to the
weaker base material yield strength, which justifies the plastic local-
ization in the welds, before the failure of the top plate took place, ex-
emplified by the strain maps in Fig. 9.b and d. The results in Fig. 10
also show that all the TMAZs had similar local strength,
independently of the base materials combination adopted or of the
tool used to produce the welds. This way, the differences obtained
in terms of global strength, between the different welds, have to be
related to the presence of important defects at the advancing side.
This assumption was confirmed through the metallographic analysis
results provided in the next item.
3.3. Metallographic analysis
The mechanical characterization work showed that welds with
excellent mechanical performance can be produced by adopting
the D65 base materials combination and using a conical tool
with suitable dimensions/geometry, i.e., the CN8 tool. In order to
understand the differences in mechanical performance between
the welds tested, a systematic microstructural analysis was
performed.
In Figs. 11 and 12 are shown transverse and longitudinal cross-
sections of the D56 and D65 welds, respectively. In the transverse
cross-sections it is possible to see a clear and almost straight interface
between both base materials, suggesting that, independently of the
base material combination adopted (D56 or D65), no important trans-
port of material took place across the faying interface during the lap
welding. However, the longitudinal cross-sections in the same figures,
which sample the shear layer around the pin, formed at the end of the
weld, clearly shows that there is a flow of material ascending from the
lower plate. The ascendant flow is easier to visualize in the longitudinal
section of the welds since the tool performed several rotations, in the
same location, before stopping, promoting an intense and localized
dragging and mixing of both base materials. The amount of material
being dragged into the shear layer, at each tool revolution, during the
welding operation, is necessarily much smaller and for this reason no
evidence of material mixing can be apperceived in the transverse
cross-sections.
The first conclusion that can be drawn, after comparing the images
in Figs. 11 and 12, is that the amount of lower plate material dragged
upwards depends on the pin geometry and on the relative positioning
of the base materials.
3.3.1. Influence of pin geometry
Comparing the longitudinal sections in Figs. 11.a and b, and 12.a and
b, for example, it is possible to see that, independently of the base mate-
rials positioning, the amount of ascendant flow is much higher when
welding with the CN6 tool than when welding with the CN8 tool. In
the same way, analysing Figs. 11.c and 12.c, it is possible to conclude
that the volume of upward material flow was also important for the
CL6 tool.
The micrographs in Figs. 11 and 12 only enable a comparative/
qualitative analysis of the material flow patterns, during welding,
for the different tools. In order to have quantitative data on the
amount of material dragged by the tools, the axial force exerted on
the tool during welding was recorded: The higher the force exerted
 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731 727

Fig. 10. Local stress–strain curves for the TMAZ material of D56 (a) and D65 (b) welds.

on the tools, the larger the amount of base materials being dragged
by it.
In Fig. 13 is shown the average axial force (Fz) as a function of the
shoulder plunge depth (SPD) for each tool. The force Fz correspond to
an average of the axial force values registered by the machine, at each
instant, during the welding operation. The SPD was calculated, for
each tool, considering the pin plunge depth of 1.2 mm (Fig. 13.a). The Fig. 11. Transverse and longitudinal cross-sections of the D56 welds.
graph shows that, for a similar pin plunge depth, the CN6 pin geometry
determines the highest shoulder penetration and the CN8 tool the low-
est one (60% lower than the CN6 SPD). The SPD and the axial force, for
the CL6 tool, are both higher and lower than that registered for the
CN8 and CN6 tools, respectively. From the figure it is possible to con- usually called hooking defect, with important consequences on
clude that the axial force increases linearly with increasing SPD and welds strength [12]. In current work, the highest strength values
that the SPD depends on the pin geometry. No strong non-linearity in were reported for the CN8 tool which, according to Figs. 11, 12 and
axial force evolution, which could be directly related with the varying 13, was the one promoting the lowest amount of upward material
tool geometry, can be apperceived from the graph, independently of flow. Naturally, by diminishing the pin plunge depth would be possi-
the base materials combination adopted. The higher force values were ble to reduce the upward material flow for the CL6 and CN6 tools, due
registered for the welds for which an intense tool dragging action was to the reduction in SPD. However, in industrial production, using a
noticed when analysing the Figs. 11 and 12. deep pin penetration into the lower plate is preferable due to the
As it is well known from previous works on FSLW, it is the ascen- difficulties in controlling the process for a very small tolerance in
dant material flow that promotes the interface pull-up phenomenon tool positioning and/or variations in plate's thickness.
728 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731
Fig. 12. Transverse and longitudinal cross-sections of the D65 welds.
3.3.2. Influence of base materials positioning
By comparing the cross-sections in Figs. 11 and 12, it is now
possible to analyse the influence of base materials positioning/
properties on welds morphology/strength. In fact, it is evident
from the figures that the upward material flow is much more signif-
icant when the AA 6082-T6 alloy is the lower plate (D56 weld con-
figuration) than when the AA 5754-H22 alloy is the lower plate
(D65 weld configuration). Actually, meanwhile for the D56 material
combination, the upward flow (white material) always reaches the
top of the weld, as it can be seen in all transverse and longitudinal
cross-sections, for the D65 configuration, an ascendant flow (darker
material) reaching the top of the weld is only noticeable in the
longitudinal cross-section of Fig. 12.c. These results are easily
explained by the differences in plastic flow, at high temperatures,
of both alloys. According to Leitão et al. [20], the AA 6082-T6
alloy, which displays intense flow softening at high temperatures,
easily flows upwards. The upward flow is particularly intense at
the advancing side of the weld, where an “open space” exists before
the shear layer material is extruded against the non-deformed base
material [21].
In order to better illustrate the previous assumption, horizontal
cross-sections, sampling the ending of the welds, where the final
hole left by the pin is located, were analysed. Pictures of D56 and
D65 horizontal cross-sections, of CN6 welds, are shown in Fig. 14.
The image of the D56 weld (Fig. 14.a) clearly shows a white line all
along the advancing side of the weld. The white line, which corre-
sponds to AA 6082 alloy base material, extends from the advancing
side of the weld, to the front of the tool, where it is incorporated
into the shear layer. Contrary to this, in the horizontal cross-section
of the D65 weld, only a very thin discontinuity can be observed in
the same location. This discontinuity, which corresponds to the
hooking usually detected at the advancing side of the transverse
samples, is not filled with lower plate base material, as for the D56
welds. Actually, no important upward flow of the lower plate base
material is noticeable in the transverse cross-sections of any of the
D65 welds (Fig. 12). According to Leitão et al. [20], at high tempera-
tures, the AA 5XXX alloys, which displays perfect plastic behaviour,
doesn't flow so easily upward as the AA 6082 alloy. This way, the
amount of material stirred by the tool during welding, is higher
when welding with the D56 base material configuration, than
when welding with the D65 base material configuration. This can
be confirmed by comparing the tool axial force results in Fig. 13,
which enable to confirm that, independently of the tool geometry,
the axial force is always higher when welding with D56 material
configuration.
3.3.3. Hooking morphology
As shown in Figs. 11 and 14, the upward flow of the AA 6082 alloy,
when adopting the D56 base materials combination, induces the forma-
tion of important hooking at the advancing side of all the welds. The
upward transport of material is noticeable, in Fig. 11, for all the welds,
independently of the tool geometry, and is the reason for the low
mechanical strength of the D56 advancing side tensile–shear (Fig. 5)
and transverse tensile (Fig. 9) samples. On the other hand, the strength
of the advancing side of the D65 welds, for which no important upward
material flow can be noticed in Fig. 12, is much higher than that of the
D56 welds. Actually, the D65 CN8 welds, for which no important
upward material transport can be noticed in any of the cross sections
of Fig. 12.a, were the only ones with yield and maximum strength
efficiencies close to 100%.
In order to understand the mechanical response of the welds per-
formed with the CN8 tool, the hooking at the AS of the D56 and D65
welds is compared in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively. Analysing the
macroscopic images, it is possible to conclude that the non-bonded
part of the hooking, displayed in the SEM images of Figs. 15.a and
16.a, is similar for both types of welds. The non-bonded part is
followed by a dark line, clearly visible in the optical microscopy im-
ages in Figs. 15.b and 16.b, which according to the SEM EDS analysis
performed, corresponds to remnants of the oxide layer from the
plates interface, i.e., to the presence of the kissing bond defect [1,3].
Meanwhile for the D56 weld, the kissing bond is continuous,
delimiting a well-defined hooking, that extends to the plates surface,
for the D65 welds, the kissing bond shifts to the right, delimiting a
small hooking embedded in the top plate lower thickness. This way
it is possible to conclude that the presence of kissing bond alone
has no influence on the weld strength. The mechanical efficiency of
 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731 729

Fig. 13. Evolution of the tool axial force (Fz) with shoulder plunge depth (SPD).

the welds depends on the combined effect of kissing bond and flow of the lower plate material, through an appropriate choice of
hooking shape and size. tool geometry and base materials relative positioning;
– in AA6xxx − AA5xxx dissimilar welding, excellent quality welds
4. Conclusions may be obtained by placing the AA 6xxx alloy in the top of the
lap joints and welding with conical tools with low shoulder/pin
The mechanical and microstructural characterization of the dissimi- diameters ratio.
lar aluminium welds enabled to conclude that

– the hooking defect is the principal factor in determining the

strength of the lap joints in both tensile–shear and transverse
tensile loading;
– dissimilar base materials positioning has strong influence on
material flow during welding and, in this way, on hooking
formation;
– the tool shoulder plunge depth, which depends on the tool geome-
try and penetration depth, has a strong influence on hooking
formation;
– the hooking defect size and shape may be conditioned, in order to
diminish/eliminate its deleterious effect, by suppressing the upward
Acknowledgements
This research work is sponsored by national funds from the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), via the pro-
ject PEst-C/EME/UI0285/2013, and Quadro de Referência Estratégica
Nacional (QREN), under contract grant no. 2012/24804. The authors,
C. Leitão and M.I. Costa, are supported by the Portuguese Foundation
for Science and Technology through SFRH/BPD/93685/2013 and SFRH/
BD/104073/2014 fellowships, respectively. All supports are gratefully
acknowledged.

Fig. 14. Transverse and Horizontal cross-sections of CN6 D56 (a) and D65 (b) welds.
730 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731

Fig. 15. Microstructural analysis of the hooking defect in a D56 CN8 weld: a) and b) SEM and OM images of the hooking, respectively, c) and d) SEM details of the kissing bond and e) EDS
analysis.

Fig. 16. Microstructural analysis of the hooking defect in a D65 CN8 weld: a) and b) SEM and OM images of the hooking, respectively, c) and d) SEM details of the kissing bond and e) EDS
analysis.

References
[1] L. Dubourg, A. Merati, M. Jahazi, Process optimisation and mechanical properties of
friction stir lap welds of 7075-T6 stringers on 2024-T3 skin, Mater. Des. 31 (2010)
3324–3330.
[2] S. Babu, G.D.J. Ram, P.V. Venkitakrishnan, G.M. Reddy, K.P. Rao, Microstructure and
mechanical properties of friction stir lap welded aluminum alloy AA2014, J. Mater.
Sci. Technol. 28 (2012) 414–426.
[3] S. Ciliberto, A. Astarita, A. Squillace, FSW of T joints in overlap configuration: process
optimization in joining dissimilar aluminium alloys for the aeronautic application,
Surf. Interface Anal. 45 (2013) 1631–1637.
[4] Y.-h. Chen, Q. Ni, L.-m. Ke, Interface characteristic of friction stir welding lap joints of
Ti/Al dissimilar alloys, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 22 (2012) 299–304.
[5] Z.W. Chen, S. Yazdanian, Friction Stir Lap Welding: material flow, joint structure and
strength, J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 55 (2012) 629–637.
[6] S. Jana, Y. Hovanski, Fatigue behaviour of magnesium to steel dissimilar friction stir
lap joints, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 17 (2012) 141–145.
[7] R.-T. Lee, C.-T. Liu, Y.-C. Chiou, H.-L. Chen, Effect of nickel coating on the shear
strength of FSW lap joint between Ni–Cu alloy and steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
213 (2013) 69–74.
[8] H. Das, R.N. Ghosh, T.K. Pal, Study on the formation and characterization of the inter-
metallics in friction stir welding of aluminum alloy to coated steel sheet lap joint,
Metall. Mater. Trans. A 45 (2014) 5098–5106.
 M.I. Costa et al. / Materials and Design 87 (2015) 721–731
[9] Y. Gao, K. Nakata, K. Nagatsuka, F.C. Liu, J. Liao, Interface microstructural control by
probe length adjustment in friction stir welding of titanium and steel lap joint,
Mater. Des. 65 (2015) 17–23.
[10] B. Kuang, Y. Shen, W. Chen, X. Yao, H. Xu, J. Gao, et al., The dissimilar friction stir lap
welding of 1A99 Al to pure Cu using Zn as filler metal with “pinless” tool configura-
tion, Mater. Des. 68 (2015) 54–62.
[11] H. Fujii, Y.D. Chung, Y.F. Sun, H. Tanigawa, Interface shape and microstructure con-
trolled dissimilar friction stir lap welded steels, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 18 (2013)
279–286.
[12] L. Cederqvist, A.P. Reynolds, Factors affecting the properties of friction stir welded
aluminum lap joints, Weld. J. 80 (2001) 281–287.
[13] Y. Song, X. Yang, L. Cui, X. Hou, Z. Shen, Y. Xu, Defect features and mechanical prop-
erties of friction stir lap welded dissimilar AA2024–AA7075 aluminum alloy sheets,
Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 9–18.
[14] C. Velotti, A. Astarita, A. Squillace, S. Ciliberto, M.G. Villano, M. Giuliani, et al., On the
critical technological issues of friction stir welding lap joints of dissimilar aluminum
alloys, Surf. Interface Anal. 45 (2013) 1643–1648.
[15] H. Izadi, J. Fallu, A. Abdel-Gwad, T. Liyanage, A.P. Gerlich, Analysis of tool geometry
in dissimilar Al alloy friction stir welds using optical microscopy and serial section-
ing, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 18 (2013) 307–313.
731
[16] V. Soundararajan, E. Yarrapareddy, R. Kovacevic, Investigation of the friction stir lap
welding of aluminum alloys AA 5182 and AA 6022, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 16 (2007)
477–484.
[17] C.-Y. Lee, W.-B. Lee, J.-W. Kim, D.-H. Choi, Y.-M. Yeon, S.-B. Jung, Lap joint properties
of FSWed dissimilar formed 5052 Al and 6061 Al alloys with different thickness, J.
Mater. Sci. 43 (2008) 3296–3304.
[18] C. Leitão, I. Galvão, R.M. Leal, D.M. Rodrigues, Determination of local constitutive
properties of aluminium friction stir welds using digital image correlation, Mater.
Des. 33 (2012) 69–74.
[19] A. Simar, Y. Bréchet, B. de Meester, A. Denquin, C. Gallais, T. Pardoen, Integrated
modeling of friction stir welding of 6xxx series Al alloys: process, microstructure
and properties, Prog. Mater. Sci. 57 (2012) 95–183.
[20] C. Leitão, R. Louro, D.M. Rodrigues, Analysis of high temperature plastic behaviour
and its relation with weldability in friction stir welding for aluminium alloys
AA5083-H111 and AA6082-T6, Mater. Des. 37 (2012) 402–409.
[21] Z.W. Chen, T. Pasang, Y. Qi, Shear flow and formation of Nugget zone during friction
stir welding of aluminium alloy 5083-O, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 474 (2008) 312–316.