Dissertacao

Friction Spot Welding of 7050-T76 Aluminium Alloy
Pedro Santos Eertz
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Mechanical Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Maria Luísa Coutinho Gomes de Almeida
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Rui Manuel dos Santos Oliveira Baptista
Supervisor: Prof. Maria Luísa Coutinho Gomes de Almeida
Members of the Committee: Prof. Virgínia Isabel Monteiro Nabais Infante
Prof. Rosa Maria Mendes Miranda
September 2015
Acknowledgements
My academic journey at IST has been very stimulating and enriching. I would like to express my sincere
acknowledgements to everyone whose input has proved invaluable in my endeavour. I begin by thanking
my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr. Maria Luísa Coutinho Gomes de Almeida, without whose guidance and
encouragement this work would not have been possible. Due to the knowledge and experience she has in
bonding technology and processes, discussions always proved to be very educative and therefore I am grateful
to her. She has instilled in me motivation and condence necessary to pursue a research career and I am
very thankful to her for the same. I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Ing. Uceu Fuad Hasan Suhuddin
from Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht (HZG), for the incomparable knowledge transmitted regarding friction
spot welding and the follow-up he gave me throughout the development of this thesis. I would also like to
thank to Dr. Jorge Fernandez dos Santos for the thoughtful and insightful suggestions which have been very
helpful in my research. I thank him for giving the opportunity of developing my work in the solid state
welding department of HZG, and providing me all necessary tools to ensure the success of this research. I
would like to express my acknowledgements to Dr. Ing. Stephanie Hanke for all the patience and knowledge
she transmitted me regarding the fracture mechanics in friction spot welded joints. To Dr. Lucian Blaga,
I express my sincere thanks for the undoubted help an knowledge in the statistical eld, which turned out
to be very important to characterize the feasibility of the process. To all unmentioned sta from HZG that
somehow contributed to the developed work I would like to express my sincere acknowledgements
I am grateful to my colleagues and friends at IST, Afonso Ghira, Miguel Costeira, Hugo Abreu, André
Sousa, Tomás Almeida, for their fruitful discussions and help, technical and otherwise. They were indispens-
able in making my academic journey very enjoyable. I would like to thank to my colleagues Daniel Sousa
and Vitor Correia for the important contributions in my work during my stay in HZG. I owe them debt for
being patient and accompanying me in all stages of this work.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my parents and brother whose aection and constant
encouragement has given me tremendous impetus in my academic pursuits.
i
...à minha família
Resumo
As ligas de alumínio têm ganho cada vez mais destaque nas industrias aeroespacial e automóvel, com
o objectivo de reduzir o peso das estruturas e consumo de combustíveis, por forma a que se cumpram as
exigências impostas pelas recentes normas ambientais. A diculdade inerente à união destes materiais por
processos convencionais de soldadura, impulsionou o crescimento de técnicas de união no estado sólido,
nomeadamente o friction spot welding (FSpW).
Neste trabalho de investigação estudou-se a viabilidade da união de chapas de alumínio AA7050-T76
com 2 mm de espessura, pelo processo FSpW. Para tal, avaliou-se a inuência dos parâmetros do processo
na microestrutura e nas propriedades mecânicas da junta soldada, recorrendo ao método de Taguchi. Este
por sua vez, é uma metodologia estatística que permite testar combinações ortogonais de parâmetros de
um determinado processo, a m de obter a combinação que resulta no melhor desempenho. Para averiguar
a inuência individual de um determinado parâmetro na qualidade da soldadura, recorreu-se à análise de
sensibilidade, mais especicamente o método one factor at a time (OFAT), onde apenas se varia um parâmetro
deixando os restantes constantes. A inuência dos parâmetros do processo FSpW foi abordada recorrendo
à analise estatística dos resultados obtidos por resistência mecânica, i.e. lap shear strength (LSS) e cross
tension strength (CTS).
Em seguida, investigou-se a macro e microestrutura da melhor e pior soldaduras obtidas de ambos os
métodos utilizados, para vericar a intergridade microestrutural e estabelecer a ponte com as propriedades
mecânicas atingidas. O diâmetro efectivo de união entre as chapas sobrepostas foi medido, assim como
a altura do defeito hook , a m de vericar se existe uma correlação entre estes dois e as propriedades
mecâncias.
Foram traçados os pers de microdureza a meia espessura da chapa de cima e de baixo para vericar as
diferenças de dureza nas diferentes regiões da soldadura e denir aproximadamente o tamanho de cada uma
delas. É também apresentado um mapa de microdureza, por forma a corroborar os resultados obtidos nos
pers e apresentar de forma global, i.e. em toda a extensão da amostra, as diferenças de dureza.
Posteriormente, averiguou-se o comportamento à fadiga do melhor parâmetro obtido pelo método de
Taguchi, e, através da distribuição de Weibull, foi feita a análise de vida de fadiga. Os ensaios foram
realizados a amplitude de tensão constante, com uma razão de tensões R = 0.1 e frequência de 10 Hz. Os
resultados são apresentados em curvas S-N, também conhecidas como curvas de Wöhler.
Por m, são dados a conhecer os diferentes modos de falha obtidos nos ensaios de LSS e fadiga, assim
como as supercies de fractura adquiridas pelo microscópio eletrónico de varrimento (MEV).
Os resultados obtidos comprovam a aplicabilidade da liga AA7050-T76 quando soldado pelo processo
FSpW, e assim fazer face a outras técnicas de soldadura por ponto e união mecânica no âmbito industrial.
Palavras-Chave
Friction spot welding
Liga de alumínio AA7050-T76
Método de Taguchi
Método One factor at a time
Diâmetro de união da ligação soldada
Defeito hook
iii
Abstract
The aerospace and automotive industries are increasing the use of aluminium alloys, to reduce the weight
of the structures and fuel consumption, so that they meet the requirements imposed by recent environmental
standards. The inherent diculty in welding these materials by conventional welding processes, boosted the
growth of solid state joining techniques, namely the friction spot welding (FSpW).
In this work, the feasibility of joining AA7050-T76 aluminium plates with 2 mm thick by FSpW is
investigated. To this end, the inuence of process parameters on the microstructure and mechanical properties
of the weld is assessed using the Taguchi method, which is a statistical methodology to test orthogonal
combinations of the process parameters in order to obtain the best results for performance characteristics.
To verify the individual inuence of a given parameter in the welding quality, the sensitivity analysis method
one factor at a time (OFAT) was used, where only one parameter is varied leaving the remaining constant.
The inuence of the parameters of FSpW process was assessed using the statistical analysis of the results
obtained by mechanical testing, i.e. lap shear strength (LSS) and cross tension strength (CTS).
The macro and microstructure of the best and worst welds obtained in LSS tests, considering the two
methods, was investigated in order to verify the microstructural integrity and relate it with the obtained
mechanical properties. The eective bonding diameter was measured as well as the hook height to conclude
if they can be correlated with the obtained strength.
The microhardness proles were drawn at half thickness of both sheet of the overlapped joint to es-
timate the dierences in hardness of each welding region and dene approximately the extent of each one.
Microhardness map was also drawn to corroborate the results obtained from the proles and give a global
understanding of the hardness changes throughout the entire sample.
Subsequently, it was examined the behaviour to fatigue of the best parameter obtained by Taguchi method,
and Weibull distribution was applied to the obtained results for fatigue life assessment. The tests were
performed at constant stress amplitude, with a stress ratio R = 0.1 and frequency of 10 Hz. The results are
presented in S-N curves, also known as Wöhler curves.
Finally, the dierent failure modes obtained in LSS and fatigue are presented as well as the fracture
surfaces acquired in the scanning electron microscope (SEM)
The results demonstrate the applicability of AA7050-T76 when welded by FSpW and thus compete with
other spot weld techniques and mechanical bonding in the industrial eld.
Key-Words
Friction spot welding
7050-T76 aluminium alloy
Taguchi method
One factor at a time method
Bonding diameter
Hook defect
v
Contents
1 Objectives 1
2 Introduction 3
2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Reading guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Literature review 7
3.1 Aluminium Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1 Wrought Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2 Temper Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3 7xxx Al-Zn Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Aluminium Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1 Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.2 Friction Spot Welding (FSpW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.2.1 Microstructure characterization in FSpW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2.2 Microstructural defects in FSpW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.2.3 Heat input and mechanical performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.2.4 Welding Parameters of FSpW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Taguchi method for experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.1 Fatigue crack nucleation and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.2 Stress cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.3 Fatigue in aluminium alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Experimental Procedure 27
4.1 Work plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2 Material and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3 Weldability study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4 Mechanical characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5 Metallurgical Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5 Results and discussions 33

5.1 Parameters optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.1 DoE: Taguchi L9 orthogonal array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.2 LSS and S/N ratio maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
vii
5.1.2.1 Main eects of the mean LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1.2.2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1.2.3 Prediction for optimum performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.1.2.4 Conrmation tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.1.2.5 One factor at a time (OFAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1.3 CTS and S/N ratio maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.3.1 Main eects of the mean CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.3.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.1.3.3 Prediction for the optimum performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1.3.4 Conrmation tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1.3.5 One factor at a time (OFAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2 Mechanical and metallurgical characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2.1 Microstructural characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2.2 Microhardness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.3 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3 Fracture analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.1 Failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.1.1 LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.1.2 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3.2 Fractographic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.3.2.1 LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.3.2.2 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6 Conclusions 71
viii
List of Figures
3.1 Banded Microstructure. T, L and S stand for transverse, longitudinal and short transverse
directions respectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Illustration of FSSW process: a) Plunging; b) Stirring; c) Drawing out . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 FSpW tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4 Illustration of FSpW process using sleeve plunge variant: a) Clamping and tool rotation; b)
Sleeve plunge and probe retraction; c) tool back to surface level; d) Tool removal . . . . . . . 15
3.5 Optical microscope (OM) macrograph of a typical FSpW connection cross section showing the
weld zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6 OM micrographs of FSpW: a) deformed grains in the TMAZ; b) rened microstructure in the
SZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7 Characteristics of the defects of the joints: a) bonding ligament; b) incomplete rell; c) no
mixing; d) lack of mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.8 Schematic representations showing the proles of the hook for dierent rotational speed settings 19
3.9 Typical propagation of a fatigue crack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.10 Typical loading cycles: a) fully reversed cycle; b) tension-tension with applied load; c) random
loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1 Flowchart of the dierent work stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2 Dimensions of the LSS test specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3 Dimensions of cross tension test specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4 Harms&Wende RPS 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1 Plot for mean and standard deviations of LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2 Eect of PD in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3 Eect of PT in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4 Eect of RS in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.5 Contribution of each parameter in LSS (left) and S/N ratio (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6 Plots for the predicted vs experimental values of LSS (left) and S/N ratio (right) . . . . . . . 40
5.7 Experimental vs Predicted values for LSS, with validation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.8 Responses for the individual eect of the parameters in LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.9 Eect of PD in CTS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.10 Eect of PT in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.11 Eect of RS in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.12 Contribution of each parameter in CTS (left) and S/N ratio (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
ix
5.13 Plots for the predicted vs experimental values of CTS (left) and S/N ratio (right) . . . . . . . 46
5.14 Experimental vs Predicted values for CTS, with validation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.15 Responses for the individual eect of the parameters in CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.16 Macrograph of the cross section for condition 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.17 Micrographs of the dierent weld zones: a) SZ; b) TMAZ; c) HAZ; and d) BM . . . . . . . . 50
5.18 Average grain size in the dierent weld regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.19 Welding defects present in condition 12 showing a detail of the incomplete rell (up) and lack
of mixture (down) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.20 Schematic illustration for the measurement of the bonding diameter and hook height . . . . . 53
5.21 Micrographs of the hook defect for conditions 6 (left) and 10 (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.22 Microhardness prole measured in the mid-thickness of the upper sheet of condition 6 joint . 55
5.23 Vickers microhardness prole measured in the mid-thickness of the upper sheet of condition 6
joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.24 Vickers microhardness mapping in the welded cross section of condition 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.25 Weibull plot lines for the tested stress amplitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.26 S-N curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.27 Eect of mean fatigue life on the coecients of variation, CV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.28 S-N curves for dierent reliability levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.29 Failure modes observed in lap shear tests: a) shear fracture with circumferential cracking;
b) plug Pull out fracture on lower sheet; and c) tensile-shear mixed fracture. The arrows
indicate the loading direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.30 Cross section macrographs: a) shear fracture; b) mixed fracture; and c) plug pull-out fracture 62
5.31 Failure modes observed in fatigue tests: a) 39.9 MPa; 19.9 MPa; and 12.0 MPa . . . . . . . . 63
5.32 Scanning electron micrographs of the fractured surface of the lower sheet and magnied views
of the regions A-F, present in condition 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.33 Scanning electron micrographs of the 39.9 MPa fatigue fractured surface and magnied views
of the regions A-F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.34 Scanning electron micrographs of the 12.0 MPa fatigue fractured surface and magnied views
of the regions A-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.35 Detailed micrographs of the fatigue fracture surface in the left edge of the upper sheet . . . . 69
x
List of Tables
3.1 Wrought Aluminum Alloy Designation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Temper designations for wrougth alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Designations for strain hardened alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Designation for the heat treatable alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 Mechanical properties of AA7050-T7651 for dierent thickness range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6 Mechanical properties of AA7050-T7451 for dierent thickness range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7 Mechanical properties for AA7050 Alclad and Bare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.8 Taguchi orthogonal array selector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1 Nominal chemical composition for AA7050-T76 (wt%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Mechanical properties for AA7050-T76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3 Harms&Wende RPS 200 technical data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4 Welding parameters and levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1 Welding parameters and levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 L9 Orthogonal array with the LSS responses, mean and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.3 Main eects of the mean LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4 Results of analysis of variance for LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.5 Results of analysis of varinace for S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.6 Results for the optimum performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.7 Results of the conrmation test for the optimal process parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.8 Comparison between the predicted results and condition 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.9 Experimental test of model verication for LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.10 Experimental test results of model verication for S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.11 OFAT experiment matrix with the LSS responses, mean and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.12 L9 Orthogonal array with the CTS responses, mean and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.13 Main eects of the mean CTS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.14 Results of analysis of variance for CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.15 Results of analysis of variance for S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.16 Results for the optimum performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.17 Results of the conrmation test for the optimal process parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.18 Comparison between the predicted results and condition 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.19 Experimental test of model verication for CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.20 Experimental test of model verication for S/N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
xi
5.21 OFAT experiment matrix with the CTS responses, mean and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.22 Relationship strength for the dierent r intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.23 Mean values of LSS and corresponding hook height for OFAT experiments and optimized
parameter (bold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.24 Mean values of LSS and corresponding bonding area for OFAT experiments and optimized
parameter (bold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.25 Results of fatigue testing for condition 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.26 Summarized Weibull values for the tested stress amplitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.27 Weibull parameters for each stress amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
xii
Nomenclature
α Slope parameter
β Shape parameter
∆ Dierence between largest and lowest average
∆σ Stress range
∆t Processing time increment
ω or RS Rotational Speed
σa or Sa Stress amplitude
σmax or Smax Maximum stress
σmin or Smin Minimum stress
σm or Sm Mean stress
AN OV A Analysis of variance
BM Base Material
CDF Cumulative Density Function
CT S Cross Tension Strength
CV Coecient of Variation
D Bonding diameter
DoE Design of Experiments
DOF or df Degrees of freedom
DT Dwell Time
F Force
FA F value of a particular parameter
xiii
F SpW Friction Spot Welding
F SSW Friction Stir Spot Welding
F SW Friction Stir Welding
GM AW Gas Metal Arc Welding
h Hook height
HAZ Heat Aected Zone
HZG Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht
LBW Laser Beam Welding
LSS Lap Shear Strength
MR Bernard's Median Rank
MS Mean Squares
MTTF Mean Time to Failure
N Number of cycles
N0 Mean fatigue life
Nf Number of cycles to failure
OF AT One Factor At a Time
OM Optical Microscope
P% Percentage of contribution
PD Plunge Depth
P DF Probability Density Function
PT Plunging Time
Q Heat input
R Stress ratio
r Correlation coecient
RSW Resistance Spot Welding
S/N Signal to Noise
xiv
SCC Stress corrosion cracking
SD Standard Deviation
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
SM AW Shielded metal arc welding
SSA Sum of Squares of a particular parameter
SSE Sum of Squares Error
SST Sum of Squares Total
SZ Stir Zone
T Torque
T IG Tungsten Inert Gas
T M AZ Thermomechanically Aected Zone
TWI The Welding Institute
Vp Pin vertical speed
Vs Sleeve vertical speed
xv
Chapter 1
Objectives
This work is intended to develop strategies that contribute to the implementation of aluminium spot
joining in the automotive and aerospace industries by FSpW process. To achieve some of the aspects that
have to be taken into consideration for a real industrial application, the following objectives have been
established:
Dene the working process parameters and the working range that provide acceptable quality welds;
Evaluate the applicability and reliability of the design of experiments by Taguchi when used for para-
meter optimization in FSpW;
Evaluate the sensitivity of the process to the individual change in the process parameters using the
OFAT, having the best parameter obtained by Taguchi as a reference;
Evaluate the microstructure of low quality with high quality welds;
Characterize the dierent welding regions and their extent using microhardness proles and mapping;
Evaluate the dependence of the mechanical properties with the hook defect morphology and bonding
diameter;
Fatigue life assessment using Weibull distribution;
Characterize the failure modes and fracture surfaces obtained throughout the mechanical characteriz-
ation experiments;
1
Chapter 1. Objectives
2
Chapter 2
Introduction
2.1 Background
High strength aluminium alloys are widely used in the automotive and aerospace industries for weight
reduction. Therefore, continuous investigation aims not only to reduce the weight of the structures, but also
the costs involved in production lines. However, welding processes are in many cases disregarded due to the
poor weldability of aluminium alloys, specially 2xxx and 7xxx series.
Solid state welding processes, particularly friction stir welding (FSW), have been used in the last decade
to overcome the welding problems of aluminium when joined through conventional methods and to substitute
the heavier mechanical bonding methods (rivets, bolts, etc.). The process was developed and patented in 1991
by The Welding Institute (TWI), England, and used for the rst time for industrial purposes in 1995. FSW
has many advantages compared to conventional welding processes such as, the lower energy consumption and
consequently lower ecological footprint; no uxes, protection gases and ller material are needed since the
process works with a non consumable tool, reducing the cost of the process. A lot of research has been put
into FSW to widen the range of application of the process by the design of new tools and development of
new techniques to improve the mechanical resistance of the joints [1, 2].
Although FSW had a rapid growth in the industrial environment, the use of a continuous weld bead is not
always necessary to satisfy the performance requirements of a certain product (e.g. the body panels of a car).
Hence, solid state spot welds were possible by friction stir spot welding (FSSW) which is a variant of the FSW
process. This process allows the joining of overlap sheets, though it leaves a cavity in the center of the nugget
(keyhole) due to the shape of the tool, making the bond sensible to corrosion and stress concentration. To
avoid these limitations, HZG ( Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht ), formerly known as GKSS, Germany, patented
the friction spot welding process (FSpW) or Rell-FSSW, that leaves no keyhole in the bond. Despite the
fact that resistance spot welding (RSW) is used in the industry as the main spot welding process, FSpW
has gained industrial interest when welding aluminium, due to the fact that produce joints with equal or
higher strength compared to RSW. Also, FSpW is energetically more ecient which consequently leads to
lower costs, since the heat input is provide by the interaction between the tool and the material rather than a
power source to generate current. Further investigations have to be made in FSpW to widen its application,
e.g. durability of the tool, process optimization, reproducible parameter regardless to the upgrades made to
the welding machine [3].
3
Chapter 2. Introduction 2.2. Reading guide
The objective of this study is to investigate the weldability of AA7050-T76 through the optimization of
the operational parameters. Hence, the Taguchi method, including analysis of variance (ANOVA) have been
used to evaluate the quality characteristics of the welds and contribution of each working parameter in the
process. This methodology has signicant industrial importance because Taguchi involves lower number of
experiments, when compared to other DoE (Design of experiments) methods, in order to maximize whatever
quality factor. Evaluation of the eect of each parameter individually was performed using OFAT. After
carrying out the experiments suggested by the Taguchi and OFAT method, further characterization of the
welds were made, such as: i) microstructural characterization; ii) microhardness testing through the cross
section of the weld in the upper and lower sheet; iii) fatigue testing iv) Fracture analysis, where the dierent
failure modes and fracture surfaces are studied. All stages of the work were carried out in the solid state
welding laboratories of the solid state joining processes (WMP) department in HZG.
In conclusion, no publications have been made regarding AA7050-T76 when welded by FSpW process.
Thus, this work aims to ll the knowledge gaps and contribute positively to the development and expansion
of the FSpW process.
2.2 Reading guide
The following describes the various subjects covered in the chapters of this thesis report.
The literature review presented in chapter 3, will support and framework the study described in this
report. The literature review is divided in ve distinct parts: 1) Aluminium alloys. The classication and
nomenclature of wrought aluminium alloys is addressed, since they constitute the main scope of FSpW; 2)
Aluminium welding. Overview of aluminium welding and current spot welding technologies. Principles of
FSpW are discussed along with its advantages when compared with other spot welding processes, micro-
structural appearance and defects. The inuence of the heat input in the mechanical properties of the joint
is discussed and some of the most important intervening parameters of the process are reviewed; 3) Tagu-
chi method for experimental design. The methodology used to apply the method is established and work
performed by other authors is cited. 4) Lap shear and cross tension tests. A brief introduction to the tests
usually performed for spot weld mechanical evaluation. 5) Fatigue. Characterization of the dierent fatigue
stages, fatigue in aluminium and research carried out by other authors.
The experimental procedure is reported in chapter 4 and it is composed by ve subchapers: 1) Work plan.
A owchart is presented for better understanding of the dierent works stages involved in this study. 2) Ma-
terial and equipment. In this subchapter it is specied the geometrical specication of the test specimens for
the LSS, CTS and fatigue test, and also the standards used for each one. The nominal chemical composition
and mechanical properties of AA7050-T76 is specied. Also, the technical data regarding the machine used
to carry out all the welds in the dierent stages is presented. 4) and 5) Mechanical characterization and
metallurgical characterization. All the equipment and methods used in the mechanical and metallurgical
characterization of the process are bestowed in this subchapter.
Chapter 5 is the section of this report where all results obtained through out are shown and discussed,
and comprises 3 main subjects: 1) Parameter optimization. The maximization mechanical behaviour of spot
welds regarding LSS and CTS are the main scope of this analysis. The experiments are carried out according
to the layout dened by the method and the quality factors selected. OFAT method is also used to evaluate
the individual eect of the parameters in the weld quality and to conrm the results denoted. 2) Mechanical
4
and metallurgical characterization. The microstructure of a typical FSpW and the grain size of the dierent
weld zones is investigated. Microhardness and fatigue testing are also presented in this section. 3) Failure
analysis. Failure modes and fractographic analysis results of LSS and fatigue tests are presented.
Conclusions related to this work are discussed in chapter 6 and suggestions for future developments related
to this subject are presented in the following section.
5
6
Chapter 3
Literature review
3.1 Aluminium Alloys
Aluminium is the third most abundant element, comprising approximately 8% of the words crust. Due
to aluminium's high anity to bind with oxygen, it is not found in its elemental state, but only in combined
forms such as oxides and silicates [4].
In 1808, Humphry Davy, an Englishman, tried to extract aluminium through electrolysis. Although he
has not succeeded, the scientist gave the metal the current name. Hans-Christian Oersted, in 1825, by passing
chlorine through a hot mixture of alumina and coal produced aluminium chloride, which in turn, when heated
with potassium amalgam resulted in a metal similar to tin in its properties. In 1854, Saint-Claire Deville, a
French chemist and industrialist, developed a more ecient method where he applied sodium as a deoxidizing
agent instead of expensive potassium. The result was shown in 1855 in Paris at the Word Exhibition. The
silver made of clay was a success [5, 6].
Today more aluminium is produced each year than all other non-ferrous metals combined. The USA
alone uses approximately 100 billion beverage cans composed by aluminium and 60% of them are recycled
and transformed in other items. In the automotive industry the growth in aluminium use was an important
step to produce lightweight components such as: Radiators, engine blocks, wheels, body panels, suspension
brackets, etc. In the aerospace industry, the rst recorded ight was established by the Wright Brothers
in Kitty Hawk, South Carolina on the 17 of December, 1903. This was possible due to the use of engine
parts made from aluminium. At present, aluminium is used everywhere in the world regarding the aviation
industry. From two thirds to three quarters of a passenger plane's dry weight, and one twentieth to half of
a rocket's dry weight accounts for the share of aluminium in airborne craft. The casting of the rst Soviet
satellite was made of aluminium alloys, The body casting of American 'Avantgarde' and 'Titan' rockets used
for launching the rst American rockets into the orbit, and later on - spaceships, was also made of aluminium
alloys. They are used for manufacturing various components of spaceship equipment: brackets, xtures,
chassis, covers and casting for many tools and devices [5, 7].
7
Chapter 3. Literature review 3.1. Aluminium Alloys
3.1.1 Wrought Alloys
The wrought aluminium alloys are classied according to the predominant alloying element. A designation
is used with four digits, where the rst digit indicates the specic alloys containing alloying elements; the
second digit traduces the original alloy changes or limits of impurities; the last two digits identify the alloy
or indicate the degree of purity of aluminium [8, 1, 9].
Series Alloying element(s)

1xxx Pure aluminium, minimum 99% aluminium content
2xxx Copper (Cu)
3xxx Manganese (Mn)
4xxx Silicon (Si)
5xxx Magnesium (Mg)
6xxx Magnesium (Mg), Silicon (Si)
7xxx Zinc (Zn)
8xxx Other elements (e.g. Lithium (Li))
Table 3.1: Wrought Aluminum Alloy Designation System
3.1.2 Temper Designation
Temper designations appear as a hyphenated sux to the basic alloy number, composed by a capital
letter followed by one or more digits. The basic temper designations can be found in Table 3.2.
Designation Description
F As fabricated. Shaped by cold working, hot working or casting processes in which no special
control over thermal processes or strain hardening is employed.
O Fully annealed. Applies to wrought products that are annealed to obtain the lowest strength
temper and to cast products tha t are annealed to improve ductility and dimensional stability.
H Strain hardened. This temper applies to products that have their strength increased by strain
hardening, with or without supplementary thermal treatment to produce some reduction in
strength.
T Heat treated. Applies to products that are thermally treatable, with or without supplementary
strain-hardening, to produce stable tempers.
W Solution heat treated. Unstable temper
Table 3.2: Temper designations for wrougth alloys
Al-Alloys can be subdivided in two categories: non-heat treatable and heat treatable. In the rst group
fall within the series 1xxx, 3xxx, 4xxx and 5xxx, which have to be strain hardened (cold worked). In Table
3.3 it is presented the dierent existing designations for strain hardening .
8
Designation Meaning of the 1st digit
H1y Strain hardened without thermal treatment
H2y Strain hardened and partially annealed
H3y Strain hardened and stabilized by low temperature heating
Designation Meaning of the 2nd digit
Hx2 1/4 hard
Hx3 1/2 hard
Hx6 3/4 hard
Hx8 full hard
Hx9 extra hard
Designation Meaning of the 3rd digit
Hxyz Possible variation to the hardening temper given by the two rst digits
Table 3.3: Designations for strain hardened alloys
Regaring heat treatable alloys, series 2xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx and 8xxx are highlighted. The dierent designa-
tions used and its meanings are presents in Table 3.4.
Designation Meaning
T1 Cooled from hot working and naturally aged (at room temperature)
T2 Cooled from hot working, cold-worked, and naturally aged
T3 Solution heat treated and cold worked
T4 Solution heat treated and naturally aged
T5 Cooled from hot working and articially aged (at elevated temperature)
T6 Solution heat treated and articially aged
T7 Solution heat treated and stabilized
T8 Solution heat treated, cold worked, and articially aged
T9 Solution heat treated, articially aged, and cold worked
T10 Cooled from hot working, cold-worked, and articially aged
Table 3.4: Designation for the heat treatable alloys
In case there are variations to the tempers presented in the previous table, a number dierent from zero
must be added to the basic designation, in order to assess the response to the heat treatment and to designate
further stress relieving treatments by traction and/or compression. For example, T51 refers to a stress relief
by stretching (traction), originating a permanent deformation between 1 and 3 %. The stress relief is applied
after a solution heat treatment or after the cooling of a hot working process [8, 1, 9].
3.1.3 7xxx Al-Zn Alloys
The main characteristics of the 7xxx series aluminium alloys are:
Heat treatable
Very high strength, special high toughness versions
Typical ultimate tensile strength: 221-607 MPa
Aerospace, automotive applications
9
Mechanically joined
Representative alloys: 7005, 7075, 7475
The wrought heat treatable 7xxx alloys are even more responsive to precipitation hardening than the
2xxx alloys and therefore obtain higher strength levels, approaching tensile strengths of 690 MPa [10, 11].
These alloys can be categorized in two dierent groups: the Al-Zn-Mg and the Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloys. In
the rst one, the aluminium is alloyed with Zinc and Magnesium, conferring good strength characteristics at
the cost of corrosion resistance. Hence, to improve the corrosion resistance, the second one is more suitable
since it is alloyed with Copper .
The Magnesium content range is between 1-3wt %, and just like in the 2xxx series, it is there to maximize
their age-hardening potential, where the precipitating phases are typically MgZn2 . The addition of Zinc
makes the response of the alloy to heat treatments more favorable than the binary Al-Zn, and the range of
content is 4-6 wt %. When Copper is added to for the quaternary Al-Zn-Mg-Cu system, not only greater
potential for age hardening is achieved, but also the highest yield strengths approaching 600 MPa compared
to the 200 MPa of the Al-Zn-Mg ternary system [12].
When welding 7xxx series Al-alloys, it is expected to occur the following problems:
hot and cold cracking
joint softening
poor weld zone ductility
stress corrosion cracking
To reduce the chance of stress corrosion cracking, these alloys are air quenched from the solution heat
treating temperature and then overaged, to reduce residual stresses.
These alloys are not considered to be weldable by routine commercial processes [10]. Fusion welding is
problematic due to the loss of properties in the liquated region of HAZ. When the parent alloy adjacent to
the Fusion Zone (FZ) experiences high heating rates the phenomenon of non-equilibrium melting must be
considered. If grain boundary segregates and precipitates such as MgZn2 are heated at a rate which does not
allow sucient time for diusion to homogenize the structure, incipient melting may result in the liquation
of grain boundaries. Microcracks may form in the liquated regions if hydrogen and/or sucient strain is
present. Also because of the change in composition in these regions toughness can be seriously impaired
following ageing [11].
Due to the diculty in welding 7xxx series, the joining by riveting or other mechanical fasteners is
preferential. Despite this, the welding by friction joining is being thoroughly investigated in order to replace
the current solutions, especially in lightweight, high strength constructions.
In recent years the interest for Al-Zn alloys for military purposes has increased in order to reduce the
weight of equipment and provides better protection from ballistic attacks when compared to other Al-alloys
[11]. The aerospace industry is a classic point in case of the use of 7xxx series; 7050 and 7475 are among
the principal choices. In the automotive industry, the introduction of lightweight bumper structures, using
AA7029 and AA7129, improved gas mileage.
10
1.2.3.1 AA7050
Alloy 7050 is a premier choice in the aerospace industry, when the best combination of strength, stress
corrosion cracking (SCC), resistance and toughness is required. This particular alloy exhibits better tough-
ness/corrosion resistance characteristics than 7075 aluminium alloy, which can be found in the fuselage,
frames and main frames of commercial aircrafts. AA7050 is less quenching sensitive when compared to other
aerospace aluminium alloys, meaning that it retains its strength in thicker sections while maintaining good
stress corrosion cracking resistance and fracture toughness levels. Therefore it is particularly suited for plate
applications with a range between 76.20 mm and 152.4 mm [4].
Alloy 7050 plate is available in two tempers: T7651 which combines the highest strength with good
exfoliation corrosion resistance and average SCC resistance; and T7451 that provides better SCC resistance
and excellent exfoliation resistance at slightly lower strengths [13].
The weldability of 7050 alloy is problematic and should be avoided. GTAW and GMAW processes are not
successful with this material, originating weld cracking and porosity. As a result, the welded joint is much
weaker than the base material. However, considerable research is being carried out, regarding solid-state
welding processes, as mentioned previously.
The mechanical properties for 7050-T7651 and 7050-T7451 alloys are shown in Table 3.5 and 3.6, respect-
ively [13].
Alloy/Temper 7050-T7651
Thickness (mm) 6.35-25.40 50.83-76.20
Tensile Strength (MPa) 524 524
Yield Strength (MPa) 455 455
Elongation (%) 8 7
Table 3.5: Mechanical properties of AA7050-T7651 for dierent thickness range
Alloy/ Temper 7050-T7451

Thickness (mm) 6.35-50.80 127.03-152.40
Elongation (%) 9 4
Table 3.6: Mechanical properties of AA7050-T7451 for dierent thickness range
As for alloy 7050 sheet, it is available bare and Alclad in the T76 temper, which provides the highest
strength and also excellent resistance to exfoliation corrosion. SCC resistance in this temper is acceptable
for most applications where sustained tensile stresses in the short-tranverse directions (see gure 3.1) can be
controlled to relatively low levels. The mechanical properties for this temper are given by table 3.7 [13].
The applications of 7050 plate include fuselage frames and bulkheads where bigger thicknesses are required.
On the other hand the typical applications of alloy 7050 sheet can be found in wing skins [13].
11
Chapter 3. Literature review 3.2. Aluminium Welding
Alloy Bare Alclad
Thickness (mm) 1.60-4.75 1.60-4.75
Elongation (%) 7 7
Table 3.7: Mechanical properties for AA7050 Alclad and Bare
Figure 3.1: Banded Microstructure. T, L and S stand for transverse, longitudinal and short transverse
directions respectively
3.2 Aluminium Welding
Pure aluminium has some important attributes such as corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity.
Although, in the early days, the low mechanical resistance was a concern when used in welded structures.
To overcome the low mechanical proprieties, small percentages in weight of alloying elements were added to
pure aluminium, such as Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn), Magnesium (Mg), Silicon (Si) and Zinc (Zn). The
combination of these elements inuences the physical characteristics of pure aluminium, making it comparable
with steel in terms of mechanical resistance, but with a third of the weight. With the development of new
alloys, immediately questions were brought up in what concerns bonding methods.
To weld aluminium, some issues must be addressed, such as the fact that it is alloyed with a range of
other elements to change its proprieties and suit specic applications. This means that weldability of the
base material will vary, and therefore, other alloying elements have to be added to excel those variations.
Aluminium has also high thermal conductivity (3 to 5 times that of steel) which means heat is easily conducted
away from the welding area, so it is important to have a power heat source so that the low melting point of
aluminium is reached rapidly enough. Its high thermal expansion means that it is prone to distortion and
stress inducement.
The welding of aluminium reports to the mid-nineteenth century, and by the time, bonding was made by
oxigas and brazing. SMAW (Shielded Metal Arc Welding) was introduced in the beginning of the twentieth
century. Although the processes above were a major breakthrough, the quality of the weld wasn´t good
enough to be use in high responsibility structures [14, 15].
12
With the introduction of TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) in the 1940's, it was possible to weld high responsibility
constructions with high reliability and quality. This process is preferred for light gauge work up to 6 mm
where excellent control over the weld appearance and penetration are possible. Thicker material can be
welded using TIG, despite the fact that welding speeds have to be very low and current very high, which
makes TIG uneconomic for thick materials [14, 15].
Although TIG guarantees good weld quality, MIG welding is preferred for thicker sections where high
productivity is needed. It also provides greater penetration, narrower HAZs (Heat Aected Zones) and better
strength. The most common problems defects associated with fusion welding processes are porosity and hot
cracking that occurs in the beginning of the solidication phase. Wrought alloys suer from softening in the
HAZ, this means a decrease in strength in that region. The success of the result when welding with fusion
processes is highly dependable on surface preparation, pre/post heat treatment, surrounding conditions and
the welders' experience [14, 15].
Recently, the most used techniques for aluminium welding are Laser Beam Welding (LBW) and Friction
Stir Welding (FSW). In particular for FSW, high quality with great repeatability welds ware possible, with
no need for consumables. It is also highly recommended for aluminium alloys that cannot be welded by fusion
processes.
3.2.1 Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW)
Friction stir welding (FSW) process was invented and experimentally tested by The Welding Institute
(TWI) in Cambridge, UK, in 1991 for joining Aluminium alloys [8, 1, 2]. The patent was created by Wayne
Thomas [16]. Friction stir spot welding (FSSW) is a variant of FSW for spot welding applications that has
been gaining ground when compared to mechanical bonging (rivets, bolts) or resistance spot welding (RSW),
because of the need of lightweight material, such as Aluminium or magnesium in automotive and aerospace
applications to save weight. Although RSW is still the primary method for single point joining, there exist
inherent disadvantages compared with FSSW, such as the high consumption of energy. This aggravates even
more in when welding aluminium, for example, because of its high thermal conductivity. Thus, very high
electrical currents are needed in RSW to overcome thermal dissipation. Furthermore, RSW is 25 % more
expensive that FSSW and more dicult to apply as well because the process is sensitive to changing material
conditions and surface conditions [17].
FSSW is a single spot joining process, in which a solid-state joining is made between adjacent materials
at overlap conguration. Figure 3.2 shows the three steps of FSSW. Firstly, the non-consumable tool is
positioned perpendicularly to the workpiece and starts to rotate at room temperature. Next the tool is
pushed against the top sheet of material and plunges into it so that it can be joined using a normal force.
To sustain this force an anvil or backing plate is used on the bottom side of the sample. Friction heats the
material, and the pin enters the softened material (Fig. 3.2a). After the pin has plunged completely the
material, the tool continues to spin with pressure applied during a preset length of time and the material
around the pin is stirred till the lapped materials are metallurgical unied (Fig. 3.2b)). At this point the
tool retracts and is extracted from the sheets (Fig. 3.2c)[18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24].
Mazda Motor Corporation has successfully applied FSSW in the production of the rear door in their 2003
RX-8, which proved to have excellent side impact stability [25, 26].
Although many advantages where mentioned above, there are some disadvantages such as, corrosion can
take place preferentially at the keyhole. The keyhole inevitably remains at the centre of the nugget, hence
13
limiting the widespread of the process. Meanwhile the keyhole is an inherent defect itself, which will cause
stress concentration and reduction of the eective connection area. This traduces lower mechanical properties.
Figure 3.2: Illustration of FSSW process: a) Plunging; b) Stirring; c) Drawing out
3.2.2 Friction Spot Welding (FSpW)
Friction spot welding (FSpW) or rell friction stir spot welding (Rell FSSW) is a solid phase process,
developed and patented by Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht (HZG) in Germany, formerly known as GKSS
Forschungszentrum [3]. FSpW has been gaining ground when compared to mechanical bonging (rivets,
bolts) or RSW, due to the need of lightweight material, such as aluminium or magnesium, in automotive
and aerospace applications to save weight. Although RSW is still the primary method for single spot joining
(automotive), there are inherent disadvantages compared with FSpW, such as the high consumption of energy.
This aggravates even more when welding aluminium, for example, due to its high thermal conductivity. Thus,
very high electrical currents are needed in RSW to overcome thermal dissipation of aluminium. Furthermore,
RSW is more expensive than FSpW and more dicult to apply as well, since the process is sensitive to
changing material and surface conditions [27, 28, 29]. The process aims to eliminate other disadvantages
usually observed in other spot-like joining technologies, such as weight penalty, diculty of automation,
requirement for sealants and corrosion problems in mechanical fastening, and the presence of a keyhole after
the process in FSSW, which can bring undesirable microstructural defects, such as porosity, distortion; and
lower mechanical proprieties, due to a smaller bonding area [30].
FSpW process uses a tool composed by three components: the clamping ring, sleeve and pin, where
each one can move independently (see Fig. 3.3). Both sleeve and pin have the same angular speed ω,
in the same direction. On the other hand, the vertical speeds are dierent, Vp for the pin and Vs for
the sleeve where Vp 6=Vs . The clamping ring only move vertically with no rotational speed just to tighten
the sheets together during the process to avoid slipping. It also restrains the plasticized material to ow
around the sleeve, preventing burr formation. The process can be divided in two variants: the pin plunge
and sleeve plunge methods; dened according to which component penetrates the material during welding
[3, 17, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36].
14
Figure 3.3: FSpW tool
Figure 3.4: Illustration of FSpW process using sleeve plunge variant: a) Clamping and tool rotation; b)
Sleeve plunge and probe retraction; c) tool back to surface level; d) Tool removal
The operating cycle of process is composed by four stages. Firstly, the sheets are fastened with a pre
determined clamping force. Subsequently, both pin and sleeve start to rotate making contact with the surface
of the upper sheet, producing heat by friction (Figure 3.4a). When the sheet reaches a sucient amount of
heat it starts to plasticize and there forth the pin and sleeve with move in opposite directions. In the sleeve
plunge variant, the sleeve penetrates the upper sheet while the pin retracts forming a cavity to accommodate
the plasticized material (Figure 3.4b). When the sleeve reaches a certain plunge depth, it remains rotating
in the same position (dwell time) in order to promote the mixing of the two materials. In the end of the
15
dwelling time, the sleeve will retract to the initial position and the pin pushes the displaced material within
the cavity against the sheet leaving a completely at surface (Figure 3.4c). Finally, in the fourth stage the
tool retracts and the surface is completely relled (Figure 3.4d) [17, 34, 35, 36, 37].
Alternatively, as mentioned before, the process can be done by the pin plunge variant. The sequence
of operation is the same only in this variant the plunging of the material is done by the pin, whereas the
sleeve will retract forming an annular cavity to accommodate the plasticized material. With this variant, the
forces transmitted to the tool are less signicant than those of the sleeve plunge variant, thus the process will
require less power from the machine. Although, the welded area is smaller than the sleeve plunge variant,
which means that the joint will have less mechanical resistance [17, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38].
3.2.2.1 Microstructure characterization in FSpW
All friction welding processes, such as FSW, FSSW and FSpW, present the same distinct microstructural
regions. Figure 3.5 shows the cross-sectional spot weld appearance including ve characteristics such as the
Base Material (BM), the Heat Aected Zone (HAZ), Thermomechanically Aected Zone (TMAZ), the Stir
Zone (SZ) and the Hook.
Figure 3.5: Optical microscope (OM) macrograph of a typical FSpW connection cross section showing the
weld zones
The BM is characterized for suering no plastic deformation, nor alterations in its microstructure and
mechanical properties, due to the thermal cycling from the weld.
The HAZ is the region that lies closer to the weld-center experiencing a thermal cycle during the weld which
modies the microstructure of the material and its mechanical proprieties. On the other hand, there is no
plastic deformation in this region [32, 39]. In the TMAZ moderate plastic deformation occurs and a moderate
thermal cycle are responsible for the microsctrutural changes in this region, although recrystalization does
not occur. The material grain is more elongated and highly deformed when compared to those in the HAZ.
Due to the temperature reached recovery is predominant and depending on the alloy treatment, over age
can also take place. The exact extent of the TMAZ region is not straightforward; therefore a micrographic
analysis and hardness prole is needed for a rigorous characterization [32, 39].
In the immediate vicinity of the tool, in the SZ the material the material is submitted to intense plastic
deformation and high temperature due to the friction and stir promoted by the tool. These conditions lead
to dynamic recrystalization of the material and mixture between the upper and lower sheet in such a way
that the original interface created by the superposition of the two sheets becomes unnoticeable. The resulting
16
microstructure consists in grains which are roughly equiaxed and often an order of magnitude smaller than
the grains in the BM zone. In the SZ, temperature reaches approximately 80% of the fusion temperature of
the material, hence only plasticization occurs.
Finally, the hook is a characteristic feature in FSpW in lap conguration since it represents a geometric
defect originated at the interface of the two welded sheets. The hook is formed due to the upward bending
of the sheet interface caused by the tool penetration into the bottom sheet [32, 39, 40].
Figure 3.6: OM micrographs of FSpW: a) deformed grains in the TMAZ; b) rened microstructure in the SZ
3.2.2.2 Microstructural defects in FSpW
In FSpW, high quality connections are closely related to the correct combination of parameters, which has
to be adjusted depending on the type of material that needs to be welded. Several publications were made,
pointing out the importance of the correct parameters in order to avoid geometric/metallurgical defects on
welds.
Rosendo et al. [32] investigated the inuence welding parameters in FSpW have in the Mechanical
behaviour and microstructure of AA6181-T4 Al-Alloy. Some defects associated with material ow were
present in some connections such as lack of mixing and incomplete rell, both of them occurring at the path
through which the sleeve plunges into the upper sheet.
Zhao et al. [41] tested the eect the plunge depth has on the weld formation of alclad 7B04-T4 Al-Alloy,
concluding that for a plunge depth (PD) of 2 mm no defect can be observed. Although, for a PD of 2.5 mm
the defect of annular groove appears due to the fact that plastic material with higher uidity can be extruded
to the gap between the clamping ring and the sleeve. This defect also reduces the mechanical properties.
Shen et al. [28] used 2 mm thickness plates of AA 7075-T6 and applied rotational speeds of 1500, 1750
and 2000 rpm, and dwelling times of 3, 4 and 5 s, respectively. With this arrangement they investigated the
microstructure and mechanical properties in FSpW of AA-7075-T6. Several defects were formed during the
joining process. Such as hook, voids, bonding ligament, and incomplete rell. Fig. 3.7 shows some of the
defects present in the joint.
17
Figure 3.7: Characteristics of the defects of the joints: a) bonding ligament; b) incomplete rell; c) no mixing;
d) lack of mixing
3.2.2.3 Heat input and mechanical performance
The mechanical properties of FSpW joints depend on the complex relation between several factors, such as
the bonded area, the dierent weld zones, the presence of geometrical and metallurgical defects and others.
these factor are related to the heat input during the process, as well as the level of mixing between the
materials. Su et al. investigated the eect of the heat input in the LSS of aluminium and magnesium alloys
when welded by FSSW and concluded that higher LSS are usually related to high heat inputs [42].
The heat input for friction spot welds is comprised by two additive contributions related to the tool: a)
the tool vertical displacement and b) the rotational speed. Hence,
N
X N
X
Q= F (xn − xn−1 ) + T ω∆t (3.1)
n=1 n=1
where F is the the force applied during the movement of the tool, x is the penetration depth of the tool, T is
the torque associated with the rotation of the tool,ω is the angular velocity (rad/s) and 4t is the processing
time increment. For each time increment the values of F, ω and T can change as function of n [42].
The aforementioned author [43] reported that for FSSW of AA6061-T6, the amount of thermal energy
contributed by the torque is signicantly (about 200 times) higher than the energy associated with the normal
force, which allows the elimination of the rst part of eq. 3.1. Therefore, the equation reduces to:
N
X
Q= T ω∆t (3.2)
n=1
It is assumed that when the rotational speed ω increases, the torque is reduced due to the drop in material
18
viscosity which is related to higher temperatures. This may suggest, in the simplest approach, that the term
Tω is constant, meaning that the variable that most aects the heat input is the duration of the process ∆t.
However, in cases of very high input with high rotation speeds, the decrease in the viscosity of the plasticized
material due to high temperatures may cause slipping between the tool and the material. Thus the torque
will immediately reduce as well as the heat input, which may lead to low quality welds with low mechanical
resistance [43, 44, 45].
The bonding area is also related to the mechanical strength in FSpW. Hence, the larger the bonding
area, higher strength will be needed to cause rupture of the joint. The factors associated with the size of the
bonding area are yet not well known. Furthermore, the bonding area by itself is not an indicative of a high
strength joint, since the presence of the hook defect along with its morphology also have strong inuence in
the mechanical properties [46, 47, 48].
The geometry of the hook is dependent on the material and welding conditions. The bending of the hook
can be upwards, downwards or mix between these two. The dimension and nal characteristics are controlled
by the material ux in the interface of the the sheets, which depends on the interaction between the tool and
the adjacent material [49]. Yin et al. [47] when welding AZ31 magnesium alloy investigated the inuence of
the tool geometry and rotational speed the geometry of the hook in FSSW. Figure 3.8 shows schematically
the inuence of the rotational speed in the hook using a threaded tool.
Figure 3.8: Schematic representations showing the proles of the hook for dierent rotational speed settings
Although the the larger bonding diameter was obtained for 3000 rpm, the failure load was actually
lower than the other conditions (except for 1000 rpm). This result is explained by the very pronounced
vertical displacement of the hook, which in comparison with the others is 10 times steeper, acting as a strong
stress concentrator. The same conclusions were drawn out for the other tool geometries [47]. Hence, a bigger
bonding diameter is not enough to explain the mechanical behaviour in friction spot welds due to the presence
of the hook.
3.2.2.4 Welding Parameters of FSpW
The mechanical performance and metallurgical structure/appearance of a FSpW connection is character-
ized by several parameters, although the parameters that have been more thoroughly investigated are: plunge
depth (PD), total time (TT) and rotational speed (RS). The combination of parameters enables to obtain
good quality welds as long as the amount of heat and stirring provided are correct. A correct parameter
combination depends on:
19
material
similar or dissimilar combination
thickness of the sheets to be joined
Plunge Depth
This parameter has to do with the depth with which the tool penetrates the material. In FSpW the
plugging can either be done with the sleeve or with the pin. PD is a very relevant parameter in the FSpW
process since it is associated with level of stirring promoted and the depth of the material involved in the
visco-plastic deformation. The plunging must not be to less otherwise the mixing of the overlapped sheets
will not occur properly, and it should not be too high to avoid instability in the process.
According to Camparelli et al. [30] the plunge depth proved to be the most important parameter when
evaluating the LSS of a lapped conguration AZ31 Magnesium Alloy. Zhao et al. [41] welded alclad 7B04-
T74 concluded that for higher PD without indentation caused the appearance of defects such as the annular
groove formed by material loss. The hook geometry transformed from inward extending to upward bending
with the increase of PD. Also,in terms of the microstructure, the width of the softened region increased and
the microhardness in the SZ decreased, for high PD.
Rotational Speed
The rotation of the tool results in stirring and mixing of the material around the pin or the sleeve,
depending on the plunge variant. Higher tool rotation rates generate higher friction heating and result in
more intense stirring and mixing.
Tier et al. [37] concluded that higher rotational speeds compromise the mechanical strength of the weld
due to inappropriate mixture since the material ow was vertical. Plaine et al. [50] when welding dissimilar
combination of AA6181-T4 and Ti6Al4V, concluded that RS has considerable eect over the weld quality,
probably due to the signicant amount of detrimental phases in the interface.
Total Time
This parameter is obtained combining three other parameters, which in turn can be evaluated separately.
Such parameters are: plunging time (PT) which is associated to the time the tool takes to reach the penet-
ration depth; dwell time (DT) is the time the tool remain rotating in the PD position; retraction time (RT),
related to the duration of the tool leaving the material. These parameters can be related to either plunging
variants (pin or sleeve). It is important to emphasize that PT paired with RS are responsible for the total
heat input in the joint, thus the thickness of the boundary layer of material in visco-plastic deformation that
takes place in the stirring process. For higher dynamic viscosities the boundary layer of deformed material
will be larger, thus the heat input is lower.
Tier et al. [37] when assessing the inuence of parameters on the microstructure and shear strength,
concluded that the retraction rate is not a critical parameter for the shear load. Notwithstanding, the plunge
rate had direct inuence in the maximum load at a given time.
20
Chapter 3. Literature review 3.3. Taguchi method for experimental design
3.3 Taguchi method for experimental design
In a cetain experiment, a variable of the process (factor) can be deliberately changed in order to observe
the eect that has in one or more response variables. Design of experiments (DoE) is therefore a statistical
procedure for planning experiments so that the gathered data can be analysed to yield valid and objective
conclusions. The DoE method has great applicability in diverse elds of engineering, one of which welding
processes, allowing the optimization of parameters of the welding process without increasing experimental
time, cost, and without compromising the quality and reliability of a certain process.
The Taguchi method is a DoE variant developed by Dr. Genichi Taguchi, with a special design of
orthogonal arrays that provide the optimum settings of parameters, where the parameters are evaluated
individually, i.e. the interactions between them are not considered. This implies that fewer experiments are
needed with this method when compared with a Full Factorial Design or even a Fractional Factorial Design.
Another particularity of the method is that Taguchi makes noise the focal point of the analysis, whereas
other DoE methods consider it as a nuisance (blocking) [1, 51]. [paper AZ31 parameters optimization;tese
catarina vidal; (Balisnomo, 2008)
In order to apply the method, the rst step is to determine the subject of study and subsequently the
response that needs to be optimized. In DoE, the response represents an output variable and its variations
have critical eects on the nal quality. To evaluate the response, three categories of quality:
Lower the better - ideal target value is zero. For example, when designing a heat exchanger the
objective is to minimize the heat loss throughout the outer surface.
Larger the better - this characteristic is exactly the opposite from the previous one. The main
objective is to maximize the output value. For instance, in a heat exchanger it is desirable to maximize
the heat transfer between the cold and hot uid.
Nominal the best - there is a dened target for the product that has to be achieved. There is a
specic upper and lower limit, with the target specication being the middle point. In this case quality
is dened in terms of deviation from the target value. An example to illustrate this characteristic is
the width of the gaps between body panels in a car.
Thus, these categories are chosen depending on the type of response that needs to be assessed [52, 53].
In Taguchi designs, factors that cause variability in the performance of the system are called Noise Factors
and cannot be controlled during production or product use. However, it is possible to take the factors in
consideration by simulating their impact during experimentation. The common types of noise factors are
[54]:
External - Environmental factor, such as temperature, humidity. Usage conditions that may com-
promise the function of the product.
Manufacturing variations - Part-to-part variations due to imperfections in the manufacturing pro-

cess
Product deterioration - Degradation that occurs through usage and environmental exposure
21
Chapter 3. Literature review 3.4. Fatigue
During the experimentation phase, noise factors should be manipulated in order to force variability to
occur, and from the results, identify the optimal control factor settings that make the process robust to noise
factors. Control factors are variables that are going to be controlled and altered throughout the execution of
the method. These variables are then categorized in levels. For example, when testing the pressure (factor)
within a vessel, the levels of pressure can be: High Pressure, Normal Pressure or Low Pressure if using
3 levels; High Pressure or Low Pressure when using 2 levels and so on. The number of levels denes the
number of experiments that have to be made. [tese Catarina, site Minitab]
After dening the parameters (control factors) and the number of levels, the proper orthogonal array can
be selected, recurring to an array selector (see Table 3.8). These arrays were created using an algorithm
Taguchi developed, so that each variables and settings are tested equally.
Number of parameters
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...
2 L4 L4 L8 L8 L8 L8 L12 ...
3 L9 L9 L9 L18 L18 L18 L18 ...
Number of levels
4 L'16 L'16 L'16 L'16 L'32 L'32 L'32 ...
5 L25 L25 L25 L25 L25 L50 L50 ...
Table 3.8: Taguchi orthogonal array selector
The number of experiments that have to be conducted is given by the digit that follows the letter L
(e.g. L12 = 12 experiments).
To analyse the results, each parameter is characterized according to a Signal/Noise (S/N) ratio analysis.
However this ratio can only be used in case the experiments for each parameter combination are repeated
(trialed) more than once. The purposes of repeating experiences are: inducing variability due to noise factors
(uncontrollable factors), therefore enhancing the robustness of the experiments; nd the control factors that
maximize the chances for the result to match the target value. A larger S/N ratio is normally consistent with
better quality characteristics regardless of the category [52, 53].
Several successful applications of Taguchi method have been reported in the optimization of solid state
welding parameters. Working with FSpW on AZ31 Magnesium Alloy, Campanelli et al. [30] applied the
Taguchi method to optimize parameters, such as RS, PD and DT, in order to obtain the highest value of
Lap Shear Strength (LSS). Plunge depth proved to be the parameter with a larger contribution for mean
LSS and S/N ratio. Shojaeefard et al. [55] used Taguchi method in order to optimize microstructural and
mechanical properties of FSW of AA1100. The optimum parameters were determined with reference to grain
size and ultimate tensile strength (UTS). The increase in rotational speed and shoulder diameter or decrease
in traverse speed, led to reduction in tensile strength and hardness, and increase in grain size. When welding
AA3003-H12 aluminium with FSSW process, Tutar et al. [56] used a Taguchi L9 orthogonal array for the
optimization of process parameters, for the purpose of maximizing the tensile shear load. The result depicted
that the order of importance of the welding parameters was PD, DT and RS.
3.4 Fatigue
22
Fatigue failure occurs due to the application of uctuating stresses that are much lower than the stress
required to cause the failure in a single application (tensile test). Nearly 90% of mechanical service failures are
related to fatigue and it can aect any part or component that moves. Fatigue was recognized as a problem
in the early 1800s when investigators in Europe noticed that railroads and bridge components were cracking
when subjected to repeated loading. With the progressive growth of metal since then more cases of failure
due to repeated loads were recorded. Today, structural fatigue has assumed an even greater importance not
only because of the increasing use of high-strength materials but also the desire for a higher performance
from the materials.
3.4.1 Fatigue crack nucleation and growth
Fatigue cracks almost always initiate at free surfaces but also internal surfaces if the metal contains defects
such as voids and cracked second-phase particles. Common external surface defects include geometric notches
and surface roughness.
Fatigue crack nucleation and propagation occurs in three stages [57, 58]:
Crack initiation - Usually starts at a notch or other surface discontinuity. Also, in the absence of
surface defects, crack initiation will eventually occur due to the formation of persistent slip bands
(PSBs), which are a result of systematic build-up of ne slip movements on the order of 1 nm. The
plastic strain within these slip bands can be as 100 times greater than that in the surrounding material.
The back-and-forth movement of the slip bands lead to the formation of intrusions and extrusions at
the surface, leading to the formation of a crack. The crack propagation rate in this stage is very low,
producing a featureless fracture surface. The initial crack propagates parallel to the slip bands at an
angle of approximately 45º to the principal stress direction. The stress eld will become dominant in
the tip of the crack for a certain length in such a way that the crack plane changes direction becoming
perpendicular to the principal stress.
Crack growth - The crack growth proceeds due to continuous sharpening followed by blunting. The
propagation during the crack growth often produces a pattern of of fatigue striations, were each striation
represents one fatigue cycle. Although the striations are an indicative of fatigue, the failure by fatigue
can occur without the formation of striations. The striations are microstructural details that cannot
be seen at the naked eye. They are best examined by SEM. When performing visual examination of a
fatigued surface it reveals a series of concentric markings also known as beach marks and are a result of
the stress changes during fatigue. Each of the beach marks contain thousands or even tens of thousands
of fatigue cycles.
Ultimate failure - Occurs when the crack becomes long enough that the remaining cross section is
not able to support the applied load.
23
Figure 3.9: Typical propagation of a fatigue crack
3.4.2 Stress cycles
There are three basic factors that are necessary to cause fatigue:
Maximum tensile strength of suciently high value
Large enough uctuation of the applied load
Suciently large number of cycles of the load applied
There are many types of uctuating stresses. However, the most common types are shown in gure 3.9.
A fully reversed stress cycle is depicted in gure 3.9a), where the maximum and minimum stresses are equal,
meaning that there is no mean stress applied. Another common stress cycle is the repeated cycle, in which
the mean stress is dierent from zero. Figure 3.9 b) shows the condition where the cyclic and applied stresses
are tensile and greater than zero. This condition is also applicable in compression. The last type of cyclic
loading is the random stress cycle, in which the component is subjected to random loads during service, as
shown in gure 3.9 c).
To characterize a uctuating stress, only two components are needed: mean stress σm and alternating
stress σa . The stress range ∆σ is given by the dierence between the maximum and the minimum stresses
applied.
∆σ = σmax − σmin (3.3)
The alternating stress is one-half of the stress range:
∆σ σmax − σmin
σa = = (3.4)
2 2
The mean stress is given by the algebraic average between the maximum and minimum stresses:
σmax + σmin
σm = (3.5)
2
Usually when presenting fatigue data, two ratios are used,
σmin
Stress ratio R= (3.6)
σmax
24
σa 1−R
Amplitude ratio A= = (3.7)
σm 1+R
The relation between time and the number of cycles can be obtained by,
N
f= (3.8)
t
where f is the frequency of the applied load in cycles/second, N is the number of cycles and t is the elapsed
time corresponding to the N cycles [57, 58].
Figure 3.10: Typical loading cycles: a) fully reversed cycle; b) tension-tension with applied load; c) random
loading
3.4.3 Fatigue in aluminium alloys
The rst studies concerning fatigue were developed in 1840 by the German engineer August Wöhler.
Currently, the fatigue phenomena has great importance since it is the main cause for mechanical failure.
Hence, fatigue investigations constitute the most important subject when analysing the mechanical behaviour
of materials [59].
Although aluminium is not considered a very ductile material, in general the fracture occurs in the form
of dimples due to second phase particles which have fundamental importance in fatigue crack initiation.
Previous studies revealed that fatigue properties of AA7050 decrease for larger thicknesses. For thick
25
sheets the poor behaviour is due to the micro porosity localized near the surface, leads to premature crack
initiation. The Hoogovens Aluminium Rolled products developed a process that increases the fatigue res-
istance of AA7050 sheets. The increase in the fatigue properties of AA7075 was also possible reducing the
overall content of Fe and Si, and the conditions of the aging process. The modications have led to the
development of AA7475 which has a fracture toughness higher than AA7075 [60].
Unlike steel, the increase in tensile strength for non-ferrous alloys has not been proportional to the increase
in fatigue. In general, if the precipitation hardening temper and mechanical properties depend on each other,
lower fatigue resistance is obtained for aluminium alloys. The behaviour for precipitation hardening alloys
can be enhanced if the deformation caused by cyclic stress was kept as uniform as possible, therefore avoiding
the formation of slip bands.
Regarding AA7050, Wang et. al. [61] studied that retrogression and reaging (RRA) treated samples
exhibit signicantly higher tensile properties than that of T7451 overaged samples. Also, inside the grains
the microstructure of RRA treated samples is similar to that of T6 peaked sample and the grain growth
continues during the retrogression stage ending up with a microstructure smaller that the T7451 overaged
sample. The shearable precipitates present in the matrix and less coarsen precipitates at the grain boundary
together with the narrowing of the soft precipitation free zones (PFZ's) adjacent to the grain boundary are
responsible for the enhanced fatigue crack growth resistance of RRA treated alloys.
26
Chapter 4
Experimental Procedure
4.1 Work plan
Figure 4.1: Flowchart of the dierent work stages
27
Chapter 4. Experimental Procedure 4.2. Material and equipment
4.2 Material and equipment
In this work, aluminium alloy AA7050-T76 was selected, having as its main alloying elements Copper
(Cu) and Zinc (Zn). The reason for choosing this alloy has to do with the fact that it has bad weldability
by fusion welding processes and it is a premier choice in the aerospace industry. The nominal chemical
o
composition and mechanical properties evaluated at room temperature (ref. 25 C), provided by the supplier,
are presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. The material was delivered in sheet form, with 2000 mm in
length, 1000 mm of width and 2 mm of thickness. For the prescribed thickness, the material was cut into
individual test coupons with 138 mm in length, 60 mm of width, to match the geometrical specications of
the ISO 14273:2000 standard [62], in order to obtain the lap shear test specimens with 46 mm of overlap. For
the cross tension test, the test specimens were also prepared according to the standard ISO 14272:2000 [63]
and a special clamping system that can be adapted to the previously mentioned tensile machine was used.
Fatigue testing was conducted following the premisses of ISO 14324:2003 standard [64].
Figure 4.2 and 4.3 depict schematically the lap shear and cross tension test specimen according to the
standard, respectively. It is important to emphasize that the geometrical layout for the fatigue specimen is
identical to the LSS specimen, but now with 45 mm of overlap instead of 46 mm. Nonetheless, Φ12.5 mm
holes were drilled in the extremities of the sheets, to ensure compatibility with the clamping system of the
fatigue machine.
Although the mentioned standards are entitled for RSW, they are also used for FSpW.
Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Ni Zn Ti Zr Al
0.03 0.06 2.1 0.0079 2.2 0.0048 0.0027 6.2 0.02 0.11 Bal.
Table 4.1: Nominal chemical composition for AA7050-T76 (wt%)
Elasticity Modulus, GPa 70.3

Yield Strength, MPa 520
Tensile Strength, MPa 559
Elongation, % 10
Poisson Coecient 0.33
Table 4.2: Mechanical properties for AA7050-T76
Figure 4.2: Dimensions of the LSS test specimen
28
Chapter 4. Experimental Procedure 4.2. Material and equipment
Figure 4.3: Dimensions of cross tension test specimen
The spot joints were produced in Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht in Germany, formally known as GKSS
Forschungszentrum, in a Harms&Wende RPS 200 spot weld machine Fig. 4.4, using the sleeve plunge variant.
Technical data about the welding machine is presented in Table 4.3. The tool used has three components
(Fig. 2.4): the clamping ring with 17 mm of outer diameter; sleeve with 9 mm of outer diameter; pin with
6 mm of diameter. Notice that the sleeve and pin have a threaded surface to promote better material ow
during the weld. The technical drawings of the tool components can be found in the Annex .
Figure 4.4: Harms&Wende RPS 200
29
Chapter 4. Experimental Procedure 4.3. Weldability study
Stroke of the welding tool (mm) 10 Measurement and control
Welding force (kN) 35 -torque at pin
Bi-rotational speed of the tool elements (rpm) 3300 -Torque at sleeve
Work area 100mm x 500mm -clamping force
Mass (t) 4.7 -intrusion force pin
Stroke of the weld head (mm) 300 -intrusion force sleeve
Clamping force (kN) 40 -travel pin
Torque (Nm) 60 -travel sleeve
Table 4.3: Harms&Wende RPS 200 technical data
4.3 Weldability study
The working parameters were determined based on results obtained in previous studies of the literature.
Thus, the parameters considered in this study are: Plunge Depth (PD), Plunging Time (PT) and Rotational
Speed (RS). Other variables of the process remained constant such as, a clamping force of 8 kN and dwell
time of 0 s to minimize the total time of the weld. For the retraction time of the sleeve, although it was not
considered as a working parameter, it varied with the value of PT, since it was assumed they have the same
absolute value, i.e. Retraction time equal to the Plunging time. After dening the working parameters, the
range of the working parameters was investigated by trial and error, until a good surface quality is obtained.
Each parameter was then set up with three levels, as shown in Table 4.4.
After determining the range of operation, the statistical methodologies such as, Design of Experiments
(DoE) and One Factor at a Time (OFAT) were used for parameter optimization. All calculations were
performed in MS Excel and conrmed in the statistical software MINITAB.
Symbol Welding parameter Unit Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

PD Plunge Depth mm 2.4 2.6 2.8
PT Plunging Time s 1.8 2 2.2
RS Rotational Speed rpm 2600 2800 3000
Table 4.4: Welding parameters and levels
4.4 Mechanical characterization
The characterization of mechanical behaviour was carried out by shear testing the spot joined specimens,
regarding the experimental procedure of the ISO 14273:2000 standard. The speciemens, previously shown
in gure 2.3, were tested in a Zwick-Roell 1478 universal tensile machine, with a nominal load capacity of
100 kN, associated to the TestXpert data acquisition platform. The experiments were conducted at room
temperature, with a free length between clamps of 105 mm and a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. Each
welding condition was trialled three times to improve reproducibility. The CTS was also evaluated using the
same machine, although with a dierent clamping system regarding the geometry of the test specimens. The
testing procedure was carried out in conformity to the ISO 14272:2000 standard.
The Vickers hardness proles were drawn in the cross section of the lap joints to evaluate the variations
in hardness in the dierent welding regions. According to the standard ASTM E384-11 [65], the indentations
were performed at half the thickness of the top and bottom plate with spacing of 0.3 mm between them. The
30
Chapter 4. Experimental Procedure 4.5. Metallurgical Characterization
load applied was 300 gf (HV 0.3) during 10 s. In order to cover all the microstructural regions, microhardness
proles were plotted along an extension of 30 mm or 15 mm for each side of the weld, totalling 101 indent-
ations. The measurements were made using a Zwick&Roell ZHV linked to the TestXpert data acquisition
software. Vickers hardness mapping was also carried out with an ultrasonic indenter BAQ UT100 and the
2
indentations were performed in a total area of 3.5 x 42.15 mm centred on the spot weld, using a spacing of
0.15 mm between each indentation, with an applied load of 300 gf (HV 0.3) during 10 s.
Fatigue tests were performed in a Schenk servohydraulisch machine, with a nominal load capacity of ±10
kN in a useful length of ±20 mm. The tests were conducted at room temperature, with a stress ratio of R =
0.1 and a frequency of 10 Hz. The stress loads were determined using a certain percentage of the maximum
load obtained in the LSS tests evaluated in the cross section area of the weld. For life data analysis of the
fatigue results, the two-parameter Weibull distribution was applied.
4.5 Metallurgical Characterization
The metallurgical characterization was carried out rstly by cutting the welded samples as carefully as
possible to avoid microstructural modications and to assure that the cut is made exactly in the centre
of the weld. The cutting machine used was a Struers Sectotrom-50. The selected samples were then cold
embedded, grinded using a wet sandpaper with grain size of 320 µm in a Jean Wirtz TF-250 machine, and
polished with DiaPro 3 µm solution and colloidal silica abrasive solution OPS using a Struers Tegramin-30
and Struers Tegrapol-31 machine. All samples were cleaned with ethanol and electrolytically etched using
Barker's etchant in a Struers Lectropol-5 machine.
To evaluate the bond between the sheets, the presence metallurgical defects, geometrical proles e char-
acteristics of the dierent weld zones an optical microscope (OM) Leica DM IRM paired with the Leica
Application Suite 3.5 software. Polarized light was also used for the analysis. The grain size was also meas-
ured recurring to the Hilliard single circle procedure, according to the standard ASTM E112 [66]. This
method accounts for the grain boundary intersections with the circular path. This circle should never be
smaller than the largest observed grain and Hilliard recommends at least 35 intersections per circle.
Finally, the fracture surfaces from the LSS tests and fatigue tests were analysed in the scanning electron
microscope (SEM) FEI Quanta 400 FEG by backscattered electron emission.
31
Chapter 4. Experimental Procedure 4.5. Metallurgical Characterization
32
Chapter 5
Results and discussions

5.1 Parameters optimization
To optimize the FSpW process, formal planned experiments were conducted with the experimental design
method of Taguchi. To evaluate the reproducibility of the triplicate experiments the standard deviations for
all the welded conditions were computed, since engineering wise, having relatively repeatable welds is of great
importance to satisfy the safety demands of a certain project.
The main eects of each parameter were drawn out to predict Taguchi's optimal parameter combination
and foresee if there is a tendency of better quality characteristics outside the studied parameter range.
ANOVA was used to analyse the dierences among parameter means and their associated procedures.
Within this analysis, the F-test is used for comparing the factors of the total deviation and P% to account
for the contribution of each parameter in the process.
Subsequently, the response for the optimal combination was predicted recurring to a regression model
and experimental testing was done to conclude about the adequacy between the predicted and experimental
values.
Finally, the individual eect of the parameters was studied using the OFAT method to conrm weather
the optimized parameter obtained from the Taguchi method has actually the best quality characteristics. The
standard deviations were also considered in this method to ensure a relatively reliable comparison between
the results of OFAT and the best parameter.
5.1.1 DoE: Taguchi L9 orthogonal array
The design of experiments by Taguchi method is used in this study to improve the quality characteristics
through the optimization of the process parameters, reducing experiment time and material cost. The
orthogonal arrangement of the experiments provides optimum settings of the parameters, which are insensitive
to variation in the environmental conditions and other noise eects.
To select the appropriate orthogonal array of experiments, the total degrees of freedom (DOF) need to
be computed (eq. 5.1). DOF are dened as the number of comparisons between process parameters that
need to be made to determine which level which level is better and specically how much better it is. The
33
Chapter 5. Results and discussions 5.1. Parameters optimization
DOF associated to the interaction of two parameters can be computed by the product of the DOF of the
intervenient parameters. Although, in this study the interaction between parameters is neglected.
DOFtotal = number of parameters × DOFparameter (5.1)
DOFparameter = number of levels − 1 (5.2)
After dening the total DOF, the selection of the adequate orthogonal array has to follow the relation
stated in eq. 3.3.
DOFDoE ≥ DOFtotal (5.3)
Thus, an L9 array was used since it respects the relation stated above and it can handle three-level process
parameters (see table 3.8). The DoE layout for this array is shown in table 5.1.
Experiment PD PT RS
1 2.4 1.8 2600
2 2.4 2 2800
3 2.4 2.2 3000
4 2.6 1.8 2800
5 2.6 2 3000
6 2.6 2.2 2600
7 2.8 1.8 3000
8 2.8 2 2600
9 2.8 2.2 2800
Table 5.1: Welding parameters and levels
5.1.2 LSS and S/N ratio maximization
The DoE experiments along with the LSS results and S/N ratio are shown in table 5.2. The values of
S/N ratio for the condition larger-the-better were obtained by equation 5.4. According to the standard for
resistance spot welding for aerospace applications, AWS D17.2/D17.2M [67], the required mean LSS must be
at least 5715 N, for Al-alloys with 2 mm of thickness [19]. Hence, all the welds exceed that requirement, apart
from the welds obtained with Condition 4 and 7. Condition 6 proved to be the experiment with the highest
lap shear strength, over 11 kN. These outstanding results are due to the fact that this particular alloy has
very high yield strength when compared to other Al-alloys. Figure 5.1 represents the mean values for each
condition and the standard deviations within each one, varying from 1% (condition 7) to 12% (condition 9).
n
 
1 X 1
S/NL = −10log   (5.4)
n y2
i=1
34
S/NL → signal to noise ratio at level L

i → trial number
n → number of trials
y → response value of trial number i
PD PT RS LSS (N) Standard Mean LSS S/N ratio

Condition
(mm) (s) (rpm) 1 2 3 deviation (N) (dB)
1 2.4 1.8 2600 9332.22 9414.99 9754.77 2% 9500.66 79.55
2 2.4 2 2800 8809.91 9051.76 8191.88 5% 8684.52 78.75
3 2.4 2.2 3000 9486.07 9009.29 8484.11 6% 8993.16 79.05
4 2.6 1.8 2800 5599.15 5003.57 5035.48 6% 5212.73 74.31
5 2.6 2 3000 10170.87 10587.83 10258.27 2% 10338.99 80.29
6 2.6 2.2 2600 11477.63 11531.20 10798.04 4% 11268.96 81.03
7 2.8 1.8 3000 4482.61 4367.89 4382.08 1% 4410.86 72.89
8 2.8 2 2600 6742.33 5905.59 7417.94 11% 6688.62 76.39
9 2.8 2.2 2800 7256.30 6812.46 5677.52 12% 6582.09 76.22
Table 5.2: L9 Orthogonal array with the LSS responses, mean and S/N ratio
Figure 5.1: Plot for mean and standard deviations of LSS
5.1.2.1 Main eects of the mean LSS and S/N ratio
The eect of design parameters, such as PD, PT and RS, on the LSS and S/N ratio can be found in table
5.3. Due to the orthogonality of the design, it is possible to separate the eect of each factor at each level.
The mean response states the average value of performance characteristic for each parameter at dierent
levels. For example, the mean S/N ratio for PD at level 1, 2 and 3 can be calculated by averaging the S/N
ratios for experiments 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9, respectively. Assessing which parameter has the greatest eect on the
response can be done by computing its dierence (∆). It can be obtained by subtracting the highest value
by the minimum within a particular parameter. Hence, the greatest variation for both LSS and S/N ratio
was observed for PD. On the other hand, RS shows the lowest eect of all parameters.
35
Mean LSS (N) S/N ratio (dB)
Level PD PT RS PD PT RS
1 9059.44 6374.75 9152.75 79.12 75.58 78.99
2 8940.23 8570.71 6826.45 78.54 78.48 76.43
3 5893.86 8948.07 7914.34 75.17 78.77 77.41
∆ 3165.59 2573.32 2326.30 3.95 3.19 2.56
Rank 1 2 3 1 2 3
Table 5.3: Main eects of the mean LSS and S/N ratio
For better understanding the plots of the eects for each parameter are shown. From Figure 5.2 to 5.4,
it can be observed that the LSS is highest for 2.4 mm, 2.2 s and 2600 rpm of PD, PT and RS, respectively.
It can also be concluded that the S/N ratio is maximum for the same set of parameters. Hence, the Taguchi
method suggests that these are the optimized set of parameters. Also, in the investigated range, PD plot
suggests a reduction in the parameter to obtain a better weld quality; PT plot indicates that an increase in
quality is possible for values above 2.2 s; RS plot show a tendency for an increase in the weld characteristics
below 2600 rpm and above 3000 rpm.
Figure 5.2: Eect of PD in LSS and S/N ratio
Figure 5.3: Eect of PT in LSS and S/N ratio
36
Figure 5.4: Eect of RS in LSS and S/N ratio
5.1.2.2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
An ANOVA analysis was performed to investigate the importance of each FSpW process parameters and
their inuence on the mechanical performance. Tables 5.4 and 5.5 show the results for the mean LSS and
S/N ratio, respectively. The F-test compares the variances of the model and the residual (or error) through
the relation between the respective mean squares (MS). If the F value is close to unity, this implies that
these two variances are similar, which suggests that the eect of one particular parameter over the response
is not signicant. The percentage of contribution (P%) is a function of the sum of squares (SS), which is
a statistical technique used in regression analysis, to determine how well a data series can be tted to a
function which might help to explain how the data series was generated. In this case, the SS represents the
relative inuence of each parameter in the reduction of the total variance.
In ANOVA, the total sum of squares is given by,
N
X
SST = (Yi − Ȳ ) (5.5)
i=1
N
1 X
Ȳ = Yi (5.6)
N i=1
where N is the number of experiments of the orthogonal design, which for this case is N = 9. Yi represents
the result for the ith experiment.
SST can be decomposed in two other sums: the sum of squares for each process parameter (SSP )and the
sum of squares error (SSE ). SSP can be expressed by,
SSP = SSP D + SSP T + SSRS (5.7)
where SSP D , SSP T and SSRS are the sum of squares for the plunge depth, plunging time and rotational
speed, respectively. The sum of squares for each one can be calculated by,
X
SSA = n (Yj − Ȳ ) (5.8)
where SSA is the sum of squares for a particular process parameter, n the number of repetitions in each
level, ¯
Yj is the mean of the experiments involving parameter A at level j.
The sum of squares error is given by,
37
SSE = SST − (SSP D + SSP T + SSRS ) (5.9)
As for the degrees of freedom,
dfT = N − 1 (5.10)
dfA = n − 1 (5.11)
where dfT is the total degrees of freedom and dfA is the degrees of freedom of each parameter. Knowing
the degrees of freedom it is possible to compute the mean sum of squares for each parameter and the error.
Hence,
SSA
M SA = (5.12)
dfA
The F-value for each parameter can be calculated by dividing the sum of squares for that particular one
by SSE .
SSA
FA = (5.13)
SSE
The percentages of contribution P% can be calculated as,
SSA
P %A = (5.14)
SST
All the calculation mentioned were also applied for the S/N ratio ANOVA.
Based on the results, PD is the parameter that aects more signicantly the LSS and S/N ratio, which is
in agreement with the rank results obtained in the main eects.
DOF SS MS F-test P%
PD 2 19.3155 9.6578 3.7127 43.6671
PT 2 11.5866 5.7933 2.2271 26.1941
RS 2 8.1288 4.0644 1.5625 18.3771
Error 2 5.2026 2.6013 - 11.7617
Total 8 44.2335 - - 100
Table 5.4: Results of analysis of variance for LSS
DOF SS MS F-test P%
PD 2 27.2936 13.6468 4.1055 43.6178
PT 2 18.6077 9.3039 2.7990 29.7369
RS 2 10.0252 5.0126 1.5080 16.0211
Error 2 6.6480 3.3240 - 10.6242
Total 8 62.5745 - - 100
Table 5.5: Results of analysis of varinace for S/N ratio
38
Figure 5.5: Contribution of each parameter in LSS (left) and S/N ratio (right)
5.1.2.3 Prediction for optimum performance
After determining the optimum condition, it is possible to predict the optimum response Yopt . For the
larger the better quality characteristic, the study of the main eects show that the optimum condition for
both LSS and S/N ratio is PD1 PT3 RS1 (PD1 = 2.4 mm, PT3 = 2.2 s, RS1 = 2600 rpm). According to [68],
Yopt can be estimated using eq. 5.15. Hence,

T ¯ T ¯ T ¯ T
Yopt = + P D1 − + PT3 − + RS 1 − (5.15)
N N N N
where T represents the total of all results, and P¯D1 ,P¯T 3 and RS
¯ 1 are the mean values of the responses of
PD, PT and RS evaluated at level one, three and one, respectively. The results for the optimum performance
are shown in table 5.6.
LSS (N) S/N ratio

(dB)
Yopt 11231.34 81.66
Table 5.6: Results for the optimum performance
5.1.2.4 Conrmation tests
Once the optimal level of the process parameters is selected, the nal step is to verify the improvement
of the performance characteristics. Thus, three conrmation experiments using the optimal condition were
carried out. The results are shown in Table 5.7.
PD PT RS LSS (N) Mean LSS S/N ratio

(mm) (s) (rpm) 1 2 3 (N) (dB)
2.4 2.2 2600 6761.39 8402.62 6730.56 7298.19 77.13
Table 5.7: Results of the conrmation test for the optimal process parameters
Comparing the experimental values with the predicted ones, it is visible that they do not match, meaning
that the optimal parameter does not correspond to the best. Note that the dierence between the optimal
39
process parameter and condition 6 (Table 4) relies only on the value of the PD, which is 2.6 mm (level 2)
instead of 2.4 mm (level 1). However, the quality characteristics for condition 6 are much better than the
ones from the optimal and if the experimental results of mean LSS and S/N ratio of condition 6 with the
predicted one are compared, very good agreement is obtained, as shown in Table 5.8.
Prediction for LSS Prediction for S/N ratio Experiment

Level PD2 PT3 RS1 PD2 PT3 RS1 PD2 PT3 RS1
LSS value (N) 11112.02 - 11268.96
S/N ratio value (dB) - 81.08 81.03
Table 5.8: Comparison between the predicted results and condition 6
The plot for the predicted versus actual values, shown in Fig. 5.6, indicates a satisfactory agreement
between the performance prediction, which can be computed using Eq. 5.15, and the actual values of LSS
2
and S/N ratio. The regression coecient R also suggests an acceptable t between the experimental results
of the design and the predicted ones. Moreover, in order to verify the adequacy of the developed model, six
conrmation experiments were carried out with process parameters chosen within the range, that are not
contemplated in the L9 array of experiments given by Table 5.1, where one of them is the optimal parameter.
The obtained results are shown in Table 5.9 and 5.10 for LSS and S/N ratio, respectively.
Figure 5.6: Plots for the predicted vs experimental values of LSS (left) and S/N ratio (right)
Verication Experimental LSS Predicted LSS Error

(N) (N) (%)
PD1 PT3 RS1 (optimal ) 7298.19 11231.34 35.02
PD2 PT3 RS3 8290.69 9873.61 16.03
PD3 PT3 RS1 9514.91 8065.65 17.35
PD2 PT3 RS2 8938.14 8785.72 1.73
PD2 PT1 RS1 4534.74 8538.70 46.89
PD2 PT2 RS1 8187.26 10734.70 23.73
Table 5.9: Experimental test of model verication for LSS
40
Verication Experimental S/N Predicted S/N Error
(dB) (dB) (%)
PD1 PT3 RS1 (optimal ) 77.13 81.66 5.55
PD2 PT3 RS3 78.36 79.50 1.43
PD3 PT3 RS1 79.56 77.71 2.38
PD2 PT3 RS2 78.96 78.51 0.57
PD2 PT1 RS1 73.13 77.89 6.12
PD2 PT2 RS1 78.14 80.79 3.27
Table 5.10: Experimental test results of model verication for S/N ratio
Figure 5.7: Experimental vs Predicted values for LSS, with validation results
Apparently, there is a mismatch between the predicted optimum performance (Table 5.6) and the ex-
perimental (Table 5.7). The reason has to do with the fact that the Taguchi method merely considers the
individual eect of the parameters in the response, disregarding the interactions between them. The poor
agreement between these values suggest that additivity is not present and there will be poor reproducibility
of small scale experiments to large scale, thus the experimenter should not implement the predicted optimum
condition on a large scale.
The experiments carried out with a set of parameters which are not included in the L9 array (Table
5.9 and 5.10), show a high deviation between the prediction and the experimental values (average of 38%).
Nevertheless, none of the conditions tested surpass the maximum response obtained in the Taguchi array in
the working range.
Finally, it can be concluded that the statistical model is reliable for the selected range and only within
the experiments of the Taguchi array. Regarding the ANOVA analysis, the F-test value for PT and RS are
higher than unity, suggesting that they might have signicance in the response. This has great importance
since secondary and tertiary interactions between parameters can play an important eect on the response,
which, as stated previously, are not considered in this study. Other DoE methods, such as full factorial or
response surface methodology (RSM), are best suited to understand the impact of the interactions.
5.1.2.5 One factor at a time (OFAT)
The OFAT method was used to evaluate the sensitivity of the process to the individual change in the
process parameters. The one at a time change was made considering the best parameter found in the previous
41
section as reference. In this analysis, some conditions outside the previously dened range were tested for
either PT and RS (PT = 1.8 s; RS = 2400 rpm), due to the fact that the main eects of the parameters
suggest better quality characteristics for lower values of PD and RS, and for higher values of PT. Table 5.11
shows the experiment matrix as well as the LSS values for the method. Figure 5.8 illustrates the eect of
the parameters in the response. Note that the main eects of PD (Fig. 5.2) suggest that better quality
characteristic can be obtained for values bellow 2.4 mm. However, condition 10 from table 5.11 corresponds
to the optimal parameter given by Taguchi from which it was established that it does not correspond to the
best parameter, so it makes no sense to evaluate PD = 2.2 mm.
The results attained by this method prove once more that none of the conditions tested surpass the
maximum response obtained in the Taguchi array. Therefore, the LSS was successfully maximized.
PD PT RS LSS (N) Standard Mean LSS S/N ratio

Condition
10 2.4 2.2 2600 6761.39 8402.62 6730.56 13% 7298.19 77.13
11 2.8 2.2 2600 9170.80 9625.96 9747.96 3% 9514.91 79.56
12 2.6 1.8 2600 4544.11 4426.55 4633.55 2% 4534.74 73.13
13 2.6 2 2600 9012.79 7175.43 8373.57 11% 8187.26 78.14
14 2.6 2.4 2600 9464.81 9974.84 9186.16 4% 9541.94 79.58
15 2.6 2.2 2400 8608.82 9265.16 9250.79 4% 9041.59 79.11
16 2.6 2.2 2800 8830.20 9753.92 8230.29 9% 8938.14 78.96
17 2.6 2.2 3000 8130.74 8111.62 8629.72 4% 8290.69 78.36
Table 5.11: OFAT experiment matrix with the LSS responses, mean and S/N ratio
Figure 5.8: Responses for the individual eect of the parameters in LSS
42
5.1.3 CTS and S/N ratio maximization
The Taguchi method was once more applied to evaluate the cross tension behaviour of the welds and
the previous DoE layout was used (see table 5.1). Thus, the same parameters and working range used in
LSS maximization were analysed here due to the exceptional suface quality of the welds obtained previously.
The individual eect of each parameter in the response was investigated with the OFAT method. The DoE
experiments along with the CTS results and S/N ratio are shown in table 5.12 and the criteria used for this
last one is once more the larger the better. The highest CTS value was obtained for condition 1 and the
standard deviations vary from 4% (condition 1) to 16% (condition 7). In average the variability in CTS is
higher when compared to LSS due to the error introduced by the clamping system used in tensile machine
apart from the imminent error introduced by the user.
PD PT RS CTS (N) Standard Mean LSS S/N ratio

Condition
1 2.4 1.8 2600 4573.12 4420.96 4184.95 4% 4393.01 72.84
2 2.4 2 2800 4581.23 3879.51 4357.76 8% 4272.83 72.55
3 2.4 2.2 3000 1747.01 1968.06 1705.12 8% 1806.73 65.09
4 2.6 1.8 2800 2429.47 3044.84 2974.05 12% 2816.12 68.86
5 2.6 2 3000 2900.96 2630.70 3109.28 8% 2880.31 69.13
6 2.6 2.2 2600 3330.45 2943.85 3308.48 7% 3194.26 70.05
7 2.8 1.8 3000 1828.15 2462.02 2002.48 16% 2097.55 66.24
8 2.8 2 2600 3168.01 2931.04 3271.94 6% 3123.66 69.87
9 2.8 2.2 2800 3312.66 3012.02 2717.18 10% 3013.95 69.50
Table 5.12: L9 Orthogonal array with the CTS responses, mean and S/N ratio
5.1.3.1 Main eects of the mean CTS
The methodology used to account for the main eects is analogous to the on presented in section 5.1.2.1.
Figure 5.9 to 5.11, suggest that the highest CTS is obtained for 2.4 mm, 2 s and 2600 rpm of PD, PT and
RS, respectively. It can also be concluded that the S/N ratio is maximum for the same set of parameters.
Hence, the Taguchi method suggests that these are the optimized set of parameters. Also, in the investigated
range, PD and RS plot suggest a reduction in the parameter to obtain a better weld quality. On the other
hand, the PT plot states that the highest value of CTS is achieved for the medium level.
Mean CTS (N) S/N ratio (dB)

Level PD PT RS PD PT RS
1 3490.86 3102.23 3570.31 70.16 69.31 70.92
2 2963.56 3425.60 3367.64 69.34 70.51 70.30
3 2745.06 2671.65 2261.53 68.53 68.21 66.82
∆ 745.80 753.96 1308.78 1.63 2.30 4.10
Rank 3 2 1 3 2 1
Table 5.13: Main eects of the mean CTS and S/N ratio
43
Figure 5.9: Eect of PD in CTS and S/N ratio
Figure 5.10: Eect of PT in LSS and S/N ratio
Figure 5.11: Eect of RS in LSS and S/N ratio
5.1.3.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
An ANOVA analysis was performed to investigate the importance of each FSpW process parameters and
their inuence on the mechanical performance. Tables 5.14 and 5.15 show the results for the mean LSS and
S/N ratio, respectively. For better understanding, gures 5.16 and 5.17 depicts the contribution percentages
of each parameter in the assessed quality characteristics, where it can be drawn out that RS is the parameter
44
with most inuence. Although the contribution of RS is around 50%, the contribution of the other parameters
and error put together can inuence the process due to the interactions between them, as mentioned in the
previous section.
DOF SS MS F-test P%
PD 2 0.8820 0.4410 0.7071 14.7857
PT 2 0.8584 0.4292 0.6882 14.3901
RS 2 2.9775 1.4887 2.3870 49.9132
Error 2 1.2474 0.6237 - 20.9110
Total 8 5.9652 - - 100
Table 5.14: Results of analysis of variance for CTS
DOF SS MS F-test P%
PD 2 3.9629 1.9815 0.3932 7.7200
PT 2 7.9707 3.9854 0.7908 15.5276
RS 2 29.3196 14.6598 2.9088 57.1167
Error 2 10.0796 5.0398 - 19.6357
Total 8 51.3329 - - 100
Table 5.15: Results of analysis of variance for S/N ratio
Figure 5.12: Contribution of each parameter in CTS (left) and S/N ratio (right)
5.1.3.3 Prediction for the optimum performance
After determining the optimum condition, a prediction for the optimum response Yopt was obtained using
equation 5.15. For the larger the better quality characteristic, the study of the main eects show that the
optimum condition for both CTS and S/N ratio is PD1 PT2 RS1 .
CTS (N) S/N ratio

(dB)
Yopt 4353.79 72.90
Table 5.16: Results for the optimum performance
5.1.3.4 Conrmation tests
45
Conrmation experiments using the optimal condition were carried out, as shown in table 5.17, to conclude
whether there is an improvement in CTS. When comparing the experimental values with the predicted ones,
the optimal parameter does not correspond to the best, since condition 1 and 2 have a higher average CTS.
Note that the prediction for the optimal condition is lower that the experimental result obtained in condition
1, still there is good agreement between the prediction and experimental values which are 4353.76 N and
4200.55 N, respectively. The dierence between the optimal process parameter and condition 1 relies only on
the value of the PT, which is 1.8 mm (level 1) instead of 2 mm (level 2). However, the quality characteristics
obtained for condition 1 were the highest and table 5.18 shows that the agreement between the predicted
and experimental is acceptable.
PD PT RS CTS (N) Mean CTS S/N ratio

(mm) (s) (rpm) 1 2 3 (N) (dB)
2.4 2 2600 3785.68 4469.82 4346.15 4200.55 72.40
Table 5.17: Results of the conrmation test for the optimal process parameters
Prediction for LSS Prediction for S/N ratio Experiment

Level PD1 PT1 RS1 PD1 PT1 RS1 PD1 PT1 RS1
LSS value (N) 4030.41 - 4393.01
S/N ratio value (dB) - 71.70 72.84
Table 5.18: Comparison between the predicted results and condition 1
If all Taguchi responses are plotted in a predicted versus experimental graph, as shown in Fig. 5.13,
acceptable agreement between the two is obtained regarding CTS and S/N ratio. However, the regression
2
coecient R suggests that the model is able to t approximately 81% of the obtained data. In order to
verify the behaviour of the developed model when testing conditions that are not provided in the L9 array
of experiments, six conrmation experiments were considered, and the obtained results are shown in Table
5.19 and 5.20 for LSS and S/N ratio, respectively.
Figure 5.13: Plots for the predicted vs experimental values of CTS (left) and S/N ratio (right)
46
Verication Experimental CTS Predicted CTS Error
(N) (N) (%)
PD1 PT2 RS1 (optimal ) 4200.55 4353.79 3.5
PD2 PT1 RS1 2039.47 3503.12 41.8
PD3 PT1 RS1 2206.38 3284.61 32.8
PD1 PT1 RS2 4653.23 3827.73 21.6
PD1 PT1 RS3 3835.21 2721.63 40.9
PD1 PT3 RS1 1288.13 3599.83 64.2
Table 5.19: Experimental test of model verication for CTS
Verication Experimental S/N Predicted S/N Error

(dB) (dB) (%)
PD1 PT2 RS1 (optimal ) 72.40 72.90 0.69
PD2 PT1 RS1 66.10 70.88 6.7
PD3 PT1 RS1 66.84 70.07 4.6
PD1 PT1 RS2 73.35 71.08 3.2
PD1 PT1 RS3 71.45 67.60 5.7
PD1 PT3 RS1 61.96 70.59 12.2
Table 5.20: Experimental test of model verication for S/N
Figure 5.14: Experimental vs Predicted values for CTS, with validation results
According to the results, there is an acceptable match between the predicted optimum performance (Table
5.16) and the experimental (Table 5.17), although the optimum condition is slightly lower than condition
1. Good agreement between these values, although the experimenter should keep in mind that the optimal
does not correspond to the best achievable. It is important to emphasize that the maximum response was
obtained for the minimum level arrangement and traduces that higher strength might be found for values in
the parameters lower than the minimum level. Hence, the sensitivity analysis carried out in the following
section is suitable to conclude if better results are obtained.
The experiments carried out with a set of parameters which are not included in the L9 array show very high
sparsity between the prediction and the experimental values, as shown in gure 5.14, with a maximum error
between them of 64.2%, meaning that the model can only interpolate the values of the Taguchi experiments
and should not be used for other aleatory conditions within the range. Also, condition PD1 PT1 RS2 surpasses
the maximum response obtained by the Taguchi method but further information can be drawn out from the
sensibility analysis
47
Finally, it can be concluded that the reliability of statistical model is satisfactory for the selected range,
unlike the experiments outside the array provided by Taguchi method. Regarding the ANOVA analysis, the
F-test value for PT and PD are lower than unity, suggesting that their contribution for the response is not
signicant. However, secondary and tertiary interactions can be important if the sum of these two factor
with the error are taken into consideration. These interactions are on the basis of why the optimal parameter
suggested by Taguchi does not traduce in the best quality characteristics, therefore additivity is once more
not present and high reproducibility of small scale experiments to large scale is not obtainable, thus the
experimenter should not implement the predicted optimum condition on a large scale.
5.1.3.5 One factor at a time (OFAT)
Sensitivity analysis was carried out using OFAT where some conditions outside the dened range were
also evaluated for either PD and RS (PD = 2.2 mm; RS = 2400 rpm), for the same reasons mentioned in
the analogous section of LSS maximization. The main eects of PD and RS (Fig. 5.9 and 5.11) suggest that
better quality characteristic can be obtained for values bellow 2.4 mm and 2600 rpm, respectively. Thus, 2.2
mm and 2400 rpm were investigated. Table 5.21 shows the experiment matrix and CTS responses for each
condition and gure 5.15 illustrate the eect of the parameters in the response, when evaluated individually.
The results show that varying the value of PD has a negative eect in the quality of the weld as well as
varying PT for values over 2 s. Regarding RS, better performance was achieved for speeds of 2400 rpm with
a strength of 4846.74 N and standard deviation of 3%, which make this weld highly reproducible. Also, for
2600 rpm, as shown in the previous section, the strength is higher than condition 1. The atness of the curve
obtained means that the change in speeds was not signicant for the strength and therefore the chosen range
is too narrow to force variability.
It can be concluded that the investigated range does not attain the maximum value and further invest-
igation to the parameter window should be carried out. Hence, the parameter window used in LSS is not
suitable for CTS, although the surface quality is impeccable. It can be said that, in order to obtain the
maximum LSS and CTS, these should be analysed independently, each one having its own range of paramet-
ers. Furthermore, although the maximum CTS was not successfully maximized, both Taguchi and OFAT
methods provide information with respect to the tendency in the positioning of the highest strengths.
PD PT RS LSS (N) Standard Mean CTS S/N ratio

Condition
18 2.2 1.8 2600 1555.39 1439.50 1641.44 7% 1545.44 63.74
19 2.6 1.8 2600 1860.68 1987.61 2270.11 10% 2039.47 66.10
20 2.8 1.8 2600 2188.12 2069.11 2361.90 7% 2206.38 66.84
21 2.4 1.8 2400 4721.83 4854.14 4964.25 3% 4846.74 73.70
22 2.4 1.8 2800 4800.06 4643.70 4515.94 3% 4653.23 73.35
23 2.4 1.8 3000 4141.16 4177.43 3188.03 15% 3835.21 71.47
24 2.4 2 2600 3785.68 4469.82 4346.15 9% 4200.55 72.40
25 2.4 2.2 2600 1130.99 1185.14 1548.26 18% 1288.13 61.96
Table 5.21: OFAT experiment matrix with the CTS responses, mean and S/N ratio
48
Chapter 5. Results and discussions 5.2. Mechanical and metallurgical characterization
Figure 5.15: Responses for the individual eect of the parameters in CTS
5.2 Mechanical and metallurgical characterization
In this section, the mechanical and metallurgical analysis was carried out using the data provided by the
LSS tests, while the CTS results were not considered in this scope. Therefore, the best condition obtained
in LSS was used as a reference in the following subsections.
The microstructure for the best condition was investigated for any defects that may have originated
from the welding process and to identity the dierences in the grain structure in each welding region. In
order to explain the mechanical behaviour dierences and how they are inuenced by microstructure, the
aforementioned welding condition was compared to the worst one. The worst weld shown welding defects
such as, lack of mixing and incomplete rell, that aected strongly the mechanical properties.
The bonding diameter and hook height were studied and correlated with the mechanical properties, since
studies from other authors proved that these factors inuence the behaviour of the weld. Pearson's product-
moment correlation was used to evaluate the dependence between them.
The hardness was measured at half thickness of the upper and lower sheet using micro Vickers. This also
provided information about the extent of the dierent weld regions. For larger grain size lower hardness was
obtained which is in accordance with the Hall-Petch criteria.
Finally, the best condition was subjected to fatigue testing, using four dierent loads and triplicates for
each one. Weibull distribution was used for fatigue life assessment.
49
5.2.1 Microstructural characterization
The microstructural characterization was carried out using the best condition of the Taguchi design
(condition 6). Figure 5.16 shows the cross sectional macrograph obtained for the mentioned joint, where it
is visible the homogeneous appearance with complete rell of the weld nugget. The bond is free of the most
common weld defects in aluminium welds such as, incomplete rell and lack of mixing. The optical contrasts
allows the distinction between the plastically deformed region, which includes the TMAZ and SZ, and the
non deformed regions such as the HAZ and BM. The dashed lines in gure 5.16 show approximately the
dierent weld zones.
Figure 5.16: Macrograph of the cross section for condition 6
Figure 5.17: Micrographs of the dierent weld zones: a) SZ; b) TMAZ; c) HAZ; and d) BM
50
The microstructure detailing of the dierent weld zones is depicted in gure 5.17. Figure 5.17a) shows the
metallurgic characteristics of the SZ, where the intense plastic deformation and high temperature exposure
due to friction and stir, promoted the dynamic recrystallization of the material. This resulting microstructure
consists in equiaxed and homogeneous grains, with an average size of 5.7 µm.
The micorstructure in the TMAZ (gure 5.17b) is characterized by highly deformed and elongated grain
adjacent to the SZ, due to the mechanical work and heat promoted by the tool in that region. The grain size
is approximately 18.5 µm.
In the case of the HAZ (gure 5.17c), since it is adjoined to the TMAZ, the material is submitted to the
thermic cycle. However, this proved to have no great eect in the grain structure of the HAZ when compared
to the BM (gure 5.17d), which is characterized by homogeneous grain, elongated in the rolling direction.
Nevertheless, the measured grain sizes for the BM and the HAZ were 14.5 µm and 16.6 µm, respectively.
Figure 5.18: Average grain size in the dierent weld regions
In order to have a comparison between a weld with high and low LSS, the microstructure of condition 12
was studied. Note that condition 7 has worst mechanical properties, however it makes more sense to evaluate
condition 12 since the only dierence to the best condition relies in the value of PT, which is 1.8 s instead of
2.2 s. The grain structure and welding zones in condition 12 is analogous to the condition 6. Despite this,
some defects associated to the material ow were found. The defects were referred to as incomplete rell
and lack of mixture and they are both located at the path through which the sleeve plunges the sheets (see
gure 5.19). Naturally, this is related to the improper combination of parameters. It is believed that PT
plays a critical role in increasing the uidity of the material and the heat input since the increment in time
∆t is lower. Also, the slip conditions between the rotation sleeve and surrounding material may have had
an eect on the level of stirring promoted and consequently unthorough mixing. The lack of mixing defect
clearly diminishes the the integrity of the weld, having an important eect on the crack initiation when the
weld is subjected to external loads.
51
Figure 5.19: Welding defects present in condition 12 showing a detail of the incomplete rell (up) and lack
of mixture (down)
Previous studies to the microstructure of FSpW proved the existence of a relation between the eective
bonding area and the hook geometry. Naturally, a weld with a larger area will present better mechanical
characteristics to shear then a smaller one, however, because the hooking acts as a crack nucleation site, if it
is too sharp the mechanical properties can decrease regardless of the bonding area.
To evaluate the relation between the mechanical properties and the the bonding area and hook geometry
the Pearson's product-moment correlation was used. This method measures the strength of a linear associ-
ation between two variables and is denoted by r. Basically a Pearson's product-moment correlation attempts
to draw a best t trough the data of the two variables, and the coecient r indicates how far away all the
data points are to this line. Coecient r varies from -1 to 1 and the larger the absolute value of r, the
stronger the relationship. The Pearson's correlation formula used is given by eq. 5.16. In this study the x
variable corresponds to the bonding diameter (D ) and hook height (h) and the y variable to the LSS. The
values of D and h were measured for the all the conditions of the OFAT method in order to investigate the
eect the change in one single parameter has in relation to the optimized condition. A schematic illustration
for measuring the h and D is depicted in gure 5.20.
P
P P
xy) − ( x)( y)
n(
r= p P P P P (5.16)
[n x2 − ( x)2 ][n y 2 − ( y)2 ]
Value or r Strength of relationship

-1.0 to -0.5 or 0.5 to 1.0 Strong
-0.5 to -0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5 Moderate
-0.3 to -0.1 or 0.1 to 0.3 Weak
-0.1 to 0.1 None or very weak
Table 5.22: Relationship strength for the dierent r intervals
52
Figure 5.20: Schematic illustration for the measurement of the bonding diameter and hook height
Figure 5.21 shows the hook morphology obtained for condition 6, although for other tested conditions
the appearence on the hook is similar, having a slight bend upwards but the tip ends pointing downward.
The hook height (h) was measured from the highest point to the lowest, the results are shown in table 5.23.
In non of the parameters there is a consistent pattern between h and LSS. For example, when investigating
the PT it can be concluded that the optimized condition has the highest h and LSS. On the other hand,
condition 12 has one of the lowest h and the lowest LSS. The scattered results suggest that the mechanical
properties in this particular case do not depend on the hook shape or size. Furthermore, when computing
the correlation coecient, r = 0.07 was obtained. Hence, the relationship between the hook height and the
mechanical behaviour is non-existent.
Figure 5.21: Micrographs of the hook defect for conditions 6 (left) and 10 (right)
Parameter Condition LSS (N) h (µm)

2.4 10 7298.19 430
PD (mm) 2.6 6 11268.96 250
2.8 11 9514.91 120
1.8 12 4534.74 130
2 13 8187.26 101
PT (s)
2.2 6 11268.96 250
2.4 14 9541.94 213
2400 15 9041.59 163
RS (rpm)
2600 6 11268.96 250
2800 16 8938.14 204
3000 17 8290.69 137
Table 5.23: Mean values of LSS and corresponding hook height for OFAT experiments and optimized para-
meter (bold)
53
Regarding the bonding diameter, table 5.24 shows the measured values of D. By observation, for values
of PD below and above 2.6 mm a smaller bonding diameter is obtained. A drastic increase in D is obtained
from 2.4 mm to 2.6 mm can be explained by the fact that the hook path in condition 10 goes around the
tear drop extending to the SZ in both sides, as shown in gure 5.21. This suggests that the PD used in
condition 10 was not enough to provide proper mixture of the two sheets bellow the sleeve. Evaluating PT
resulted that the largest bonding diameter corresponds to the optimized parameter. Note that previously,
when the microstructure of condition 12 was investigated, lack of mixing was encountered in the sleeves path,
thus the big dierence between the bonding diameter of condition 12 to 13. A correlation coecient of 0.79
was obtained, which means that the mechanical properties depend strongly in the bonding diameter.
Parameter Condition LSS (N) D (mm)

2.4 10 7298.19 7.11
PD (mm) 2.6 6 11268.96 9.42
2.8 11 9514.91 8.54
1.8 12 4534.74 7.06
2 13 8187.26 9.25
PT (s)
2.2 6 11268.96 9.42
2.4 14 9541.94 9.11
2400 15 9041.59 9.03
RS (rpm)
2600 6 11268.96 9.42
2800 16 8938.14 9.40
3000 17 8290.69 9.08
Table 5.24: Mean values of LSS and corresponding bonding area for OFAT experiments and optimized
parameter (bold)
5.2.2 Microhardness
The exact extension of the HAZ and TMAZ are not easily measurable, thus the microhardness proles of
the upper and lower sheet as well as the microhardness map for condition 6 were drawn.
Since AA7050 is precipitation hardening alloy, the changes of the precipitates during and after welding
will be the most important phenomena dictating the resulting hardness and strength of the dierent weld
zones. It is important to emphasize that the microhardness testing was performed after 40 days of natural
aging. The mechanical and thermal inputs provided by friction based welding processes have been proven to
aect the original state and distribution of the precipitates. Nevertheless, the microhardness proles of the
cross section at mid-thickness in the upper and lower sheet for condition 6 (see gures 5.22 and 5.23) can
also used to infer these changes. In the BM zone the average hardness is about 160 HV0.3 which starts to
decrease in the HAZ to a minimum of 126 HV0.3 at the interface between the HAZ and TMAZ. In the outer
limits of the HAZ there is a slight reduction in harness associated mainly to the recovery of the as rolled BM
microstructure, since the temperature reached at this region is not high during welding. However, the closer
to the centre of the weld the higher the temperatures reached which may lead to coarsening and solubilisation
of the strengthening particles. Coarsening has shown to be an important phenomenon in TMAZ due to the
thermal cycle in this particular zone [32]. The deformation level imposed by the tool can also produce
some strain hardening in this region but it is not enough to suppress the softening caused by precipitation
coarsening.
54
In the SZ, as previously mentioned, the intense plastic deformation and high temperatures involved
were responsible for the dynamic recrystallisation of the microstructure. The high temperatures lead to
solubilisation of the precipitates and re-precipitation during cooling right after welding are believed to be the
main reason for the increase in hardness. Figures 5.22 and 5.23 also show that the hardness in the SZ is the
same in comparison with the BM. The strengthening behaviour of the SZ when compared to the HAZ and
TMAZ can probably be associated with the fact that there are two mechanisms that combined are favourable
to the strengthening of the material such as, the reduction of the grain size and re-precipitation accompanied
by aging. It is assumed that in the SZ, the high temperatures reached and exposure to those temperatures
are responsible for high levels of solubilisation that later lead to re-precipitation.
With the microhardness proles is also possible to measure the extent of the dierent weld zones. As
expected the SZ has a width of roughly 9 mm which corresponds to the combined diameter of the sleeve and
pin. As for the TMAZ and HAZ the width is approximately 2.6 mm and 7 mm, respectively, for the upper
sheet. For the lower sheet, these two region are narrower since the action of the tool at mid thickness of the
lower sheet is less pronounced.
For a more qualitative analysis the microhardness map was drawn (see gure 5.24 ), also here the dierent
welding regions can be distinguished. Good agreement was obtained between the microharndness map and
the proles were obtained such as, the hardness and width of all weld zones. The red region near the interface
in the right side is explained by indentations made in the embedding resin between the two sheets.
Comparing the microhardness with the grain size form the previous results yields that the hardness is
greater for smaller grains in the BM, HAZ and TMAZ, which is consistent with the Hall-Petch relation.
Nonetheless, the relation is not valid in the SZ since the hardness is similar to the BM. For a precipitation
hardening alloy the hardness prole depends greatly on the precipitate distribution rather than the grain size
[69].
Figure 5.22: Microhardness prole measured in the mid-thickness of the upper sheet of condition 6 joint
55
Figure 5.23: Vickers microhardness prole measured in the mid-thickness of the upper sheet of condition 6
joint
Figure 5.24: Vickers microhardness mapping in the welded cross section of condition 6
5.2.3 Fatigue
Fatigue tests were performed to investigate the behaviour of welds produced by FSpW when submitted to
cyclic loads. For the fatigue tests only condition 6 was considered and table 5.25 shows the results obtained
for the dierent percentages of the maximum load applied in terms of the number of cycles until failure. It
is important to emphasize that for the lowest load the tests were interrupted, thus fracture did not occur.
6
Although for the fatigue study the lower limit in terms of cycles is considered. 5x10 cycles is corresponding
to the fatigue strength that has been taken into account as a fatigue criterion in the tests evaluation. For
each loading, samples in triplicate were used to ensure repeatability. The two-parameter Weibull distribution
was used to analyse the probability aspects of the fatigue results. The Weibull distribution is being used to
model extreme values such as failure times and fatigue life. The probability density function (PDF) for a
two-parameter Weibull distribution is dened as,
β x β−1 −( αx )β
f (x) = e ; α ≥ 0, β ≥ 0 (5.17)
α α
56
where α and β are the characteristic life or scale parameter and Weibull slope or shape parameter, respectively.
If the PDF is integrated, the cumulative density function (CDF) in eq.5. is obtained,
β
Ff (x) = 1 − e−( α )
x
(5.18)
where Ff (x) is the probability of failure.
Sample Load Smax (M P a) Smin (M P a) Sm (M P a) Sa (M P a) Cycles(Nf )

7050-FT11 1996
7050-FT12 50% 88.6 8.9 48.7 39.9 2241
7050-FT13 2137
7050-FT21 94623
7050-FT22 25% 44.3 4.4 24.4 19.9 67935
7050-FT23 76505
7050-FT31 492650
7050-FT32 15% 26.6 2.7 14.6 12.0 410493
7050-FT33 475938
7050-FT41 >5246585
7050-FT42 10% 17.7 1.8 9.7 8.0 >6244992
7050-FT43 >5060612
Table 5.25: Results of fatigue testing for condition 6
6
Since the fatigue samples for the last tested condition did not fail when 5×10 cycles where reached, the
fatigue testing was deliberately stopped. Thefore, for the Weibull analysis this data will not be considered.
The t of a data set to a two-parameter Weibull distribution can be visually assessed using the Weibull
plot. This plot has special scales that are designed so that if the data do in fact follow a Weibull distribution,
the points will be arranged linearly. Hence, to obtain the the axis, the natural logarithm is applied to both
sides of the CDF.

1
ln ln = βln(x) − βln(α) (5.19)
1 − Ff (x)
Each value for the failure probability Ff (x) the Bernard's Median Rank empirical estimator was used,
and is given by,
i − 0.3
MR = (5.20)
n + 0.4

1
When eq. 5.20 is rearranged as a linear equation, Y = ln ln 1−M R , X = ln(x), m=β and c =
−β(ln(α)) can be written and the linear regression model is obtained. The Weibull distribution also has a
property that the characteristic life (α) falls at the 63.2% point irrespective of the value of the shape parameter
(β ). This means that α is the time or number of cycles at which 63.2% of the population is expected to
fail. Table 5.26 and Figure 5.25 show the Weibull values and Weibull plot. The shape parameters were
taken directly from the plots, by linear regression application, and the characteristic life was computed using
α = e−(c/β) . The slope, β, indicates the class of failures from the bathtub curve. Since all the values ofβ
are greater than 1, this means that all failures occurred in the Wear-Out region.
57
Sa (M P a) Cycles Rank Med. Rnk. ln(Nf ) ln(ln(1/1-MR)) α β
MR (x-axis) (y-axis)
1996 1 0.2059 7.5989 -1.4674
39.9 2137 2 0.5000 7.6672 -0.3665 2181 16.593
2241 3 0.7941 7.7147 -0.4577
67935 1 0.2059 11.1263 -1.4674
19.9 76505 2 0.5000 11.2451 -0.3665 85682 5.582
94623 3 0.7941 11.4577 -0.4577
410493 1 0.2059 12.9251 -1.4674
12.0 475938 2 0.5000 13.0730 -0.3665 480722 9.626
492650 3 0.7941 13.1076 -0.4577
Table 5.26: Summarized Weibull values for the tested stress amplitudes
Figure 5.25: Weibull plot lines for the tested stress amplitudes
The Weibull parameters are presented in table 5.27 along with the mean life or mean time to failure
(MTTF), which represents the expected life for each stress amplitude. The MTTF for a two-parameter
Weibull distribution is calculated by eq. 5.22.
M T T F = αΓ (1 + 1/β) (5.21)
where Γ() is the gamma function.
The S-N curve obtained for the average fatigue life is shown in gure 5.26 and Basquin's power function
in eq. 5.22 can be used for the evaluation of fatigue test data. This equation is valid for fatigue lives that
3 8
are within the range of 1x10 to 5x10 cycles for non-ferrous metals such as aluminium.
Sa = a(Nf )b (5.22)
where Sa is the stress amplitude, Nf the number of cycles and a andb are constants that can be drawn
out from gure 5.26 . Furthermore, the correlation coecient indicates that the Weibull is an adequate t.
58
Sa (M P a) Characteristic life (α) Shape parameter (β ) Weibull mean life
(cycles) (cycles)
39.9 2181 16.593 2113
19.9 85682 5.5823 79169
12.0 480722 9.6262 456588
Table 5.27: Weibull parameters for each stress amplitude
Figure 5.26: S-N curve
To evaluate the relative dispersion between sets of the observed values the coecient of variation (CV),
which represents the ratio between the standard deviation (SD) and the MTTF, was used and can be com-
puted using eq. 5.24. The CV graphs corresponding to each value of mean life is shown in gure 5.. According
4 5
to these results, scatter in fatigue life values has the widest between 10 - 10 , where the SD is about 20%
of the mean life. However, for the other values of mean life the data has relatively low variability which is
particularly useful for designers for purposes of data accuracy and repeatability.
p
SD Γ(1 + 2/β) − Γ2 (1 + 1/β)
CV = = (5.23)
MTTF Γ(1 + 1/β)
59
Figure 5.27: Eect of mean fatigue life on the coecients of variation, CV
The term reliability is used for the probability of functional performance of a component under current
service conditions in a denite period of time. In this study, as shown in gure 5.28 S-N plots were drawn for
dierent reliability levels such as, R10 , R36.8 , R50 and R99 . These curves provide the possibility of prediction
of fatigue life according to the level of reliability desired by the designer. As expected, for the same stress
amplitude, for higher levels of reliability, the number of cycles will be lower. To yield the the values of life
(Nf ) for the dierent safe life probabilities, eq. 5.25 was used.
NRx = α((−ln(Rx ))−1/β (5.24)
where NRx is the value of fatigue life indicating X% of reliability.
Figure 5.28: S-N curves for dierent reliability levels
60
Chapter 5. Results and discussions 5.3. Fracture analysis
5.3 Fracture analysis
In this section, data was collected and analysed to determine the causes of failure in the lap shear and
fatigue specimens and to predict the the macroscopic mechanical failure inherent to these tests.
Firstly, the dierent failure modes of LSS were photographed and cross section macrographs were made for
better understanding of the crack initiation and propagation. As a result of the Taguchi and OFAT methods,
three failure modes were obtained and analysed, being one of them the best condition. Fractographic analysis
was performed to the failed surfaces for better understanding of the fracture characteristics and mechanisms.
Thus, SEM was used to highlight dierent areas of interest in the fracture surface of the best condition
obtained in the previous studies.
Two distinct failure modes resulted form the fatigue test depending on the stress load applied. For this
analysis the stresses of 39.9 MPa and 12.0 MPa were used to cover the dierent fractures. Detailed SEM
micrographs were taken to the resulting failure modes for surface characterization of the failure mechanisms,
examine the origin of fatigue cracking and the cause for its initiation.
5.3.1 Failure modes
5.3.1.1 LSS
The lap shear tests resulted in distinct failure modes such as, shear fracture with circumferential cracking,
plug pull-out fracture, which can either happen in the upper or lower sheet, and tensile-shear mixed fracture
(see gure 5.29). Shear fracture was observed for the best condition and also the welds with PD below 2.6
mm regarding the Taguchi method, while the other fracture modes occurred randomly depending on the
parameter for both the conditions tested in Taguchi and OFAT methods. Thus, for this case, the shear
fracture is an indicator for quality welds when condition 6 is used. Figure 5.30 shows the cross section for
each fracture mode for better understanding of the crack propagation.
As stated previously, the tip of the hook acts as a crack nucleation site, propagating from there onward.
In the observed shear fracture mode, the crack propagates dierent directions, although one of them is more
prominent, evolving through the recrystallized region and parallel to the loading direction, leading to total
separation of the two sheets. However, other cracks were present and propagated vertically near the boundary
between the SZ and TMAZ. These are circumferential cracks, which can nucleate in the upper, lower or in
both sheets, due to the stress concentration The slight bending happens due the rotation of the nugget during
the LSS, giving rise to the generation of the load component perpendicular to the load direction and in turn
causes the crack to grow in the thickness direction. The presence of local defects such as, voids or lack of
mixing, also promote the crack growth. In the tensile-shear mixed fracture the crack propagation is similar
to shear fracture with the particularity of the fracture happening roughly in the plane at 45º. The crack
initiates in the tip of the hook and propagates in dierent directions: vertically in the boundary between the
TMAZ and HAZ, although not reaching the surface of the lower sheet; propagation trough the sleeve path
region and leading to the inclined shear in the SZ. The fracture mechanism in the plug pull-out fracture is
analogous to the other two, where the tearing promoted by the nature of the load leads to circumferential
cracking that nucleated in the upper and lower sheet. The presence of welding defects in the propagation
region (sleeve path) also played an important role.
61
Figure 5.29: Failure modes observed in lap shear tests: a) shear fracture with circumferential cracking; b)
plug Pull out fracture on lower sheet; and c) tensile-shear mixed fracture. The arrows indicate the loading
direction
Figure 5.30: Cross section macrographs: a) shear fracture; b) mixed fracture; and c) plug pull-out fracture
5.3.1.2 Fatigue
When a cyclic load is applied to the specimen, the nugget will be constantly subjected to compression on
one side and tension on the other in both sheets. While conducting the fatigue tests, two distinct fracture
modes were observed as shown in Figure 5.31. All specimens subjected to a stress amplitude of 39.9 MPa
failed by complete crack propagation around the weld nugget in both the upper and lower sheet. It is
believed that the crack initiated in the tip of the hook in the sides of the nugget subjected to tension and
propagated circumferentially from there onward until total failure. The crack nucleated in the upper and
lower sheet due to the perpendicular stress that is generated in the boundary of the nugget due to rotation of
62
the nugget. Adding the nature of the cyclic load, the propagation occurred similarly for both sheets ending
on the perfect separation between nugget and the sheets (see gure 5.31a). It is clear that for high stress
amplitude the most susceptible region was the softer part of the weld, i.e. the boundary between the SZ and
TMAZ. On the other hand, for the stresses bellow 39.9 MPa, the fracture mode happened in a similar way
where once more the crack nucleates in the hook and propagates circumferentially in both sheets. However,
since the applied stress is not enough to promote plastic deformation in the weld nugget, the crack tends
to propagate through the width of the specimen until total failure is reached. Although gures 5.31a) and
5.31b) only show the fracture in the upper sheet, propagation also occurred in the lower sheet but at a lower
rate. For 8.0 MPa failure did not occur due to interruption of the tests.
For relatively low stresses the fracture mode can be predicted regardless of the number of cycles, still
for better understanding of the fracture mechanisms involved, a fractographic analysis is performed in the
following section.
Figure 5.31: Failure modes observed in fatigue tests: a) 39.9 MPa; 19.9 MPa; and 12.0 MPa
5.3.2 Fractographic analysis
5.3.2.1 LSS
In order to examine the fracture process in more detail, SEM micrographs of the fractured surfaces on the
failed shear specimen are represented in gure 5.32, where half of the overall fracture surface on the upper
sheet of the joint is revealed, along with the magnied views from regions A-F. For this analysis, the fracture
surface of condition 6 was studied.
It was previously mentioned that in shear failure the cracks propagated toward the centre of the weld and
along the circumferential direction. No striation-like patterns can be seen between region E and F, which
indicate that there was no crack propagation perpendicularly to the loading direction around the weld nugget.
Also,the sunk ridge formed in F region indicate propagation around the hook and possibly the tear drop.
Region A corresponds to the centre of the weld where ne and equiaxed dimples can be observed, suggesting
ductile fracture of the aluminium. The ductile fracture might be associated with the nucleation of voids
around rigid inclusions due to plastic ow. Localized void growth, deformation and necking may occur prior
to the coalescence of microvoids and nal fracture, giving rise to the formation of larger dominant cracks
that may propagate in a stable manner until nal fracture is reached. However, in this region, intergranular
cracking also occurred due to reduced boundary cohesion, which is associated with a more brittle fracture.
In region B and D, the dimpled surface is not noticeable due to relative sliding of the sheets in one another,
damaging the surface. The presence of a dimpled and step-like surface characterize region C, where probably
63
slip in shearing planes occurred creating an uneven surface, although the fracture in this region happened
in a ductile manner. Region E and F are constituted by dimples, which means the fracture occurred within
the material and not in grain boundary. Thus, ductile failure occurred in these regions. It can be said that
in general, the weld presented ductile fracture in most of the regions covered, resulting in the high strength
of the bond. It is important to emphasize that since this is a precipitation hardening material, second-phase
particles appear throughout the micrographs, more likely inside the dimple craters.
64
Figure 5.32: Scanning electron micrographs of the fractured surface of the lower sheet and magnied views
of the regions A-F, present in condition 6
5.3.2.2 Fatigue
The fatigue fracture modes were investigated using SEM in order to understand the failure mechanisms
involved. For the 39.9 MPa stress amplitude the analysis was performed directly in the separated weld nugget,
whereas for lower stresses, the fractured upper sheet without the nugget was considered.
For the rst case, SEM micrographs were taken to the fractured surface of the nugget as as shown in gure
5.33, as well as the high magnication regions highlighted form A-F. Region A is near to the top surface of
the nugget, characterized by the striations left by the interaction between the tool and the material during
retraction. The detailed surface of region A shows that there was relative sliding that damaged the fracture
surface. Hence, nothing can be drawn out from this region regarding the fracture mechanisms. Region
B shows signs of fatigue striations that spread in several directions probably due to the local stress state
changes. Also in region C fatigue striations are present and very pronounced. Striations are preferentially
spreading upwards, meaning that the crack nucleation site is located somewhere near the interface between
the two sheets. Secondary cracks where found within the striation marks, however their presence is not critical
since the material is tough enough to accommodate them without considerable growth. Region D represents
the interface between the joined sheets and is composed by dimples, where some of the are smashed due
to relative sliding. It is plausible that this was the remaining region before catastrophic failure occurred.
Still, it happened in a ductile manner. The damaged surface in region E makes the surface interpretation
inconclusive, although there might have been a change in the failure mechanism probably due to a change
in the stress state. Finally, region 6 shows very smooth grain surface probably due to improper mixing
65
originating a void. Nevertheless, since all the specimens subjected to this load failed roughly in the same life
cycles, as established in the fatigue section, the presence of this defect is not critical for fatigue behaviour.
66
Figure 5.33: Scanning electron micrographs of the 39.9 MPa fatigue fractured surface and magnied views
of the regions A-F
For a lower stress of 12.0 MPa, SEM micrographs were taken to the centre of the fractured surface as
shown in gure 5.35, as well as the high magnication regions highlighted form A-H. Region A is near to
the upper surface of the sheet, meaning that the opposite surface corresponds to the interface between the
two sheets. Regions A, B and C share some similarities in the fracture mechanism, which occurred due to
cleavage fracture accompanied by microscopic traces of local plastic deformation. Cleavage fracture represents
a quasi-brittle component of the fracture process. The quasi-brittle fracture morphology consists of a mixture
of intergranular facets and transgranular cleavage. Steps, tongues and shbones were produced by interaction
of the crack front with dislocation tangles. Another morphological feature are the river markings that are
created by shear connections of the steps originating at grain boundaries. Region D and F present a dimpled
surface which is related to a ductile fracture. It is possible that, during the circumferential cracking, the
areas with a smoother appearance, such as region F, were the last to fail before complete fracture around
the nugget. Region E also shows signs of cleavage fracture with the particularity that cracks propagated
in dierent planes and scarce intergranular fracture occured. Region G is composed by a dimpled surface
similar to F, although there are signs of local cleavage fracture as well. The edge of the upper surface of
the sheet is detailed in region H, composed by a smooth surface and striation marks due to the interaction
between the sleeve and the material.
The typical fatigue striations are not clear in any of the studied regions, however in the macroscopic point
of view, there is a resemblance of beach marks that spread from A in direction to the edge of the sheet.
67
68
Figure 5.34: Scanning electron micrographs of the 12.0 MPa fatigue fractured surface and magnied views
of the regions A-H
For further investigation of the crack propagation, gure 5. shows detailed SEM micrographs of the
fractured surface in the left edge of the sheet. Close to the edge it is possible to observe the presence of a
mixed dimpled and intergranular fracture surface, suggesting that ductile fracture occurred in this region,
but also localized brittle failure. In contrast, from an overall point of view it can be concluded that the time
sequence and precise progression of the crack propagation cannot be retraced. Fatigue and forced fracture
components occur in dierent regions of the welded sheets, not only due to the applied load, but also due to
the complex internal structure of the joint.
Figure 5.35: Detailed micrographs of the fatigue fracture surface in the left edge of the upper sheet
69
70
Chapter 6
Conclusions
The main conclusions arising from the work done in the framework of this thesis are presented and are
categorized according to the issues addressed. The work performed conrms the possibility of implementing
the FSpW process in the automotive and aerospace industry using AA7050-T76 with acceptable quality
welds, therefore being competitive with other bonding methods.
Parameter optimization
The quality of friction spot weld proved to be sensitive the variation of the process parameters, mainly
for plunge depth and and rotational speed for the lap shear strength and cross tension strength, re-
spectively.
The produced spot joints in LSS showed very good mechanical performance with a maximum strength
of approximately 11.3 kN.
The Taguchi method successfully maximized the response in LSS and therefore the best welding con-
dition was found. However, the maximization of CTS relies on the correct selection of rotational speed
range. Hence it is recommended to widen the range of speeds to nd out the best parameter combination
and maximize the response.
The statistical model was proved to be reliable for the selected range in both LSS and CTS; nevertheless
as it was observed from the ANOVA tables, secondary and tertiary interactions can play an important
eect on the response.
Regarding the lap shear tests, no condition tested in the sensibility analysis exceeded the 11.3 kN
obtained with 2.4 mm, 2.2 s and 2600 rpm of PD, PT and RS, respectively.
In lap shear tests the response was successfully maximized and the best condition surpassed in almost
the double of the required lap shear strength stated in the standard for resistance spot welding for
aerospace applications AWS D17.2/D17.2M.
The full factorial or response surface methodology (RMS) is thus recommended for a deeper under-
standing of the parameter interaction.
Mechanical and metallurgical characterization

71
Chapter 6. Conclusions
The best condition found (condition 6) proved to be a sound weld without considerable weld defects
within the structure. On the other hand the worst condition tested showed lack of mixture in the
interface between the SZ and TMAZ and incomplete rell in the weld surface due to the the low heat
input associated with the low plunging time, leading to a cold weld.
There is a prominent relation between the strength of the weld with the bond diameter with a correlation
coecient of approximately 0.8. The dependence between the hook shape and the mechanical properties
for this particular alloy proved to be nonexistent.
The best condition has shown lower hardness in the boundary between the TMAZ and HAZ. In the
SZ, although the grain size is smaller, the hardness is the same as the BM. The hardness is dictated by
the fact that the material is precipitation hardened and not the grain size.
For all tested loads in the fatigue analysis, the specimens failed in the wear-out zone of the bathtub
curve. Also, the fatigue failure criteria was fullled for loads of approximately 10% of the maximum,
suggesting that the material is not recommendable for high load cyclic solicitations. However, for all
tested conditions the coecient of variation is very low, which implies the high repeatability of the weld
behaviour with low scatter.
Failure analysis
In lap shear tests, shear fracture with circumferential cracking characterizes welds with higher strength.
The fractographic analysis showed that this fracture type occurred in a ductile manner in almost all
studied region due to the presence of dimples. Localized intergranular fracture may occur, although
not critical to the fracture behaviour.
For high load fatigue fracture, circumferential cracking propagated around the weld nugget. Due to the
morphology of the beach marks, the crack nucleation and propagation can be retraced to the interface
between the two sheets. The material proved to be suciently though to sustain secondary cracking
without critical growth.
For the lower loads in fatigue tests, the crack propagates circumferentially around the weld nugget,
however since the solicitation is not enough to promote plastic deformation in the weld nugget the
crack tends to propagate in the width direction. Signs of dimples in the edge and centre of the weld
imply ductile forced fracture in these regions and therefore it is inconclusive which of these regions
where the last to fail.
72
Future work
Further investigations in what concerns the FSpW of AA7050-T76 are suggested, in order to enrich the
knowledge presented in the previous chapters:
Evaluate the inuence of the tool design in the material ux and consequently in the mechanical and
metallurgical properties;
Instrument the FSpW machine with a torque monitoring system as a way to verify when stick/slip
transition occurs and determine quantitatively its value in terms rotation speed and welding time;
Evaluate the FSpW process of AA7050-T76 using dierent working parameters and thicknesses;
Use a dierent DoE such as, full or half factorial method for better understanding of the individual and
interacting eects of the parameters in the mechanical behaviour;
Measure the temperatures and heat input involved in the welding process;
Extend the mechanical and metallurgical characterization and failure analysis to the CTS test results;
Thorough fracture investigation using a numeric model to predict the failure behaviour and compare
them with the experimental results;
Microstructural analysis with transmission electron microscope to study the evolution of precipitates
in the dierent welds zones and correlate with the microhardness.
73
74
References
[1] C. Vidal. Análise da Melhoria do Comportamento à Fadiga em Juntas Soldadas por Fricção Linear de
Ligas de Alumínio para a Indústria Aeronáutica Engenharia Aeroespacial, 2009.
[2] B. T. Gibson, D. H. Lammlein, T. J. Prater, W. R. Longhurst, C. D. Cox, M. C. Ballun, K. J. Dharmaraj,
G. E. Cook, and a. M. Strauss. Friction stir welding: Process, automation, and control. Journal of
Manufacturing Processes, 16(1):5673, 2014.
[3] C. Schilling and J. F. Dos Santos. Method and device for joining at least two work pieces by friction
welding, 2004.
[4] J. R. Davis. ASM Specialty Handbook: Aluminium and Aluminium Alloys. ASM International, 1993.
[5] http://www.aluminiumleader.com.
[6] http://www.tabelaperiodica.hpg.ig.com.br.
[7] Revista Solução, Publicação ESAB, Abril (2005).
[8] N. Pépe. Comportamento à corrosão e fadiga de juntas soldadas por fricção linear da liga AA5083-H111,
2005.
[9] William F. Smith. Princípios de Ciência e Engenharia dos Materiais. McGraw-Hill Portugal, 3Âª edição
edition, 1998.
[10] N. R. Mandal. Aluminum Welding. Woodhead Publishing, 2001.

[11] A Romeyn. Welding Al-Zn-Mg (7xxx Series) Alloys-A Literature Review. Technical report, Defence
science and technology organisation material research labortatories, Melbourne,Victoria, 1983.
[12] http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=214&pageid=2144417086.
[13] http://www.alcoa.com.
[14] Focus Aluminium, ESAB. Svetsaren, 54(2), 2000.

[15] H.L. Sanders. Welding Aluminium: Theory and Practice, 2nd Edition. The Aluminium Association, 2
edition, 1991.
[16] H. Wu, Y. Chen, D. Strong, and P. Prangnell. Stationary Shoulder FSW for Joining High Strength
Aluminum Alloys. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 221:187196, 2015.

[17] C.D Allen and W.J. Arbegast. Evaluation of Friction Spot Welds in Aluminum Alloys. SAE Tech, 2005.
75
[18] T. Pan, A. Joaquin, D. Wilkosz, L. Reatherford, J.M. Nicholson, Z. Feng, and M. L. Santella. Spot
Friction Welding for Sheet Aluminum Joining. 5th International Friction Stir Welding Symposium,
pages CDROM, 2005.
[19] M.K. Kulekci. Eects of process parameters on tensile shear strngth of friction stir spot welded aliminium
alloy (EN AW 5005). Archives of meteallurgy and materials, 59:221224, 2014.

[20] T.Y. Pan. Friction stir spot welding (FSSW) - A literature review. World Congress, SAE Int., 2007.
[21] R. Karthikeyan, V. Balasubramanian, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 51, 173-183 (2010).
[22] D. H. Choi. Frictional wear evaluation of WC-Co alloy tool in friction stir spot welding of low carbon
steel plates. Int. Journal of Refractory Metals & Hard Materials, 27:931936, 2009.
[23] M. Fujimoto, S. Koga, N. Abe, Y. S. Sato, and H. Kokawa. Microstructural analysis of stir zone of Al
alloy produced by friction stir spot welding. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, 13:663670,
2008.
[24] K. H. Muci-Küchler, S. S. T. Kakarla, W. J. Arbegast, and C. D. Allen. Numerical simulation of the
friction stir spot welding process. SAE International, 2004.

[25] S. Bozzi, a. L. Helbert-Etter, T. Baudin, V. Klosek, J. G. Kerbiguet, and B. Criqui. Inuence of
FSSW parameters on fracture mechanisms of 5182 aluminium welds. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 210(11):14291435, 2010.
[26] Y. Bozkurt and M. K. Bilici. Application of Taguchi approach to optimize of FSSW parameters on
joint properties of dissimilar AA2024-T3 and AA5754-H22 aluminum alloys. Materials and Design,
51:513521, 2013.
[27] Y. Uematsu and K. Tojaki. Comparison of fatigue behaviour between resistance spot and friction stir
spot welded aluminium sheets. Sci Technol Weld Join, 210:6271, 2009.
[28] Z Shen, X Yang, L Cui, and T Li. Microstructural and failure mechanisms of rell friction stir spot
welded 7075-T6 aluminium alloy joints. Materials & Design, 44:476486, 2012.
[29] D. H. Choi, B. W. Ahn, C. Y. Lee, Y. M. Yeon, K. U. Song, and S. B. Jung. Eect of pin shapes on
joint characteristics of friction stir spot welded AA5J32 sheet. Mater Trans, 51:10281032, 2010.
[30] L. C. Campanelli, U. F. H. Suhuddin, J. F. Dos Santos, and N. G. De Alcântara. Parameters Optimization
for Friction Spot Welding of AZ31 Magnesium Alloy by Taguchi Method. Solgdag. Insp:São Paulo,
17:2631.
Aplicação do processo de soldagem a ponto por fricção em estrutura aeronáuticas: Optimização

[31] G.P. Dias.
de parâmetros de processo e avaliação da integridade das soldas para a liga de alumínio 2198-T8. PhD
thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 2013.
[32] T. Rosendo, B. Parra, M. a D Tier, a. a M da Silva, J. F. dos Santos, T. R. Strohaecker, and N. G.
Alcântara. Mechanical and microstructural investigation of friction spot welded AA6181-T4 aluminium
alloy. Materials and Design, 32(3):10941100, 2011.

76
[33] J. Shen, U. F. H. Suhuddin, M. E. B. Cardillo, and J. F. dos Santos. Eutectic structures in friction spot
welding joint of aluminum alloy to copper. Applied Physics Letters, 104(19):191901, 2014.
[34] J. Mazzaferro, T. Rosendo, C. Mazzaferro, F. Ramos, M. Tier, T. Strohaecker, and J. F. dos Santos.
Preliminary study on the mechanical behaviour of friction spot welds. Solgdag. Insp.São Paulo, 14:238
247, 2009.
[35] A. Patnaik, K. Koch, W. J. Arbegast, and C. D. Allen. Static properties of "Rell" friction spot welded
skin stiened compression panels, 2006.
[36] S. K. Itapu and K. H. Muci-Küchler. Visualization of material ow in the rell friction stir spot welding.
SAE International, SAE Paper 2006-01-1206, 2006.

[37] M. D. Tier, T. S. Rosendo, J. F. Dos Santos, N. Huber, J. a. Mazzaferro, C. P. Mazzaferro, and T. R.
Strohaecker. The inuence of rell FSSW parameters on the microstructure and shear strength of 5042
aluminium welds. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 213(6):9971005, 2013.

[38] U. F H Suhuddin, V. Fischer, and J. F. Dos Santos. The thermal cycle during the dissimilar friction
spot welding of aluminum and magnesium alloy. Scripta Materialia, 68(1):8790, 2013.
[39] T. S. Rosendo. Estudo do desempenho mecânico de solda(s) ponto por fricção (FSpW) da liga AA6181-
T4. PhD thesis, UFRGS, 2009.
[40] H. Badarinarayan, Q. Yang, and S. Zhu. Eect of tool geometry on static strength of friction stir spot
welded aluminium alloy. International journal of machine tools and manufacture, 49:142148, 2009.
[41] Y. Q. Zhao, H. J. Liu, S. X. Chen, Z. Lin, and J. C. Hou. Eects of sleeve plunge depth on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of friction spot welded 7B04-T74 aluminium alloy. Materials
& Design, 62:4046, 2014.
[42] P. Su, A. Gerlich, and T. North. Friction spot welding of aluminium and magnesium alloy sheets. SAE
Tech. Paper 2005-01-1255, 2005.
[43] P. Su, A. Gerlich, T. North, and G. Bendzsak. Energy generation and stir zone dimensions in friction
stir spot welds. SAE International, SAE Paper 2006-01-0971, 2006.

[44] T. North, G. Bendzsak, A. Gerlich, P. Su, and G. Cingara. Transient local melting in Al 7075-T6 friction
stir spot welds. Materials Science Forum, 539-543:38263831, 2007.

[45] A. Gerlich, G. Avramovic-Cingara, and T. North. Stir zone microstructure and strain rate during Al
7075-T6 friction stir spot welding. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, 37A:27732786, 2006.
[46] Y. Yin, N. Sun, T. North, and S. Hu. Hook formation and mechanical properties in AZ31 friction stir
spot welds. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 210:20622070, 2010.

[47] Y. Yin, N. Sun, T. North, and S. Hu. Inuence of tool design on mechanical properties of AZ31 friction
stir spot welds. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, 15:8186, 2010.
[48] Y. Yin, A. Ikuta, and T. North. Microstructural features and mechanical properties of AM60 and AZ31
friction stir spot welds. Materials & Design, 31:47644776, 2010.

77
[49] H. Badarinarayan, Y. Shi, X. Li, and K. Okamoto. Eect of tool geometry on the hook formation and
static strength of friction stir spot welded aluminium 5754-O sheets. International journal of machine
tools and manufacture, 49:814823, 2009.
[50] A. H. Plaine, A. R. Gonzalez, U. F. H. Suhuddin, J. F. dos Santos, and N. G. Alcântara. The optimization
of friction spot welding process parameters in AA6168-T4 and Ti6Al4V dissimilar joints. Materials &
Design, 83:3641, 2015.
[51] Leonardo Contri Campanelli, Uceu Fuad Hasan Suhuddin, Armando Ítalo Sette Antonialli, Jorge Fernan-
dez Dos Santos, Nelson Guedes De Alcântara, and Claudemiro Bolfarini. Metallurgy and mechanical
performance of AZ31 magnesium alloy friction spot welds. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
213(4):515521, 2013.
[52] A. K. Lakshminarayanan and V. Balasubramanian. Process parameters optimization for friction stir
welding of RDE-40 aluminium alloy using taguchi technique. Transaction of nonferrous Metals Society
of China, 18:548554, 2008.
[53] N. Xiansheng, Z. Zhenggan, W. Xiongwei, and L. Luming. The use of Taguchi method to optimize the
laser welding sealing neuro-stimulator. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 48:297304, 2011.
[54] S. H. Park. Robust design and analysis for quality engineering. Chapman&Hall, 1 edition, 1996.
[55] M. H. Shojeefard, M. Akbari, A. Khalkhali, and P. Asadi. Optimization of microstructural and mech-
anical properties of friction stir welding using the cellular automaton and Taguchi method. Materials &
Design, 64:660666, 2014.
[56] M. Tutar, H. Aydin, C. Yuce, N. Yavuz, and A. Bayram. The optimisation of process parameters for
friction stir spot-welded AA3003-H12 aluminium alloy using a Taguchi orthogonal array. Materials &
Design, 63:789797, 2014.
[57] F. C. Campbell. Elements of metallurgy and engineering alloys. ASM International, 2008.
[58] J. Röser, H. Harders, and M. Bäker. Mechanical behaviour of engineering materials. Metals, ceramics,
polymers and composites. Springer, 2006.
[59] C. Branco and G. de Moura. Mecânica dos materiais. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 4 edition, 2006.
[60] B. B. Verma, J. D. Atkinson, and M. Kumar. Study of fatigue behaviour of 7475 aluminium alloy. Bull.
Mater. Sci., 24:231236, 2001.
[61] Y. L. Wang, Q. L. Pan, L. L. Wei, B. Li, and Y. Wang. Eect of retrogression and reaging treatment on
the microstructure and fatigue crack growth behaviour of 7050 aluminium alloy thick plate. Materials
& Design, 55:857863, 2014.
[62] DIN EN ISO 14273. Specimen dimensions and procedure for tensile shear testing resistance spot, seam
and embossed projection welds. In: DIN the German Institute for Standardization, 2014.
[63] DIN EN ISO 14272. Speciemen dimensions and procedure for cross tension testing resistance spot and
embossed projection welds. In: DIN, the German Institute for Standardization; 2014.
78
[64] ISO 14324:2003. Resistance spot welding - Destructive tests of welds - Method for the fatigue testing of
spot welded joints. In: International Standard Organization.
[65] ASTM E384-11. Standard Test Method for Knoop and Vickers Hardness of Materials Specimen. In:
American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011.
[66] ASTM E112-96. Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size. In: American Society for
Testing and Materials International; 1996.
[67] AWS D17.2/D17.2M. Specication for Resistance Welding for Aerospace Applications. In: Americans
Welding Society; 2013.
[68] C. Vidal and V. Infante. Optimization of FS Welding Parameters for Improving Mechanical Behaviour of
AA2024-T351 Joints Based on Taguchi Methods. Materials Engineering and Performance, 22:22612270,
2013.
[69] Y. S. Sato, H. Kokawa, M. Enomoto, and S. Jogan. Microstructural evolution of 6063 aluminium during
friction stir welding. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, 30:24292437, 1999.
79

Dissertacao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dissertacao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertacao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Friction Spot Welding of 7050-T76 Aluminium Alloy

Pedro Santos Eertz

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Supervisor: Prof. Maria Luísa Coutinho Gomes de Almeida

Chairperson: Prof. Rui Manuel dos Santos Oliveira Baptista

Supervisor: Prof. Maria Luísa Coutinho Gomes de Almeida

Members of the Committee: Prof. Virgínia Isabel Monteiro Nabais Infante

Prof. Rosa Maria Mendes Miranda

being patient and accompanying me in all stages of this work.

encouragement has given me tremendous impetus in my academic pursuits.

processos convencionais de soldadura, impulsionou o crescimento de técnicas de união no estado sólido,

nomeadamente o friction spot welding (FSpW).

Neste trabalho de investigação estudou-se a viabilidade da união de chapas de alumínio AA7050-T76

a inuência individual de um determinado parâmetro na qualidade da soldadura, recorreu-se à análise de

tension strength (CTS).

Em seguida, investigou-se a macro e microestrutura da melhor e pior soldaduras obtidas de ambos os

Posteriormente, averiguou-se o comportamento à fadiga do melhor parâmetro obtido pelo método de

como as supercies de fractura adquiridas pelo microscópio eletrónico de varrimento (MEV).

Liga de alumínio AA7050-T76

Método One factor at a time

Diâmetro de união da ligação soldada

if they can be correlated with the obtained strength.

understanding of the hardness changes throughout the entire sample.

presented in S-N curves, also known as Wöhler curves.

surfaces acquired in the scanning electron microscope (SEM)

7050-T76 aluminium alloy

One factor at a time method

2.2 Reading guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1.1 Wrought Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1.2 Temper Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1.3 7xxx Al-Zn Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2 Aluminium Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.2.1 Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2.2 Friction Spot Welding (FSpW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.2.1 Microstructure characterization in FSpW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.2.2 Microstructural defects in FSpW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2.2.3 Heat input and mechanical performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2.2.4 Welding Parameters of FSpW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.3 Taguchi method for experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.4.1 Fatigue crack nucleation and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.4.2 Stress cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.4.3 Fatigue in aluminium alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 Material and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3 Weldability study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.4 Mechanical characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.5 Metallurgical Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5 Results and discussions 33

5.1.1 DoE: Taguchi L9 orthogonal array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.1.2 LSS and S/N ratio maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.1.2.2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.1.2.3 Prediction for optimum performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.2.4 Conrmation tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.2.5 One factor at a time (OFAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.1.3 CTS and S/N ratio maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1.3.1 Main eects of the mean CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1.3.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.1.3.3 Prediction for the optimum performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Pedro Santos Eertz

a inuência individual de um determinado parâmetro na qualidade da soldadura, recorreu-se à análise de

como as supercies de fractura adquiridas pelo microscópio eletrónico de varrimento (MEV).

5.1.2.4 Conrmation tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.3.1 Main eects of the mean CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1.3.4 Conrmation tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.1 Flowchart of the dierent work stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.2 Eect of PD in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.3 Eect of PT in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.4 Eect of RS in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.8 Responses for the individual eect of the parameters in LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.9 Eect of PD in CTS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.10 Eect of PT in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.11 Eect of RS in LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.15 Responses for the individual eect of the parameters in CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.18 Average grain size in the dierent weld regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.27 Eect of mean fatigue life on the coecients of variation, CV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.28 S-N curves for dierent reliability levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.5 Mechanical properties of AA7050-T7651 for dierent thickness range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.6 Mechanical properties of AA7050-T7451 for dierent thickness range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5.3 Main eects of the mean LSS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.9 Experimental test of model verication for LSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.10 Experimental test results of model verication for S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.13 Main eects of the mean CTS and S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.19 Experimental test of model verication for CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.20 Experimental test of model verication for S/N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.22 Relationship strength for the dierent r intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

∆ Dierence between largest and lowest average