# Effect of Tool Profile Influence in Dissimilar Friction Stir Welding of Aluminium Alloys (AA5083 and AA7068)

Authors: S. Jayaprakash; S. Siva Chandran; T. Sathish; Bhiksha Gugulothu; R. Ramesh; M. Sudhakar; Ram Subbiah
Journal: Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Friction stir welding is an innovative welding process for similar and dissimilar joining of the materials effectively. FSW simply modified the grain structure and also improved the strength of the joints for any type of alloying elements. This experimental study planned to carry out the joining process for dissimilar materials such as aluminium alloys 5083 and 7068. Three different types of tools are involved to find the ultimate tensile strength and Vickers hardness. The tool types are straight cylindrical tool, taper cylindrical tool, and triangular tool. The process factors for this investigation are a rotational speed of 800, 1000, 1200, and 1400 rpm, welding speed of 30, 40, 50, and 60 mm/min, axial force of 3, 4, 5, and 6 kN, and plate thickness of 5, 6, 7, and 8 mm. The hardness value and the ultimate tensile strength were increased in the welding zone, which proves the effects of tool profiles are efficiently utilized.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The aluminium alloy is one of the effective materials used worldwide in all field applications, and due to the excellent strength of the aluminium alloy, it is used for all structural work in the construction field [1]. The aluminium alloy is adaptable for all types of welding process and possesses good corrosion resistance in the marine environment. The aluminium alloys with reinforcement improve the wear properties in the sliding friction method. The friction stir welding method is used to weld a minimum-thickness plate without damaging the specimen, and the FSW process eliminates the bending of the work part after welding [2–4]. Different tool pin profiles are used to join the samples with extraordinary strength and good surface modification. The main advantage of the FSW is a nonconsumable tool is used since the cost of electrode for the welding process is avoided [5]. The tool rotational speed and welding speed are directly influenced in the welding strength of the components, and it reflects on the mechanical test. All sheets and plates are welded effectively; nowadays, the circular specimen is also welded through the FSW process in the pipe joint and solid round bar joint successfully [6]. The shoulder area of the tool pressing and levelling of the intermixing materials without wastage during the welding process, based on the tool selection single pass ride and multipass ride, was used to obtain rigid welding. The tilt angle of the tool position gives uniform mixing and reduces the defects of the materials after welding, and the wear of the tool was avoided by selecting proper tool material for work and the suitable parameters [7–9]. The FSW process was introduced by Wayne Thomas at TWI Ltd. in 1991. The tool rotational speed changes the microstructure of the material by the way of utilizing stirring action. The lot of researchers used the FSW process effectively, and this investigation planned to conduct the dissimilar weld joint using the material of AA5083 and AA7068 successfully. The different parameters influenced are rotational speed, welding speed, axial force, and plate thickness [10].


## 2. Selection of Materials

Consideration of the application and material selection is one of the major roles in the investigation.The dissimilar FSW joint material is selected on the basis of application and mechanical strength characters. The AA7068 aluminium alloy has provided the superior mechanical strength and corrosion resistance [11]. This AA7068 alloy is commonly applied for fuel pump manufacturing, rocker arm assembly fabrication, high-speed engine, valve body construction, and gears. AA7068 has provided maximum tensile strength and hardness, and this alloy is used in the fabrication of container and tipper truck bodies. The chemical composition of AA5083 and AA7068 is illustrated in Table 1.Table 1
Chemical composition of AA7079 and AA8050.
Material% of composition of AA5083% of composition of AA7068Cr0.20.050Cu0.102.5Fe0.30.14Mg4.52.9Mn0.50.1Si0.20.12Zn0.17.8Ti0.150.08Zr—0.16Ni—0.040AlRemainingRemaining


### 2.1. Experimental Procedure

The FSW process considers the process factors, and all the factors and their values are presented in Table2.Table 2
Friction stir welding process and its value.
NotationFactorsLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4PRotational speed (rpm)800100012001400QWelding speed (mm/min)30405060RAxial force (kN)3456SPlate thickness (mm)5678The friction stir welding process was carried out in the CNC vertical milling machine, and the specimens taken for this work were 100∗50∗4 mm for both plates [12].The tool pin for the FSW was considered as a straight cylindrical shape, taper cylindrical, and triangular profile pin for each experimental trials, as shown in Figure 1 [13].The tool material of the process was high-speed steel (HSS). The specimens are mounted on the table with the help of fixture, and the tool rotates and plunges the work material with selected parameters. The high penetration produced the uniform mixture and the permanent joints. After welding, the specimen was prepared as per the standard dimensions for conducting the tensile test, and the Universal Testing Machine was used to carry out the tensile test with 40 Ton capacity [14]. The all samples were tested effectively, the readings were noted, and the maximum tensile strength was identified. The microhardness of the specimens was tested in the Vickers hardness testing machine for each sample. The maximum hardness value of the sample was classified from other samples efficiently.Figure 1
FSW tool. (a) Cylindrical tool, (b) Taper tool, and (c) Triangular tool.
(a)(b)(c)


## 2.1. Experimental Procedure

The FSW process considers the process factors, and all the factors and their values are presented in Table2.Table 2
Friction stir welding process and its value.
NotationFactorsLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4PRotational speed (rpm)800100012001400QWelding speed (mm/min)30405060RAxial force (kN)3456SPlate thickness (mm)5678The friction stir welding process was carried out in the CNC vertical milling machine, and the specimens taken for this work were 100∗50∗4 mm for both plates [12].The tool pin for the FSW was considered as a straight cylindrical shape, taper cylindrical, and triangular profile pin for each experimental trials, as shown in Figure 1 [13].The tool material of the process was high-speed steel (HSS). The specimens are mounted on the table with the help of fixture, and the tool rotates and plunges the work material with selected parameters. The high penetration produced the uniform mixture and the permanent joints. After welding, the specimen was prepared as per the standard dimensions for conducting the tensile test, and the Universal Testing Machine was used to carry out the tensile test with 40 Ton capacity [14]. The all samples were tested effectively, the readings were noted, and the maximum tensile strength was identified. The microhardness of the specimens was tested in the Vickers hardness testing machine for each sample. The maximum hardness value of the sample was classified from other samples efficiently.Figure 1
FSW tool. (a) Cylindrical tool, (b) Taper tool, and (c) Triangular tool.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3. Result and Discussion

The process factors of the investigation and the output value of tensile strength are presented in Table3.Table 3
FSW factors’ contribution and the output of tensile strength.
Exp. no.Rotational speed (rpm)Welding speed (mm/min)Axial force (kN)Plate thickness (mm)Tensile strength (MPa)180030352102800404625038005057180480060681605100030472406100040382707100050652858100060562459120030582621012004067190111200503618512120060452401314003066257141400405529215140050482751614006037212From Table3, the maximum tensile strength was obtained as 290 MPa, and the factors of influence are a rotational speed of 1400 rpm, welding speed of 40 mm/min, axial force of 5 kN, and plate thickness of 5 mm [15]. The analysis of variance result is summarized in Table 3. From the ANOVA in the linear model, the rotational speed has high contribution such as 15.16%, and in the square model, plate thickness (mm)∗plate thickness (mm) was contributed as 14.09%. In the 2-way interaction model, the welding speed (mm/min)∗plate thickness (mm) was contributed as 33.24%. The rotational speed was the most influencing factor of this investigation, and the second factor of influence was welding speed, Table 4.Table 4
Analysis of variance result.
SourceDFSeq SSContribution (%)Adj SSAdj MSF valueP valueModel1323106.894.3623106.81777.442.570.314Linear46937.328.339341.12335.273.380.241Rotational speed (rpm)13712.815.168831.88831.7812.790.07Welding speed (mm/min)12132.18.71173.6173.550.250.666Axial force (kN)14.50.022423.970.030.869Plate thickness (mm)11087.84.44482.4482.440.70.491Square47388.230.1710407.12601.763.770.221Rotational speed (rpm)∗Rotational speed (rpm)1410.11.677691.47691.3811.140.079Welding speed (mm/min)∗Welding speed (mm/min)11637.62.60637.6637.560.920.438Axial force (kN)∗Axial force (kN)12889.111.806029.56029.528.730.098Plate thickness (mm)∗Plate thickness (mm)13451.614.095363.35363.287.770.1082-way interaction58781.335.868781.31756.252.540.306Rotational speed (rpm)∗Welding speed (mm/min)12.90.01127.6127.960.180.709Rotational speed (rpm)∗Axial force (kN)1192.20.79565816.960.860.803Rotational speed (rpm)∗Plate thickness (mm)1435.81.78435.81435.750.630.51Welding speed (mm/min)∗Axial force (kN)110.20.047705770511.160.079Welding speed (mm/min)∗Plate thickness (mm)18140.233.248140.28140.1711.790.075Error21381.25.641381.2690.59Total1524487.9100.00


### 3.1. Regression Equation

UTS (MPa) = −826 + 1.008 Rotational speed (rpm) −2.26 Welding speed (mm/min) + 83.6 Axial force (kN) + 119.1 Plate thickness (mm).− 0.000029 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Rotational speed (rpm).+ 0.1094 Welding speed (mm/min)∗Welding speed (mm/min) + 0.83 Axial force (kN)∗Axial force (kN) + 3.83 Plate thickness (mm)∗Plate thickness (mm).+ 0.00122 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Welding speed (mm/min).− 0.0767 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Axial force (kN).− 0.1039 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Plate thickness (mm).− 0.056 Welding speed (mm/min)∗Axial force (kN).− 1.356 Welding speed (mm/min)∗Plate thickness (mm).− 0.00 Axial force (kN)∗Plate thickness (mm).Table5 presents the different tool profiles involved to produce the ultimate tensile strength effectively. Using a cylindrical taper tool, the minimum tensile strength obtained was 180 MPa with the rotational speed of 1400 rpm, welding speed of 40 mm/min, and axial force of 4 kN. The maximum tensile strength attained was 267 MPa, involving of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. Using a triangular tool, the maximum tensile strength was 286 MPa offered by the influence of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. Using a straight cylindrical tool, the maximum tensile strength of 275 MPa was attained as by the way of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. From this analysis, it can be seen that all the tools provided the maximum tensile strength with consideration of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN.Table 5
Summary of the different tool profiles with ultimate tensile strength.
S. no.Tool profileRotational speed (rpm)Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)30 mm/min- 3 kN40 mm/min- 4 kN50 mm/min- 5 kN60 mm/min- 6 kN1.Cylindrical taper tool8002352282152202.10002462372262363.12002672532422384.14001921801871925.Triangular tool8002342252102156.10002472422472407.12002862652542598.14002101941862059.Straight cylindrical tool80024623422623210.100025624324624611.120027526026726212.1400210215206208


### 3.2. Effects of Tool Profiles with Tool Speed in Ultimate Tensile Strength

Figures2(a)–2(c) show the different rotational speeds versus ultimate tensile strengths by the influence of different tool pin profiles. From the entire graph, it can be seen that the increase of rotational speed increases the tensile strength, and the maximum tensile strength was obtained in the influence of 1200 rpm, a welding speed of 30 mm/min, and an axial force of 3 kN. With further increase of rotational speed, the tensile strength rapidly fell down; it proves the rotational speed effects in the tensile strength. The triangular tool was given the maximum tensile strength of 286 MPa.Figure 2
(a) Rotational speed vs. ultimate tensile strength (cylindrical taper tool), (b) Rotational speed vs. ultimate tensile strength (triangular tool), and (c) Rotational speed vs. ultimate tensile strength (straight cylindrical tool).
(a)(b)(c)


### 3.3. Effects of Tool Profiles with Tool Speed in Microhardness

Table6 presents the microhardness of the weld joint with the influence of different tool profiles. Using a cylindrical taper tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were obtained as 42 HV and 75 HV. With the involvement of a triangular tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were obtained as 48 HV and 86 HV. With the application of a straight cylindrical tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were attained as 46 HV and 82 HV. The triangular tool was given the maximum microhardness value of 86 HV.Table 6
Summary of different tool profiles with microhardness.
S. no.Tool profileRotational speed (rpm)Microhardness (HV)30 mm/min- 3 kN40 mm/min- 4 kN50 mm/min- 5 kN60 mm/min- 6 kN1.Cylindrical taper tool800455048462.1000626668583.1200757072664.1400565242505.Triangular tool800554855526.1000686075667.1200867568788.1400626554549.Straight cylindrical tool8004650524810.10006466686011.12008280747212.140058485250The rotational speed versus microhardness graph is illustrated in Figure3(a), and the graph shows the minimum rotational speed provided the minimum hardness values. The increasing trends of rotational speed, welding speed, and the axial force provided the maximum hardness value. At a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, the maximum hardness was obtained, and with further increase of rotational speed from 1200 rpm tp 1400 rpm, the hardness value decreased constantly. The maximum hardness value obtained by using acylindrical tool was 75 HV with the support of a welding speed of 30 mm/min and axial force of 3 kN.Figure 3
(a) Rotational speed vs. hardness (cylindrical taper tool), (b) Rotational speed vs. hardness (triangular tool), and (c) Rotational speed vs. hardness (straight cylindrical tool).
(a)(b)(c)Figure3(b) visibly shows the maximum hardness obtained by using a triangular tool was 86 HV with the influence of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. As in Figure 3(c), the maximum hardness value acquired was 82 HV by using a straight cylindrical tool with the rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN.


## 3.1. Regression Equation

UTS (MPa) = −826 + 1.008 Rotational speed (rpm) −2.26 Welding speed (mm/min) + 83.6 Axial force (kN) + 119.1 Plate thickness (mm).− 0.000029 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Rotational speed (rpm).+ 0.1094 Welding speed (mm/min)∗Welding speed (mm/min) + 0.83 Axial force (kN)∗Axial force (kN) + 3.83 Plate thickness (mm)∗Plate thickness (mm).+ 0.00122 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Welding speed (mm/min).− 0.0767 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Axial force (kN).− 0.1039 Rotational speed (rpm)∗Plate thickness (mm).− 0.056 Welding speed (mm/min)∗Axial force (kN).− 1.356 Welding speed (mm/min)∗Plate thickness (mm).− 0.00 Axial force (kN)∗Plate thickness (mm).Table5 presents the different tool profiles involved to produce the ultimate tensile strength effectively. Using a cylindrical taper tool, the minimum tensile strength obtained was 180 MPa with the rotational speed of 1400 rpm, welding speed of 40 mm/min, and axial force of 4 kN. The maximum tensile strength attained was 267 MPa, involving of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. Using a triangular tool, the maximum tensile strength was 286 MPa offered by the influence of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. Using a straight cylindrical tool, the maximum tensile strength of 275 MPa was attained as by the way of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. From this analysis, it can be seen that all the tools provided the maximum tensile strength with consideration of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN.Table 5
Summary of the different tool profiles with ultimate tensile strength.
S. no.Tool profileRotational speed (rpm)Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)30 mm/min- 3 kN40 mm/min- 4 kN50 mm/min- 5 kN60 mm/min- 6 kN1.Cylindrical taper tool8002352282152202.10002462372262363.12002672532422384.14001921801871925.Triangular tool8002342252102156.10002472422472407.12002862652542598.14002101941862059.Straight cylindrical tool80024623422623210.100025624324624611.120027526026726212.1400210215206208


## 3.2. Effects of Tool Profiles with Tool Speed in Ultimate Tensile Strength

Figures2(a)–2(c) show the different rotational speeds versus ultimate tensile strengths by the influence of different tool pin profiles. From the entire graph, it can be seen that the increase of rotational speed increases the tensile strength, and the maximum tensile strength was obtained in the influence of 1200 rpm, a welding speed of 30 mm/min, and an axial force of 3 kN. With further increase of rotational speed, the tensile strength rapidly fell down; it proves the rotational speed effects in the tensile strength. The triangular tool was given the maximum tensile strength of 286 MPa.Figure 2
(a) Rotational speed vs. ultimate tensile strength (cylindrical taper tool), (b) Rotational speed vs. ultimate tensile strength (triangular tool), and (c) Rotational speed vs. ultimate tensile strength (straight cylindrical tool).
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.3. Effects of Tool Profiles with Tool Speed in Microhardness

Table6 presents the microhardness of the weld joint with the influence of different tool profiles. Using a cylindrical taper tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were obtained as 42 HV and 75 HV. With the involvement of a triangular tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were obtained as 48 HV and 86 HV. With the application of a straight cylindrical tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were attained as 46 HV and 82 HV. The triangular tool was given the maximum microhardness value of 86 HV.Table 6
Summary of different tool profiles with microhardness.
S. no.Tool profileRotational speed (rpm)Microhardness (HV)30 mm/min- 3 kN40 mm/min- 4 kN50 mm/min- 5 kN60 mm/min- 6 kN1.Cylindrical taper tool800455048462.1000626668583.1200757072664.1400565242505.Triangular tool800554855526.1000686075667.1200867568788.1400626554549.Straight cylindrical tool8004650524810.10006466686011.12008280747212.140058485250The rotational speed versus microhardness graph is illustrated in Figure3(a), and the graph shows the minimum rotational speed provided the minimum hardness values. The increasing trends of rotational speed, welding speed, and the axial force provided the maximum hardness value. At a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, the maximum hardness was obtained, and with further increase of rotational speed from 1200 rpm tp 1400 rpm, the hardness value decreased constantly. The maximum hardness value obtained by using acylindrical tool was 75 HV with the support of a welding speed of 30 mm/min and axial force of 3 kN.Figure 3
(a) Rotational speed vs. hardness (cylindrical taper tool), (b) Rotational speed vs. hardness (triangular tool), and (c) Rotational speed vs. hardness (straight cylindrical tool).
(a)(b)(c)Figure3(b) visibly shows the maximum hardness obtained by using a triangular tool was 86 HV with the influence of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. As in Figure 3(c), the maximum hardness value acquired was 82 HV by using a straight cylindrical tool with the rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN.


## 4. Conclusions

The joining material of AA5083 and AA7068 aluminium alloy was joined by friction stir welding with different process variables. The maximum ultimate tensile strength and microhardness were successfully conducted, and the results are pointed out as follows:From the ANOVA test, using a cylindrical taper tool, the maximum ultimate tensile strength was attained as 267 MPa. Using a triangular tool, the maximum ultimate tensile strength obtained was 286 MPa. Using a straight cylindrical tool, the maximum ultimate tensile strength of 275 MPa was attained. From this analysis, it can be seen that all the tools provided the maximum tensile strength with consideration of a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, welding speed of 30 mm/min, and axial force of 3 kN. With the increase of rotational speed from 1200 rpm to 1400 , the tensile strength rapidly decreased.By using a cylindrical taper tool, the minimum and maximum microhardness were obtained as 42 HV and 75 HV. The implementation of a triangular tool provided the minimum and maximum microhardness of 48 HV and 86 HV. The application of a straight cylindrical tool provided the minimum and maximum microhardness of 46 HV and 82 HV. The triangular tool offered the maximum tensile strength and microhardness of the investigation.In future, the present study will analyse the wear performance and corrosion behaviour of the dissimilar materials and it is also planned to conduct the fatigue test for failure analysis.



---

*Source: 7387296-2021-07-22.xml*