Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
DOI 10.1007/s00170-011-3308-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Modification of electrical conductivity by friction stir
processing of aluminum alloys
Telmo G. Santos & R. M. Miranda & Pedro Vilaça &
J. Pamies Teixeira
Received: 6 January 2011 / Accepted: 28 March 2011 / Published online: 20 April 2011
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011
Abstract A wide range of solid-state manufacturing tech-
nologies for joining and modification of material original
properties are assuming increasing importance in industrial
applications. Among these, friction stir-based technologies
are the most significant, namely, friction stir processing
(FSP) and friction stir surfacing. The electrical conductivity
is a significant property undergoing modification, but this
property has not been characterized and fully exploited
from the technological point of view. The present work
aims to study the electrical conductivity behavior in FSP of
aluminum alloys in order to identify the major factors
governing this property. FSP was applied on AA1100,
AA6061-T6, and AA5083-H111 alloys with different
parameters. Electrical conductivity profiles were measured
at different depths and compared with hardness profiles and
microstructures. It was found that solid-state friction stir
processing of aluminum alloys lead to electrical conductivity
changes of about 4%IACS (International Annealed Copper
Standard). These changes are more intense in heat-treatable
alloys than in work-hardenable ones. Higher rotating versus
travel speed ratios (Ω/V) induce higher variations in the
electrical conductivity. In FSP, the factors governing the
T. G. Santos (*) : R. M. Miranda : J. P. Teixeira
UNIDEMI, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica e Industrial,
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa,
2829-516, Caparica, Portugal
e-mail: telmo.santos@fct.unl.pt
P. Vilaça
IDMEC, Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica—Pólo IST,
Lisbon, Portugal
P. Vilaça
IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa,
Lisbon, Portugal
electrical conductivity variations are mostly the grain size
and the presence of precipitates. It was shown that, for some
FSP applications, electrical conductivity may be a process
characterization method more precise and meaningful than
hardness to assess local material condition.
Keywords Friction stir processing . Aluminum alloys .
Electrical conductivity . Process characterization
1 Introduction
Solid-state materials processing technologies involve mech-
anisms that lead to chemical and physical properties
modifications [1]. This fact triggered the development of
several mechanical technological processes dedicated to
modify these properties to improve materials and compo-
nent performance. Examples of these processes are the
friction stir processing (FSP) [2] that aims to improve base
material properties. Friction hydro pillar processing [3] and
friction stir surfacing (FSS) [4] aim to improve wear
resistance and surface hardness.
Other mechanical technological processes do not have a
main purpose of material modification, but this is an
inevitable consequence of solid-state processing as in
friction stir welding [5], ultrasonic welding, or friction spot
welding [6].
As a consequence of any solid-state manufacturing
technology, the electrical conductivity is more or less
modified. Nevertheless, this significant property has not
been fully exploited from a technological point of view. In
fact, limited work exists to characterize the electrical
conductivity variation in solid-state processed materials
and its correlation with inherent physical and metallurgical
phenomena [7, 8]. There is insufficient knowledge on the
512
variation of electrical conductivity fields and the material
behavior that influences the former.
This scientific knowledge can be useful to predict and
develop solid-state processing parameters enabling better
overall performance of the components. Another field of
application of the electrical conductivity is the possibility to
use this property to characterize processed materials and
welded joints complementing, or even substituting, other
existing techniques as hardness measurements and metal-
lographic analysis [7]. Additionally, this information is
crucial when non-destructive testing based on electrical
methods is to be applied, as eddy currents [9, 10]. In fact, in
these methods, defects are detected based on a local change
of the electrical conductivity in the material. A previous
knowledge of the electrical conductivity field variation due
to processing is required, in order to distinguish back-
ground material from eventual discontinuities [11].
The aim of this study was to characterize and understand
the variation of electrical conductivity fields in several
aluminum alloys processed in solid state and to correlate
this property with the hardness variation and the micro-
structures observed in the various regions. Friction stir
processing was performed on AA1100, AA6061-T6, and
AA5083-H111 alloys with different parameters. Electrical
conductivity profiles were measured at different depths and
compared with hardness profiles and microstructures
observed under optical microscopy.
Since electrical conductivity behavior depends on the
electrons mobility, it is affected by both mechanical and
thermal effects (Eq. 1). The mechanical effects include the
stress and strain levels applied on the material and the
presence of preexisting or induced macro defects (Eq. 2). The
thermal effects include diffusion-controlled processes as grain
size, precipitates dispersion, and their morphology (Eq. 3).
s ¼ f ðM; T Þ ð1Þ
M ¼ f ð"; S; DÞ ð2Þ
T ¼ f ðP; GÞ ð3Þ
Where:
σ Electrical conductivity [%IACS]
M Mechanical effects
T Thermal effects
ε Strain [m/m]
S Stress [MPa]
D Macro defects
P Precipitates (quantity and morphology)
G Grain (shape and size)
From these equations, it can be seen that some of the
factors have contributions in opposite senses, that is, some
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
have a direct contribution to improve electrical conductivity,
while others have an inverse contribution. Additionally, some
factors are coupled, that is, not independent. For instance, a
cold rolled plate that is subjected to a raise in temperature
undergoes recrystallization with grain refining.
2 Methodology
In order to understand the predominance and the individual
contribution of each factor to the electrical conductivity
variation, an experimental plan was established.
A first set of experiments was conducted under uniaxial
tensile testing to evaluate the individual effect of the stress
(S). According to Eq. 4:
s ¼ f ðSÞ j "; D; P; G¼Const: ð4Þ
The following group of experiments aimed to assess the
effect of induced strain (ε) under compression (Eq. 5).
s ¼ f ð"Þ j S; D; P; G¼Const: ð5Þ
A third set of experiments was performed by FSP on
AA1100 plates. In these experiments the additional factor
studied was the grain size (G). This was assessed
performing the process under ratios of rotating speed (Ω)
versus travel speed (V) of 6.2 and 1.0 rev/mm, which
correspond to the so called “hot” and “cold” friction stir
processing conditions, respectively (Eq. 6). All FSP trials
were performed as bead on plate in order to avoid macro
root defects (D). Additionally, an adequate vertical force
was applied to each alloy to avoid volume defects.
s ¼ f ð"; S; GÞ j D; P¼Const: ð6Þ
A fourth set consisted of processing AA6061-T6 and
AA5083-H111, a heat-treatable and a non-heat-treatable
alloy, respectively, also in cold and hot processing
conditions. The objective was to evaluate the previous
factors plus the influence of precipitates (Eq. 7), since these
alloys have a significative amount of alloying elements.
s ¼ f ð"; S; G; PÞ j D¼Const: ð7Þ
3 Experimental procedure
4 Materials
The materials under study were plates of extruded AA1100,
10 mm thick; rolled AA6061-T6, 10 mm thick; and rolled
AA5083-H111, 8 mm thick with the chemical composition
presented in Table 1.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
Table 1 Chemical composition
of base materials (wt.%) Material Al Cr
AA1100 99 – 0.05
AA6061-T6 98.8–98.6 0.04–0.35
AA5083-H111 92.4–95.6 0.05–0.25
4.1 Tensile and compression tests
Prismatic specimens with 20 mm width and 200 mm length
were tested in AA1100, AA6061-T6, and AA5083-H111 with
5, 7, and 8 mm thickness, respectively. Specimens were
machined in order to verify the existence of any difference
between the outer surface and inner machined surface of the
specimens, since the materials were obtained by extrusion and
rolling. Tensile tests were performed in a universal tensile
testing machine ZWICK Z050 equipped with a 50-kN load
cell, with a load application speed of 0.2 kN/s. AA1100 was
tested from 0 to 40 MPa with increments of 10 MPa while in
AA6061-T6 these increments were of 75 MPa from 0 to
224 MPa (81% yield strength), and AA5083-H111 was
tensiled from 0 to 188 MPa (82% yield strength) with
increments of 31 MPa. At each step, the test was stopped for
60 s keeping the stress constant to perform electrical
conductivity measurements.
Uniaxial compression tests between two flat plates were
performed in a conventional hydraulic press at a very slow
speed. The specimens were lubricated between each small
compression stages in order to ensure good homogeneity
plasticity, and minimize barreling. Specimens with a square
transversal section of 20×20 mm were compressed until a
maximum true strain (ε) of 1.77, 1.20, and 0.98 (m/m) in
AA1100, AA6061-T6, and AA5083-H111, respectively.
4.2 Friction stir processing
Friction stir processing was performed with a conical
threaded probe and a shoulder with a spiral scrolled profile,
as depicted in Fig. 1 and described in Table 2. Table 3
summarizes the parameters used in the hot and cold
processed conditions.
Fig. 1 Friction stir welding
tool. a Probe of the tool, b
a)
assembled tool (probe and
shoulder)
513
Cu Fe Mg Mn Si Ti Zn
– – 0.05 – – 0.1
0.15–0.4 0.7 0.8–1.2 0.15 0.4–0.8 0.15 0.25
0.1 – 4–4.9 0.4–1 0.4 0.15 0.25
4.3 Electrical conductivity measurements
The electrical conductivity measurements were performed
using an absolute helicoidally shielded eddy current (EC)
probe Olympus Nortec p/100–500 kHz/90.5/6. A perma-
nent lift-off of thin polymer of 50 μm thickness was used.
The electrical conductivity was calculated from the real
and imaginary part of the electrical impedance of the probe.
Calibration tests were made in conductivity standard
samples and the results were compared with other com-
mercial EC equipments, namely Sigmatests® D 2.0068 and
Nortec 500 d with an accuracy within ±0.5%IACS from 0.9
to 65%IACS and ±1.0% of values over 65%IACS.
Preliminary conductivity measurements were performed
at different frequencies, in the range of 10 kHz to 2 MHz
and the final tests were performed at 150 kHz. For this
frequency the penetration depths of the eddy currents were
0.29, 0.34, and 0.41 mm for AA1100, AA6061-T6, and
AA5083-H111, respectively. This is due to the skin effect
of the eddy currents, that is, the current density is maximum
at the material surface and decreases exponentially with
depth. According to the non-destructive testing practice, the
standard penetration depth is defined as the depth at which
eddy current density decreases down to 1/e, where “e” is
the nepper number [10].
Conductivity measurements were made along a sweep in
the x-axis perpendicular to the processed bead, at half
thickness. The starting point was set at 30 mm before the
center of the nugget and 60-mm long segments were
characterized with 200-μm distance between each value
acquisition. In order to assure repeatability of results,
measurements were taken in samples extracted from the
starting and ending zones of the processed beads.
b)
514 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519

Table 2 Geometric parameters of the FSP probe

Geometric shoulder features Geometric probe features

Morphology Outer Morphology Length Mean

diameter [mm] diameter
[mm] [mm]

Plan with 2 18 Conic with 5 7

scrolled trapezoidal
profiles screw

4.4 Microstructural analysis and hardness measurements

Processed samples were prepared for microstructural

analysis and hardness measurements. Samples were cut,
polished, and chemically etched with Keller reagent to
Fig. 2 Effect of the stress in electrical conductivity of AA1100,
reveal the metallurgical structure of the different zones AA6061-T6, and AA5083-H111
observed under optical microscopy. Vickers hardness tests
were made on transversal section of the processed beads,
variation is insignificant and within the error range of the
according to ISO 6507-1, using a Mitutoyo HM-112
equipment.
Vickers hardness tester under a load of 1.96 N.
The variation of electrical conductivity with strain is
depicted in Fig. 3. A small decrease is observed for all
alloys due to the plastic deformation as observed by [13].
5 Results and discussion
Though the strain induced during these experiments is
below the one observed in FSP, it must be noticed that it
5.1 Effect of stress and strain on the electrical conductivity
produces significant variations in hardness, as shown in
Fig. 4. These variations are of the same order of magnitude
From Fig. 2 it is possible to see that the electrical
as the one observed in friction-stir-processed materials.
conductivity does not depend on the stress within the tested
Thus, it can be said that the conductivity is independent of
range that was 80% above the yield strength of the alloys
the strain. For AA1100 an increase of 2%IACS is observed
under study. No differences were found between the outer
for true strains of 0.4 to 0.5, eventually due to a
and inner surfaces of the machined specimens. This is an
metallurgical hardening process, that is also responsible
important information when comparing the fields of electric
for the increase in hardness. This phenomenon is out of the
conductivity due to FSP between different plates, and at
scope of this investigation and thus it will not be addressed.
different depths. It must be noticed that electrical conduc-
tivity measurements were performed with a circular eddy
current probe which does not evaluate the eventual effects
of anisotropy of this property. In fact, the electrical
conductivity depends on the electrical field direction of
application and during a uniaxial tensile test, the material
undergoes extensions of opposite signs in longitudinal and
transversal directions, so that an increase in electrical
conductivity in one direction and reduction in the other
could occur, which is not detectable with a circular probe.
The use of directional probes could detect this phenome-
non. However, other researchers [12] showed that this
Table 3 FSP parameters for hot and cold conditions

FSW Travel speed V Rotation speed Ω Ratio Ω/V

condition [mm/min] [rev/min] [rev/mm]

Hot 180 1,120 6.22

Cold 355 355 1.00 Fig. 3 Effect of the strain in electrical conductivity of AA1100,
AA6061-T6, and AA5083-H111
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
Fig. 4 Effect of the strain in micro Vickers hardness of AA1100,
AA6061-T6, and AA5083-H111
5.2 Effect of stress and strain on hardness
Opposite to the electrical conductivity, for the aluminum
alloys under study, hardness was always seen to increase
with the strain, that is, with plastic deformation. Figure 4
shows the micro hardness variation with strain measured on
compressed specimens as described in the experimental
procedure. In fact, work hardening of aluminum alloys is a
common process for improving mechanical strength.
Comparing Figs. 3 and 4 it can be observed that
increasing the strain does not affect the electrical conduc-
tivity, but significantly increases hardness. In fact, the
plastic deformation, or strain imposed, generate defects as
dislocations, which oppose a mechanical resistance to the
hardness tester indenter. This results in an increase in
hardness. However, the quantity of dislocations does not
affect the electronic mobility that is responsible for the
Fig. 5 Transversal macrograph,
electrical conductivity, and
Vickers hardness profiles of the
cold FSP on AA1100
515
electrical conductivity. So, in summary, the mechanical
factors highlighted before, stress and strain do not affect
significantly the electrical conductivity, thus, Eq. 1 can be
simplified according to Eq. 8.
s ¼ f ð"; S; G; PÞ ! s  f ðG; PÞ ð8Þ
5.3 Friction stir processing on AA1100 plates
As shown before, since the residual stress and strain
involved in FSP beads do not contribute to the electrical
conductivity variations, the factors governing this property
are the grain size (G) and the presence of precipitates (P).
So, the following tests will be analyzed regarding G and P.
Considering the processed beads produced under cold
and hot conditions, Fig. 5 and 6, respectively, it can be seen
that the latter are wider than the former due to the higher
heat input. This is clearly noticed in AA1100 and AA6061-
T6 alloys that are both heat treatable.
For AA1100, the electrical conductivity is almost constant
along the processed bead produced in cold conditions, while a
drop in hardness is observed, from the base material to the
nugget. Non-homogeneities in the nugget are observed due to
the resulting visco-plastic material flow, as a consequence of
low rotation speed versus travel speed ratio. The low plastic
deformation and heat input in this condition are insufficient
for homogeneous dynamic recrystallization and grain refine-
ment in the nugget.
The electric conductivity is sensitive to processing con-
ditions as revealed in processed beads performed under hot
conditions. In this case, hardness shows a profile along the
processed bead similar to the electrical conductivity, that is,
they both decrease in the nugget. The very fine grain observed
in this region can make the electron mobility responsible for
the electrical conductivity difficult, while the high deform-
516 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519

Fig. 6 Transversal macrograph,

electrical conductivity, and
Vickers hardness profiles of the
hot FSP on AA1100

ability of AA1100 alloy and the low content of residual
elements explain the decrease in hardness since there is an
insufficient amount of precipitates to affect hardness.
Figure 7 shows the microstructures of the different
regions of the processed bead produced in hot conditions
that is under high rotation speeds and low transverse
speeds, which induce higher plastic deformation and heat
generation, thus dynamic recrystallization of the grains is
more intense, together with the solubilization of the existing
residual elements. This behavior was also observed in the
other heat-treatable alloy: AA6061-T6.
5.4 Friction stir processing on AA6061-T6
Figure 8 shows the macrograph of a transverse section of a
cold processed bead in AA6061-T6, as well as the hardness

Fig. 7 Macrograph of a trans-

versal section of a hot FSP on
AA1100 and micrographs of
identified regions
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
Fig. 8 Transversal macrograph,
electrical conductivity, and
Vickers hardness profiles of the
cold FSP on AA6061-T6
and electrical conductivity profiles. It can be observed that
the electrical conductivity is almost constant along the
processed bead as shown by the green square dotted line for
a depth z=−2 mm. At half thickness, however, it largely
increases in the nugget from 43.3 to 47%IACS, due to the
presence of heterogeneities in the nugget as a result of cold
FSP condition with insufficient visco-plastic material flow
and an apparent low forging force. Thus, it is possible that
under these conditions the grain refinement was limited,
especially in the heterogeneous zones, placed exactly at half
thickness where this abnormal increase in conductivity was
measured.
Hardness has a significant drop from the base material to
the nugget since this is more sensible to structural
modifications, mainly due to the presence of precipitates
from alloying elements in this heat-treatable alloy. The two
adjacent hardness peaks can be due to overaging of this
alloy that is annealed and artificially aged.
Fig. 9 Transversal macrograph,
electrical conductivity, and
Vickers hardness profiles of the
hot FSP on AA6061-T6
517
For high rotation and low travel speeds, that is, under hot
conditions, the variation of electrical conductivity is very
small, about 1.5%IACS. It decreases to a minimum of
42.5%IACS in the nugget. The decrease in the heat-affected
zone is due to precipitate solubilization and grain coales-
cence that occurs as a consequence of the heat generated in
the process. A slight increase of electrical conductivity is
observed in the nugget that is attributed to the coalescence
of dynamic recrystallized grain due to total heat generated.
This reduces hardness in the nugget as observed in Fig. 9.
The two adjacent peaks can be due to overaging of this
alloy that is annealed and artificially aged.
5.5 Friction stir processing on AA5083-H111
Observing the electrical conductivity and hardness profiles
for the work-hardenable AA5083-H111 alloy processed in
cold and hot conditions, Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, respectively,
518
Fig. 10 Transversal macro-
graph, electrical conductivity,
and Vickers hardness profiles of
the cold FSP on AA5083-H111
no significant variations were noticed. In cold processed
sample, the electrical conductivity was constant along the
bead, while a slight increase in hardness occurred due to the
grain refinement in the nugget. In the hot processed sample
the electrical conductivity had very minor variations, from
28%IACS in the base material to 28.5%IACS in the TAMZ
region to 27%IACS in the nugget. Hardness was also seen
to be constant along the processed bead. This is a typical
behavior of non-heat-treatable alloys which are hardened by
cold plastic deformation. The small decrease of the
electrical conductivity in the nugget is essentially due to
the slight grain refinement in the stirred zone, increasing the
grain boundary density. The increase of electrical conduc-
tivity in the thermo-mechanical affected zone (TMAZ) is
due to the grain coalescence, since this is not a stirred zone;
it was subjected to an increase in temperature by conduc-
tion, promoting the grain coalescence.
Fig. 11 Transversal macro-
graph, electrical conductivity,
and Vickers hardness profiles of
the hot FSP on AA5083-H111
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
So, in this alloy, electrical conductivity variations are
reduced, while a small increase in hardness is seen due to
grain refinement. The main factor governing the electrical
conductivity is, thus, the grain size, while the precipitates
can be neglected since electrons can easily find alternative
flowing paths in a highly conductive aluminum matrix.
Figure 11 evidences the intrinsic different physical
phenomenon inherent to each characterization method,
providing complementary information. Hardness profile is
more irregular affected mainly by the presence of existing
precipitates, size, and distribution, while electrical conduc-
tivity clearly identifies major structural modifications
delimiting the different zones as base material, TMAZ,
and nugget.
The tests in this alloy permit to conclude that electrical
conductivity may be a process characterization method
more useful than hardness to assess the material condition.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 57:511–519
6 Conclusions
From the present study the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. Solid-state friction stir processing of aluminum alloys
lead to electrical conductivity changes of about 4%
IACS. These changes are more intense in heat-treatable
alloys as AA1100 and AA6061-T6 than in work-
hardenable alloys as AA5083-H111.
2. Friction stir processing conditions with high rotating
versus travel speed ratios (Ω/V) induce higher varia-
tions in the electrical conductivity. These process
parameters showed to be determinant for governing
the electrical conductivity variation.
3. It was seen that stress and strain do not affect
significantly the electrical conductivity, while strain
largely increases hardness. In FSP, the factors govern-
ing the electrical conductivity variations are mostly the
grain size and the presence of precipitates (both
quantity and morphology).
4. Grain size is the major responsible factor for the
electrical conductivity level since grain boundaries
constitute an inevitable obstacle to electron mobility.
So, an increase of electrical conductivity reflects a grain
coalescence phenomena, or alternatively, a decrease of
electrical conductivity is observed in grain-refined
processed zones.
5. Precipitates mostly affect hardness but not the
electrical conductivity, since electrons can easily find
alternative flowing paths in a highly conductive
aluminum matrix.
6. It was shown that, for some FSP applications, electrical
conductivity may be a process characterization method
more useful than hardness to assess material condition,
since it identifies more precisely different zones as base
material, TMAZ, and nugget.
Acknowledgment The authors would like to acknowledge the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT/MCTES)
for its financial support of FSW conditions development via the
519
project PTDC/EME-TME/69999/2006 and FSP conditions via project
PTDC/EME-TME/103543/2008-FRISURF.
References
1. Ma ZY (2008) Friction stir processing technology: a review. Metal
and Mat Trans A 39A:642–658
2. Nascimento F, Santos T, Vilaça P, Miranda RM, Quintino L
(2009) Microstructural modification and ductility enhancement of
surfaces modified by FSP in aluminium alloys. Mater Sci Eng A
506:16–22. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2009.01.008
3. Pinheiro G (2008) Local Reinforcement of Magnesium Compo-
nents by Friction Processing: Determination of Bonding Mecha-
nisms and Assessment of Joint Properties. Dissertation,
Technischen Universität Hamburg-Harburg. http://www.gkss.de/
imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/
berichte/gkss_berichte_2008/gkss_2008_12.pdf. Accessed 9
December 2010
4. Rafi H et al (2011) Microstructural evolution during friction
surfacing of tool steel H13. Mater Des 32:82–87. doi:10.1016/j.
matdes.2010.06.031
5. International Patent no. PCT/GB92/02203 and GB Patent no.
9125978.8, 6 December 1991; Thomas, Wayne M.
6. Rosendo T, et al. (2009) Friction Spot Processes: FSSW and FSpW.
Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht Centre website.http://www.gkss.de/
imperia/md/content/gkss/institut_fuer_werkstoffforschung/wmp/
poster-apresentacao-gkss2.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2010
7. Santos T, Vilaça P, Miranda RM (2011) Electrical conductivity
field analysis for evaluation of FSW joints in AA6013 and
AA7075 alloys. J Mater Process Technol 211:174–180.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.08.030
8. Ari M et al (2008) Microstructure and thermo-electrical transport
properties of Cd–Sn alloys. Mater Charact 59:624–630.
doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2007.05.014
9. ASM Handbook Committee (1992) Nondestructive Evaluation
and Quality Control, Volume 17, ASM Handbook. Ed. ASM, NY
10. Hellier CJ (2001) Handbook of nondestructive evaluation.
McGraw-Hill, New York
11. Rosado L et al (2010) Advanced technique for non-destructive
testing of friction stir welding of metals. Measurement 43:1021–
1013. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2010.02.006
12. Blodgett M, Nagy P (2004) Eddy current assessment of near-
surface residual stress in shot-peened nickel-base superalloys. J
Non destruct Eval 23:107–123
13. Çetinarslan C (2009) Effect of cold plastic deformation on
electrical conductivity of various materials. Mater Des 30:671–
673. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.05.035