metals

Article
Butt Joining of Bi-Layered Aluminum Sheets through
Friction Stir Welding: Tensile Stresses, Bending
Stresses, Residual Stresses, and Fractrography
Hongyu Wei 1 , Muhammad Tariq 2 , Ghulam Hussain 2, *, Imran Khan 3 ,
Muhammad Imran Khan 2 and Wasim A. Khan 2
1 College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing 210016, China; whyme@nuaa.edu.cn
2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, Topi, KPK 23640,
Pakistan; mtarik1991@gmail.com (M.T.); imrankhan@giki.edu.pk (M.I.K.); wasim@giki.edu.pk (W.A.K.)
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, KPK 25000,
Pakistan; engrimran@uetpeshawar.edu.pk
* Correspondence: gh_ghumman@hotmail.com; Tel.: +93-828-1026 (ext. 2558)




Received: 30 January 2019; Accepted: 21 March 2019; Published: 27 March 2019


Abstract: Laminated metals sheets have been used widely in various sectors including the
optoelectronics, aerospace, ship, and automotive industries because of their desirable mechanical
properties. Therefore, techniques for successful joining of such laminates are a focus of study.
The objective of this study was to perform butt-welding of bi-layered aluminum laminated sheets
using the friction stir welding (FSW) technique. The tensile properties, flexural properties, residual
stress distribution, and fractured surfaces of the final weldments were analyzed. The effects of the
process parameters on the mechanical properties of the weldments were also investigated. Mixing
defects (voids and cracks) were observed in the stir zone (SZ) at the following combinations: low
rotational speed (ω) and low tool traverse speeds (v) and also at high ω and high v, which substantially
decreased the tensile and bending strength of the weldments as well as % elongation. Moreover,
the sample welded at ω = 1500 rpm and v = 47.5 mm/min showed the best performance under
mechanical loading: with a % elongation and tensile strength of 24.72% and 79.10 MPa, respectively.
Similarly, the sample welded at ω = 750 rpm and v = 118 mm/min showed the highest flexural
strength of 3.15 MPa. Finally, the suitable parameters are proposed for the joining of bi-layered
aluminum laminated sheets.

Keywords: friction stir welding; Bi-layered laminates; tensile properties; flexural properties;
fractrographs; residual stresses

1. Introduction
Important mechanical properties such as corrosion resistance, formability, and high strength to
weight ratio possessed by aluminum (Al) alloys have made it increasingly popular in the aerospace
and automotive industries. The use of aluminum sheets in the body panels of automobiles is an
interesting application as it can significantly reduce vehicle’s weight. As a consequence, the automobile
manufacturers are shifting from steels towards Al/Al-alloys for manufacturing lighter, safer, and more
efficient automobiles [1,2]. The mechanical properties can further be improved by assembling materials
in laminated form. The laminated material can be obtained by stacking thin sheets. In recent years,
laminated sheets have attracted attention from various sectors including the optoelectronics, aerospace,
ship, and automotive industries because they offer superior properties in comparison to monolithic
sheets or base materials (BM) [3,4]. The aluminum laminated sheets exhibit better strength to weight

Metals 2019, 9, 384; doi:10.3390/met9040384 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2019, 9, 384 2 of 16

ratio, fracture toughness, and high resistance to impact and fatigue loadings. The aluminum laminated
sheets are extensively used in the modern aircraft manufacturing industries [5]. The use of aluminum
laminates is limited by the difficulties of welding aluminum perfectly using traditional welding
techniques. Thus, the need of an alternate, efficient, and economical joining technique for joining
aluminum laminates becomes a matter of concern. Friction stir welding (FSW) is capable of joining
materials like aluminum, magnesium, copper, and titanium alloys that are difficult to weld using
conventional welding techniques [6–9].
FSW for joining of aluminum sheets was introduced by Wayne Thomas from the UK in 1991 [10].
FSW is a thermo-mechanical welding technique in which a non-consumable FSW tool harder than the
BM is employed to perform joining. The shouldered pin FSW tool after attaining a desired rotating
speed (ω) is inserted into the faying surface and is moved with constant traverse speed (v) along
the weld line. The contact between the tool shoulder and BM generates friction heat that softens the
BM. Consequently, mixing of the softened material of the two adjacent surfaces takes place around
the tool pin to form a solid state joint. The process is relatively easy to perform with significant
reduction in time and cost. The FSW process has become popular for producing quality joints of
aluminum alloys because of its remarkable ability to produce defect free, fine, and high strength
welds [11]. An FSW weld contains three distinct zones, namely: the stir zone (SZ) or nugget zone (NZ),
thermo-mechanically affected zone (TMAZ), and heat-affected zone (HAZ) [12]. The SZ experiences
severe plastic deformation and comparatively high heat input causing formation of fine and equiaxed
grains. The TMAZ lies adjacent to the SZ and undergoes relatively less plastic deformation. The HAZ
does not experience any plastic deformation and bears only thermal effects. Temperature rise and
plastic deformation in FSW dictate the micro-structural changes. These micro-structural changes
in turn control macro-structural properties such as tensile strength, % elongation, flexural strength,
and residual stresses of the weldments. The final quality of the weldment is determined on the basis of
mechanical properties and appearance of the weld.
Biallas et al. [13] investigated the effect of FSW process parameters on the tensile strength of FSW
2024Al-T4. According to their study, the tensile strength and ductility of the material increased with
the increasing of the tool rotational speed (ω). Mishra et al. [14] and Strombeck et al. [15] both carried
out similar studies to investigate yield strength, ultimate tensile strength (UTS), and % elongation at
different locations of FSW weldments. It was concluded that proper material mixing and severe plastic
deformation caused a significant improvement in ductility and tensile strength of the weldments.
Bisadi et al. [16] studied the effect of FSW process parameters on the tensile properties in lap joints
of 5083-Al. It was observed that changing the tool traverse speed at high tool rotation rates had an
inverse effect on the properties of the joints.
It has been reported that the residual stresses produced due to localized heating and plastic
deformation during FSW process significantly affect the post weld quality and mechanical properties
of the joints. Peel et al. [17] studied the residual stress distribution during FSW of 5083-Al and
stated that the residual stresses normal to the weld exhibited a maximum value at the center of
the weld. Furthermore, they observed that with an increase in v, longitudinal (parallel to the weld)
residual stresses increased while transverse (normal to the weld) residual stresses remained unchanged.
Donne et al. [18] also investigated the distribution of residual stresses in FSW of 6013Al-T6 and
2024Al-T3 welds using several techniques. The longitudinal residual stresses were higher than
transverse residual stresses in every case, independent of ω, v, and pin diameter. It was also noted that
the HAZ contained the maximum tensile residual stresses. The tensile residual stresses decreased as
the v and ω were decreased. James et al. [19] measured residual stresses in the joints of 7050Al-T7451,
2219-Al and C458 Al–Li alloy. It was observed that the stresses generated during FSW were relatively
low compared to those produced in fusion welding. Generally, the residual stresses along the welding
direction were tensile in nature while the residual stresses perpendicular to the welding direction
were compressive.
Metals 2019, 9, 384 3 of 16

According to the authors’ knowledge, the only research published on the butt joining of laminated
sheets via FSW was carried out by Beygi et al. [20]. They performed butt joining of bilayer Al−Cu sheet
through FSW. The main focus was the investigation of the flow pattern during FSW. The microstructure
and hardness behavior of the weldments was also studied. However, the relationship between FSW
process parameters, mechanical properties, and residual stress distribution was not explored.
In light of the above literature review, there is a need to perform an investigation to examine
the suitability of the FSW process for joining multilayered sheet. Furthermore, the similarities and
dissimilarities between FSW of multilayered and monolithic sheets need to be addressed. Therefore,
the current research is carried out with an objective to investigate the above-mentioned areas. In this
study, butt joints of bi-layered aluminum laminated sheets were obtained at various tool rotation
and traveling speeds. The effects of FSW process parameters on the residual stress distribution
and mechanical properties of the final weldments were investigated in detail. The fractography of
the joints fractured under bending and tensile loadings was performed. Moreover, a comparative
analysis regarding the effect of FSW process parameters on the mechanical properties of laminated
and monolithic sheet joints was also carried out.

2. Materials and Methods

In the current study, bi-layered commercial aluminum laminated sheets of 90 mm × 55 mm ×
4 mm dimensions were used as the BM. The chemical composition and mechanical properties of the
as received BM are shown in Table 1; Table 2, respectively. A tapered pin FSW tool with a 16 mm
shoulder diameter, 3 mm pin height, 5 mm initial pin diameter, and 3 mm pin tip diameter was used
(Figure 1a). In order to maximize the material flow from the advancing side (AS) to the retreating side
(RS), a constant tool tilt angle of 2◦ was maintained during all the experiments [21].

Table 1. Chemical composition (weight %) of base material (BM).

Material Al Fe Si Cr Cu Zn Mn Others
0.03 each
1350 99.5 Min 0.40 Max 0.10 Max 0.10 Max 0.05 Max 0.05 Max 0.01 Max
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.1
4 of total
16

Tensile tests were performed to determine

Table the ultimate
2. Mechanical tensile
Properties strength and % elongation of the
of BM.
BM and welded specimens. A computer numerically controlled (CNC) electric discharge machine
(Jilin Songjiang Technology & Trade Elastic Tensile
co. ltd., Tianjin, % Elongation
China) was employed to extract (for
sub size I-shape
Density Poisson’s Yield Strength
tensile test
3 specimens of the BM Modulus
and weldments Strength
(across the weld) as per ASTM (EGauge
8M Length The
standard. of
(kg/m ) Ratio (MPa)
universal testing machine INSTRON (GPa)
5567 (Instron(MPa)
Corp., Norwood, MA, USA) was used 25 mm)
to perform
tension test at a crosshead
2600–2800 0.33 rate of 1 69–80
mm/min, until the
96.9fracture occurred.
81 28.4

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a)1.Friction
Figure stirstir
(a) Friction welding
welding(FSW)
(FSW)tool
tool used in the
used in thecurrent
currentstudy
study and
and (b)Experimental
(b)Experimental setupsetup
for for
FSW FSW
process.
process.

Bending test samples of 18 mm × 100 mm × 4 mm were cut using CNC-EDM in accordance with
ASTM E190-92 standard. The flexural behavior and ductility of the weldments were investigated by
root bend test (i.e., bending force-application on the weld surface). The distance between the centers
of two supporting rollers was 90 mm. A constant cross head speed of 1.5 mm/min was maintained
Metals 2019, 9, 384 4 of 16

Initially the blanks of specified dimensions were cut and the edges of the blanks were grinded to
minimize the gap between the adjacent surfaces. A specially designed fixture (Figure 1b) was used to
hold the joining blanks firmly. A vertical milling machine was used to perform the FSW process.
For the experimental plan, nine different combinations of processing parameters were selected,
as shown in Table 3. This experimental plan was followed to perform the FSW process for butt joining
of bi-layered aluminum laminated sheets by varying tool rotation and tool traverse speeds.

Table 3. Design of experiments.

Test No. Tool Rotation Rate (ω, rpm) Tool Traverse Rate (v, mm/min)
1 47.5
2 750 75
3 118
4 47.5
5 1180 75
6 118
7 47.5
8 1500 75
9 118

Tensile tests were performed to determine the ultimate tensile strength and % elongation of the
BM and welded specimens. A computer numerically controlled (CNC) electric discharge machine
(Jilin Songjiang Technology & Trade Co. Ltd., Tianjin, China) was employed to extract sub size I-shape
tensile test specimens of the BM and weldments (across the weld) as per ASTM (E 8M standard.
The universal testing machine INSTRON 5567 (Instron Corp., Norwood, MA, USA) was used to
perform tension test at a crosshead rate of 1 mm/min, until the fracture occurred.
Bending test samples of 18 mm × 100 mm × 4 mm were cut using CNC-EDM in accordance with
ASTM E190-92 standard. The flexural behavior and ductility of the weldments were investigated by
root bend test (i.e., bending force-application on the weld surface). The distance between the centers
of two supporting rollers was 90 mm. A constant cross head speed of 1.5 mm/min was maintained
during the bending test up to a maximum deflection of 5%. The residual stresses in the BM and in
different zones of welded samples were determined using the hole drill method (ASTM E-837-13a).
In this method, a tungsten carbide drill bit of 1.6 mm diameter was used for drilling a small hole
through the thickness with a step size of 0.1 mm. The relieved strains of the strain gauge rosettes
during drilling were measured with the help of a P3 strain indicator. The measured strains were then
post-processed for determining the corresponding stresses using H-drill software. Finally, scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) (TESCAN, Brno, Czech Republic) was performed to analyze the fractured
surfaces of bending and tensile samples.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microscopic Observations

Visual and microscopic observation of weldments is very important as it provides the basic
information about the quality of the produced joints. Hence, all the welds were visually inspected at
the first instance. The accumulation of defects resulted in the formation of voids (formation of gaps
or unfilled indents where the material is not present) and cracks in various tests such as weldments
in Tests 1, 4, 8, and 9, as shown in Figure 2a–e. Thorough analysis indicated that these defects have
links with the selection of parameters. For instance, Test 1 was performed at low ω and high v, and the
joint suffered from voids. In fact, this can be attributed to improper mixing due to: 1) low tool rotation
rate (ω) that results in insufficient generation of heat required to soften the material; and 2) high tool
traverse speed (v) that does not provide sufficient time for complete softening and effective mixing of
the material [22]. The defects also appeared for higher v and higher ω (Figure 2c,d), which again can
Metals 2019, 9, 384 5 of 16

be attributed to inadequate mixing due to high v. This reveals that parameter v is more important than
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
parameter ω. On the contrary, mixing defects were not observed in Test 7 because of proper mixing
conditions i.e., high ω and low v. These results follow that proper selection of v and ω is manadatory
proper mixing conditions i.e., high ω and low v. These results follow that proper selection of v and ω
to realize the successful
is manadatory joints.
to realize the successful joints.

Figure
Figure 2. Accumulation
2. Accumulation ofofdefects
defectsin
in (a)
(a) Test
Test 11 (b)
(b)Test
Test44(c)(c)Test
Test8 (d) Test
8 (d) 9 and
Test (e) Stir
9 and zonezone
(e) Stir and and
various sides of Test 4 with many
various sides of Test 4 with many voids. voids.
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

3.2. Temperature Evolution

During the FSW process, continuous stirring generates heat due to friction between the FSW tool
and
Metalsworkpiece.
2019, 9, 384 As a result, the heat generated during stirring causes softening and hence joining 6 of of
16
the material, as discussed by Mishra et al. [4]. The amount and dissipation rate of the generated heat
dictated the final quality of the weld. The temperature distribution across the weld region of Test 1
3.2. Temperature
and Evolutionwas measured as shown in Figure 3. Test 1 and Test 7 weldments were
Test 7 weldments
produced
During at the
a vFSW
of 47.5 mm/min
process, and ωstirring
continuous of 750 generates
rpm and heatv of due
47.5tomm/min and ω of
friction between the1500
FSWrpm,tool
respectively.
and workpiece. TheAs material
a result,inthe
Test 7 experienced
heat the highest
generated during stirringtemperature of 266and
causes softening °C hence
in the joining
stir zone of
(SZ) due to highest value of ω. While Test 1 weldment endured the lowest peak temperature
the material, as discussed by Mishra et al. [4]. The amount and dissipation rate of the generated heat of 163
°C in thethe
dictated SZ final
due to lowest
quality of value of ω.The temperature distribution across the weld region of Test 1 and
the weld.
Test 7The highest temperatures
weldments was measuredinasboth shown theincases
Figurewere found
3. Test 1 andtoTest
be 7inweldments
the SZ, whichwere gradually
produced
decreased along the width in both directions as shown in Figure 3. The temperature
at a v of 47.5 mm/min and ω of 750 rpm and v of 47.5 mm/min and ω of 1500 rpm, respectively. on the advancing
side (AS) of the
The material weld7 during
in Test FSW the
experienced washighest
found to be slightlyof
temperature higher than
266 ◦ C thatstir
in the of zone
the retreating
(SZ) due toside (RS).
highest
The
valuelower
of ω.temperature
While Test 1on the RS might
weldment be due
endured theto lack of
lowest material
peak on the RS,
temperature occurring
of 163 as aSZ
◦ C in the result
due of to
the difference
lowest value of ω. in material flow between the AS and RS.

Figure 3. Temperature distribution across the weld.

Figure 3. Temperature distribution across the weld.

The highest temperatures in both the cases were found to be in the SZ, which gradually decreased
3.3. Tensile Properties
along the width in both directions as shown in Figure 3. The temperature on the advancing side (AS)
of theThe
weld stress-strain
during FSW curves obtained
was found to befrom the higher
slightly tensile-test
than of theofBM
that the and weldments
retreating are The
side (RS). shown in
lower
Figure 4. All the weldments showed a lower ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and
temperature on the RS might be due to lack of material on the RS, occurring as a result of the difference failure strain as
compared
in materialtoflow thatbetween
of the BM.theFurthermore,
AS and RS. Test 1 and Test 4 weldments exhibited brittle fractures due
to the presence of mixing defects as discussed in Section 3.1. On the other hand, the rest of the samples
3.3. Tensile Properties
experienced a considerable plastic deformation, and necking behavior was observed prior to fracture.
OnlyThe Teststress-strain
5 is an exception
curvesamong thisfrom
obtained group,
thewhich showed
tensile-test a failure
of the BM and strain of approximately
weldments are shown6%. in
Tensile
Figure 4. All the weldments showed a lower ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and failureexhibited
samples of Test 7, 8, and 9 weldments showed high UTS, while the Test 1 sample strain as
the smallest
compared toUTS, asthe
that of shown
BM. in Figure 4. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the 4failure
Test 1 and Test strainexhibited
weldments in Test 7 brittle
was highest among
fractures due
all the weldments. It might be due to the high input heat (high temperature generation)
to the presence of mixing defects as discussed in Section 3.1. On the other hand, the rest of the samples and better
material
experienced mixing (high tool plastic
a considerable rotational speed andand
deformation, lownecking
tool traverse
behavior speed). Althoughprior
was observed the Test 8 and
to fracture.
Test
Only9Testsamples
5 is an showed the highest
exception UTSgroup,
among this but an which
increase in v atahigh
showed ω (1500
failure strainrpm) in both the cases
of approximately 6%.
caused the inverse effect on the ductility. Therefore, this is a similar trend to
Tensile samples of Test 7, 8, and 9 weldments showed high UTS, while the Test 1 sample exhibited that concluded by Bisadi
the
et al. [16].UTS, as shown in Figure 4. Furthermore, the failure strain in Test 7 was highest among all the
smallest
weldments. It might be due to the high input heat (high temperature generation) and better material
mixing (high tool rotational speed and low tool traverse speed). Although the Test 8 and Test 9 samples
showed the highest UTS but an increase in v at high ω (1500 rpm) in both the cases caused the inverse
effect on the ductility. Therefore, this is a similar trend to that concluded by Bisadi et al. [16].
 Metals2019,
Metals 2019,9,9,384
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 16
7 of
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
Test 6 Test 7 Test 8 Test 9 BM
100 Test 6 Test 7 Test 8 Test 9 BM
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
(MPA)
(MPA)

60
60
Stress

50
TensileStress

50
40
Tensile

40
30
30

20
20

10
10

0
0
-0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.27
-0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.27
Strain (mm/mm)
Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 4. Stress-strain
Figure Stress-strain curves
curvesof
ofBM
BMand
andFSW
FSWsamples.
samples.
Figure 4. Stress-strain curves of BM and FSW samples.

The
The lowest ω and vv in the Test 1 sample seem responsibleresponsible forthe the formationofofvoids
voidsdueduetoto
Thelowest
lowestωω and and v in in the Test 1 sample seem seem responsible for for the formation
formation of voids due to
insufficient
insufficientheat
insufficient heatinput.
heat input.The
input. presence
Thepresence
presence of of voids
of voids
voids in inthe
in theSZ
the SZof
SZ ofTest
of Test111weldment
Test weldmentcaused
weldment causedaa adecrease
caused decrease
decrease inin
in itsits
its
UTS.
UTS.
UTS. As
AsAsaaaresult,
result, the
result,the tensile
thetensile sampleof
tensilesample ofthe
of theTest
the Test 111weldment
Test weldmentfractured
weldment fracturedin
fractured ininthe
theSZ
the SZSZas shown
asas shown
shown in Figure
inin Figure
Figure 5a.5a.
5a.
InIn contrast
contrast to
to Test
Test 1,1, the
the higher heat input
input in
inthe
the Test
Test7 7weldment
weldment resulted
resulted in effective
in material
effective
In contrast to Test 1, the higher heat input in the Test 7 weldment resulted in effective material mixing, mixing,
material mixing,
and
andand hence
hence better
hencebetter weld
betterweld strength.
strength. Thus,
weldstrength. Thus, unlike
Thus, unlikeTest
unlike Test1,
Test 1,the
1, thefracture
the fracturein
fracture ininthe
thetensile
the tensilesample
tensile sample
sample of the
ofof the
the Test
Test
Test 77 7
weldment
weldment occurred
occurred inin the
the heat
heat affected
affected zone (HAZ) as
weldment occurred in the heat affected zone (HAZ) as shown in Figure 5b. shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 5b.
5b.

Fracture
Fracture

Figure
Figure 5. Fractured tensile sample of
of (a) Test
Test 1 and (b)
(b) Test 7.
7. Note:A.S.
A.S. andR.S.
R.S. meansadvancing
advancing
Figure5.5.Fractured
Fracturedtensile
tensilesample
sample of (a)
(a) Test 11 and
and (b) Test
Test 7. Note:
Note: A.S. and
and R.S. means
means advancing
side
sideand retreating side, respectively.
sideand
andretreating
retreatingside,
side,respectively.
respectively.
The UTS and % elongation of the BM and weldments are listed in Table 4. The Test 1 and
The
TheUTS
UTSand
and%%elongation
elongationof ofthe
theBM
BM and
and weldments
weldments are are listed
listed in
in Table
Table 4.
4. The
The Test
Test 1 and Test
1 and Test 44
Test 4 specimens
specimens showed minimum percentage elongations due to the presence of voids as shown
Figurein
specimensshowed
showedminimum
minimumpercentage
percentageelongations
elongations duedue to
to the
the presence
presence of
of voids
voids as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure
2a,b. 2a,b. Moreover, the mechanical properties such as strength and ductilitythe
of the Test 2 and Test 3
2a,b.Moreover,
Moreover, the
the mechanical
mechanical properties
properties such
such asas strength
strength and
and ductility
ductility of
of the Test
Test 22 and
and Test
Test 33
weldments
weldments were relatively better because of the absence of voids.
weldmentswerewererelatively
relativelybetter
betterbecause
because of
of the
the absence
absence ofof voids.
voids.
Metals 2019, 9, 384 8 of 16

Table 4. Tensile properties of welded samples and BM.

Ultimate Tensile Deviation from the

Sample % Elongation Defects
Strength (MPa) Mean Value (%)
Test 1 4.93 33.72 2.2 to 3.4 Voids
Test 2 17.75 75.39 1 to 2.5 -
Test 3 19.72 74.39 2.5 to 3.3 -
Test 4 5.32 34.32 2.1 to 3.1 Voids
Test 5 11.16 66.09 0.6 to 2.5 -
Test 6 15.14 66.06 1.2 to 2.1 -
Test 7 24.72 79.10 2.6 to 2.9 -
Test 8 18.20 78.98 1 to 1.5 Voids
Test 9 19.96 76.98 0.8 to 2.1 Cracks
BM 28.40 96.92 0.2 to 1 -

The types of defects that caused the failure in different weldments are listed in Table 4. Test 7
exhibits the best combination of UTS and % elongation among all the weldments (Table 4). The heat
input and cooling rate in Test 7 seem favorable regarding effective material mixing, as reported earlier
in Section 3.1. As a result, both of these phenomena enhanced the % elongation and tensile strength of
the Test 7 weldment, as shown in Table 4.

3.4. Guided Bend Test for Ductility of Welds

The highest magnitude of stress on the stress–strain curve of each FSW and BM gives the flexural
strength, as shown in Table 5. Test 3 exhibits the maximum flexural strength while Test 1 shows
the minimum flexural strength, as presented in Table 5. The BM was ductile in nature, thus the set
deformation was achieved (without fracture) at a flexural strength of 2.5 MPa.

Table 5. Flexural strength of FSW parts and BM.

Average Flexural Deviation from the

Sample Fracture Defects
Strength (MPa) Mean Value (%)
Test 1 0.45 1 YES Voids
Test 2 2.52 3 NO -
Test 3 3.15 1.2 YES -
Test 4 0.87 0.5 YES Voids
Test 5 2.1 0.6 YES -
Test 6 2.49 2.1 SMALL -
Test 7 2.53 1.3 NO -
Test 8 2.94 2.8 SMALL Voids
Test 9 2.93 3.3 NO Cracks
BM 2.5 0.2 to 1 NO -

The Test 1, 3, 4, and 5 samples were completely fractured under the bending load before acquiring
the required deflection of 5%, as shown in Figure 6a. However, cracks on the bend surface were
observed in the Test 6 sample, as shown in Figure 6b. The minimum flexural strength of the Test 1
weldment is due to the accumulation of defects as discussed in Section 3.1. Although the Test 3 sample
showed the highest flexural strength, it was fractured before attaining the required deflection, which
predicts an inferior ductile nature of the Test 3 weldment.
 Metals 2019, 9,
Metals 2019, 9, 384
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of
of 16
16
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 6. (a) Fractured sample of Test 1 under bending load and (b) Crack on bend surface of Test 6
sample
Figure
Figure under
6. 6.
(a)(a) bending
Fractured
Fractured load.
sample
sampleof of
Test 1 under
Test bending
1 under load
bending and
load (b)(b)
and Crack onon
Crack bend surface
bend of of
surface Test 6 6
Test
sample under
sample under bending
bendingload.
load.
The possible reasons for the low ductility and lower levels of plastic deformation in the fractured
samples
TheThe could
possible be
possible an inappropriate
reasons
reasons forfor
thethe
low low combination
ductility
ductility and oflower
and ω and
lower v (as
ofdiscussed
levels
levels of plastic
plastic in section in
deformation
deformation 3.1).
in The
thethe increase
fractured
fractured
in ω upcould
samples
samples to 1500
could
beberpm
anan increased
inappropriate
inappropriate thecombination
flexural strength
combination ofof
ωω and
and andvductility
v (as
(as due toinhigh
discussed
discussed in heat3.1).
Section
section generation
3.1). The
The (Test 7,
increase
increase
Test
inin
ωω upup9). Similarly,
to to 1500
1500 rpm
rpm the increase
increased
increased in
thethe v from
flexural
flexural 47.5 mm/min
strength
strength andand to 118 mm/min
ductility
ductility duedue at
to to
high low
high ω of
heat
heat 750 rpm
generation
generation (Test 1, 7,
(Test
(Test 7, 2
& 3)
Test
Test increased
9).9).
Similarly, the
Similarly, the
the flexural
increase
increase strength
ininvvfrom
from but47.5
decreased
47.5 mm/min
mm/min the toductility.
to 118 mm/min
118 The at
mm/min reduction
atlow
lowωωof ofin750
ductility
750 rpm (Test
rpm might
(Test 1, 2be&
due
& 3) to
3) increasedthe
increasedthe rapid cooling
theflexural
flexuralstrength(the
strengthbut low tool
butdecreasedcontact
decreasedthe time with
theductility.
ductility.Thethe
The workpiece
reduction
reduction ininand hence
ductility
ductility mightlow
might heat
bebe
due
localization).
due to the
to the rapidrapid
coolingcooling
(the low(thetoollow tool contact
contact time withtime with the workpiece
the workpiece and hence low and heat
hence low heat
localization).
localization).
3.5. Residual Stress Distribution in Welded Zones
3.5. Residual Stress Distribution
The residual in Welded
stress distribution inZones
BM and
the BM and two
two representative
representative weldments
weldments (Test
(Test 11 and
and Test
Test 7)
7)
was determined.
The Thedistribution
The
residual stress strains in
strains in two
two directions
directions
in the BM and twowererepresentative
measured: S1 S1weldments
is the
is the strain
strain measured
(Test 1 and Test the
in 7)
transverse direction of the weld and S3 is the strain measured along the direction
was determined. The strains in two directions were measured: S1 is the strain measured in theas
transverse direction of the weld and S3 is the strain measured along the of the
direction weld,
of the as shown
weld,
in Figure
shown
transverse 7a. The7a.
indirection
Figure residual
ofThe stress
theresidual
weld distribution
stress
and in the in
distribution
S3 is the strain SZthe
and
measuredSZTMAZ
and on
TMAZ
along thetheonadvancing sideweld,
the advancing
direction of the (AS) (AS)
side and
as
retreating
and side
retreating (RS)
side was
(RS) determined.
was The
determined. attached
The strain
attached rosettes
strain are
rosettesshown
are in
shown Figure
shown in Figure 7a. The residual stress distribution in the SZ and TMAZ on the advancing side (AS)in 7b.
Figure 7b.
and retreating side (RS) was determined. The attached strain rosettes are shown in Figure 7b.

Figure 7. (a) Direction of strains S1 and S3 on the FSW part and (b) Expanded view of strain gauges
Figure 7. (a) Direction of strains S1 and S3 on the FSW part and (b) Expanded view of strain gauges
attached to different zones of the FSW part.
attached
Figure 7. (a)toDirection
different of
zones of the
strains S1 FSW part.
and S3 on the FSW part and (b) Expanded view of strain gauges
attached to different
The measured zones of theresidual
longitudinal FSW part.stress (i.e., S3) distribution through thickness in the NZ and
The measured longitudinal residual stress (i.e., S3) distribution through thickness in the NZ and
TMAZ on the AS and RS are shown in Figure 8. The longitudinal residual stresses in the NZ were
TMAZ on the ASlongitudinal
and RS are shown instress
Figure 8. The longitudinalthrough
residualthickness
stresses inin the
theNZNZandwere
mostly measured
The tensile in nature. residual
The heat generated in(i.e.,
the NZS3) during
distribution
stirring is greater than the heat produced
mostly
TMAZ tensile
on zones, in
the ASasand nature. The
RS arebyshownheat generated
in Figure in
8. The the NZ during stirring is greater than the heat
in other reported Mahoney et al. [23] andlongitudinal
Dialami et al.residual stresses
[24], which could inrelease
the NZa were
greater
produced
mostly in other
tensile zones,
in nature. as heat
reported by Mahoney et
NZal.during
[23] and Dialami et al. [24], which heat
could
amount of residual stressThe
in the NZ. generated
As a result, in the
themagnitudes ofstirring is greater
the residual stressthan
in thetheNZ were
release
produced a greater
in other amount
zones, of residual
as reported stress in the NZ. As a result, the magnitudes of the residual stress
mostly less than those produced in thebyTMAZ
Mahoney et al.
on both the[23]
AS and
and RS,Dialami et al.in[24],
as shown which
Figure 8. Acould
similar
in the
release NZ were
a greater mostly
amountin less than
ofBuglioni those
residual etstress produced
in the NZ. As a result, the magnitudes of the residual stress in
in the TMAZ on both the AS and RS, as shown
finding was observed al. [25].
inFigure
the NZ8.were
A similar
mostlyfinding was those
less than observed in Buglioni
produced in theetTMAZ
al. [25].on both the AS and RS, as shown in
Figure 8. A similar finding was observed in Buglioni et al. [25].
Metals 2019, 9, 384 10 of 16
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

400 S3, NZ of test 7

400 S3, NZ of test 7
300
300 S3, TMAZ of test 7

(MPa)
200 S3, TMAZ of test 7
on A.S

(MPa)
200 on A.S
100 S3, TMAZ of test 7
Stress
Stress 100
0 S3, TMAZ of test 7
on R.S
0 0 0.5 1 on R.S
-100
0 0.5 1
-100
-200
-200 Depth (mm)
Depth (mm)

Figure
Figure 8. Longitudinal residual
8. Longitudinal residual stress
stress distribution
distribution in
in the
the nugget
nugget zone
zone (NZ) and thermo-mechanically
(NZ) and thermo-mechanically
affected
affected8.zone
Figure (TMAZ)
(TMAZ) on
Longitudinal
zone the
the advancing
residual
on side
side (AS)
(AS) and
stress distribution
advancing in
and retreating
the side
side(RS).
nugget zone
retreating (NZ)
(RS). and thermo-mechanically
affected zone (TMAZ) on the advancing side (AS) and retreating side (RS).
The
The longitudinal
longitudinal residual
residual stresses
stresses in in the
the TMAZ
TMAZ on on the
the AS
AS were
were mainly
mainly compressive
compressive whilewhile those
those
on
on the
the RS
The were
were mostly
RSlongitudinal tensile
tensile in
mostlyresidual nature,
nature,inas
stresses
in shown
the
as TMAZ
shown in
inon Figure
the AS
Figure 8.
8. In addition,
were
In mainlythe
addition, magnitude
compressive
the magnitudewhile of
of stresses
those
stresses
on
on the
on the AS
the RS is
is lower
AS were than
mostly
lower those
those on
thantensile in the
the RS.
onnature, RS.as The temperature
shown
The in Figure
temperature rise in
8. In
rise the
the TMAZ
in addition,
TMAZthe is slightly
slightly higher
is magnitude on
on the
of stresses
higher the
AS,
on as
the reported
AS is by
lower Arbegast
than those et
on al.
the[26].
RS. This
The higher
temperature temperature
rise in rise
the
AS, as reported by Arbegast et al. [26]. This higher temperature rise on the AS may have helped in TMAZon theis AS may
slightly have
higher helped
on the
in
AS,releasing
as reported
releasing a higher
a higher amount
by Arbegast
amount ofetofresidual
residual
al. [26]. Thisstresses
higher
stresses on ontemperature
theAS.
the AS.TheTherisetransverse
on the AS
transverse residual stresshelped
may have
residual stress (i.e., S1)
(i.e., S1)
in
distribution
releasing
distribution through
a higher
through thickness
amount
thickness is shown
of residual in
is shownstresses Figure
in Figure 9.
on9.the The
TheAS.transverse residual
The transverse
transverse stresses
residual residual in
stresses in all
stress the zones
(i.e.,
all the S1)
zones
were mainly
distribution tensile
through and non-uniform
thickness is shown in nature.
in Figure Like
9. longitudinal
The transverse
were mainly tensile and non-uniform in nature. Like longitudinal residual stresses, the transverse residual
residual stresses,
stresses the
in transverse
all the zones
residual
were
residual stresses
mainly
stresses in the
tensile
in the
andNZNZ werelower
non-uniform
were lowercompared
incompared
nature. to tothat
Like thatofof
thethe
longitudinal other
other zones.
residual
zones. Initially
stresses,
Initially in the
the
in the TMAZ,
transverse
TMAZ, the
the residual
residual
residual stressesstresses
in the
stresses in in the transverse
the transverse
NZ were lower direction
compared
direction were slightly
to that of
were slightly higher
the other
higher on the on
zones.the AS. However,
Initially inalong
AS. However, along
the TMAZ,
the depth,the
the
depth,
residual transverse
transverse stresses inresidual
residual the
stresses stresses
transverse on tended
on thedirection
AS the AS weretended
to slightly
decrease, to decrease,
higher
whereas on whereas
the
on AS. onthethetransverse
However,
the RS, RS, the transverse
along the depth,
residual
residual
transverse stresses
stresses increased increased
residualabruptly
stresses asabruptly
onathe as a
AS tended
result result of the
to decrease,
of the higher higher temperature
whereas
temperature on the
drop drop
RS, the
through through thickness
transverse
thickness RS.on
residual
on the
the RS.
stresses increased abruptly as a result of the higher temperature drop through thickness on the RS.
500 S1, NZ of test 7
500 S1, NZ of test 7
400
400
(MPa)

300 S1, TMAZ of test 7 on

(MPa)

300 S1,
A.STMAZ of test 7 on
200 A.S
S1, TMAZ of test 7 on
Stress

200
100 S1,
R.S TMAZ of test 7 on
Stress

100 R.S
0
0 0 0.5 1
-100
0 0.5
Depth (mm) 1
-100
Depth (mm)

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Transverse residual stress
Transverse residual stress distribution
distribution in
in the
the NZ
NZ and
and TMAZ
TMAZ on
on the
the AS
AS and
and RS.
RS.
Figure 9. Transverse residual stress distribution in the NZ and TMAZ on the AS and RS.
3.6. Comparison of
3.6. Comparison of Residual
Residual Stress
Stress Distribution
Distribution
3.6. Comparison of Residual Stress Distribution
The
The longitudinal
longitudinaland andtransverse
transverseresidual
residualstress
stress distributions
distributions in in
thethe
BMBM andandin the NZsNZs
in the of the oftwo
the
two The longitudinal
representative
representative weldments and (Test
weldmentstransverse
and residual
1(Test Test
1 and7) arestress
Test 7)distributions
determined, as shown
are determined, in thein
asBM and10a,b,
Figure
shown ininthe NZs of the
respectively.
Figure 10a,b,
two
In therepresentative
weldments
respectively. In theof weldments
Test 7 and
weldments of(Test
Test 71and
Test 1, and Test
transverse
Test 7)
andare determined,
longitudinal
1, transverse as shown
residual
and longitudinal in Figure
stresses
residual 10a,b,
were mainly
stresses were
respectively.
tensile
mainlyand Inandthenon-uniform
non-uniform
tensile weldments ofinTest
in nature. 7 and
However,
nature. Test
in the
However, 1, transverse
BM the BM
in the and
the longitudinal
longitudinal residualresidual
longitudinal stressesstresses
residual were
were mostly
stresses were
mainly
mostly tensile
compressive inand
compressive non-uniform
natureinwhile
naturethe in nature.
transverse
while However, in the BM
residualresidual
the transverse stresses the longitudinal
showed
stresses residual
tensile behavior.
showed tensile stresses were
behavior.
mostlyTestcompressive in nature while the transverse residual stresses showed
Test 1 exhibited the maximum tensile residual stresses in both longitudinal and transverse
1 exhibited the maximum tensile residual stresses in both tensile
longitudinal behavior.
and transverse
Test 1Itexhibited
directions.
directions. is due to the the low
maximum
temperaturetensile residual
rise. stressesinin
This increase both longitudinal
transverse and transverse
residual stresses in tensile
directions.
nature seems
seems It isto
todue to
have the low
reduced temperature
the tensile rise.
load This
bearingincrease in transverse
capability. It can residual
be seen
have reduced the tensile load bearing capability. It can be seen in Section 3.3 that instresses
Section in tensile
3.3 that
Test
nature
Test 1 seems
shows to
the have reduced
least tensile the tensile
strength. load
The bearing
in Test capability.
7 was It
highercan asbe
1 shows the least tensile strength. The ω in Test 7 was higher as compared to that of Test 1, which
ω seen
comparedin Section
to 3.3
that that
of Test
Test 1,
1produced
shows
which the
produced leastgreater
greater tensile strength.
amountamount
of heat.of The ω in
heat.
The The
higher Test 7 wasamount
higher
amount ofhigher as heat
of compared
heat produced producedto that
in Test 7in
may of have
TestTest
7 may1, which
have
released
produced greater amount of heat. The higher amount of heat produced
a higher amount of residual stresses in Test 7 as compared to that of Test 1, as shown in Figure 10.in Test 7 may have released
a higher amount of residual stresses in Test 7 as compared to that of Test 1, as shown in Figure 10.
Metals 2019, 9, 384 11 of 16

released
Metals 2019,a9,higher amount
x FOR PEER of residual
REVIEW stresses in Test 7 as compared to that of Test 1, as shown 11 of in
16
Figure 10. Furthermore, the BM possessed the least residual stresses in both longitudinal and transverse
Furthermore, the BM
directions, as shown possessed
in Figure the presence
10. The least residual stresses
of residual in both
stresses in thelongitudinal and transverse
parent sheet might be due to
directions, as shown
its pre-straining (coldinworking).
Figure 10. The presence of residual stresses in the parent sheet might be due
to its pre-straining (cold working).

200 S3, NZ of test 1

150 S3, NZ of Test 7
Stress (MPa) S3 in base metal
100
50
0
-50 0 0.5 1
-100
-150
Depth (mm)

350 S1, NZ of test 1

300 S1, NZ of test 7
250 S1 in base metal
Stress (MPa)

200
150
100
50
0
-50 0 0.5 1
-100 Depth (mm)

Figure 10.
Figure Residual stress
10. Residual stress distribution
distribution (S1
(S1 and
and S3) in
in BM and NZ of Test 1 and Test
Test 7.
7.

3.7. Fracture Mechanism

3.7. Fracture Mechanism
3.7.1. Fracture under Tensile Loadings
3.7.1. Fracture under Tensile Loadings
Figure 11a,b depict the fractographs of two representative surfaces of the Test 7 and Test 1
Figure 11a and b depict the fractographs of two representative surfaces of the Test 7 and Test 1
weldments, respectively. A dimple feature was observed in the fractographs of the Test 7 sample,
weldments, respectively. A dimple feature was observed in the fractographs of the Test 7 sample,
while micro-cracks were found in the Test 1 specimen. The presence of a large population of deep
while micro-cracks were found in the Test 1 specimen. The presence of a large population of deep
dimples indicates the typical ductile mode of fracture in the Test 7 sample under tensile loading.
dimples indicates the typical ductile mode of fracture in the Test 7 sample under tensile loading. The
The ductile nature was possibly due to the absence of cracks and proper material mixing. As a result,
ductile nature was possibly due to the absence of cracks and proper material mixing. As a result,
greater energy dissipation and hence more plastic deformation took place during tensile loading of the
greater energy dissipation and hence more plastic deformation took place during tensile loading of
Test 7 weldment.
the Test 7 weldment.
On the other hand, dimples were not observed on the fractured surface of the Test 1 weldment,
On the other hand, dimples were not observed on the fractured surface of the Test 1 weldment,
rather micro-cracks were detected. The presence of cracks suggests that the fracture might have
rather micro-cracks were detected. The presence of cracks suggests that the fracture might have
initiated from pre-existing cracks which developed in the weldment during the FSW process.
initiated from pre-existing cracks which developed in the weldment during the FSW process. The
The absence of dimples also indicates that the weldment did not undergo substantial plastic
absence of dimples also indicates that the weldment did not undergo substantial plastic deformation
deformation prior to fracture.
prior to fracture.
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Metals 2019, 9, 384 12 of 16

Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
(a) (b)

(a) (b)

Micro cracks

Micro cracks

Figure 11. Fractographs of tensile fractures (a) Test 7 and (b) Test 1.

Figure 11. Fractographs of tensile fractures (a) Test 7 and (b) Test 1.
The fracture in Figure 11. Fractographs
both the of tensile
layers of tensile fractures
samples did(a)not
Testoccur
7 and at
(b) the
Testsame
1. cross-section, as
shown in Figure 12. This shows that crack does not propagate from one layer to
The fracture in both the layers of tensile samples did not occur at the same cross-section, asanother and as a
shown
The fracture in both the layers of tensile samples did not occur at the same cross-section, as
result
inshowna low crack
Figurein12.Figure propagation
This shows rate takes place in the laminated weldments (as discussed
that crack does not propagate from one layer to another and as a result a low in chapter
12. This shows that crack does not propagate from one layer to another and as a
1). propagation rate takes place in the laminated weldments (as discussed in chapter 1).
crack
result a low crack propagation rate takes place in the laminated weldments (as discussed in chapter
1).

Figure 12. Cross-section of fracture in (a) top layer and (b) bottom layer.
Figure 12. Cross-section of fracture in (a) top layer and (b) bottom layer.
3.7.2. Fracture under Bending
Figure Loads
12. Cross-section of fracture in (a) top layer and (b) bottom layer.
3.7.2. Fracture under Bending Loads
Figure 13a,b show the fractographs of the fractured surfaces of the Test 1 and Test 6 samples,
3.7.2. Fracture
Figure 13a under
and Bending
b show theLoads
fractographs of the fractured surfaces of the Test 1 and Test 6 samples,
respectively. The fractographs of the Test 1 sample shows micro-cracks and discontinuity between
respectively.
Figure The
13a andfractographs
b show the of the Test
fractographs 1 sample
of the shows
fractured micro-cracks
surfaces of
the layers, which indicates the non-uniform deformation and inappropriate mixing of material. theand
Testdiscontinuity
1 and Test 6 between
samples,
the
The layers,
respectively.
presence which
ofThe indicates
fractographs
micro-cracks the
lednon-uniform
of Test 1 deformation
to the reduction sample shows
in flexural and inappropriate
micro-cracks
strength and theand mixing of of
material.
discontinuity
brittle mode thebetween The
fracture
presence
the layers,
under of micro-cracks
which indicates
the bending led
test of thetheto the reduction
Testnon-uniform
1 sample. The in flexural
deformation strength and the
and inappropriate
fractured surface brittle
of the Test 6mixing mode
sampleof of the fracture
material.flakes
contained The
under
presencethe bending
of test
micro-cracks of the
led Test
to the 1 sample.
reduction The
in fractured
flexural surface
strength and of
thethe Test
brittle
as shown in Figure 13b. However, the layers were continuous in nature, which predicts the relatively 6
mode sample
of the contained
fracture
flakes
underas
higher shown
the
flexural in Figure
bending
strength of 13b.
test and the However,
Test
plastic the layers
1 sample.
deformation The were
Test continuous
of fractured
the 6 surface
sample of in
thenature,
compared Testto6 which ofpredicts
sample
that 1. the
contained
Test
relatively higher flexural strength and plastic deformation of the Test
flakes as shown in Figure 13b. However, the layers were continuous in nature, which predicts6 sample compared to that
theof
Test 1.
relatively higher flexural strength and plastic deformation of the Test 6 sample compared to that of
Test 1.
Metals 2019, 9, 384 13 of 16
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

(a) (b)

Cracks

Figure 13. Fractographs

Figure13. Fractographs of
of bending
bending fractures in (a)
fractures in (a) Test
Test 11 and
and (b)
(b) Test
Test 6.
6.

3.8. Comparison between FSW of Layered and Monolithic Sheet Metals

3.8. Comparison between FSW of Layered and Monolithic Sheet Metals
A comparative analysis of the previous and current investigations on FSW of the laminated and
A comparative analysis of the previous and current investigations on FSW of the laminated and
monolithic sheet is presented in Table 6. It can be observed that the current study (laminated sheet
monolithic sheet is presented in Table 6. It can be observed that the current study (laminated sheet
joining) is in agreement with the findings of the previous studies (monolithic sheet joining). The general
joining) is in agreement with the findings of the previous studies (monolithic sheet joining). The
effect of the FSW process parameters on the mechanical properties in both the cases is almost alike.
general effect of the FSW process parameters on the mechanical properties in both the cases is almost
Italike.
can beItinferred from Table
can be inferred from 6 that
Tablein6most
that of
in the
mostcases, the
of the tool rotation
cases, rate in the
the tool rotation range
rate 1000–1500
in the rpm
range 1000–
resulted in an increased UTS. Furthermore, the increase in tool rotation rate from
1500 rpm resulted in an increased UTS. Furthermore, the increase in tool rotation rate from 1500 rpm 1500 rpm and the
increase
and theinincrease
tool traverse
in toolrate at therate
traverse higher toolhigher
at the rotation rate
tool (ω ≥ 1200
rotation rate rpm) considerably
(ω ≥ 1200 decreased
rpm) considerably
the
decreased the tensile properties in both (laminated and monolithic) the cases. The ductility ofsheet
tensile properties in both (laminated and monolithic) the cases. The ductility of the bilayer the
weldments
bilayer sheetis found to be is
weldments greater
foundthan
to bethat of the
greater thanmonolithic
that of thesheet joints. sheet
monolithic It could be due
joints. to effective
It could be due
material mixing
to effective duringmixing
material FSW ofduring
the laminated
FSW of sheet. Moreover,sheet.
the laminated the conditions
Moreover,for theconditions
the maximumfor tensile
the
strength and ductility are not alike. It might be due to the type of material employed
maximum tensile strength and ductility are not alike. It might be due to the type of material employed and also the range
ofand
parameters
also the selected. Therefore, itselected.
range of parameters seems possible to say
Therefore, that the
it seems material–parameter
possible to say that theinteraction
material–
exists in FSW
parameter of the laminated
interaction exists insheet.
FSW of the laminated sheet.

3.9.
3.9.Proposed
ProposedWelding
WeldingConditions
Conditionsfor
forLaminated
LaminatedAluminum
Aluminum Sheets
Sheets
ItItwas
wasobserved
observedthat
that the
the tensile
tensile strength
strength and
and %% elongation
elongation of of all
all experiments decreased as
experiments decreased as
compared to the BM. However, Test 7 showed the highest % elongation and tensile
compared to the BM. However, Test 7 showed the highest % elongation and tensile strength of 24.72% strength of 24.72%
and
and79.10
79.10MPa,
MPa,respectively.
respectively.Similarly, Test
Similarly, 3 showed
Test 3 showed thethe
highest flexural
highest strength
flexural of 3.15
strength MPaMPa
of 3.15 andand
Test
7 Test
showed a similar
7 showed value ofvalue
a similar flexural strength strength
of flexural as compared to the BM.
as compared toTherefore, the Test 7 parameters
the BM. Therefore, the Test 7
(i.e., ω 1500 rpm and v
parameters (i.e., ω = 1500 rpm and v = 47.5 mm/min) are proposed for the joining of aluminum
= = 47.5 mm/min) are proposed for the joining of bi-layered bi-layered
laminated
aluminumsheets on thesheets
laminated basis ofonhigher tensile
the basis strength,
of higher better
tensile ductilebetter
strength, nature of fracture,
ductile natureand medium
of fracture,
value of flexural
and medium strength.
value of flexural strength.
Metals 2019, 9, 384 14 of 16

Table 6. Summary of FSW variables and tensile properties of monolithic and laminated Al joints
welded via FSW.

Work Piece
Monolithic Rotational Feed Rate UTS %
Material Thickness
/Laminated Speed (ω, rpm) (ν, mm/min) (MPa) Elongation
(mm)
“↑” “→” “↑” “↑”
2024-T3/7075-T6 [27] M 3
400–800 100 399–407 14–14.3
“↑” “→” “↓” “↓”
2024-T3/7075-T6 [27] M 3
1200–2000 100 423–363 14.9–7.5
“↑” “→” “↑” 58
AA7005/Al2 O3 /10p [28] M 7
800 56 260 •
“↑” “→” “↓” 2.5
AA6063/ B4 C [29] M 4.5
1200–1500 600 176 •
“→” “↑” “↓” “↓”
2024-T3/7075-T6 [30] M 3
1200 102-198 423–398 14.9–11.4
“↑” “↑” “↑” “↑”
2024Al-T3 [13] M 4
800–1250 80–125 408–432 6.6–7.6
“→” “↑” “↑” “↑”
2024-T3/7075-T6 [30] M 3
1200 42–72 395–404 13.6–14.5
“↑” “→” “↑” “↑”
Al-1350 [Current Study] L 4
750–1500 47.5 33.7–77.5 4.9–24.7
“→” “↑” “↑” “↑”
Al-1350 [Current Study] L 4
1180 47.5–118 34.3–66 5.3–15.1
“→” “↑” “↓” “↓”
Al-1350 [Current Study] L 4
1500 47.5–118 77.5–77 24.7–20
↑ = Increase, ↓ = Decrease, → = No change, • =Not studied, (M) = Monolithic sheets, (L) = Laminated sheets,
UTS = Ultimate Tensile Strength. (Note: The arrow above every range/value shows its respective behavior)

4. Conclusions
In the current study, butt joining of bi-layered aluminum laminates was successfully carried out
by employing friction stir welding. The residual stress distribution, fracture analysis, and mechanical
characterizations of the weldments were performed. Mixing defects (voids and cracks) were observed
in the SZ at the following combinations: low rotational speed (ω) and low tool traverse speeds
(v) and also at high ω and high v. These defects caused a considerable decrease in ductility and
tensile strength of the weldments. The weldment obtained at a tool rotation speed of 1500 rpm
and tool traverse rate of 47.5 mm/min exhibited the best combination of mechanical properties, i.e.,
percentage elongation of 24.72%, ultimate tensile strength of 79.10 MPa, and flexural strength of
2.53 MPa. The transverse and longitudinal residual stresses produced in the SZ during FSW were
lower than those in the other zones, which is due to the higher heat concentration in the NZ. The
tensile strength and % elongation of all experiments also decreased as compared to those of the base
material. However, Test 7 (i.e., ω = 1500 rpm and v = 47.5 mm/min) showed the highest % elongation
and tensile strength of 24.72% and 79.10 MPa, respectively. Similarly, Test 3 (i.e., ω = 750 rpm and
v = 118 mm/min) showed the highest flexural strength of 3.15 MPa, and Test 7 (i.e., ω = 1500 rpm
and v = 47.5 mm/min) showed similar value of strength as compared to the base material. Therefore,
the Test 7 parameters (i.e., ω = 1500 rpm and v = 47.5 mm/min) are proposed for the joining of
bi-layered aluminum laminated sheets.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.T. and G.H.; methodology, H.W., M.T.; software, M.T. and I.K.;
validation, H.W. and I.K.; formal analysis, H.W. and M.T.; investigation, M.T., and I.K.; resources, G.H. and M.I.K.;
data curation, H.W. and M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T. and I.K.; writing—review and editing,
G.H. and M.I.K.; visualization, I.K. and M.I.K.; supervision, G.H. and M.I.K.; project administration, H.W.; funding
acquisition, G.H and W.A.K; Technical resources and language proofing: G.H and W.A.K.
Funding: The necessary funding to realize this work in the research community was provided by Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant no: NS2015055), for which the authors are grateful.
Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful to GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology for
providing advisory and technical support.
Metals 2019, 9, 384 15 of 16

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kelkar, A.; Roth, R.; Clark, J. Automobile bodies: Can aluminum be an economical alternative to steel? JOM
2001, 53, 28–32.
2. Blawert, C.; Hort, N.; Kainer, K.U. Automotive applications of magnesium and its alloys. Trans. Indian Inst.
Met. 2004, 57, 397–408.
3. Jo, Y.M.; Lee, K.S.; Lee, Y.S.; Kang, N. Influence of annealing on the interface-correlated mechanical properties
of a Ti/STS clad sheet. J. Korean Inst. Met. Mater. 2014, 52, 881–891.
4. Mishra, R.S.; Ma, Z.Y. Frictions stir welding and processing. Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 2005, 50, 1–78. [CrossRef]
5. Stephan, A.; Airbus Deutschland GmbH. Laminate Sheet, in Particular for Fuselage Skin Sheets for Aircrafts.
U.S. Patent 7,875,333, 25 January 2011.
6. Shigematsu, I.; Kwon, Y.J.; Suzuki, K.; Imai, T.; Saito, N. Joining of 5083 and 6061 aluminum alloys by friction
stir welding. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 2003, 22, 353–356. [CrossRef]
7. Cao, X.; Jahazi, M. Effect of tool rotational speed and probe length on lap joint quality of a friction stir welded
magnesium alloy. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 1–11. [CrossRef]
8. Xu, N.; Ueji, R.; Fujii, H. Dynamic and static change of grain size and texture of copper during friction stir
welding. J. Mater. Process.Technol. 2016, 232, 90–99. [CrossRef]
9. Buffa, G.; Fratini, L.; Micari, F. Mechanical and microstructural properties prediction by artificial neural
networks in FSW processes of dual phase titanium alloys. J. Manuf. Process. 2012, 14, 289–296. [CrossRef]
10. Thomas, W.M.; Nicholas, E.D. Friction stir welding for the transportation industries. Mater. Des. 1997, 18,
269–273. [CrossRef]
11. Perrett, J.G.; Martin, J.; Threadgill, P.L.; Ahmed, M.M.Z. Recent developments in friction stir welding of thick
section aluminium alloys. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress, Aluminium Two Thousand, Florence,
Italy, 15 March 2007; pp. 13–17.
12. Threadgill, P. Friction stir welds in aluminium alloys–preliminary microstructural assessment. TWI Bull.
1997, 38, 30–33.
13. Biallas, G.; Braun, R.; Donne, C.D.; Staniek, G.; Kaysser, W.A. Mechanical properties and corrosion behaviour
of friction stir welded 2024-T3. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding,
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 14–16 June 1999.
14. Mishra, R.S.; Sharma, S.R.; Mara, N.A.; Mahoney, M.W. Mechanical properties of friction stir welded
aluminum alloys. In Joining of Advanced and Specialty Materials; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA,
2000; pp. 157–159.
15. Von Strombeck, A.; dos Santos, J.F.; Torster, F.; Laureano, P.; Koc, M. Fracture Toughness Behavior of FSW
Joints on Aluminum Alloys. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding,
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 14–16 June 1999.
16. Bisadi, H.; Tour, M.; Tavakoli, A. The influence of process parameters on microstructure and mechanical
properties of friction stir welded Al 5083 alloy lap joint. Am. J. Mater. Sci. 2011, 1, 93–97. [CrossRef]
17. Peel, M.; Steuwer, A.; Preuss, M.; Withers, P.J. Microstructure, mechanical properties and residual stresses
as a function of welding speed in aluminium AA5083 friction stir welds. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 4791–4801.
[CrossRef]
18. Donne, C.D.; Lima, E.; Wegener, J.; Pyzalla, A.; Buslaps, T. Investigations on residual stresses in friction
stir welds. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Kobe, Japan,
27–28 September 2001.
19. James, M.; Mahoney, M.; Waldron, D. Residual Stress Measurements in Friction Stir Welded Aluminum
Alloys. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Friction StirWelding, Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 14–16 June 1999.
20. Beygi, R.; Kazeminezhad, M.; Kokabi, A.H. Butt joining of Al–Cu bilayer sheet through friction stir welding.
Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2012, 22, 2925–2929. [CrossRef]
21. Lee, T.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Park, K.T.; Jeong, H.G.; Lee, J.H. Mechanical and asymmetrical thermal properties of
Al/Cu composite fabricated by repeated hydrostatic extrusion process. Met. Mater. Int. 2015, 21, 402–407.
[CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 384 16 of 16

22. Khan, I.; Hussain, G.; Tariq, M.; Ilyas, M. Fabrication of UHMW polyethylene/nano-hydroxyapatite
biocomposite via heat-assisted friction stir processing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 96, 3651–3663.
[CrossRef]
23. Mahoney, M.W.; Rhodes, C.G.; Flintoff, J.G.; Bingel, W.H.; Spurling, R.A. Properties of friction-stir-welded
7075 T651 aluminum. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 1998, 29, 1955–1964. [CrossRef]
24. Dialami, N.; Cervera, M.; Chiumenti, M.; de Saracibar, C.A. Local–global strategy for the prediction of
residual stresses in FSW processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 88, 3099–3111. [CrossRef]
25. Buglioni, L.; Tufaro, L.N.; Svoboda, H.G. Thermal cycles and residual stresses in FSW of aluminum alloys:
Experimental measurements and numerical models. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2015, 9, 87–96. [CrossRef]
26. Arbegast, W.J.; Hartley, P.J. Friction Stir Welding. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Trends in Welding Research, Pine Mountain, GA, USA, 1–5 June 1998; p. 541.
27. Khodir, A.; Shibayanagi, T. Microstructure and mechanical properties of friction stir welded AA2024-T3
aluminum alloy. Mater. Trans. 2007, 48, 1928–1937. [CrossRef]
28. CAVALIERE, P.; Cerri, E.; Marzoli, L.; Dos Santos, J. Friction stir welding of ceramic particle reinforced
aluminium based metal matrix composites. Appl. Compos. Mater. 2004, 11, 247–258. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, X.G.; da Silva, M.; Gougeon, P.; St-Georges, L. Microstructure and mechanical properties of friction
stir welded A A60 63–B4C metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2009, 518, 174–184. [CrossRef]
30. Khodir, S.A.; Shibayanagi, T. Friction stir welding of dissimilar AA2024 and AA7075 aluminum alloys.
Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2008, 148, 82–87. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).