Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Determination of best tool geometry for friction stir welding of AA 6061-T6

using hybrid PCA-TOPSIS optimization method
Abhijit Banik a, Abhijit Saha b, *, John Deb Barma a, Uttam Acharya a, Subhash Chandra Saha a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Agartala, Agartala 799046, India
b
Department of Production Engineering, HIT Haldia, Haldia 721657, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, three different tool pin geometries were studied for friction stir welding (FSW) of AA 6061-T6 to
Friction stir welding identify the best tool geometry in terms of the final weld properties. In this regard, tool rotational speed and tool
Tool geometry traverse speed was assumed as input process parameters. In order to obtain the optimal values of process pa­
PCA
rameters that simultaneously optimize the ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, elongation and hardness,
TOPSIS
Torque
hybrid approach combining TOPSIS (Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution) with PCA
Force (principal component analysis) method is proposed. An analysis of these optimized results for each tool geom­
Microstructure etries shows the taper threaded tool provides the highest properties. A confirmation test was also carried out to
Mechanical properties verify the optimized parameter for all the tools and they are found to be within an acceptable limit. Further, more
efficient torque and force behavior were obtained for the taper threaded tool.

1. Introduction
From the very inception of FSW [1], it has developed as one of the
most useful joining processes for different grades of aluminum alloy as
the welding is accomplished at solid state [2,3]. The joining is accom­
plished by inserting a non-consumable rotating tool into the line fol­
lowed by a traverse of the tool. This accounts for the generation of heat
due to the friction in the tool-workpiece interface and severe plastic
deformation of weld plates in the tool pin vicinity, material flow and
thus the joining accomplishes [4,5]. The different process parameters of
friction stir welding are tool tilt angle, tool rotational speed, tool tra­
verse speed and tool plunge depth. The tool pin geometry also affects the
quality of welding as it is in direct physical contact of the workpiece
[6–8]. Several researchers have examined the influence of tool pin
design on this process. It is found that the tool pin shape affects the heat
generation, torque, and forces to a significant extent [9]. It is due to the
tool-workpiece interaction and resistance of material upon the defor­
mation imparted by the rotating tool of different shapes. The torque and
force variation, in turn, results in a variety of material deformation,
flow, and heat generation during welding [10,11].
Zhao et al. [12] found that taper threaded tool pin provides improved
welding quality and strength as thread induced flow assisted uniform
distribution of precipitates and finer grain size in nugget compared to
the plane column pin, taper pin and their variation with thread. Elan­
govan et al. [13] found that the use of a square pin tool is beneficial
compared to several tool pin designs (straight cylindrical, tapered cy­
lindrical, threaded cylindrical, triangular, and square) for different
grade aluminum alloys and joining of dissimilar material. Square pin
tool by virtue of its pulsating stirring action provides better material
mixing and produces finer grains [14]. Gotawala and Shrivastava [15]
analyzed the microstructural evolution at the SS-Ti interface for friction
stir butt welded joints of SS 304 and CP-Ti. Pankaj et al. [16]joined
dissimilar materials namely H36 steel and AISI 1008 steel sheets with
the help of FSW process. They studied the effect of the rotational speed,
traverse speed, and tool offset on temperature distribution, Z-force,
microstructure, and mechanical properties of the welded specimens. Stir
zone showed the formation of acicular-shaped bainitic ferrite in DH36
steel and Widmanstatten ferrite grains in AISI 1008 steel. Bhushan and
Sharma [17] investigated different mechanical properties and surface
roughness of friction stir welded AA6061-T651 plates. They used a
simple cylindrical pin tool.
Selection of an appropriate tool pin design is an important criterion
for quality welding and depends on several factors (Workpiece property,
workpiece dimension, properties of tool material etc). The quality of
friction stir welding depends on several response parameters such as
mechanical properties (ultimate tensile strength, yield strength,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alfa.nita2010@gmail.com (A. Saha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108573
Received 26 March 2020; Received in revised form 27 August 2020; Accepted 4 October 2020
Available online 10 October 2020
0263-2241/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Banik et al.
percentage elongation, hardness, etc.).Therefore a multi-objective
optimization technique is often used to efficiently convert the output
responses into a single objective without losing important information.
Periyasami et al. [18] successfully utilized the desirability approach
with response surface methodology for optimization of friction stir
welded Al/SiCP metal matrix composites to maximize mechanical
property (ultimate tensile strength, notch tensile strength, and weld
nugget hardness). They found a maximum ultimate tensile strength,
notch tensile strength and hardness of 265 MPa, 201 MPa, and Hv114
respectively at 1370 RPM, 88.9 mm/min, and axial force of 9.6 kN.
Rajakumar et al. [19] also tried the same method for establishing an
empirical relation among FSW process parameters and responses for AA
1100. They found a maximum tensile strength, hardness and a minimum
corrosion rate of 105 MPa, 67 HV and 0.69 × 10-4 respectively for an
optimized parameter of 893 RPM, 100 mm/min, 6.5 kN axial force, 14.8
mm shoulder diameter, 4.9 mm pin diameter, and 45.4 HRc tool mate­
rial hardness. Shojaefard et al. [20] used hybrid artificial neural network
(ANN) -Particle swarm optimization (PSO) methods to generate an
optimal set of combinations for ultimate tensile strength and hardness
which are conflicting in nature. Shojaefard et al. [21] further optimized
tool rotational and traverse speed with an objective to maximize peak
temperature, minimize HAZ (heat affected zone) area, and welding
force. They employed NSGA-ІІ (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algo­
rithm II) for the generation of Pareto front and TOPSIS to obtain the
best-compromised solution. Gupta et al. [22] employed a Grey relational
based Principal component analysis(PCA) for multi-objective optimiza­
tion of various responses in FSW. The use of PCA in the hybrid optimi­
zation method are found to be very effective for different manufacturing
processes [23–25]. Senthil et al. [26] used RSM (response surface
methodology) based desirability function analysis to optimize the pro­
cess parameters for friction stir welding of AA6063-T6 pipes. It was
found that tool rotational speed and weld speed hadan equal influence
over the tensile strength of the pipe weld. Premnath [27] also used
desirability approach to optimize tensile strength, microhardness and
wear loss properties of aluminum SiC nanocomposites fabricated via
friction stir processing (FSP). They studied microstructure for both
fabricated and worn surfaces respectively. Tong et al. [28] utilized
TOPSIS –PCA method for optimization of the chemical–mechanical
polishing of copper (Cu-CMP) thin films. Sudhagar et al. [29] applied
multi criteria decision making approach namely grey relational analysis
(GRA) and TOPSIS for process improvement in FSW of Aluminum Alloy.
Saha and Mondal [30] also used hybrid PCA-TOPSIS technique multi-
objective optimization of manual metal arc welding (MMAW) process
parameters.
Moreover, Jamil et al. [31] used RSM to design the experiments. In
addition, central composite design (CCD) based grey relational analysis
was also used to determine the most favorable drilling parameters levels.
Danish et al. [32] developed finite element model to predict the tem­
perature distribution at the machined surface during turning of AZ31
magnesium alloy. They also employed CCD and RSM to model the
empirical relation between the maximum temperature and cutting var­
iables. Aslantas et al. [33] utilized RSM for multi-objective optimization
of micro-turning process parameters. Yousuff et al. [34] applied RSM to
identify the best combination of cutting parameters in order to obtain
high surface roughness.
The present work is mainly centered on the multi-objective optimi­
zation FSW of AA 6061-T6 for different tools while considering varying
tool rotational and traverse speeds. The objective of the present work is
to determine the best tool geometry among a set of tool geometries used
by comparing the optimized results from the set of experiments con­
ducted individually for each set of tool geometries. A hybrid approach i.
e. TOPSIS in combination with PCA is applied to recognize the best
possible welding process parameters for each tool. Thus the difficulty of
incorporating a categorical factor (tool geometry) in the design matrix
with the numeric values is avoided. Moreover, considering only the
optimized results for final analysis will reduce the efforts as it narrows
2
Measurement 173 (2021) 108573
down the number of specimens to be analyzed. A detailed analysis of the
force and torque distribution with microstructural analysis of those
optimized parameters for each tool will assist the selection of best tool
geometry.
2. Experiment
2.1. Materials and method
In this present work three tool pin geometries are investigated
namely taper, taper threaded and cylindrical threaded tool pin (Fig. 1).
Each of the above three tool geometry is widely preferred for friction stir
welding as it is comparatively easy to manufacture due to simple
geometrical features [2,3,14,24]. Moreover, the selection of these three
tool geometry facilitates to study the effect of variation of tool pin ge­
ometry in a systematic manner. The first one is a taper tool (T) which is a
simple truncated cone. The second one is taper threaded tool (TT) which
can be thought of as a variation of taper tool with thread incorporated on
the surface of the truncated cone. The third tool is a threaded cylindrical
pin tool that has a larger size of a pin compared to the other two tools. A
thread usually improves the material flow. Also with change in size of
the pin, the effective tool-workpiece interaction volume will change.
Thus the selection of these tool pin geometries enables the study to
analyze the effect of both pin shape and size including the thread (see
Fig. 2).
AA 6061-T6 of 150 mm × 65 mm × 6 mm size (Table 1) is used in this
study in butt joint configuration with an effective weld length of 120
mm. The chemical composition, dimension and mechanical properties of
this alloy are provided in Tables 1–3.
In addition to the variation of tool pin geometry the tool rotational
speed and tool traverse speed is also varied in three levels. To determine
the feasible working ranges of each input variable, several preliminary
tests were conducted based on the previous literature. Moreover, vari­
able limits were then evaluated by inspecting the weldment for a smooth
appearance and without any visible defects. The tool rotational speed
and tool traverse speed is varied in three levels and for experimental
design, full factorial design of experiment has been employed (Table 3).
All the experiments were conducted on a 3-Ton linear FSW machine
(ETA –Technology-WS 005) in fixed Z-axis position mode. The machine
has a capacity of a maximum 30 kN Z-axis thrust and 10 kN X-axis thrust.
Spindle speed can be varied infinitely up to 3000 RPM. The rated spindle
torque of the machine is 86.4 N-m at 1650 RPM. During the experiment,
the generated torque and forces were measured by using a strain gauge
based load cell connected by a PLC system and NI LAB View software.
After completion of the welding, specimens are prepared for tensile test
according to the ASTM E8 standard and tested at a strain rate of 0.5 mm
sec− 1. The hardness is considered at the center of the nugget with in an
area of 5 mm × 5 mm and a total 50 points are considered at 0.5 mm
distance. Hardness is measured with a 100 gf force and 10 sec dwell time
at several points and average values are calculated.
3. Methodology for optimization
The selection of optimum parametric combination is a challenging
task in welding as it deals a large number of input process parameters
and responses collected through multi-level trails. In the industry, the
optimal values of the quality characteristics are roughly determined
based on the performance of the operators and practical data-handling
book. To mitigate the above hybrid approach i.e. TOPSIS (Technique
for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) method in
combination with PCA (Principal component analysis) is prioritized to
implement.
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Fig. 1. Different tool geometry (a) Taper (T), (b) Taper threaded (TT), (c) Cylindrical threaded (CT).

3.1. Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution A− = {(minvij |j ∈ Cb ), (maxvij |j ∈ Cc )} = {v−j |j = 1, 2, ..., m} (8)
(TOPSIS) i i

The implementation of TOPSIS method comprises several steps and

discussed as follows:
Step 5: The computation of separation for each input process pa­
rameters from the positive and the negative ideal solution are eval­
Step 1: Construction of the decision matrix:
⎡ ⎤ uated as follows:
η11 η12 ...... η1n √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎢ η21 η22 ⎥ √∑
...... η √ m
D=⎢ 2n ⎥
⎣ ...... ...... ....... ...... ⎦ (1) *
Si = √ (vij − v*j )
2
(9)
j=1
ηm1 ηm2 ........ ηmn
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
where ƞij; i = 1, 2… experiment number (m), j = 1, 2… of responses √∑
√ m
number (n) Si− =√ (vij − v−j )2 (10)
S/N ratio [ƞ (dB)] values for “Higher the better’ performance:
j=1

[ ]
1∑ n
1 where j = 1, 2, ..., m
η = − 10log10 (2)
n i=1 y2i
Step 6: Evaluation of the relative closeness with the ideal solution:
For lower the better is
Si−
[ ] RC*i =
1∑ n Si* + Si− (11)
η = − 10log10 y2i (3)
n i=1 i = 1, 2, ..., m
Similarly for nominal the best is
[ ] Step 7: Preference order ranking.
η = − 10log10 σ 2 (4)

where σ = standard deviation. 3.2. Principal component analysis (PCA)

Step 2: Calculation of normalized ratings by the vector Pearson and Hotelling developed PCA to explicate the structure of
normalization: variance -covariance by method for linear combinations of every quality
characteristics. The system is depicted as follows [30]:
ηij The function of correlation coefficient is evaluated by using the
rij = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (5)
∑ following expression:
m
2
ηij
i=1 ( )
cov(xi (j), xi (l) )
Here, rij denotes the normalized value and this falls within 0 to 1. Rjl = (12)
σ xi (j) ∗ σ xi (l)

Step 3: Evaluation of weighted normalized value (vij ): Here, xi (j) is the normalized values, cov(xi (j), xi (l)) denotes the
covariance, σxi (j) and σxi (l) are the standard deviation.
vij = rij × wj (6) The eigenvalues and eigen vectors are determined from the following
∑n correlation coefficient array
where wj is the weight of the jth criterion or attribute and j=1 wj = 1.
(R − λx Im )Vik = 0 (13)
Step 4: Calculate the positive ideal (A* ) and negative ideal (A− ) Finally, the principal components are:
solutions
∑
n
{ } Ymk = xm (i)Vik (14)
A* = {(maxvij |j ∈ Cb ), (minvij |j ∈ Cc )} = v*j |j = 1, 2, ..., m (7) i=1
i i

Here, Ym1 is the first principal component, Ym2 is second, and

3
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Fig. 2. Dimension of the studied tool pin [Thread specification-90◦ ‘V’ thread, 1.38 mm pitch, 1.2 mm depth with 0.1 tool radius].

Table 1 Table 3
Chemical composition of the AA 6061-T6. Design of experiment for the present investigation.
Chemical composition (Wt %) Mg Mn Cu Cr Si Fe Al Serial number Tool rotational speed (RPM) Tool traverse speed (mm/sec)
1.2 0.15 0.2 0.04 0.6 0.75 Bal.
1 900 0.75
2 900 1.75
3 900 2.25
Table 2 4 1300 0.75
5 1300 1.75
Mechanical properties of the AA 6061-T6.
6 1300 2.25
Properties Ultimate tensile Yield Percentage Hardness 7 1500 0.75
strength (UTS) strength YS elongation (%EL) (HV0.1) 8 1500 1.75
9 1500 2.25
Values 310 MPa 276 MPa 18% 107

4
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

continues accordingly. optimum combination of FSW input parameters for different responses
should be chosen as tool rotational speed: 1300 RPM and tool traverse
4. Results and discussion speed: 2.25 mm/sec.

The L9 decision matrix including the output responses for T, TT and
CT tools are presented in Tables 4–6 respectively.
It can be observed that for T tool the highest values of UTS, YS, % EL
and hardness are 192 MPa, 128 MPa, 14.26%, and 73 Hv0.1 respectively,
and are achieved at 1300 RPM and 1.75 mm/sec (Table 4). For TT tool
the highest values of UTS, YS, % EL and hardness are 211 MPa, 136
MPa,14.74%, 81.26 HV0.1 (900 RPM, 2.25 mm/sec) respectively
(Table 5). With CT tool a maximum of 185.26 MPa (900 RPM, 0.75 mm/
sec), 117.2 MPa (900 RPM, 2.25 mm/sec), 8.26% and 68.22 Hv0.1 (900
RPM, 0.75 mm/sec) is achieved for UTS, YS, % El and hardness
respectively (Table 6). The above comparison reveals that for TT tool
maximum mechanical properties are obtained. However, besides the
mechanical properties, the consideration of torque and forces developed
for each tool is also important criteria particularly from the longebity of
the tool is considered. Higher torque and minimum forces can give
better plastic deformation as well as impart less force on tools whereas
maximizing the properties is also a criterion. These considerations will
complicate the selection of a proper tool and process parameters. The
input process parameters considered in this present investigation are
tool geometry, tool rotational speed, tool traverse speed and responses
are Torque, Z-force, X-force, ultimate tensile strength (UTS), yield
strength (YS), elongation in percentage (%EL) and hardness (Hv) of the
weld nugget. There are three types of quality characteristics: the lower
the better, the higher the better, and the nominal the better. The prime
intention is to maximize the mechanical properties of welded joint (UTS,
YS, percentage elongation and hardness). In case of torque and Z-force,
S/N ratio with a ‘nominal the better’ characteristic is desirable. More­
over, a lower-the-better criterion is suitable for X-force.
4.1. Evaluation of optimal process parameters for taper tool (T)
S/N ratio for various output responses were calculated using Eqs.
(2)–(4) to and normalized in the range between zero to one by using Eq.
(5) as shown in Table 7.
In addition, Tables 8 and 9 represents the relative weights of each
performance characteristics base on PCA method. The square value of
the eigenvalues signifies the contribution of the related quality charac­
teristics to principal component analysis. The contributions of torque, Z
and X force, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, percentage elon­
gation and harness values are 0.034, 0.070, 0.054, 0.208, 0.234, 0.170
and 0.229 respectively.
Weighted normalized values are evaluated using Eq. (6) and shown
in Table 10.
The similarity of the ideal solutions for each case is estimated using
the Eq. (11). As per the TOPSIS – PCA hybrid technique, each assessment
value has been ranked in descending order. For T tool, experiment no. 6
is showing the maximum RCi* value (Table 11). Accordingly, an
4.2. Evaluation of optimal process parameter for taper threaded tool (TT)
Similarly, for TT tool S/N ratio for output responses were calculated
using Eqs. (2)–(4) and normalized values by using Eq. (5) as shown in
Table 12.
Moreover, Tables 13 and 14 illustrates the relative importance of
each quality characteristics according to the principal component
analysis method.
Weighted normalized values are determined using Eq. (6) and shown
in Table 15.
Finally, for TT tool experiment no. 6 has the maximumRCi*value
(Table 16). Thus the optimum arrangement of FSW input parameters for
various responses are tool rotational speed: 1300 RPM and tool traverse
speed: 2.25 mm/sec.
4.3. Evaluation of optimal process parameter for cylindrical threaded tool
(CT)
Table 17 depicts S/N ratio for output responses and normalized
values respectively.
In addition, Tables 18 and 19 represent the relative weights of each
performance characteristics base on PCA method. The contributions of
torque, Z and X force, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, per­
centage elongation and harness values are 0.163, 0.146, 0.131, 0.187,
0.107, 0.164 and 0.102 respectively.
Weighted normalized values are evaluated using Eq. (6) and shown
in Table 20.
For Ct tool also, experiment no 6 (Table 21) gives the best combi­
nation of optimal process parameters.
5. Confirmatory test
Table 22 represents the results of the confirmatory test of each tool
for the optimized parameter setting. The measured results were
observed to be in acceptable limits with the actual optimal results.
5.1. Analysis of heat input, torque, force distribution, and related friction
coefficient for different tool pin geometry
The heat input for each tool is evaluated using the Eq. (14) [35] for
the obtained optimized parameter setting. It can be observed from Fig. 3
that for similar parameter setting (1300 RPM,2.25 mm/sec) the T tool
contributes the lowest amount of heat (0.714 KJ/mm), the CT tool
contributes the highest (0.919 KJ/mm) and TT tool stands in interme­
diate (0.849 KJ/mm). The pin for T tool has the lowest size among the
three tools, whereas, due to presence of thread in TT tool the effective
interaction area between tool pin and workpiece is higher than T tool.

Table 4
Decision matrix for quality characteristics (T Tool).
Decision matrix

Expt. No. Torque Z-Force X-Force UTS YS Percentage elongation %EL Hardness
(N-m) Stdv(±) (N) Stdv(±) (N) Stdv(±) (MPa) Stdv(±) (MPa) Stdv(±) (%) Stdv(±) (Hv0.1) Stdv(±)

1 12.32 2.04 8763 423 1078 50 163 8.23 89 5.76 4.36 1.32 49 13.28
2 17.32 2.79 9550 488 1503 85 183 10.21 112.9 8.32 7.7 2.04 56 7.91
3 18.044 3.21 8494 401 1325 72 173 5.92 96.335 4.89 7.19 1.22 51 12.07
4 8.68 1.20 5204 350 1142 64 173 8.12 109 9.02 7.78 1.04 63 6.39
5 9.89 1.35 5035 300 1334 71 192 11.07 128 8.72 14.26 1.18 73 8.92
6 10.37 1.77 7330 390 1376 74 181.89 12.26 113 9.21 13.17 2.08 68.28 10.47
7 8.06 1.31 4968 320 1096 48 171.23 9.58 98 10.31 4.11 3.89 58.56 11.47
8 8.4 1.29 4414 290 1229 61 189.12 8.19 112 6.83 6.27 1.07 66.71 9.28
9 8.76 1.27 6399 330 1253 68 174 7.82 103 9.39 7.19 1.63 62.5 10.26

5
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Table 5
Decision matrix for quality characteristics (TT Tool).
Decision matrix

Expt. No. Torque Z-Force X-Force UTS YS Percentage elongation %EL Hardness
(N-m) Stdv(±) (N) Stdv(±) (N) Stdv(±) (MPa) Stdv(±) (MPa) Stdv(±) (%) Stdv(±) (Hv0.1) Stdv(±)

1 14.91 2.14 10,156 522 1306 73 188 10.29 111 8.47 10.8 1.94 69.28 9.27
2 19.688 2.82 10,733 501 1455 79 201 14.20 128 8.47 12.27 2.03 79 11.42
3 20.32 3.01 7623 383 1825 91 211 12.91 136 10.43 14.74 2.48 81.26 8.35
4 10.21 1.30 7334 370 1353 83 171.34 10.36 88.78 7.42 9.28 1.02 68.28 10.23
5 11.78 1.48 6892 310 1446 77 195 10.02 119 10.63 12.4 2.37 76.35 9.37
6 12.33 1.97 9206 470 1498 76 209.916 8.07 128 7.59 13.26 2.91 79.69 7.37
7 9.36 1.34 7056 320 1307 69 154.23 9.23 83 11.29 5.56 1.76 63.28 9.37
8 9.06 1.26 6493 290 1377 61 165.407 9.03 92 7.39 6.22 1.02 64.36 12.31
9 10.37 1.38 7795 360 1346 64 193.729 10.29 119 8.16 9.29 1.67 67.39 12.64

Table 6
Decision matrix for quality characteristics (CT Tool).
Decision matrix

Expt. No. Torque Z-Force X-Force UTS YS Percentage elongation %EL Hardness
(N-m) Stdv(±) (N) Stdv(±) (N) Stdv(±) (MPa) Stdv(±) (MPa) Stdv(±) (%) Stdv(±) (Hv0.1) Stdv(±)

1 19.37 3.24 9966 427 1204 58 185.26 9.15 112.2 7.83 8.26 1.56 68.22 7.23
2 18.35 3.01 11,414 601 1310 65 173 12.03 101 11.37 6.4 2.06 66.72 11.93
3 19.35 3.41 5782 393 1259 53 149 7.13 117.2 8.42 5.2 2.72 68.22 8.28
4 9.033 2.20 3973 247 1143 48 112 8.19 75 5.03 4.2 1.07 62.25 12.32
5 10.33 2.15 4825 310 1223 53 121.16 7.24 80.56 9.27 4.6 0.82 66.36 11.93
6 12.06 2.88 5696 415 1284 57 169.89 10.29 103.17 9.27 6.3 2.06 73.83 9.26
7 8.56 1.91 3869 220 1102 50 108 8.09 97.95 6.24 4 1.02 54.64 9.27
8 8.85 1.79 4381 370 1160 55 102.48 7.01 91 8.92 4.25 1.04 64.87 9.54
9 10.55 2.23 5366 392 1193 51 130 9.23 82 7.48 4.7 1.26 65.28 12.39

Table 7
S/N ratio and Normalized data matrix for T tool.
Expt. S/N ratio Normalized ratings
No.
Torque Z- X-Force UTS YS Percentage Hardness Torque Z- X- UTS YS Percentage Hardness
(N-m) Force (N) (MPa) (MPa) Elongation (Hv0.1) (N-m) Force Force (MPa) (MPa) Elongation (Hv0.1)
(N) E (%) (N) (N) %EL (%)

1 24.427 14.410 − 60.652 44.244 38.988 12.790 33.804 0.481 0.273 − 0.326 0.328 0.321 0.241 0.316
2 10.559 12.053 − 63.539 45.249 41.054 17.730 34.964 0.208 0.228 − 0.342 0.335 0.338 0.334 0.327
3 9.787 15.461 − 62.444 44.761 39.676 17.135 34.151 0.193 0.293 − 0.336 0.332 0.326 0.323 0.319
4 14.590 15.086 − 61.153 44.761 40.749 17.820 35.987 0.287 0.285 − 0.329 0.332 0.335 0.335 0.337
5 20.437 14.023 − 62.503 45.666 42.144 23.082 37.267 0.402 0.265 − 0.336 0.338 0.347 0.435 0.349
6 24.196 23.718 − 62.772 45.196 41.062 22.392 36.686 0.476 0.449 − 0.338 0.335 0.338 0.422 0.343
7 12.481 13.627 − 60.796 44.672 39.825 12.277 35.352 0.246 0.258 − 0.327 0.331 0.327 0.231 0.331
8 13.590 10.774 − 61.791 45.535 40.984 15.945 36.484 0.267 0.204 − 0.332 0.337 0.337 0.300 0.341
9 14.892 30.224 − 61.959 44.811 40.257 17.135 35.918 0.293 0.572 − 0.333 0.332 0.331 0.323 0.336

Table 8 where, Q(kJ/mm) is heat input, μ is friction coefficient, ω is angular

Eigenvalues and its proportions for T tool. velocity of tool (rad/sec), F (kN) is axial load, v (mm/sec) is traverse
speed, Rs(m) is shoulder diameter, Rp (m) ispin diameter, Hp (m) is pin
Principal components (PC) Eigenvalues Proportion (%)
height, α (degree)concavity of shoulder.
PC1 3.9654 0.566 A comparison of torque, Z-force, X-force distribution, and coefficient
PC2 2.4159 0.345
PC3 0.3859 0.055
of friction is made in Fig. 3 for each tool with the obtained optimized
PC4 0.1255 0.018 process parameter (1300 RPM, 2.25 mm/sec). The torque and forces are
PC5 0.0618 0.009 measured directly during welding using strain gauge based load cell,
PC6 0.0446 0.006 whereas the coefficient of friction is evaluated by using the Eq. (18)
PC7 0.0009 0.000
according to Kumar et al. [36].

T = 1/12πμPD3 (15)
The CT tool due to cylindrical shape has the highest size, more over the
threads further add to the increase in the effective tool-workpiece (
P = 4N/ πD2
)
(16)
interaction area. As a result, the frictional heat contributed by the CT
will be the highest whereas the due to lowest surface area the frictional From Eqs. (2) and (3) the normal force N can be obtained
heat contributed by the T tool is lowest.
T = 1/3μDN (17)
2 F [( ) ]
Q = μω 2 R3S − R3P (1 + tanα) + R3p + 3R2p Hp πr2 (14) Hence the coefficient of friction is,
3 vRs

6
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Table 9
Eigenvectors for principal components and contribution for T tool.
Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 Contribution

Torque 0.184 − 0.576 0.194 0.617 0.163 − 0.098 − 0.425 0.034

Z-Force 0.264 − 0.517 − 0.306 − 0.404 − 0.492 0.362 − 0.183 0.070
X-Force − 0.233 − 0.547 0.167 − 0.512 0.410 − 0.375 0.218 0.054
UTS − 0.456 − 0.137 0.529 0.062 − 0.034 0.683 0.148 0.208
YS − 0.484 − 0.102 0.091 0.160 − 0.704 − 0.473 0.042 0.234
E − 0.412 − 0.208 − 0.729 0.329 0.198 0.167 0.284 0.170
Hv0.1 − 0.479 0.171 − 0.144 − 0.239 0.166 0.028 − 0.797 0.229

Table 10
Weighted normalized values for T tool.
Expt. No. Torque (N-m) Z-Force (N) X-Force (N) UTS (MPa) YS (MPa) Percentage elongation %EL (%) Hardness (Hv0.1)

1. 0.016 0.019 − 0.018 0.068 0.075 0.041 0.073

2. 0.007 0.016 − 0.019 0.070 0.079 0.057 0.075
3. 0.007 0.020 − 0.018 0.069 0.076 0.055 0.073
4. 0.010 0.020 − 0.018 0.069 0.078 0.057 0.077
5. 0.014 0.018 − 0.018 0.070 0.081 0.074 0.080
6. 0.016 0.031 − 0.018 0.070 0.079 0.072 0.079
7. 0.008 0.018 − 0.018 0.069 0.077 0.039 0.076
8. 0.009 0.014 − 0.018 0.070 0.079 0.051 0.078
9. 0.010 0.040 − 0.018 0.069 0.078 0.055 0.077
MAX 0.016 0.040 − 0.018 0.070 0.081 0.074 0.080
MIN 0.007 0.014 − 0.019 0.068 0.075 0.039 0.073
A* 0.016 0.040 − 0.018 0.070 0.081 0.074 0.080
A- 0.007 0.014 − 0.019 0.068 0.075 0.039 0.073

respectively. In the case of a taper threaded tool (TT), it reduces down to

Table 11
10 N-m from 17 N-m. These initial high values of torque correspond to
Closeness coefficient and ordering of experiments.
the lesser heating and plastic deformation of the workpiece as initially
Taper tool the workpiece is not sufficiently heated. However, as welding proceeds
Expt. No. S- S* RCi* Rank farther preheating of weld line ahead of FSW tool occurs as aluminum
1 0.011 0.040 0.215 8
alloys are highly thermally conductive and FSW is a comparatively
2 0.018 0.031 0.367 5 slower welding process [37,38]. A higher amount of reduction in torque
3 0.017 0.030 0.358 6 values for TT depicts its ability to deform material more efficiently and
4 0.020 0.027 0.421 4 can be attributed to both shapes (taper) and threads. Due to the gradual
5 0.037 0.022 0.631 2
reduction of pin diameter, the material flow is more focused towards
6 0.039 0.009 0.807 1
7 0.006 0.042 0.119 9 downwards which is farther complemented by the threads. But for T tool
8 0.014 0.035 0.285 7
9 0.031 0.021 0.598 3
Table 13
Eigenvalues and its proportions for TT Tool.
μ = 3T/DN (18)
Principal components (PC) Eigenvalues Proportion (%)

where, T = Torque, P = Contact Pressure, D = 2R (Tool radius), N = PC1 5.2962 0.757

Normal Pressure, μ = Friction coefficient. PC2 1.0372 0.148
PC3 0.4359 0.062
From Fig. 4a it can be observed that almost all the tool exhibits a PC4 0.1385 0.020
uniform torque distribution. For cylindrical threaded tool (CT) the PC5 0.0516 0.007
initial hike is around 15 N-m which reduces down to 12 N-m at the end PC6 0.0386 0.006
of the weld. For threaded tool (T) it is around 13 N-m and 9 N-m PC7 0.0020 0.000

Table 12
S/N ratio and Normalized data matrix for TT Tool.
Expt. S/N ratio Normalized ratings
No.
Torque Z- X-Force UTS YS Percentage Hardness Torque Z- X- UTS YS Percentage Hardness
(N-m) Force (N) (MPa) (MPa) elongation (Hv0.1) (N-m) Force Force (MPa) (MPa) elongation (Hv0.1)
(N) %EL (%) (N) (N) %EL (%)

1 20.855 16.162 − 62.319 − 45.483 40.907 20.669 36.812 0.404 0.254 − 0.329 − 0.334 0.334 0.342 0.330
2 10.952 14.242 − 63.257 − 46.064 42.144 21.777 37.953 0.212 0.224 − 0.334 − 0.338 0.344 0.421 0.341
3 10.320 26.622 − 65.225 − 46.486 42.671 23.370 38.198 0.200 0.419 − 0.345 − 0.341 0.348 0.452 0.343
4 15.085 22.623 − 62.626 − 44.677 38.966 19.351 36.686 0.292 0.356 − 0.331 − 0.328 0.318 0.374 0.329
5 22.407 18.586 − 63.203 − 45.801 41.511 21.868 37.656 0.434 0.292 − 0.334 − 0.336 0.339 0.423 0.338
6 27.213 21.246 − 63.510 − 46.441 42.144 22.451 38.028 0.527 0.334 − 0.336 − 0.341 0.344 0.434 0.341
7 12.533 19.901 − 62.326 − 43.763 38.382 14.902 36.025 0.242 0.313 − 0.329 − 0.321 0.313 0.288 0.323
8 11.749 15.948 − 62.779 − 44.371 39.276 15.876 36.172 0.227 0.251 − 0.332 − 0.326 0.320 0.307 0.325
9 15.637 30.204 − 62.581 − 45.744 41.511 19.360 36.572 0.303 0.475 − 0.331 − 0.336 0.339 0.375 0.328

7
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Table 14
Eigenvectors for principal components and contribution for TT Tool.
Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 Contribution

Torque − 0.374 − 0.140 − 0.715 0.146 − 0.414 0.284 − 0.236 0.140

Z-Force − 0.236 − 0.814 − 0.121 − 0.066 0.366 − 0.324 0.153 0.056
X-Force − 0.336 0.552 − 0.392 0.099 0.434 − 0.458 0.143 0.113
UTS − 0.414 − 0.008 0.421 0.275 − 0.003 − 0.235 − 0.721 0.171
YS − 0.414 − 0.004 0.293 0.585 0.038 0.370 0.512 0.171
E − 0.419 0.059 0.216 − 0.421 − 0.599 − 0.363 0.327 0.176
Hv0.1 − 0.416 0.095 0.100 − 0.608 0.382 0.530 − 0.110 0.177

Table 15
Weighted normalized values for TT Tool.
Expt. No. Torque (N-m) Z-Force (N) X-Force (N) UTS (MPa) YS (MPa) Percentage elongation %EL (%) Hardness (Hv0.1)

1. 0.056 0.014 − 0.037 − 0.057 0.057 0.060 0.059

2. 0.030 0.012 − 0.038 − 0.058 0.059 0.074 0.060
3. 0.028 0.023 − 0.039 − 0.058 0.060 0.079 0.061
4. 0.041 0.020 − 0.037 − 0.056 0.054 0.066 0.058
5. 0.061 0.016 − 0.038 − 0.058 0.058 0.074 0.060
6. 0.074 0.019 − 0.038 − 0.058 0.059 0.076 0.060
7. 0.034 0.017 − 0.037 − 0.055 0.054 0.051 0.057
8. 0.032 0.014 − 0.037 − 0.056 0.055 0.054 0.058
9. 0.042 0.026 − 0.037 − 0.058 0.058 0.066 0.058
MAX 0.074 0.026 − 0.037 − 0.055 0.060 0.079 0.061
MIN 0.028 0.012 − 0.039 − 0.058 0.054 0.051 0.057
A* 0.074 0.026 − 0.037 − 0.055 0.060 0.079 0.061
A- 0.028 0.012 − 0.039 − 0.058 0.054 0.051 0.057

transverse forces that will drive the deformed material upward. This will
Table 16
add to the resistance applied by the material against the tendency of the
Closeness coefficient and ordering of experiments.
tool shoulder to maintain its fixed Z-axis position. All these together
Taper threaded tool results in a net vertical downward force (Z-force). This net downward
Expt. No. S- S* RCi* Rank vertical force (Z-force) retains the displaced material by the pin beneath
1 0.030 0.029 0.512 3
the shoulder, provides downward material flow in the shoulder vicinity,
2 0.024 0.047 0.342 7 and also settles the material behind the tool under the shoulder [6,11].
3 0.032 0.046 0.407 5 The Z-force (axial load) also contributes to the heat input and has a
4 0.021 0.037 0.369 6 directly proportional relation (Eq. (1)). A higher magnitude of Z-force
5 0.041 0.018 0.699 2
will result in increased heat input and this can farther add to the
6 0.053 0.009 0.853 1
7 0.009 0.050 0.147 8 deformation. From Fig. 4b it can be observed that the distribution of Z-
8 0.006 0.051 0.109 9
9 0.026 0.034 0.427 4
Table 18
Eigenvalues and its proportions for CT Tool.
the threads are absent and CT has a cylindrical shape which also results
Principal components (PC) Eigenvalues Proportion (%)
in higher volume of material deformation.
The Z-force is the vertically downward force applied by the tool PC1 5.0546 0.722
PC2 0.9172 0.131
shoulder. In constant Z-axis position mode of FSW operation, the
PC3 0.5276 0.075
downward force depends on the plunge depth of the shoulder to the top PC4 0.3393 0.048
surface of the weld plate (which is constant) and the resistance applied PC5 0.1055 0.015
by the material under shoulder. The tool pin is tilted by 3˚and traverses PC6 0.0502 0.007
along the weld line. Due to this tilt there will be components of PC7 0.0056 0.001

Table 17
S/N ratio and Normalized data matrix for CT Tool.
Expt. S/N ratio Normalized ratings
No.
Torque Z- X-Force UTS YS Percentage Hardness Torque Z- X- UTS YS Percentage Hardness
(N-m) Force (N) (MPa) (MPa) elongation (Hv0.1) (N-m) Force Force (MPa) (MPa) elongation (Hv0.1)
(N) %EL (%) (N) (N) %EL (%)

1 11.012 9.478 − 61.613 45.356 41.000 18.340 36.678 0.246 0.187 − 0.333 0.354 0.346 0.424 0.337
2 12.234 7.437 − 62.345 44.761 40.086 16.124 36.485 0.273 0.147 − 0.337 0.349 0.338 0.360 0.335
3 11.034 27.408 − 62.001 43.464 41.379 14.320 36.678 0.246 0.542 − 0.335 0.339 0.349 0.320 0.337
4 11.991 10.366 − 61.161 40.984 37.501 12.465 35.883 0.268 0.205 − 0.331 0.320 0.316 0.278 0.329
5 15.993 15.404 − 61.749 41.667 38.122 13.255 36.438 0.357 0.304 − 0.334 0.325 0.321 0.296 0.334
6 26.059 25.481 − 62.171 44.603 40.271 15.987 37.365 0.582 0.503 − 0.336 0.348 0.340 0.357 0.343
7 10.809 9.869 − 60.844 40.669 39.820 12.041 34.750 0.241 0.195 − 0.329 0.317 0.336 0.269 0.319
8 11.520 12.520 − 61.289 40.213 39.181 12.568 36.241 0.257 0.247 − 0.331 0.314 0.330 0.281 0.333
9 16.839 20.419 − 61.533 42.279 38.276 13.442 36.296 0.376 0.403 − 0.333 0.330 0.323 0.300 0.333

8
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Table 19
Eigenvectors for principal components and contribution for CT Tool.
Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 Contribution

Torque − 0.404 − 0.262 0.122 − 0.343 0.753 0.253 − 0.060 0.163

Z-Force − 0.382 − 0.215 − 0.580 − 0.281 − 0.110 − 0.534 0.309 0.146
X-Force − 0.362 0.485 0.075 − 0.557 − 0.360 0.106 − 0.422 0.131
UTS − 0.432 − 0.005 − 0.122 0.221 − 0.298 0.661 0.473 0.187
YS − 0.327 − 0.435 0.715 0.039 − 0.323 − 0.287 0.060 0.107
E − 0.405 − 0.137 − 0.262 0.580 0.006 − 0.047 − 0.640 0.164
Hv0.1 − 0.320 0.665 0.219 0.326 0.312 − 0.343 0.294 0.102

Table 20
Weighted normalized values for CT Tool.
Expt. No. Torque (N-m) Z-Force (N) X-Force (N) UTS (MPa) YS (MPa) Percentage elongation %EL (%) Hardness (Hv0.1)

1. 0.040 0.027 − 0.044 0.066 0.037 0.070 0.034

2. 0.045 0.021 − 0.044 0.065 0.036 0.059 0.034
3. 0.040 0.079 − 0.044 0.063 0.037 0.052 0.034
4. 0.044 0.030 − 0.043 0.060 0.034 0.046 0.034
5. 0.058 0.044 − 0.044 0.061 0.034 0.049 0.034
6. 0.095 0.073 − 0.044 0.065 0.036 0.059 0.035
7. 0.039 0.028 − 0.043 0.059 0.036 0.044 0.033
8. 0.042 0.036 − 0.043 0.059 0.035 0.046 0.034
9. 0.061 0.059 − 0.044 0.062 0.035 0.049 0.034
MAX 0.040 0.027 − 0.044 0.066 0.037 0.070 0.034
MIN 0.045 0.021 − 0.044 0.065 0.036 0.059 0.034
A* 0.040 0.079 − 0.044 0.063 0.037 0.052 0.034
A- 0.044 0.030 − 0.043 0.060 0.034 0.046 0.034

also observed in Z-force values throughout the welding. This depicts the
Table 21
instability of the downward force applied by the tool. This may be a
Closeness coefficient and ordering of experiments.
result of a slip between the tool and workpiece. However, for T tool also
Cylindrical threaded tool a thin layer of flash is observed. With TT the Z-force distributions ob­
Expt. No. S- S* RCi* Rank tained is of more typical than the other tools. The Z-force gradually
1 0.027 0.075 0.267 5
decreases with time and no fluctuation is observed. However, the initial
2 0.017 0.077 0.184 6 force applied by the TT tool is higher than the other tool and can be
3 0.059 0.057 0.505 2 attributed to less heat generation due smaller size of pin and increased
4 0.010 0.075 0.115 8 friction due to threads. For TT tool no flash can be observed (Fig. 5).
5 0.030 0.055 0.355 4
From the distribution of X-force (Fig. 4c) it can be observed that the
6 0.078 0.012 0.862 1
7 0.007 0.080 0.085 9 fluctuation of X-force is more uniform in TT tool than the CT tool where
8 0.015 0.073 0.173 7 it is gradually increasing. Also a higher amount of fluctuation is
9 0.044 0.044 0.497 3 observed for T tool depicting a higher difference in material flow stress
between the advancing and retreating side due to difference in tem­
perature in both sides [4]. This higher drop in X-force for T tool depicts a
force increases from 5000 N to 7000 N for CT tool. From the work of
difficulty in material flow around the pin though the torque attained is
Trimble et al. [10], hike in Z-force can be observed for CT tool (12000 N
comparatively less. Torque is generated due to rotation of the tool in to
− 15000 N, 450 RPM, 90 mm/min). Though the total heat generation for
the workpiece. The shoulder diameter is 3 times higher than pin. Hence
CT tool in the present investigation is higher however the amount of
the effect of shoulder on torque generation is far more than pin. How­
material to be deformed is also higher due to large size of pin. For T tool
ever, the X-force is the resistance applied by the workpiece material due
a decrease in Z-force is observed from 9000 N to 7500 N. Similarly for TT
to tool translation. The pin workpiece cross section area (perpendicular
tool the Z-force reduces from 11500 N to 7500 N as welding proceeds.
to welding direction) is more than the shoulder, hence the X-force is
The increase in Z-force for CT depicts its inability to deform the material
primly effected by the pin [10]. Moreover, for T tools the thread induced
and setting it down beneath the shoulder behind the tool effectively as
material flow is absent and the overall heat input is also less compared to
welding proceeds. This results in increased flash as welding proceeds
the other two tools (Fig. 3). As a result, the TT tool pin has to come across
(Fig. 5). For the taper tool, however, a decrease in Z-force can be
less deformed material. All this together gives rise to the slipping
observed which slightly increases after 40 s. Moreover, a fluctuation is

Table 22
Results of conformation test.
Parameter setting T tool TT tool CT tool

1300 RPM,2.25 mm/sec Optimal solution Measured responses Optimal solution Measured responses Optimal solution Measured responses

Torque (N-m) 10.37 11.22 12.33 12.62 12.06 13.14

Z-Force (N) 7330 7430 9206 9246 5696 5732
X-force (N) 1376 1386 1498 1483 1284 1273
UTS (MPa) 181.89 182.55 209.916 211.06 169.89 170.49
YS (MPa) 113 114 128 130.56 103.17 105.37
%EL (%) 13.17 13.9 6 13.26 13.42 6.3 6.5
Hardness (HV0.1) 68.28 69.01 79.69 81.32 73.83 72.68

9
A. Banik et al.
Fig. 3. Heat Input for different tool geometry (1300RM, 2.25 mm/sec).
between the tool-workpiece resulting in a higher fluctuation in the TT
tool. For CT tool the fluctuation is less but gradually increases with time
which again depicts the difference in flow stress that is increasing with
time. This also represents a difficulty in the material flow around the
tool.
Fig. 4d represents the distribution of friction coefficient during
welding. It can be observed that the friction coefficient for all the three
tools decreases as welding proceeds. For CT tool the friction coefficient
decreases gradually with welding. Whereas, T tool the friction coeffi­
cient initially decreases but increases slightly with noticeable
Fig. 4. Distribution of (a) Torque (b) Z-force (c) X-force and (d) Friction coefficient for different tool geometry.
10
Measurement 173 (2021) 108573
fluctuation as tool proceeds. It indicates the T tool come across severe
slip during welding. For T tool the fluctuation can also be observed for X-
force (Fig. 4c). This may be due to the lesser heat input by the T tool
(Fig. 3) which results in less deformed material. It can also be observed
that for the T tool the torque and forces are comparatively less, which
farther indicates the material is less deformed. For TT tool the friction
coefficient initially decreases sharply and continues without any
noticeable change throughout the welding. It implies for TT tool the
extent of slip between the tool workpiece interfaces is less. From equa­
tion (18) it can be observed that the friction coefficient is directly pro­
portional to required torque and has an inverse relation with applied
normal force (Z-force). Initially for CT tool the peak value of torque
approximately 15 N-m and the friction coefficient is 0.7 where as the Z-
force is around 5000 N (Fig. 4a, b and d) .For T tool it is 13 N-m, 0.32 and
9000 N respectively. With TT tool it is around 16 N-m, 0.3 and 11500 N.
Torque is provided by the motor to the workpiece in order to generate
angular deformation in the workpiece material. This angular deforma­
tion will be resisted by the friction forces at the tool workpiece interface.
This results in higher torque requirement for deformation resulting an
sudden increase in torque initially (Fig. 4a). But as welding proceeds due
to frictional heat and Z-forces the material becomes softer due to higher
plastic deformation and the torque and friction coefficient both
decreases.
5.2. Microstructural analysis of weld for different tool pin geometry
5.2.1. Grain size distribution
For all the tools an equiaxed grains are obtained due to dynamic
recrystallization. However, the nugget zone grain size distribution
A. Banik et al.
Fig. 5. Weld surface appearance for different tool geometry at 1300 RPM, 2.25
mm/sec (a) T Tool, (b) TT Tool, (c) CT Tool.
shows a distinct difference in size of the grains obtained for the different
tool. The formation of grains and their size in FSW depends on several
aspects like heat input, cooling rate and degree of plastic deformation of
the workpiece. The grain sizes are measured at several points in the
middle of the nugget according to linear intercept method (ASTM E
112–12). A finer grains are observed for TT tool (7.86 μm (±0.46)),
whereas for CT and T tool the grain sizes are 10.61 μm (±0.84) and 8.35
μm (±0.43) respectively (Fig. 6). As discussed the TT tool generates a
lower amount of heat (0.849KJ/mm) and for CT tool the amount of heat
is the highest (0.919 KJ/mm). Aluminum alloys are more susceptible to
grain coarsening at higher heat input as cooling rate will be slow
allowing more nucleation time [39]. Moreover for CT tool the material
undergoes less plastic deformation as the amount of material to be
deformed is higher than other tools due to its lager size of pin and the
amount of Z-force and X-force is less (Fig. 4). On the contrary for TT tool
the amount of heat input is comparatively less and the amount of torque
and forces are higher (Figs. 3 and 4) which leads to lesser nucleation
time and higher extent of plastic deformation. All these factors favor the
formation of finer grains in nugget for TT tool.
5.2.2. Formation of secondary particles
AA 6061-T6 is a precipitation hardened aluminum alloy with mostly
Mg2Si strengthening precipitates. Typically, for AA6061-T6 material the
primary secondary particles that found are Mg2Si. In this study also the
presence of Mg2Si secondary particle has been evident from the SEM
microstructural analysis and corresponding Energy Dispersive Spec­
troscopy (EDS) analysis. Fig. 7.a shows the SEM image of the nugget
zone containing secondary particle and Fig. 7.b shows the corresponding
EDS plot taken at the spot marked over the secondary particle shown in
Fig. 6. The grain size distribution of nugget zone for different tool geometry (a) TT Tool, (b) T tool, (c) CT tool.
11
Measurement 173 (2021) 108573
Fig. 7.a. Both the figure indicates the presence of Mg2Si as secondary
particle.
A high heat input and strain rate causes dissolution of those particles
during FSW [39]. Fig. 8 represents the secondary particle distribution in
the nugget zone for each tool (1300 RPM, 2.25 mm/sec). In the nugget
zone at several points SEM analysis was conducted at a magnification of
1000 X and an area of 59791 μm2,50863 μm2 and 61978 μm2 was
considered for T, CT and TT tool respectively. In the nugget zone small
dots like precipitate can be observed which mostly GP-І zones are. In AA
6061-T6 it is observed that the main precipitates are dissolved during
welding and a dot–like homogenous reprecipitation happens after
cooling [39]. The particle sizes were measured by thresholding tech­
nique using ‘Image J’ software. As the shape of the precipitates is
irregular in nature the particle sizes were measured in terms of the
surface area occupied by the particle. The figure clearly indicates the
large variation in the size of the particles present in nugget. The for­
mation of particles and their sizes are also dependent on the amount of
heat generation, thermal history and material deformation. With the
variation in the tool pin geometry the average size of the precipitates
vary as 0.11 μm2, 0.8 μm2 and 0.62 μm2 for TT, T and CT tool respec­
tively. For TT tool the highest count of fine particles (approximately
2000 numbers, less than 0.5 µm2) is obtained. A lower amount of heat
input and better material deformation causes the formation of such fine
distribution of particles with finer grain size for TT tool which accounts
for higher mechanical properties with UTS of 209.916 MPa. The reverse
is also justified for both T and CT tools with UTS of 181.89 and 169.89
MPa respectively where for T and CT it is approximately 900 and 450 in
numbers respectively. Moreover, for T and CT tool, comparatively a
higher number of large-sized particles are obtained (higher than 1 µm2)
than TT tool. In friction stirred samples, the strengthening particles
mostly get dissolved into nugget zone due to high heat input as well as
high strain rates during welding. However, depending on various con­
ditions such as low cooling rate due to higher heat input (CT tool)
reprecipitation and coarsening of those second phase particles may
happen in the nugget zone which degrades the weld strength.
5.3. Analysis of mechanical properties
From the Fig. 9 and 10 it can be observed that for TT tool higher
tensile properties as well as hardness is observed (UTS-209.916 MPa, YS-
128 MPa, Percentage elongation-13.26%, Hardness-79.69 Hv0.1).
Whereas, the CT tool performs the least in terms of mechanical prop­
erties (UTS-169.89 MPa, YS-103.17 MPa, Percentage of elongation-
6.3%, Hardness-73.83 Hv0.1) considering the optimized parameter
setting (1300 RPM, 2.25 mm/sec). The Hall-Patch relation states a finer
grain size distribution improves the tensile properties [40]. Moreover, a
fine distribution of precipitates further improves the mechanical prop­
erties by means of restricting dislocation movement. In FSW of
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Fig. 7. (a) SEM Microstructure showing the secondary particles, and (b) EDS analysis of the spot marked in the microstructure.

Fig. 8. The distribution of secondary particle in nugget for different tool geometry (a)(b) TT tool, (c)(d) T tool, (e)(f) CT tool.

aluminum alloy, the fine distribution of grain size and precipitate both
depends on the heat generation and the extent of deformation [11]. As
mentioned earlier a higher heat input may cause a coarsening of nugget
grain and precipitate. At the same time, a higher deformation of work­
piece may also contribute to the formation of finer grains as well as
breaking down of precipitates to a finer size. For T tool both the heat
input and the deformation of the workpiece are comparatively less as the
torque and force values are depicting (0.714 KJ/mm, 10.37 N-m, 7330
N, 1376 N). In case of CT tool the heat input is highest (0.919 KJ/mm)
among the tools but the torque and force values attain by CT tool are less
(12.06 N-m, 5696 N, 1284 N). The TT tool the heat generation (0.849
KJ/mm) is higher than T tool but the extent of deformation attains is of

12
A. Banik et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108573

Fig. 9. A comparison of mechanical properties obtained with optimized parameter (1300 RPM,2.25 mm/sec) for each tool geometry with respect to heat input (a)
UTS (b)YS(c) Percentage of elongation (d) Hardness.

Fig. 10a. Fractured tensile samples.

highest among the entire tool according to torque and force values
(12.33 N-m, 9206 N, 1498 N). All these may assist the TT tool in the
formation of finer grain size and precipitate distribution which intern
resulted in improved mechanical properties (1300 RPM, 2.25 mm/sec).
6. Conclusions
This present study intends to find out best tool geometry among a set
of tools for FSW of AA 6061 T6 in terms of mechanical properties (UTS,
YS, percentage elongation and hardness) as well as considering the force
and torque behaviors of individual tool which are the representatives of
tool-workpiece interactions. Based on the following conclusions it is
found that the TT tool is the most suitable for the present investigation.
• A comparison of these optimized results for each set of tool geome­
tries reveals taper threaded tool provides the highest properties
(UTS-209.916 MPa, YS-128 MPa, Percentage elongation-13.26%,
Hardness-79.69 Hv0.1) among all the three tools.
• For TT, an improvement of 13.38% and 19.06% in UTS values are
observed compared to T and CT tool.
• The highest torque, Z-force and X-force is obtained for TT tool for the
optimized parameter compared to other tools. An improvement of

13
A. Banik et al.
Fig. 10b. Stress- strain curve for different tool (1300 RPM,2.25 mm/sec).
15.89% .and 2.1% in torque values are obtained for TT tool when
compared to T and CT tool respectively.
• For CT tool a fluctuation in Z-force is also seen. The distribution of X-
force is comparatively more stable and uniform for TT.A higher
amount of X-force fluctuation is observed for T tool. The coefficient
friction attained by T, TT and CT tools is 0.237, 0.224 and 0.367.
• With TT too higher amount of finer particles are encountered
(approximately 2000 numbers, less than 0.5 µm2). For T and CT tool
the number is comparatively less (approximately 900 and 450 in
numbers respectively). Contrary to TT tool, for T and CT tool a higher
number of coarse particles were found (higher than 1 µm2).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Abhijit Banik: Investigation, Resources, Formal analysis, Writing -
review & editing. Abhijit Saha: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing - review & editing. John Deb Barma: Supervision. Uttam
Acharya: Visualization. Subhash Chandra Saha: Project
administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] W.M. Thomas, E.D. Nicholas, J.C. Needham, M.G. Murch, P. Templesmith, C.J.
Dawes, GB Patent application no. 9125978.8, Int. Pat. Appl. No. PCT/GB92/02203,
1991.
[2] R. Rai, A. De, H. Bhadeshia, T. DebRoy, friction stir welding tools, Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join. 16 (2011) 325–342.
[3] R.S. Mishra, Z.Y. Ma, Friction stir welding and processing, Mater. Sci. Eng.: R: Rep.
50 (1-2) (2005) 1–78.
[4] A.K. Kadian, P. Biswas, Effect of tool pin profile on the material flow characteristics
of AA6061, J. Manuf. Processes 26 (2017) 382–392.
[5] P.A. Colegrove, H.R. Shercliff, 3-Dimensional CFD modelling of flow round a
threaded friction stir welding tool profile, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169 (2)
(2005) 320–327.
[6] A. Banik, B. Saha Roy, J. Deb Barma, S.C. Saha, An experimental investigation of
torque and force generation for varying tool tilt angles and their effects on
microstructure and mechanical properties: Friction stir welding of AA 6061-T6,
J. Manuf. Processes 31 (2018) 395–404.
[7] L. Zhou, L.Y. Luo, T.P. Zhang, W.X. He, Y.X. Huang, J.C. Feng, Effect of rotation
speed on microstructure and mechanical properties of refill friction stir spot
welded 6061-T6 aluminum alloy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 92 (9-12) (2017)
3425–3433.
[8] K. Elangovan, V. Balasubramanian, Influences of tool pin profile and welding speed
on the formation of friction stir processing zone in AA2219 aluminium alloy,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 200 (1-3) (2008) 163–175.
[9] D. Trimble, G.E. O’Donnell, J. Monaghan, Characterisation of tool shape and
rotational speed for increased speed during friction stir welding of AA2024-T3,
J. Manuf. Processes 17 (2015) 141–150.
[10] D. Trimble, J. Monaghan, G.E. O’Donnell, Force generation during friction stir
welding of AA2024-T3, CIRP Ann. 61 (1) (2012) 9–12.
14
Measurement 173 (2021) 108573
[11] R.S. Mishra, P.S. De, N. Kumar, Friction Stir Processing, in: Frict. Stir Weld.
Process., Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 259–296. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-07043-8_9.
[12] Y.H. Zhao, S.B. Lin, L. Wu, F.X. Qu, The influence of pin geometry on bonding and
mechanical properties in friction stir weld, Al alloy, Mater. Lett. 59 (2005) (2014)
2948–2952, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2005.04.048.
[13] K. Elangovan, V. Balasubramanian, Influences of pin profile and rotational speed of
the tool on the formation of friction stir processing zone in AA2219 aluminium
alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 459 (1-2) (2007) 7–18.
[14] K. Elangovan, V. Balasubramanian, M. Valliappan, Influences of tool pin profile
and axial force on the formation of friction stir processing zone in AA6061
aluminium alloy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 38 (3-4) (2008) 285–295.
[15] Nikhil Gotawala, Amber Shrivastava, Microstructural analysis and mechanical
behavior of SS 304 and titanium joint from friction stir butt welding, Mater. Sci.
Eng., A 789 (2020) 139658, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.139658.
[16] Pardeep Pankaj, Avinish Tiwari, Pankaj Biswas, A. Gourav Rao, Sukhomay Pal,
Experimental studies on controlling of process parameters in dissimilar friction stir
welding of DH36 shipbuilding steel–AISI 1008 steel, Weld World 64 (6) (2020)
963–986.
[17] Rajesh Kumar Bhushan, Deepak Sharma, Investigation of mechanical properties
and surface roughness of friction stir welded AA6061-T651, Int. J. Mech. Mater.
Eng. 15 (1) (2020), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40712-020-00119-x.
[18] P. Periyasamy, B. Mohan, V. Balasubramanian, S. Rajakumar, S. Venugopal, Multi-
objective optimization of friction stir welding parameters using desirability
approach to join Al/SiCp metal matrix composites, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc.
China 23 (4) (2013) 942–955.
[19] S. Rajakumar, V. Balasubramanian, Multi-response optimization of friction-stir-
welded AA1100 aluminum alloy joints, J. Mater. Eng. Perform 21 (6) (2012)
809–822.
[20] Mohammad Hasan Shojaeefard, Reza Abdi Behnagh, Mostafa Akbari, Mohammad
Kazem Besharati Givi, Foad Farhani, Modelling and Pareto optimization of
mechanical properties of friction stir welded AA7075/AA5083 butt joints using
neural network and particle swarm algorithm, Mater. Des. 44 (2013) 190–198.
[21] Mohammad Hasan Shojaeefard, Mostafa Akbari, Parviz Asadi, Multi objective
optimization of friction stir welding parameters using FEM and neural network, Int.
J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 15 (11) (2014) 2351–2356.
[22] Saurabh Kumar Gupta, K.N. Pandey, Rajneesh Kumar, Multi-objective optimization
of friction stir welding process parameters for joining of dissimilar AA5083/
AA6063 aluminum alloys using hybrid approach, Proc. IMechE 232 (4) (2018)
343–353.
[23] P. Taylor, Sundaravel Vijayan, R. Raju, S.R.K Rao, Multiobjective optimization of
friction stir welding process parameters on aluminum alloy AA 5083 using
Taguchi-based grey relation analysis, Mater. Manuf. Processes 25 (11) (2010)
1206–1212.
[24] D. Vijayan, V.S. Rao, Friction stir welding of age-hardenable aluminum alloys: a
parametric approach using RSM based GRA coupled with PCA, J. Inst. Eng. India
Ser. C 95 (2) (2014) 127–141.
[25] Ho Anh Duc Nguyen, Keehyun Shin, Changwoo Lee, Multi-response optimization of
R2R gravure printing using orthogonal array and principal component analysis as a
weighting factor, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 90 (9-12) (2017) 3595–3606.
[26] S.M. Senthil, R. Parameshwaran, S. Ragu Nathan, M. Bhuvanesh Kumar,
K. Deepandurai, A multi-objective optimization of the friction stir welding process
using RSM-based-desirability function approach for joining aluminum alloy 6063-
T6 pipes, Struct. Multidisc Optim. 62 (3) (2020) 1117–1133.
[27] Arun Premnath, Optimization of the process parameters on the mechanical and
wear properties of Al-SiC nano-composites fabricated by friction stir processing
using desirability approach, Silicon 12 (3) (2020) 665–675.
[28] Lee-Ing Tong, Chung-Ho Wang, Hung-Cheng Chen, Optimization of multiple
responses using principal component analysis and technique for order preference
by similarity to ideal solution, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 27 (3-4) (2005)
407–414.
[29] S. Sudhagar, M. Sakthivel, Prince J. Mathew, S. Ajith Arul Daniel, A multi criteria
decision making approach for process improvement in friction stir welding of
aluminium alloy, Measurement 108 (2017) 1–8.
[30] Abhijit Saha, Subhas Chandra Mondal, Multi-objective optimization of manual
metal arc welding process parameters for nano-structured hardfacing material
using hybrid approach, Measurement 102 (2017) 80–89.
[31] Muhammad Jamil, Aqib Mashood Khan, Hussien Hegab, Mozammel Mia, Munish
Kumar Gupta, Modeling, multi-objective optimization and cost estimation of bone
drilling under micro-cooling spray technique: an integrated analysis, Int. J.
Interact. Des. Manuf. 14 (2) (2020) 435–450.
[32] Mohd Danish, Turnad Lenggo Ginta, Khairul Habib, Diego Carou, Ahmad Majdi
Abdul Rani, Bidyut Baran Saha, Thermal analysis during turning of AZ31
magnesium alloy under dry and cryogenic conditions, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
91 (5-8) (2017) 2855–2868.
[33] K. Aslantas, M. Danish, A. Hasçelik, M. Mia, M. Gupta, T. Ginta, H. Ijaz,
Investigations on surface roughness and tool wear characteristics in micro-turning
of Ti-6Al-4V alloy, Materials 13 (2020) 2998.
[34] C.M. Yousuff, M. Danish, E.T.W. Ho, I.H. Kamal Basha, N.H.B. Hamid, Study on the
optimum cutting parameters of an aluminum mold for effective bonding strength
of a PDMS microfluidic device, Micromachines 8 (2017) 258.
[35] H. Schmidt, J. Hattel, J. Wert, An analytical model for the heat generation in
friction stir welding, Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 12 (1) (2004) 143–157.
[36] K. Kumar, C. Kalyan, S.V. Kailas, T.S. Srivatsan, An investigation of friction during
friction stir welding of metallic materials, Mater. Manuf. Processes 24 (4) (2009)
438–445.
A. Banik et al.
[37] Debasish Mishra, Rohan Basu Roy, Samik Dutta, Surjya K. Pal,
Debashish Chakravarty, A review on sensor based monitoring and control of
friction stir welding process and a roadmap to Industry 4.0, J. Manuf. Processes 36
(2018) 373–397.
[38] Moataz M. Attallah, Hanadi G. Salem, Friction stir welding parameters: a tool for
controlling abnormal grain growth during subsequent heat treatment, Mater. Sci.
Eng., A 391 (1-2) (2005) 51–59.
15
Measurement 173 (2021) 108573
[39] Dongxiao Li, Xinqi Yang, Lei Cui, Fangzhou He, Hao Shen, Effect of welding
parameters on microstructure and mechanical properties of AA6061-T6 butt
welded joints by stationary shoulder friction stir welding, Mater. Des. 64 (2014)
251–260.
[40] E.O. Hall, Variation of hardness of metals with grain size, Nature 173 (4411)
(1954) 948–949.