The Effect of Friction Stir Processing on 5083-H321/5356

Al Arc Welds: Microstructural and Mechanical Analysis

CHRISTIAN B. FULLER and MURRAY W. MAHONEY

Friction stir processing (FSP) is used locally to modify the microstructure and thus mechanical
properties of 5083-H321/5356 aluminum gas metal arc welds (GMAWs). Four specimen approaches
were examined: as-arc welded, weld toe FSP (with arc weld on either the advancing or the retreating
side of tool), and weld crown FSP. Microstructures within the fine-grained FSP region contained
smaller constituent particles, Mg2Si and Al6(Fe,Mn), than those particles found in the arc weld
nugget, heat-affected zone (HAZ), and base-metal (BM) locations. The FSP improved the monotonic
tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation of 5083-H321/5356 Al arc welds by 6 to 9 pct, 7 to
13 pct, and 46 to 80 pct, respectively. The addition of FSP produced a 30 pct increase in the load
necessary to reach 107 cycles during four-point bending fatigue. An analysis of strengthening mech-
anisms determined that solid-solution, grain-size, and precipitation strengthening made contributions
to the calculated yield strength of the BM, arc weld nugget, and FSP regions. In addition, the strength
mechanism analysis demonstrated that FSP increased the amount of grain-size strengthening and
precipitate strengthening by nearly 110 MPa, when compared to the arc weld nugget.

I. INTRODUCTION tion within the workpiece. The extensive plastic deformation

produces a narrow zone of softened material. This material
PAST research on structural aluminum alloys demon- is transferred around the tool as the tool traverses forward
strated lower fatigue resistance in gas metal arc welds
along the selected tool path. Consolidation of the material
(GMAWs) when compared to base-metal (BM) properties directly behind the tool produces a fully recrystallized,
(e.g., References 1 and 2). Fatigue behavior of GMAWs can
void-free, fine-grained microstructure. In both FSW and
be accommodated by increasing the reinforcement at the
FSP, all material deformation occurs in the solid state; thus,
arc weld location, thereby increasing component weight.
no melting occurs. The fundamental difference between
However, there is a continual emphasis on decreasing the
FSW and FSP is that no joining occurs in FSP; thus, no
cost or weight of a given structure. Friction stir processing
interface (contact line) is present. The objective of FSP is to
(FSP) is a technique that produces local microstructural
modify microstructures to improve local properties within
modification and, when applied to GMAWs, improves the
a structure, e.g., a GMAW within a large structure where
microstructure and corresponding mechanical properties at
FSW cannot be applied.
the weld toe and crown locations.
The FSW is effective in producing butt joints with better
Reasons commonly cited for lower fatigue resistance of mechanical properties than GMAWs.[9] However, the limi-
full penetration GMAWs include the following: a weaker
tations of FSW include relatively high applied loads; slow
filler metal than the base metal (an undermatched weld),
travel speeds, especially at deep penetration depths, e.g., .12
defects within the weld nugget such as solidification poros- mm; and the need for a robust system to react the high
ity, and stress concentrations at the weld bead.[3,4] Stress
applied loads. An alternative to FSW is to friction stir proc-
concentrations at the weld toe are the most important factor
ess the surface of gas metal arc welds. Processing the sur-
influencing the fatigue behavior of Al GMAWs; thus, re-
face reduces the loads (relative to FSW), such that a small
moval of the weld bead increases fatigue resistance.[5] In
portable system can be used for weld repair or surface
addition, fatigue behavior of weldments can be improved treatment. Friction stir processing the surface of GMAWs
further with either dressing of the arc weld bead or the changes the cast arc weld microstructure into a fully recrys-
introduction of compressive residual stresses at the weld tallized fine grain structure and eliminates weld defects
location[4] (e.g., shot peening, surface rolling, or low plas- near the surface. To date, FSP has improved the local mi-
ticity burnishing[6]). However, with the weld bead removed, crostructure and corresponding mechanical properties of
surface and near-surface defects within the filler metal be- Al-, Cu-, Fe-, Mg-, and Ni-based alloy systems.[10–16] This
come the primary fatigue initiation sites,[7] and production
article describes how the FSP of 5083-H321/5356 Al arc
of a porosity-free arc weld can be problematic.
welds results in microstructural changes, how these changes
The basic concepts of FSP are the same as those of
affect the operating strengthening mechanisms, and the
friction stir welding (FSW).[8] In both cases, a rotating tool,
resultant improvements in tensile and fatigue behavior.
with shoulder and probe, is plunged into a workpiece and
translated along the desired path. Rotation of the tool pro-
duces frictional heating and corresponding plastic deforma-
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

CHRISTIAN B. FULLER, Research Scientist, and A. FSP of Arc Welds

MURRAY W. MAHONEY, Manager of Structural Metals Group, are with
the Rockwell Scientific Company, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360. Contact Table I contains the nominal chemical compositions (in
e-mail: christian.fuller@yahoo.com wt pct) for 5083-H321 Al (base metal) and 5356 Al (filler
Manuscript submitted January 18, 2006. metal). Gas metal arc welds were produced on 6-mm-thick

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006—3605

5083-H321 Al plates with automated MIG welds operating
at 180 amps, 26 V, and a head travel speed of 22.8 cm
min
1. Two different FSP approaches were examined in
this study: weld toe FSP and weld crown FSP. The weld
toe is defined as the interface between the arc weld nugget
and BM on the top surface. Weld toe FSP was performed
with a small tool containing an 11-mm-diameter shoulder
and a 3-mm-long conical probe (6.35-mm-diameter taper-
ing to 4.6 mm) operating at 1600 rpm and 40.6 cm min
1.
This tool traversed along each of the two arc weld toes for a
total of two FSP passes per plate. Weld crown FSP used a
probeless 28.6-mm-diameter scrolled shoulder tool operat-
ing at 400 rpm and 20.3 cm min
1 and was traversed across
the arc weld crown in a single pass. All FSP tools were
operated with counter-clockwise rotation, with the Z-axis in
position control, and were manufactured from the MP159
alloy. Four FSP approaches were examined in this study
(Figure 1): as-arc welded, weld toe FSP with arc weld
nugget on the advancing side of the tool, weld toe FSP with
arc weld nugget on the retreating side of the tool, and weld
crown FSP. The advancing side of the tool is where tool
rotation is parallel to the direction of tool travel, while the
retreating side of the tool is where tool rotation is antipar-
allel to the direction of tool travel (Figure 2). Microstruc-
tures evaluated in this article consist of three regions:
nugget, heat-affected zone (HAZ), and base metal (BM,
Figure 1). Material within the nugget is subjected to both
heat and mechanical deformation during FSP. The region
adjacent to the nugget is the HAZ, where only workpiece
heating occurs.

Table I. Nominal composition (Weight Percent) of 5083-H321 Al and 5356 Al

Alloy Mg Mn Si Fe Zn Ti Cu Cr Al
5083-H321 4.7 0.5 0.11 0.29 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.08 balance
5356 4.5 to 5.5 0.05 to 0.2 0.25 0.40 0.10 0.06 to 0.2 0.1 0.05 to 0.2 balance

Fig. 1—Schematic of FSP approaches in relation to arc weld nugget: (a) weld toe FSP with arc weld nugget on advancing side of tool, (b) weld toe FSP with
arc weld nugget on retreating side of tool, and (c) weld crown FSP.

Fig. 2—Schematic of FSP tool with conventional terminology.

3606—VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

B. Preparation for Microstructural Analyses
Microstructural observations were made with light mi-
croscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and trans-
mission electron microscopy (TEM). Samples for light
microscopy and SEM were sectioned perpendicular to the
direction of welding. Once cut, samples were polished with
SiC paper and alumina slurries to a surface finish of 0.05
mm and electrolytically etched with Barker’s solution (5 vol
pct fluoroboric acid in water). The TEM specimens (3-mm
diameter) were electrodischarge machined from bulk sam-
ples, thinned to 100 mm with SiC paper, and finally electro-
polished (solution of 33 vol pct nitric acid in methanol
at
25 °C) to obtain an electron transparent specimen.
The TEM observations were conducted with a PHILIPS*
*PHILIPS is a trademark of Philips Electronic Instruments Corp.,
Mahwah, NJ.
CM-30 TEM operating at 300 kV. The TEM foil thickness
was determined using thickness-extinction contour fringe
methods. Precipitate dimensions were determined using
image-analysis software (NIH Image). For all morpholo-
gies, the dimensions of precipitates were calculated by
determining the diameter of an area-equivalent circle,
yielding an effective diameter.[17] The effective diameter
is a reasonable approximation for the first-order calcula-
tions presented in Section IV–B–2. Precipitate composi-
tions were determined from a series of SEM or TEM
EDX analyses on five to ten precipitates within a given
microstructural region.
C. Mechanical Testing
Subsized tensile specimens had a 6.35-mm rectangular
cross section and were machined perpendicular to the weld-
ing direction (transverse orientation). Mechanical proper-
ties of individual microstructural regions were determined
with microtensile specimens electrodischarge machined (cross
section of 3 mm 3 1 mm) from the desired microstructural
region, parallel to the direction of welding. The reported
tensile results, both microtensile and subsized tensile, are
the average of three specimens for each specimen condi-
tion. Four-point bending fatigue was performed on samples
machined perpendicular to the welding direction with a
12 mm 3 6 mm cross section operating with a sinusoidal
waveform at 10 to 30 Hz with the weld bead removed.
Fatigue samples were tested as a function of maximum
applied load with a load ratio of 0.1. The procedure for
fatigue specimen production included a low-stress grind
(following MIL-STD-866) as the final step to minimize
residual stresses during sample production.
III. RESULTS
A. Microstructure
1. Light microscopy
A collection of transverse plane (perpendicular to the
welding direction) light macrographs for the five FSP con-
ditions is shown in Figure 3. Individual microstructural
regions (arc weld nugget, BM, and fine-grain FSP) are indi-
cated in Figure 3 by a 1, 2, or 3, respectively. The HAZ is
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
not explicitly defined, but occurs at any transition between
the arc weld nugget, BM, and fine-grain FSP microstruc-
tural regions. Grain sizes in the as-arc welded material are
31.7 6 1.4 mm in the BM and 65.3 6 2.1 mm in the arc
weld nugget. The addition of FSP did not produce signifi-
cant differences in the BM and arc weld nugget grain sizes.
The weld toe FSP produced 6.0 6 0.2 mm sized grains to
a depth of 2.8 mm, and weld crown FSP produced 9.9 6
0.3 mm sized grains to a depth of 2 mm. In addition, a thin
layer of fine-grained material is found to extend across the
entire weld crown (Figure 3(d)).
2. Scanning electron microscopy
The SEM demonstrates that the as-arc welded material
(Figure 4) contains solidification porosity, labeled as 1 in
Figure 4(a), and constituent particles (particles with areas
.0.1 mm2). All dark contrast particles in the SEM micro-
graphs contained Mg and Si, indicating the presence of the
Mg2Si phase in 5XXX alloys.[18] The lighter contrast phase
in the SEM micrographs contains Al, Mn, and Fe, indi-
cating the presence of the Al6(Mn, Fe) phase in 5083
Al.[19,20,21] Both types of constituent particles are contained
within the arc weld nugget, HAZ, and BM (Figures 4(a)
through (c), respectively) microstructural regions contained
within the GMAWs. Constituent particles are 10.9 6
2.4 mm2 in the HAZ, 10.1 6 1.3 mm2 in the BM, and
1.3 6 0.2 mm2 in the arc weld nugget.
Figures 5(a) and (b) compare the FSP region SEM mi-
crographs produced by the weld toe FSP (arc weld nugget
on retreating side of tool) and weld crown FSP approaches.
Both FSP approaches produce microstructures containing
each of the two constituent phases, Mg2Si and Al6(Fe, Mn).
The weld toe FSP produces 2.13 6 0.14 mm2 constituent
particles, and the weld crown FSP produces 0.17 6 0.01
mm2 particles.
3. Transmission electron microscopy
Small precipitates (areas ,0.1 mm2) were examined with
TEM. Diffraction and energy-dispersive x-ray (EDX) anal-
yses show two types of precipitates in TEM samples: large
Mg2Si precipitates and fine Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates. Fig-
ures 6(a) and (b) are bright-field TEM micrographs of the
arc weld nugget and BM microstructural regions contained
within the as-arc welded sample. Only the large Mg2Si
constituent particles, previously mentioned in Section
III–A–2, are found in the arc weld nugget (Figure 6(a));
no small precipitates are found. Grains within the arc weld
nugget have low dislocation densities and the occasional
subgrain network, typical of cast microstructures. Second-
phase particles in the BM include Mg2Si, not shown in
Figure 6(b), and rod-shaped Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates. The
Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates have a broad range of aspect
ratios, 1 to 13, and projected areas, 1700 to 476,500 nm2.
In the BM, the dislocation density is high and dislocations
are found primarily as subgrain structures.
Bright-field TEM micrographs illustrating the morphol-
ogy and spatial distribution of Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates
found in the FSP microstructural regions of the weld crown
FSP and weld toe FSP with arc weld nugget on the retreating
side of the tool are shown in Figure 7. Both FSP approaches
produce grains containing either a high or low density of
dislocations, typical of a recrystallized microstructure. The
VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006—3607
Fig. 3—Light macrographs of 5083-H321 Al/5356 Al arc weld in the following conditions: (a) as-arc welded, (b) weld toe FSP with arc weld nugget on
advancing side, (c) weld toe FSP with arc weld nugget on retreating side, and (d) weld crown FSP. Different microstructural regions within the micrographs
are indicated by (1) arc weld nugget (5356 Al), (2) base metal (5083-H321 Al), and (3) fine-grain FSP. The arrow in (a) indicates porosity within the arc weld
nugget and the boxes in (d) indicate the locations of microtensile specimens. For all macrographs, the right-hand side is the advancing side of the FSP tool, and
tool travel is into the page.

Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates produced by the weld toe FSP
approach (Figure 7(a)), occur in rod and spheroidal mor-
phologies, while the Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates produced by
the weld crown FSP approach have primarily spheroidal
morphologies (Figure 7(b)). Two distinct spheroidal precip-
itate morphologies were shown using TEM tilting experi-
ments. These morphologies are probably related, and not
the result of plate precipitates with changing orientations.
No evidence of grain boundary precipitate-free zones was
detected. The TEM samples removed from the BM and arc
weld regions away from the FSP region, i.e., not within the
HAZ, do not contain significant changes in the grain and
precipitate morphologies, as compared to the as-received
GMAW samples (Figure 6).
To quantify differences between Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates
present in the weld crown FSP, weld toe FSP, and BM
microstructural regions, TEM images (such as those in Fig-
ures 6 and 7) were used to measure the average projected
area and aspect ratio of Al6(Fe,Mn) precipitates. Results are
summarized in Table II. The weld toe FSP region has the
largest mean projected area, 32,900 6 1500 nm2
Figure 7(b), followed by (in decreasing area) the BM,
23,200 6 4500 nm2 Figure 6(b), and weld crown FSP
regions, 8700 6 700 nm2 (Figure 7(a)). The mean aspect
ratios show that the BM precipitates are the most asymmet-
ric, aspect ratio of 2.51 6 0.15, followed by the weld toe
FSP, aspect ratio of 1.70 6 0.04, and weld crown FSP,
aspect ratio of 1.26 6 0.02.
B. Mechanical Properties
1. Tensile properties
Table III presents transverse tensile property results of
5083-H321 Al/5356 Al GMAW as a function of the FSP
approach. As-welded 5083-H321/5356 Al had the lowest
yield strength (117 MPa), tensile strength (259 MPa), and
elongation (10.8 pct). Both FSP approaches were observed
to increase the yield strength, tensile strength, and elonga-
tion of GMAW 5083-H321/5356Al. The 5083-H321 Al BM
tensile properties[22] (Table III) are higher than any of the
experimental strength data produced for this study. The
strength differences are due to a reduction in strain hard-
ening as a result of thermal exposure produced from
GMAW or FSP.

3608—VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A


Fig. 4—SEM micrographs of the microstructure of the as-received 5083-
H321/5356 Al arc weld showing the (a) arc weld nugget, (b) HAZ, and
(c) BM regions. The numbered (1–3) arrows indicate the presence of (1) weld
porosity, (2) Mg2Si phase (particles with dark contrast), and (3) Al6(Mn,Fe)
phase (particles with light contrast).
2. Tensile properties of individual
microstructural regions
The mechanical properties of each microstructural region
were determined with microtensile samples (Table IV) ex-
tracted from the FSP, BM, and arc weld nugget regions
contained within a plate subjected to weld crown FSP
(boxes in Figure 3(d)). The coarse grain arc weld nugget
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
had the lowest strength, the fine grain FSP region had the
highest strength, and the BM region had strengths between
the two extremes.
3. Fatigue behavior
Figure 8 presents four-point bending fatigue results for
the arc welded, weld crown FSP, and weld toe FSP with the
arc weld on the retreating side, where the number of cycles
to failure are plotted as a function of the maximum applied
load. All specimens were orientated such that the crown
surface was in tension. The as-arc welded approach has
the lowest four-point bending fatigue resistance. The addi-
tion of FSP improves the four-point bending fatigue resist-
ance with no significant difference in fatigue resistance as a
function of FSP approach. The as-arc welded sample
loaded to 60 kg failed after 6.7 3 105 cycles, but none of
the friction-stir-processed samples loaded to 60 kg failed,
even after 1.4 3 107 cycles. This fatigue improvement re-
presents greater than a 20 times improvement in fatigue
life. A runout specimen (no failure after 107 cycles) for
the as-arc welded condition was reached at 46 kg, while
the friction-stir-processed conditions produced runouts at
60 to 61 kg, a 30 pct increase in applied load.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Microstructure
1. Effect of arc weld nugget location
Friction stir processing produces asymmetric material
movement around a friction stir tool, where material flows
from the advancing side to the retreating side of the tool.[23]
In the case of weld toe FSP, material either flows from the
arc weld nugget into the BM region or from the BM region
into the arc weld nugget, depending on the arc weld nugget
position relative to the FSP tool. If the arc weld nugget is
on the advancing side of the FSP tool, the latter will occur,
and if the arc weld nugget is on the retreating side of the
weld toe FSP tool, the former will take place. Material flow
in friction stir is partly governed by the elevated temper-
ature flow stress. Because both alloys are 5XXX series Al, a
significant difference in elevated temperature flow stress is
not expected. Thus, light microscopy does not show signifi-
cant differences between the two weld toe variants (Figure 3).
Vickers microhardness (Figure 9) was used to distinguish
between the two weld toe FSP variations. Both weld toe
FSP variations had the same hardness values, within exper-
imental scatter, in each of the three microstructural regions:
arc weld nugget, FSP, and BM. However, a larger interfa-
cial gradient between the FSP region and arc weld nugget
is observed for the advancing side variation than for the
retreating side (20.4 and 3.0 kg mm
1, respectively). The
gradient is directly related to the asymmetric material flow
in friction stir. A sharp interface forms on the advancing
side between the FSP region and the BM, but a ‘‘softer’’
gradient interface forms on the retreating side. Currently, it
is unclear exactly how much the gradient would affect the
weld mechanical properties, especially since the FSP region
is only ½ the plate thickness. To minimize the effect of this
gradient, the FSP approach producing the smaller gradient
(weld toe FSP with arc weld nugget on retreating side of
VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006—3609
Fig. 5—SEM micrographs of the microstructure contained within the FSP region of the (a) weld toe FSP and (b) weld crown FSP approaches. Like Fig. 4,
the numbered (2 and 3) arrows indicate the presence of the (2) Mg2Si and (3) Al6(Mn,Fe) phases.

Fig. 6—Bright-field TEM micrographs of the (a) arc weld nugget and (b) BM regions, showing the precipitate distribution and dislocation structure.

Fig. 7—Bright-field TEM micrographs of the FSP region of (a) weld toe FSP approach with arc weld nugget on the advancing side and (b) weld crown FSP
approach, showing precipitate distribution and dislocation structure.

the tool) was selected for the mechanical property charac-
terization.
2. Precipitate phases
Precipitates in the BM consist of cubes (like those found
in the FSP regions) and rods with aspect ratios near 13. The
large aspect ratio precipitates exist in an unstable morphol-
ogy due to the high interfacial energy of long rods. If given
the opportunity, the BM rod precipitates would lower their
interfacial energy by splitting into smaller rods or spheres.
Transformation of rod precipitates into groups of spheroids
has been observed in specimens subjected to thermal treat-
ments,[24] but thermal treatment caused by arc welding
is too short to allow precipitate splitting. Friction stir is
known to produce extreme deformation (effective strains
in excess of 40[25]), providing sufficient energy to spheroid-
ize the large rods into smaller precipitates or sufficient
deformation to fragment the large rods. A complete under-
standing of these phenomena requires detailed study that is
not within the scope of this work.
Precipitates in the FSP regions are the result of either
fragmentation of arc weld HAZ precipitates, as discussed

3610—VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

 Table II. Characteristics of Al6(Fe, Mn) Precipitates as
Reported from TEM Analysis

Microstructural Average Projected Average Aspect

Region Precipitate Area (nm2) Ratio (Max./Min)
BM 23,200 6 4,500 2.51 6 0.15
Weld toe FSP 32,900 6 1,500 1.70 6 0.04
Weld crown FSP 8,700 6 700 1.26 6 0.02

Table III. Tensile Properties of Arc-Welded 5083/5356 Al as

a Function of FSP Modification

FSP YS UTS Pct

Approach (MPa) (MPa) Elongation
As-GMAW* 117 6 1 259 6 8 10.8 6 3.1
Weld toe FSP* 132 6 8 275 6 11 15.8 6 1.0
Weld crown FSP* 125 6 1 283 6 11 19.5 6 6.2
5083-H321[22] 228 317 16
*Each value represents the average of three samples.

Fig. 9—Vickers microhardness as a function of distance from FSP nugget

Table IV. Tensile Properties Obtained with Microtensile for the two weld toe FSP variations (arc weld nugget on advancing or
Samples retreating side of the tool).

Microstructural YS UTS Pct

Region (MPa) (MPa) Elongation
within the weld crown FSP deformation zone consists pri-
BM 189 6 14 288 6 6 28 6 5 marily of the arc weld nugget, where Al6(Fe, Mn) precip-
Arc weld nugget 162 6 5 259 6 4 36 6 4 itates are not present. Thus, only a nucleation, growth, and
FSP 193 6 1 306 6 5 33 6 2 coarsening process could form Al6(Fe, Mn) precipitates
Each value represents the average of three samples.
during FSP. Precipitate formation cannot be attributed to
dissolution and reprecipitation during FSP. The solvus tem-
peratures of Al6(Fe,Mn) and Mg2Si are reported to be ap-
proximately 635 °C[20] and 637 °C,[26] respectively. These
temperatures are higher than the solidus temperature of 5083
Al (575 °C[21]); the hypothesized maximum FSP temperature.
The presence of the corrosion susceptible Al3Mg2 phase
(solvus of 450 °C[27]) has not been found. The low solvus
temperature indicates that formation of the Al3Mg2 phase is
thermodynamically favored, but the workpiece does not
maintain a precipitation temperature for a sufficient period
of time to allow this phase to form. Because the corrosion
susceptible phase was not present, it was not surprising that
modified and unmodified GMAWs demonstrated no sign of
corrosive attack after 24 hours of immersion in an ASTM
G34 EXCO corrosion solution (4N NaCl-0.5 N KNO3-0.1N
HNO3).[28]

Fig. 8—Four-point bending fatigue results as a function of FSP approach.
previously, or precipitate nucleation, growth, and coarsen-
ing from a solid solution. Which process occurs depends on
the original location of the deformed material. Because
weld toe FSP consists of material from the arc weld nugget
and BM, both processes are possible. However, material
B. Mechanical Properties
1. Tensile properties
All tensile samples failed within the arc weld nugget
region. In addition, the microtensile specimens confirm that
the arc weld nugget is the weakest microstructural region,
and FSP modification produced a 19 pct increase in yield
strength over the arc weld nugget. Therefore, addition of
FSP locally improves the strength of the arc weld nugget
region through grain refinement or porosity healing.
Evidence of porosity healing is observed in the tensile
specimen fractography. Fracture surfaces of the as-arc
welded samples reveal that the arc weld nugget contains
porosity throughout the weld cross section (Figure 10(a)).

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006—3611

Fig. 10—Fractography of tensile specimens in the (a) as-arc-welded and (b) weld crown FSP conditions.

Table V. Calculated Yield Strength vs Experimental Values
Microstructural Dsss Dsgs Dsor sy Experimental
Region (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) YS (MPa)
BM 108 48 52 219 189 6 14
Arc weld nugget 99 33 7 150 162 6 5
FSP 99 86 64 260 193 6 1
However, specimens modified by FSP contain porosity only
in microstructural regions untouched by FSP and not
through the entire specimen cross section (Figure 10(b)).
Porosity within the FSP region is eliminated by the severe
deformation produced by the FSP tool, while porosity
immediately below the FSP region is forged closed due to
high local forces created during FSP. The ability of FSP to
heal porosity below the deformation region was shown in
cast A356 Al,[29] where casting porosity was healed 1 to
2 mm below the tool deformation region due to the high
normal forces applied by the FSP tool.
2. Strengthening Mechanisms
Based on the microstructural examination conducted in
Sections III–A and IV–A, three strengthening mechanisms
are expected to occur: precipitation strengthening, grain
size strengthening, and solid-solution strengthening. Table
V compares the contribution from each strengthening mech-
anism, and how the overall predicted strength compares to
the experimental yield strength measured from microtensile
specimens. The strengthening contributions are calculated
assuming that the BM region contains 5083 Al, the arc
weld nugget region contains 5356 Al, and the FSP region
contains 5356 Al. The FSP region contains an unknown per-
centage mixture of 5356 (majority component) and 5083
(minority component) Al. Because the strengthening con-
tribution calculation is a first-order approximation, assum-
ing that the FSP region is made of 5356 Al is reasonable.
Calculation of precipitation strengthening is accom-
plished with the Orowan stress, Dsor[30]:
0:4Gb ln ð2 r= bÞ
D sor ¼ M pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pl 1
y
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi n 5 0.345 is the Poisson’s ratio of Al,
where [31]
r ¼
2=3 Æræ is the mean radius of a circular cross section in
a random plane for a spherical precipitate of radius r,[30]
and l is the interprecipitate spacing. The interprecipitate
spacing is calculated assuming that spherical precipitates
are arranged on a cubic grid, which is valid for the low
precipitate volume fractions observed[32]:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
p
l 5 2 r
1 [2]
4 VV
where the precipitate volume fraction (Vv) is calculated
based on the method of microstructural observation. The
SEM images are used to determine the Vv of larger precip-
itates (areas . 0.1 mm2), which is equal to the areal frac-
tion, sum of precipitate areas divided by image area. The
TEM images are used to calculate the Vv of smaller precip-
itates (areas , 0.1 mm2), assuming no overlap or truncation
effects, from[33]
  
4 ÆræA0
VV 5 [3]
3 H
The projected areal fraction, A9, was obtained for each
image by dividing the sum of the precipitate area by the
area of the entire image, and the foil thickness, H, was
determined from extinction thickness fringes. The contri-
bution for precipitate strengthening is 52 MPa for the larger
precipitates and 38 MPa for the smaller precipitates within
the FSP region; BM precipitate strengthening is 7 MPa for
the larger precipitates and 52 MPa for the smaller precip-
itates. Both groups of precipitate sizes would work in par-
allel to inhibit dislocation motion. Thus, the combined
precipitate strengthening contribution
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi is calculated from
Dsor ¼ Ds2or
Large 1 Ds2or
Small , producing Dsor values
of 64 MPa for FSP, 52 MPa for BM, and 7 MPa for arc
weld nugget (larger precipitates only).
The strengthening due to grain size, Dsgs, can be ap-
[1] proximated by a portion of the Hall–Petch relationship,
for example,[34]

3612—VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A


1=2
Dsgs ¼ Kd
where d is the mean grain size (Section III–A–1) and K is a
locking parameter. The value of K is dependent on the alloy
composition and microstructure of Al alloys. An Al-4 wt
pct Mg alloy was estimated to have a K of 0.22 MPa m1/2,[35]
and increasing the Mg content to 5.18 wt pct changed the
estimate to 0.28 MPa m1/2.[36] However, adding Mn did not
substantially change the value of K.[37] Using the literature
data, K is linearly interpolated (a reasonable assumption in
the current composition range) to be 0.24 MPa m1/2 for
5083 and 0.27 MPa m1/2 for 5356 Al. The resulting increase
in yield strength due to grain size is given in Table V.
In 5XXX series Al alloys, solid-solution strengthening is
produced from a supersaturation of Mg and Mn atoms in an
Al solvent, forming solute atmospheres that inhibit the
movement of dislocations. Sections III–A and IV–A show
the presence of Mg and Mn containing precipitate phases,
thereby reducing the solute concentration of Mg and Mn in
the matrix. Therefore, the strengthening contribution due to
solid-solution strengthening, Dsss, should be considered an
upper limit. The value of Dsss can be approximated with[38]
pffiffiffi 3= 3= 1=
Dsss ¼ M 2ð0:2Þ 2 G d 2 c 2
where M is the matrix orientation factor (3.06 for Al[31]), G
is the shear modulus of Al (25.4 GPa at 24 °C[39]), d is the
atomic radii mismatch parameter, and c is the atomic frac-
tion solute concentration. For the nominal composition of
5083 Al, the atomic fraction concentration of Mg is 0.0488
and that of Mn is 0.0034, and the mismatch parameter of
Mg is 0.12 and that of Mn is 0.22. Thus, Dsss is calculated
to be 90 MPa for Mg and 59 MPa for Mn. In the case of
5356 Al, the atomic fraction concentration of Mg is 0.0552
and that of Mn is 0.0006 (mismatch parameters are
unchanged); thus, Dsss is calculated to be 96 MPa for
Mg and 24 MPa for Mn. With both Mg and Mn present
in solid solution, the two elements are assumed to combine
and work parallel to inhibit dislocation motion. Therefore,
the combined solid solution strengthening
ffi contribution is
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
calculated from Dsss ¼ Ds2Mg 1Ds2Mn , producing Dsss
values of 108 MPa for 5083 Al and 99 MPa for 5356 Al.
All of the strengthening mechanisms can be combined to
approximate the overall yield strength of a material, sy , by
sy 5 s9o 1 Dsss 1 Dsgs 1 Dsor , where s9o is the yield
strength of pure Al (11 MPa[40,41]). Table V summarizes the
strengthening contribution estimates and shows that the BM
and arc weld nugget yield strength predictions are within
20 pct of experimental values, reasonable for a first-order
approximation. In contrast, the calculated strength of the
FSP region is 35 pct greater than the experimental values. A
majority of the deviation between the calculated and ex-
perimental values can be attributed to an overestimation of
the solid-solution concentration. This is because the solid-
solution concentration was assumed based on the alloy
composition, while the grain size and precipitates were
measured for each microstructural area. An accurate deter-
mination of matrix solute concentration should place the
predicted values closer to the experimental values, but this
was not within the scope of this article.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Compared to the arc-weld nugget, the addition of FSP sub-
[4]
stantially increased the grain size and precipitate strength-
ening contributions. This difference is attributed to the
grain refinement and the breakup and formation of precip-
itates during FSP. Surprisingly, the BM derives nearly an
equal strength contribution from both grain size and pre-
cipitate strengthening. Also, the calculated yield strength of
the BM is close to the literature value (Table III), but below
the experimental value determined from microsamples.
This indicates that the BM microsamples were affected
by thermal heating that coarsened grains and precipitates
during the GMAW and FSP, thereby lowering the yield
strength. Even with the issues of the calculated solid-solution
strengthening values, the predicted yield strengths follow the
same trends, low to high, as the experimental values.
3. Fatigue properties
Material deformation in the low-cycle fatigue regime is
dependent on the ability of a material to respond to plastic
deformation, which does not significantly change with the
addition of FSP. Locally, the fine-grained FSP region can
accommodate more plastic deformation than the arc weld
nugget. However, the volume of the FSP region is too small
to improve the sample’s response to plastic deformation.
[5] Therefore, it is not unexpected that the data points converge
at the low-cycle regime (high load levels). Fatigue behavior
in the high-cycle regime is dictated by the matrix strength
and the presence of surface and subsurface flaws. The FSP
can increase the fatigue resistance in this regime by either
increasing the strength of the arc weld nugget (weld crown
FSP) or removing the presence of surface and subsurface
defects (weld crown and weld toe FSP). All as-arc welded
fracture surfaces were near the weld toe locations, an exam-
ple of which is shown in Figure 11(a). Modifying the
GMAW with the weld toe FSP produces fracture surfaces
near the weld toe (Figure 11(b)), while weld crown FSP
produces fracture surfaces with several different locations
(weld toe, center of the arc weld, and into the base metal).
The fine-grain layer produced by weld crown FSP
removes any surface or subsurface fatigue crack initiation
sites. Fracture locations are scattered throughout the differ-
ent microstructural locations, but failures occur at a higher
number of cycles (when compared to the arc-welded con-
dition) due to the stronger fine-grain surface layer and the
lack of surface and subsurface fatigue crack initiation sites.
Weld toe FSP produces a fine-grained region at the arc-
weld toe, a location where microstructural discontinuities
exist in GMAW. Removal of discontinuities produces an
increased number of cycles necessary before failure.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The effects of two FSP approaches (weld crown and
weld toe FSP) to modify the microstructural and mechan-
ical properties of 5083-H321/5356 GMAW were presented
in this article. The significant findings are as follows.
1. The SEM and TEM analysis showed two types of second-
phase particles (Mg2Si and Al6(Fe, Mn)) present in the
BM-HAZ, arc weld nugget, and FSP microstructural
regions. Mg2Si was observed as large constituent particles
VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006—3613
Fig. 11—Microstructural regions near the fatigue fracture surfaces of the (a) as-arc-welded and (b) weld toe FSP with arc weld nugget on retreating side
conditions. Fatigue fracture surfaces are on the right-hand side of each macrograph.
(.0.1 mm), while Al6(Fe, Mn) was observed in two
populations: large constituent particles (.0.1 mm) and
fine rod-shaped precipitates (,500 nm). Microstructures
within the FSP region contained smaller constituent par-
ticles and finer precipitates than those found in the other
microstructural regions. Therefore, FSP was effective in
breaking up large constituent particles and spheroidizing
fine precipitates.
2. The FSP increased the monotonic tensile properties of
arc-welded 5083-H321/5356 Al. This is attributed to
grain refinement of the arc weld nugget and porosity
healing produced by FSP.
3. Micromechanical tensile testing of individual micro-
structural regions showed that the coarse grain arc weld
nugget had the lowest yield strength, the fine grain FSP
region had the highest strength, and the BM region had
strength between the two.
4. Strengthening of the BM, arc weld nugget, and FSP mi-
crostructural regions was attributed to a combination of
solid-solution, grain-size, and precipitation strengthen-
ing. The addition of FSP resulted in an increase in the
grain-size strengthening (due to grain refinement and
Hall–Petch relationship) and precipitate strengthening
(due to breakup and formation of a higher volume frac-
tion of precipitates), when compared to the arc-weld nug-
get. The yield strength predictions computed from the
strengthening mechanisms were found to be within 20 pct
of the BM and arc weld nugget experimental values
3614—VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006
and 35 pct of the FSP experimental values. Deviations
between the calculated and experimental FSP yield
strength values were attributed to inaccuracies in solute
concentration that resulted in an overestimation of the
solid-solution strengthening.
5. Four-point bending fatigue measurements showed that
the FSP of 5083-H321Al/5356 Al GMAW increased the
load necessary to produce a runout specimen by 30 pct,
and increased the fatigue life at a loading amplitude of
60 kg by over 20 times. Both FSP approaches (weld toe
and weld crown FSP) produced improvements in fatigue
resistance. In the case of weld toe FSP, fatigue resistance
improvement was attributed to a change in fatigue frac-
ture location, while fatigue resistance improvement in
weld crown FSP was attributed to strengthening of the
specimen surface layer as well as defect elimination.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support of
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), under Contract No. MDA972-02-C-0300, and
Dr. Leo Christodoulou, Program Manager. Special thanks
are extended to Professor Rajiv Mishra (University of
Missouri at Rolla) for the manufacture and testing of
micromechanical specimens. This document is approved
for public release, distribution unlimited.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 REFERENCES
1. W.W. Sanders, Jr. and F.V. Lawrence, Jr.: Fatigue Behavior of Aluminum
Alloy Weldments, ASTM STP 648, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1978, p. 22.
2. U. Brandt, F.V. Lawrence, and C.M. Sonsino: Fatigue Fract. Eng.
Mater. Struct., 2001, vol. 24, p. 117.
3. P.G. Forrest: Fatigue of Metals, Pergamon Press, Oxford, United
Kingdom, 1962, p. 280.
4. T.R. Gurney: Fatigue of Welded Structures, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1971, p. 215.
5. R.P. Newman: Br. Welding J., 1959, vol. 6, p. 324.
6. P. Prevey and M. Mahoney: Mater. Sci. Forum, 2003, vols. 426–32,
p. 2933.
7. J.L. Wood: Br. Welding J., 1960, vol. 7, p. 365.
8. W.M. Thomas, E.D. Nicholas, J.C. Needham, M.G. Murch,
P. Templesmith, and C.J. Dawes: U.S. Patent No. 5,460,317, Oct.
24, 1995.
9. P.J. Haagensen, M. Ranes, A.O. Kluken, and I. Kvale: Mater. Eng.,
1996, vol. 3, p. 505.
10. W.J. Arbegast and P.J. Hartley: U.S. Patent No. 6,230,957, May 15, 2001.
11. M. Mahoney, R.S. Mishra, T. Nelson, J. Flintoff, R. Islamgaliev, and
Y. Hovansky: in Friction Stir Welding and Processing, K.V. Jata,
M.W. Mahoney, R.S. Mishra, S.L. Semiatin, and D.P. Field, eds.,
TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2001, p. 183.
12. M.P. Miles, M.W. Mahoney, T.W. Nelson, and R.S. Mishra: in Friction
Stir Welding and Processing II, K.V. Jata, M.W. Mahoney, R.S. Mishra,
S.L. Semiatin, and T. Lienert, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2003, p. 253.
13. M.W. Mahoney, W.H. Bingel, S.R. Sharma, and R.S. Mishra: Mater.
Sci. Forum, 2003, vols. 426–32, p. 2843.
14. Z.Y. Ma, S.A. Shaarma, R.S. Mishra, and M.W. Mahoney: Mater. Sci.
Forum, 2003, vols. 426–32, p. 2891.
15. S.P. Lynch, D.P. Edwards, A. Majumdar, S. Moutsos, and M.W. Mahoney:
Mater. Sci. Forum, 2003, vols. 426–32, p. 2903.
16. C.J. Sterling, T.W. Nelson, C.D. Sorensen, and M. Posada: BYU,
Provo, UT, unpublished research, 2004.
17. M. Fahrmann, P. Fratzl, P. Paris, E. Fahrmann, and W.C. Johnson: Acta
Metall. Mater., 1995, vol. 43, p. 1007.
18. L.F. Mondolfo: Aluminum Alloys: Structure and Properties, Butter-
worth and Co., London, 1976, p. 808.
19. K. Kannan, C.H. Hohnson, and C.H. Hamilton: Metall. Mater. Trans.
A, 1998, vol. 29, p. 1211.
20. H.B. McShane, C.P. Lee, and T. Sheppard: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1990,
vol. 6, p. 428.
21. Y.S. Sato, S.H.C. Park, and H. Kokawa: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2001,
vol. 32, p. 3033.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
22. Aluminum Standards and Data, The Aluminum Association, Washington
DC, 2000, p. 2-2.
23. B. London, M. Mahoney, W. Bingel, M. Calabrese, R. Bossi, and
D. Waldron: in Friction Stir Welding and Processing II, K.V. Jata,
M.W. Mahoney, R.S. Mishra, S.L. Semiatin, and T. Lienert, eds.,
TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2003, p. 3.
24. C.B. Fuller, A.R. Krause, D.C. Dunand, and D.N. Seidman: Mater. Sci.
Eng., A, 2002, vol. 338, p. 8.
25. K.A.A. Hassan, B.P. Wynne, and P.B. Prangnell: Proc. 4th Int. Symp.
on Friction Stir Welding, Park City, UT, TWI, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, 2003.
26. A.A. Nayeb-Hashemi and J.B. Clark: in Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams,
T.B. Massalaski, J.L. Murray, L.H. Bennett, and H. Baker, eds., ASM
INTERNATIONAL, Metals Park, OH, 1986, vol. 2, p. 1544.
27. J.L. Murray: in Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams, T.B. Massalaski,
J.L. Murray, L.H. Bennett, and H. Baker, eds., ASM INTER-
NATIONAL, Metals Park, OH, 1986, vol. 1, p. 129.
28. C.B. Fuller: Rockwell Scientific Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, unpub-
lished research, 2004.
29. T. Shinoda and M. Kawai: Mater. Sci. Forum, 2003, vols. 426–32,
p. 2837.
30. P.B. Hirsch and F.J. Humphreys: The Physics and Strength of Plasti-
city, A. Argon, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969, p. 189.
31. M.A. Meyers and K.K. Chawla: Mechanical Metallurgy: Principles
and Applications, Paramus, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
32. L.M. Brown and R.K. Ham: in Strengthening Methods in Crystals,
A. Kelly and R.B. Nicholson, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1971, p. 9.
33. P.M. Kelly: Met. Forum, 1982, vol. 5, p. 13.
34. L.-A. Norstrom: Scand. J. Metall., 1976, vol. 5, p. 159.
35. H.R. Last and R.K. Garret, Jr.: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1996, vol. 27,
p. 737.
36. R.O. England, J.R. Pickens, K.S. Kumar, and T.J. Langan: in Disper-
sion Strengthened Aluminum Alloys, Y.-W. Kim and W.M. Griffith,
eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1988, p. 371.
37. S.A. Court, K.M. Gatenby, and D.J. Lloyd: Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2001,
vols. 319–21, p. 443.
38. D. Hull and D.J. Bacon: Introduction to Dislocations, 3rd ed., Butter-
worth-Heinemann, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1997, p. 240.
39. H.J. Frost and M.F. Ashby: Deformation-Mechanism Maps: The Plas-
ticity and Creep of Metals and Ceramics, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
United Kingdom, 1982, p. 26.
40. S.L. Semiatin, K.V. Jata, M.D. Uchic, P.B. Berbon, D.E. Matejezyk,
and C.C. Bampton: Scripta Mater., 2001, vol. 44, p. 395.
41. V.L. Tellkamp, A. Melmed, and E.J. Lavernia: Metall. Mater. Trans. A,
2001, vol. 32, p. 2335.
VOLUME 37A, DECEMBER 2006—3615