CHAPTER- 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

FSW Technique is employed on 6061 Aluminum Alloys and tested using

different parameters Tool Rotational Speed (N), Welding Speed (S) and
Axial Force (F). The design of experiments and methodology has been explained
earlier in the chapters 3 & 4. Based on the methodology and design, the results
obtained and related discussions are presented in this chapter as given in the following
sections.

6.2 ANOVA AND EFFECT OF FACTORS

The Table 6.1 shows the effect of factors on the Tool Rotational
Speed (N), Welding Speed (S) and Axial Force (F).

Table 6.1 Process Parameters and Design Levels using FSW Technique

Process Range Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Parameters

Tool Rotational 1200 - 2000 1200 1600 2000

Speed (N), rpm

Welding 48 -72 48 60 72
Speed(S),mm/min

Axial Force(F),KN 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 2.0 2.5

95
6.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR THREADED PIN PROFILE
The Tensile Strength of each Specimen conducted at the different
experimental levels is shown in the Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Response Table for Tensile Strength using Threaded Pin Profile

Tool Rotational Welding Axial Tensile S/NRatio= -

S. No Speed (N) in Speed (S) in Force (F) Strength (TS) 10log( )
r.p.m. mm/min in KN in MPa
1 1200 48 1.5 109.13 40.7588
2 1200 48 2 125.32 41.9604
3 1200 48 2.5 133.05 42.4802
4 1200 60 1.5 112.24 41.0029
5 1200 60 2 122.16 41.7385
6 1200 60 2.5 131.48 42.3771
7 1200 72 1.5 121.68 41.7043
8 1200 72 2 137.42 42.7609
9 1200 72 2.5 145.61 43.2638
10 1600 48 1.5 124.61 41.9110
11 1600 48 2 136.24 42.6860
12 1600 48 2.5 145.48 43.2560
13 1600 60 1.5 122.68 41.7754
14 1600 60 2 132.61 42.4515
15 1600 60 2.5 143.37 43.1291
16 1600 72 1.5 124.89 41.9305
17 1600 72 2 139.61 42.8983
18 1600 72 2.5 152.00 43.6368
19 2000 48 1.5 115.52 41.2531
20 2000 48 2 127.89 42.1367
21 2000 48 2.5 136.13 42.6790
22 2000 60 1.5 131.48 42.3771
23 2000 60 2 144.32 43.1865
24 2000 60 2.5 155.81 43.8519
25 2000 72 1.5 139.32 42.8802
26 2000 72 2 152.81 43.6830
27 2000 72 2.5 163.23 44.2559

96
6.4 RESULTS FROM S/N RATIO ANALYSIS FOR THREADED PIN
PROFILE
The maximum Tensile Strength has been observed at the experimental design
level 3 for all the three process parameters.

The Table 6.3 shows S/N responses: Larger the better

Table 6.3 S/N Responses for Tensile Strength (TS) using Threaded Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F
1 42.00 42.38 41.81

2 42.71 42.55 42.72

3 43.22 43.00 43.40

6.5 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Tensile Strength using Threaded Pin
Profile
The following Table shows the results of ANOVA on the Tool Rotational
Speed (N), Welding Speed (S) and Axial Force (F).

General Linear Model:

Factor Type Levels Values

Tool Rotational Speed (N) Fixed 3 1, 2, 3

Welding Speed (S) fixed 3 1, 2, 3
Axial Force (F) fixed 3 1, 2, 3
N*S fixed 3 1, 2, 3
N*F fixed 3 1, 2, 3
S*F fixed 3 1, 2, 3

97
6.5.1 ANOVA RESULTS FOR TENSILE STRENGTH USING THREADED
PIN PROFILE
Table 6.4 ANOVA Results for Tensile Strength using Threaded Pin Profile

Degrees of Percentage of
Mean
Freedom Sum of Contribution
Factor Squares
Dof=(LEVELS- Squares (SS)
(MSS)
1)
N 2 1632.77 816.38 32.74
S 2 437.95 218.97 8.78
F 2 2751.22 1375.61 55.18
RES 20 163.63 8.181 3.28
TOTAL 26 4985.57 2419.141 100

D a ta M e a n s

ts w s
4 3 .6

4 3 .2

4 2 .8
4 2 .4
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

4 2 .0

1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 6 0 7 2
f
4 3 .6

4 3 .2
4 2 .8

4 2 .4
4 2 .0

1 .5 2 .0 2 .5

S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.1 Graph of S/N ratio for Tensile Strength using Threaded Pin Profile

The Table 6.4 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.4, it is observed that the Axial Force has greater
influence on Tensile Strength. Further, from the Fig. 6.1, it is clear that maximum
Tensile Strength is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at
72 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.6 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERSFOR TENSILE

STRENGTH USING THREADED PIN PROFILE
The methods described in this investigation for responses prediction and
optimization eliminates the need for performing experiments on the basis of the
conventional trial and error method which is more time consuming and economically
98
not viable. The present work is aimed to identify the most influencing significant
parameters and percentage contribution of each parameter on responses of FSW 6061
aluminum joints by conducting minimum number of experiments using Design of
Experiments. Based on the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S3 and F3.

The optimum value of Tensile Strength has been predicted at the significant
levels of Process Parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can
be computed as

Tensile Strength (TS) = N3+S3+F3-2TS ------------------- 6.1.

Where TS is the overall mean of the Tensile Strength in MPa, N3 is the

average Tensile Strength at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S3 is the
average Tensile Strength at third level of Welding Speed 72 mm/min and F3 is the
average Tensile Strength at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values
of various terms in the above equation. Then,

Tensile Strength = 145.4+141.8+148.2- 2(136.28) = 162.84 MPa

6.7 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting
experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Confirmation Test for Tensile Strength

Optimal Tensile Parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level N3,S3,F3 N3,S3,F3
Tensile Strength (MPa) 162.84 163.23

99
6.8 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH USING
THREADED PIN PROFILE

The Impact Strength of each Specimen conducted at the different

experimental levels is shown in the Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Response Table for Impact Strength using Threaded Pin Profile

Tool
Welding Impact S/N Ratio= -
Rotational Axial Force
S. No Speed (S) in Strength (IS)
Speed (N) in (F) in KN 10log( )
mm/min in KN/mm2
r.p.m.

1 1200 48 1.5 0.70214 -3.0715

2 1200 48 2.0 0.72825 -2.7544
3 1200 48 2.5 1.97389 5.9065
4 1200 60 1.5 0.71416 -2.9241
5 1200 60 2.0 0.73004 -2.7331
6 1200 60 2.5 1.26043 2.0104
7 1200 72 1.5 0.22414 -12.9896
8 1200 72 2.0 0.24842 -12.0963
9 1200 72 2.5 0.26160 -11.6472
10 1600 48 1.5 0.55213 -5.1592
11 1600 48 2.0 0.57243 -4.8456
12 1600 48 2.5 0.59454 -4.5164
13 1600 60 1.5 0.69432 -3.1688
14 1600 60 2.0 0.70924 -2.9841
15 1600 60 2.5 0.73723 -2.6479
16 1600 72 1.5 0.48412 -6.3009
17 1600 72 2.0 0.50716 -5.8971
18 1600 72 2.5 0.52320 -5.6266
19 2000 48 1.5 0.44125 -7.1063
20 2000 48 2.0 0.46242 -6.6993
21 2000 48 2.5 0.48752 -6.2402
22 2000 60 1.5 0.59545 -4.5031
23 2000 60 2.0 0.60616 -4.3483
24 2000 60 2.5 0.61832 -4.1757
25 2000 72 1.5 0.49124 -6.1741
26 2000 72 2.0 0.50913 -5.8634
27 2000 72 2.5 0.52320 -5.6266

100
6.9 RESULTS FROM S/N RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH
USING THREADED PIN PROFILE
The maximum Impact Strength has been observed at the experimental design
levels of Tool Rotational Speed (N) at level 1, Welding Speed (S) at level 2 and Axial
Force (F) at level 3 respectively.
The Table 6.7 shows the S/N responses: Larger the better

Table 6.7 S/N Responses for Impact Strength (IS) Using Threaded Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F

1 -4.47 -3.83 -5.71

2 -4.57 -2.83 -5.35

3 -5.63 -8.02 2.09

6.10 ANOVA RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH

Table 6.8 ANOVA Results for Impact Strength using Threaded Pin Profile
Degrees of Percentage of
Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares Contribution
Factor
(SS) (MSS)
Dof=(LEVELS-1)
N 2 0.259 0.129 8.976
S 2 0.589 0.294 20.373
F 2 0.296 0.148 10.237
RES 20 1.747 0.087 60.411
TOTAL 26 2.892 0.658 100

M a in E f f e c ts P lo t f o r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s
t s w s

-4

-6
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

-8
1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 6 0 7 2
f

-4

-6

-8
1 .5 2 .0 2 .5
S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a rg e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.2 Graph of S/N Ratio for Impact Strength using Threaded Pin Profile

101
 The Table 6.8 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.8, it is observed that the Welding Speed has got greater
influence on Impact Strength. Further, from the Fig. 6.2, it is clear that maximum
Impact Strength is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 1200 rpm, Welding Speed at
60 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.11 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS

The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N1,
S2 and F3.The optimum value of Impact Strength has been predicted at the significant
levels of process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can
be computed as
Impact Strength (IS) = N1+S2+F3-2IS ------------------- 6.2.

Where IS is the overall mean of the Impact Strength in KN/mm2, N1 is the

average Impact Strength at first level of Tool Rotational Speed 1200 rpm, S2 is the
average Impact Strength at second level of Welding Speed 60 mm/min and F3 is the
average Impact Strength at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values
of various terms in equation. Then,
Impact Strength = 0.7603+0.7406+0.775- 2(0.627) = 1.02 KN/mm2

6.12 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting

experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters.
Table 6.9 Confirmation Test for Impact Strength using Threaded Pin Profile

Optimal Impact Parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level N1,S2,F3 N1,S2,F3
Impact Strength ( KN/mm2) 1.02 1.260

102
6.13 EXPERIMENTALRESULTS FOR HARDNESS USING THREADED PIN
PROFILE
The Hardness of each Specimen conducted at the different experimental
levels is shown in the Table 6.10.

Table 6.10 Response Table for Hardness using Threaded Pin Profile

Tool Rotational Welding Axial S/N Ratio= -

S.
Speed(N) in Speed(S) Force(F) Hardness(VHN) 10log( )
No
r.p.m. in mm/min in KN
1 1200 48 1.5 27 28.6273
2 1200 48 2.0 31 29.8272
3 1200 48 2.5 29 29.2480
4 1200 60 1.5 31 29.8272
5 1200 60 2.0 31 29.8272
6 1200 60 2.5 30 29.5424
7 1200 72 1.5 32 30.1030
8 1200 72 2.0 31 29.8272
9 1200 72 2.5 29 29.2480
10 1600 48 1.5 28 28.9432
11 1600 48 2.0 27 28.6273
12 1600 48 2.5 28 28.9432
13 1600 60 1.5 30 29.5424
14 1600 60 2.0 27 28.6273
15 1600 60 2.5 29 29.2480
16 1600 72 1.5 26 28.2995
17 1600 72 2.0 29 29.2480
18 1600 72 2.5 30 29.5424
19 2000 48 1.5 28 28.9432
20 2000 48 2.0 29 29.2480
21 2000 48 2.5 31 29.8272
22 2000 60 1.5 31 29.8272
23 2000 60 2.0 30 29.5424
24 2000 60 2.5 31 29.8272
25 2000 72 1.5 32 30.1030
26 2000 72 2.0 28 28.9432
27 2000 72 2.5 33 30.3703

103
6.14 RESULTS FROM S/N RATIO ANALYSIS FOR HARDNESS USING
THREADED PIN PROFILE
The maximum Hardness has been observed at the experimental design levels
of Tool Rotational Speed (N) at level 3, Welding Speed (S) at level 2 and Axial Force
(F) at level 3 respectively.
The Table 6.11 shows the S/N responses: Larger the better
Table 6.11 S/N responses for Hardness using Threaded Pin Profile
LEVELS N S F
1 29.56 29.14 29.36

2 29.00 29.53 29.30

3 29.63 29.52 29.53

6.15 ANOVA RESULTS FOR HARDNESS USING THREADED PIN PROFILE

Table 6.12 ANOVA Results for Hardness Using Threaded Pin Profile
Degrees of Percentage of
Mean
Freedom Sum of Contribution
Factors Squares
Dof=(LEVELS- Squares (SS)
(MSS)
1)
N 2 24.22 12.11 29.30
S 2 10.66 5.33 12.90
F 2 2.88 1.44 3.49
RES 20 44.88 2.24 54.30
TOTAL 26 82.66 21.12 26

M a in E f f e c ts P lo t f o r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s
ts w s
2 9 . 6

2 9 . 4

2 9 . 2
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

2 9 . 0
1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 6 0 7 2
f
2 9 . 6

2 9 . 4

2 9 . 2

2 9 . 0
1 . 5 2 . 0 2 . 5

S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.3 Graph of S/N ratio for Hardness using Threaded Pin Profile

104
 The Table 6.12 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.12, it is observed that the Tool Rotational Speed has
got greater influence on Hardness. Further, from the Fig. 6.3, it is clear that maximum
Hardness is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at 60
mm/min and Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.16 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS

The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S2 and F3.

The optimum value of Hardness has been predicted at the significant levels of
process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can be
computed as

Hardness (HS) = N3+S2+F3-2HS ------------------- 6.3.

Where HS is the overall mean of the Hardness in VHN, N3 is the average

Hardness at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S2 is the average
Hardness at second level of Welding Speed 60 mm/min and F3 is the average
Hardness at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values of various
terms in equation. Then,

Hardness= 30.33+30.00+30.00- 2(29.55) = 31.23 VHN

105
6.17 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting

experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters.

Table 6.13 Confirmation Test for Hardness using Threaded pin profile

Optimal Hardness Parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level N3,S2,F3 N3,S2,F3
Hardness (VHN) 31 33

6.18 MICROSTRUCTURE OF WELDED JOINTS

The sample micro structural images were shown in the Fig.6.4.

Fig 6.4 Sample Micro Structure using Threaded Pin Profile

Micro structural examinations are carried out using an Optical Metallurgical

Microscope to analyze the weld joint at three zones namely Weld Nugget (WN),
Thermo Mechanically Heat Affected Zone (TMAZ), and Heat Affected Zone (HAZ)
respectively.

106
 The micro structures of the joints at various levels of experiments are shown
in the Fig. 6.5 - 6.9.

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(i)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(ii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(iii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(iv)

Fig. 6.5 (i to iv) Microstructure at experimental levels 1-4 of the Threaded Pin
Profile

107
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(v)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(vi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(vii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(viii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(ix)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(x)
Fig. 6.6 (v to x) Microstructure at experimental levels 5-10 of the Threaded Pin
Profile
108
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xi)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xiii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xiv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xvi)
Fig. 6.7 (xi to xvi) Microstructure at experimental levels11-16 of the Threaded
Pin Profile

109
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xvii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xviii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xix)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xx)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxi)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxii)
Fig. 6.8 (xvii to xxii) Microstructure at experimental levels 17-22 of the Threaded
Pin Profile
110
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxiii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxiv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxvi)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxvii)
Fig. 6.9 (xxiii- xxvii) Microstructure at experimental levels 23-27 of the Threaded
Pin Profile

111
 Textures influence a variety of properties, including strength, ductility,
formability and corrosion resistance. As mentioned earlier in section 1.8, the FSW
material consists of distinct microstructure zones i.e. nugget, TMAZ, HAZ and base
material. Each zone has different thermo-mechanical history.

The nugget region in the FSW consists of sub-domains, thereby increasing the
complication to analyse the microstructure. In process, that the top layer of the work
piece undergoes deformation by shoulder of the tool after the pin has passed through.

In addition, depending on the tool rotation rate and traverse speed, the nugget
region can contain ring pattern or outer microstructural variations. Intense plastic
deformation and frictional heat during FSW process result in generation of
a recrystallized fine grained microstructure within stirred zone or nugget zone.

In this investigation, it is important to point out that many of the recrystallized

grains in the nugget zone are fine than original sub grain sizes. The shape of the
nugget zone depends on process parameters, tool geometry, and temperature of work
piece and thermal conductivity of the materials. Usually the nugget zone is observed
in the basic U shape.

The Table 6.14 shows the average ASTM grain size at different zones of welding.

112
 Table 6.14 Avg. ASTM Grain Size Number at WN, TMAZ, and HAZ for
Threaded Pin Profile
HAZ
Tool TMAZ
Welding Axial Weld Nugget(WN) avg.
Level Rotational Avg. Astm
Speed Force Avg. Astm grian size Astm
Speed grain size
(mm/min) (KN) no. grain
(rpm) no.
size no.
1 1200 48 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.2
2 1200 48 2 2.9 2.4 2.4
3 1200 48 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.4
4 1200 60 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.4
5 1200 60 2 2.3 2.4 3.3
6 1200 60 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4
7 1200 72 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.1
8 1200 72 2 2.3 2.5 2.0
9 1200 72 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.4
10 1600 48 1.5 2.0 2.6 2.6
11 1600 48 2 2.2 2.5 1.9
12 1600 48 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.9
13 1600 60 1.5 2.1 2.0 2.0
14 1600 60 2 2.0 2.3 2.1
15 1600 60 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4
16 1600 72 1.5 2.2 2.9 2.1
17 1600 72 2 2.0 2.1 2.1
18 1600 72 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.9
19 2000 48 1.5 2.3 2.7 2.1
20 2000 48 2 2.2 2.6 2.1
21 2000 48 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.1
22 2000 60 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.2
23 2000 60 2 1.9 1.6 2.2
24 2000 60 2.5 2.1 2.4 1.9
25 2000 72 1.5 2.3 1.8 2.4
26 2000 72 2 2.4 2.1 2.4
27 2000 72 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.3

113
 By employing Friction Stir Welding Technique, the base metal is plastically
stirred under the action of the rotating tool. Due to this severe plastic deformation, the
coarse elongated grains are fragmented into fine, equiaxed grains. In most of the
welded joints the Weld Nugget (WN) consists of fine equiaxed grains when compared
with Thermo Mechanically Affected Zone (TMAZ) and Heat Affected Zone (HAZ).

The microstructure and their grain size for all the 27 levels of experiments has
been obtained using metallurgical microscope. The grain size vary depending on the
three different zones as discussed section 1.8. The course grain size are recrystallized
into elongated grains fragments into fine and very fine structural grain size. The
nugget width is in turn dependent on the tool pin diameter. Then the microstructural
images observed exhibit finer grain size at high tool rotational speed.

From the Table 6.14, the grain size is higher in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ),
because this zone is far of the weld center, and no plastic deformation occurs in this
area. The grain size is smaller than the TMAZ, because in this zone the tool shoulder
will bring the metal to plasticized condition. The grain size is smallest in Weld
Nugget Zone. It is fully recrystallized area. And the tool pin is fully occupied in the
zone.

From the Fig. 6.5 to 6.17, it is observed that the dark/black regions indicating
the unstirred zones in the regions of WN and HAZ with the Tool Rotational Speed of
1200 rpm. The Tool Rotational Speed is the main factor which influences the required
plastic deformation and uniform stirring in the Weld Nugget regions. The increase in
Tool Rotational Speed causes uniform stirring at the Weld Nugget zone and metal
flow is regular along the joint because of threaded tool pin profile.

114
6.19 SEM ANALYSIS

SEM examinations are carried out using a Scanning Electron Microscope to

analyze the weld deposition on weld nugget surface. The SEM photographs of the
joints at various process parameters are shown in the Fig. 6.10- 6.14.

Fig. 6.10 Scanning Electron Microscope

(a) (b)
Fig. 6.11 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) = 1200 rpm, Welding
Speed= 72 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 500X) and (Mag = 1000X)

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.12 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) =1200 rpm, Welding
Speed= 72 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 1500X) and (Mag =2000X)

115
 (a) (b)

Fig. 6.13 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) = 2000 rpm, Welding
Speed= 48 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 500X) and (Mag = 1000X)

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.14 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) = 2000 rpm, Welding
Speed= 48 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 1500X) and (Mag =2000X)

From the SEM Fig. 6.11 to 6.14, it is obvious that no voids, cracks are
observed in the structure. The structure is fine and same throughout because of better
weld quality, and the uniform metal flow has been observed along the Joint Line. It is
also observed that from the Fig. 6.11 and 6.12 there is a uniform stirring of the metal
at the Rotational Speed of 1200 rpm. Since the Tool Rotational Speed plays the
significant role in influencing the strength of the weld joint, the SEM analysis has
been done at two different levels of Tool Rotational Speeds keeping Welding Speeds
and Axial Force constant. From the Fig. 6.13 and 6.14 it is observed that one of the
Friction Stir Welding defect known as kissing bond defect has been observed because
of Threaded Pin Profile.

116
6.20 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR CONICAL PIN PROFILE

The Tensile Strength of each Specimen conducted at the different

experimental levels has shown in the Table 6.15.

Table 6.15 Response Table for Tensile Strength Using Conical Pin Profile

Tensile
Tool Rotational Welding Axial S/N Ratio= -
S. Strength
Speed(N) in Speed(S) in Force(F) in 10log( )
No (TS) in
r.p.m. mm/min KN
MPa
1 1200 48 1.5 106.13 40.5168
2 1200 48 2.0 119.16 41.5226
3 1200 48 2.5 128.48 42.1767
4 1200 60 1.5 109.24 40.7676
5 1200 60 2.0 122.32 41.7499
6 1200 60 2.5 130.65 42.3222
7 1200 72 1.5 118.68 41.4876
8 1200 72 2.0 133.24 42.4927
9 1200 72 2.5 142.61 43.0830
10 1600 48 1.5 121.61 41.6994
11 1600 48 2.0 134.42 42.5693
12 1600 48 2.5 142.79 43.0940
13 1600 60 1.5 119.68 41.5604
14 1600 60 2.0 135.61 42.6458
15 1600 60 2.5 144.37 43.1895
16 1600 72 1.5 121.89 41.7194
17 1600 72 2.0 136.61 42.7096
18 1600 72 2.5 149.60 43.4986
19 2000 48 1.5 122.52 41.7641
20 2000 48 2.0 134.89 42.5996
21 2000 48 2.5 153.13 43.7012
22 2000 60 1.5 128.48 42.1767
23 2000 60 2.0 141.32 43.0041
24 2000 60 2.5 154.81 43.7960
25 2000 72 1.5 136.32 42.6912
26 2000 72 2.0 149.81 43.5108
27 2000 72 2.5 160.23 44.0949

117
6.21 RESULTS FROM S/N RATIO ANALYSIS FOR CONICAL PIN PROFILE
The maximum Tensile Strength has been observed at the experimental design
levels for all the three process parameters at level 3.
The Table 6.16 shows the S/N ratios: Larger the better
Table 6.16 Response Table for S/N responses of Tensile Strength (TS) using
Conical Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F

1 41.79 42.18 41.60

2 42.52 42.36 42.53

3 43.04 42.81 43.22

6.22 ANOVA RESULTS FOR TENSILE STRENGTH USING CONICAL PIN

PROFILE
Table 6.17 ANOVA results for Tensile Strength using Conical Pin Profile

Mean Percentage of
Degrees of Freedom Sum of
Factor Squares Contribution
Dof=(LEVELS-1) Squares (SS)
(MSS)
N 2 2527.81 1263.90 11.53

S 2 2501.31 1250.65 11.41

F 2 6927.51 3463.75 31.61

RES 20 9952.16 497.60 45.42

TOTAL 26 21908.82 6475.9 100

M a in E ffe c ts P lo t fo r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s
ts w s

4 3 . 0

4 2 . 5
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

4 2 . 0

4 1 . 5
1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 6 0 7 2
f

4 3 . 0

4 2 . 5

4 2 . 0

4 1 . 5
1 . 5 2 . 0 2 . 5

S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.15 Graph of S/N ratio for Tensile Strength using Conical Pin Profile

118
 The Table 6.17 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.17, it is observed that the Axial Force has got greater
influence on Tensile Strength. Further, from the Fig. 6.15, it is clear that maximum
Tensile Strength is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at
7.2 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.23 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR TENSILE

STRENGTH USING CONICAL PIN PROFILE
The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S3 and F3.
The optimum value of Tensile Strength has been predicted at the significant
levels of process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can
be computed as

Tensile Strength (TS) = N3+S3+F3-2TS ------------------- 6.4.

Where TS is the overall mean of the Tensile Strength in MPa, N3 is the

average Tensile Strength at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S3 is the
average Tensile Strength at third level of Welding Speed 72 mm/min and F3 is the
average Tensile Strength at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values
of various terms in equation. Then,

Tensile strength = 142.4.138.8+145.2- 2(133.28) = 159.84 MPa

119
6.24 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting

experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the following table.
Table 6.18 Confirmation Test for Tensile Strength

Optimal Tensile Parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level N3,S3,F3 N3,S3,F3
Tensile Strength (MPa) 159.84 160.23

120
6.25 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH USING
CONICAL PIN PROFILE
The Impact Strength of each Specimen conducted at the different
experimental levels has shown in the Table 6.19.

Table 6.19 Response Table for Impact Strength Using Conical Pin Profile

Tool Rotational Welding Impact S/N Ratio= -

S. Axial Force
Speed (N) in Speed (S) in Strength (IS) 10log( )
No (F) in KN
r.p.m mm/min in KN/mm2
1 1200 48 1.5 0.70214 -3.0715
2 1200 48 2.0 0.72825 -2.7544
3 1200 48 2.5 1.97389 5.9065
4 1200 60 1.5 0.71416 -2.9241
5 1200 60 2.0 0.73004 -2.7331
6 1200 60 2.5 1.26043 2.0104
7 1200 72 1.5 0.22414 -12.9896
8 1200 72 2.0 0.24842 -12.0963
9 1200 72 2.5 0.26160 -11.6472
10 1600 48 1.5 0.55213 -5.1592
11 1600 48 2.0 0.57243 -4.8456
12 1600 48 2.5 0.59454 -4.5164
13 1600 60 1.5 0.69432 -3.1688
14 1600 60 2.0 0.70924 -2.9841
15 1600 60 2.5 0.73723 -2.6479
16 1600 72 1.5 0.48412 -6.3009
17 1600 72 2.0 0.50716 -5.8971
18 1600 72 2.5 0.52320 -5.6266
19 2000 48 1.5 0.44125 -7.1063
20 2000 48 2.0 0.46242 -6.6993
21 2000 48 2.5 0.48752 -6.2402
22 2000 60 1.5 0.59545 -4.5031
23 2000 60 2.0 0.60616 -4.3483
24 2000 60 2.5 0.61832 -4.1757
25 2000 72 1.5 0.49124 -6.1741
26 2000 72 2.0 0.50913 -5.8634
27 2000 72 2.5 0.52320 -5.6266

121
6.26 RESULTS FROM S/N RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IMPACT
STRENGTH USING CONICAL PIN PROFILE
The maximum Impact Strength has been observed at the experimental design
levels of Tool Rotational Speed (N) at level 3, Welding Speed (S) at level 3 and Axial
Force (F) at level 2 respectively.

The Table 6.20 shows the S/N responses: Larger the better
Table 6.20 S/N Responses for Impact Strength (IS) Using Conical Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F

1 -3.11 -2.97 -3.18

2 -2.85 -2.90 -2.58

3 -2.71 -2.81 -2.92

6.27 ANOVA RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH

Table 6.21 ANOVA Results for Impact Strength Using Conical Pin Profile
Degrees of Percentage of
Freedom Mean Contribution
Sum of
Factor Squares
Dof=(LEVELS- Squares (SS)
(MSS)
1)
N 2 0.004 0.0024 17.10
S 2 0.0007 0.0003 2.76
F 2 0.011 0.0057 39.97
RES 20 0.011 0.0005 40.14

M a i n E f f e c t s P l o t f o r S N r a t i o s
D a ta M e a n s

t s w s
- 2 . 5 0

- 2 . 7 5

- 3 . 0 0
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

- 3 . 2 5
1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 6 0 7 2
f
- 2 . 5 0

- 2 . 7 5

- 3 . 0 0

- 3 . 2 5
1 . 5 2 . 0 2 . 5
S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.16 Graph of S/N ratio for Impact Strength using Conical Pin Profile

122
 The Table 6.21 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.21, it is observed that the Axial Force has got greater
influence on Tensile Strength. Further, from the Fig. 6.16, it is clear that maximum
Tensile Strength is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at
72 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.0 KN.

6.28 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR IMPACT

STRENGTH USING CONICAL PIN PROFILE
The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S3 and F2.The optimum value of Impact Strength has been predicted at the significant
levels of process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can
be computed as
Impact Strength (IS) = N3+S3+F2-2IS ------------------- 6.5.
Where IS is the overall mean of the Impact Strength in KN/mm2, N3 is the average
Impact Strength at Third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S3 is the average
Impact Strength at third level of Welding Speed 72 mm/min and F2 is the average
Impact Strength at second level of Axial Force 2.0 KN. Substituting the values of
various terms in equation. Then,
Impact Strength = 0.7318+0.7241+0.7436- 2(0.717) = 0.766 KN/mm2

6.29 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting
experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the Table 6.22.
Table 6.22 Confirmation Test for Impact Strength

Optimal Impact Parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level N3,S3,F2 N3,S3,F2
Impact Strength ( KN/mm2) 0.766 0.770

123
6.30 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR HARDNESS USING CONICAL PIN
PROFILE
The Hardness of each Specimen conducted at the different experimental
levels has shown in the following Table 6.23.

Table 6.23 Response Table for Hardness using Conical Pin Profile

Tool Rotational Welding Axial S/N Ratio= -

S. Hardness
Speed(N) in Speed(S) in Force(F) 10log( )
No (VHN)
r.p.m mm/min in KN
1 1200 48 1.5 24 27.6042
2 1200 48 2.0 28 28.9432
3 1200 48 2.5 26 28.2995
4 1200 60 1.5 28 28.9432
5 1200 60 2.0 28 28.9432
6 1200 60 2.5 27 28.6273
7 1200 72 1.5 29 29.2480
8 1200 72 2.0 28 28.9432
9 1200 72 2.5 26 28.2995
10 1600 48 1.5 25 27.9588
11 1600 48 2.0 24 27.6042
12 1600 48 2.5 25 27.9588
13 1600 60 1.5 27 28.6273
14 1600 60 2.0 24 27.6042
15 1600 60 2.5 26 28.2995
16 1600 72 1.5 23 27.2346
17 1600 72 2.0 26 28.2995
18 1600 72 2.5 27 28.6273
19 2000 48 1.5 25 27.9588
20 2000 48 2.0 26 28.2995
21 2000 48 2.5 28 28.9432
22 2000 60 1.5 28 28.9432
23 2000 60 2.0 27 28.6273
24 2000 60 2.5 28 28.9432
25 2000 72 1.5 29 29.2480
26 2000 72 2.0 25 27.9588
27 2000 72 2.5 30 29.5424

124
6.31 RESULTS FROM S/N RATIO ANALYSIS FOR HARDNESS USING
CONICAL PIN PROFILE
The maximum Hardness has been observed at the experimental design levels
of Tool Rotational Speed (N) at level 3, Welding Speed (S) at level 2 and Axial Force
(F) at level 3 respectively.

The Table 6.24 shows the S/N responses: Larger the better

Table 6.24 S/N Responses for Hardness Using Conical Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F
1 28.65 28.17 28.42

2 28.02 28.62 28.36

3 28.72 28.60 28.62

6.32 ANOVA RESULTS FOR HARDNESS USING CONICAL PIN PROFILE

Table 6.25 ANOVA results for Hardness using Conical Pin Profile

Degrees of Percentage of
Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares Contribution
Factor
(SS) (MSS)
Dof=(LEVELS-1)

N 2 0.004 0.0024 17.10

S 2 0.0007 0.0003 2.76

F 2 0.011 0.0057 39.97

RES 20 0.011 0.0005 40.14

TOTAL 26 0.028 0.0089 100

125
 M a in E ffe c ts P lo t fo r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s

ts w s
2 8 .8

2 8 .6

2 8 .4

M e a n o f S N r a t io s
2 8 .2

2 8 .0
1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 6 0 7 2
f
2 8 .8

2 8 .6

2 8 .4

2 8 .2

2 8 .0
1 .5 2 .0 2 .5

S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.17 Graph of S/N ratio for Hardness Using Conical Pin Profile

The Table 6.25 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.25, it is observed that the Axial Force has greater
influence on Hardness. Further, from the Fig. 6.17, it is clear that maximum Hardness
is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at 60 mm/min and
Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.33 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS

The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S2 and F3.

The optimum value of Hardness has been predicted at the significant levels of
process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can be
computed as

Hardness (VHN) = N3+S2+F3-2HS------------------- 6.6.

Where HS is the overall mean of the Hardness in VHN, N3 is the average

Hardness at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S2 is the average
Hardness at second level of Welding Speed 60 mm/min and F3 is the average
Hardness at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values of various
terms in equation. Then,

Hardness = 27.33+27.00+27.00- 2(26.55) = 28.23 VHN

126
6.34 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES
The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting
experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the following table.
Table 6.26 Confirmation Test for Hardness

Optimal Hardness parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level N3,S2,F3 N3,S2,F3

Hardness (VHN) 28 30

6.35 MICROSTRUCTURE OF WELDED JOINTS OF CONICAL PIN

PROFILE

Micro structural examinations are carried out using an Optical Metallurgical

Microscope to analyze the Weld Nugget, Thermo Mechanically Heat Affected Zone
(TMAZ), Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) regions. The micro structure of the joints at
various levels of experiment has shown in the following Fig. 6.18 - 6. 22.

127
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(i)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(ii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(iii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(iv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(v)

Fig. 6.18 (i-v) Microstructure at experimental levels 1-5 of the Conical Pin Profile

128
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(vi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(vii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(viii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(ix)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(x)
Fig. 6.19 (vi-x) Microstructure at experimental levels 6-10 of the Conical Pin
Profile

129
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xiii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xiv)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xv)
Fig. 6.20 (xi-xv) Microstructure at experimental levels 6-10 of the Conical Pin
Profile

130
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xvi)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xvii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xviii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xix)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xx)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxi)

Fig. 6.21 (xvi -xxi) Microstructure at experimental levels 16-21 of the Conical Pin
Profile

131
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxiii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxiv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxv)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxvi)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxvii)
Fig. 6.22 (xxii -xxvii) Microstructure at experimental levels 22-27 of the Conical
Pin Profile

132
 As mentioned in earlier in chapter-1, the FSW material consists of distinct
microstructure zones i.e. nugget, TMAZ, HAZ and base material. In addition,
depending on the tool rotation rate and traverse speed, the nugget region can contain
ring pattern or outer microstructural variations. Intense plastic deformation and
frictional heat during FSW process result in generation of a recrystallized fine grained
microstructure within stirred zone or nugget zone.

The Table 6.27 shows the average ASTM grain size at different zones of
welding.
Table 6. 27 Avg. ASTM Grain Size Number at WN, TMAZ, and HAZ Zones for
Conical Pin Profile
HAZ
Rotational Axial TMAZ avg.
Welding speed Weld nugget(WN)
Level speed load Avg. Astm Astm
(mm/min) Avg. Astm grian size no.
(rpm) (KN) grain size no. Grain
size no.
1 1200 48 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.3
2 1200 48 2 2.3 1.9 2.2
3 1200 48 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.2
4 1200 60 1.5 2.2 2.3 2.3
5 1200 60 2 1.7 2.0 1.7
6 1200 60 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.1
7 1200 72 1.5 2.1 2.0 2.3
8 1200 72 2 2.3 2.2 2.1
9 1200 72 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1
10 1600 48 1.5 2.4 2.2 2.6
11 1600 48 2 1.6 2.3 2.3
12 1600 48 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.0
13 1600 60 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.1
14 1600 60 2 2.2 2.2 2.0
15 1600 60 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1
16 1600 72 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
17 1600 72 2 2.2 2.1 2.1
18 1600 72 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.2
19 2000 48 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.1
20 2000 48 2 2.1 2.2 2.2
21 2000 48 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.0
22 2000 60 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.1
23 2000 60 2 2.4 2.8 2.6
24 2000 60 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.4
25 2000 72 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.3
26 2000 72 2 2.0 2.2 2.1
27 2000 72 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.2

133
 By employing Friction Stir Welding Technique, the base metal is plastically
stirred under the action of the rotating tool. Due to this severe plastic deformation, the
coarse elongated grains are fragmented into fine, equiaxed grains. In most of the
welded joints the Weld Nugget (WN) consists of fine equiaxed grains when compared
with Thermo Mechanically Affected Zone (TMAZ) and Heat Affected Zone (HAZ).

The microstructure and their grain size for all the 27 levels of experiments has
been obtained using metallurgical microscope. The grain size vary depending on the
three different zones as discussed section 1.8. The course grain size are recrystallized
into elongated grains fragments into fine and very fine structural grain size. The
nugget width is in turn dependent on the tool pin diameter. Then the microstructural
images observed exhibit finer grain size at high tool rotational speed.

From the Table 6.27, the grain size is higher in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ),
because this zone is far of the weld center, and no plastic deformation occurs in this
area. The grain size is smaller than the TMAZ, because in this zone the tool shoulder
will bring the metal to plasticized condition. The grain size is smallest in Weld
Nugget Zone. It is fully recrystallized area. And the tool pin is fully occupied in the
zone.

From the Fig. 6.18 to 6.22, it is observed that the fine equiaxed grains are
clearly visible. The stirring has been observed at the weld nugget zone.

6.36 SEM ANALYSIS

SEM examinations are carried out using a Scanning Electronic

Microscope for welded joints of Conical Pin Profile to analyze the weld
deposition at weld nugget region. The SEM photographs of the joints at various
levels of experiment are shown in the following Fig. 6.23 – 6.25.

134
 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6.23 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) = 2000 rpm,
Welding Speed= 48 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 500X), (Mag =
1000X) and (Mag = 2000X)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6.24 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) = 2000 rpm,
Welding Speed= 72 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 500X) and (Mag =
1000X) and (Mag = 2000X)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6.25 SEM photographs of specimen Tool Rotational Speed (N) = 2000 rpm,
Welding Speed= 60 mm/min, Axial Force = 2.5 KN (Mag = 500X) and (Mag =
1000X) and (Mag = 2000X)

The SEM analysis has been conducted at three different levels magnification to
analyze the weld defects if any the images were taken three different Welding Speeds
keeping the Tool Rotational Speed and Axial Force as constant. It is observed that no
voids or cracks observed in the weld nugget region. The uniform flow of material is
being viewed across the weld zone. Chipping out of the metal is being observed along
the joint line from leading to trailing edge due to the conical pin profile.

135
 6.37 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE
The Tensile Strength of each Specimen conducted at the different
experimental levels is shown in the Table 6.28.

Table 6.28 Response Table for Tensile Strength using Triangular Pin Profile

Welding Axial S/N Ratio= -

Tool Rotational Tensile Strength
S. No Speed(S) in Force(F) in 10log( )
Speed(N) in r.p.m. (TS) in MPa
mm/min KN

1 1200 48 1.5 113.39 41.0915

2 1200 48 2.0 172.42 44.7318
3 1200 48 2.5 177.11 44.9649
4 1200 60 1.5 130.36 42.3029
5 1200 60 2.0 175.28 44.8746
6 1200 60 2.5 179.08 45.0609
7 1200 72 1.5 139.77 42.9083
8 1200 72 2.0 176.61 44.9403
9 1200 72 2.5 183.19 45.2580
10 1600 48 1.5 142.25 43.0610
11 1600 48 2.0 184.14 45.3030
12 1600 48 2.5 190.46 45.5961
13 1600 60 1.5 156.77 43.9053
14 1600 60 2.0 186.92 45.4331
15 1600 60 2.5 200.18 46.0284
16 1600 72 1.5 169.49 44.5829
17 1600 72 2.0 188.82 45.5210
18 1600 72 2.5 208.92 46.3996
19 2000 48 1.5 170.21 44.6197
20 2000 48 2.0 190.52 45.5988
21 2000 48 2.5 210.50 46.4650
22 2000 60 1.5 172.32 44.7267
23 2000 60 2.0 193.81 45.7475
24 2000 60 2.5 213.72 46.5969
25 2000 72 1.5 175.41 44.8811
26 2000 72 2.0 197.64 45.9175
27 2000 72 2.5 215.82 46.6818

136
6.38 RESULTS FROM S/N RATIO ANALYSIS FOR TRIANGULAR PIN
PROFILE

The maximum Tensile Strength has been observed at the experimental design
levels for all the three process parameters at level 3.
The Table 6.29 shows the S/N responses: Larger the better

Table 6.29 S/N responses for Tensile Strength (TS) using Triangular Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F

1 44.01 44.60 43.56

2 45.09 44.96 45.34

3 45.69 45.23 45.89

6.39 ANOVA RESULTS FOR TENSILE STRENGTH USING TRIANGULAR

PIN PROFILE
Table 6.30 ANOVA Results for Tensile Strength using Triangular Pin Profile

Degrees of Percentage of
Freedom Mean Contribution
Sum of
Factor Squares
DOF=(LEVELS- Squares (SS)
(MSS)
1)
N 2 4848.43 2424.21 29.80

S 2 610.58 305.29 3.75

F 2 9916.52 4958.26 60.96

RES 20 889.69 44.48 5.46

TOTAL 26 16265.24 7732.24 100

137
 M a in E ffe c ts P lo t fo r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s

ts w s
46

45

M e a n o f S N r a t io s 44

1200 1600 2000 48 60 72

f
46

45

44

1 .5 2 .0 2 .5
S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.26 Graph of S/N ratio for Tensile Strength using Triangular Pin
The Table 6.30 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.30, it is observed that the Axial Force has got greater
influence on Tensile Strength. Further, from the Fig. 6.26, it is clear that maximum
Tensile Strength is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at
72 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.40 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR

TENSILE STRENGTH USING TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE
The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S3 and F3.

The optimum value of Tensile Strength has been predicted at the significant
levels of process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can
be computed as

Tensile Strength (TS) = N3+S3+F3-2TS ------------------- 6.7

Where TS is the overall mean of the Tensile Strength in MPa, N3 is the

average Tensile Strength at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S3 is the
average Tensile Strength at third level of Welding Speed 72 mm/min and F3 is the
average Tensile Strength at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values
of various terms in equation. Then,

Tensile Strength = 193.3+184.0+197.7- 2(178.33) = 218.34 MPa

138
6.41 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES
The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting
experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the Table. 6.31
Table 6.31 Confirmation Test for Tensile Strength

Optimal Tensile Parameters

Predicted Experimental

Setting level N3,S3,F3 N3,S3,F3

Tensile Strength (MPa) 218.34 215.82

139
6.42 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH USING
TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE
The Impact Strength of each Specimen conducted at the different experimental
levels is shown in the Table 6.32.

Table 6.32 Response Table for Impact Strength using Triangular Pin Profile

Tool
Welding Impact S/N Ratio= -
Rotational Axial Force
S. No Speed (S) in Strength (IS) 10log( )
Speed (N) in (F) in KN
mm/min in KN/mm2
r.p.m
1 1200 48 1.5 0.785 -2.10261
2 1200 48 2.0 0.792 -2.02550
3 1200 48 2.5 0.859 -1.32014
4 1200 60 1.5 0.793 -2.01454
5 1200 60 2.0 0.801 -1.92735
6 1200 60 2.5 0.863 -1.27978
7 1200 72 1.5 0.812 -1.80888
8 1200 72 2.0 0.874 -1.16977
9 1200 72 2.5 0.820 -1.72372
10 1600 48 1.5 0.815 -1.77685
11 1600 48 2.0 0.878 -1.13011
12 1600 48 2.5 0.823 -1.69200
13 1600 60 1.5 0.821 -1.71314
14 1600 60 2.0 0.882 -1.09063
15 1600 60 2.5 0.827 -1.64989
16 1600 72 1.5 0.825 -1.67092
17 1600 72 2.0 0.887 -1.04153
18 1600 72 2.5 0.831 -1.60798
19 2000 48 1.5 0.828 -1.63939
20 2000 48 2.0 0.890 -1.01220
21 2000 48 2.5 0.835 -1.56627
22 2000 60 1.5 0.831 -1.60798
23 2000 60 2.0 0.894 -0.97325
24 2000 60 2.5 0.840 -1.51441
25 2000 72 1.5 0.835 -1.56627
26 2000 72 2.0 0.901 -0.90550
27 2000 72 2.5 0.839 -1.52476

140
6.43 RESULTS FROM S/N RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IMPACT

STRENGTH USING TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE

The maximum Impact Strength has been observed at the experimental design
levels of Tool Rotational Speed (N) at level 3, Welding Speed (S) at level 3 and Axial
Force (F) at level 2 respectively.

The Table 6.33 shows the S/N responses: Larger the better

Table 6.33 S/N Responses for Impact Strength (IS) using Triangular Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F

1 -1.70 -1.58 -1.76

2 -1.48 -1.53 -1.25

3 -1.36 -1.44 -1.54

6.44 ANOVA RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH

Table 6.34 ANOVA Results for Impact Strength using Triangular Pin Profile

Degrees of Percentage of
Freedom Sum of Mean Squares Contribution
Factor
DOF=(LEVELS- Squares (SS) (MSS)
1)

N 2 0.004 0.002 17.33

S 2 0.0007 0.0003 2.48

F 2 0.011 0.005 39.54

RES 20 0.011 0.0005 40.63

TOTAL 26 0.028 0.0078 100

141
 M a in E ffe c ts P lo t fo r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s
ts w s

-1 .3
-1 .4
-1 .5
-1 .6
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

-1 .7

1200 1600 2000 48 60 72

f

-1 .3
-1 .4
-1 .5
-1 .6
-1 .7

1.5 2.0 2.5

S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.27 Graph of S/N Ratio for Impact Strength using Triangular Pin

The Table 6.34 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.34, it is observed that the Axial Force has got greater
influence on Impact Strength. Further, from the Fig. 6.27, it is clear that maximum
Impact Strength is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at
72 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.0 KN.

6.45 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR IMPACT

STRENGTH USING TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE
The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in
section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum condition thus obtained were N2,
S2 and F1. The optimum value of Impact Strength has been predicted at the
significant levels of Process parameters. The estimated mean of the response
characteristics can be computed as

Impact Strength (IS) = N3+S3+F2-2IS ------------------- 6.8

Where IS is the overall mean of the Impact Strength in KN/mm2, N3 is the

average Impact Strength at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S3 is the
average Impact Strength at third level of Welding Speed 72 mm/min and F2 is the
average Impact Strength at second level of Axial Force 2.0 KN. Substituting the
values of various terms in equation. Then,
Impact Strength = 0.8548+0.8471+0.8666- 2(0.84) = 0.887 KN\mm2

142
6.46 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES
The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting
experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the Table 6.35.
Table 6.35 Confirmation Test for Impact Strength

Optimal Impact Parameters

Predicted Experimental

Setting level N3,S3,F2 N3,S3,F2

Impact Strength ( KN/mm2) 0.887 0.901

143
6.47 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR HARDNESS USING TRIANGULAR
PIN PROFILE
The Hardness of each Specimen conducted at the different experimental
levels has shown in the Table 6.36.

Table 6.36 Response Table for Hardness using Triangular Pin Profile

Tool Rotational Welding Axial S/N Ratio= -

S. Hardness
Speed(N) in Speed(S) in Force(F) 10log( )
No (VHN)
r.p.m. mm/min in KN
1 1200 40 1.5 25 27.9588
2 1200 40 2.0 29 29.2480
3 1200 40 2.5 27 28.6273
4 1200 60 1.5 29 29.2480
5 1200 60 2.0 29 29.2480
6 1200 60 2.5 28 28.9432
7 1200 72 1.5 30 29.5424
8 1200 72 2.0 29 29.2480
9 1200 72 2.5 27 28.6273
10 1600 40 1.5 26 28.2995
11 1600 40 2.0 25 27.9588
12 1600 40 2.5 26 28.2995
13 1600 60 1.5 28 28.9432
14 1600 60 2.0 25 27.9588
15 1600 60 2.5 27 28.6273
16 1600 72 1.5 24 27.6042
17 1600 72 2.0 27 28.6273
18 1600 72 2.5 28 28.9432
19 2000 40 1.5 26 28.2995
20 2000 40 2.0 27 28.6273
21 2000 40 2.5 29 29.2480
22 2000 60 1.5 29 29.2480
23 2000 60 2.0 28 28.9432
24 2000 60 2.5 29 29.2480
25 2000 72 1.5 30 29.5424
26 2000 72 2.0 26 28.2995
27 2000 72 2.5 31 29.8272

144
6.48 RESULTS FROM S/N RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR HARDNESS USING

TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE

The maximum Hardness has been observed at the experimental design levels of Tool
Rotational Speed (N) at level 3, Welding Speed (S) at level 2 and Axial Force (F) at
level 3 respectively.

The Table 6.37 shows S/N responses: Larger the better

Table 6.37 S/N Responses for Hardness using Triangular Pin Profile

LEVELS N S F

1 28.97 28.51 28.74

2 28.36 28.93 28.68

3 29.03 28.92 28.93

6.49 ANOVA RESULTS FOR HARDNESS USING TRIANGULAR PIN

PROFILE
Table 6.38 ANOVA results for Hardness using Triangular Pin Profile

Degrees of Sum of Mean

Factor Freedom Squares Squares Percentage of
DOF=(LEVELS-1) (SS) (MSS) Contribution

N 2 24.22 12.11 29.30

S 2 10.66 5.33 12.90

F 2 2.88 1.44 3.49

RES 20 44.88 2.24 54.30

TOTAL 26 82.66 21.12 100

145
 M a in E ffe c ts P lo t fo r S N r a tio s
D a ta M e a n s
ts ws
29.0

28.8

28.6
M e a n o f S N r a t io s

28.4

1200 1600 2000 40 60 72

f
29.0

28.8

28.6

28.4

1.5 2.0 2.5

S ig n a l- to - n o is e : L a r g e r is b e tte r

Fig. 6.28 Graph of S/N ratio for Hardness using Triangular Pin
The Table 6.38 gives the Percentage of Contribution values for the Process
Parameters. From the Table 6.38, it is observed that the Tool Rotational Speed has
greater influence on Hardness. Further, from the Fig. 6.28, it is clear that maximum
Hardness is observed at Tool Rotational Speed at 2000 rpm, Welding Speed at
60 mm/min and Axial Force at 2.5 KN.

6.50 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR

HARDNESS USING TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE

The estimation of optimum process parameters has been already discussed in

section 6.6. Based on that, the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors N, S and F the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were N3,
S2 and F3.

The optimum value of hardness has been predicted at the significant levels of
Process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can be
computed as

Hardness (VHN) = N3+S2+F3-2HS ------------------- 6.9

Where HS is the overall mean of the Hardness in VHN, N3 is the average

Hardness at third level of Tool Rotational Speed 2000 rpm, S2 is the average
Hardness at second level of Welding Speed 60 mm/min and F3 is the average

146
Hardness at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values of various
terms in equation. Then,

Hardness = 28.33+28.00.28.00- 2(27.55) = 29.23

6.51 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting
experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters and the results are shown in
the Table 6.39.
Table 6.39 Confirmation Test for Hardness

Optimal Hardness Parameters

Predicted Experimental

Setting level N3,S3,F3 N3,S3,F3

Hardness (VHN) 29 31

6.52 MICROSTRUCTURE OF WELDED JOINTS USING TRIANGULAR PIN

PROFILE

Micro structural examinations are carried out using an optical metallurgical

microscope to analyze the Weld Nugget (WN), Thermo mechanically Heat Affected
Zone (TMAZ), Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) regions of the welded joints of Triangular
Pin Profile. The micro structure of the joints at various experimental levels is shown
in the following Fig. 6.29-6.34.

147
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(i)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(ii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(iii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(iv)

Fig. 6.29 (i-iv) Microstructure at experimental levels 1-4 of the Triangular Pin
Profile

148
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(v)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(vi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(vii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(viii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(ix)

Fig. 6.30 (v -ix) Microstructure at experimental levels 5-9 of the Triangular Pin
Profile

149
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(x)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xiii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xiv)

Fig. 6.31 (x -xiv) Microstructure at experimental levels 10-14 of the Triangular

Pin Profile
150
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xv)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xvi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xvii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xviii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xix)
Fig. 6.32 (xv -xix) Microstructure at experimental levels 15- 19 of the Triangular
Pin Profile
151
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xx)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxii)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxiii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxiv)
Fig. 6.33 (xx-xxiv) Microstructure at experimental levels 20-24 of the Triangular
Pin Profile

152
 HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxv)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxvi)

HAZ WELD TMAZ

(xxvii)

Fig. 6.34 (xxv -xxvii) Microstructure at experimental levels 25-27 of the

Triangular Pin Profile

As mentioned in section 1.8, the FSW material consists of distinct

microstructure zones i.e. WN, TMAZ, HAZ and base material. Each zone has
different thermo-mechanical history. In this investigation, it is important to point out
that many of the recrystallized grains in the nugget zone are finer than original sub
grain sizes. The shape of the nugget zone is in turn depend on processing parameters,
tool geometry, temperature of work piece and thermal conductivity of the materials.

153
 The Table 6.40 shows the average ASTM grain size at different zones of
welding.

Table 6.40. Avg. ASTM Grain Size Number at WN, TMAZ, and HAZ for
Triangular Pin Profile
HAZ
Tool
Welding Axial Weld Nugget(WN) TMAZ avg.
Rotational
Level Speed Force Avg. Astm grian size Avg. Astm Astm
Speed
(mm/min) (KN) no. grain size no. grain
(rpm)
size no.
1 1200 48 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.2
2 1200 48 2 2.9 2.4 2.4
3 1200 48 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.4
4 1200 60 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.4
5 1200 60 2 2.3 2.4 3.3
6 1200 60 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4
7 1200 72 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.1
8 1200 72 2 2.3 2.5 2.0
9 1200 72 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.4
10 1600 48 1.5 2.0 2.6 2.6
11 1600 48 2 2.2 2.5 1.9
12 1600 48 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.9
13 1600 60 1.5 2.1 2.0 2.0
14 1600 60 2 2.0 2.3 2.1
15 1600 60 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4
16 1600 72 1.5 2.2 2.9 2.1
17 1600 72 2 2.0 2.1 2.1
18 1600 72 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.9
19 2000 48 1.5 2.3 2.7 2.1
20 2000 48 2 2.2 2.6 2.1
21 2000 48 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.1
22 2000 60 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.2
23 2000 60 2 1.9 1.6 2.2
24 2000 60 2.5 2.1 2.4 1.9
25 2000 72 1.5 2.3 1.8 2.4
26 2000 72 2 2.4 2.1 2.4
27 2000 72 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.3
154
 By employing Friction Stir Welding Technique, the base metal is plastically
stirred under the action of the rotating tool. Due to this severe plastic deformation, the
coarse elongated grains are fragmented into fine, equiaxed grains. In most of the
welded joints the Weld Nugget (WN) consists of fine equiaxed grains when compared
with Thermo Mechanically Affected Zone (TMAZ) and Heat Affected Zone (HAZ).

The microstructure and their grain size for all the 27 levels of experiments has
been obtained using metallurgical microscope. The grain size vary depending on the
three different zones as discussed section 1.8. The course grain size are recrystallized
into elongated grains fragments into fine and very fine structural grain size. The
nugget width is in turn dependent on the tool pin diameter. Then the microstructural
images observed exhibit finer grain size at high tool rotational speed.

From the Table 6.40, the grain size is higher in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ),
because this zone is far of the weld center, and no plastic deformation occurs in this
area. The grain size is smaller than the TMAZ, because in this zone the tool shoulder
will bring the metal to plasticized condition. The grain size is smallest in Weld
Nugget Zone. It is fully recrystallized area. And the tool pin is fully occupied in the
zone.

From the Fig. 6.29 to 6.34, it is observed that the Tool Rotational Speed is the
main factor which influences the required plastic deformation and uniform stirring in
the Weld Nugget regions. The eccentricity produced while the rotation of the
Triangular pin during friction stir welding process restricts the metal chipping out and
pushes the metal to the retreating side of the joint. The uniform stirring has been
observed at the weld nugget joint.

155
6.53 SEM ANALYSIS FOR TRIANGULAR PIN PROFILE

Fig. 6.35 SEM photograph 500X, 1000X, 2000X for sample 10

Fig. 6.36 SEM photograph 500X, 1000X, 2000X for sample 17

From the SEM images as shown in the above diagram, it is clear that the metal
is uniformly stirred along the joint line. The images are taken at two different levels of
experiment at different magnifications. There are no avoids and solidification cracks
visible. From the images it is evident that the joint exhibits better mechanical
properties than compared to threaded and conical pin profile.

6.54 EFFECT OF TOOL PIN PROFILE

The basic function of the non-consumable rotating tool pin is to stir the
plasticized metal and move the same behind it to have good joint. Pin profile plays a
crucial role in material flow and in turn regulates the Welding Speed of the FSW
Process [81]. The pin generally has cylindrical plain, frustum tapered, threaded and
flat surfaces. Pin profiles with flat faces (square and triangular) are associated with
eccentricity. This eccentricity allows incompressible material to pass around the pin
profile. Fig. 6.37 show the effect of tool pin profile on tensile properties of FSW
joints of AA 6061 aluminum alloys. From this investigation, it is found that the joints
fabricated using Triangular pin tool profile yields better tensile properties. Fig. 6.38
show the effect of tool pin profile on Impact Strength. From this
156
investigation, it is found that the joints fabricated using Triangular pin tool profile
yields better Impact Strength. Fig. 6.39 show the effect of tool pin profile on FSP
zone hardness. The FSP zone hardness is maximum in the case of joints fabricated
using Threaded pin profile. Microstructure of FSW joints fabricated using Threaded
Pin Profile contains very fine equiaxed microstructure compared to other joints, but
proven for kissing bond defects.

6.55 EFFECT OF TOOL ROTATIONAL SPEED

To understand the effect of rotational speed on tensile properties of FSW
joints, three different rotational speeds have been chosen to fabricate the joints. Fig.
6.37a shows the effect of rotational speed on tensile strength of FSW joints aluminum
alloys. Fig. 6.38a shows the effect of rotational speed on Impact strength of FSW
joints. Fig. 6.39a shows the effect of rotational speed on FSP zone hardness.
Rotational Speed appears to be the most significant process variable since it also tends
to influence the translational velocity. Very high rotational speeds could raise strain
rate, and there by influence the recrystallisation process; which in turn could influence
the FSW process [90]. Higher tool rotational speed resulted in a higher temperature
and slower cooling rate in the FSP zone after welding. A higher rotational speed
causes excessive release of stirred materials to the upper surface, which resultantly
left voids in the FSP zone. Lower heat input condition due to lower rotational speed
resulted in lack of stirring. As the rotation speed increases, the strained region widens,
and the location of the maximum strain finally moves to the advancing side from the
original retreating side of the joint. This implies that the fracture location of the joint
is also affected by the rotation speed [90]. The tensile properties of the joints made
with different welding conditions resulted in lowest tensile strength and ductility at
lowest spindle speed for a given traverse speed. As the spindle speed increased, both
the strength and elongation improved, reaching a maximum before falling again at
high rotational speeds. It is clear that, in FSW, as the rotational speeds increase, the
heat input also increases. This phenomenon can be explained by the following two
reasons: first, the coefficient of friction decreases when a local melt occurs, and
subsequently decreases with a heat input; secondly, the latent heat absorbs some heat
input. From this investigation, it is found that the joints fabricated at a rotational speed
of 2000 rpm yielded better Tensile Properties.
157
6.56 EFFECT OF WELDING SPEED
To understand the effect of welding speed on tensile properties of FSW joints,
three different welding speeds have been chosen to fabricate the joints. Fig. 6.37b
show the effect of welding speed on tensile strength of FSW joints of
AA 6061aluminum alloy. Fig. 6.38b show the effect of welding speed on impact
strength of FSW joints of AA 606l aluminum alloys. Fig. 6.39b show the effect of
welding speed on FSP zone hardness of AA 6061 aluminum alloy. Grain growth
drastically occurs at recrystallisation temperature (> 0.5T*, T being the absolute
melting temperature) so that the grain growth in the stir zone is promoted by an
increase in process temperature or a decrease in cooling rate [72]. The decrease in
welding speed decreases the cooling ratio resulted in larger equiaxed grains in the stir
zone. Lower welding speed caused sub grain coarsening in the FSP region. Higher
welding speed resulted in a structure with higher dislocation density because of the
limited time available for recovery process. An increase in the welding speed may
decrease the grain size due to the decrease in the specific heat input. From this
investigation, it is found that the joints fabricated at a welding speed of 72 mm/min
yielded better Tensile Properties in the case of AA 6061 aluminum alloy.

6.57 EFFECT OF AXIAL FORCE

To understand the effect of axial force on tensile properties of FSW joints,
three different axial forces have been chosen to fabricate the joints. Fig. 6.37c shows
the effect of axial force on tensile strength of FSW joints of AA 6061 aluminum. Fig.
6.38c shows the effect of axial force on impact strength of FSW joints of AA 6061
aluminum. Fig. 6.39c shows the effect of axial force on FSP zone hardness of AA
6061 aluminum alloy. Material flow in the weld zone is influenced by the extrusion
process, where the applied axial force and the motion of the tool pin profile the
material after it has undergone the plastic deformation. The shoulder force is directly
responsible for the plunge depth of the tool pin into the work piece and load
characteristics associated with linear friction stir weld. At steady state [52], the
shoulder force varies depending upon the rotational speed. Increase in rotational speed
resulted in drop in initial axial force with increasing time.

158
 The difference in the measured forces is due to the decrease of the material
flow stress at elevated weld temperature. The mechanism of onion ring formation [60]
in the friction stir welds of aluminum alloys and that the degree of material mixing
and inter diffusion, the thickness of deformed aluminum lamellae, and material flow
patterns highly depend upon the geometry of the tool, welding temperature, and
material flow stress in turn depends on the axial force. He also opined that at low
axial force, the formation of non-symmetrical semi-circular features at the top surface
of the weld shows poor plasticization and consolidation of the material under the
influence of the tool shoulder. Though weld consolidation is good, formation of shear
lips or flashes with excessive height on both advancing and retreating sides of the
weld line due to higher axial force resulted in excessive thinning of the metal in the
weld area yielding poor tensile properties. Hence, the axial force must be optimized to
get FSP zone with good consolidation of metal and without thinning of the base
material. From this investigation, it is found that the joints fabricated using an Axial
Force of 2.5 KN yields better Tensile Properties in the case of AA 6061 aluminum.

159
(a) Effect of Rotational Speed (b) Effect of Welding Speed

(c) Effect of Axial Force

Fig. 6.37 Effect of FSW Parameters on Tensile Strength

160
(a) Effect of Rotational Speed (b) Effect of Welding Speed

(c) Effect of Axial Force

Fig. 6.38 Effect of FSW Parameters on Impact Strength

161
 (a) Effect of Rotational Speed (b) Effect of Welding Speed

(c) Effect of Axial Force

Fig. 6.39 Effect of FSW Parameters on Hardness

6.58 MODELING OF PROCESS PARAMETERS USING ANN

In this work, the input layer has four neurons corresponding to each of the
three process parameters and one neuron in the output layer corresponding to each of
the response. In order to find out the best network architecture, different networks
with different number of hidden layers and neurons in the hidden layer were designed
and verified; different training algorithm were used; transfer functions in the hidden
layer and output layer were changed and observed the generalization capability of the
different networks and finally the optimal network was selected to predict strength.
The training performance of the optimal network (consisting of twenty five hidden
162
neurons) architecture. A computer program was performed under this MATLAB
version. The input-output dataset consisting of 27 patterns was divided randomly in
two categories: training dataset consist of 75% of the data and test dataset which
consist 25% of the data. There are 20 training patterns considered for ANN modeling
of strengths. After the training, the weights are frozen and the model is tested for
validation. In this work, the network is validated in terms of agreement with
experimental results.

The Fig. 6.40, 6.41 and 6.42 shows the experimental and ANN computed
values for AA 6061 materials with Conical Pin, Triangular Pin and Threaded Pin
profiles, and it is clear that the values predicted by ANN are very close to the
experimental values. From Fig. 6.41, the mechanical properties of welded joint using
triangular pin profile exhibits closer results to the predicted values trained at different
artificial neurons namely 20N, 25N, 30N and 35N. Hence from this investigation, it is
proven that the Triangular Pin Profile yields better results.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 6.40 Predicted Mechanical Properties of Conical Pin Profile using ANN

163
 (a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 6.41 Predicted Mechanical Properties of Triangular Pin Profile using ANN

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 6.42 Predicted Mechanical Properties of Threaded Pin Profile using ANN

164
6.59 A COMPARATIVE STUDY USING GTAW

GTAW technique is employed on AA 6061 alloy using different process

parameters Filler rod diameter (FD), Current(C) and Travel speed .The methodology
and the design of experiments has been discussed in the chapters 3 and 4 earlier.

6.60 ANOVA AND EFFECTS OF FACTORS

The Table 6.41 shows the process parameters and design levels of GTAW
Technique.

Table 6.41 Process Parameters and Design Levels

Variables Code Unit Level1 Level2 Level3

Filler rod FD mm 2.4 3.0 4.8
Current C A 175 200 225
Travel speed TS mm/s 3.4 3.8 4.2

165
6.61 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS USING GTAW TECHNIQUE

The Tensile Strength and Yield Strength of each Specimen are recorded and presented
in the Table 6.42 where FD = Filler Diameter; C= Current; TS = Travel Speed.

Table 6.42 Experimental Results of 6061 Al Alloy

Original Value Yield Tensile Yield Tensile

TS Strength Strength S/N S/N
FD(mm) C (A) MPa MPa Ratio ratio
(mm/s)
2.4 175 3.4 141 162 42.9844 44.1903
2.4 175 3.8 145 166 43.2274 44.4022
2.4 175 4.2 149 170 43.4637 44.6090
2.4 200 3.4 152 173 43.6369 44.7609
2.4 200 3.8 156 177 43.8625 44.9595
2.4 200 4.2 161 182 44.1365 45.2014
2.4 225 3.4 137 159 42.7344 44.0279
2.4 225 3.8 140 161 42.9226 44.1365
2.4 225 4.2 142 164 43.0458 44.2969
3.0 175 3.4 153 175 43.6938 44.8608
3.0 175 3.8 156 178 43.8625 45.0084
3.0 175 4.2 163 185 44.2438 45.3434
3.0 200 3.4 169 191 44.5577 45.6207
3.0 200 3.8 161 183 44.1365 45.2490
3.0 200 4.2 171 193 44.6599 45.7111
3.0 225 3.4 143 165 43.1067 44.3497
3.0 225 3.8 151 173 43.5795 44.7609
3.0 225 4.2 159 180 44.0279 45.1055
4.8 175 3.4 147 168 43.3463 44.5062
4.8 175 3.8 151 172 43.5795 44.7106
4.8 175 4.2 157 178 43.9180 45.0084
4.8 200 3.4 155 176 43.8066 44.9103
4.8 200 3.8 160 181 44.0824 45.1536
4.8 200 4.2 163 184 44.2438 45.2964
4.8 225 3.4 139 160 42.8603 44.0824
4.8 225 3.8 145 166 43.2274 44.4022
4.8 225 4.2 141 162 42.9844 44.1903

166
6.62 Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios for GTAW Technique

The Tables 6.43 and 6.44 shows the Signal to Noise Ratio: Larger the Better

Table 6.43 Main effects of Yield Strength for S/N ratio

Filler rod
Level Current (C) Travel Speed (TS)
Diameter (FD)
1 43.33 43.59 43.41
2 43.99 44.12 43.61
3 43.56 43.17 43.86
Delta(max-min) 0.65 0.96 0.44
Rank 2 1 3

Table -6.44 Main effects of Tensile Strength for S/N ratio

Filler rod
Level Current (C) Travel Speed (TS)
Diameter (FD)
1 44.51 44.74 44.59
2 45.11 45.21 44.75
3 44.70 44.37 44.97
Delta(max-min) 0.60 0.83 0.38
Rank 2 1 3

167
6.63 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) FOR GTAW TECHNIQUE

The following Tables show the results of ANOVA on the Filler rod
Diameter (FD), Current (C) and Travel Speed (TS).

General Linear Model:

Factor Type Levels Values

Filler rod Diameter (FD) fixed 3 1, 2, 3

Current (C) fixed 3 1, 2, 3

Travel Speed (TS) fixed 3 1, 2, 3

FD x C fixed 3 1, 2, 3

FD x TS fixed 3 1, 2, 3

C x TS fixed 3 1, 2, 3

Table 6.45 ANOVA Results for Yield Strength using GTAW

Degree of Sum of Mean of Percentage of

Source
Freedom squares squares Contribution
Filler rod
2 609.56 304.78 26.1
Diameter (FD)
Current (C) 2 1274.89 637.44 54.9
Travel Speed
2 274.89 137.44 11.8
(TS)
FD x C 4 6.00 1.5 0.25
FD x TS 4 18.67 4.66 0.80
C x TS 4 2.89 0.72 0.12
Error 8 141.78 17.72 6.08
Total 26 2328.67 100

168
 Table 6.46 ANOVA Results for Tensile Strength using GTAW

Source Degree of Sum of Mean of Percentage of

Freedom squares squares Contribution
Filler rod
2 694.3 347.15 27.6
Diameter (FD)
Current (C) 2 1258.96 629.48 53.6
Travel Speed
2 267.63 133.81 11.3
(TS)
FD x C 4 9.85 2.46 0.41
FD x TS 4 16.96 4.24 0.74
C x TS 4 2.07 0.51 0.08
Error 8 134.96 16.87 5.74
Total 26 2348.74 100

6.64 Plots for S/N Ratios of using GTAW

The Fig. 6.44 and 6.45 shows the graphs of S/N Ratios for Yield and Tensile
Strength.

M a in E ffe c ts P lo t ( da ta me a ns ) fo r S N r a tio s
FD C

4 4 .0
4 3 .8
4 3 .6
Me an of SN ratios

4 3 .4
4 3 .2
1 2 3 1 2 3
TS

4 4 .0
4 3 .8
4 3 .6
4 3 .4
4 3 .2
1 2 3
S igna l-to -no is e : La r ge r is be tte r

Fig. 6.43 Graph of S/N Ratio for Yield Strength using GTAW

M a in E ffe c ts P lo t ( da ta me a ns ) fo r S N r a tio s
FD C
4 5 .2

4 5 .0

4 4 .8
Me an of SN ratios

4 4 .6

4 4 .4
1 2 3 1 2 3
TS
4 5 .2

4 5 .0

4 4 .8

4 4 .6

4 4 .4
1 2 3
S igna l-to -no is e : La r ge r is be tte r

Fig. 6.44 Graph of S/N Ratio for Tensile Strength using GTAW

From the Tables 6.47 and 6.48, it is observed that the current has got more
influence on the Yield and Tensile Strength. From the Fig. 6.44, the maximum
169
Yield Strength has been observed at Filler rod Diameter of 2.4mm, Current of 200A
and Travel Speed of 4.2 mm/sec respectively. From the Fig. 6.45, the maximum
Tensile Strength has been observed at Filler rod Diameter of 2.4mm, Current of 200A
and Travel Speed of 4.2 mm/sec respectively.

6.65 ESTIMATION OF OPTIMUM PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR GTAW

Based on the highest values of the S/N ratio and mean levels for the
significant factors FD, C and TS the overall optimum conditions thus obtained were
FD2, C2 and TS3. The optimum value of yield Strength is predicted at the significant
levels of Process parameters. The estimated mean of the response characteristics can
be computed as

Yield Strength (YS) = FD2 + C2 + TS3 – 2YS -------------- 6.10

Where YS is the overall mean of Yield Strength, MPa , is the average

Yield Strength at second level of Filler rod Diameter 2.4 mm, is the average Yield
Strength at second level Current 200 A, is the average Yield Strength at third
level Travel Speed, 4.2 mm/s. Substituting the values of various terms in Equation
6.10. Then

Yield Strength = 158.4 + 160.9 +156.2 -2(152.11) = 173.28 MPa

The estimated mean of the response characteristics can be computed as

Tensile Strength (TS) = FD2 + C2 + TS3 – 2TS -------------- 6.11

Where TS is the overall mean of Tensile Strength, MPa, is the average
Tensile Strength at second level of Filler rod Diameter 2.4 mm, is the average
Tensile Strength at second level Current 200 A, is the average Tensile Strength at
third level Travel Speed 4.2 mm/s. Substituting the values of various terms in
Equation 6.11. Then

Tensile Strength = 180.3 + 182.2 +177.6 – 2 (173.48) = 196.14 MPa

170
6.66 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting

experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters. The Filler rod Diameter,
Current, Travel Speed were set at level 2, level 1 and level 3 respectively and the
average Yield Strength as shown in Table 6.47.

Table 6.47 Confirmation Experiment for Yield Strength

Optimal Yield Parameters

Predicted Experimental

Setting level FD2 C2 TS3 FD2 C2 TS3

Yield Strength (MPa) 173.28 171

The final step is verifying the improvement in responses by conducting

experiments using optimal conditions. Three confirmation experiments were
conducted at the optimum setting of process parameters. The Filler rod Diameter,
Current, Travel Speed were set at level 2, level 1 and level 3 respectively and the
average Tensile Strength as shown in Table 6.48

Table 6.48 Confirmation Experiment for Tensile strength

Optimal Tensile Parameters

Predicted Experimental
Setting level FD2 C2 TS3 FD2 C2 TS3
Tensile Strength (MPa) 196.14 191

6.67 OPTICAL METALLOGRAPHY

Micro structural examinations are carried-out using an optical metallurgical

microscope for different levels of experiment to analyze the weld joint at Weld
Nugget and interface regions. The microstructure of the joints at various experimental
levels are shown in the Fig. 6.45 - 6.49.
171
6.68 Microstructure of 6061 Al Alloy

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)
Fig. 6.45 (i-vi) Microstructure at experimental levels 1-6 of the GTAW

172
 (vii)

(viii)

(ix)

(x)

(xi)

(xii)
Fig. 6.46 (vii-xii) Microstructure at experimental levels 7-12 of the GTAW

173
 (xiii)

(xiv)

(xv)

(xvi)

(xvii)

(xviii)
Fig. 6.47 (xiii-xviii) Microstructure at experimental levels 13-18 of the GTAW

174
 (xix)

(xx)

(xxi)

(xxii)

(xxiii)

(xxiv)
Fig. 6.48 (xix-xxiv) Microstructure at experimental levels 19-24 of the GTAW

175
 (xxv)

(xxvi)

(xxvii)
Fig. 6.49 (xxv-xxvii) Microstructure at experimental levels 25-27 of the GTAW

From the microstructural examination, it is clear that there is an uniform

deposition of the metal along the joint line. The flow is also not accurate it is evident
from the microstructural examinations that the weld joint exhibits solidification crack
macro and microscopically. The depth of penetration of metal is also less. The
deposition of the metal has been observed only to the half of the thickness of the
plate. Due to which it requires both sides welding. It is also proven that from the
Table 6.51, the coarse grain size observed of ranging from 6 to 8 µm.

176
6.69 GRAIN SIZE
Grain Size is calculated based on the number of Intercepts present in a
particular feature measurement, from the ASTM standard E112 chart, grain size is
determined at various experimental levels are shown in the Table 6.49.

Table 6.49 Avg. ASTM Grain Size Number at WN, TMAZ, and HAZ for TIG
Welding
TMAZ
Weld HAZ avg.
Nugget(WN) Avg. ASTM
TS
Level FD(mm) C (A) ASTM
(mm/s) Avg. Astm Grain
Grain
Grain Size no. Size no.
Size no.
1 2.4 175 3.4 7.4 7.7 7.3
2 2.4 175 3.8 7.7 7.7 7.6
3 2.4 175 4.2 7.6 7.7 7.6
4 2.4 200 3.4 7.5 7.7 7.0
5 2.4 200 3.8 7.5 7.7 7.0
6 2.4 200 4.2 7.5 7.7 7.6
7 2.4 225 3.4 7.2 7.7 7.6
8 2.4 225 3.8 7.3 7.6 7.7
9 2.4 225 4.2 6.4 7.5 7.6
10 3.0 175 3.4 7.7 7.3 7.2
11 3.0 175 3.8 7.5 7.3 7.2
12 3.0 175 4.2 7.6 7.7 7.7
13 3.0 200 3.4 6.5 7.6 7.6
14 3.0 200 3.8 7.2 7.7 7.7
15 3.0 200 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.7
16 3.0 225 3.4 7.6 7.7 7.7
17 3.0 225 3.8 7.3 7.6 6.6
18 3.0 225 4.2 7.5 7.3 7.6
19 4.8 175 3.4 7.2 7.5 6.8
20 4.8 175 3.8 6.5 7.7 7.1
21 4.8 175 4.2 7.3 7.7 7.0
22 4.8 200 3.4 6.6 7.5 7.3
23 4.8 200 3.8 6.8 7.1 6.6
24 4.8 200 4.2 7.0 7.7 6.3
25 4.8 225 3.4 7.5 7.6 7.1
26 4.8 225 3.8 7.0 7.4 6.5
27 4.8 225 4.2 7.1 7.6 7.0

177
6.70 SUMMARY

In this chapter, the effect of Tool Pin Profile on FSW joints have been
analyzed and the optimum parameters and tool pin profile has been identified. From
the results obtained, it is evident that the triangular pin profile exhibits better
mechanical and microstructural properties than compared to other two pin profiles.

An attempt is also made in this chapter to compare the joint strength

obtained in FSW with GTAW Technique. Though, GTAW Technique exhibits better
strength ratios because of filler rod insertion but proven for solidification cracks.

178