, Analytical bonding criteria for joint integrity prediction in friction stir welding of
aluminumalloys. J. Mater. Process. Tech. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PROTEC-13902; No. of Pages 10
Journal of Materials Processing Technology xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Materials Processing Technology
j our nal home page: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ j mat pr ot ec
Analytical bonding criteria for joint integrity prediction in friction stir
welding of aluminum alloys
Gianluca Buffa
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 091 23861869; fax: +39 091 7099973.
E-mail addresses: gianluca.buffa@unipa.it (G. Buffa), sergio.pellegrino@unipa.it
(S. Pellegrino), livan.fratini@unipa.it (L. Fratini).
the melting one, there is no change in volume during the process
and this entails lowvalues of residual stresses after cooling. Mishra
andMa (2005) reportedthe mechanisms responsible for the forma-
tion of seam welds in FSWprocesses and also the microstructural
renement andnal mechanical properties of the weldedjoint. The
authors highlighted also that the maximumtemperature reached,
incorrespondence of the central part of the welding seam, is a func-
tion of the ratio between the tool rotation speed R [rpm] and
tool feed rate v [mm/min] along the weld seam: in general, with
the increase of this ratio, maximumtemperature increases.
Based on the description of the process, it is immediately noted
that the plastic ow of the material generated by the action of
the tool gives origin to asymmetric joints. Guerra et al. (2002)
focusedtheir attentionona fewkey aspects of the process as micro-
structural issues and material ow analysis. They observed, in a
cross section of the joint, an advancing side and a retreating
side: in the rst case the vectors peripheral speed of rotation and
feed rate of the tool have the same direction; on the contrary, in
the retreating side the two vectors are opposite each other.
The mechanism of formation of the weld through FSW can be
assimilated to an extrusion and forging of the plates to be welded.
Buffa et al. (2006a,c) investigated the operating parameters of the
FSW process, as optimal tool geometry and welding speed, for
improving nugget integrity of aluminumalloys as well as the bond-
ing mechanics. Due to the rotation, the pin moves the material in
contact with it towards the area by creeping, namely the metal is
extruded around the pin and immediately forged by the shoulder.
The longitudinal axis of the tool will then be the forging axis, while
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.014
0924-0136/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Buffa, G., et al., Analytical bonding criteria for joint integrity prediction in friction stir welding of
aluminumalloys. J. Mater. Process. Tech. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PROTEC-13902; No. of Pages 10
2 G. Buffa et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology xxx (2014) xxxxxx
the welding direction will be the extrusion axis. The mixed mate-
rial is usually dragged many times around the tool before being
deposited. Reynolds et al. (2000) and Heinz et al. (2000) investi-
gatedthe mechanical properties andthe microstructure of a FSWed
joint showing the characteristics of the weldedjoints. They demon-
strated that the material ows also vertically, in an almost circular
pattern as seen in a longitudinal section.
The most common welding defects that occur in a FS welded
joint are interruptions in the physical structure of the junction due
to incorrect material ow(tunnel defects). Additionally, at the bot-
tomof the joint swirl phenomena may be observed, thus resulting
in an ineffective material owand the possible insurgence of inter-
nal folding defects due to the geometrical discontinuity induced
by the tool pin shape. Chen et al. (2006) pointed out the condi-
tions that cause the typical defects of the FSW and the inuence
on the mechanical properties of the joint. They found that the low
heat input leads to the generation of tunnel and/or kissing bond.
The latter defect is particularly difcult to be spotted with non-
disruptive tests. Finally, besides tool rotation and welding speed,
the selection of the correct tilt angle inuences the heat input.
The material ow induced by the tool, which determines the
effectiveness of the weld, is dramatically inuenced by material
properties, such as yield strength, tool design, and FSW process
parameters. Once the material to be welded is xed and the tool
is designed, process parameters as tool feed rate and rotation are
responsible for the distribution of the main eld variables that gov-
ern the solid bonding phenomenon. Proper values of temperature,
strain and strain rate are needed in order to get an effective solid
bonding. Balasubramanian (2008) studied how the FSW process
parameters inuence the weld quality. It is worth noticing that, at
the moment, only empirical relationships can be used to predict
the FSWprocess parameters to produce defect free joints. A weld-
ing criterion, depending on the local values of the above cited eld
variables and embedded in a proper process model, represents an
important tool for sound joints design. As far as the authors know,
no solid bonding criterion has been used for FSW.
A few researches can be found in literature characterizing the
solid bonding phenomena for processes as Roll Bonding (RB) or
Porthole Die Extrusion (PDE), also including the use of a proper
bonding criterion. Donati and Tomesani (2005) studied the rela-
tion between product quality and die design in extruded aluminum
proles with seam welds. The effectiveness of the obtained joint
strongly depends on several operating parameters, both geomet-
rical and technological. Using different combinations of process
parameters different weld quality is obtained for the joints (defec-
tive or sound). Donati et al. (2007) also analyzed the process
parameters and the different die geometries for the extrusion of
a hollow prole with a seamweld. Ceretti et al. (2009a,b) showed
how it is possible to correctly simulate the bonding phenomena
occurring in extrusion porthole dies. They investigated the solid
bonding phenomenon through modular matrices in which it was
possible to change the geometric parameters of the reference
matrix, inorder tovarytheweldingconditions. Inthis way, thevari-
ables having a major inuence on the process could be identied.
The analysis was conducted froma purely phenomenological point
of view, identifying one by one of the critical parameters for the
obtainment of a sound bond, in order to derive general design rules
for theprocess. Donati andTomesani (2004) andDonati (2004) have
developed numerical campaigns of extrusion processes in order
to obtain the local conditions of the welds experimentally pro-
duced deriving, as a result, a bonding criterion valid under different
welding conditions. In fact, once the welding surface is identied,
it is possible to calculate, through a numerical analysis, the eld
variables involvedinthe bonding process, as contact pressure, tem-
perature, local owstress, strain, nodal speed. In the following the
three most utilized bonding criteria are briey described.
1.1. Maximumpressure criterion
This criterion considers as a discriminating parameter only the
maximum pressure inside the welding chamber. Ackeret (1972)
stated that when this value exceeds a critical threshold, which
depends only on the local and instantaneous conditions of the
material, the weld can be considered sound. This criterion is by far
the most applied in practice because of its simplicity. The effective-
ness of this criterion for RB processes has been demonstrated by
Azushima et al. (2008) which produced lightweight parts by using
high strength metal for the safety and reliability of micro-parts. It
is worth noticing that, due to its extreme simplicity, this criterion is
not particularly suited for manufacturing processes characterized
by more complex material ow, as PDE and FSW. Consequently,
this criterion has not been considered in the present study.
1.2. Pressuretime criterion
This criterion, proposed by Plata and Piwnik (2000), is based on
the integral in time of the ratio between the contact pressure and
the ow stress of the material. The value obtained must exceed a
critical threshold. Jo et al. (2003), in their paper, studied the inu-
ence of bearing length, product thickness and billet temperature in
portholedieextrusionof hollowsectiontubes onthepressureat the
interface of the welding plane. The best mechanical properties are
obtained when the pressure at the welding plane is approximately
3.55.8 times the average ow stress. Donati et al. (2007) investi-
gated the effectiveness of the criterion in the PDE process through
both mechanical and metallurgical surveys in order to validate
the numerical approach. The obtained results demonstrated that
it is possible to correctly simulate the solid bonding phenomena
occurring during the porthole die extrusion. Ceretti et al. (2009a)
determined the critical value of the criterion through roll bonding
(RB) experiments on AA6061. The threshold curve obtained was
used to model the extrusion of complex hollow proles. Finally,
DUrso et al. (2012), through a coupled experimental-simulative
strategy on aluminum alloy AA6082, implemented a new proce-
dure for the identication of the pressuretime bonding criterion
as a functionof the temperature. Flat rolling experimental tests and
FEMsimulations of the rolling process for the same conditions were
carried out and an exponential limit curve was identied.
Although the above cited authors found satisfying results,
Donati and Tomesani (2004) pointed that this approach is some-
times unable to give correct predictions when large gradients of
the node velocity are observed.
1.3. Pressuretimeow criterion
As previously observed, Donati and Tomesani (2004) showed
that the pressuretime criterion over emphasizes the role dead
zones of the material in a PDE matrix, in which the residence times
tend to innity. Consequently, they introduced the speed correc-
tion factor, pointing out that the material ow passing through
a generic point should be considered. The criterion validity was
demonstrated starting from experimental PDE tests. In particular,
special H proles were produced by changing the geometry of the
leg and the width of the central section, so as to create a variety of
operatingconditions inorder toobtainjoints withdifferent welding
quality. The obtained results showed that it is possible to pre-
dict the solid bonding phenomena occurring during PDE using the
pressuretimeow approach. The effectiveness of this criterion
has not been tested on industrial case studies yet.
In this paper, two solid bonding criteria are selected, prop-
erly applied to FSW and nally compared. Experimental welding
tests have been performed with varying tool feed rate and rota-
tion in order to obtain both defective and sound welds. Then, the
Please cite this article in press as: Buffa, G., et al., Analytical bonding criteria for joint integrity prediction in friction stir welding of
aluminumalloys. J. Mater. Process. Tech. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PROTEC-13902; No. of Pages 10
G. Buffa et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology xxx (2014) xxxxxx 3
Table 1
Experimental case studies.
Test ID R [rpm] V [mm/min]
A 500 400
B 500 200
C 500 100
D 1000 400
E 1000 200
F 1000 100
experimental tests havebeensimulatedthroughapre-existingFEM
model for FSW. The objective of this work is to assess the reli-
ability and the effectiveness of bonding criteria, already present
in literature and developed for other processes, for FSW through
experimental test, microstructural investigation and FEManalysis.
Additionally, the two criteria are compared and the most suited for
FSWprocess is identied.
2. Methods
2.1. Experiments
Butt joints were obtained out of aluminum alloy AA6061-T6
100mm200mm sheets, 2.4mm in thickness. The base material
was characterized by a yield stress of 260MPa and an ultimate ten-
sile stress (UTS) of 305MPa. A Mazak Nexus 410A milling machine
properly equipped with clamping xture for FSW was used. The
utilized tool was made in H13 steel quenched at 1020
C, charac-
terized by a 52 HRc hardness. A conical pin was designed, with
conical angle of 30
was
adopted for all the tests. In Table 1 the analyzed case studies are
reported:
Each test was repeated three times and from each joint
specimens were cross-sectioned perpendicularly to the welding
direction. Macrographs were used to analyze the material area
involved in the process mechanics; furthermore, the presence of
ow defects was investigated through micrographs. In order to
obtain such results the specimens were hot mounted, polished and
nally etched with Keller reagent and observed by a LM.
2.2. Numerical simulations
The commercial FEA software DEFORM-3D
TM
, Lagrangian
implicit code designedfor metal forming processes, was used. Buffa
et al. (2006b) proposed a continuumbased FEMmodel for friction
stir welding process. This model was rst calibrated by comparing
calculated force and temperature distribution with experimental
results. Then it was used to investigate the distribution of the main
eld variables in the heat affected zone and the weld nugget. A
coupled thermo-mechanical analysis with rigid-viscoplastic strain,
strain rate and temperature dependent material behavior was per-
formed. The material data were taken from the ASM Handbook
(1990) and in house experiments. The tool was modeled as a rigid
object. The FSWmodeling was divided into two stages: the plunge
stage and the welding stage. In the rst phase the tool, which has
a tilt angle of 2
C)] andthermal
capacity c =2.4[N/(mm
2
C)], taken fromliterature, were used. No
variation of k and c with temperature was taken into account.
This assumption makes the thermal problem linear, speeding up
the numerical solution at each time increment. A constant inter-
face heat exchange coefcient of 11 [N/(mms
). Both the
Please cite this article in press as: Buffa, G., et al., Analytical bonding criteria for joint integrity prediction in friction stir welding of
aluminumalloys. J. Mater. Process. Tech. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PROTEC-13902; No. of Pages 10
4 G. Buffa et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Fig. 2. The identied points for the node tracking option.
criteria are based on integrals in time, that, in order to perform
the calculation, have been approximated with sums over small
time intervals. Eqs. (1) and (2) represent the pressuretime and
the pressuretimeowcriteria, respectively.
W =
t
0
P
dt
=
j
p
j
j
t
j
(1)
W
t
0
P
vdt
=
j
p
j
j
v
j
t
j
(2)
where p is the contact pressure at the interface, is the owstress
of the material in the given temperature, strain and strain rate con-
ditions and v is the velocity of the considered node. As it can be
noticed, Wis measured in s, while W
parameters.
Test Point W[s] W
[mm] Experiments
Calculated value Threshold value Calculated value Threshold value
A P1 1.556 5.372 1.039 3.644 not welded
P2 0.697 5.297 1.058 3.474 not welded
P3 1.040 5.334 2.337 3.558 not welded
P4 0.694 5.269 1.936 3.411 not welded
P5 0.715 5.304 1.743 3.489 not welded
P6 1.107 5.341 3.452 3.574 not welded
B P1 2.552 4.810 1.548 2.501 not welded
P2 3.586 4.740 2.158 2.380 not welded
P3 5.565 4.673 4.112 2.268 welded
P4 6.095 4.702 5.178 2.316 welded
P5 4.849 4.583 9.505 2.122 welded
P6 1.280 4.635 3.391 2.205 welded
C P1 3.917 4.095 0.749 1.448 not welded
P2 7.018 4.106 1.943 1.460 welded
P3 8.679 4.079 3.020 1.428 welded
P4 10.898 4.079 4.223 1.428 welded
P5 10.915 4.057 1.965 1.402 welded
P6 7.835 4.128 0.644 1.487 welded
D P1 1.797 3.928 1.412 1.256 welded
P2 1.756 3.869 1.960 1.193 welded
P3 1.760 3.847 2.954 1.170 welded
P4 2.038 3.771 4.619 1.093 welded
P5 1.069 3.752 5.832 1.075 welded
P6 1.161 3.757 5.411 1.080 welded
E P1 4.726 3.492 2.287 0.842 welded
P2 7.523 3.443 5.971 0.802 welded
P3 4.379 3.473 2.698 0.826 welded
P4 3.590 3.496 2.974 0.845 welded
P5 12.092 3.344 19.930 0.726 welded
P6 5.558 3.550 27.614 0.890 welded
F P1 10.059 3.073 2.556 0.545 welded
P2 12.034 3.045 4.594 0.528 welded
P3 16.326 3.038 4.992 0.524 welded
P4 6.419 3.026 3.870 0.517 welded
P5 5.279 2.989 17.791 0.496 welded
P6 14.774 2.977 35.671 0.489 welded
Please cite this article in press as: Buffa, G., et al., Analytical bonding criteria for joint integrity prediction in friction stir welding of
aluminumalloys. J. Mater. Process. Tech. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.014
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PROTEC-13902; No. of Pages 10
G. Buffa et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology xxx (2014) xxxxxx 9
Fig. 12. Calculated W
value. This is
consistent with what experimentally observed: at the bottom of
the joints the least favorable conditions for solid bonding occurs,
in terms of temperature, pressure and velocity. That is why if a
owdefect is observed, it is located in that area. Additionally, more
consistent results are obtained for test D, showing the six points a
W
value exceeds
the scale selected for better readability.
The better consistency of the results with respect both to the
experimental evidences and to the expected effect of the process
parameters, in terms of heat input conferred to the joints, per-
mits to state that the W
param-
eter, a regression curve can be obtained representing the threshold
values, as a function of temperature, of the pressuretimeow
criterion for the considered AA6061 aluminumalloy:
W
= 1327661974400T
4.797
(4)
Finally, Table 2 summarizes the obtained results: for each of the
36 points considered, the calculatedandthresholdWandW
values
are reportedtogether withthe experimental observationindicating
if, at a given area, material continuity can be observed.
4. Conclusions
An experimental and numerical campaign was performed
on FSW of AA6061 aluminum alloy. The applicability to FSW
of analytical binding criteria, originally developed for different
manufacturing processes, was assessed. FSW experiments were
developed with tool rotation and welding speed varying in a wide
range in order to obtain different conditions of joint integrity.
An already developed and veried numerical model for FSW was
used to calculate the main eld variables values and the occur-
ring material ow needed to implement the considered criteria.
The following main conclusions can be drawn:
In FSW the material close to the welding line ows around the
tool in the retreating side and is eventually left at the advancing
side after a few turns depending on the ratio between the tool
rotation and welding speed;
The Pivnik and Plata criterion can be used for FSWbut problems
arise when large welding speed is selected; in those cases low
pressure is obtained and values of the W parameter lower that
the threshold are calculated, indicating that no bonding occurred
even when sound joints are experimentally obtained;