Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
6.1 INTRODUCTION
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
Welding 48 -72 48 60 72
Speed(S),mm/min
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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
99
6.8 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR IMPACT STRENGTH USING
THREADED PIN PROFILE
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
105
6.17 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES
Table 6.13 Confirmation Test for Hardness using Threaded pin profile
106
The micro structures of the joints at various levels of experiments are shown
in the Fig. 6.5 - 6.9.
(i)
(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)
(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.
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
(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
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
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
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.
119
6.24 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
Predicted Experimental
Setting level N3,S2,F3 N3,S2,F3
Hardness (VHN) 28 30
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)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
Fig. 6.19 (vi-x) Microstructure at experimental levels 6-10 of the Conical Pin
Profile
129
HAZ WELD TMAZ
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(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.
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Predicted Experimental
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
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
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)
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
-1 .3
-1 .4
-1 .5
-1 .6
-1 .7
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.
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
Predicted Experimental
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
144
6.48 RESULTS FROM S/N RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR HARDNESS USING
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.
Table 6.37 S/N Responses for Hardness using Triangular Pin Profile
LEVELS N S F
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
28.8
28.6
28.4
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.
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
146
Hardness at third level of Axial Force 2.5 KN. Substituting the values of various
terms in equation. Then,
Predicted Experimental
Hardness (VHN) 29 31
147
HAZ WELD TMAZ
(i)
(ii)
(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)
(vi)
(vii)
HAZ WELD TMAZ
(viii)
(ix)
Fig. 6.30 (v -ix) Microstructure at experimental levels 5-9 of the Triangular Pin
Profile
149
HAZ WELD TMAZ
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(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)
(xxii)
(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)
(xxvi)
(xxvii)
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
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.
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
160
(a) Effect of Rotational Speed (b) Effect of Welding Speed
161
(a) Effect of Rotational Speed (b) Effect of Welding Speed
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
The Table 6.41 shows the process parameters and design levels of GTAW
Technique.
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.
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
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
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).
FD x C fixed 3 1, 2, 3
FD x TS fixed 3 1, 2, 3
C x TS fixed 3 1, 2, 3
168
Table 6.46 ANOVA Results for Tensile Strength 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.
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
170
6.66 CONFIRMATION TEST FOR THE RESPONSES
Predicted Experimental
(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
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.
178