1. Introduction
Friction Stir Welding (FSW) is a solid-state welding process that was patented in 1991 by The Welding Institute (TWI). It is performed by utilizing a non-consumable cylindrical tool that rotates and advances in the material to be welded. These movements produce heat through friction and mix the softened material to produce the weld [
1]. The tool comprises a shoulder that generates heat and exerts downward forging force and a probe that transports plasticized material along the joint [
2].
FSW presents numerous advantages over conventional fusion welding methods, since it occurs at temperatures below the melting point of the material, such as minimizing distortion in the workpiece and reducing porosity and cracking when compared to traditional welding techniques. Additionally, FSW stands out as an environmentally conscious technology, and is often regarded as a “green” solution due to its reduced energy consumption compared to fusion processes. It does not require filler material or the use of solvents [
3].
For the execution of FSW, various types of equipment can be utilized, all of which need to be robust enough to manage the diverse forces encountered during welding, such as axial force, traverse force, side force, and torque. This equipment range includes adapted conventional machine tools, dedicated FSW machines, custom-built machines, and industrial robots. Since FSW shares similarities with manufacturing processes like machining, deburring, grinding, and drilling, it is feasible to perform FSW on a conventional machine with certain modifications. These modifications, which are necessary to handle the high loads produced during FSW, might include the installation of sensors, structural reinforcement, or the addition of extra motors to enhance the machine’s strength and stiffness [
4,
5]. FSW offers the ability to weld low-weldability alloys, which is the case with aluminum and titanium, amongst others. Some authors, such as Zhang et al. [
6] and Nandan et al. [
7], are investigating the potential of joining dissimilar materials. In various engineering applications, dissimilar materials, including metals and polymers, are strategically combined to harness the distinct mechanical properties of each component. This approach creates hybrid properties on two different fronts, leveraging differences in density to structure lighter materials or adapt them to reduce manufacturing costs in the market.
The use of dissimilar materials results in enhanced system performance and cost reduction, making it a top-notch engineering solution in multi-material processing. Dissimilar welding techniques have succeeded across various sectors, including automotive, electronics, aerospace, and numerous engineering domains [
8,
9,
10]. Notably, the electrical industry has begun embracing this approach, and this is particularly evident in applications within generation, storage, and transmission systems. Additionally, in automation, notable instances of the use of these materials include the fabrication of electric motor cages [
11]. When seeking to obtain dissimilar joints, Friction Stir Welding (FSW) is an interesting alternative, and the selection of appropriate parameters for this purpose is a task of interest. Seeking to identify process parameters in the development of FSW in aluminum–copper joints, authors such as Mehta et al. developed a review on dissimilar joints using these materials. The article includes information regarding the tool, its process parameters, and its mechanical properties [
12]. Moreover, Al-Jarrah et al. [
13] performed butt welds on pure copper and aluminum 6061 using a square pin and flat shoulder as the welding tool. They utilized process parameters of 60 mm/min and 1118 rpm, resulting in an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of approximately 140 MPa. As a reference, authors such as Ahmadi et al. investigated a homogeneous AA6061 joint, achieving an ultimate tensile strength of 208 MPa with a square pin using 1200 RPM and 120 mm/min [
14].
In the article written by Chowdhury et al. [
15], the authors investigated the resulting mechanical properties by joining dissimilar metals of 6063 aluminum alloy and copper alloy using Friction Stir Welding (FSW) and Ultrasonic-Assisted Friction Stir Welding (UAFSW). The maximum efficiency was obtained using a combination of 500 rpm and 25 mm/min. Furthermore, Karrar et al. [
16] carried out investigations on the effects of tools’ rotational and traversal speeds on dissimilar friction stir butt welds on 3 mm thickness AA5083 to pure copper plates. The authors found that the highest efficiency achieved was 94.8%, using process parameters of 1400 RPM and 120 mm/min. Using the previous information and due to the extensive applications and advantages of FSW, this work focuses on the dissimilar FSW of aluminum AA 6061-T6 alloy and pure copper C11000 sheets. The mechanical characteristics that resulted from the dissimilar joints were investigated. Furthermore, non-destructive testing (NDT) was carried out.
The current study builds upon the previously mentioned information, shaping the foundation of this topic. In the following sections, we reference the methodology and materials employed. Utilizing a basic experimental design approach, the study engages in a comprehensive discussion on how the process parameters influence the properties of the welds produced.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, E.H. and M.C.S.; Methodology, E.H. and M.C.S.; Validation, E.H., M.C.S., Y.M. and J.H.C.; Formal analysis, E.H., M.C.S., Y.M. and J.H.C.; Investigation, E.H., M.C.S., Y.M. and J.H.C.; Resources, E.H. and M.C.S.; Data curation, E.H. and M.C.S.; Writing—original draft preparation, E.H. and M.C.S.; Writing—review and editing, E.H., M.C.S., Y.M. and J.H.C.; Supervision, E.H.; Project administration, E.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Universidad EIA in the project called “Development of solid-state heterogeneous seals of non-ferrous materials for the electrical and transport industries”.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Mishra, R.S.; Ma, Z.Y. Friction Stir Welding and Processing. Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 2005, 50, 1–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rai, R.; De, A.; Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H.; DebRoy, T. Review: Friction Stir Welding Tools. Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 2011, 16, 325–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mubiayi, M.P.; Titilayo, E.; Mamookho, M. Current Trends in Friction Stir Welding (FSW) and Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mendes, N.; Neto, P.; Loureiro, A.; Moreira, A.P. Machines and Control Systems for Friction Stir Welding: A Review. Mater. Des. 2016, 90, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busu, A.; Shamil Jaffarullah, M.; Yee Low, C.; Saiful Bahari Shaari, M.; Jaffar, A. A Review of Force Control Techniques in Friction Stir Process. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 76, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.Z.; Gong, W.B.; Liu, W. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Al–Cu Joints by Friction Stir Welding. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2015, 25, 1779–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nandan, R.; DebRoy, T.; Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Recent Advances in Friction-Stir Welding-Process, Weldment Structure and Properties. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2008, 53, 980–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taheri, H.; Kilpatrick, M.; Norvalls, M.; Harper, W.J.; Koester, L.W.; Bigelow, T.; Bond, L.J. Investigation of Nondestructive Testing Methods for Friction Stir Welding. Metals 2019, 9, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, K.P. A Review on Friction-Based Joining of Dissimilar Aluminum-Steel Joints. J. Mater. Res. 2018, 3, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathishkumar, G.B.; Sethuraman, P.; Chanakyan, C.; Sundaraselvan, S.; Arockiam, A.J.; Alagarsamy, S.V.; Elmariung, A.; Meignanamoorthy, M.; Ravichandran, M.; Jayasathyakawin, S. Friction Welding of Similar and Dissimilar Materials: A Review. Sel. Peer-Rev. Under Responsib. Sci. Comm. Int. Virtual Conf. Sustain. Mater. (IVCSM-2k20) 2021, 81, 208–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agapiou, J.S.; Carlson, B.E. Friction Stir Welding for Assembly of Copper Squirrel Cage Rotors for Electric Motors. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 48, 1143–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, K.P.; Badheka, V.J. A Review on Dissimilar Friction Stir Welding of Copper to Aluminum: Process, Properties, and Variants. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2016, 31, 233–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Jarrah, J.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Swalha, S.; Gharaibeh, N.S.; Al-Rashdan, M.; Al-Qahsi, D.A. Surface Morphology and Mechanical Properties of Aluminum-Copper Joints Welded by Friction Stir Welding. Contemp. Eng. Sci. 2014, 7, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, M.; Pahlavani, M.; Rahmatabadi, D.; Marzbanrad, J.; Hashemi, R.; Afkar, A. An Exhaustive Evaluation of Fracture Toughness, Microstructure, and Mechanical Characteristics of Friction Stir Welded Al6061 Alloy and Parameter Model Fitting Using Response Surface Methodology. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2022, 31, 3418–3436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, I.; Sengupta, K.; Maji, K.K.; Roy, S.; Ghosal, S. Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Joint of Al6063 Aluminium Alloy and C26000 Copper Alloy by Ultrasonic Assisted Friction Stir Welding. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 50, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karrar, G.; Galloway, A.; Toumpis, A.; Li, H.; Al-Badour, F. Microstructural Characterisation and Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar AA5083-Copper Joints Produced by Friction Stir Welding. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 11968–11979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruber, S.; Stepien, L.; López, E.; Brueckner, F.; Leyens, C. Physical and Geometrical Properties of Additively Manufactured Pure Copper Samples Using a Green Laser Source. Materials 2021, 14, 3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eslami, N.; Harms, A.; Deringer, J.; Fricke, A.; Böhm, S. Dissimilar Friction Stir Butt Welding of Aluminum and Copper with Cross-Section Adjustment for Current-Carrying Components. Metals 2018, 8, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusof, F.; Firdaus, A.; Fadzil, M.; Hamdi, M. Ultra-Thin Friction Stir Welding (FSW) between Aluminum Alloy and Copper. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Symposium on Joining and Welding, Osaka, Japan, 6–8 November 2013; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 219–224. [Google Scholar]
- Bakhtiari Argesi, F.; Shamsipur, A.; Mirsalehi, S.E. Dissimilar Joining of Pure Copper to Aluminum Alloy via Friction Stir Welding. Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 2018, 31, 1183–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MatWeb Online Materials Information Resource. Available online: https://www.matweb.com/ (accessed on 21 December 2023).
- ISO 25239-4:2011; Friction Stir Welding—Aluminium 4: Specification and Qualification of Welding Procedures. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
- Galvão, I.; Loureiro, A.; Verdera, D.; Gesto, D.; Rodrigues, D.M. Influence of Tool Offsetting on the Structure and Morphology of Dissimilar Aluminum to Copper Friction-Stir Welds. Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 2012, 43, 5096–5105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, K.P.; Badheka, V.J. Influence of Tool Pin Design on Properties of Dissimilar Copper to Aluminum Friction Stir Welding. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China (Engl. Ed.) 2017, 27, 36–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prabhu, L.; Satish Kumar, S. Tribological Characteristics of FSW Tool Subjected to Joining of Dissimilar AA6061-T6 and Cu Alloys. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 741–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Khan, Z.A.; Siddiquee, A.N.; Shihab, S.K.; Wahid Atif, M. Effect of Process Parameters on Microstructure and Electrical Conductivity during FSW of Al-6101 and Pure Copper. Certain. Distance Degree Based Topol. Indices Zeolite LTA Framew. 2018, 5, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Navarro, D.; Ortiz-Cuellar, J.C.; Galindo-Valdés, J.S.; Gómez-Casas, J.; Muñiz-Valdez, C.R.; Rodríguez-Rosales, N.A. Effects of the FSW Parameters on Microstructure and Electrical Properties in Al 6061-T6- Cu C11000 Plate Joints. Crystals 2021, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinlabi, E.T. Effect of Shoulder Size on Weld Properties of Dissimilar Metal Friction Stir Welds. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2012, 21, 1514–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, P.; Ni, D.R.; Wang, D.; Xiao, B.L.; Ma, Z.Y. Effect of Friction Stir Welding Parameters on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of the Dissimilar Al-Cu Joints. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2011, 528, 4683–4689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emamian, S.; Awang, M.; Hussai, P.; Meyghani, B.; Zafar, A. Influences of Tool Pin Profile on the Friction Stir Welding of AA6061. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 12258–12261. [Google Scholar]
- Ólafsson, D.; Vilaça, P.; Vesanko, J. Multiphysical Characterization of FSW of Aluminum Electrical Busbars with Copper Ends. Weld. World 2020, 64, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khajeh, R.; Jafarian, H.R.; Seyedein, S.H.; Jabraeili, R.; Eivani, A.R.; Park, N.; Kim, Y.; Heidarzadeh, A. Microstructure, Mechanical and Electrical Properties of Dissimilar Friction Stir Welded 2024 Aluminum Alloy and Copper Joints. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 14, 1945–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasaee, S.; Mirzaei, A.H.; Almasi, D.; Hayati, S. A Comprehensive Study of Parameters Effect on Mechanical Properties of Butt Friction Stir Welding in Aluminium 5083 and Copper. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 2018, 71, 1553–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, K.P.; Badheka, V.J. Effects of Tilt Angle on the Properties of Dissimilar Friction Stir Welding Copper to Aluminum. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2016, 31, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisadi, H.; Tavakoli, A.; Tour Sangsaraki, M.; Tour Sangsaraki, K. The Influences of Rotational and Welding Speeds on Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Welded Al5083 and Commercially Pure Copper Sheets Lap Joints. Mater. Des. 2013, 43, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montes-González, F.A.; Rodríguez-Rosales, N.A.; Ortiz-Cuellar, J.C.; Muñiz-Valdez, C.R.; Gómez-Casas, J.; Galindo-Valdés, J.S.; Gómez-Casas, O. Experimental Analysis and Mathematical Model of Fsw Parameter Effects on the Corrosion Rate of Al 6061-T6-Cu C11000 Joints. Crystals 2021, 11, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- View of Feasibility Study of Friction Stir Welding of Dissimilar Metals between 6063 Aluminium Alloy and Pure Copper. Available online: https://ph01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/nuej/article/view/70365/72339 (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Christon, L.; Samuel, K. Balachandar Experimental Investigation on Friction Stir Welded Aluminium Alloy (6063-O)–Pure Copper Joint-Document-Gale Academic OneFile. Available online: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA466052674&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=19950772&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E5b1f7ab6 (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Bhattacharya, T.K.; Das, H.; Pal, T.K. Influence of Welding Parameters on Material Flow, Mechanical Property and Intermetallic Characterization of Friction Stir Welded AA6063 to HCP Copper Dissimilar Butt Joint without Offset. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China (Engl. Ed.) 2015, 25, 2833–2846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panaskar, N.; Terkar, R. Effect of Process Parameters on Defect Features and Mechanical Performance of Friction Stir Lap Welded AA6063 and ETP Copper Joints. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 879–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Roubaiy, A.O.; Nabat, S.M.; Batako, A.D.L. Experimental and Theoretical Analysis of Friction Stir Welding of Al–Cu Joints. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 71, 1631–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.W.; Zhang, D.T.; Qiu, C.; Zhang, W. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Pure Copper/1350 Aluminum Alloy Butt Joints by Friction Stir Welding. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2012, 22, 1298–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghangas, G.; Goyat, V.; Sirohi, S.; Sharma, S.K.; Dhull, S. Investigation for Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Friction Stir Welded Joints of AA5083 and Pure Cu. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 56, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadian, A.K.; Biswas, P. The Study of Material Flow Behaviour in Dissimilar Material FSW of AA6061 and Cu-B370 Alloys Plates. J. Manuf. Process. 2018, 34, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fotoohi, Y.; Rasaee, S.; Bisadi, H.; Zahedi, M. Effect of Friction Stir Welding Parameters on the Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of the Dissimilar Al5083–Copper Butt Joint. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2014, 228, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khodir, S.A.; Ahmed, M.M.Z.; Ahmed, E.; Mohamed, S.M.R.; Abdel-Aleem, H. Effect of Intermetallic Compound Phases on the Mechanical Properties of the Dissimilar Al/Cu Friction Stir Welded Joints. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2016, 25, 4637–4648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afsari, A.; Heidari, S.; Jafari, J. Evaluation of Optimal Conditions, Microstructure, and Mechanical Properties of Aluminum to Copper Joints Welded by FSW. J. Mod. Process. Manuf. Prod. 2020, 9, 61–81. [Google Scholar]
- Galvão, I.; Verdera, D.; Gesto, D.; Loureiro, A.; Rodrigues, D.M. Analysing the Challenge of Aluminum to Copper FSW. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Huntsville, AL, USA, 15–17 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ghiasvand, A.; Kazemi, M.; Mahdipour Jalilian, M.; Ahmadi Rashid, H. Effects of Tool Offset, Pin Offset, and Alloys Position on Maximum Temperature in Dissimilar FSW of AA6061 and AA5086. Int. J. Mech. Mater. Eng. 2020, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakkiyaraj, M.; Bernard, S.S.; Saikrishnan, G.; Guruyogesh, S.; Guruprasanna, T.G.; Dineshkumar, K. Effect of Tool Offset Condition on Mechanical and Metallurgical Properties of FSW Dissimilar Al-Cu Joint. In Proceedings of the Materials Today: Proceedings; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 43, pp. 824–827. [Google Scholar]
- Akinlabi, E.T.; Levy, A.C.S.; Akinlabi, S.A. Non-Destructive Testing of Dissimilar Friction Stir Welds. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, UK, 4–6 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mandache, C.; Levesque, D.; Dubourg, L.; Gougeon, P. Non-Destructive Detection of Lack of Penetration Defects in Friction Stir Welds. Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 2012, 17, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM. E8 Standard Test Methods of Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. In Annual Book or ASTM Standards; American Society for Testing and Materials: Montgomery, PA, USA, 2024; Volume 3.01. [Google Scholar]
- Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 9th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Welding setup. (a) Configuration of joint. (b) Fixture used for execution of welding.
Figure 2.
A simple schematic of weld–flip–weld configuration.
Figure 3.
Summary of the reviewed parameter combinations and joint efficiency.
Figure 4.
Schematic of the selected offset of 1mm towards the aluminum.
Figure 5.
(a) Tensile test specimens’ location sketch in mm. (b) Aluminum–copper tensile test specimen.
Figure 6.
Locations for electrical conductivity measurements.
Figure 7.
PAU results for welds (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, (e) 5, (f) 6, (g) 7, and (h) 8.
Figure 8.
Comparison of process parameters and efficiency at 40 mm/min travel speed.
Figure 9.
Efficiency compared with electrical properties.
Figure 10.
Stereoscopic image of heterogeneous welds (a) without offset and (b) with offset.
Figure 11.
Heterogeneous weld microstructure; modified Keller etchant for the aluminum side.
Table 1.
Materials composition. Adapted from Ref. [
21].
Material | Si | Cu | Zn | Fe | Mn | Cr | Sn | Ti | Mg | Others |
---|
AA6061-T6 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.025 | 0.7 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.8 | 95.8 |
C11000 | - | 99.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.1 |
Table 2.
Electrical conductivity experimentally measured on base materials.
Material | Electrical Conductivity in Terms of % IACS |
---|
AA6061-T6 | 39 |
C11000 | 97 |
Table 3.
Parameters used in dissimilar FSW. Adapted from Refs. [
12,
13,
15,
16,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48].
Aluminum Alloy | Copper | Thickness (mm) | Rotational Speed (RPM) | Traverse Speed (mm/min) | Offset (mm) | Joint Efficiency (%) | Reference |
---|
AA6061 | DHP | 3 | 1118 | 60 | 2 | 54.84% | [13] |
AA6063 | C26000 | 5 | 600 | 15 | - | 70.3% | [15] |
AA5083 | Pure | 3 | 1400 | 120 | 0 | 96.4% | [16] |
AA5083-H111 | DHP R204 | 1 | 750 | 160 | - | - | [48] |
AA6082-T6 | Pure | 3 | 1000 | 200 | 1.9 | - | [23] |
AA6061 | Pure | 3 | 710 | 355 | - | - | [12] |
AA6063-T651 | ETP | 6.3 | 1500 | 50 | 2 | 40.5% | [24] |
AA6061-T6 | Pure | 3 | 1300 | 70 | - | - | [25] |
AA6061-T6 | Pure | 2.8 | 900 | 63 | 0.5 | - | [26] |
AA6061-T6 | C11000 | 3.1 | 1300 | 20 | 2 | - | [27] |
AA5754 | C11000 | 3.175 | 950 | 50 | 0 | 78% | [28] |
AA1060 | Pure | 5 | 600 | 100 | 2 | 44% | [29] |
AA1060 | Pure | 3 | 1050 | 30 | 1 | 58% | [6] |
AA6061-T651 | Pure | 6.3 | 1500 | 40 | 2 | 58% | [30] |
AA1050-H14 | Pure | 6 | 800 | 125 | 1.4 | 85% | [31] |
AA2024 | Pure | 2 | 948 | 85 | | 70.2% | [32] |
AA5083 | Pure | 5 | 800 | 40 | 1 | 69.4% | [33] |
AA6061 | Pure | 6.3 | 1300 | 40 | 2 | - | [34] |
AA6061 | C11000 | 3.2 | 1000 | 40 | - | - | [35] |
AA5083 | Pure | 3 | 825 | 32 | - | - | [36] |
AA5754 | C11000 | 3.1 | 950 | 50 | - | 86% | [28] |
AA6063 | Pure | 6 | 1800 | 20 | - | - | [37] |
AA6063 | Pure | 6 | 900 | 25 | 0 | - | [38] |
AA6063 | HCP | 3 | 800 | 20 | 0 | - | [39] |
AA6063 | ETP | 3 | 1200 | 15 | 0 | - | [40] |
AA5086 | Pure | 6.3 | 710 | 69 | - | - | [41] |
AA1350 | Pure | 3 | 1000 | 80 | 2 | 50% | [42] |
AA5083 | Pure | 5 | 1200 | 30 | - | 58% | [43] |
AA6061 | B370 | 6 | 1100 | 120 | - | - | [44] |
AA5083 | Pure | 5 | 600 | 40 | - | 96% | [45] |
AA1050-H14 | Pure | 2 | 1400 | 20 | 2 | 88% | [46] |
AA1050-H14 | Pure | 2 | 1200 | 20 | 2 | 96% | [46] |
AA5082 | B36 | 2 | 1300 | 35 | - | 82% | [47] |
Table 4.
Process parameters combinations selected per weld number.
Weld Number | Rotational Speed (RPM) | Traverse Speed (mm/min) | Offset (mm) |
---|
1 | 1000 | 40 | 1 |
2 | 1200 | 40 | 0 |
3 | 1000 | 40 | 0 |
4 | 1400 | 40 | 1 |
5 | 1200 | 40 | 1 |
6 | 1400 | 40 | 0 |
7 | 1400 | 40 | 1 |
8 | 1400 | 40 | 0 |
Table 5.
Electrical properties results.
Weld Number | Axes | Resistance (Ohm) | Resistivity (Ω.m) | Electrical Conductivity (S/m) | % IACS | Average |
---|
1 | 1 | 6.60 × 10−5 | 3.37 × 10−8 | 2.97 × 107 | 51.2% | 58.2% |
2 | 6.20 × 10−5 | 3.16 × 10−8 | 3.16 × 107 | 54.5% |
3 | 4.90 × 10−5 | 2.50 × 10−8 | 4.00 × 107 | 69.0% |
2 | 1 | 6.70 × 10−5 | 3.42 × 10−8 | 2.93 × 107 | 50.4% | 39.5% |
2 | 1.07 × 10−4 | 5.46 × 10−8 | 1.83 × 107 | 31.6% |
3 | 9.30 × 10−5 | 4.74 × 10−8 | 2.11 × 107 | 36.3% |
3 | 1 | 6.90 × 10−5 | 3.52 × 10−8 | 2.84 × 107 | 49.0% | 49.8% |
2 | 5.70 × 10−5 | 2.91 × 10−8 | 3.44 × 107 | 59.3% |
3 | 8.20 × 10−5 | 4.18 × 10−8 | 2.39 × 107 | 41.2% |
4 | 1 | 5.30 × 10−5 | 2.70 × 10−8 | 3.70 × 107 | 63.8% | 66.3% |
2 | 4.10 × 10−5 | 2.09 × 10−8 | 4.78 × 107 | 82.4% |
3 | 6.40 × 10−5 | 3.27 × 10−8 | 3.06 × 107 | 52.8% |
5 | 1 | 9.60 × 10−5 | 4.90 × 10−8 | 2.04 × 107 | 35.2% | 35.8% |
2 | 9.40 × 10−5 | 4.80 × 10−8 | 2.09 × 107 | 36.0% |
3 | 9.30 × 10−5 | 4.74 × 10−8 | 2.11 × 107 | 36.3% |
6 | 1 | 6.60 × 10−5 | 3.37 × 10−8 | 2.97 × 107 | 51.2% | 56.3% |
2 | 5.70 × 10−5 | 2.91 × 10−8 | 3.44 × 107 | 59.3% |
3 | 5.80 × 10−5 | 2.96 × 10−8 | 3.38 × 107 | 58.3% |
7 | 1 | 9.60 × 10−5 | 4.90 × 10−8 | 2.04 × 107 | 35.2% | 49.3% |
2 | 5.30 × 10−5 | 2.70 × 10−8 | 3.70 × 107 | 63.8% |
3 | 6.90 × 10−5 | 3.52 × 10−8 | 2.84 × 107 | 49.0% |
8 | 1 | 8.20 × 10−5 | 4.18 × 10−8 | 2.39 × 107 | 41.2% | 55.5% |
2 | 5.60 × 10−5 | 2.86 × 10−8 | 3.50 × 107 | 60.3% |
3 | 5.20 × 10−5 | 2.65 × 10−8 | 3.77 × 107 | 65.0% |
Table 6.
Tensile testing results obtained from SHIMADZU AGX-50kNvd machine.
Weld Number | Specimen | UTS (MPa) | Efficiency (%) |
---|
1 | p1 | 125 | 55.8 |
2 | p2 | 72.4 | 32.3 |
p3 | 100.5 | 44.9 |
3 | p1 | 57.7 | 25.8 |
4 | p1 | 136.7 | 61.0 |
p2 | 168.3 | 75.1 |
p3 | 131.6 | 58.8 |
6 | p1 | 65 | 29.0 |
p2 | 96.7 | 43.2 |
p3 | 110.3 | 49.2 |
Table 7.
The 95% confidence interval for weld groups 2, 4, and 6.
Weld Number | Quantity | Degrees of Freedom | Standard Deviation | Alpha Value | Width of Confidence Interval |
---|
2 | 3 | 2 | 0.0627 | 0.05 | 0.1558 |
4 | 3 | 2 | 0.0725 | 0.05 | 0.1801 |
6 | 3 | 2 | 0.0847 | 0.05 | 0.2104 |
Table 8.
ANOVA for weld groups 2, 4, and 6.
Source of Variation | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Squares | F-Value | Probability | Critical F-Value |
---|
Between Groups | 0.1106 | 2 | 0.0553 | 65,535 | ∞ | 5.1433 |
Within Groups | 0 | 6 | 0 | | | |
Total | 0.1106 | 8 | | | | |
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).