Int J Adv Manuf Technol

DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-8565-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Predicting the tensile strength, impact toughness,

and hardness of friction stir-welded AA6061-T6
using response surface methodology
Wasif Safeen 1 & Salman Hussain 1 & Ahmad Wasim 1 & Mirza Jahanzaib 1 &
Haris Aziz 1 & Hassan Abdalla 2

Received: 7 November 2015 / Accepted: 29 February 2016

# Springer-Verlag London 2016

Abstract In this research, an attempt has been made to devel- will aid the practitioners to develop a clear understanding of
op mathematical models for predicting mechanical properties the influence of process parameters on mechanical properties
including ultimate tensile strength, impact toughness, and and will allow the selection of best combinations of parame-
hardness of the friction stir-welded AA6061-T6 joints at ters to achieve desired mechanical properties.
95 % confidence level. Response surface methodology with
central composite design having four parameters and five Keywords Friction stir welding . Parameters . Response
levels has been used. The four parameters considered were surface methodology . Tensile strength . Impact toughness .
tool pin profile, rotational speed, welding speed, and tool tilt Hardness
angle. Three confirmation tests were performed to validate the
empirical relations. In addition, the influence of the process
parameters on ultimate tensile strength, impact toughness, and 1 Introduction
hardness were investigated. The results indicated that tool pin
profile is the most significant parameter in terms of mechan- The manufacturing industries including automotive, aero-
ical properties; tool with simple cylindrical pin profile pro- space, shipbuilding, and railway develop products ranging
duced weld with high ultimate tensile strength, impact tough- from simple to complex shapes. To enhance the performance
ness, and hardness. In addition to tool pin profile, rotational of products, these industries are focusing on high strength to
speed was more significant compared to welding speed for weight ratio metals for reducing overall weight of the product
ultimate tensile strength and impact toughness, whereas without compromising the quality. Copper and aluminum al-
welding speed showed dominancy over rotational speed in loys are the examples of widely applicable high strength to
case of hardness. Optimum conditions of process parameters weight ratio metals. In most cases, the manufacturing of com-
have been found at which tensile strength of 92 %, impact plex products using these metals as a single part without joints
toughness of 87 %, and hardness of 95 % was achieved in is technically infeasible. Conventionally, these metals are
comparison to the base metal. This research will contribute to joined by metal inert gas welding, tungsten inert gas welding,
expand the scientific foundation of friction stir welding of gas tungsten arc welding, and gas metal arc welding. These
aluminum alloys with emphasis on AA6061-T6. The results conventional joining methods cause porosity, high residual
stresses, segregation, lack of fusion, shrinkage during solidi-
fication, and high solubility of hydrogen and other gases
* Ahmad Wasim which ultimately reduce strength of the weld [1–7]. Friction
[email protected] stir welding (FSW) is a solid state non-conventional joining
technique which has the capability to address the above limi-
tations [8, 9]. Furthermore, both similar [10–12] and dissimi-
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Engineering and lar [13–15] metals can be joined by FSW. FSW is an environ-
Technology Taxila, Taxila, Pakistan ment friendly green process which does not require filler ma-
2
School of Architecture, Computing and Engineering, University of terial unlike conventional welding methods. In FSW, a rotat-
East London, London, UK ing non-consumable tool moves between the joining line of
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

two metals. Due to friction between rotating tool and metal, Table 2 Chemical composition of tool material
heat is generated which softens and fuses the metals to form a Element C Mn Si P S Ni Cr Mo Cu
good quality weld [16]. The weld produced by FSW exhibits
better mechanical properties as compared to conventional Percent 1.0 0.33 0.30 0.03 0.008 0.16 3.90 5.20 0.14
welding processes [17, 18]. For example, Zhao et al. [19]
welded Al–Mg–Sc alloy by FSW and tungsten inert
gas welding. The results indicated that tensile strength It was discovered that threaded cylindrical pin produced a
of FSW was 19 % higher than tungsten inert gas sound- and defect-free weld. Mohanty et al. [30] reported
welding. Lakshminarayanan et al. [20] also compared that straight cylindrical pin profile produced good quality
the tensile strength of AA6061 weld produced by weld on FSW of aluminum alloys.
FSW, gas tungsten arc welding, and gas metal arc The welding and rotational speeds also affect the properties
welding. The authors demonstrated that tensile strength of the weld. Movahedi et al. [32] identified that defects at the
of friction stir-welded parts were 19 and 22 % higher weld nugget can be reduced by decreasing welding speed;
than gas tungsten arc welded parts and gas metal arc contemporarily, weld strength can be increased by decreasing
welded parts, respectively. welding speed. Kasman [33] reported that mechanical proper-
The quality and strength of friction stir (FS) weld can be ties were more sensitive to welding speed than rotational
evaluated by mechanical properties such as tensile strength, speed in welding of dissimilar aluminum alloys AA6082-T6
impact toughness, and hardness. However, hardness is the and AA5754-H111. Similarly, Aydin et al. [34] examined that
critical measure which directly affects tensile strength. This welding speed has the most significant effect on tensile
is because the tensile failure occurs along the weakest path in strength of FS-welded AA1050. Jayaraman et al. [35] on the
term of hardness [21]. To increase hardness of aluminum al- other hand concluded that rotational speed has the most sig-
loys, various researchers have investigated the effects of inter- nificant effect on tensile strength of FS-welded A319. Ahmadi
layer, external cooling, postweld heat treatment, and temper- et al. [38] investigated the effect of rotational speed, welding
ing [18, 22–24]. The mechanical properties of the FS weld speed, and tilt angle and reported that tilt angle has the least
greatly depend on the process parameters including tool pin significant effect on mechanical properties.
profile, rotational speed, welding speed, and tool tilt angle [15, Aluminum alloy 6061-T6 has high strength to weight ratio
18, 21–37]. A number of researchers have investigated the and good corrosion resistance. Because of its wide application
effect of various process parameters on mechanical properties in the field of manufacturing, it is extensively investigated by
of FSW. Xu et al. [25] investigated the influence of tool pin researchers. Liu et al. [39] investigated the tensile strength of
profile on FS-welded AA2219. The results indicated that ta- FS-welded AA6061-T6 and reported that tensile strength in-
pered threaded tool with flute pin profile produced weld with creases with the increase in welding speed. Li et al. [40] joined
good mechanical properties. The effect of tool pin profile on two AA6061-T6 plates by tool with stationary shoulder and
FS-welded AA6061 was investigated by Elangovan et al. [26] concluded that mechanical properties depend on welding
and reported that tool with square pin profile produced weld speed. Rajakumar et al. [41] developed regression models to
with high strength. Palanivel et al. [27] also reported that predict tensile behavior, hardness, and corrosion rate of FS-
high tensile strength can be achieved by square tool pin welded AA6061-T6 using response surface methodology.
profile while joining two dissimilar AA5083-H111 and Fujii et al. [42] discovered that mechanical properties were
AA6351-T6 aluminum alloys by FSW. Salari et al. [28] not dependent on tool pin profile for AA6061-T6.
investigated the effect of tool pin profile on the mechanical Various statistical and mathematical tools including regres-
properties of FS-welded AA5456. The results indicated that sion, Taguchi method, response surface methodology (RSM),
tool pin with stepped conical threaded profile produced simulated annealing, and artificial neural network have been
weld with superior mechanical properties. Ilangovan et al. used by researchers to model and optimize the friction stir-
[29] joined two aluminum alloys AA6061 and AA5086 welding process parameters of aluminum alloys [33–35,
and examined the effect of tool pin profile on the weld. 43–47]. However, RSM with central composite design has

Table 1 Chemical composition

of aluminum alloy 6061-T6 Chemical composition Mechanical properties

Al Mn Si Fe Zn Ti Cr Mg Cu UTS Impact Hardness

(MPa) toughness (J) (HV)

Bal 0.03 0.61 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.81 0.29 312 17 108
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 1 Manufactured tools, a cylindrical threaded, b tapered threaded, c simple tapered, d simple cylindrical, and e simple square

the superior capability to predict and optimize responses due 2 Experimental procedure
to more number of levels [48]. Elangovan et al. [49] applied
RSM to estimate tensile strength of FS-welded AA6061 alu- This section describes the details regarding the experimental
minum alloy. Heidarzadeh et al. [50] used RSM to predict the setup, welding conditions, and methodology adopted for the
tensile strength of FS-welded AA6061-T4. Lotfi and study. Two plates of AA6061-T6 each with dimensions of
Nourouzi [51] employed RSM to model tensile behavior and 120 × 100 × 5 mm were joined by FSW in this research. The
microhardness of the FS-welded AA7075-T6. Ilkhichi et al. chemical composition and mechanical properties of AA6061-
[52] developed a mathematical model to predict grain size and T6 are presented in Table 1. The ultimate tensile strength,
hardness of FS-welded AA 7020 using RSM. impact toughness, and hardness of AA6061-T6 are
From the literature review, it can be concluded that the 312 MPa, 17 J, and 108 HV, respectively. The tools were
researchers have proposed different pin profiles for different manufactured from molybdenum-based high-speed steel due
materials to produce good quality weld. Some researchers to its good wear-resistant property. The chemical composition
proposed square pin profile while other proposed cylindrical of the tool material is given in Table 2. Five tools with differ-
pin profile. Likewise, some researchers reported welding ent pin profiles have been used in this study. These profiles
speed as most significant parameter, whereas other identified include simple cylindrical (SC), cylindrical with threads (CT),
rotational speed as an important contributing factor. Similarly, simple tapered (ST), tapered with threads (TT), and simple
tool tilt angle has been used by previous researchers but it was square (SS) as shown in Fig. 1. Each tool had the same di-
referred as insignificant parameter. However, the exact behav- mension of pin diameter of 6 mm, pin length of 4.7 mm, and
ior of these process parameters on mechanical properties of shoulder diameter of 18 mm with 6° concavity at the bottom
AA6061-T6 still need to be investigated. This research pre- side. The pin base and tip diameter for ST and TT were 6 and
sents a systematic approach to quantify the influence of pro- 4 mm, respectively, whereas the plunge depth was 0.1 mm.
cess parameters on mechanical properties. Therefore, the aim Conceptual diagram of simple cylindrical tool is given as ex-
of this research is to develop an empirical relationship using ample in Fig. 2. Since during FSW, the tool is subjected to
RSM to predict the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), impact high mechanical and thermal stresses, therefore there were
toughness, and hardness of FS-welded AA6061-T6 and to high chances of tool damage. To avoid tool damage, tools
optimize the process parameters to maximize these mechani- were heat treated and hardened to 61 HRC. Four welding
cal properties. Furthermore, the influence of tool pin profile, parameters, namely, tool pin profile, rotational speed, welding
rotational speed, welding speed, and tool tilt angle on UTS, speed, and tool tilt angle, have been used in this study. The
impact toughness, and hardness of FS-welded AA6061-T6 joints were fabricated using an indigenously designed FSW
has also been investigated. machine with computer numeral control in position control

Fig. 2 Conceptual diagram of

simple cylindrical tool
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

was performed on Vickers hardness test machine (Make

Shimadzu and model HMV-2T) with 0.05-kg load for 15 s.
The hardness was measured at the top surface of the weld.
Three readings were taken in total, out of which two were
taken near the top and bottom edge, whereas the third one at
the middle of the hardness sample. The hardness value was
obtained by averaging the three readings. The results are pre-
sented in Table 4 along with respective parameters. For exam-
ple, with tapered threaded pin profile, rotational speed of
1000 rpm, welding speed of 50 mm/min, and tilt angle of
2°, ultimate tensile strength of 249.38 MPa, impact toughness
of 10 J, and hardness of 64 HV were achieved. Furthermore, it
can be seen that highest UTS of 288.10 MPa, impact tough-
ness of 14.73 J, and hardness of 103 HV have been achieved
Fig. 3 Welded sample at rotational speed of 1150 rpm, welding speed of 70 mm/min,
tilt angle of 3°, and with simple cylindrical tool. These values
are 92 % of UTS, 87 % of impact toughness, and 95 % of
mode. The backing plate used in the experiments was made of hardness as compared to parent material.
cost iron. The entire welds have the same length of 120 mm.
After each experiment, the workpiece was labeled precisely.
For example, a friction stir weld, produced by simple cylin- 3 Experimental design
drical tool pin profile with rotational speed of 1150 rpm,
welding speed of 70 mm/min, and tilt angle of 3°, is shown Trial runs were performed before the experimentation to iden-
in Fig. 3. tify the FSW parameters that effect the mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of the welded joints were eval- of friction stir-welded AA6061-T6. Based on these runs, the
uated by UTS, impact toughness, and hardness. The samples important FSW parameters that are used in the current re-
for UTS, impact toughness, and hardness were prepared per- search are tool pin profile, rotational speed, welding speed,
pendicular to the direction of weld as shown in Fig. 4. The and tool tilt angle. RSM with central composite rotatable de-
UTS of the welded plates was evaluated according to ASTM sign was used in this investigation. Central composite rotat-
E8M-04. Three samples from each welded plate were tested, able design requires five levels for each parameter. The upper
and average was calculated to minimize error. The UTS sam- and lower limits of the parameters were chosen in such a way
ples were extracted to the required dimensions as shown in that the resulting weld is free from defects. The upper limit of
Fig. 5. The prepared samples were tested on universal testing the parameters was coded as +2 and the lower limit was coded
machine with a capacity of 500 kN. The crosshead speed was as −2. The other coded values were calculated using the fol-
1 mm/min during testing. For evaluation of impact toughness lowing equation:
of the joints, ASTM E23-04 guidelines were followed. .
Charpy impact samples were prepared according to the di- X i ¼ 2½2X −ðX max þ X min Þ ðX max −X min Þ ð1Þ
mensions shown in Fig. 6. The impact test was conducted
on pendulum-type machine (Make Zwick and model where Xi in the above equation is the resulting coded value of
HIT50P) with maximum capacity of 50 J. The hardness test a variable X, X is any value of the variable from Xmin to Xmax,

Fig. 4 Position of samples

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 5 Sample for tensile test

and Xmin is the lower and Xmax is the upper limit of the vari- The values of the coefficients can be calculated by regres-
able. The parameters with levels are shown in Table 3. sion analysis with the help of following equations [54]:
Overall, 30 experiments with four factors and five levels X XX
were performed, as shown in Table 4. These experiments were bo ¼ 0:142857 ðY Þ−0:035 714 ðX ii Y Þ ð4Þ
calculated by the following relation [53]: X
bi ¼ 0:041667 ðX i Y Þ ð5Þ
No: of experiments ¼ 2n þ 2n þ nc ð2Þ X XX X
bii ¼ 0:03125 ðX ii Y Þ þ 0:003 72 ðX ii Y Þ–0:035 714 ðY Þ
where n is the number of selected factors and nc is the
ð6Þ
number of experiments on center points. The value of nc varies
X
from 4 to 6. In this research, the numbers of selected factors bi j ¼ 0:0625 ðX i Y Þ ð7Þ
(n) were 4 and number of experiments on center points (nc)
were 6. For four factors, the second-order polynomial could be
expressed as

UTSðorÞITðorÞH ¼ b0 þ b1 P þ b2 N þ b3 S þ b4 T þ b11 P2
4 Results and discussions þ b22 N 2 þ b33 S 2 þ b44 T 2 þ b12 PN
ð8Þ
4.1 Development of mathematical models þ b13 PS þ b14 PT þ b23 NS þ b24 NT
þ b34 ST
A mathematical model was developed to predict mechanical
properties including ultimate tensile strength, impact tough- The coefficients of the regression model for UTS, impact
ness, and hardness of FS-welded AA6061-T6 at different toughness, and hardness were calculated at confidence level of
welding conditions. The UTS, impact toughness (IT), and 95 % using Design-Expert software (version 9.0). The sum-
hardness (H) of the FS-welded joints are function of tool pin mary of model statistics indicated that quadratic is best sug-
profile (P), rotational speed (N), welding speed (S), and tool gested; therefore, it has been used for predicting the responses.
tilt angle (T). The quadratic regression equation to represent The final regression models for UTS, impact toughness, and
the 3D response surface is given by hardness are given in Eqs. (9), (10), and (11), respectively.
X X X Ultimate tensile strength ¼ 276:62 þ 14:96ðPÞ−1:18ðN Þ−7:32ðS Þ
Y ¼ b0 þ bi x i þ bii x2i þ bi j x i x j ð3Þ
þ 0:21ðT Þ þ 3:79ðPÞðN Þ þ 8:07ðPÞðS Þ
where Y is the response; the term b0 is the mean of þ 0:46ðPÞðT Þ þ 9:35ðN ÞðS Þ
 
responses; and the terms bi, bii, and bij are the coefficients þ 0:32ðN ÞðT Þ þ 3:42ðS ÞðT Þ−30:86 P2
of responses and it depends on the respective main and  2  2  2
 3:40 N −3:01 S −4:59 T
interaction effects of the parameters. xi and xj are the
ð9Þ
coded independent variables.

Fig. 6 Sample for impact

toughness
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 3 FSW parameters with

levels Parameters Levels

−2 −1 0 +1 +2

Pin profile, P SS TT SC CT ST
Rotational speed, N (rpm) 850 1000 1150 1300 1450
Welding speed, S (mm/min) 30 50 70 90 110
Tilt angle, T 1° 2° 3° 4° 5°

Table 4 Experimental design

matrix Experiment Input parameters Output responses
number
Rotational Welding speed Tilt Pin UTS Impact Hardness
speed (rpm) (mm/min) angle profile (MPa) toughness (HV)
(J)

1 1000 50 2° TT 249.38 10 64
2 1300 50 2° TT 211.26 8.6 55
3 1000 90 2° TT 180.41 9.55 59
4 1000 50 4° TT 244.49 7.81 61
5 1000 50 2° CT 258.37 9.24 79
6 1300 90 4° CT 261.50 9.4 70
7 1000 90 4° CT 252.07 8.82 74
8 1300 50 4° CT 253.44 7.6 69
9 1300 90 2° CT 255.93 11.68 78
10 1300 90 4° TT 209.59 12 61
11 1000 50 4° CT 250.46 13.5 68
12 1000 90 2° CT 255.44 13.31 74
13 1000 90 4° TT 183.81 9.65 57
14 1300 50 2° CT 254.28 14.22 81
15 1300 50 4° TT 187.38 10.8 53
16 1300 90 2° TT 198.06 9.6 67
17 1450 70 3° SC 272.99 11.23 81
18 850 70 3° SC 265.62 10.95 89
19 1150 110 3° SC 255.00 11.64 97
20 1150 30 3° SC 286.72 12.99 88
21 1150 70 5° SC 270.88 13.49 76
22 1150 70 1° SC 258.18 13.86 83
23 1150 70 3° ST 154.95 10.85 62
24 1150 70 3° SS 164.00 9.56 51
25 1150 70 3° SC 288.10 14.13 98
26 1150 70 3° SC 286.02 13.98 89
27 1150 70 3° SC 264.65 13.47 103
28 1150 70 3° SC 283.92 13.4 95
29 1150 70 3° SC 253.04 14.73 91
30 1150 70 3° SC 283.99 14.21 101
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Impact toughness ¼ 13:99 þ 1:08ðPÞ þ 0:14ðN Þ−0:17ðS Þ In case of UTS, P and P2 are significant model terms; for
 0:33ðPÞðN Þ þ 0:45ðPÞðS Þ−0:37ðN ÞðS Þ impact toughness, P, PS, N2, S2, and D2; and for hardness, P,
  N2, T2, and D2 are the significant model terms. Coefficient
 0:32ðN ÞðT Þ þ 0:16ðS ÞðT Þ−1:46 P2 of determination (R2) is another criteria used to evaluate
   
 0:74 N 2 −0:43 S 2 the adequacy of a model. For an ideal model, the value of
ð10Þ R2 is unity. For UTS, impact toughness, and hardness, the
values of R2 are 0.85, 0.92, and 0.84, respectively.
Adequate precision measures the signal-to-noise ratio,
Hardness ¼ 96:17 þ 5:75ðPÞ−0:75ðN Þ þ 1:17ðS Þ−2:42ðT Þ
and its value more than 4 is desirable. For UTS, impact
 0:75ðPÞðS Þ−1:13ðPÞðT Þ þ 1:63ðN ÞðS Þ toughness, and hardness, the values of adequate precision
        are 10.59, 14.67, and 9.72, respectively, which indicates
 11:83 P2 − 4:71 N 2 −2:83 S 2 −6:08 T 2
an adequate signal. In addition to ANOVA, normal plot of
ð11Þ residuals and graph of actual vs. predicted values have
also been drawn. The normal plot of residuals is used to
verify normality assumptions, whereas the graph of pre-
4.2 Adequacy of the models dicted vs. actual values demonstrates the prediction capa-
bility of developed model [53]. The normal plots of resid-
Adequacy measures the fitness of the proposed model to pre- uals of the UTS, impact toughness, and hardness are
dict the output response. The adequacy of the developed shown in Fig. 7a–c. All points lie on the line which
models was evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). indicates that the error is normally distributed. The graphs
The ANOVA results for UTS, impact toughness, and hardness of predicted vs. actual values for UTS, impact toughness,
are given in Tables 5, 6, and 7, respectively. The results show and hardness are shown in Fig. 8a–c. The points lie close
that all the three models are significant. The model terms for to the actual values which show that the predicted values
which the p value is less than 0.05 are significant model terms. are in good agreement with actual values.

Table 5 ANOVA for ultimate

tensile strength Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value

Model 35,748.50 14 2,553.46 5.891 0.0008

P 5,369.92 1 5,369.92 12.389 0.0031
N 33.26 1 33.26 0.077 0.7856
S 1,285.98 1 1,285.98 2.967 0.1055
T 1.04 1 1.04 0.002 0.9615
PN 229.69 1 229.69 0.530 0.4778
PS 1,040.97 1 1,040.97 2.402 0.1420
PT 3.34 1 3.34 0.008 0.9312
NS 1,399.88 1 1,399.88 3.230 0.0925
NT 1.67 1 1.67 0.004 0.9514
ST 186.66 1 186.66 0.431 0.5216
P2 26,115.79 1 26,115.79 60.254 0.0001
N2 317.12 1 317.12 0.732 0.4058
S2 248.65 1 248.65 0.574 0.4605
T2 578.68 1 578.68 1.335 0.2660
Residual 6,501.40 15 433.43
Lack of fit 5,474.48 10 547.45 2.665 0.1454
Pure error 1,026.92 5 205.38
Correlation total 42,249.90 29
Standard deviation 20.82 R-squared 0.8461
Mean 243.13 Adjusted R-squared 0.7025
Coefficient of variation percent 8.56 Predicted R-squared 0.2187
Press 33,011.77 Adequate precision 10.593
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 6 ANOVA for impact

toughness Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value

Model 107.25 14 7.66 12.85 <0.0001

P 28.04 1 28.03 47.04 <0.0001
N 0.48 1 0.47 0.79 0.3856
S 0.69 1 0.68 1.15 0.3000
T 0.10 1 0.10 0.17 0.6858
PN 1.79 1 1.79 3.01 0.1031
PS 3.29 1 3.29 5.52 0.0328
PT 0.24 1 0.24 0.40 0.5352
NS 2.19 1 2.19 3.67 0.0745
NT 1.67 1 1.67 2.81 0.1142
ST 0.38 1 0.38 0.64 0.4345
P2 58.60 1 58.60 98.32 <0.0001
N2 15.07 1 15.03 25.22 0.0002
S2 5.17 1 5.17 8.67 0.0100
T2 0.24 1 0.24 0.40 0.5326
Residual 8.93 15 0.59
Lack of fit 7.70 10 0.77 3.12 0.1104
Pure error 1.23 5 0.24
Correlation total 116.19 29
Standard deviation 0.77 R-squared 0.9231
Mean 11.80 Adjusted R-squared 0.8512
Coefficient of variation percent 6.54 Predicted R-squared 0.6027
Press 46.16 Adequate precision 14.670

Table 7 ANOVA for hardness

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value

Model 5,630.71 14 402.19 5.48 0.0011

P 793.5 1 793.5 10.81 0.0050
N 13.5 1 13.5 0.18 0.6740
S 32.66 1 32.66 0.44 0.5147
T 140.16 1 140.16 1.91 0.1871
PN 4 1 4 0.054 0.8185
PS 9 1 9 0.12 0.7310
PT 20.25 1 20.25 0.27 0.6069
NS 42.25 1 42.25 0.57 0.4596
NT 9 1 9 0.12 0.7310
ST 9 1 9 0.12 0.7310
P2 3,840.76 1 3,840.76 52.37 <0.0001
N2 608.04 1 608.04 8.29 0.0115
S2 220.19 1 220.19 3.002 0.1036
T2 1,015.04 1 1,015.04 13.84 0.0021
Residual 1,100.08 15 73.33
Lack of fit 947.25 10 94.72 3.098 0.1118
Pure error 152.83 5 30.56
Correlation total 6,730.8 29
Standard deviation 8.56 R-squared 0.8366
Mean 75.80 Adjusted R-squared 0.6840
Coefficient of variation percent 11.30 Predicted R-squared 0.1567
Press 5,676.24 Adequate precision 9.716
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 7 Normal plot of residuals

for impact toughness

(a) Normal plot of residuals for ultimate tensile strength

(b) Normal plot of residuals for impact toughness

(c) Normal plot of residuals for hardness

 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 8 Predicted vs. actual

(a) Predicted vs. actual for ultimate tensile strength

(b) Predicted vs. actual for impact toughness

(c) Predicted vs. actual for hardness

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

4.3 3D response surface plots for ultimate tensile strength welding speed up to maximum and then decreases. The effect
of rotational speed and tool tilt angle has been demonstrated in
The response surfaces shown in Fig. 9 depict the effect of Fig. 10e. It is clear from the figure that impact toughness
parameters on ultimate tensile strength. The figure shows the increases with the increase in rotational speed up to maximum
relationship between two parameters at the center value of the value and then decreases, while impact toughness increases
other two parameters. Figure 9a shows the effect of tool pin with the increase in tool tilt angle. Figure 10f shows the effect
profile and rotational speed. It is clear from the plot that simple of welding speed and tool tilt angle on impact toughness. It is
cylindrical pin profile produces maximum ultimate tensile observed that impact toughness increases with the increase in
strength, whereas it is minimum for simple tapered pin profile. welding speed and tilt angle up to maximum value and then
Figure 9b describes the effect of tool pin profile and welding decreases with the increase in these two parameters.
speed. The graph indicates that simple cylindrical tool gives
the maximum ultimate tensile strength; however, ultimate ten- 4.5 3D response surface plots for hardness
sile strength decreases with the increase in welding speed.
Figure 9c presents the effect of tool pin profile and tool tilt The 3D response surface plots shown in Fig. 11 present the
angle. It can be seen that the ultimate tensile strength is max- effect of input parameters on weld hardness. Figure 11a rep-
imum for simple cylindrical tool pin profile, whereas the effect resents the effect of tool pin profile and rotational speed. It is
of tilt angle is nearly constant. The effects of rotational speed clear from the plot that simple cylindrical pin profile produces
and welding speed on ultimate tensile strength have been pro- maximum hardness and it increases up to maximum value
vided in Fig. 9d. The ultimate tensile strength is maximum at with the increase in rotational speed and then decreases.
the lower values of rotational speed and welding speed. As the Figure 11b describes the effect of tool pin profile and welding
rotational speed and welding speed increase, the ultimate ten- speed. The figure indicates that simple cylindrical tool gives
sile strength decreases. Figure 9e depicts the effects of rota- the maximum hardness; however, it increases up to maximum
tional speed and tool tilt angle. It is clear that ultimate tensile value with the increase in welding speed and then decreases.
strength increases with the increase in rotational speed and tilt Figure 11c depicts the effect of tool pin profile and tool tilt
angle up to maximum value and then decreases with the in- angle. It is clear that the hardness is maximum for simple
crease of these two parameters. The effects of welding speed cylindrical tool pin profile, whereas it increases up to maxi-
and tool tilt angle on ultimate tensile strength have been pre- mum value with the increase in tool tilt angle and then de-
sented in Fig. 9f. It can be seen that with the increase in creases. The effect of rotational speed and welding speed on
welding speed, ultimate tensile strength decreases, whereas hardness has been shown in Fig. 11d. It can be seen that
with the increase in tilt angle, the ultimate tensile strength hardness increases with the increase in rotational speed and
increases up to maximum value and then decreases with in- welding speed up to maximum and then decreases. Figure 11e
crease in tilt angle. reflects the effect of rotational speed and tool tilt angle. It is
clear from the figure that hardness increases with the increase
4.4 3D response surface plots for impact toughness in rotational speed and tilt angle up to maximum value and
then decreases with the increase of these two parameters.
The response surface plots in Fig. 10 describe the effect of Figure 11f demonstrates the effect of welding speed and tool
input parameters on impact toughness. Figure 10a demon- tilt angle on hardness. It is observed that hardness increases
strates the effect of tool pin profile and rotational speed on with the increase in welding speed and tilt angle up to maxi-
impact toughness. It is clear that simple cylindrical pin profile mum value and then decreases with the increases in these two
produces weld with maximum impact toughness and it in- parameters.
creases with the increase in rotational speed up to maximum
and then decreases. Impact toughness, on the other hand, is 4.6 Optimum FSW parameter values
minimum for simple tapered pin profile. Figure 10b reflects
the effect of tool pin profile and welding speed. The figure The optimum friction stir-welding parameters to achieve max-
indicates that the effect of welding speed on impact toughness imum tensile strength, impact toughness, and hardness are
is nearly constant while simple cylindrical tool gives the max- shown in Table 8. It is evident from the table that the highest
imum impact toughness. The effect of tool pin profile and tool ultimate tensile strength is achieved at rotational speed of
tilt angle has been described in Fig. 10c. It is evident that the 1150 rpm, welding speed of 70 mm/min, tool tilt angle of
impact toughness is maximum for simple cylindrical tool pin 3°, and with simple cylindrical pin profile. Interestingly, the
profile, whereas tilt angle has no effect on impact toughness. highest impact toughness and hardness values were achieved
Figure 10d presents the effect of rotational speed and welding at the same FSW parameters. These results are in close agree-
speed on impact toughness. The figure indicates that impact ment with the previous work of İpekoğlu et al. [21], who
toughness increases with the increase in rotational speed and identified that the hardness directly affects tensile strength.
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

(a) 3D surface UTS vs. tool pin profile and rotational (b) 3D surface UTS vs. tool pin profile and welding
speed speed

(c) 3D surface UTS vs. tool pin profile and tool tilt angle (d) 3D surface UTS vs. rotational speed and welding
speed

(e) 3D surface UTS vs. rotational speed and tool tilt (f) 3D surface UTS vs. welding speed and tool tilt angle
angle
Fig. 9 Effect of parameters on UTS
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

(a) 3D surface impact toughness vs. tool pin profile and (b) 3D surface impact toughness vs. tool pin profile and
rotational speed welding speed

(c) 3D surface impact toughness vs. tool pin profile and (d) 3D surface impact toughness vs. rotational speed and
tool tilt angle welding speed

(e) 3D surface impact toug hness vs. rotational speed (f) 3D surface impact toughness vs. welding speed and
and tool tilt angle tool tilt angle
Fig. 10 Effect of parameters on impact toughness
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

(a) 3D surface hardness vs. tool pin profile and (b) 3D surface hardness vs. tool pin profile and welding
rotational speed speed

(c) 3D surface hardness vs. to ol pin profile and tool tilt (d) 3D surface hardness vs. rotational speed and welding
angle speed

(e) 3D surface hardness vs. rotational speed and tool tilt (f) 3D surface hardness vs. welding speed and tool tilt
angle angle
Fig. 11 Effect of parameters on hardness
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 8 Optimum FSW parameters values against output responses were also performed, which confirmed that the empirical rela-
Input parameters tions are accurate within 95 % confidence level. The following
Rotational speed (rpm) 1150 conclusion can be drawn from this investigation:
Welding speed (mm/min) 70
Tilt angle 3°
1) RSM with central composite design was successfully
Pin profile Simple cylindrical
used to develop a mathematical model for predicting me-
chanical properties including ultimate tensile strength,
Output responses
impact toughness, and hardness of FS-welded AA6061-
UTS (MPa) 288.10
T6 joints.
Impact toughness (J) 14.73
2) The optimum conditions of process parameters, tool pin
Hardness (HV) 103
profile, rotational speed, welding speed, and tool tilt an-
gle, by using developed mathematical model, helped to
achieve 92 % ultimate tensile strength, 87 % impact
5 Confirmation test toughness, and 95 % hardness of the parent material.
3) The tool pin profile has a significant influence on the
Three confirmation tests were carried out in order to validate mechanical properties of the FS-welded joints. It was ob-
the regression models. The values on which the confirmation served that simple cylindrical tool pin profile produced
tests were performed were within the designed space. joints with maximum mechanical properties.
However, the confirmation tests were performed on values 4) The rotational speed has been identified as more signifi-
different from central composite design matrix. The experi- cant parameter than welding speed for ultimate tensile
mental and predicted values of the confirmation tests are pre- strength and impact toughness, whereas for hardness,
sented in Table 9. The error between experimental and pre- welding speed has been identified as more significant
dicted values is within 95 % confidence interval, which ver- parameter than rotational speed.
ifies that the model is adequate and both the predicted and 5) The ultimate tensile strength of the friction stir weld de-
experimental values are in good agreement with each other. creases with the increases in rotational speed and welding
Therefore, it can be concluded that the developed models are speed. Impact toughness and hardness, on the other hand,
applicable for all values within the designed space. increased up to maximum with the increases in rotational
speed and welding speed and then decreases.
6) At rotational speed of 1150 rpm, welding speed of
6 Conclusions 70 mm/min, tool tilt angle of 3°, and with simple cylin-
drical pin profile, the highest ultimate tensile strength,
Aluminum alloy 6061-T6 has been joined by FSW. The me- impact toughness, and hardness were achieved.
chanical properties including ultimate tensile strength, hardness,
and impact toughness were investigated using RSM with central The research findings and developed mathematical models
composite design. Empirical relations were developed to predict can be successfully used by the practitioners to predict the
the mechanical properties of the weld. Three confirmation tests mechanical strength of AA6061-T6 before welding.

Table 9 Confirmation test results

Experiment Input parameters Output responses Experimental Predicted Percent error

Rotational Welding speed Tilt Pin profile First Second Third Average
speed (rpm) (mm/min) angle reading reading reading

1 1050 80 2.5 SC UTS (MPa) 267.98 268.92 270.12 269.01 266.00 1.13
Impact toughness (J) 10.38 10.98 10.38 10.58 11.13 4.94
Hardness (HV) 87.00 92.00 88.00 89.00 93.00 4.30
2 1280 55 3.2 TT UTS (MPa) 224.05 225.52 225.46 225.01 227.00 0.88
Impact toughness (J) 14.66 14.61 15.02 14.76 14.23 3.72
Hardness (HV) 69.00 73.00 71.00 71.00 69.00 2.90
3 1100 75 3.8 CT UTS (MPa) 252.00 253.35 253.65 253.00 256.00 1.17
Impact toughness (J) 11.45 11.02 11.89 11.45 12.05 4.97
Hardness (HV) 88.00 85.00 88.00 87.00 83.00 4.81
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

References 20. Lakshminarayanan AK, Balasubramanian V, Elangovan K (2009)

Effect of welding processes on tensile properties of AA6061
aluminium alloy joints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40(3–4):
1. Ericsson M, Sandström R (2003) Influence of welding speed on the 286–296
fatigue of friction stir welds, and comparison with MIG and TIG. 21. İpekoğlu G, Erim S, Kıral BG, Çam G (2013) Investigation into the
Int J Fatigue 25(12):1379–1387 effect of temper condition on friction stir weldability of AA6061
2. Taban E, Kaluc E (2007) Comparison between microstructure char- Al-alloy plates. Kovove Mater 51(3):155–163
acteristics and joint performance of 5086-H32 aluminium alloy 22. Çam G, İpekoğlu G, Tarık Serindağ H (2014) Effects of use of
welded by MIG, TIG and friction stir welding processes. Kovove higher strength interlayer and external cooling on properties of fric-
Mater 45(5):241–248 tion stir welded AA6061-T6 joints. Sci Technol Weld Join 19(8):
3. Çam G, Koçak M (1998) Progress in joining of advanced materials. 715–720
Int Mater Rev 43(1):1–44 23. İpekoğlu G, Erim S, Çam G (2014) Investigation into the influence
4. Çam G, Koçak M (1998) Progress in joining of advanced materials: of post-weld heat treatment on the friction stir welded AA6061 Al-
part 1: solid state joining, fusion joining, and joining of intermetal- alloy plates with different temper conditions. Metall Mater Trans A
lics. Sci Technol Weld Join 3(3):105–126 45(2):864–877
5. Cam G, Koçak M (1998) Progress in joining of advanced materials. 24. İpekoğlu G, Gören Kıral B, Erim S, Çam G (2012) Investigation of
Part 2: joining of metal matrix composites and joining of other the effect of temper condition on friction stir weldability of AA7075
advanced materials. Sci Technol Weld Join 3(4):159–175 Al-alloy plates. Mater Technol 46(6):627–632
6. Pakdil M, Cam G, Kocak M, Erim S (2011) Microstructural and 25. Xu W, Liu J, Zhu H, Fu L (2013) Influence of welding parameters
mechanical characterization of laser beam welded AA6056 Al-al- and tool pin profile on microstructure and mechanical properties
loy. Mater Sci Eng A 528(24):7350–7356 along the thickness in a friction stir welded aluminum alloy.
7. Çam G, Güçlüer S, Çakan A, Serindag HT (2009) Mechanical Mater Des 47:599–606
properties of friction stir butt‐welded Al‐5086 H32 plate. Mater 26. Elangovan K, Balasubramanian V (2008) Influences of tool pin
Werkst 40(8):638–642 profile and tool shoulder diameter on the formation of friction stir
8. Cam G (2011) Friction stir welded structural materials: beyond Al- processing zone in AA6061 aluminium alloy. Mater Des 29(2):
alloys. Int Mater Rev 56(1):1–48 362–373
9. Çam G, Mistikoglu S (2014) Recent developments in friction stir 27. Palanivel R, Mathews PK, Murugan N, Dinaharan I (2012) Effect
welding of Al-alloys. J Mater Eng Perform 23(6):1936–1953 of tool rotational speed and pin profile on microstructure and tensile
10. Mironov S, Inagaki K, Sato YS, Kokawa H (2015) Effect of strength of dissimilar friction stir welded AA5083-H111 and
welding temperature on microstructure of friction-stir welded alu- AA6351-T6 aluminum alloys. Mater Des 40:7–16
minum alloy 1050. Metall Mater Trans A 46(2):783–790 28. Salari E, Jahazi M, Khodabandeh A, Ghasemi-Nanesa H (2014)
11. Wu CS, Zhang WB, Lei SHI, Chen MA (2012) Visualization and Influence of tool geometry and rotational speed on mechanical
simulation of plastic material flow in friction stir welding of 2024 properties and defect formation in friction stir lap welded 5456
aluminium alloy plates. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 22(6): aluminum alloy sheets. Mater Des 58:381–389
1445–1451 29. Ilangovan M, Boopathy SR, Balasubramanian V (2015) Effect of
12. Kumar R, Singh K, Pandey S (2012) Process forces and heat input tool pin profile on microstructure and tensile properties of friction
as function of process parameters in AA5083 friction stir welds. stir welded dissimilar AA6061-AA5086 aluminium alloy joints.
Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 22(2):288–298 Def Technol 11:174–184
13. Saeidi M, Manafi B, Givi MB, Faraji G (2015) Mathematical 30. Mohanty HK, Mahapatra MM, Kumar P, Biswas P, Mandal NR
modeling and optimization of friction stir welding process param- (2012) Modeling the effects of tool shoulder and probe profile ge-
eters in AA5083 and AA7075 aluminum alloy joints. Proc Inst ometries on friction stirred aluminum welds using response surface
Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf. doi:10.1177/0954405415573697 methodology. J Mar Sci Appl 11(4):493–503
14. Bozkurt Y, Salman S, Çam G (2013) Effect of welding parameters 31. Bilgin MB, Meran C (2012) The effect of tool rotational and tra-
on lap shear tensile properties of dissimilar friction stir spot welded verse speed on friction stir weldability of AISI 430 ferritic stainless
AA 5754-H22/2024-T3 joints. Sci Technol Weld Join 18(4): steels. Mater Des 33:376–383
337–345 32. Movahedi M, Kokabi AH, Reihani SS, Najafi H (2012) Effect of
15. İpekoğlu G, Çam G (2014) Effects of initial temper condition and tool travel and rotation speeds on weld zone defects and joint
postweld heat treatment on the properties of dissimilar friction-stir- strength of aluminium steel lap joints made by friction stir welding.
welded joints between AA7075 and AA6061 aluminum alloys. Sci Technol Weld Join 17(2):162–167
Metall Mater Trans A 45(7):3074–3087 33. Kasman Ş (2013) Multi-response optimization using the Taguchi-
16. Gibson BT, Lammlein DH, Prater TJ, Longhurst WR, Cox CD, based grey relational analysis: a case study for dissimilar friction stir
Ballun MC, Dharmaraj KJ, Cook GE, Strauss AM (2014) Friction butt welding of AA6082-T6/AA5754-H111. Int J Adv Manuf
stir welding: process, automation, and control. J Manuf Process Technol 68(1–4):795–804
16(1):56–73 34. Aydin H, Bayram A, Esme U, Kazancoglu Y, Guven O (2010)
17. Moreira PMGP, De Figueiredo MAV, De Castro PMST (2007) Application of grey relation analysis (GRA) and Taguchi method
Fatigue behaviour of FSW and MIG weldments for two aluminium for the parametric optimization of friction stir welding (FSW) pro-
alloys. Theor Appl Fract Mech 48(2):169–177 cess. Mater Tehnol 44(4):205–211
18. İpekoğlu G, Erim S, Çam G (2014) Effects of temper condition and 35. Jayaraman M, Sivasubramanian R, Balasubramanian V,
post weld heat treatment on the microstructure and mechanical Lakshminarayanan AK (2009) Optimization of process parameters
properties of friction stir butt-welded AA7075 Al alloy plates. Int for friction stir welding of cast aluminium alloy A319 by Taguchi
J Adv Manuf Technol 70(1–4):201–213 method. J Sci Ind Res 68(1):36
19. Zhao J, Jiang F, Jian H, Wen K, Jiang L, Chen X (2010) 36. Kasman Ş, Kahraman F (2014) Investigations for the effect of
Comparative investigation of tungsten inert gas and friction stir parameters on the weld performance of AA 5083-H111 joined
welding characteristics of Al–Mg–Sc alloy plates. Mater Des 31(1): by friction stir welding. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf
306–311 228(8):937–946
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

37. Gadakh VS, Kumar A (2013) Friction stir welding window for 46. Hwang YM, Kang ZW, Chiou YC, Hsu HH (2008) Experimental
AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng study on temperature distributions within the workpiece during
Manuf. doi:10.1177/0954405413510289 friction stir welding of aluminum alloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
38. Ahmadi H, Arab NM, Ghasemi FA (2014) Optimization of process 48(7):778–787
parameters for friction stir lap welding of carbon fibre reinforced 47. Roshan SB, Jooibari MB, Teimouri R, Asgharzadeh-Ahmadi G,
thermoplastic composites by Taguchi method. J Mech Sci Technol Falahati-Naghibi M, Sohrabpoor H (2013) Optimization of
28(1):279–284 friction stir welding process of AA7075 aluminum alloy to
39. Liu HJ, Hou JC, Guo H (2013) Effect of welding speed on micro- achieve desirable mechanical properties using ANFIS models
structure and mechanical properties of self-reacting friction stir and simulated annealing algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
welded 6061-T6 aluminum alloy. Mater Des 50:872–878 69(5–8):1803–1818
40. Li D, Yang X, Cui L, He F, Shen H (2014) Effect of welding 48. Azam M, Jahanzaib M, Wasim A, Hussain S (2015) Surface rough-
parameters on microstructure and mechanical properties of ness modeling using RSM for HSLA steel by coated carbide tools.
AA6061-T6 butt welded joints by stationary shoulder friction stir Int J Adv Manuf Technol 78(5–8):1031–1041
welding. Mater Des 64:251–260 49. Elangovan K, Balasubramanian V, Babu S (2009) Predicting tensile
41. Rajakumar S, Muralidharan C, Balasubramanian V (2011) strength of friction stir welded AA6061 aluminium alloy joints by a
Predicting tensile strength, hardness and corrosion rate of friction mathematical model. Mater Des 30(1):188–193
stir welded AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy joints. Mater Des 32(5): 50. Heidarzadeh A, Khodaverdizadeh H, Mahmoudi A, Nazari E
2878–2890 (2012) Tensile behavior of friction stir welded AA6061-T4 alumi-
42. Fujii H, Cui L, Maeda M, Nogi K (2006) Effect of tool shape on num alloy joints. Mater Des 37:166–173
mechanical properties and microstructure of friction stir welded
51. Lotfi AH, Nourouzi S (2014) Predictions of the optimized friction
aluminum alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 419(1):25–31
stir welding process parameters for joining AA7075-T6 aluminum
43. Heidarzadeh A, Saeid T, Khodaverdizadeh H, Mahmoudi A, Nazari
alloy using preheating system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(9–12):
E (2013) Establishing a mathematical model to predict the tensile
1717–1737
strength of friction stir welded pure copper joints. Metall Mater
Trans B 44(1):175–183 52. Ilkhichi AR, Soufi R, Hussain G, Barenji RV, Heidarzadeh A
44. Shojaeefard MH, Behnagh RA, Akbari M, Givi MKB, Farhani F (2015) Establishing mathematical models to predict grain size and
(2013) Modelling and Pareto optimization of mechanical properties hardness of the friction stir-welded AA 7020 aluminum alloy joints.
of friction stir welded AA7075/AA5083 butt joints using neural Metall Mater Trans B 46(1):357–365
network and particle swarm algorithm. Mater Des 44:190–198 53. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments, 5th
45. Okuyucu H, Kurt A, Arcaklioglu E (2007) Artificial neural network edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York
application to the friction stir welding of aluminum plates. Mater 54. Box GE, Hunter WG, Hunter JS (2005) Statistics for experimenters
Des 28(1):78–84 II. Wiley, New York