See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220650643

Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis for

friction stir welded AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy
joints

Article in International Journal of Manufacturing Research · January 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJMR.2011.041127 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

5 58

3 authors, including:

Rajakumar Selvarajan
Annamalai University
43 PUBLICATIONS 651 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

“Exploratory studies on diffusion bonding of aero engine material View project

Novel Strategies for Joining Hybrid Structures By Ultrasonic Welding Techniques View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajakumar Selvarajan on 15 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Manufacturing Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2011 215

Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis for

friction stir welded AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy joints

S. Rajakumar*
Center for Materials Joining & Research (CEMAJOR),
Department of Manufacturing Engineering,
Annamalai University,
Annamalainagar 608 002,
Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India
E-mail: srkcemajor@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author

C. Muralidharan
Department of Manufacturing Engineering,
Annamalai University,
Annamalainagar 608 002,
Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India

V. Balasubramanian
Center for Materials Joining & Research (CEMAJOR),
Department of Manufacturing Engineering,
Annamalai University,
Annamalainagar 608 002,
Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract: AA6061-aluminium alloy (Al–Mg–Si alloy) has gathered wide

acceptance in the fabrication of lightweight structures requiring a high
strength-to-weight ratio and good corrosion resistance. Friction Stir Welding
(FSW) process is an emerging solid state joining process in which the material
that is being welded does not melt and recast. The FSW process and tool
parameters play a major role in deciding the joint strength. In this paper,
relationship between the FSW parameters and the tensile strength of the joint
was established. Statistical tools such as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) were used to optimise the FSW
parameters.

[Received 7 February 2010; Revised 26 July 2010; Accepted 18 September 2010]

Keywords: FSW; friction stir welding; design of experiments; analysis of

variance; RSM; response surface methodology; SA; sensitivity analysis;
optimisation.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Rajakumar, S.,

Muralidharan, C. and Balasubramanian, V. (2011) ‘Response surfaces and
sensitivity analysis for friction stir welded AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy joints’,
Int. J. Manufacturing Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.215–235.

Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

216 S. Rajakumar et al.

Biographical notes: S. Rajakumar received his BE (Mechanical and

Production Engineering) and ME (Production Engineering) from Annamalai
University, Annamalai Nagar, India, in 1997 and 2002, respectively.
He is currently working as an Assistant Professor and Treasurer of Indian
Welding Society (Annamalai Nagar Chapter) Centre for Materials Joining and
Research (CEMAJOR) in the Department of Manufacturing Engineering,
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar India. He has published 13 papers
in international journals and five presentations in both national and
international conference proceedings. His areas of interest include metal joining
processes, optimisation techniques and micro electronics and mechanical
system.

C. Muralidharan is a Professor of Manufacturing Engineering at Annamalai

University, Annamalai Nagar, India. He obtained his Bachelor’s Degree from
Regional Engineering College, Bhopal, India, and Postgraduate Degree and
PhD from Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, India. He has 19 years of
teaching experience and has published technical papers in national and
international journals as well as international conference proceedings. His areas
of interest are total quality management, just-in-time production systems,
production and manufacturing management, quality management, supply chain
management and agile manufacturing.

V. Balasubramanian received his BE (Mechanical) from University of Madras,

ME (Production) from Anna University, Chennai, India, and PhD (Metallurgy)
from Indian Institute of Technology (Madras). He has published more than
120 papers in international journals and 80 presentations in both national
and international conferences in the field of materials joining. Currently, he is
the Director of Centre for Materials Joining and Research (CEMAJOR) and
Chairman of Indian Welding Society, Annamalai Nagar Chapter, Annamalai
University, India.

1 Introduction

Heat-treatable wrought aluminium–magnesium–silicon alloys conforming to AA6061-T6

are of moderate strength and possess excellent welding characteristics over the high
strength aluminium alloys (Thomas, 1991). Hence, alloys of this class are extensively
used in marine frames, pipelines, storage tanks and aircraft applications. Although
Al–Mg–Si alloys are readily weldable, they suffer from severe softening in the Heat
Affected Zone (HAZ) because of reversion (dissolution) of Mg2Si precipitates during
weld thermal cycle (Dawes, 1995). This type of mechanical impairment presents a major
problem in engineering design (Thomas and Nicholas, 1997). Compared to many of the
fusion welding processes that are routinely used for joining structural alloys, FSW is an
emerging solid state joining process in which the material that is being welded does not
melt and recast (Oosterkamp et al., 2004). Defect-free welds with good mechanical
properties have been made in a variety of aluminium alloys, even those previously
thought to be not weldable (Zeng et al., 2006). When alloys are friction stir welded, phase
transformations that occur during the cooling cycle of the weld are of a solid state type.
Due to the absence of parent metal melting, the new FSW process is observed to offer
several advantages over fusion welding (Flores, 1998). As the automation in the FSW
process increases, direct effect of the operator decreases and the precise setting of
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 217

parameters become much more important than manual welding processes (Enomoto,
1998).
To obtain high-quality welds in automated welding processes, selection of optimum
parameters should be performed according to engineering facts. Generally, welding
parameters are determined by trial and error, based on handbook values, and
manufacturers’ recommendations. However, this selection may not yield optimal or in
the vicinity of optimal welding performance. It may also cause additional energy and
material consumption and may also result in low-quality welding. Therefore, it is
important to study stability of welding parameters to achieve high-quality welding.
Predicting the effects of small changes in design parameters provide very important
information in engineering design. Therefore, by a mathematically modelled prediction
system, effect of any changes in the parameters on the overall design objective can be
determined. This kind of analysis is known as Design Sensitivity Analysis (DSA).
Basically, Sensitivity Analysis (SA) yields information about the increment and
decrement tendency of design objective function with respect to design parameters
(Lua and Secgin, 2007). There are very few studies (Kim et al., 2003; Gunaraj and
Murugan, 2000) in which SA is performed using mathematical model for different fusion
welding methods. The effect of FSW process parameters on tensile strength of aluminium
alloys are well documented in literature. Similarly, the influence of FSW tool parameters
on tensile properties of aluminium alloys are well reported in literature. However, there is
no literature available on the optimisation of FSW process and tool parameters on tensile
strength of aluminium alloys; hence, the present investigation was carried out and the
details are presented below.

2 Scheme of investigation

To achieve the desired objectives, the present investigation was planned as depicted in
the flow chart (Figure 1).

2.1 Identifying the important process parameters

From the literature (Dawes, 1995; Thomas and Nicholas, 1997; Oosterkamp et al., 2004;
Zeng et al., 2006; Flores, 1998) and the previous work done (Elangovan and
Balasubramanian, 2008, 2009) in our laboratory, the predominant factors that are having
greater influence on tensile strength of FSW process were identified. They are
• tool rotational speed
• welding (traverse) speed
• axial (downward) force
• shoulder diameter
• pin diameter
• tool hardness.
These are the primary process and tool parameters contributing to the frictional heat
generation and subsequently influencing the tensile properties of friction stir welded
aluminium alloy joints.
218 S. Rajakumar et al.

Figure 1 Flow chart for scheme of investigation

2.2 Finding the working limits of the parameters

The chemical composition of base metal used in this investigation is presented in
Table 1(a) and (b). Trial experiments were carried out using 5 mm-thick rolled plates of
AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy to find out the feasible working limits of FSW parameters.
The working range of each parameter was decided upon by inspecting the macrostructure
(cross-section of weld) for any visible defects such as tunnel defect, pinhole, kissing bond
and lazy S. Within the chosen working range of parameters, the joints are free from
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 219

defects. Either below or above the range of parameters, the joints contained defects.
Table 2 displays the macrographs to provide the evidence for fixing the feasible working
range of welding parameters. The chosen level of important process parameters and tool
parameters with their units and notations are presented in Table 3.

Table 1(a) Chemical composition (wt %) of base metal

Element Mg Mn Fe Si Cu Al
Base metal (6061-T6) 1.1 0.12 0.35 0.58 0.22 Bal

Table 1(b) Mechanical properties of base metal

Yield strength Ultimate tensile Vicker hardness at

Material (MPa) strength (MPa) Elongation (%) 0.05 kg load (Hv)
Base metal (6061-T6) 235 283 26.4 105

Table 2 Macrostructure observations of the AA6061 aluminium alloy (see online version
for colours)

Input Parameter Name of the

parameters range Macrostructure defect Probable reason
Rotational <800 rpm Tunnel defect In sufficient heat
speed generation and
Insufficient metal
transportation
Rotational >1300 rpm Pin hole Further increase in
speed turbulence of the
plasticised metal
Welding <30 mm/min Tunnel defect Excess heat input per unit
speed length of the weld and no
vertical movement of the
metal
Welding >130 mm/min Kissing Increase in welding speed
speed defect resulted in poor
plasticisation of metal
and associated defect
Axial force <2 kN Tunnel hole In sufficient axial force
and in adequate heat
generation
Axial force >11 kN Worm hole Additional axial force
leads to excess heat input
and thinning of the weld
zone
Shoulder <7 mm Pin hole Insufficient stirring butt
diameter surfaces could be directly
bonded without the
metallic bond between
oxide free surfaces in
the root part of the weld
220 S. Rajakumar et al.

Table 2 Macrostructure observations of the AA6061 aluminium alloy (see online version
for colours) (continued)

Input Parameter Name of the

parameters range Macrostructure defect Probable reason
Shoulder >21mm Pin hole Excessive heat input due
diameter to softening and work
hardening effect
Pin <2.5 mm Piping defect Asymptote heat
diameter generation and
insufficient metal
transportation
Pin >7 mm Tunnel defect Excessive heat input due
diameter to softening

Tool <33 HRc Pin hole Due to low frictional heat

hardness generation

Tool >56 HRc Worm hole High frictional heat

hardness generation

Table 3 Important FSW process parameters and their levels for AA6061 aluminium alloy

Factor levels
Factors Units Notation –2.378 –1 0 +1 +2.378
Tool rotational speed rpm N 862 1000 1100 1200 1337
Welding speed mm/min S 32.43 60 80 100 127.5
Axial force kN F 5.62 6 7 8 10.37
Tool shoulder diameter mm D 7.8 12 15 18 21
Pin diameter mm d 2.6 4 5 6 7.3
Tool hardness HRc H 33 40 45 50 56

2.3 Developing the experimental design matrix

By considering all the above conditions, the feasible limits of the parameters were chosen
in such a way that AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy should be welded without defects.
Central composite rotatable design of second order was found to be the most efficient
tool in RSM to establish the mathematical relation of the response surface using the
smallest possible number of experiments without losing its accuracy (Gunaraj and
Murugan, 1999). Due to wide range of factors, it was decided to use six factors, five
levels, central composite design matrix to optimise the experimental conditions. Table 3
presents the ranges of factors considered, and Table 4 shows the 52 set of coded
conditions used to form the design matrix. First 32 experimental conditions are derived
from half-factorial experimental design matrix (25 = 32). All the variables at the
intermediate (0) level constitute the centre points, whereas the combinations of each
process variable at either lowest (–2.378) or highest (+2.378) with the other 12 variables
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 221

of the intermediate levels constitute the star points. Thus, the 52 experimental runs
allowed the estimation of the linear, quadratic and two-way interactive effects of the
variables on the tensile strength of welded joints. The method of designing such matrix is
dealt elsewhere (Cochran and Cox, 1957; Johnson and Leona, 1964; Montgomery, 2007;
Box et al., 1978). For the convenience of recording and processing experimental data,
upper and lower levels of the factors have been coded as +2.378 and –2.378, respectively.
The coded values of any intermediate values can be calculated using the following
expression:
X i = 2[2 X − ( X max + X min )]/(X max – X min ) (1)

where
Xi: Required coded value of a variable X
X: Any value of the variable from Xmin to Xmax
Xmin: Lower level of the variable
Xmax: Highest level of the variable.

Table 4 Design matrix and experimental results

Output
Input parameter response
Tool Tool Tensile
rotational Welding Axial shoulder Pin Tool strength of Occurrence
Exp. speed speed force diameter diameter hardness welded joints of defect
No. (rpm) (mm/min) (kN) (mm) (mm) (HRc) (MPa) region
1 –1 –1 –1 –1 –1 –1 165 WN
2 1 –1 –1 –1 –1 1 179 WN
3 –1 1 –1 –1 –1 1 182 RS (TMAZ)
4 1 1 –1 –1 –1 –1 178 WN
5 –1 –1 1 –1 –1 1 191 AS (TMAZ)
6 1 –1 1 –1 –1 –1 195 AS (TMAZ)
7 –1 1 1 –1 –1 –1 191 AS (TMAZ)
8 1 1 1 –1 –1 1 202 AS (TMAZ)
9 –1 –1 –1 1 –1 1 184 RS (TMAZ)
10 1 –1 –1 1 –1 –1 190 AS (TMAZ)
11 –1 1 –1 1 –1 –1 180 WN
12 1 1 –1 1 –1 1 195 AS (TMAZ)
13 –1 –1 1 1 –1 –1 185 RS (TMAZ)
14 1 –1 1 1 –1 1 192 AS (TMAZ)
15 –1 1 1 1 –1 1 191 AS (TMAZ)
16 1 1 1 1 –1 –1 202 AS (TMAZ)
17 –1 –1 –1 –1 1 1 182 RS (TMAZ)
18 1 –1 –1 –1 1 –1 188 AS (TMAZ)
19 –1 1 –1 –1 1 –1 178 WN
222 S. Rajakumar et al.

Table 4 Design matrix and experimental results (continued)

Output
Input parameter response
Tool Tool Tensile
rotational Welding Axial shoulder Pin Tool strength of Occurrence
Exp. speed speed force diameter diameter hardness welded joints of defect
No. (rpm) (mm/min) (kN) (mm) (mm) (HRc) (MPa) region
20 1 1 –1 –1 1 1 193 AS (TMAZ)
21 –1 –1 1 –1 1 –1 184 RS (TMAZ)
22 1 –1 1 –1 1 1 191 AS (TMAZ)
23 –1 1 1 –1 1 1 194 AS (TMAZ)
24 1 1 1 –1 1 –1 202 AS (TMAZ)
25 –1 –1 –1 1 1 –1 191 AS (TMAZ)
26 1 –1 –1 1 1 1 202 AS (TMAZ)
27 –1 1 –1 1 1 1 198 AS (TMAZ)
28 1 1 –1 1 1 –1 206 AS (TMAZ)
29 –1 –1 1 1 1 1 172 WN
30 1 –1 1 1 1 –1 200 AS (TMAZ)
31 –1 1 1 1 1 –1 188 AS (TMAZ)
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 AS (TMAZ)
33 –2.378 0 0 0 0 0 187 AS (TMAZ)
34 2.378 0 0 0 0 0 207 AS (TMAZ)
35 0 –2.378 0 0 0 0 186 RS (TMAZ)
36 0 2.378 0 0 0 0 196 AS (TMAZ)
37 0 0 –2.378 0 0 0 188 AS (TMAZ)
38 0 0 2.378 0 0 0 201 AS (TMAZ)
39 0 0 0 –2.378 0 0 184 RS (TMAZ)
40 0 0 0 2.378 0 0 198 AS (TMAZ)
41 0 0 0 0 –2.378 0 188 AS (TMAZ)
42 0 0 0 0 2.378 0 198 AS (TMAZ)
43 0 0 0 0 0 –2.378 186 RS (TMAZ)
44 0 0 0 0 0 2.378 191 AS (TMAZ)
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 HAZ
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 HAZ
47 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 HAZ
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 HAZ
49 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 HAZ
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 HAZ
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 HAZ
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 HAZ
AS: Advancing side; RS: Retreating side; WN: Weld Nugget; TMAZ: Thermo
mechanical affected zone; HAZ: Heat Affected Zone.
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 223

2.4 Conducting the experiments and recording the responses

Rolled plates of 5 mm thickness, medium strength aluminium AA6061-T6 alloy base
metal, were cut to the required size (300 × 150 mm) by power hacksaw cutting and
milling. Square butt joint configuration (300 × 300 mm) was prepared to fabricate FSW
joints. The initial joint configuration was obtained by securing the plates in position using
mechanical clamps. The direction of welding was normal to the rolling direction.
The joint dimensions are shown in Figure 2(a). Single pass welding procedure was
followed to fabricate the joints. Non-consumable tools made of high carbon steel were
used to fabricate the joints. The tool nomenclature is shown in Figure 2(b). Fifteen tools
were made with different tool pin diameter, shoulder diameter and tool hardness. Five
levels of tool hardness were obtained by heat treating high carbon steel in different
quenching media (air, oil, water, furnace cooling). An indigenously designed and
developed computer numerical controlled FSW machine (22 kW; 4000 RPM; 6 tonne,
Figure 2(c)–(d) was used to fabricate the joints. Fifty-two joints (Figure 2(e)) were
fabricated as per the condition dictated by the design matrix. The welded joints were
sliced using a power hacksaw and then machined to the required dimension of tensile
specimens as shown in Figure 2(f). The specimens were prepared as per the ASTM
E8M-04 guidelines. Tensile test was carried out in 100 kN, servo controlled universal
testing machine (make; FIE-BLUESTAR, India). The specimen was loaded at the rate of
1.5 kN/min as per ASTM specifications. At each experimental condition, three specimens
were tested and average values are presented in Table 4.

Figure 2 Experimental details: (a) joint dimensions (in ‘mm’); (b) nomenclature of FSW tool;
(c) FSW machine; (d) close-up view; (e) fabricated joints and (f) dimensions of flat
tensile specimens (in ‘mm’) (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
224 S. Rajakumar et al.

Figure 2 Experimental details: (a) joint dimensions (in ‘mm’); (b) nomenclature of FSW tool;
(c) FSW machine; (d) close-up view; (e) fabricated joints and (f) dimensions of flat
tensile specimens (in ‘mm’) (see online version for colours) (continued)

(e) (f)

3 Developing an empirical relationship

Representing tensile strength of the FSW joint by TS, the response is a function
of rotational speed (N), welding speed (S), axial force (F), shoulder diameter (D), pin
diameter (d) and tool hardness (H) and it can be expressed as
TS = f (rotational speed, welding speed, axial force, shoulder diameter,
pin diameter, tool hardness)
TS = f (N, S, F, D, d, H)
The second-order polynomial (regression) equation used to represent the response surface
‘Y’ is given by (Rajakumar et al., 2010):
Y = b0 + ¦ bi xi + ¦ bii xi2 + ¦ bij xi x j + er (2)

and for six factors, the selected polynomial could be expressed as

(TS ) = b0 + b1 ( N ) + b2 ( S ) + b3 ( F ) + b4 ( D) + b5 (d ) + b6 ( H ) + b11 ( N 2 )
+ b22 ( S 2 ) + b33 ( F 2 ) + b44 ( D 2 ) + b55 (d 2 )b66 ( H 2 ) + b12 ( NS ) + b13 ( NF )
+ b14 ( ND) + b15 ( Nd ) + b16 ( NH ) + b23 ( SF ) + b24 ( SD) + b25 ( Sd )
+ b26 ( SH ) + b34 ( FD) + b35 ( Fd ) + b36 ( FH ) + b45 ( Dd ) + b46 ( DH ) + b56 (dH ) (3)

where b0 is the average of responses and b1, b2, …, b66 are the coefficients that depend on
respective main and interaction effects of the parameters. The value of the coefficients
was calculated using the following expressions:

b0 = 0.110749 ( ¦ y ) − 0.018738¦ ( X iiy ) (4)

bi = 0.023087¦ ( X iy ) (5)

bii = 0.0152625¦ ( X iiy ) + 0.001217¦¦ ( X iiy ) − 0.018738 ( ¦ y ) (6)

bij = 0.03125¦ ( X ijy )/n (7)

 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 225

where i2 varies from 1 to n, in which Xi is the corresponding coded value of a factor and
Y is the corresponding response output value (tensile strength) obtained from the
experiment and ‘n’ is the total number of combinations considered (in this case n = 52).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) method was applied to find out the significance of main
factors and interactions factors. The higher order interactions (three factor interactions
and four factor interactions) are practically insignificant and hence not considered
(Johnson and Leona, 1964; Montgomery, 2007; Box et al., 1978). From the ANOVA test
results (Table 5), it is evident that all the main factors (N, S, F, D, d, H) and a few
interaction factors are considered to be significant factors. After determining the
significant coefficients (at 95% confidence level), the final relationship was developed
incorporating only these coefficients and it is given below.
Tensile strength
(TS ) = {223.18 + 4.77( N ) + 2.60( S ) + 2.77( F ) + 2.64( D) + 2.10( d ) + 0.85( H )
+ 1.16( ND) + 0.97( Nd ) − 1.22( NH ) + 0.97( SF ) + 1.09( SH ) − 3.78( FD)
− 3.22( Fd ) − 1.66( FH ) − 1.28( DH ) − 1.09( dH ) − 4.74( N 2 ) − 5.80( S 2 )
− 5.19( F 2 ) − 5.80( D 2 ) − 5.45( d 2 ) − 6.25( H 2 )}MPa. (8)

The adequacy of the developed model was tested using the ANOVA technique and
the results of second-order response surface model fitting in the form of ANOVA are
given in Table 5. The determination coefficient (R2) indicates the goodness of fit for the
model. In this case, the value of the determination coefficient (R2 = 0.9906) indicates
that that 99.06% of the total variability is explained by the model after considering the
significant factors. The model is not overfitted as indicated by the comparison of R2 and
R2 adj values. Only less than 1% of the total variations are not explained by the model.
The value of adjusted determination coefficient (adjusted R2 = 0.9800) is also high, which
indicates a high significance of the model. Predicted (R2 = 0.9542) is in good agreement
with the adjusted R2 and shows that the model would be expected to explain 95.42% of
the variability in new data. Adequate precision was found to be 37.16, which indicates
that the model will give reasonable performance in prediction. A ratio >4 is desirable.
At the same time, a relatively lower value of the coefficient of variation (CV = 1.04)
indicated a high degree of precision and a good deal of reliability of the conducted
experiments (experimental values). ‘PRESS’ is a measure of how well the model of the
experiment is likely to predict the responses in a new experiment. Small values of PRESS
are desirable. The model F-value of 93.90 implied that the model was significant, and
there is only a 0.01% chance that a ‘model F-value’ this large would occur due to noise.
P-value less than 0.05 indicated the significant model terms. Value of probability > F in
Table 6 for model is less than 0.05, which indicates that the model is significant.
Lack of fit is insignificant thereby indicates that the model fits well with the experimental
data. The high p-value for the lack of fit test also indicates that the model does adequately
fit with the response surface for tensile strength. The normal probability plot of the
residuals for tensile strength shown in Figure 3 reveals that the residuals are falling
on the straight line, which means the errors are distributed normally (Kumar et al., 2007).
All the above considerations indicate an excellent adequacy of the regression model.
Each observed value is compared with the predicted value calculated from the model
in Figure 4.
226 S. Rajakumar et al.

Table 5 ANOVA result for the response tensile strength

Sum of p-value
Source squares df Mean square F-value Prob. >F
Model 10671.98 27 395.2586 93.90546 <0.0001 Significant
N-Rotational speed* 985.149 1 985.149 234.0515 <0.0001
S-Welding speed* 293.6775 1 293.6775 69.77185 <0.0001
F-Axial force* 332.0117 1 332.0117 78.87929 <0.0001
D-Shoulder diameter* 301.6132 1 301.6132 71.65721 <0.0001
d-Pin diameter* 190.2806 1 190.2806 45.20684 <0.0001
H-Tool hardness* 31.4225 1 31.4225 7.465351 0.0116
NS 1.53125 1 1.53125 0.363794 0.5521
NF 9.03125 1 9.03125 2.145643 0.1560
ND* 42.78125 1 42.78125 10.16396 0.0040
Nd* 30.03125 1 30.03125 7.134819 0.0134
NH* 47.53125 1 47.53125 11.29247 0.0026
SF* 30.03125 1 30.03125 7.134819 0.0134
SD 0.03125 1 0.03125 0.007424 0.9321
Sd 2.53125 1 2.53125 0.601374 0.4456
SH* 38.28125 1 38.28125 9.094852 0.0060
FD* 457.5313 1 457.5313 108.7002 <0.0001
Fd* 331.5313 1 331.5313 78.76513 <0.0001
FH* 87.78125 1 87.78125 20.85505 0.0001
Dd 2.53125 1 2.53125 0.601374 0.4456
DH* 52.53125 1 52.53125 12.48036 0.0017
DH* 38.28125 1 38.28125 9.094852 0.0060
2
N* 1305.193 1 1305.193 310.0874 <0.0001
S2* 1954.188 1 1954.188 464.2757 <0.0001
F2* 1559.744 1 1559.744 370.5637 <0.0001
D2* 1954.188 1 1954.188 464.2757 <0.0001
2
d* 1723.353 1 1723.353 409.4339 <0.0001
H2* 2263.128 1 2263.128 537.6736 <0.0001
Residual 101.0187 24 4.209112
Lack of fit 64.14368 17 3.773158 0.71626 0.7304 Not significant
Pure error 36.875 7 5.267857
Cor total 10773 51
Std. Dev. 2.051612 R-squared 0.990623
Mean 195.5 Adj R-squared 0.980074
CV% 1.049418 Pred R-squared 0.954263
PRESS 492.7209 Adeq precision 37.31652
*Significant factor.
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 227

Table 6 Tensile strength sensitivities of (process and tool) parameters (S = 134.4 mm/min)

Tool
Axial rotational Shoulder Pin Tool Tensile
force Sensitivity
speed diameter diameter hardness strength
(kN) (rpm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) ˜TS/˜N ˜TS/˜S ˜TS/˜F ˜TS/˜D ˜TS/˜d ˜TS/˜H
862 7.8 2.6 243 24 20.4 –24.7 41.7 33.0 30.5 38.5
1000 12 4 450 123 11.8 –23.6 33.6 21.5 19.8 22.4
2.2 1100 15 5 600 175 3.2 –22.5 25.4 10.1 9.1 6.3
1200 18 6 750 180 –5.3 –21.4 17.3 –1.3 –1.6 –9.7
1337 21 7.3 956 139 –13.8 –20.3 9.2 –12.7 –12.3 –25.8
862 7.8 2.6 243 60 20.9 –23.8 31.3 29.2 27.3 36.8
1000 12 4 450 151 12.3 –22.6 23.2 17.7 16.6 20.7
5 1100 15 5 600 195 3.8 –21.5 15.1 6.3 5.8 4.6
1200 18 6 750 193 –4.7 –20.4 6.9 –5.0 –4.8 –11.4
1337 21 7.3 956 143 –13.3 –19.3 –1.1 –16.5 –15.6 –27.4
862 7.8 2.6 243 86 21.4 –22.8 20.9 25.4 24.1 35.2
1000 12 4 450 169 12.9 –21.7 12.8 14.0 13.4 19.1
7 1100 15 5 600 205 4.33 –20.6 4.7 2.5 2.6 3.03
1200 18 6 750 194 –4.2 –19.4 –3.4 –8.8 –8.1 –13.1
1337 21 7.3 956 137 –12.8 –18.3 –11.5 –20.3 –18.8 –29.1
862 7.8 2.6 243 102 22 –21.8 10.5 21.6 20.9 33.5
1000 12 4 450 177 13.4 –20.7 2.4 10.2 10.1 17.4
9 1100 15 5 600 205 4.8 –19.6 –5.6 –1.2 –0.5 1.3
1200 18 6 750 186 –3.7 –18.5 –13.8 –12.6 –11.3 –14.7
1337 21 7.3 956 120 –12.2 –17.3 –21.9 –24.1 –22.1 –30.8
862 7.8 2.6 243 107 22.5 –20.8 0.21 17.8 17.7 31.8
1000 12 4 450 174 13.9 –19.7 –7.9 6.4 6.9 15.8
11.7 1100 15 5 600 194 5.3 –18.6 –16.1 –4.9 –3.7 –0.2
1200 18 6 750 167 –3.1 –17.5 –24.1 –16.4 –14.5 –16.3
1337 21 7.3 956 93 –11.7 –16.4 –32.3 –27.8 –25.2 –32.4

Figure 3 Normal probability plot of residuals for tensile strength (see online version for colours)
228 S. Rajakumar et al.

Figure 4 Normal probability plot of actual vs. predicted (see online version for colours)

4 Optimising the parameters

Contour plots show distinctive circular shape indicative of possible independence of

factors with response. A contour plot is produced to visually display the region of optimal
factor settings. For second order response surfaces, such a plot can be more complex
than the simple series of parallel lines that can occur with first order models. Once the
stationary point is found, it is usually necessary to characterise the response surface in
the immediate vicinity of the point. Characterisation means identifying whether they
found stationary point is a maximum response or minimum response or a saddle point.
To classify this, the most straightforward way is to examine through a contour plot.
Contour plots play a very important role in the study of the response surface analysis.
Figure 5(a) exhibits almost a circular contour, which suggests independence of factor.
It is relatively easy by examining the contour plots Figure 5(b)–(e) that changes in the
tensile strength are more sensitive to changes in rotational speed than to changes in
welding speed, axial force, shoulder diameter, pin diameter and tool hardness. When
axial force is compared with shoulder diameter at a constant rotational speed of
1100 rpm, axial force is slightly more sensitive to changes in tensile strength as
illustrated in contour plot (Figure 5(c)). Interaction effect between the factors, rotational
speed and shoulder diameter, welding speed and axial force, axial force and shoulder
diameter, shoulder diameter and tool hardness, pin diameter and axial force on tensile
strength also exists, which is evident from the contour plot. Increase in rotational speed
resulted in drop in initial axial force with increasing time (Ouyang et al., 2002).
The interaction effect axial force and welding speed is more significant than the
interaction effect between rotational speed and shoulder diameter, welding speed and
axial force, axial force and shoulder diameter, pin diameter and axial force. Figure 6
presents three-dimensional response surface plots for the response tensile strength
obtained from the regression model. The optimum tensile strength is exhibited by the
apex of the response surface. Maximum tensile strength estimated from the response
surface and contour plots is 225.56 MPa, which is given by the following optimised FSW
process and tool parameter, rotational speed of 1150 r/min, welding speed of
84.3 mm/min, axial force of 7.16 kN, shoulder diameter of 15.6 mm, pin diameter of
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 229

5.2 mm and tool hardness of 45 HRc. The above values were also validated using
statistical software Minitab. The corresponding optimisation plot is depicted in Figure 7.
Three joints were fabricated using the optimum values of process parameters, and
average tensile strength of friction stir welded AA 6061-T6 aluminium alloy was found
to be 226 MPa, which shows the excellent agreement with the predicted values.
Micrographs of Figure 8(b) shows the traverse section of FSW joint fabricated using
optimum parameters reveals that there is no defect due to sufficient heat generation and
contains finer grains in weld zone. However, base metal contains coarse and elongated
grains (Figure 8(a)). The average grain diameter was measured in stir zone and it was
found to be smaller (15 µm), compare to base metal (55 µm). The fracture surfaces of the
tensile tested specimens were characterised using SEM to understand the failure patterns.
All the fracture surfaces invariably consist of dimples, which is an indication that the
failure is the result of ductile fracture. The fracture surface of the base metal (Figure 9(a))
shows larger dimples than the stir zone (Figure 9(b)).

Figure 5 Contour plots (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
230 S. Rajakumar et al.

Figure 6 Response plots (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 7 Optimisation plot (see online version for colours)

In summary, the tensile properties and fracture locations of 6061-T6 aluminium alloy
joints are significantly affected by the FSW parameters (Liu et al., 2003). The optimum
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 231

rotational speed of 1150 r/min, corresponding to a welding speed of 84.3 mm/min, axial
force of 7.16 kN, shoulder diameter of 15.6 mm, pin diameter of 5.2 mm and a tool
hardness of 45 HRc and the maximum ultimate strength of the joint, is equivalent to 80%
of that of the base material. When the rotational speed deviates from the optimum value,
a pin hole–like defect or serious softening is produced in the joints; thus, the tensile
strength of the joints degrade. When the joints are free of defects, they fracture in the
HAZ on the retreating side. Otherwise, when a pin hole–like defect exists in the joints,
the fracture occurs in the weld nugget. During the tensile test, from the macro graphic
inspection we found that all the failures that occur are in advancing side of Thermo
Mechanical Affected Zone (TMAZ). It is mainly due to stirring action of rotating tool pin
that the precipitates (Mg2Si) are worn out and it will deposit over the advancing side.
More precipitates reduce the strength. So, most of the failure is in advancing side.

Figure 8 Optical micrographs of FSW Zones of AA6061-T6 joints: (a) base metal and
(b) stir zone

(a) (b)

Figure 9 SEM fractographs of the top surface of tensile specimens: (a) base metal and
(b) stir zone

(a) (b)

5 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis, a method to identify critical parameters and rank them by their order
of importance, is paramount in model validation where attempts are made to compare the
calculated output to the measured data. This type of analysis can be used to study which
parameters must be most accurately measured, thus determining the input parameters
232 S. Rajakumar et al.

exerting the most influence upon model response (Sarigu and Secgin, 2004). Therefore,
SA plays an important role in determining which parameter of the process should be
modified to get the improved response characteristics. Mathematically, sensitivity of an
objective function with respect to a design variable is the partial derivative of that
function with respect to its variables (Jayaraman et al., 2008).
This paper is aimed to predict the tendency of tensile strength due to a small change
in process parameters for FSW process, and the sensitivity equations are obtained by
differentiating the developed empirical relation with respect to the factors of interest such
as rotational speed, welding speed, axial force, shoulder diameter, pin diameter and tool
hardness that are explored here. The sensitivity equations (9)–(14) represent the
sensitivity of tensile strength for rotational speed, welding speed, axial force, shoulder
diameter, pin diameter and tool hardness, respectively.
∂TS /∂N = 4.77 − 0.022 S + 0.53F + 1.16 D + 0.97 d − 1.22 H − 9.48 N (9)

∂TS /∂S = 2.60 − 0.22 N + 0.97 F − 0.031D + 0.28d + 1.09 H − 11.6 S (10)

∂TS /∂F = 2.77 + 0.53N + 0.97 S − 3.78D − 3.22d − 1.28H − 10.38F (11)

∂TS /∂D = 2.68 + 1.16 N − 0.031S − 3.78 F + 0.28d − 1.28 H − 11.6 D (12)

∂TS /∂d = 2.10 + 0.97 N + 0.28S − 3.22 F + 0.28D − 1.09 H − 10.9d (13)

∂TS /∂H = 0.85 − 1.22 N − 1.09S − 1.66 F − 1.28 D − 1.09d − 12.5 H . (14)

Sensitivity information should be interpreted using mathematical definition of

derivatives. Positive sensitivity values imply an increment in the objective function by
a small change in design parameter, whereas negative values state the opposite
(Lakshminarayanan and Balasubramanian, 2009). Sensitivities of process parameters on
tensile strength are presented in Table 6. Figure 10 shows the sensitivity of rotational
speed, welding speed, axial force, shoulder diameter, pin diameter and tool hardness on
tensile strength. The small variation of welding speed causes large changes in tensile
strength when the speed increases. The results reveal that the tensile strength is more
sensitive to welding speed than rotational speed, tool hardness, axial force, pin diameter
and shoulder diameter.

Figure 10 Sensitivity Analysis results for AA6061 aluminium alloy: (a) rotational speed (rpm);
(b) welding speed (mm/min); (c) axial force (kN); (d) shoulder diameter (mm); (e) pin
diameter (mm) and (f) tool hardness (HRc) (see online version for colours)
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 233

Figure 10 Sensitivity Analysis results: (a) rotational speed (rpm); (b) welding speed (mm/min);
(c) axial force (kN); (d) shoulder diameter (mm); (e) pin diameter (mm) and (f) tool
hardness (HRc) (see online version for colours) (continued)

6 Conclusions

From this investigation, following important conclusions are derived:

• An empirical relationship was developed to predict the tensile strength of friction stir
welded AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy joints at 95% confidence level, incorporating
FSW process and tool parameters.
• A maximum tensile strength of 225 MPa is exhibited by the FSW joints fabricated
with the optimised parameters of 1150 rpm rotational speed, 84.3 mm/min welding
speed, 7.16 kN axial force, shoulder diameter of 15.5 mm, pin diameter of 5.2 mm
and tool hardness of 45 HRc.
• Welding speed is more sensitive than other parameters, followed by rotational speed,
tool hardness, axial force, pin diameter and shoulder diameter.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Annamalai

University, Annamalai Nagar, India for extending the facilities of Material Testing
Laboratory to carry out this investigation. The authors wish to express their sincere
234 S. Rajakumar et al.

thanks to Clean Technology Division of Ministry of Environment and Forest,

Government of India, New Delhi for financial support rendered through a R&D
Project No. MoEF1-9/2005-CT. Authors would like to thank S. Muthukumar,
N. Sairam, A.K. Thillaiparaman and John of Project Assistants (CEMAJOR) for their
support in workshop practices.

References
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.H. and Hunter, J.S. (1978) Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley
Publisher, New York.
Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M. (1957) Experimental Designs, John Wiley & Sons Inc., London.
Dawes, C.J. (1995) ‘An introduction to friction stir welding and its development’, Weld Metal
Fabrication, Vol. 63, pp.2–16.
Elangovan, K. and Balasubramanian, V.B. (2009) ‘Predicting tensile strength of friction stir welded
AA6061 aluminium alloy joints by a mathematical model’, Materials and Design, Vol. 30,
pp.188–193.
Elangovan, K. and Balasubramanian, V. (2008) ‘Influences of tool pin profile and tool shoulder
diameter on the formation of friction stir processing zone in AA6061 aluminium alloy’,
Materials and Design, Vol. 29, pp.362–373.
Enomoto, M. (1998) ‘Performance of friction stir welded lap joints of aluminium alloys’,
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Light Metal Weld Construction, Vol. 36,
pp.75–79.
Flores, O.V. (1998) ‘Micro structural issues in a friction stir welded aluminium alloy’, Scripta
Materialia, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.703–708.
Gunaraj, V. and Murugan, N. (1999) ‘Application of response surface methodology for predicting
weld bead quality in submerged arc welding of pipes’, Journal of Material Processing and
Technology, Vol. 88, pp.266–275.
Gunaraj, V. and Murugan, N. (2000), ‘Prediction and optimization of weld bead volume for the
submerged arc process, Part 2’, Welding Journal, Vol. 79, No. 11, pp.331–338.
Jayaraman, M., Sivasubramanian, R., Balasubramanian, V. and Lakshminarayanan, A.K. (2008)
‘Prediction of tensile strength of friction stir welded A356 cast aluminium alloy using
response surface methodology and artificial neural network’, Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Production Research., Vol. 9, Nos. 1–2, pp.45–59.
Johnson, D.H. and Leona, F.C. (1964) Statistics and Experimental Design in Engineering and
Physical Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kim, I.S., Son, K.J., Yang, Y.S. and Yaragada, P.K.D.V. (2003) ‘Sensitivity analysis for process
parameters in GMA welding processes using a factorial design method’, Journal Machine
Tools Manufacture, Vol. 43 pp.763–769.
Kumar, S., Kumar, P. and Shan, H.S. (2007) ‘Effect of evaporative pattern casting process
parameters on the surface roughness of Al–7% Si alloy castings’, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, Vol. 182, pp.615–623.
Lakshminarayanan, A.K. and Balasubramanian, V. (2009) ‘Comparison of RSM with ANN in
predicting tensile strength of friction stir welded AA7039 aluminium alloy joints’,
Transactions of Nonferrous Metal Society of China, Vol. 19, pp.9–18.
Liu, H., Fujii, H., Maeda, M. and Nogi, K. (2003) ‘Tensile properties and fracture locations of
friction stir welded joints of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy’, Journal of Materials Science Letters,
Vol. 22, No. 15, pp.1601–1603.
Lua, S.K. and Secgin, A. (2007) ‘Sensitivity analysis of submerged arc welding process
parameters’, Journal of Material Processing Technology, Vol. 202, pp.500–507.
 Response surfaces and sensitivity analysis 235

Montgomery, D.C. (2007) Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Oosterkamp, A., Djapic Oosterkamp, L. and Nordeide, A. (2004) ‘Kissing bond phenomena in
solid state welds of aluminum alloys’, Welding Journal, pp.225–231.
Ouyang, J.H., Jandric, D., Kovacevic, R., Song, M. and Valantm, M. (2002) ‘Visualization of
material flow during Friction Stir Welding (FSW) of the same and dissimilar aluminum
alloys’, Proceedings of 6thTrends in Weld Research, Vol. 22, pp.229–240.
Rajakumar, S., Muralidharan, C. and Balasubramanian, V. (2010) ‘Optimization of the friction-stir-
welding process and the tool parameters to attain a maximum tensile strength of AA7075-T6
aluminium alloy’, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Proc. 1MechE, Vol. 224, Part B,
DOI:10.1243/09544054.
Sarıgu, A.S. and Secgin, A. (2004) ‘A study on the application of the acoustic design sensitivity
analysis of vibrating bodies’, Applied Acoustics, Vol. 65, pp.1037–1056.
Thomas, W.M. (1991) Friction Stir Welding, International Patent Application No. PCT/
GB92/02203 and GB Patent Application No. 9125978.8, US Patent No. 5,460,317.
Thomas, W.M. and Nicholas, E.D. (1997) ‘Friction stir welding for the transportation industries’,
Materials and Design, Vol. 18, pp.269–273.
Zeng, W.M., Wu, H.L. and Zhang, J. (2006) ‘Effect of tool wear on microstructure mechanical
properties and acoustic emission of friction stir welded 6061 Al alloys’, Acta Metallurgica
Sinica, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.9–19.

View publication stats