Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /matdes

Technical Report

Mechanical, fatigue and microstructural properties of friction stir welded5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys

0261-3069/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.090

⇑ Corresponding author at: Kocaeli University, Faculty of Engineering, Depart-ment of Mechanical Engineering and at Welding Technology Research, Educationand Training Center, Kocaeli, Turkey. Tel./fax: +90 262 303 34 43.

E-mail addresses: emel.taban@yahoo.com, emelt@kocaeli.edu.tr (E. Taban).

Beytullah Gungor a,b, Erdinc Kaluc b,c, Emel Taban b,c,⇑, Aydin Sik d

a TR Naval Forces, Kocaeli, Turkeyb Kocaeli University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kocaeli, Turkeyc Kocaeli University, Welding Technology Research, Education and Training Center, Kocaeli, Turkeyd Gazi University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Industrial Design, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 19 August 2013Accepted 31 October 2013Available online 9 November 2013

In this study, 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloy plates in 6 mm thickness that are usedparticularly for shipbuilding industry were welded using Friction Stir Welding (FSW) method as similarand dissimilar joints with one side pass at PA position with the parameters of 1250 rpm tool rotation,64 mm/min welding speed and 2� tool tilt angle. Tensile tests results showed sufficient joint efficienciesand surprisingly high yield stress values. Bending fatigue test results of all joint types showed fatiguestrength close to each other. Fatigue strength order of the joints were respectively FSWed 5083-5083,and 6082-6082 similar joints and 5083-6082 dissimilar joint. Cross sections of the weld zones have beenanalyzed with light optical microscopy (LOM) and fracture surface of fatigue test specimens wereexamined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Although there were no voids in radiographic andmicroscopic analyzes, 5083-6082 joint showed rarely encountered voiding effect under fatigue load.Microhardness measurements revealed rare result for FSWed AW5083 and novel result for FSWed6082 aluminum alloy.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Aluminum and aluminum alloys have become increasingly usedin production of automobiles and trucks, packaging of food andbeverages, construction of buildings, transmission of electricity,development of transportation infrastructures, production ofdefense and aerospace equipment, manufacture of machineryand tools and marine structures with its unique properties suchas corrosion resistance, thermal conductivity, electrical conductiv-ity, high strength with low density, fracture toughness and energyabsorption capacity, cryogenic toughness, workability, ease ofjoining (welding (both solid state and fusion), brazing, soldering,riveting, bolting) and recyclability. 5083 aluminum–magnesiumalloys are strain hardenable and have excellent corrosion resis-tance, toughness, weldability and moderate strength. 6082 alumi-num–magnesium–silicon alloys are heat treatable and have highcorrosion resistance, excellent extrudibility and moderatestrength. Especially with their high corrosion resistance and mod-erate strength, these alloys are widely used in shipbuilding indus-try both separately and together. Single- or multiple-hull highspeed ferries employ several aluminum alloys, 5083, 5383 and

5454 as sheet and plate (along with 6082 extruded shapes) withall-welded construction [1–3].

Aluminum welding was once considered limited due to theproblems associated with welding processes such as oxide removaland reduced strength in the weld and heat affected zone (HAZ).New aluminum welding techniques have been developed andcommercialized in significantly over the past 30 years that solvesthese welding problems [1,3]. Although Metal Inert Gas (MIG)and Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding processes were developedin 1940s and used in many industries, there were still some jointproblems that reduced joint efficiency under % 50 [1,4–6]. Toimprove weld performance, Friction Stir Welding (FSW) – a solidstate welding process – and a milestone in aluminum weldingwas developed in 1991 by The Welding Institute (TWI). FSWdisregarded most of the welding problems such as oxide removal,distortion and porosity associated with conventional arc weldingprocesses without reaching melting temperature or change ofphases in the base material. FSW also made all aluminum alloysweldable that were once considered unweldable or limitedly weld-able. Further, the reduced welding temperature made joints withlower distortions and residual stresses, enabling improved fatigueperformance, new construction techniques, and making possiblethe welding of very thin and very thick materials. Even thoughFSW produced joints that were metallurgically, environmentallyand economically better than other welding processes, owing tothe typically high forces in the process, FSW was usually practiced

B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90 85

as a fully mechanized process, increasing the cost of the equipmentcompared to arc welding techniques, while reducing the degree ofoperator skill required. [7–10]. In spite of all of its benefits andstudies that has showed better performance than fusion weldings,FSW has not been still widely commercialized around world, ow-ing to lack of industry standards and specifications, design guide-lines and design allowables, informed workforce and high cost ofcapital equipment and licensing [8,10].

FSW produces welds by using a rotating, nonconsumable weld-ing tool to locally soften a workpiece, through heat produced byfriction and plastic work, thereby allowing the tool to ‘‘stir’’ thejoint surfaces. The tool serves three primary functions, that is,heating of the workpiece, movement of material to produce thejoint, and containment of the hot metal beneath the tool shoulder[8–10].

As of its invention, FSW process has been found very interestingand widely studied [10]. Many studies have been carried out tounderstand and analyze the effect of process parameters and toolgeometries on microstructural and mechanical properties andformability of joints. Taban and Kaluc successfully welded6.45 mm thick 5086-H32 aluminum alloy with TIG, MIG and FSWprocesses, and their results has demonstrated that the tensileproperties of FSW joints were more satisfactory than fusion weldedjoints [6]. Adamowski and Szkodo investigated effect of processparameters on the properties and microstructural changes in Fric-tion Stir Welds in the aluminum alloy 6082-T6 with 22 differentparameters and found that FSW welds is directly proportional tothe tool rotation and welding speeds [11]. Cavaliere et al. studiedeffect of varying welding speeds on mechanical and microstruc-tural properties of FSWed AA6082-T6 aluminum alloy. Cavaliereet al. welded 4 mm thick plates with 1600 rpm tool rotation andwelding speed varying 40–460 mm/min. Cavaliere et al. found thatwelding speed had a threshold points for grain structure, yieldstress and ductility that reversed these properties behavior to theopposite side [12]. Palanivel et al. studied effect of tool rotationalspeed and pin profile on microstructure and tensile strength of dis-similar friction stir welded AA5083-H111 and AA6351-T6 alumi-num alloys. Palanivel et al. used pin profiles of straight square,straight hexagon, straight octagon, tapered square, and taperedoctagon and three different tool rotational speeds and found thatstraight square pin profile with 950 rpm tool rotational speedyielded highest strength [13]. Moreira et al. studied to characterizemechanical and metallurgical properties of friction stir weldedbutt joints of aluminum alloy 6061-T6 with 6082-T6. For compar-ison, similar and dissimilar material joints made from each one ofthe two alloys were micro structurally examined, and micro hard-ness, tensile and bending tests were carried out. Moreira et al.found that AA 6082-T6 aluminum alloy revealed lower yield andultimate stress as well as lowest hardness values [14]. Rajakumaret al. used 5 different values for each of tool rotational speed, weld-ing speed, axial force, shoulder diameter, pin diameter and toolhardness parameters of FSW to understand influence of FSWprocess and tool parameters on strength properties of AA7075-T6aluminum alloy joints. Rajakumar et al. found that optimumparameters for providing maximum strength properties of315 MPa yield strength, 373 MPa of tensile strength, 397 MPa ofnotch tensile strength, 203 HV of hardness and 77% of joint effi-ciency were 1400 rpm (tool rotational speed), 60 mm/min (weld-ing speed), 8 kN (axial force), with the tool parameters of 15 mm(shoulder diameter), 5 mm (pin diameter), 45 HRC (tool hardness)[15]. Kulekci_ et al. studied effects of tool rotation and pin diameteron fatigue properties of friction stir welded lap joints of AA5754aluminum alloy. Test results showed that increasing one valuewhile fixing other resulted worse fatigue strengths. Kulekci_ et al.found that optimization of tool rotation and pin diameter were re-quired to have better fatigue performance [16]. Sarsılmaz et al.

evaluated the microstructure and fatigue properties of dissimilarAA7075/AA6061 joints produced by friction stir welding by usingtwo different pin profiles with two rotational speeds and threewelding speeds. From the results of microstructure analyses andmechanical test, it was clear that welding properties, such as themicrostructure and fatigue life, were strongly influenced by tra-verse speed and tool profile. Sarsılmaz et al. found that best fatigueperformance was provided with application of treated cylindricalpin profile, 1120 rpm tool rotational speed and 250 mm/min [17].Ericsson and Sandström studied influence of welding speed onthe fatigue of friction stir welds, and comparison with MIG andTIG welded joints. According to the results, welding speed in thetested range, representing low and high commercial weldingspeed, had no major influence on the mechanical and fatigue prop-erties of the FS welds while FS welds showed better fatigue perfor-mance then MIG and TIG [18]. Lombard et al. used 11 differentvalues of combination of tool rotational speed, feed and pitch val-ues for optimizing FSW process parameters to minimize defectsand maximize fatigue life in 5083-H321 aluminum alloy. Theirstudy has demonstrated that rotational speed governs defectoccurrence in this 5083-H321 aluminum alloy and that there wasa strong correlation between frictional power input, tensilestrength and low cycle fatigue life [19].

Although there were many achievements in FSW of aluminumalloys and both 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys werestudied widely as similar alloy FSWed joints, there were not en-ough studies about these aluminum alloys as dissimilar alloyjoints. In contradiction to their wide usage in industry, especiallyin shipbuilding industry, there was not enough knowledge aboutthese alloys as dissimilar welds. We aimed to contribute to knowl-edge of friction stir welding of 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 as sim-ilar alloy joints and fulfill the deficiency of knowledge about thesealloys as dissimilar FSWed joints. Also, we used different parame-ters from previous studies to vary knowledge about both similarand dissimilar alloy joints of FSWed 5083-H111 and 6082-T651especially in low welding speed.

2. Materials and experimental procedure

In this study, 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys wereused as base metals. Chemical composition data obtained by glowdischarge optical emission spectroscopy (GDOES) and mechanicalproperties obtained by tensile test are given in Table 1.

Aluminum alloy plates were cut into coupons according to TSEN ISO 15614-2 [20] for I- butt welding. H13 tool steel with chem-ical composition of % 0.406 C, % 1.096 Si, % 0.443 Mn, % 4.952 Cr, %1.251 Mo, % 0.813 V, hardness of HRC48 and the dimensions shownin Fig. 1 was used as FSW tool. Welding parameters were 1250 rpmtool rotational speed (counter clockwise), 64 mm/min weldingspeed and 2� tool tilt angle. Similar joints of 5083–5083 (calledas F55) and 6082-6082 (called as F56) and dissimilar joints of5083–6082 (called as F66) aluminum alloys were fabricated withthese parameters.

Visual and radiographical examination was performed in orderto detect possible surface and inner errors after welding test sam-ples in accordance with TS EN ISO 17637 [21] for visual examina-tion before further destructive tests. According to test plan, testsamples suitable for TS EN ISO 15614-1:2004 + A2:2012 [22] wereextracted from weld plates which had past visual and radiograph-ical examination. Tensile test specimens were prepared accordingto TS EN ISO 4136:2012 [23], bending test specimens were pre-pared according to TS EN ISO 5173 [24], fatigue test specimenswere prepared according to DIN 50142 [25]. In order to determinemicrostructure properties of these joints, the specimens werecross-sectioned perpendicular to the weld interface using a

Table 1Chemical composition and mechanical properties of base metals.

Aluminum alloy Chemical composition (in wt.%) (data obtained by GDOES).

Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Ni Zn Ti Al

5083 0.076 0.13 0.032 0.63 4.34 0.064 0.003 0.035 0.055 94.66082 1.02 0.23 0.052 0.63 0.69 0.066 0.002 0.033 0.048 97.2

Mechanical properties

(Rp0.2), MPa (Rm), MPa Elongation %

5083 239 331 16.46082 321 329 11.1

Fig. 1. FSW Tool geometry (conically threaded).

86 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90

low-speed saw. The cross-section of these joints was metallo-graphically polished and Keller etchant was used for LOM exami-nation. After microstructural examinations, these specimens wereused for detailed microhardness assessment under 200 g (HV0,2)load. For further examination of microstructure, fractured surface

Fig. 2. General views of FSW

of fatigue test specimens were analyzed with scanning electronmicroscopy (SEM).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Nondestructive testing

As a result of visual inspection on welded plates, surface typeerrors such as too much flash, galling, and lack of penetration havenot been seen. Any wormhole, kissing bond, porosity, inclusion oroxide layer has not been detected by radiography. Second phaseparticles and oxides alignment under shoulder were inspected byLOM and none of them were detected in weld zone [10]. Thicknessreductions were measured in 0.05 mm level in zone under toolshoulder. When welding tool arrived at the end of the joints, itwas allowed to run out the end of the workpiece, producing a tearout. These tear outs was trimmed away by sawing before furtherdestructive tests (Fig. 2).

3.2. Microstructural behavior

The micro structural behavior of aluminum alloys joined byFSW was studied by employing LOM. Images of weld zones’ crosssection are outlined in Fig. 3.

Although formation of onion ring has been evaluated character-istic in FSWed nugget zone [26], it might not always be seenapparently in the weld macrostructure [8,14,15,27]. Onion ringformation has not been seen in F55 joint weld nugget while clearlyseen in F56 and F66 nugget zone. In the weld nuggets of all joints,grains have been refined as a result of dynamic recrystallization(continuous dynamic recrystallization (CDRX) [8,26]. The strain-hardened 5083 base material was likely completely recrystallizedin TMAZ close to the nugget of F55, and the fraction of recrystal-lized material decreased to zero as the distance from weld nuggetincreased. Pancake grains in TMAZ of F66 were deformed,

ed joints: F55, F56, F66).

Fig. 3. LOM images of weld zones’ cross section.

B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90 87

elongated and rotated due to the strain that they were subjected to[11]. Heterogeneous mixing of recrystallized fine grains of 5083and pancake grains of 6082 had been clearly seen in F56 nuggetzone.

Fig. 4. Macrograph of fractured surface of F55 fatigue s

Fractured surfaces were analyzed by LOM and SEM. All fractionsof all joint types have been started from between flow arm andweld nugget in advancing sides. In F55 fracture surface appearedpopulated of very fine dimples revealing a very ductile behavior

pecimen and SEM images of this fracture surface.

Fig. 5. Cross view of F56 weld zone (a), Macrograph of fractured surface of F56fatigue specimen (b) and SEM images of this fractured surface (c–e).

88 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90

of the material before failure, and fatigue striations were clearlyseen in SEM images (Fig. 4) [12]. Fracture surface of F66 jointsshowed coarse dimples in SEM images (Fig. 6) [15]. Fracture of

Fig. 6. Macrograph of fractured surface of F66 fatigue s

F56 joints were analyzed in accordance with cross section of itsweld zone (Fig. 5). Although there was no weld defect like secondphase particles, oxides alignment or voids detected by microscopyor radiography, fractured surfaces of F56 at the intersection pointof flow arm, TMAZ and weld nugget. Three distinct regions wereseparated under loading as if they were bonded, not welded. Theserarely encountered voids at the intersection point of flow arm,TMAZ and weld nugget. Three distinct regions were separated un-der loading as if they were bonded, not welded. These rarelyencountered voids aroused from a fluid dynamics voiding effect,either associated with the singularities, or possibly due to vortexgeneration behind the tool probe while fabricating the joint[11,28].

3.3. Microhardness

Microhardness data were obtained with 200 g load (Fig. 7).5083 similar alloy weld joint’s (F55) microhardness were mea-sured between 80–84 HV0,2 and almost there were no drops inmicrohardness values. 6082 similar alloy weld joint’s (F66)microhardness were measured between 67–85 HV0,2, hardnessesin weld zone were measured around 82 HV0,2, while hardness de-crease in thermo mechanically affected zone (TMAZ) were mea-sured 67.9 HV0,2. 5083 and 6082 dissimilar alloy weld joint’s(F56) were measured between 62.6–84 HV0,2. TMAZ’s of F56 jointwere slightly similar to that of F66 and F55 for same material asseen in Fig. 7.

Microhardness results of F55 joint were best of all joints as ex-pected but hardness traverse across weldments differ from somestudies [1,29]. Average hardness values were 84 HV0,2 for weldnugget and 81 HV0,2 for TMAZ. Hardness increase was approxi-mately % 4. Although hardness increase in FSWed aluminum alloyswere rare, Mishra and Mahoney referred a study showing a slightincrease in hardness across the weld nugget compared to the TMAZfor a slightly (less than 6%) hardened 5083-H112 as a result of thevery fine grain size created by FSW [8]. Koilraj et al. also foundsame hardness traverse for 5083 side of dissimilar joint [30]. Sur-prisingly, microhardness drop had not been seen in weld zone in

pecimen and SEM images of this fractured surface.

Fig. 7. Microhardness values for FSWed Joints.

B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90 89

F66 joint. Microhardness traverse of F66 joint was novel result forFSWed 6082 T651. Ericsson and Sandstrom had similar hardnessvalues for both for high and low speed welding of AW6082 afterpost-weld aging [18]. Mishra and Mahoney came up with similarhardness pattern for FSWed and artificially aged AW6082 alumi-num alloy [8]. It was concluded that increasing heat input depend-ing on low travel speed with high tool rotational speed resultednaturally aging of weld zone with fine dispersion of precipitateswithin the grains since these tests were conducted a few weeksafter production [3]. F56 joint’s micro hardness traverse were sim-ilar to that of previous studies [1,14]. Both F56 and F66 joints’hardnesses dropped in far TMAZ of AW6082 aluminum alloy.

Table 2Tensile test results of welded joints.

Tensile specimen Rp 0.2 (N/mm2) Rm (N/mm

F55_1 191 281F55_2 – 284F55_3 206 290F55 average 198.5 285

F56_1 – 211F56_2 193 214F56_3 – 211F56 average 193 212

F66_1 – 204F66_2 – 211F66_3 189.9 194F66 average 189.9 203

Fig. 8. Comparison of average tensile properties of the base metal with weldedjoints.

Micro hardness drops in precipitation hardened AW 6082 in farTMAZ of F56 and F66 were results of overaged zone where precip-itate coarsening has taken place [3].

3.4. Tensile properties

Tensile properties for base material and cross-welds were givenin Table 2 and comparison of the properties are provided in Fig. 8.Average yield and tensile strengths were 198.5 and 285 N/mm2 forF55, respectively, for F56 193 and 212 N/mm2, and for F66 189.9and 203 N/mm2. Tensile test results for F55 joints were above val-ues results has been obtained from previous studies [29], and atthe same level for F56 and F66 [11–13,18,31]. Weld performanceof welded joints were % 86 for F55, % 65 for F56 and % 62 for F66according to average maximum strength of base metal 5083 and6082. Failures of F55 tensile test specimens were in the weld me-tal. This was due to the recrystalization process accounted formajority strength loss in weldments in strain-hardened aluminumalloys with its annealing effect [1]. In contradiction to F55 joint,other welded joint tensile test specimens were fractured normallyin TMAZ of AW 6082 parent material side. While welding of 6082alloy, in far TMAZ micro hardness drops in overaged zone whereprecipitate coarsening has been taken place as also mentionedabove in microhardness evaluation. These overaged zones wereweakest zones of welded 6082 TMAZ [1,3]. Finally, yield stress re-sults of all welded joints were surprisingly high from previousstudies for all joints type [8,18,29–33].

3.5. Fatigue behavior

Fatigue test results for welded joints and base material weregiven in Fig. 9. Fatigue test were conducted under yield stresses.

2) Elongation (%) Rupture zone

14 Weld metal14 Weld metal14 Weld metal14

5.6 TMAZ (AW 6082 side)5.6 TMAZ (AW 6082 side)5.6 Weld metal5.6

8 Weld metal8.4 TMAZ7.6 TMAZ8

Fig. 9. Fatigue test results for welded joints.

90 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90

According to the fatigue tests results, FSWed 5083 (F55) exhibitedbest fatigue data from other welded joints, parallel with tensile testdata and microhardness traverse. Then respectively, besides havingclose fatigue limits, F66 showed better fatigue limit than F56. Fail-ures were generally occurred in the zone among the flow arm,weld nugget and TMAZ, and then propagated horizontally throughthis zone.

4. Conclusions

In this study, 6 mm thick AW5083 H111 and AW 6082 T651aluminum alloys that used widely in ship building industry werewelded successfully with low speed friction stir welding as similarand different alloy pair. And following conclusions were drawn:

� AW5083 H111 that readily weldable with all conventionallyfusion welding methods showed also best performance of %86 joint efficiency, bending fatigue limit close to base metaland satisfactory bending and ductility. Then respectively, dis-similar welding of 5083 and 6082 with % 65 and similar weldingof 6082 with % 62 joint efficiency.� Although fatigue limits of all joint types were close to each

other, main reason of difference in tensile strengths was theoveraged zone in the far TMAZ of 6082-T651 base metal sidethat needed further heat treatment to be eliminated [18].� Microhardness test were resulted in novelty data for similar

welding of 6082-T651 aluminum alloy depending on high heatinput that caused naturally post welding aging effect. Lowwelding speed with high tool rotation speed resulted in highheat input that caused this hardness traverse was novelty forthis study.� Microstructure analyze of weld zone cross sections with LOM

and SEM analyze of fracture surfaces of fatigue specimens ofF56 revealed rarely experienced void effect while there werenot any defect detected by radiography and microscopy in weldzone. A cleavage between the flow arm and weld nuggetrevealed voids under bending fatigue tests.� Low speed friction stir welding of both similar and dissimilar

alloy joints of 5083-H11 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloysrevealed joints with high fatigue limits and satisfactory tensilestrengths according to the previous studies. With low speedFSW, increasing heat threating effect provided microstructural-ly and mechanically better joints while maintaining weld zonesfrom any imperfection.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank to the technical support of the fol-lowing industrial companies: Assan Aluminum, ICM Makina, EndDenetim.

References

[1] Totten GE, Mackenzie S. Handbook of aluminum vol. 1 physical metallurgy andprocesses. USA: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 2003.

[2] Kaufman JG. Introduction to aluminum alloys and tempers. ASM International;2000.

[3] Matters G. The welding of aluminium and its alloys. Cambridge(UK): Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2002.

[4] Anik S, Di_ki_ci_oglu A, Vural M. Koruyucu gaz altinda kaynak ve alüminyum migkaynagı. _Istanbul: Teknisyenler Matbaası; 1994.

[5] Kaluç E. Kaynak teknolojisi el kitabi cilt-1 ergitme esasli kaynakyöntemleri. Kocaeli: Makine Mühendisleri Odası; 2004.

[6] Taban E, Kaluç E. Comparison between microstructure characteristics and jointperformance of 5086-H32 aluminium alloy welded by MIG, TIG and frictionstir welding processes. Kovove Mater 2007;45:241–8.

[7] Cerri E, Leo P, Wang X, Embury JD. Mechanical properties and microstructuralevolution of friction-stir-welded thin sheet aluminum alloys. Metall MaterTrans A 2011;42A:1283–95.

[8] Mishra RS, Mahoney MW. Friction stir welding and processing. ASMInternational; 2007.

[9] Kaluç E, Taban E. Sürtünen eleman ile kaynak (FSW) yöntemi. Kocaeli: MakineMühendisleri Odası; 2007.

[10] Lohwasser D, Chen Z. Friction stir welding from basics toapplications. UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2010.

[11] Adamowski J, Szkodo M. Friction stir welds (FSW) of aluminium alloyAW6082-T6. J Achievements Mater Manuf Eng 2007;20(1-2):403–6.

[12] Cavaliere P, Squillace A, Panella F. Effect of welding parameters on mechanicaland microstructural properties of AA6082 joints produced by friction stirwelding. J Mater Process Technol 2008;200(2008):364–72.

[13] Palanivel R, Koshy Mathews P, Murugan N, Dinaharan I. Effect of toolrotational speed and pin profile on microstructure and tensile strength ofdissimilar friction stir welded AA5083-H111 and AA6351-T6 aluminum alloys.Mater Des 2012;40:7–16.

[14] Moreira PMGP, Santos T, Tavares SMO, Richter-Trummer V, Vilaca P, de CastroPMST. Mechanical and metallurgical characterization of friction stir weldingjoints of AA6061-T6 with AA6082-T6. Mater Des 2009;30(2009):180–7.

[15] Rajakumar S, Muralidharan C, Balasubramanian V. Influence of friction stirwelding process and tool parameters on strength properties of AA7075-T6aluminium alloy joints. Mater Des 2011;32:535–49.

[16] Kulekci_ MK, S�ik A, Kaluç E. Effects of tool rotation and pin diameter on fatigueproperties of friction stir welded lap joints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2008;36:877–82.

[17] Sarsilmaz F, Ozdemir N, Kirik I. Evaluation of microstructure and fatigueproperties of dissimilar AA7075/AA6061 joints produced by friction stirwelding. Kovove Mater 2012;50(2012):259–68.

[18] Ericsson M, Sandstrom R. Influence of welding speed on the fatigue of frictionstir welds, and comparison with MIG and TIG. Int J Fatigue2003;25(2003):1379–87.

[19] Lombard H, Hattingh DG, Steuwer A, James MN. Optimising FSW processparameters to minimise defects and maximise fatigue life in 5083-H321aluminium alloy. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75(2008):341–54.

[20] TS EN ISO 15614-2. Specification and qualification of welding procedures formetallic materials – welding procedure test – Part 2: arc welding of aluminiumand its alloys, Turkish Standards Institution; 2007.

[21] TS EN ISO 17637. Non-destructive testing of welds – visual testing of fusion-welded joints, Turkish Standards Institution; 2011.

[22] TS EN ISO 15614-1:2004+A2:2012. Specification and approval of weldingprocedures for metallic materials, Welding procedure tests for the arc weldingof steels; 2012.

[23] TS EN ISO 4136:2012. Destructive tests on welds in metallic materials –transverse tensile test, Turkish Standards Institution; 2013.

[24] TS EN ISO 5173. Destructive tests on welds in metallic materials – bend tests,Turkish Standards Institution; 2010.

[25] DIN EN 50142. Testing of metallic materials; flat bending fatigue test,Deutsches Institut für Normung; 1982.

[26] Lang X, Wagner G, Eifler D. Microstructure and mechanical properties offriction stir welded AA5454 – joints. In: Rajiv SM, Murray WM, Yutaka S, YuriH, Ravi V, editors. Friction stir welding and processing VI; 2011. p. 123–30.

[27] Kumbhar NT, Sahoo SK, Samajdar I, Dey GK, Bhanumurthy K. Microstructureand microtextural studies of friction stir welded aluminium alloy 5052. MaterDes 2011;32:1657–66.

[28] James MN, Hattingh DG, Bradley GR. Weld tool travel speed effects on fatiguelife of friction stir welds in 5083 aluminium. Int J Fatigue2003;25(2003):1389–98.

[29] Taban E, Kaluç E. Microstructural and mechanical properties of double-sidedMIG, TIG and friction stir welded 5083–H321 aluminium alloy. Kovove Mater2006;44:25–33.

[30] Koilraj M, Sundareswaran V, Vijayan S, Koteswara Rao SR. Friction stir weldingof dissimilar aluminum alloys AA2219 to AA5083. Mater Des 2012;42:1–7.

[31] Moreira PMGP, de Figueiredo MAV, de Castro PMST. Fatigue behaviour of FSWand MIG weldments for two aluminium alloys. Theoret Appl Fract Mech2007;48(2007):169–77.

[32] Moreira PMGP, de Jesus AMP, Ribeiro AS, de Castro PMST. Fatigue crack growthin friction stir welds of 6082–T6 and 6061–T6 aluminium alloys: acomparison. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 2008;50(2008):81–91.

[33] Larsson H, Karlsson L, Svensson L. Friction stir welding of AA5083 and AA 6082aluminium. Svetsaren Nr 2000;2:6–10.