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 welded

5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys
Beytullah Gungor a,b, Erdinc Kaluc b,c, Emel Taban b,c,⇑, Aydin Sik d
a
TR Naval Forces, Kocaeli, Turkey
b
Kocaeli University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kocaeli, Turkey
c
Kocaeli University, Welding Technology Research, Education and Training Center, Kocaeli, Turkey
d
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: In this study, 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloy plates in 6 mm thickness that are used
Received 19 August 2013 particularly for shipbuilding industry were welded using Friction Stir Welding (FSW) method as similar
Accepted 31 October 2013 and dissimilar joints with one side pass at PA position with the parameters of 1250 rpm tool rotation,
Available online 9 November 2013
64 mm/min welding speed and 2° tool tilt angle. Tensile tests results showed sufficient joint efficiencies
and surprisingly high yield stress values. Bending fatigue test results of all joint types showed fatigue
strength 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 been
analyzed with light optical microscopy (LOM) and fracture surface of fatigue test specimens were
examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Although there were no voids in radiographic and
microscopic analyzes, 5083-6082 joint showed rarely encountered voiding effect under fatigue load.
Microhardness measurements revealed rare result for FSWed AW5083 and novel result for FSWed
6082 aluminum alloy.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Aluminum and aluminum alloys have become increasingly used
in production of automobiles and trucks, packaging of food and
beverages, construction of buildings, transmission of electricity,
development of transportation infrastructures, production of
defense and aerospace equipment, manufacture of machinery
and tools and marine structures with its unique properties such
as corrosion resistance, thermal conductivity, electrical conductiv-
ity, high strength with low density, fracture toughness and energy
absorption capacity, cryogenic toughness, workability, ease of
joining (welding (both solid state and fusion), brazing, soldering,
riveting, bolting) and recyclability. 5083 aluminum–magnesium
alloys 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 high
corrosion resistance, excellent extrudibility and moderate
strength. 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 high
speed ferries employ several aluminum alloys, 5083, 5383 and
⇑ Corresponding author at: Kocaeli University, Faculty of Engineering, Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering and at Welding Technology Research, Education
and Training Center, Kocaeli, Turkey. Tel./fax: +90 262 303 34 43.
E-mail addresses: emel.taban@yahoo.com, emelt@kocaeli.edu.tr (E. Taban).
5454 as sheet and plate (along with 6082 extruded shapes) with
all-welded construction [1–3].
Aluminum welding was once considered limited due to the
problems associated with welding processes such as oxide removal
and reduced strength in the weld and heat affected zone (HAZ).
New aluminum welding techniques have been developed and
commercialized in significantly over the past 30 years that solves
these welding problems [1,3]. Although Metal Inert Gas (MIG)
and Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding processes were developed
in 1940s and used in many industries, there were still some joint
problems that reduced joint efficiency under % 50 [1,4–6]. To
improve weld performance, Friction Stir Welding (FSW) – a solid
state welding process – and a milestone in aluminum welding
was developed in 1991 by The Welding Institute (TWI). FSW
disregarded most of the welding problems such as oxide removal,
distortion and porosity associated with conventional arc welding
processes without reaching melting temperature or change of
phases in the base material. FSW also made all aluminum alloys
weldable that were once considered unweldable or limitedly weld-
able. Further, the reduced welding temperature made joints with
lower distortions and residual stresses, enabling improved fatigue
performance, new construction techniques, and making possible
the welding of very thin and very thick materials. Even though
FSW produced joints that were metallurgically, environmentally
and economically better than other welding processes, owing to
the typically high forces in the process, FSW was usually practiced

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.090
 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90
as a fully mechanized process, increasing the cost of the equipment
compared to arc welding techniques, while reducing the degree of
operator skill required. [7–10]. In spite of all of its benefits and
studies 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 of
capital equipment and licensing [8,10].
FSW produces welds by using a rotating, nonconsumable weld-
ing tool to locally soften a workpiece, through heat produced by
friction and plastic work, thereby allowing the tool to ‘‘stir’’ the
joint surfaces. The tool serves three primary functions, that is,
heating of the workpiece, movement of material to produce the
joint, and containment of the hot metal beneath the tool shoulder
[8–10].
As of its invention, FSW process has been found very interesting
and widely studied [10]. Many studies have been carried out to
understand and analyze the effect of process parameters and tool
geometries on microstructural and mechanical properties and
formability of joints. Taban and Kaluc successfully welded
6.45 mm thick 5086-H32 aluminum alloy with TIG, MIG and FSW
processes, and their results has demonstrated that the tensile
properties of FSW joints were more satisfactory than fusion welded
joints [6]. Adamowski and Szkodo investigated effect of process
parameters on the properties and microstructural changes in Fric-
tion Stir Welds in the aluminum alloy 6082-T6 with 22 different
parameters and found that FSW welds is directly proportional to
the tool rotation and welding speeds [11]. Cavaliere et al. studied
effect of varying welding speeds on mechanical and microstruc-
tural properties of FSWed AA6082-T6 aluminum alloy. Cavaliere
et al. welded 4 mm thick plates with 1600 rpm tool rotation and
welding speed varying 40–460 mm/min. Cavaliere et al. found that
welding speed had a threshold points for grain structure, yield
stress and ductility that reversed these properties behavior to the
opposite side [12]. Palanivel et al. studied effect of tool rotational
speed 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 tapered
octagon and three different tool rotational speeds and found that
straight square pin profile with 950 rpm tool rotational speed
yielded highest strength [13]. Moreira et al. studied to characterize
mechanical and metallurgical properties of friction stir welded
butt joints of aluminum alloy 6061-T6 with 6082-T6. For compar-
ison, similar and dissimilar material joints made from each one of
the 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 and
ultimate stress as well as lowest hardness values [14]. Rajakumar
et al. used 5 different values for each of tool rotational speed, weld-
ing speed, axial force, shoulder diameter, pin diameter and tool
hardness parameters of FSW to understand influence of FSW
process and tool parameters on strength properties of AA7075-T6
aluminum alloy joints. Rajakumar et al. found that optimum
parameters for providing maximum strength properties of
315 MPa yield strength, 373 MPa of tensile strength, 397 MPa of
notch 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 diameter
on fatigue properties of friction stir welded lap joints of AA5754
aluminum alloy. Test results showed that increasing one value
while 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.
85
evaluated the microstructure and fatigue properties of dissimilar
AA7075/AA6061 joints produced by friction stir welding by using
two different pin profiles with two rotational speeds and three
welding speeds. From the results of microstructure analyses and
mechanical test, it was clear that welding properties, such as the
microstructure and fatigue life, were strongly influenced by tra-
verse speed and tool profile. Sarsılmaz et al. found that best fatigue
performance was provided with application of treated cylindrical
pin profile, 1120 rpm tool rotational speed and 250 mm/min [17].
Ericsson and Sandström studied influence of welding speed on
the fatigue of friction stir welds, and comparison with MIG and
TIG welded joints. According to the results, welding speed in the
tested range, representing low and high commercial welding
speed, 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 different
values of combination of tool rotational speed, feed and pitch val-
ues for optimizing FSW process parameters to minimize defects
and maximize fatigue life in 5083-H321 aluminum alloy. Their
study has demonstrated that rotational speed governs defect
occurrence in this 5083-H321 aluminum alloy and that there was
a strong correlation between frictional power input, tensile
strength and low cycle fatigue life [19].
Although there were many achievements in FSW of aluminum
alloys and both 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys were
studied widely as similar alloy FSWed joints, there were not en-
ough studies about these aluminum alloys as dissimilar alloy
joints. In contradiction to their wide usage in industry, especially
in shipbuilding industry, there was not enough knowledge about
these 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 these
alloys as dissimilar FSWed joints. Also, we used different parame-
ters from previous studies to vary knowledge about both similar
and dissimilar alloy joints of FSWed 5083-H111 and 6082-T651
especially in low welding speed.
2. Materials and experimental procedure
In this study, 5083-H111 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys were
used as base metals. Chemical composition data obtained by glow
discharge optical emission spectroscopy (GDOES) and mechanical
properties obtained by tensile test are given in Table 1.
Aluminum alloy plates were cut into coupons according to TS
EN 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 shown
in Fig. 1 was used as FSW tool. Welding parameters were 1250 rpm
tool rotational speed (counter clockwise), 64 mm/min welding
speed and 2° tool tilt angle. Similar joints of 5083–5083 (called
as F55) and 6082-6082 (called as F56) and dissimilar joints of
5083–6082 (called as F66) aluminum alloys were fabricated with
these parameters.
Visual and radiographical examination was performed in order
to 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, test
samples suitable for TS EN ISO 15614-1:2004 + A2:2012 [22] were
extracted from weld plates which had past visual and radiograph-
ical examination. Tensile test specimens were prepared according
to TS EN ISO 4136:2012 [23], bending test specimens were pre-
pared according to TS EN ISO 5173 [24], fatigue test specimens
were prepared according to DIN 50142 [25]. In order to determine
microstructure properties of these joints, the specimens were
cross-sectioned perpendicular to the weld interface using a
86 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90

Table 1
Chemical 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 94.6
6082 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 16.4
6082 321 329 11.1

of fatigue test specimens were analyzed with scanning electron

microscopy (SEM).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Nondestructive testing

As a result of visual inspection on welded plates, surface type

errors such as too much flash, galling, and lack of penetration have
not been seen. Any wormhole, kissing bond, porosity, inclusion or
oxide layer has not been detected by radiography. Second phase
particles and oxides alignment under shoulder were inspected by
LOM and none of them were detected in weld zone [10]. Thickness
reductions were measured in 0.05 mm level in zone under tool
shoulder. When welding tool arrived at the end of the joints, it
was allowed to run out the end of the workpiece, producing a tear
out. These tear outs was trimmed away by sawing before further
destructive tests (Fig. 2).

3.2. Microstructural behavior

The micro structural behavior of aluminum alloys joined by

Fig. 1. FSW Tool geometry (conically threaded).
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 were
used for detailed microhardness assessment under 200 g (HV0,2)
load. For further examination of microstructure, fractured surface
FSW was studied by employing LOM. Images of weld zones’ cross
section 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 seen
apparently in the weld macrostructure [8,14,15,27]. Onion ring
formation has not been seen in F55 joint weld nugget while clearly
seen 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 recrystallized
in TMAZ close to the nugget of F55, and the fraction of recrystal-
lized material decreased to zero as the distance from weld nugget
increased. Pancake grains in TMAZ of F66 were deformed,

Fig. 2. General views of FSWed joints: F55, F56, F66).

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

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

elongated and rotated due to the strain that they were subjected to Fractured surfaces were analyzed by LOM and SEM. All fractions
[11]. Heterogeneous mixing of recrystallized fine grains of 5083 of all joint types have been started from between flow arm and
and pancake grains of 6082 had been clearly seen in F56 nugget weld nugget in advancing sides. In F55 fracture surface appeared
zone. populated of very fine dimples revealing a very ductile behavior

Fig. 4. Macrograph of fractured surface of F55 fatigue specimen and SEM images of this fracture surface.
88 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90
Fig. 5. Cross view of F56 weld zone (a), Macrograph of fractured surface of F56
fatigue specimen (b) and SEM images of this fractured surface (c–e).
of the material before failure, and fatigue striations were clearly
seen in SEM images (Fig. 4) [12]. Fracture surface of F66 joints
showed coarse dimples in SEM images (Fig. 6) [15]. Fracture of
Fig. 6. Macrograph of fractured surface of F66 fatigue specimen and SEM images of this fractured surface.
F56 joints were analyzed in accordance with cross section of its
weld zone (Fig. 5). Although there was no weld defect like second
phase particles, oxides alignment or voids detected by microscopy
or radiography, fractured surfaces of F56 at the intersection point
of flow arm, TMAZ and weld nugget. Three distinct regions were
separated under loading as if they were bonded, not welded. These
rarely 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 rarely
encountered voids aroused from a fluid dynamics voiding effect,
either associated with the singularities, or possibly due to vortex
generation 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 in
microhardness values. 6082 similar alloy weld joint’s (F66)
microhardness were measured between 67–85 HV0,2, hardnesses
in 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 joint
were slightly similar to that of F66 and F55 for same material as
seen in Fig. 7.
Microhardness results of F55 joint were best of all joints as ex-
pected but hardness traverse across weldments differ from some
studies [1,29]. Average hardness values were 84 HV0,2 for weld
nugget and 81 HV0,2 for TMAZ. Hardness increase was approxi-
mately % 4. Although hardness increase in FSWed aluminum alloys
were rare, Mishra and Mahoney referred a study showing a slight
increase in hardness across the weld nugget compared to the TMAZ
for a slightly (less than 6%) hardened 5083-H112 as a result of the
very fine grain size created by FSW [8]. Koilraj et al. also found
same hardness traverse for 5083 side of dissimilar joint [30]. Sur-
prisingly, microhardness drop had not been seen in weld zone in
 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90 89

Micro hardness drops in precipitation hardened AW 6082 in far

TMAZ 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 given

Fig. 7. Microhardness values for FSWed Joints.
F66 joint. Microhardness traverse of F66 joint was novel result for
FSWed 6082 T651. Ericsson and Sandstrom had similar hardness
values for both for high and low speed welding of AW6082 after
post-weld aging [18]. Mishra and Mahoney came up with similar
hardness 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 resulted
naturally aging of weld zone with fine dispersion of precipitates
within the grains since these tests were conducted a few weeks
after 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.
in Table 2 and comparison of the properties are provided in Fig. 8.
Average yield and tensile strengths were 198.5 and 285 N/mm2 for
F55, respectively, for F56 193 and 212 N/mm2, and for F66 189.9
and 203 N/mm2. Tensile test results for F55 joints were above val-
ues results has been obtained from previous studies [29], and at
the same level for F56 and F66 [11–13,18,31]. Weld performance
of welded joints were % 86 for F55, % 65 for F56 and % 62 for F66
according to average maximum strength of base metal 5083 and
6082. Failures of F55 tensile test specimens were in the weld me-
tal. This was due to the recrystalization process accounted for
majority strength loss in weldments in strain-hardened aluminum
alloys with its annealing effect [1]. In contradiction to F55 joint,
other welded joint tensile test specimens were fractured normally
in TMAZ of AW 6082 parent material side. While welding of 6082
alloy, in far TMAZ micro hardness drops in overaged zone where
precipitate coarsening has been taken place as also mentioned
above in microhardness evaluation. These overaged zones were
weakest zones of welded 6082 TMAZ [1,3]. Finally, yield stress re-
sults of all welded joints were surprisingly high from previous
studies for all joints type [8,18,29–33].
3.5. Fatigue behavior

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

Fig. 8. Comparison of average tensile properties of the base metal with welded
joints. Fig. 9. Fatigue test results for welded joints.

Table 2
Tensile test results of welded joints.

Tensile specimen Rp 0.2 (N/mm2) Rm (N/mm2) Elongation (%) Rupture zone

F55_1 191 281 14 Weld metal
F55_2 – 284 14 Weld metal
F55_3 206 290 14 Weld metal
F55 average 198.5 285 14
F56_1 – 211 5.6 TMAZ (AW 6082 side)
F56_2 193 214 5.6 TMAZ (AW 6082 side)
F56_3 – 211 5.6 Weld metal
F56 average 193 212 5.6
F66_1 – 204 8 Weld metal
F66_2 – 211 8.4 TMAZ
F66_3 189.9 194 7.6 TMAZ
F66 average 189.9 203 8
90 B. Gungor et al. / Materials and Design 56 (2014) 84–90
According to the fatigue tests results, FSWed 5083 (F55) exhibited
best fatigue data from other welded joints, parallel with tensile test
data and microhardness traverse. Then respectively, besides having
close 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 through
this zone.
4. Conclusions
In this study, 6 mm thick AW5083 H111 and AW 6082 T651
aluminum alloys that used widely in ship building industry were
welded successfully with low speed friction stir welding as similar
and different alloy pair. And following conclusions were drawn:
 AW5083 H111 that readily weldable with all conventionally
fusion welding methods showed also best performance of %
86 joint efficiency, bending fatigue limit close to base metal
and satisfactory bending and ductility. Then respectively, dis-
similar welding of 5083 and 6082 with % 65 and similar welding
of 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 the
overaged zone in the far TMAZ of 6082-T651 base metal side
that 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 heat
input that caused naturally post welding aging effect. Low
welding speed with high tool rotation speed resulted in high
heat input that caused this hardness traverse was novelty for
this study.
 Microstructure analyze of weld zone cross sections with LOM
and SEM analyze of fracture surfaces of fatigue specimens of
F56 revealed rarely experienced void effect while there were
not any defect detected by radiography and microscopy in weld
zone. A cleavage between the flow arm and weld nugget
revealed voids under bending fatigue tests.
 Low speed friction stir welding of both similar and dissimilar
alloy joints of 5083-H11 and 6082-T651 aluminum alloys
revealed joints with high fatigue limits and satisfactory tensile
strengths according to the previous studies. With low speed
FSW, increasing heat threating effect provided microstructural-
ly and mechanically better joints while maintaining weld zones
from any imperfection.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank to the technical support of the fol-
lowing industrial companies: Assan Aluminum, ICM Makina, End
Denetim.
References
[1] Totten GE, Mackenzie S. Handbook of aluminum vol. 1 physical metallurgy and
processes. 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_oğlu A, Vural M. Koruyucu gaz altinda kaynak ve alüminyum mig
_
kaynağı. Istanbul: Teknisyenler Matbaası; 1994.
[5] Kaluç E. Kaynak teknolojisi el kitabi cilt-1 ergitme esasli kaynak
yöntemleri. Kocaeli: Makine Mühendisleri Odası; 2004.
[6] Taban E, Kaluç E. Comparison between microstructure characteristics and joint
performance of 5086-H32 aluminium alloy welded by MIG, TIG and friction
stir welding processes. Kovove Mater 2007;45:241–8.
[7] Cerri E, Leo P, Wang X, Embury JD. Mechanical properties and microstructural
evolution of friction-stir-welded thin sheet aluminum alloys. Metall Mater
Trans A 2011;42A:1283–95.
[8] Mishra RS, Mahoney MW. Friction stir welding and processing. ASM
International; 2007.
[9] Kaluç E, Taban E. Sürtünen eleman ile kaynak (FSW) yöntemi. Kocaeli: Makine
Mühendisleri Odası; 2007.
[10] Lohwasser D, Chen Z. Friction stir welding from basics to
applications. UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2010.
[11] Adamowski J, Szkodo M. Friction stir welds (FSW) of aluminium alloy
AW6082-T6. J Achievements Mater Manuf Eng 2007;20(1-2):403–6.
[12] Cavaliere P, Squillace A, Panella F. Effect of welding parameters on mechanical
and microstructural properties of AA6082 joints produced by friction stir
welding. J Mater Process Technol 2008;200(2008):364–72.
[13] Palanivel R, Koshy Mathews P, Murugan N, Dinaharan I. Effect of tool
rotational speed and pin profile on microstructure and tensile strength of
dissimilar 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 Castro
PMST. Mechanical and metallurgical characterization of friction stir welding
joints of AA6061-T6 with AA6082-T6. Mater Des 2009;30(2009):180–7.
[15] Rajakumar S, Muralidharan C, Balasubramanian V. Influence of friction stir
welding process and tool parameters on strength properties of AA7075-T6
aluminium alloy joints. Mater Des 2011;32:535–49.
[16] Kulekci_ MK, Sßik A, Kaluç E. Effects of tool rotation and pin diameter on fatigue
properties of friction stir welded lap joints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2008;36:877–82.
[17] Sarsilmaz F, Ozdemir N, Kirik I. Evaluation of microstructure and fatigue
properties of dissimilar AA7075/AA6061 joints produced by friction stir
welding. Kovove Mater 2012;50(2012):259–68.
[18] Ericsson M, Sandstrom R. Influence of welding speed on the fatigue of friction
stir welds, and comparison with MIG and TIG. Int J Fatigue
2003;25(2003):1379–87.
[19] Lombard H, Hattingh DG, Steuwer A, James MN. Optimising FSW process
parameters to minimise defects and maximise fatigue life in 5083-H321
aluminium alloy. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75(2008):341–54.
[20] TS EN ISO 15614-2. Specification and qualification of welding procedures for
metallic materials – welding procedure test – Part 2: arc welding of aluminium
and 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 welding
procedures for metallic materials, Welding procedure tests for the arc welding
of 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 of
friction stir welded AA5454 – joints. In: Rajiv SM, Murray WM, Yutaka S, Yuri
H, Ravi V, editors. Friction stir welding and processing VI; 2011. p. 123–30.
[27] Kumbhar NT, Sahoo SK, Samajdar I, Dey GK, Bhanumurthy K. Microstructure
and microtextural studies of friction stir welded aluminium alloy 5052. Mater
Des 2011;32:1657–66.
[28] James MN, Hattingh DG, Bradley GR. Weld tool travel speed effects on fatigue
life of friction stir welds in 5083 aluminium. Int J Fatigue
2003;25(2003):1389–98.
[29] Taban E, Kaluç E. Microstructural and mechanical properties of double-sided
MIG, TIG and friction stir welded 5083–H321 aluminium alloy. Kovove Mater
2006;44:25–33.
[30] Koilraj M, Sundareswaran V, Vijayan S, Koteswara Rao SR. Friction stir welding
of dissimilar aluminum alloys AA2219 to AA5083. Mater Des 2012;42:1–7.
[31] Moreira PMGP, de Figueiredo MAV, de Castro PMST. Fatigue behaviour of FSW
and MIG weldments for two aluminium alloys. Theoret Appl Fract Mech
2007;48(2007):169–77.
[32] Moreira PMGP, de Jesus AMP, Ribeiro AS, de Castro PMST. Fatigue crack growth
in friction stir welds of 6082–T6 and 6061–T6 aluminium alloys: a
comparison. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 2008;50(2008):81–91.
[33] Larsson H, Karlsson L, Svensson L. Friction stir welding of AA5083 and AA 6082
aluminium. Svetsaren Nr 2000;2:6–10.