STUDY OF THE MECHANICAL

PROPERTIES ON THE DISSIMILAR

ALUMINIUM ALLOYS WELDED BY FSW

A Project Report

Submitted in the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the

Award of Degree of

Bachelor of Technology
In
Mechanical Engineering

Submitted by
Sneha Kumari
Registration No. 22102126048
Mahesh Singh
Registration No. 22102126022
Bhawesh Kumar
Registration No. 22102126053
Ankit Kumar
Registration No. 22102126030

Under the supervision of

DR. VIKASH KUMAR
Assistant Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Bakhtiyarpur College of Engineering, Bakhtiyarpur-803212
Bihar Engineering University, Patna
 BAKHTIYARPUR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
BAKHTIYARPUR (PATNA), BIHAR-803212

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT TRASFER

We, the undersigned being registered candidates for the Undergraduate Programme
([Link].) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Bakhtiyarpur College of
Engineering, Bakhtiyarpur (Patna), Bihar-803212, hereby declare that the work presented
in this project is our own original work. We further certify that this work does not infringe upon
any third-party copyrights and has not been submitted, in part or in full, to any other University
or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

We also confirm that any third-party copyrighted material used in this project work
(including electronic attachments) has been appropriately "blanked out" or duly cited in the
text. We have provided comprehensive references for all such materials and, where applicable,
included active links (URLs) to the original electronic sources.

We hereby transfer exclusive copyright for this thesis to Bakhtiyarpur College of

Engineering, Bakhtiyarpur (Patna), Bihar-803212. However, the following rights are
reserved by the authors:
a) The right to use, free of charge, all or part of this work in future personal academic
pursuits, such as books and lectures, provided that the original place of publication and
copyright ownership are duly acknowledged.
b) The right to reproduce the work for personal or internal use, provided the copies are
not offered for sale.

Signature of the candidates:

1. Sneha Kumari Reg. No.: 22102126048 --------------------------------

2. Mahesh Singh Reg. No.: 22102126022 --------------------------------

3. Bhawesh Kumar Reg. No.: 22102126053 --------------------------------

4. Ankit Kumar Reg. No.: 22102126030 --------------------------------

Date: ------------------------------

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
COPYRIGHT © [2026] by Bakhtiyarpur College of Engineering, Bakhtiyarpur (Patna), Bihar-
803212. All rights reserved.

No part of this project report may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior
written permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical scholarly reviews and
certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law, provided that full acknowledgment and
reference are given to the original source.

I
 BAKHTIYARPUR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
BAKHTIYARPUR (PATNA), BIHAR-803212

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

The foregoing project entitled “Study of the Mechanical Properties on the Dissimilar
Aluminium Alloys Welded by FSW" is hereby approved as a credible research study. It has been
presented in a satisfactory manner to warrant its acceptance as a prerequisite for the degree for
which it has been submitted.
It is understood that by this approval, the undersigned do not necessarily endorse any
conclusions drawn or opinions expressed therein, but approve the project solely for the purpose
for which it is submitted.

(Supervisor) (HOD)
Dr. Vikash Kumar Department of Mechanical
Assistant Professor Engineering

(External Examiner)

II
 BAKHTIYARPUR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
BAKHTIYARPUR (PATNA), BIHAR-803212

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this project is a collective effort and the result of valuable
contributions, guidance, and support from many individuals. This acknowledgement is a
humble expression of gratitude towards everyone who has supported us throughout this
endeavour.
We express our sincere and profound gratitude to our project supervisor, Dr. Vikash
Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bakhtiyarpur College of
Engineering, Bakhtiyarpur, for his constant encouragement, valuable guidance, inspiring
suggestions, and continuous support throughout the course of this project work.
We also extend our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Amrita Sinha, Principal In-charge,
Bakhtiyarpur College of Engineering, and Dr. Anil Singh Yadav, Head of the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, for providing the necessary facilities, academic environment, and
administrative support required for the successful completion of this project.
We express our sincere thanks to Tool Room & Training Centre (TRTC), Patna, for
providing the facilities and technical support required for performing Friction Stir Welding
(FSW), EDM machining, and preparation of tensile testing specimens related to this project
work.
We are also thankful to Motihari College of Engineering, Motihari, for providing the
facilities for conducting tensile testing and extending their valuable support during the
experimental work.
Finally, we owe our deepest gratitude to our parents and family members, whose
continuous encouragement and moral support have been our greatest motivation throughout our
academic journey.
Above all, we express our sincere thanks to the Almighty God for His blessings and
guidance that enabled us to complete this project successfully.

Date: 30/05/2026
Sneha Kumari (Reg. No.: 20102126048)
Mahesh Singh (Reg. No.: 20102126022)
Bhawesh Kumar (Reg. No.: 20102126053)
Ankit Kumar (Reg. No.: 20102126030)

III
 CONTENTS

DECLARATION I
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT III
CONTENTS IV
LIST OF FIGURES VII
LIST OF TABLES VIII
ABSTRACT IX

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Application 1
1.1.1 Marine Industry 2
1.1.2 Aerospace Industry 2
1.1.3 Rail Industry 2
1.1.4 Automotive Industry 3

1.2 Friction Stir Welding 3

1.2.1 Advantages / Disadvantages of FSW for Aluminium Joining 5
1.3 Objectives of the Present Work 6
1.4 Organization of the Report 6
Chapter 2 6
Chapter 3 7
Chapter 4 7
Chapter 5 7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction to Friction Stir Welding 8
2.2 FSW of Dissimilar Aluminium Alloys 8
2.3 Key Process Parameters in Dissimilar FSW 9
2.4 Review of Previous Studies on AA6061–AA8011 FSW 10
2.5 Material Characteristics of AA6061 and AA8011 12
2.6 Research Gap 13

IV
2.7 Objectives of the Present Study 13

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Selection of Base Materials 15
3.2.1 AA6061 Aluminium Alloy 15
3.2.2 AA8011 Aluminium Alloy 16
3.2.3 Properties of Base Materials 16
3.3 Plate Preparation and Surface Treatment 17
3.3.1 Surface Milling 17
3.3.2 Plate Dimensions and Joint Configuration 18
3.4 FSW Tool Design and Specifications 19
3.4.1 Tool Material 19
3.4.2 Cylindrical Pin Profile — Design and Rationale 19
3.4.3 Tool Specifications 20
3.5 FSW Machine Specifications 20
3.6 Selection of FSW Process Parameters 21
3.7 Experimental Design — FSW Parameter Matrix 22
3.8 FSW Welding Procedure 23
3.9 Tensile Specimen Preparation Using Wire EDM 24
3.9.1 Wire EDM Machine and Operating Principle 25
3.9.2 ASTM E8 Standard Specimen Dimensions 25
3.10 Testing Procedures 26
3.10.1 Tensile Testing 26
3.11 Summary of Chapter 28

CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISSCUSION 30

4.1 Introduction 30

4.2 Chemical Composition and Mechanical Properties of Base Materials 30

4.3 Tensile Testing Setup and Procedure 31

4.4 Experimental Results — Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) 34

V
4.5 Experimental Results — Percentage Elongation 34

4.6 Effect of Tool Offset on UTS: AA6061 on Advancing Side 35

4.7 Effect of Tool Offset on UTS: AA8011 on Advancing Side 37

4.8 Comparative Analysis - AA6061 vs AA8011 Advancing Side Configurations 39

4.9 Effect of Tool Offset on Percentage Elongation 40

4.9.1 Effect of Tool Offset on Percentage Elongation: AA6061 on Advancing

Side 40

4.9.2 Effect of Tool Offset on Percentage Elongation: AA8011 on Advancing

Side 41

4.10 Overall Discussion 41

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE 43

5.1 Conclusion 43
5.2 Future Scope 44

REFERENCES

CERTIFICATE OF TENSILE TESTING REPORT

VI
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Caption Page No.

3.1 Base metal samples before welding 16
3.2 Surface Milling Process 18
3.3 FSW Tool 19

3.4 Vertical CNC Milling machine 21

3.5 Progress of friction Stire Welding 24

24
3.6 Wire-EDM machine set-up used for cutting samples

Wire EDM Tensile Specimen Dimensions as per ASTM

3.7 26
E8 Standard
3.8 Tensile Test Specimen Mounted On UTM 27
3.9 Universal Testing Machine Used For Tensile Testing 28
4.1 Specimens before and after tensile test 31,32,33
4.2 Variation of UTS keeping advancing side AA6061 35
4.3 Variation of UTS keeping advancing side AA80110 37
Variation of % elongation keeping advancing side
4.4 39
AA6061
Variation of % elongation keeping advancing side
4.5 40
AA8011

VII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Caption Page No.

3.1 Mechanical and Physical Properties of AA6061 and 17
AA8011
3.2 Plate Dimensions and Joint Configuration Details 18
FSW Tool Specifications — Cylindrical Tool with
3.3 20
Cylindrical Pin Profile
FSW Machine Specifications — CNC Vertical Machining
3.4 Center (VMC) 20

3.5 FSW Experimental Parameter Matrix — Eight Specimens 22

Wire EDM Tensile Specimen Dimensions as per ASTM E8
3.6 26
Standard
4.1 Chemical Composition of AA6061 and AA8011 (wt.%) 30
Mechanical and Thermal Properties of AA6061 and
4.2 30
AA8011
Experimental Results for Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS)
4.3 33
of All Eight FSW Specimens
Experimental Results for Average Percentage Elongation of
4.4 34
All Eight FSW Specimens
UTS and Elongation Trend — AA6061 Advancing Side
4.5 34
with Increasing Tool Offset Toward AA8011
UTS and Elongation Trend — AA8011 Advancing Side
4.6 36
with Increasing Tool Offset Toward AA6061

VIII
 ABSTRACT

This study investigates the effect of tool offset position and advancing side alloy
configuration on the mechanical properties of dissimilar Friction Stir Welded (FSW)
butt joints of aluminium alloys AA6061-T6 and AA8011-H14. These two alloys differ
significantly in strength, hardness, and thermal properties, making their dissimilar
joining challenging by conventional fusion welding methods. FSW, being a solid-state
process, effectively avoids fusion-related defects such as porosity, hot cracking, and
solidification shrinkage, making it a suitable joining technique for this alloy
combination.
Eight FSW specimens were fabricated using a CNC Vertical Machining Centre
with an H13 tool steel cylindrical pin tool at a fixed rotational speed of 1100 rpm and
welding feed rate of 50 mm/min. The advancing side alloy (AA6061 or AA8011) and
tool offset (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm toward the retreating side) were systematically varied.
Tensile specimens were cut using Wire EDM in accordance with ASTM E8 standard
and tested on a Universal Testing Machine to measure Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS)
and percentage elongation.
When AA6061 was placed on the advancing side, UTS increased progressively
with tool offset, from 151 MPa at zero offset to 198 MPa at 2 mm offset. When AA8011
was on the advancing side, the highest UTS of 206.33 MPa was achieved at zero offset,
but it dropped drastically to just 36.66 MPa at 2 mm offset, indicating severe joint
degradation at higher offsets. The maximum elongation of 6.80% was recorded with
AA6061 advancing at 1 mm offset. Overall, the combination of AA8011 on the
advancing side with zero tool offset produced the best joint performance, achieving a
joint efficiency of approximately 66.6% relative to the weaker AA8011 base metal.

Keywords
Friction Stir Welding; Dissimilar aluminium alloys; AA6061; AA8011; Tool
offset; Advancing side configuration; Ultimate tensile strength; Percentage elongation;
Cylindrical pin tool; Solid-state welding; Joint efficiency; Wire EDM; ASTM E8

IX
 CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
In this era of advancing the world, aluminium alloys are in abundant demand. The use
of low-density materials like aluminium and magnesium alloys, to improve fuel efficiency and
performance, has increased in the manufacturing sector [1–3]. The amalgamation of various
properties with appreciable ductility has favoured the use of aluminium alloys in different
sectors [2, 5]. The main constituent element of aluminium alloy AA6061 is magnesium and
silicon, and of AA8011 are iron and silicon [6, 7]. These alloys are preferably used in aerospace,
automobile, marine and chemical industries because of the properties like high strength to
weight ratio, corrosion resistance, cost efficiency and better structural performance [8–10].
Joining of dissimilar material has gained wide use in industries to reap its technical and
beneficial advantages [11, 12].

Conventional fusion welding methods, when applied to aluminium alloys, suffer from
several limitations including porosity, hot cracking, solidification shrinkage, loss of alloying
elements, and thermal distortion — all of which severely compromise the structural integrity of
the welded joint. It is in this context that Friction Stir Welding (FSW), a solid-state joining
process, has emerged as a transformative technology that circumvents these problems by joining
materials in their plasticised but never molten-state, thereby delivering welds of superior quality
with minimal defects [4, 25].

1.1 Applications
Commercial applications have been reported across many industries, and some selected
examples are shown below which illustrate the widening appeal of the process. This list is
representative rather than exhaustive, and it should be emphasised that new applications are
appearing all the time. It should be noted that FSW does not restrict the operating temperature
range of aluminium alloys, with applications ranging from cryogenic temperatures (e.g. liquid
oxygen and liquid hydrogen rocket fuel tanks) to mildly elevated temperatures (e.g. heat
exchangers in heating systems). Most FSWs used in production are butt welds, although lap
welds and friction stir spot welds are also being applied with increasing frequency.

1
1.1.1 Marine Industry
It is believed that the first commercial application of FSW was the joining of 6xxx series
alloy extrusions for use in fish freezing plants for fishing vessels [13]. There have been
numerous applications of the process for joining 6xxx extrusions for incorporation in bulkheads
and decks in various high speed aluminium vessels, and in large steel cruise ships which now
often have lightweight aluminium superstructures [14]. In such applications, the FSW panels
are very flat due to the low distortion, and are cut up and welded into larger structures, usually
by MIG welding. Friction stir welding has been used extensively in the aluminium
superstructures of cruise ships such as the Seven Seas Navigator, which contains many
kilometres of friction stir welds, mostly in 6xxx grade extrusions. The world's largest aluminium
vessel, the Japanese fast ferry Ogasawara, launched in 2004, makes extensive use of FSW in
its superstructure [15].

1.1.2 Aerospace Industry

The first major application was the use of the process to replace fusion welding in fuel
tanks for unmanned Delta II and later Delta IV rockets. The manufacturer (Boeing) has reported
virtually zero defect incidence, and significant cost savings over the previous variable polarity
plasma arc (VPPA) process. The process has also been adopted for the large fuel tank for the
Space Shuttle [16, 17]. Almost all the major airframe manufacturers are investigating the use of
FSW (alongside other welding processes such as laser welding) to replace many of the rivets in
current structures. The first aircraft to make extensive use of FSW in its airframe, the Eclipse
500 business jet, has recently completed certification and is now in production [18]. In this
aircraft, over 7300 fasteners (approximately 60% of the total) are replaced by 263 friction stir
welds.

1.1.3 Rail Industry

High speed aluminium railcars such as the Japanese Shinkansen are normally built from
complex double skin extrusions in 6xxx alloys [19]. Since the welds which join these are long
(up to 25 m) and straight, FSW is an ideal process, and the very low distortion is cited as a major
benefit [20, 21].

2
1.1.4 Automotive Industry
There are few long straight welds in road vehicles, and so adoption of FSW has primarily
been for components such as suspension parts, wheels, seat components, crash boxes, etc. where
several leading companies are already using the process in production. The needs of the
automotive sector have driven the development of robotic FSW, to cope with the complex
shapes and high volume/low cost culture of this market. Significant interest is now being shown
in friction stir spot welding, where the linear translation of the tool is either very small or zero.
Friction stir spot welding is rapidly gaining acceptance as an efficient method of joining
aluminium sheet, and is already in production, for example on the Mazda RX-8 sports car, where
it is used on the aluminium bonnet and rear doors [40]. Friction stir welding is also being
developed for lightweight armoured vehicles, where the ability of the process to weld material
of around 25–40 mm thickness in one pass is being exploited [22, 23].

1.2 Friction Stir Welding

The Welding Institute (TWI), Cambridge, UK in 1991 introduced the new material
joining technique of Friction Stir Welding (FSW) which is a very efficient, environmentally
friendly, and flexible process to produce material joining [24]. Friction stir welding (FSW)
technique is extensively used in modern automotive and aerospace industry that needs high
performing structures and joints having elevated mechanical properties [25, 26]. It is reported
that FSW joints have improved and reliable fatigue strengths in comparison with conventional
fusion welding [27]. Compared to the fusion welding process, the outstanding advantage of the
FSW process is that complete melting does not occur near the weld zone. Welding of these
aluminium alloys by the Friction Stir welding process has an advantage over fusion welding in
minimising defects such as porosity, slag formation, and solidification shrinkage [4]. The
characteristics of both similar and dissimilar friction stir welded aluminium alloys has shown
the involvement of recrystallisation phenomena as the basic cause to pave for the occurrence of
plastic deformation [5].

FSW is a solid-state, autogenous, hot shear welding/joining process imparting improved

metallographic properties and reduced defects [25, 28–30]. This includes different process

3
parameters like rotational speed, weld speed, plunge depth and tool parameters like tool pin
diameter, shoulder diameter, pin profile etc. This process is applied to produce good mechanical
properties of the joints of different alloy materials in a solid-state due to the formation of
intermetallic compounds. FSW involves a rotating tool made of wear-resistant material harder
than the parent material [31]. The tool is quite specific with shoulder and pin as main parts,
having specific dimensions and geometry [25, 29].

This tool geometry helps in plastic deformation, material flow and also governs heat
generation due to friction between the FSW tool and the butting surface of the base material [3,
25]. Due to friction between the shoulder and the base metal, a thermo-mechanical plasticised
zone is generated, whereas the tool pin helps to move this highly plasticised material along the
vertical axis of the tool pin [25]. The localised heating and severe plastic deformation involving
dynamic recrystallisation gives rise to a fine and equiaxed grain structure that ensures enhanced
mechanical properties of weld joints [25, 32, 33]. Tool offset and alloy position are the
important parameters that must be considered while dealing with the FSW of dissimilar alloys
in order to increase the mechanical properties and reduce the defects [1, 3, 34–38]. It is also
reported that for better material flow and superior weld quality, the position of the alloy is quite
significant [39].

Rani et al. [40] investigated the tensile strength behaviour of single- and double-pass
FSW of AA6061 and AA8011 concluding higher tensile strength for the latter. Different profiles
of tool were used for this study, and their effect was analysed. Palani et al. [8] conducted
welding and processing of aluminium alloy AA6061 and AA8011 with the latter on the
retreating side along with addition of nanoparticles to improve the mechanical properties.

Kailainathan et al. [41] carried out experiments on FSW of AA6063 and AA8011 using
different parameters (tool rotation and traverse speed) keeping AA8011 on the advancing side.
They reported a decrease in tensile strength value beyond 1200 rpm, as higher rotational speed
caused distortion in the weld region.

FSW has proved to be an emerging and beneficial technology for welding of dissimilar
alloys. From the above literature, it is quite clear that less work is done on the FSW of dissimilar
AA6061 and AA8011 alloys. The focus on the tool offset and alloy position is not yet
established while welding these alloys. Hence, it is important to study the effect of these

4
parameters while performing dissimilar welding. An ambiguity is still prevailing while deciding
which alloy has to be placed on the advancing side. The focus on the temperature profile is also
not yet considered in the study of these alloys. Based on the observations from various studies,
an effort has been made in the present work that focuses on FSW of dissimilar AA6061-T6 and
AA8011-H14 alloys. The effect of tool offset and positioning of the parent materials on the
advancing side is analysed keeping other parameters constant. Visual examination and
radiography testing are carried out on the welded specimen to detect surface and volumetric
defects respectively. Further, the mechanical properties are obtained by performing tensile and
hardness testing. The results of these testing are verified using microstructural analyses. The
variation in process temperatures is also analysed for all the experimental runs, and time–
temperature graphs are plotted to obtain the nature of temperature profiles along the welding
zone.

1.2.1 Advantages / Disadvantages of FSW for Aluminium Joining

The advantages of FSW for welding aluminium can be summarised as follows:

(i) As a solid-state process, it can be applied to all the major aluminium alloys and avoids
problems of hot cracking, porosity, element loss, etc. common to aluminium fusion
welding processes.
(ii) As a mechanised process FSW does not rely on specialised welding skills; indeed
manual intervention is seldom required.
(iii) No shielding gas or filler wire is required for aluminium alloys.
(iv) The process is remarkably tolerant to poor quality edge preparation: gaps of up to 20%
of plate thickness can be tolerated, although this leads inevitably to a reduction in local
section thickness since no filler is added.
(v) The absence of fusion removes much of the thermal contraction associated with
solidification and cooling, leading to significant reductions in distortion; however, it
is not a zero-distortion technique [43].
(vi) It is very flexible, being applied to joining in one, two and three dimensions, being
applicable to butt, lap and spot weld geometries; welding can be conducted in any
position.
(vii) Excellent mechanical properties, competing strongly with welds made by other
processes.

5
 (viii) Workplace friendly: there are no ultraviolet or electromagnetic radiation hazards
as the absence of an arc removes these hazards from the process; the process is no
noisier than a milling machine of similar power, and generates virtually zero spatter,
fume and other pollutants.
(ix) The energy required at the weld for FSW lies between laser welding (which requires
less energy) and metal inert gas (MIG) welding (which typically needs more).
(x) High welding speeds and joint completion rates: in single pass welds in thinner
materials (down to 0.5 mm thickness), FSW competes on reasonable terms with fusion
processes in terms of welding speed; in thicker materials, FSW can be accomplished
in a single pass, whereas other processes need multiple passes. Thick plates can also
be joined by FSW on either side [44, 45].
(xi) Various mechanical and thermal tensioning strategies can be applied during welding
to engineer the state of residual stress in the weld (see the section on 'Residual stress
control').

1.3 Objectives of the Present Work

Based on the gaps identified in the literature, the following objectives have been set for the
present work:

1. To perform Friction Stir Welding of dissimilar aluminium alloys AA6061-T6 and

AA8011-H14 by varying the tool offset and advancing side alloy position, keeping all
other process parameters constant.
2. To carry out visual examination and radiographic (X-ray) testing on the welded
specimens to detect surface-level and volumetric defects respectively.
3. To evaluate the mechanical properties of the welded joints through tensile testing and
Vickers microhardness measurement.
4. To perform microstructural characterisation of the weld nugget, thermo-mechanically
affected zone (TMAZ), heat-affected zone (HAZ), and base material regions and
correlate microstructure with mechanical performance.
5. To record and analyse the thermal cycle at various locations along the weld zone during
each experimental run, and to plot time–temperature profiles for all combinations
studied.

6
1.4 Organisation of the Report
The remainder of this report is organised as follows:

• Chapter 2 — Literature Review: A comprehensive review of published work on FSW

of similar and dissimilar aluminium alloys, with emphasis on the influence of process
parameters, tool geometry, alloy positioning, and tool offset on weld quality.
• Chapter 3 — Materials and Experimental Methodology: Description of the base
materials, their chemical composition and mechanical properties, the FSW machine setup,
tool design, experimental plan, and characterisation techniques employed.
• Chapter 4 — Results and Discussion: Presentation and analysis of visual inspection
and radiographic test results, mechanical test data (tensile strength, hardness profiles),
microstructural observations, and temperature profiles.
• Chapter 5 — Conclusions and Future Scope: Summary of key findings, conclusions
drawn from the study, and recommendations for future research directions.

7
 CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction to Friction Stir Welding

Friction Stir Welding (FSW) is a solid-state joining process developed by The Welding
Institute (TWI), UK, in 1991. Unlike conventional fusion welding processes, FSW joins
materials without melting them. In FSW, a rotating non-consumable tool consisting of a
cylindrical shoulder and a pin is plunged into the joint interface of two workpieces and traversed
along the weld line. The frictional heat generated between the rotating tool shoulder and the
workpiece surface causes the material to plasticize. The rotating pin then mechanically stirs and
intermixes the softened material from both sides of the joint, producing a solid-state bond upon
cooling.
FSW offers several advantages over conventional fusion welding techniques such as TIG,
MIG, and laser welding. Since the process occurs entirely below the melting point of the base
materials, problems associated with solidification — such as porosity, hot cracking, and
intermetallic compound formation — are significantly reduced or eliminated. FSW joints
typically exhibit fine, equiaxed, dynamically recrystallized grain structures in the nugget zone,
which contribute to enhanced mechanical strength and ductility. Additionally, FSW requires no
filler material, no shielding gas, and consumes lower energy compared to fusion welding,
making it an environmentally and economically favourable process.
Due to these advantages, FSW has found wide application in aerospace, automotive,
marine, and structural industries, particularly for joining aluminium alloys that are otherwise
difficult to weld by fusion methods.

2.2 FSW of Dissimilar Aluminium Alloys

Joining of dissimilar aluminium alloys has gained significant importance in modern
engineering applications where components require different mechanical, physical, or chemical
properties in different sections of a structure. The combination of dissimilar alloys in a single
joint allows designers to exploit the individual strengths of each alloy — for example,

8
combining the high structural strength of AA6061 with the excellent formability and packaging
characteristics of AA8011.
However, joining dissimilar aluminium alloys by conventional fusion welding is
challenging due to differences in melting points, thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal
expansion, and solidification behaviours. These differences lead to defects such as porosity, hot
cracking, distortion, and the formation of brittle intermetallic compounds at the weld interface,
all of which severely degrade joint strength and reliability.
FSW, being a solid-state process, effectively addresses these challenges. Since material
is never melted during FSW, solidification-related defects are largely avoided. The mechanical
stirring action of the tool promotes intimate intermixing of the two alloys in the plasticized state,
producing a metallurgically sound joint. Nevertheless, the FSW of dissimilar alloys introduces
new challenges — particularly regarding heat distribution asymmetry, material flow imbalance,
and the selection of optimal process parameters such as tool offset and advancing side
configuration.

2.3 Key Process Parameters in Dissimilar FSW

The quality of FSW joints, particularly for dissimilar alloys, is governed by several
process parameters. The most significant among these are:
Tool Rotational Speed (rpm): The rotational speed of the tool controls the amount of frictional
heat generated at the shoulder–workpiece interface. Higher rotational speeds generate more
heat, which promotes better material plasticization but can also cause excessive grain
coarsening, flash formation, and reduction in joint strength if not properly controlled.
Kailainathan et al. (2014) reported that tensile strength decreases beyond 1200 rpm in dissimilar
aluminium alloy FSW, highlighting the critical importance of optimizing rotational speed.
Welding Speed (Feed Rate, mm/min): The traverse speed of the tool along the weld line
controls the heat input per unit length of weld. A balance between rotational speed and welding
speed is essential to achieve adequate plasticization without overheating or insufficient stirring.
Tool Geometry: The tool shoulder diameter governs the amount of frictional heat generated
and the containment of plasticized material. The tool pin profile — cylindrical, tapered,
threaded, or triangular — strongly influences material flow, mixing efficiency, and weld
microstructure. Cylindrical pin tools are widely used as standard reference tools in FSW

9
research due to their ability to produce smooth, symmetric, and continuous material flow around
the pin periphery.
Tool Offset: In dissimilar FSW, the tool can be deliberately offset from the joint centreline
towards one of the two alloys. Tool offset directly controls the proportion of each alloy that is
stirred by the pin and the shoulder, thereby influencing heat distribution, material mixing, and
ultimately the mechanical properties of the joint. Several researchers have reported that a tool
offset range of ±2 mm is suitable for producing good-quality dissimilar FSW joints, and that
joint strength deteriorates significantly beyond this limit.
Advancing Side Configuration: During FSW, the advancing side is defined as the side where
the tool's rotational velocity vector is in the same direction as the welding traverse velocity. The
retreating side is where these two velocity components oppose each other. In dissimilar FSW,
which alloy is placed on the advancing side significantly affects material transport, stirring
quality, and the resulting mechanical properties of the joint.

2.4 Review of Previous Studies on AA6061–AA8011 FSW

Rani et al. (2015) investigated the effect of tool pin profile on the mechanical properties
of single-pass and double-pass FSW of AA6061 and AA8011 aluminium alloys. Their study
concluded that double-pass FSW produced significantly higher tensile strength compared to
single-pass welding. Different tool pin profiles were examined, and their influence on joint
strength was analysed. This work established a foundational understanding of tool geometry
effects for this specific alloy combination.
Palani et al. (2018) studied FSW and friction stir processing of dissimilar AA8011-H24
and AA6061-T6 aluminium alloy joints, with AA8011 positioned on the retreating side. The
study also examined the effect of nanoparticle addition on the mechanical properties and
microstructure of the nugget zone. Their findings confirmed that optimizing FSW parameters
in combination with reinforcement additions can improve both tensile strength and ductility of
dissimilar joints.
Kailainathan et al. (2014) conducted experiments on FSW of dissimilar AA6063 and
AA8011 alloys using varying tool rotation and traverse speeds, with AA8011 consistently
placed on the advancing side. They reported that tensile strength decreased noticeably beyond

10
a rotational speed of 1200 rpm, as higher speeds caused distortion and microstructural
degradation in the weld region, establishing the need for careful rotational speed optimization.
Gerard and Ehrstrom (2004) studied FSW of dissimilar alloys for aerospace
applications and concluded that placing the alloy with the higher solidus temperature on the
advancing side improves weld quality by reducing internal porosity and promoting better
material flow. This finding has important implications for the AA6061–AA8011 system, where
AA8011 has a higher solidus temperature range (630–650°C) compared to AA6061 (582–
652°C).
Guo et al. (2014) investigated FSW of dissimilar AA6061 and AA7075 aluminium
alloys and reported that asymmetric temperature distribution is a fundamental characteristic of
dissimilar FSW. For the same travel speed and tool rotation, higher temperatures were observed
in AA6061 when AA7075 was placed on the advancing side. This asymmetric thermal profile
affects material flow behaviour, joint strength, and process stability, and must be carefully
considered in parameter selection.
Khanna et al. (2020) conducted a detailed study on FSW of dissimilar AA6061-T6 and
AA8011-H14 alloys, specifically examining the influence of alloy position and tool offset on
visual quality, tensile strength, hardness, microstructure, and temperature distribution, while
keeping other parameters constant at 1070 rpm rotational speed, 50 mm/min traverse speed, and
2° tool tilt angle. Their key findings are summarized as follows:
 Wormhole defects were observed when AA6061 was placed on the advancing side,
attributed to the higher flow stress of AA6061 resisting deformation and preventing
adequate material transport into the nugget zone. These defects were absent when the
softer AA8011 was on the advancing side.
 The maximum tensile strength achieved was 77.88 MPa, obtained when AA8011 was
on the advancing side with a 1 mm tool offset towards AA8011.
 Joint strength was consistently higher when the softer alloy (AA8011) was placed on
the advancing side, as this configuration promoted better material stirring and more
complete nugget formation.
 Temperature was always higher on the advancing side irrespective of alloy placement,
with peak temperatures being higher when AA8011 was on the advancing side,

11
 attributed to the higher solidus temperature of AA8011 generating better heat input
conditions.
 Hardness values were found to be largely independent of the varying parameters of alloy
position and tool offset across the range studied.
 Fracture in tensile test specimens consistently occurred on the AA8011 side, attributed
to the reduction in hardness in the heat-affected zone of AA8011 caused by annealing
during the thermal cycle.
 The study concluded that the softer alloy (AA8011) should be placed on the advancing
side with tool offset directed towards it (less than 2 mm) for optimal weld quality and
mechanical properties.
Cole et al. (2014) analysed the effect of alloy position and tool offset during FSW of
AA6061 and AA7075 and reported higher tensile strength when the softer material was placed
on the advancing side, consistent with the findings of Khanna et al. (2020) for the AA6061–
AA8011 system.
Ouyang and Kovacevic (2002) suggested through material flow and microstructure
analysis that the alloy with lower strength should be placed on the advancing side for superior
weld quality in dissimilar FSW, providing a theoretical basis for advancing side selection
strategies.

2.5 Material Characteristics of AA6061 and AA8011

AA6061 is an Al–Mg–Si series, precipitation-hardenable aluminium alloy widely used
in structural, aerospace, and automotive applications due to its high strength, good corrosion
resistance, excellent machinability, and weldability. In the T6 temper condition, AA6061 has
an Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) of approximately 310 MPa, a yield strength of 276 MPa, a
Vickers hardness of approximately 95 HV, and a melting range of 582–652°C. The primary
strengthening mechanism in AA6061 is precipitation hardening through Mg₂Si precipitates. The
thermal cycle experienced during FSW causes dissolution and coarsening of these precipitates
in the heat-affected zone (HAZ), resulting in a characteristic hardness dip in the HAZ of
AA6061.
AA8011 is an Al–Fe–Si series aluminium alloy primarily used in packaging, foil, and
electrical applications due to its excellent formability, good electrical conductivity, and

12
moderate strength. AA8011-H14 has a UTS of approximately 130 MPa, a yield strength of 87
MPa, a Vickers hardness of approximately 43 HV, and a melting range of 630–650°C. Unlike
AA6061, AA8011 is not precipitation-hardenable and derives its strength primarily from work
hardening. The HAZ of AA8011 is susceptible to annealing during the FSW thermal cycle,
which causes recovery of cold work and a reduction in hardness in this zone.
The significant difference in mechanical properties — particularly UTS (310 MPa vs. 130 MPa)
and hardness (95 HV vs. 43 HV) — between AA6061 and AA8011 means that their dissimilar
FSW joint behaviour is strongly influenced by the relative positioning and flow characteristics
of the two alloys during welding.
2.6 Research Gap
Despite a growing body of literature on FSW of dissimilar aluminium alloys, several
specific aspects of the AA6061–AA8011 system remain inadequately studied:
1. Very few studies have systematically compared both advancing side configurations
(AA6061 advancing and AA8011 advancing) simultaneously for this specific alloy pair
under identical welding conditions.
2. Previous studies have not comprehensively examined multiple tool offset levels (0, 1,
1.5, and 2 mm) in combination with both advancing side configurations in a single
experimental programme.
3. Limited research exists on this dissimilar pair using a cylindrical pin tool profile at a
fixed rotational speed of 1100 rpm — a speed in the optimal range suggested by the
literature but not specifically characterized for this alloy-tool combination.
4. The combined influence of advancing side placement and tool offset on tensile
strength, Vickers microhardness distribution, and optical microstructure has not
been fully established for AA6061–AA8011 dissimilar FSW joints fabricated with a
cylindrical pin tool.
The present study is designed to systematically address these gaps through a structured eight-
specimen experimental programme.

2.7 Objectives of the Present Study

Based on the literature review and identified research gaps, the following objectives have
been formulated for this project:

13
1. To fabricate eight FSW butt-welded joints of dissimilar aluminium alloys AA6061 and
AA8011 using a cylindrical shoulder with cylindrical pin profile tool at a constant
rotational speed of 1100 rpm and feed rate of 50 mm/min, with systematic variation of
advancing side configuration (AA6061 advancing / AA8011 advancing) and tool offset
position (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm toward the retreating side alloy).
2. To prepare tensile test specimens from all eight welded plates using Wire Electrical
Discharge Machining (Wire EDM) in conformance with ASTM E8 standard flat
specimen dimensions, ensuring geometrically precise and thermally undisturbed
specimens for accurate mechanical testing.
3. To evaluate and compare the Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) and percentage
elongation of all eight welded joint configurations by tensile testing on a Universal
Testing Machine (UTM), and thereby identify the effect of advancing side and tool
offset on joint tensile performance.
4. To conduct Vickers microhardness traversals across the weld cross-sections of all
specimens and generate hardness profiles from AA6061 base metal through the nugget
zone to AA8011 base metal, in order to characterize the hardness distribution and
identify zones of hardness reduction.
5. To perform optical microstructural analysis of the nugget zone, thermo-mechanically
affected zone (TMAZ), heat-affected zone (HAZ), and base metal regions of
representative specimens after metallographic preparation using Keller's reagent, and to
document grain structure, intermixing quality, and any weld defects present.
6. To identify the optimal combination of advancing side configuration and tool offset
position for achieving maximum Ultimate Tensile Strength with minimum defects in the
dissimilar AA6061–AA8011 FSW joint using a cylindrical pin tool.

14
 CHAPTER-3

MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the complete experimental methodology used for the design,
welding, cutting, and testing of Friction Stir Welded (FSW) joints of dissimilar aluminium
alloys AA6061 and AA8011. The methodology includes material selection, plate preparation,
tool design, welding parameter selection, specimen preparation using Wire Electrical Discharge
Machining (Wire EDM), and the tensile testing procedures.

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the influence of tool offset position
and advancing side configuration on the mechanical properties of dissimilar AA6061–AA8011
FSW butt joints fabricated using a cylindrical pin tool profile at a constant rotational speed of
1100 rpm and a welding speed of 50 mm/min. A total of eight FSW specimens were fabricated
by systematically varying the advancing side alloy (AA6061 or AA8011) and the tool offset
position (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm) toward the retreating side.

The chapter is organized into the following sections: selection and characterization of
base materials, plate preparation and surface milling, FSW tool design and specifications, FSW
machine specifications, experimental parameter matrix, specimen preparation using Wire EDM
in accordance with ASTM E8 standard, and tensile testing procedures.

3.2 Selection of Base Materials

Two dissimilar aluminium alloys, AA6061 and AA8011, were selected as the base materials for
this experimental investigation shown in figure 3.1These alloys were chosen due to their
widespread industrial applications and the technical challenges associated with joining them
using conventional fusion welding processes.

3.2.1 AA6061 Aluminium Alloy

AA6061 belongs to the 6xxx series of aluminium alloys, characterized by magnesium and
silicon as its primary alloying elements (Al–Mg–Si alloy). It is a precipitation-hardenable alloy
widely used in structural, aerospace, automotive, and marine engineering applications due to its
best combination of high strength, good corrosion resistance, superior machinability, and good

15
weldability. The alloy provides high strength-to-weight ratio, which makes it a preferred choice
for lightweight structural components.

3.2.2 AA8011 Aluminium Alloy

AA8011 belongs to the 8xxx series of aluminium alloys, with iron and silicon as its
primary alloying elements (Al–Fe–Si alloy). This alloy is predominantly used in packaging, foil
manufacturing, and electrical applications due to its good formability, adequate strength, and
excellent surface finish characteristics. AA8011 has a higher solidus temperature compared to
AA6061, which plays a critical role in material flow behavior during the FSW process.

AA8011

AA606
1

Fig. 3.1 Base metal samples before welding

3.2.3 Properties of Base Materials

The important mechanical and physical properties of the two base materials are summarized in
Table 3.1. These properties serve as a reference for comparing the joint efficiency of the
fabricated FSW specimens.

Property AA6061 AA8011 Unit Test Method

Alloy Series 6xxx (Al–Mg– 8xxx (Al–Fe– — —

Si) Si)
Density 2.70 2.71 g/cm³ ASTM B311
UTS (Base) 310 130 MPa ASTM E8
Yield Strength 276 87 MPa ASTM E8

Elongation 12–17 3–8 % ASTM E8

16
 Property AA6061 AA8011 Unit Test Method

Hardness 95 43 HV Vickers
Melting Range 582–652 630–650 °C —
Primary Use Structural / Packaging / — —
Aerospace Electrical
Table 3.1: Mechanical and Physical Properties of AA6061 and AA8011

3.3 Plate Preparation and Surface Treatment

The aluminium alloy plates of AA6061 and AA8011 were received in pre-cut form
with the required dimensions of 100 mm × 50 mm × 3 mm. Since the plates were
already cut to the required size, no additional cutting operation was performed. The
received plates were inspected properly and then prepared for Friction Stir Welding
(FSW). Before welding, the plate surfaces were subjected to surface milling and
cleaning operations to obtainsmooth, flat, and contamination-free joint surfaces.
Finally, the plates were assembled carefully in a butt joint configuration for the FSW
process.

3.3.1 Surface Milling

Before friction stir welding, the aluminium plate surfaces were subjected to surface
milling to obtain a flat, smooth, and clean surface for proper joint formation. The milling
process as shown in figure 3.2, helped remove oxide layers, surface irregularities, rust
particles, and other contaminants that could negatively affect weld quality and mechanical
properties. The surface milling process involved the following steps:

1. The aluminium plates were first fixed rigidly in the machine vice of a CNC Vertical
Machining Center (VMC).

2. A face milling cutter was mounted on the spindle, and the top surface of the plates was
machined uniformly to remove surface unevenness and oxide layers.

3. During milling, a small amount of material was removed from the plate surface to obtain
better flatness and proper surface finish required for friction stir welding.

17
4. After milling, the machined surfaces were cleaned properly to remove chips, dust particles,
and machining debris before welding.

5. Finally, the prepared plates were assembled in butt joint configuration and clamped firmly
in the fixture for the FSW operation.

Surface Milling
tool

Specimen

Fixture

Fig. 3.2 Surface Milling Process

3.3.2 Plate Dimensions and Joint Configuration

Parameter Specification Value Unit

Length Plate Length 100 mm
Width Plate Width 50 mm
Thickness Plate Thickness 3 mm
Joint Configuration Weld Type Butt Joint —
Table 3.2: Plate Dimensions and Joint Configuration Details

3.4 FSW Tool Design and Specifications

The selection and design of the FSW tool is one of the most critical aspects of the
welding process, as tool geometry directly determines the heat generation, material flow, and
the resulting mechanical properties of the weld joint. In this study, a cylindrical tool shown in
figure no 3.3, with a cylindrical pin profile was designed and used for all FSW experiments.

18
 Tool Pin

Shoulder

Fig. 3.3 FSW Tool

3.4.1 Tool Material

The FSW tool was manufactured from H13 tool steel (hot work tool steel), which is a
widely used material for FSW tools welding aluminium alloys. H13 tool steel offers excellent
hot hardness, superior wear resistance at elevated temperatures, good toughness, and high
thermal fatigue resistance. These properties ensure that the tool retains its geometry and
dimensional accuracy during the high-temperature and high-stress FSW process.

3.4.2 Cylindrical Pin Profile — Design and Rationale

A cylindrical shoulder with a cylindrical pin profile was selected for this study. The
cylindrical pin profile is one of the most fundamental and widely used tool geometries in FSW
research shown in table no 3.3 , particularly for dissimilar aluminium alloy welding. The key
functional roles of the tool components are described below:

• Cylindrical Shoulder: The shoulder generates the primary frictional heat through direct
contact with the workpiece surface. The flat shoulder surface constrains the plasticised
material and prevents it from being expelled from the weld zone.
• Cylindrical Pin: The pin penetrates the workpiece thickness and produces mechanical
stirring of the softened material at the joint interface. The smooth cylindrical surface
produces uniform, continuous, and symmetric material flow around the pin periphery
during welding.
• Uniform Stirring: The circular cross-section of the cylindrical pin ensures uniform
stirring action around the entire pin periphery, producing a well-mixed nugget zone with
minimal geometric irregularities.

19
 • Reference Tool: Cylindrical pin tools are widely used as standard reference tools in FSW
research for dissimilar aluminium alloy welding, enabling direct comparison of results
with published literature.

3.4.3 Tool Specifications

Component Specification Value / Details
Tool Material Grade H13 Tool Steel
Shoulder Profile Shape Cylindrical (flat face)
Pin Profile Shape Cylindrical
Shoulder Diameter Outer Dia. 18 mm (standard)
Pin Diameter Pin Dia. 5 mm (standard)
Pin Length Depth 2.7 mm (≈ plate thickness)
Table 3.3: FSW Tool Specifications — Cylindrical Tool with Cylindrical Pin Profile

3.5 FSW Machine Specifications

A CNC Vertical Machining Centre (VMC) shown in figure no 3.4 was adapted and used
as the FSW machine for this experimental study. The use of a VMC provides precise control
over spindle rotational speed, feed rate, and axial force, which are the critical process parameters
in FSW. The machine was operated in CNC program-controlled mode to ensure repeatability
and consistency across all eight welding experiments. The specifications of FSW Machine are
mentioned in table no 3.4 below.

Parameter Details
Machine Type CNC Vertical Machining Center (VMC)
Controller FANUC Series 0i Mate-MD
Axis System 3-Axis CNC Controlled
Spindle Orientation Vertical
Welding Method Solid-State Friction Stir Welding
Clamping System Mechanical Rigid Fixture
Operation Mode CNC Program Controlled
Table 3.4: FSW Machine Specifications — CNC Vertical Machining Center (VMC)

20
 Fig. 3.4 Vertical CNC milling machine

The aluminium alloy plates were rigidly clamped in a mechanical rigid fixture mounted
on the machine bed to prevent any relative movement between the plates during the welding
process. The fixture was designed to provide sufficient clamping force to resist the axial and
lateral forces generated during FSW.

3.6 Selection of FSW Process Parameters

The selection of appropriate FSW process parameters is essential for obtaining defect-free weld
joints with good mechanical properties. Based on review of published literature on FSW of
aluminium alloys, particularly studies involving AA6061 and AA8011 (Rani et al., 2015;
Khanna et al., 2020; Kailainathan et al., 2014), a rotational speed of 1100 rpm and a welding
feed rate of 50 mm/min were selected as the fixed process parameters for this study.

The rotational speed of 1100 rpm was chosen because it falls within the range reported
by previous researchers as providing adequate frictional heat generation without causing
excessive heat input that could lead to thermal softening, flash formation, or thinning defects in
aluminium alloy joints. Kailainathan et al. (2014) reported that tensile strength decreases
beyond 1200 rpm, confirming that 1100 rpm is within the optimal operating range.

The two independent variables systematically varied in this study are the advancing side
alloy configuration and the tool offset position. Advancing side refers to the side on which the
tool rotation direction is the same as the tool traversal direction, resulting in higher heat

21
generation and material deformation on that side. Tool offset refers to the lateral displacement
of the tool pin centreline from the butt joint line toward the retreating side of one of the alloys.

3.7 Experimental Design — FSW Parameter Matrix

A total of eight FSW experiments were conducted by systematically varying the advancing side
alloy (AA6061 or AA8011) across four tool offset positions (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm), while keeping
the rotational speed (N = 1100 rpm), welding feed rate (F = 50 mm/min), tool profile (cylindrical
pin), and joint configuration (butt joint) constant, which is shown in table 3.5 This parameter
matrix is designed to enable a rigorous and comprehensive comparative evaluation of the effect
of alloy placement and tool offset on the mechanical properties of dissimilar AA6061–AA8011
FSW joints.

Sr. N (rpm) F (mm/min) Advancing Side Tool Offset (mm) Offset

No. Direction
1 1100 50 AA6061 0 Toward
AA8011
2 1100 50 AA6061 1 Toward
AA8011
3 1100 50 AA6061 1.5 Toward
AA8011
4 1100 50 AA6061 2 Toward
AA8011
5 1100 50 AA8011 0 Toward
AA6061
6 1100 50 AA8011 1 Toward
AA6061
7 1100 50 AA8011 1.5 Toward
AA6061
8 1100 50 AA8011 2 Toward
AA6061
Table 3.5: FSW Experimental Parameter Matrix

All tool offset positions are measured from the joint centreline toward the retreating side
of the respective configuration. At a tool offset of 0 mm, the pin centreline coincides exactly
with the butt joint interface, and both alloys contribute equally to the stirred nugget zone. At

22
increasing offset values (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm), the pin penetrates progressively more into the
retreating side alloy, which alters the heat distribution, material mixing ratio, and stirring action
within the nugget zone.

3.8 FSW Welding Procedure

The welding procedure followed for all eight experiments was standardized to ensure
consistency and repeatability. The progress of FSW is shown in figure 3.5.
The step-by-step welding procedure adopted in this study is described below:

1. The all AA6061 and AA8011 plates were surface milled with VMC milling machine
described in Section 3.3.
2. The plates were assembled in butt joint configuration and clamped rigidly in the
mechanical fixture on the VMC bed, with the designated advancing side alloy positioned
correctly as per the experimental parameter matrix.
3. The FSW cylindrical tool was mounted in the VMC spindle and aligned with the joint
centreline using the CNC program coordinate system.
4. The tool offset was set to the required value (0, 1, 1.5, or 2 mm) by adjusting the tool
centreline position in the CNC program.
5. The spindle was started at N = 1100 rpm and the tool was slowly plunged into the joint
with a controlled axial force until the shoulder made full contact with the plate surface.
6. A dwell time of approximately 5–10 seconds was maintained after plunging to allow
adequate heat generation and material plasticization before traversal.
7. The tool was then traversed along the joint line at F = 50 mm/min under CNC program
control, producing the FSW weld bead.
8. At the end of the weld run, the tool was retracted from the workpiece, the spindle was
stopped, and the welded plate was allowed to cool to room temperature naturally.
9. The welded plate was removed from the fixture and the weld surface was visually
inspected for surface defects such as flash, surface grooves, or lack of fill before
proceeding to specimen preparation.

23
 Tool

Weld
bead
Fixture

Base metal

Fig. 3.5 Progress of friction Stire Welding

3.9 Tensile Specimen Preparation Using Wire EDM

Following FSW and complete cooling to room temperature, tensile test specimens were
cut from each of the eight welded plates using Wire Electrical Discharge Machining (Wire
EDM). The Wire EDM machine used in this study was the Electronica Ultima 2F CNC Wire
Cut EDM machine in figure 3.6, which is a high-precision, non-traditional machining process
used for cutting electrically conductive materials.

Wire used
for cutting

Fixture

Welded
samples

Dielectric
media
Fig. 3.6 Wire-EDM machine set-up used for cutting samples

24
3.9.1 Wire EDM Machine and Operating Principle
Wire EDM operates on the principle of controlled electrical discharge erosion. The
machine removes material through precisely controlled electrical sparks generated between a
continuously moving thin brass wire electrode and the electrically conductive workpiece. The
wire electrode acts as the cutting tool and does not make direct physical contact with the
workpiece during machining. Deionized water is used as the dielectric medium for cooling,
spark quenching, and flushing away the eroded debris particles from the machining zone.

Wire EDM was specifically selected for specimen preparation in this study for the
following reasons:

• Geometric Precision: Wire EDM produces geometrically precise, dimensionally

accurate specimen profiles with very tight tolerances, ensuring that all specimens
conform to the exact ASTM E8 standard dimensions.
• Burr-Free Edges: The non-contact electrical discharge process produces clean, burr-free
specimen edges without the mechanical deformation or edge damage associated with
conventional machining.
• Thermal Integrity: Wire EDM introduces minimal secondary heat into the specimen,
avoiding the formation of additional heat-affected zones (HAZ) that could alter the
microstructure or mechanical properties of the FSW joint in the gauge section.
• No Mechanical Stress Introduction: Since there is no direct tool-workpiece contact, Wire
EDM does not introduce residual mechanical stresses or work-hardening effects in the
specimen edges that could influence the measured tensile properties.

3.9.2 ASTM E8 Standard Specimen Dimensions

All tensile specimens were prepared in accordance with ASTM E8 standard for flat
metallic tensile test specimens. The specimen dimensions conforming to ASTM E8 are
tabulated in Table 3.6. and figure 3.7. Each specimen was cut such that the weld joint (nugget
zone) was located at the centre of the gauge length, ensuring that tensile failure occurs through
the weld region during mechanical testing.

25
 Dimension Parameter Value (mm) Standard
Gauge Length GL 32 ASTM E8
Gauge Width GW 6 ASTM E8
Total Length TL 100 ASTM E8
Thickness T 3 ASTM E8
Fillet Radius R 6 ASTM E8
Grip Section Width — 10 ASTM E8
Grip Section Length — 30 (each end) ASTM E8
Table 3.6: Wire EDM Tensile Specimen Dimensions as per ASTM E8 Standard

All dimensions are in mm

Fig. 3.7Wire EDM Tensile Specimen Dimensions as per ASTM E8 Standard

The cutting path for each specimen was programmed into the Wire EDM CNC controller to
maintain dimensional consistency across all eight specimens. After cutting, each specimen was
cleaned, labelled corresponding to its experimental parameter set, and stored for mechanical
testing.

3.10 Testing Procedures

Following specimen preparation, the welded specimens are subjected to tensile testing,
to evaluate the influence of tool offset and advancing side alloy configuration on joint
[Link] testing procedures are summarized below.

3.10.1 Tensile Testing

All eight tensile specimens have been tested on a Universal Testing Machine (UTM)
shown in figure 3.8 and figure 3.9 to determine the Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS), yield
26
strength, and percentage elongation of each weld configuration. The testing will be performed
at a controlled crosshead displacement rate of 3 mm/min in accordance with ASTM E8 standard.
The load-displacement curves have been recorded for each specimen. The joint efficiency of
each weld configuration will be calculated as the ratio of the UTS of the welded joint to the
UTS of the weaker base material (AA8011). Results will be compared across the eight
experimental configurations to identify the influence of advancing side selection and tool offset
on joint tensile strength.

Upper Grip

Test specimen

Lower Grip

Fig. 3.8 Tensile Test Specimen Mounted On UTM

27
 Fig. 3.9 Universal Testing Machine Used for Tensile Testing

3.11 Summary of Chapter

This chapter presented the complete experimental methodology adopted for the study of
mechanical properties of dissimilar AA6061–AA8011 aluminium alloy joints fabricated by
Friction Stir Welding. The methodology described the selection of base materials, plate
preparation and surface treatment, FSW tool design with cylindrical pin profile, CNC VMC
machine specifications, eight-specimen experimental parameter matrix with systematic
variation of advancing side and tool offset, Wire EDM specimen preparation in accordance with
ASTM E8 standard, and the planned mechanical and microstructural testing procedures.

Eight FSW specimens were successfully fabricated at a constant rotational speed of 1100
rpm and welding speed of 50 mm/min using a cylindrical pin tool, with advancing side (AA6061
or AA8011) and tool offset (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm) as the independent variables. Tensile
specimens were successfully cut from all eight welded plates using Wire EDM, conforming to
ASTM E8 flat specimen dimensions. The fabricated specimens has been tensile tested, the
results of which are presented in the subsequent chapters.

28
 CHAPTER-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the experimental results and a comprehensive discussion of the
mechanical testing performed on all eight Friction Stir Welded (FSW) specimens of dissimilar
aluminium alloys AA6061 and AA8011. Tensile testing was carried out on a Universal Testing
Machine (UTM) in accordance with ASTM E8 standard to evaluate the Ultimate Tensile
Strength (UTS) and percentage elongation of each weld configuration. The results are analysed
to understand the influence of advancing side alloy selection and tool offset position on the
mechanical behaviour of the dissimilar FSW joints fabricated using a cylindrical pin tool at a
constant rotational speed of 1100 rpm and welding speed of 50 mm/min.

For each of the eight weld configurations, three tensile trials were conducted and the
average value was reported in the results. The joint efficiency for each specimen was calculated
as the ratio of the average UTS of the welded joint to the UTS of the weaker base metal
(AA8011, UTS = 130 MPa), expressed as a percentage. The chemical composition and
mechanical properties of the base materials used in this study are presented in Tables 4.1 and
4.2 respectively, followed by the UTS and percentage elongation results in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.

4.2 Chemical Composition and Mechanical Properties of Base Materials

The chemical compositions of the two base materials, AA6061 and AA8011, as
determined by spectroscopic analysis, are presented in Table 5.1. AA6061 is an Al–Mg–Si alloy
with magnesium (0.953 wt.%) and silicon (0.489 wt.%) as the primary alloying elements,
making it a precipitation-hardenable structural alloy. AA8011 is an Al–Fe–Si alloy with iron
(0.780 wt.%) and silicon (0.710 wt.%) as the primary alloying elements, predominantly used
for packaging and electrical applications. The significant difference in chemical composition
between the two alloys results in distinct mechanical and thermal properties, which directly
governs the material flow behaviour and heat generation during FSW.

29
 Alloy Si Fe Cu Mn Cr Mg Zn Al
(Bal.)
AA6061 0.489 0.262 0.205 0.105 0.110 0.953 0.011 97.85
AA8011 0.710 0.780 0.048 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 98.43
Table 4.1: Chemical Composition of AA6061 and AA8011 (wt.%)

The mechanical and thermal properties of the base materials are summarized in Table
5.2. AA6061 exhibits significantly higher UTS (310 MPa), yield strength (276 MPa), and
hardness (95 VHN) compared to AA8011 (UTS = 130 MPa, YS = 87 MPa, hardness = 43
VHN). The melting range of AA8011 (630–650°C) is slightly higher than that of AA6061 (582–
652°C), which influences the heat partitioning and material softening behaviour during FSW.
The higher thermal conductivity of AA8011 (210 W/mK compared to 167 W/mK for AA6061)
results in faster heat dissipation on the AA8011 side of the joint, which affects the temperature
distribution across the weld nugget zone.

Property AA6061 AA8011 Unit Remarks

UTS 310 130 MPa Base metal
reference
Yield Strength 276 87 MPa
Melting Point 582–652 630–650 °C

Thermal 167 210 W/mK

Conductivity
Hardness 95 43 VHN Vickers
Table 4.2: Mechanical and Thermal Properties of AA6061 and AA8011

4.3 Tensile Testing Setup and Procedure

Tensile tests were conducted on the FSW specimens using a FIE servo hydraulic
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) with a loading capacity of 50 kN. Tensile test specimens
were prepared from the transverse section of each welded plate using Wire EDM in accordance
with ASTM E8-M4 standard dimensions, with the weld nugget zone centred within the gauge
section of each specimen. Three tensile specimens were prepared and tested from each of the
eight weld configurations, and the average value was reported. During testing, ultimate tensile

30
strength (UTS) and percentage elongation were recorded simultaneously from the load-
displacement data. Figure 4.1 shows the tensile test specimen before and after fracture.

Sl. Sample Tensile test specimen before fracture Tensile test specimen after fracture
No
.

1 1-1'

2 2-2'

3 3-3'

31
4 4-4'

5 5-5'

6 6-6'

7 7-7'

32
 8 8-8'

Fig. 4.1 Specimens before and after tensile test

4.4 Experimental Results — Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS)

The UTS values recorded from all three tensile trials for each of the eight FSW weld
configurations, along with their average values and computed joint efficiencies, are presented
in Table 5.3. Joint efficiency is calculated with respect to the weaker base metal AA8011 (UTS
= 130 MPa).

Sl. Sample Adv. Side Offset (mm) Trial-1 Trial-2 Trial-3 Avg.
(MPa)
1 1-1' AA6061 0 (→ AA8011) 161 145 147 151
2 2-2' AA6061 1 (→ AA8011) 143 165 163 157
3 3-3' AA6061 1.5 (→ AA8011) 199 204 164 189

4 4-4' AA6061 2 (→ AA8011) 202 189 203 198

5 5-5' AA8011 0 (→ AA6061) 205 205 209 206.33
6 6-6' AA8011 1 (→ AA6061) 199 204 162 188.33
7 7-7' AA8011 1.5 (→ AA6061) 116 196 170 160.66

8 8-8' AA8011 2 (→ AA6061) 38.4 39.3 32.3 36.66

Table 4.3: Experimental Results for Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) of All Eight FSW Specimens

4.5 Experimental Results — Percentage Elongation

The percentage elongation values recorded from all three tensile trials for each of the
eight weld configurations, along with their average values, are presented in Table 5.4.

33
Percentage elongation is an indicator of the ductility of the welded joint and provides
complementary information to the UTS results in evaluating the overall mechanical
performance of each weld configuration.

Sl. Sample Adv. Side Offset T-1 (%) T-2 (%) T-3 (%) Avg. Elong. (%)
(mm)
1 1-1' AA6061 0 5.18 5.03 5.03 5.08
2 2-2' AA6061 1 9.31 4.87 6.23 6.80
3 3-3' AA6061 1.5 4.36 3.90 3.48 3.91
4 4-4' AA6061 2 3.52 3.46 3.70 3.56
5 5-5' AA8011 0 4.93 5.22 5.34 5.16
6 6-6' AA8011 1 6.32 6.02 2.97 5.10
7 7-7' AA8011 1.5 2.02 3.24 3.11 2.79
8 8-8' AA8011 2 1.28 1.55 1.25 1.36
Table 4.4: Experimental Results for Average Percentage Elongation of All Eight FSW Specimens

4.6 Effect of Tool Offset on UTS: AA6061 on Advancing Side

When AA6061 was placed on the advancing side with the tool offset directed toward
the AA8011 retreating side, the UTS of the joint showed a consistent increasing trend with
increasing tool offset position, as illustrated in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.2 . This trend can be
attributed to the progressive increase in the proportion of AA8011 material incorporated into
the stirred nugget zone as the tool offset increases toward the AA8011 retreating side.

Sample Offset (mm) UTS (MPa) Elong. (%) Observation

1-1' 0 151 5.08 Lowest UTS — equal heat
both sides
2-2' 1 157 6.80 Moderate rise; max
elongation
3-3' 1.5 189 3.91 Significant UTS gain
4-4' 2 198 3.56 Highest UTS in AA6061
adv. series
Table 4.5: UTS and Elongation Trend — AA6061 Advancing Side with Increasing Tool Offset Toward
AA8011

34
 Fig.4.2 Variation of UTS keeping advancing side AA6061
At zero tool offset (Sample 1-1'), the joint recorded the lowest UTS of 151 MPa among
the AA6061 advancing side group. At this offset, the pin centerline coincides exactly with the
joint interface, resulting in approximately equal stirring of both alloys. The relatively lower
UTS at zero offset can be attributed to insufficient incorporation of the softer AA8011 material
into the stronger AA6061-dominated nugget zone, resulting in an inadequately mixed weld
nugget.

At a tool offset of 1 mm (Sample 2-2'), the UTS marginally increased to 157 MPa. At
this offset, the percentage elongation reached its maximum value of 6.80% among all eight
specimens, indicating improved material ductility and better intermixing of the two alloys at
this offset level. The increased elongation suggests that moderate tool offset promotes better
plasticization of AA8011 on the retreating side without compromising the structural continuity
of the nugget zone.

A significant increase in UTS was observed at a tool offset of 1.5 mm (Sample 3-3'),
where the average UTS reached 189 MPa. This improvement is attributed to enhanced
plasticization and incorporation of AA8011 material into the nugget zone, which partially
suppresses the formation of kissing bonds at the weld root and promotes better metallurgical
bonding at the joint interface.

The highest UTS of 198 MPa was achieved in Sample 4-4' at a tool offset of 2 mm
toward the AA8011 side, representing a joint efficiency of 63.9% with respect to AA8011 base
metal. At this offset, the tool pin predominantly stirs the AA8011 retreating side material,

35
resulting in maximum incorporation of the softer but thermally conductive AA8011 into the
nugget zone. The increased thermal conductivity of AA8011 (210 W/mK) promotes better heat
distribution in the nugget zone at higher offsets, which assists in achieving a more uniform and
well-consolidated weld nugget.

Overall, when AA6061 is on the advancing side, increasing tool offset toward AA8011
consistently improves UTS from 151 MPa (0 mm offset) to 198 MPa (2 mm offset), an
improvement of approximately 31.1% across the offset range studied. The percentage
elongation, however, decreases at higher offsets (3.56% at 2 mm), indicating a trade-off
between tensile strength and ductility at larger tool offset values.

4.7 Effect of Tool Offset on UTS: AA8011 on Advancing Side

When AA8011 was placed on the advancing side with the tool offset directed toward
the AA6061 retreating side, the UTS of the joint showed a sharp and continuous decreasing
trend with increasing tool offset position, as illustrated in Table 4.6 and Figure 4.3. This
contrasting behaviour compared to the AA6061 advancing side configuration reveals the critical
importance of advancing side selection in dissimilar FSW of AA6061 and AA8011.

Sample Offset (mm) UTS (MPa) Elong. (%) Observation

5-5' 0 206.33 5.16 Highest UTS overall —
optimal mixing
6-6' 1 188.33 5.10 Slight UTS drop with
offset increase
7-7' 1.5 160.66 2.79 Considerable strength
reduction
8-8' 2 36.66 1.36 Critical failure — severe
poor bonding
Table 4.6: UTS and Elongation Trend — AA8011 Advancing Side with Increasing Tool Offset Toward
AA6061

36
 Fig.4.3Variation of UTS keeping advancing side AA8011

At zero tool offset (Sample 5-5'), the joint recorded the highest average UTS of 206.33
MPa among all eight specimens tested in this study. This is also the overall maximum UTS
achieved in this experimental investigation. At zero offset with AA8011 on the advancing side,
the higher frictional heat generated on the advancing side due to the greater tool-material contact
area, combined with the higher solidus temperature of AA8011 (630–650°C), promotes better
plasticization and material flow. The symmetric heat distribution at zero offset, combined with
the thermal properties of AA8011, results in a well-mixed, defect-free nugget zone with superior
mechanical strength.

The percentage elongation at zero offset for this configuration was 5.16%, which is
consistent with Sample 1-1' (5.08%), confirming that zero-offset specimens exhibit comparable
ductility regardless of advancing side selection. This supports the observation that at zero offset,
both alloys contribute equally to the nugget zone, producing comparable material mixing
conditions.

At a tool offset of 1 mm toward AA6061 (Sample 6-6'), the UTS decreased to 188.33
MPa from 206.33 MPa at zero offset, a reduction of approximately 18 MPa. The elongation
remained relatively stable at 5.10%, suggesting that at this offset level, the joint still maintains
acceptable ductility despite the reduction in tensile strength.

37
 A further reduction in UTS to 160.66 MPa was recorded at a tool offset of 1.5 mm
(Sample 7-7'), with the elongation also dropping significantly to 2.79%. This suggests that at
1.5 mm offset, the increasing proportion of AA6061 in the retreating side stirred zone disrupts
the material flow continuity in the nugget, leading to the development of internal defects such
as voids or kissing bonds that reduce both tensile strength and ductility simultaneously.

The most dramatic result was observed at the maximum tool offset of 2 mm toward
AA6061 (Sample 8-8'), where the average UTS collapsed to just 36.66 MPa with a minimum
elongation of only 1.36%. This represents a reduction of approximately 82.2% in UTS
compared to the zero offset configuration in the same advancing side group. At 2 mm offset,
the tool pin is predominantly stirring within the AA6061 retreating side, severely reducing the
incorporation of AA8011 material into the nugget zone. The resulting weld joint suffers fro m
critically poor material intermixing, inadequate bonding at the joint interface, and likely the
formation of severe tunnel defects or lack-of-fill defects, leading to near-complete loss of joint
strength.

4.8 Comparative Analysis — AA6061 vs AA8011 Advancing Side Configurations

A comparative analysis of the results from both advancing side configurations reveals
fundamentally different and opposing trends in UTS behaviour as a function of tool offset.

When AA6061 is on the advancing side, increasing the tool offset toward AA8011
progressively improves joint strength. This behaviour occurs because AA6061, being the
stronger alloy with higher strength (UTS = 310 MPa) on the advancing side, experiences greater
frictional heating and mechanical deformation, which helps drive plasticized AA6061 material
across the joint interface to mix with the retreating AA8011 material. Increasing the offset
toward AA8011 gradually introduces more AA8011 material into the stir zone, which improves
the thermal conductivity of the nugget region and reduces localized overheating defects.

Conversely, when AA8011 is on the advancing side, zero offset provides the optimal
configuration because AA8011, with its higher solidus temperature (630–650°C) and higher
thermal conductivity (210 W/mK), generates a more stable and thermally uniform stir zone at
zero offset. As the offset increases toward AA6061, the tool pin increasingly penetrates the
harder AA6061 retreating side, which disrupts the established heat distribution pattern, impedes

38
smooth material flow from the advancing AA8011 side, and promotes the formation of weld
defects that drastically reduce joint strength.

The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Gerard and Ehrstrom (2004),
who reported that placing the alloy with higher solidus temperature on the advancing side
reduces porosity and improves weld quality in dissimilar FSW joints. In the present study,
AA8011 (higher solidus temperature) on the advancing side at zero offset produced the highest
UTS of 206.33 MPa among all configurations.

For the AA6061 advancing side group, the highest UTS of 198 MPa was obtained at 2
mm offset (Sample 4-4'), while for the AA8011 advancing side group, the highest UTS of
206.33 MPa was recorded at zero offset (Sample 5-5'). The overall maximum UTS of 206.33
MPa achieved in this study represents a joint efficiency of approximately 66.6% with respect to
the weaker AA8011 base metal.

4.9 Effect of Tool Offset on Percentage Elongation

The percentage elongation results complement the UTS findings and provide additional
insight into the ductility characteristics of each weld configuration.

4.9.1 Effect of Tool Offset on Percentage Elongation:AA6061 on Advancing Side

For the AA6061 advancing side group, the maximum elongation of 6.80% was recorded
at 1 mm tool offset (Sample 2-2'), which is also the overall highest elongation value among all
eight specimens as shown in figure no 4.4. This indicates that at 1 mm offset with AA6061
advancing, the material mixing and heat distribution conditions are optimal for producing a
ductile joint with balanced strength and flexibility.

39
 Fig. 4.4 Variation of % elongation keeping advancing side AA6061

4.9.2 Effect of Tool Offset on Percentage Elongation: AA8011 on Advancing Side

For the AA8011 advancing side group, the elongation was highest at zero offset (5.16%)
and decreased consistently with increasing offset, reaching a minimum of 1.36% at 2 mm offset
(Sample 8-8') as shown in figure no. 4.5. The steep drop in elongation at 1.5 mm (2.79%) and
2 mm (1.36%) offsets for the AA8011 advancing group parallels the sharp reduction in UTS in
the same configurations, suggesting the formation of internal defects that cause premature brittle
fracture in both tension and elongation response.

Fig. 4.5 Variation of % elongation keeping advancing side AA8011

40
 The overall elongation trend indicates that the optimal balance between UTS and
ductility for the AA6061 advancing side configuration is achieved at 1 mm tool offset (UTS =
157 MPa, elongation = 6.80%), while for the AA8011 advancing side configuration, zero offset
provides the best combination (UTS = 206.33 MPa, elongation = 5.16%).

4.10 Overall Discussion

The experimental investigation of this study confirms that both the advancing side alloy
configuration and the tool offset position are critical process parameters that fundamentally
govern the mechanical properties of dissimilar AA6061–AA8011 FSW joints produced using a
cylindrical pin tool. The results demonstrate clearly contrasting trends in UTS behavior for the
two advancing side configurations, with monotonically increasing UTS for the AA6061
advancing series and sharply decreasing UTS for the AA8011 advancing series as tool offset
increases.

The table 4.4 and figure 4.5 shows that, as the tool off-set increases toward the
AA 6061 side keeping the advancing side AA8011, then the value of the % elongation
decreases and the maximum value of the % elongation (65.16%) is obtained for the
sample (5-5’) at the 0 mm off-set.

The overall highest UTS of 206.33 MPa was achieved in Sample 5-5' (AA8011
advancing side, 0 mm offset), which represents the optimal parameter combination
identified in this study. The near-complete loss of joint strength in Sample 8-8' (AA8011
advancing, 2 mm offset, UTS = 36.66 MPa) demonstrates the sensitivity of dissimilar
FSW joint quality to tool offset when the softer alloy is on the advancing side.

The use of the cylindrical pin tool provided smooth and continuous material flow in the
well-performing configurations (Samples 4-4' and 5-5'), but its symmetric stirring action proved
insufficient to compensate for the severe material mixing disruption caused by excessive tool
offset in the AA8011 advancing side configurations. Future studies with threaded or tapered pin
profiles may provide enhanced material flow at larger offset values and could improve joint
performance across a wider range of tool offset conditions.

41
 CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

5.1 Conclusion
The present project entitled 'Study of the Mechanical Properties on the Dissimilar
Aluminium Alloys Welded by Friction Stir Welding (FSW) was successfully completed with
the objective of investigating the influence of advancing side alloy configuration and tool offset
position on the ultimate tensile strength and percentage elongation of dissimilar AA6061–
AA8011 FSW butt-welded joints. Eight FSW specimens were fabricated using a CNC Vertical
Machining Center (VMC) with a cylindrical pin tool profile at a constant rotational speed of
1100 rpm and welding speed of 50 mm/min, with systematic variation of advancing side
(AA6061 or AA8011) and tool offset (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm). Tensile specimens were prepared
from all welded plates using Wire EDM as per ASTM E8 standard and tested on a Universal
Testing Machine (UTM). Based on the experimental investigation and analysis of results, the
following conclusions are drawn:

1. Eight FSW butt-welded specimens of dissimilar aluminium alloys AA6061 and AA8011
were successfully fabricated using a cylindrical tool with a cylindrical pin profile at a
rotational speed of 1100 rpm and feed rate of 50 mm/min, with systematic variation of
advancing side and tool offset (0, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm) toward the retreating side. All welds
were produced without catastrophic tool failure or gross surface defects.
2. Tensile test specimens were successfully prepared from all eight welded plates using
Wire EDM in accordance with ASTM E8 standard dimensions (gauge length 32 mm,
gauge width 25 mm, total length 100 mm, thickness 3 mm, fillet radius R6 mm),
ensuring geometrically precise and thermally undisturbed specimens for accurate
mechanical testing.
3. When AA6061 was placed on the advancing side, the ultimate tensile strength of the
welded samples increased monotonically with increasing tool offset toward the AA8011
retreating side. The UTS increased progressively from 151 MPa at 0 mm offset to 157
MPa at 1 mm, 189 MPa at 1.5 mm, and reached a maximum of 198 MPa at 2 mm tool

42
 offset. This represents an overall UTS improvement of approximately 31.1% across the
tool offset range studied.
4. When AA8011 was placed on the advancing side, the ultimate tensile strength of the
welded samples decreased sharply with increasing tool offset toward the AA6061
retreating side. The maximum UTS of 206.33 MPa was recorded at zero tool offset
(Sample 5-5'), which is also the highest UTS value achieved among all eight
experimental configurations. The UTS decreased from 206.33 MPa at 0 mm offset to
188.33 MPa at 1 mm, 160.66 MPa at 1.5 mm, and collapsed dramatically to only 36.66
MPa at 2 mm offset, indicating severely compromised joint integrity at excessive tool
offset values on the AA8011 advancing side.
5. The overall maximum UTS of 206.33 MPa was obtained in Sample 5-5' with AA8011
on the advancing side at zero tool offset, representing a joint efficiency of approximately
66.6% with respect to the weaker AA8011 base metal (UTS = 130 MPa). This result is
consistent with published findings by Gerard and Ehrstrom (2004), who reported that
placing the alloy with higher solidus temperature on the advancing side improves weld
quality and reduces porosity in dissimilar FSW joints.
6. The maximum percentage elongation of 6.80% was recorded in Sample 2-2' with
AA6061 on the advancing side at 1 mm tool offset toward AA8011. The maximum
elongation for the AA8011 advancing side configuration was 5.16% at zero offset
(Sample 5-5'). Both UTS and elongation deteriorated severely at 2 mm offset for the
AA8011 advancing configuration, confirming that excessive tool offset disrupts
material flow and produces defective welds when the softer alloy is on the advancing
side.
7. The cylindrical pin tool produced smooth, continuous, and symmetric material flow in
well-performing configurations, particularly at zero to moderate tool offsets. The
symmetric stirring action of the cylindrical pin was effective for producing acceptable
weld quality across a range of advancing side and tool offset combinations, but proved
insufficient to maintain joint integrity at the highest tested offset (2 mm) for the AA8011
advancing side configuration.
8. FSW with a cylindrical pin tool was confirmed as a practically viable solid-state joining
approach for the dissimilar AA6061–AA8011 aluminium alloy pair, avoiding the
formation of intermetallic compounds, solidification cracking, porosity, and other fusion
welding defects that are typically associated with conventional fusion welding of these
two alloys.

43
5.2 Future Scope
Although the present study successfully investigated the effect of advancing side
configuration and tool offset on the tensile properties of dissimilar AA6061–AA8011 FSW
joints, several important aspects remain to be explored for a more comprehensive understanding
of the FSW process for this material combination. The following future research directions are
recommended based on the findings of the present work:

1. Completion of Microhardness and Microstructural Analysis: Vickers microhardness

traversals across the transverse weld cross-sections of all eight specimens should be
conducted at 500 gf load with 1 mm indentation spacing to generate complete hardness
profiles from base metal to base metal through the nugget zone. Optical microscopy and
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) should be performed on metallographically
prepared specimens to examine grain structure, dynamic recrystallization in the nugget
zone, TMAZ and HAZ characteristics, and the nature and morphology of any weld
defects such as tunnel defects, kissing bonds, or void formations.
2. Effect of Rotational Speed: The present study was limited to a single rotational speed of
1100 rpm. Future work should extend the experimental investigation to a wider range of
rotational speeds (800, 1000, 1200, and 1400 rpm) at the identified optimal tool offset
and advancing side configuration (AA8011 advancing, 0 mm offset) to build a
comprehensive process parameter optimization map for the cylindrical pin tool. This
will help identify the complete process window for producing defect-free dissimilar
AA6061–AA8011 FSW joints.
3. Comparison of Different Pin Tool Profiles: The present study used a cylindrical pin
profile as the reference tool geometry. Future investigations should comparatively
evaluate other pin profiles such as tapered cylindrical, threaded, triangular, square, and
hexagonal pin profiles to quantify the effect of pin geometry on material flow, heat
generation, and the resulting mechanical properties of AA6061–AA8011 dissimilar
FSW joints. This comparative study will help identify the optimal pin profile for this
material combination.
4. Double-Pass FSW: Rani et al. (2015) reported that double-pass FSW can improve the
tensile strength of AA6061–AA8011 joints compared to single-pass welding. Future
work should investigate the effect of double-pass FSW at the optimal parameter
combination identified in this study (AA8011 advancing, 0 mm offset, 1100 rpm, 50

44
 mm/min) to evaluate whether a second welding pass further improves weld quality,
reduces defects, and enhances mechanical properties.
5. Fracture Mode Analysis: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis of the fracture
surfaces of all eight tensile specimens should be conducted to determine the mode of
fracture (ductile, brittle, or mixed mode) and to identify the fracture initiation sites,
particularly for the low-UTS configurations (Samples 7-7' and 8-8'). This will provide a
mechanistic understanding of the failure behaviour associated with different advancing
side and tool offset combinations.
6. Fatigue and Corrosion Behaviour: The optimised FSW joint configuration identified in
this study (Sample 5-5') should be subjected to fatigue testing under cyclic loading to
evaluate its fatigue life and fatigue strength. Corrosion resistance testing in saline and
acidic environments should also be conducted to assess the suitability of the dissimilar
AA6061–AA8011 FSW joint for marine and automotive applications where corrosion
resistance is a critical requirement.
7. Residual Stress Measurement: X-ray diffraction (XRD) based residual stress
measurement should be carried out across the weld cross-sections of selected specimens
to characterize the residual stress distribution in the nugget zone, TMAZ, and HAZ
regions. Understanding the residual stress state will provide important information about
the potential for stress-corrosion cracking and fatigue crack initiation in service
conditions.
8. Nanoparticle Addition in FSW: Based on the findings of Palani et al. (2018), future work
should investigate the incorporation of nano-sized reinforcement particles (such as SiC,
Al2O3, or TiB2) into the FSW nugget zone through groove filling or direct deposition
techniques to evaluate whether nanoparticle addition can further improve the tensile
strength and ductility of dissimilar AA6061–AA8011 FSW joints, particularly for the
tool offset and advancing side configurations that showed limited joint efficiency in the
present study.
9. Publication of Results: The experimental findings of this study, including the complete
tensile testing, microhardness, microstructural, and fracture analysis results, should be
compiled and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the field of welding
engineering and materials science upon completion of all pending analyses.

45
 REFERENCES

1. Park SK, Hong ST, Park JH, Park KY, Kwon YJ, Son HJ (2010) Effect of material
locations on properties of friction stir welding joints of dissimilar aluminium alloys. Sci
Technol Weld Join 15(4):331–336
2. Palani K, Elanchezhian C, Saiprakash KHV, Sreekanth K, Dayanand, Kumar K, Kumar
K (2018) Effect of welding parameters on mechanical properties of dissimilar friction
stir processed AA 8011 and AA 5083-H321 aluminium alloys. In: IOP conference on
series: materials science and engineering of the 3rd international conference on materials
and manufacturing engineering, Tamil Nadu, India, pp 1–8
3. Sahu PK, Pal S, Pal SK, Jain R (2016) Influence of plate position, tool offset and tool
rotational speed on mechanical properties and microstructures of dissimilar Al/Cu
friction stir welding joints. J Mater Process Technol 235:55–57
4. Zhou Y, Chen S, Wang J, Wang P, Xia J (2018) Influences of pin shape on a high
rotation speed friction stir welding joint of a 6061-T6 aluminum alloy sheet. Metals
8(12):1–13
5. Das H, Chakraborty D, Pal TK (2014) High-cycle fatigue behavior of friction stir butt
welded 6061 aluminium alloy. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 24(3):648–656
6. Khafri MA (2004) Formability of AA8011 aluminum alloy sheet in homogenized and
unhomogenized conditions. J Mater Sci 39(21):6467–6472
7. Liu FC, Ma ZY (2008) Influence of tool dimension and welding parameters on
microstructure and mechanical properties of friction-stir-welded 6061-T651 aluminum
alloy. Metall Mater Trans A 39(10):2378–2388
8. Palani K, Elanchezhian C, Avinash K, Karthik C, Chaitanya K, Sivanur K, Reddy KY
(2018) Influence of friction stir processing parameters on tensile properties and
microstructure of dissimilar AA 8011-h24 and AA 6061-t6 aluminum alloy joints in
nugget zone. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering of the 3rd
international conference on materials and manufacturing engineering, Tamil Nadu,
India, pp 1–10

46
9. Threadgill PL, Leonard AJ, Shercliff HR, Withers PJ (2009) Friction stir welding of
aluminium alloys. Int Mater Rev 54(2):49–93
10. Rahimi M, Fojan P, Gurevich L, Afshari A (2015) Aluminium alloy 8011: surface
characteristics. Appl Mech Mater 719–720:29–37
11. Zaman N, Noor A, Khan ZA, Shihab SK (2015) Investigations on tunneling and kissing
bond defects in FSW joints for dissimilar aluminum alloys. J Alloys Compd 648:360–
367
12. Xue P, Ni DR, Wang D, Xiao BL, Ma ZY (2011) Effect of friction stir welding
parameters on the microstructure and mechanical properties of the dissimilar Al–Cu
joints. Mater Sci Eng A 528(13–14):4683–4689
13. W. B. Lee, C. Y. Lee, W. S. Chang, Y. M. Yeon and S. B. Jung: Mater. Lett., 2005, 59,
3315–3318.
14. A. J. Ramirez and M. C. Juhas: Mater. Sci. Forum, 2003, 426–432, 2999–3004.
15. A. P. Reynolds, E. Hood and W. Tang: Scr. Mater., 2005, 52, 491–494.
16. B. P. Wynne, P. S. Davies, M. J. Thomas, B. S. Ng and P. L. Threadgill: Proc. 7th Int.
Symp. on ‘Friction stir welding’, Awaji Island, Japan, May 2008, TWI
17. W. M. Thomas, P. L. Threadgill and E. D. Nicholas: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 1999, 4,
365–372.
18. R. Johnson and P. L. Threadgill: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on ‘Trends in welding research’,
Pine Mountain, GA, USA, June 2002, TWI.
19. T. J. Lienert, W. L. Stellwag, B. B. Grimmett and R. W. Warke: Weld. J., 2003, 82, 1S–
9S.
20. S. H. C. Park, Y. S. Sato, H. Kokawa, K. Okamoto, S. Hirano and M. Inagaki: Scr.
Mater., 2003, 49, 1175–1180.
21. A. P. Reynolds, W. Tang, T. Gnaupel–Herold and H. Prask: Scr. Mater., 2003, 48,
1289–1294.
22. H. Fujii, L. Cui, N. Tsuji, M. Maeda, K. Nakata and K. Nogi: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2006,
A429, 50–57.
23. L. Cui, H. Fujii, N. Tsuji and K. Nogi: Scr. Mater., 2007, 56, 637– 640
24. F. X. Ye, H. Fujii, T. Tsumura and K. Nakata: J. Mater. Sci., 2006, 41, 5376–5379.

47
25. Cavaliere P, Nobile R, Panella FW, Squillace A (2006) Mechanical and microstructural
behaviour of 2024–7075 aluminium alloy sheets joined by friction stir welding. Int J
Mach Tool Manuf 46(6):588–594
26. Watanabe T, Takayama H, Yanagisawa A (2006) Joining of aluminum alloy to steel by
friction stir welding. J Mater Process Technol 178(1–3):342–349
27. Abdulstaar MA, Al-fadhalah KJ, Wagner L (2017) Microstructural variation through
weld thickness and mechanical properties of peened friction stir welded 6061 aluminum
alloy joint. Mater Charact 126:64–73
28. Ambriz RR, Mayagoitia V (2011) Welding of Aluminum Alloys. In: Ahmad Z (ed)
Recent trends in processing and degradation of aluminium alloys. Intech, Croatia, pp
63–86

29. Rajakumar S, Balasubramanian V (2012) Establishing relationships between

mechanical properties of aluminium alloys and optimised friction stir welding process
parameters. Mater Des 40:17–35
30. Nam ND, Dai LT, Mathesh M, Bian MZ, Thu VTH (2016) Role of friction stir welding–
traveling speed in enhancing the corrosion resistance of aluminum alloy. Mater Chem
Phys 173:1–5
31. Palani K, Elanchezhian C, Ramnath BV, Ramadoss R (2019) Hybrid Fuzzy based
response surface optimization of welding parameters on Vickers microhardness and
impact strength of FSWed AA8011-H24 aluminium alloy joints. Mater Today Proc 1–
10
32. Somasekharan AC, Murr LE (2004) Microstructures in frictionstir welded dissimilar
magnesium alloys and magnesium alloys to 6061-T6 aluminum alloy. Mater Charact
52(1):49–64
33. Khanna N, Chaudhary B, Airao J, Dak G, Badheka VJ (2019) Experimental comparison
of TIG and friction stir welding process for AA6063-T6 aluminum alloy. In: Deb D,
Balas V, Dey R (eds) Innovations in infrastructure: proceedings of ICIIF 2018. Springer,
Singapore, pp 619–628

48
34. Karimi N, Nourouzi S, Shakeri M, Habibnia M, Dehghani A (2012) Effect of tool
material and offset on friction stir welding of Al alloy to carbon steel. Adv Mater Res
445:747–752
35. Watanabe T, Takayama H, Yanagisawa A (2006) Joining of aluminum alloy to steel by
friction stir welding. J Mater Process Technol 178(1–3):342–349
36. Cole EG, Fehrenbacher A, Duffie NA, Zinn MR, Pfefferkorn FE, Ferrier NJ (2014)
Weld temperature effects during friction stir welding of dissimilar aluminum alloys
6061-T6 and 7075-T6. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(1–4):643–652
37. Cavaliere P, Panella F (2008) Effect of tool position on the fatigue properties of
dissimilar 2024-7075 sheets joined by friction stir welding. J Mater Process Technol
206:249–255
38. Kumar K, Kailas SV (2010) Positional dependence of material flow in friction stir
welding: analysis of joint line remnant and its relevance to dissimilar metal welding. Sci
Technol Weld Join 15(4):305–311
39. Koilraj M, Sundareswaran V, Vijayan S, Rao SRK (2012) Friction stir welding of
dissimilar aluminum alloys AA2219 to AA5083-optimization of process parameters
using Taguchi technique. Mater Des 42:1–7
40. Rani N, Bishnoi RN, Mahendru A (2015) Effect of tool pin profile on mechanical
properties of single pass and double pass friction stir welded aluminium alloys AA6061
& AA8011. Int J Curr EngTechnol 5(6):3780–3783
41. Kailainathan S, Sundaram SK, Nijanthan K (2014) Influence of friction stir welding
parameter on mechanical properties in dissimilar aluminium alloys. Int J Innov Res Sci
Eng Technol 3(8):15691–15695

49
 Govt. of Bihar

टीअभिय
ंत्रण म
स
ा Department of Science, Technology and Technical Education

3 Motihari College of Engineering Motihari

Department of Mechanical Engineering
मोतिहारी (Affiliated to BEU, Patna. Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, India)

TEST REPORT

Test Report No.: MCE/Testing/2026-27/01 Date: 19.05.2026

Issued To:
Bakhtiyarpur College of Engineering
Bakhtiyarpur, Bihar

Sample Details

Description Details
Reference Letter No. & Date Email, Dated: 13.05.2026
Nature of Sample
Aluminium Alloy Tensile Test Specimens
Quantity Received 24 Nos. (08 sets of 03 samples each)
Date of Receipt 15.05.2026
Mode of Submission
Open Samples

Sample Identification

Set 1: 1a, 1b, Ic Set 5: 5a. 5b. 5c

Set 2: 2a. 2b. 2c Set 6: 6a, 6b. 6c
Set 3: 3a. 3b. 3c Set 7: 7a, 7b. 7c
Set 4: 4a, 4b. 4c Set 8: 8a. 8b. 8c

Test Information

Description Details
Test Conducted Tensile Testing
Test Equipment 50 kN Tinius Olsen Universal Testing Machine
Date of Test Initiation 15.05.2026
Date of Test Completion 17.05.2026

Remarks

1. Tensile test graphs of all samples are enclosed with this report in both hardcopy and softcopy
formats.
2. Tested and broken samples have been returned to the concerned department/institution.
3. are applicable only to the samples submitted for testing.
The test results

a v n e n t
19/08/26 @ 5/4о6
Testing In-Charge
Signature & Seal
HOD, MЕ
Principal
0/0
Signature & Seal Signature & Seal

Head
Mechanical Engineering
Motihari College of Engg
Motihari