4.7 Article

Microstructure and failure mechanisms of refill friction stir spot welded 7075-T6 aluminum alloy joints

期刊

MATERIALS & DESIGN
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 476-486

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.08.026

关键词

Non-ferrous metals and alloys; Welding; Mechanical

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [50775159]
  2. Nature Science Foundation of Tianjin [10JCYBJC06700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the microstructure and mechanical properties of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy joints joined by refill friction stir spot welding (RFSSW) were investigated. The keyhole was refilled successfully, and the microstructure of the weld exhibited variations in the grain sizes in the width and the thickness directions. There existed defects (hook, voids, bonding ligament, etc.) associated to the material flow in the weld. Mechanical properties of the joint have been investigated in terms of hardness and tensile/shear and cross-tension test, and the fracture mechanisms were observed by SEM (scanning electron microscope). The hardness profile of the weld exhibited a W-shaped appearance in the macroscopic level, which reached the minimum at the boundary of the sleeve and the clamping ring. The variation laws between tensile/shear and cross-tension strength and processing parameters were rather complicated. The void in the weld played an important role in determining the strength of the joint. On the whole, the preferable strength can be obtained at lower rotational speed. Shear fracture mode was observed under tensile-shear loadings, and nugget debonding, plug type fracture (on the upper sheet) and plug type fracture (on the lower sheet) modes were observed under cross-tension loadings. It was also observed that the main feature affecting the mechanical properties of the joint is the alclad between the upper and lower sheets and the connecting qualities between the stir zone and thermo-mechanically affected zone. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据