4.6 Article

Aluminum/steel joints made by an alternative friction stir spot welding process

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.04.028

关键词

Al-5083; St-12; Friction stir spot welding; Rotational speed; Dwell time; Tensile-shear strength

资金

  1. research board of Sharif University of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of the rotational speed and dwell time on the joint interface microstructure and tensile-shear strength of friction stir spot welded Al-5083 aluminum/St-12 steel alloy sheets was investigated. Joining of the sheets was performed using an alternative friction stir spot welding (FSSW) process in which the welding tool tip did not penetrate into the lower steel sheet. Rotational speeds of 900 and 1100 rpm were applied in association with the dwell times of 5 to 15 s to weld the samples. Thermal history was recorded during the joining process. Interfacial microstructure, formation of intermetallic compounds (IMCs) at the joint interface and the fracture locations were studied using stereo, optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The used alternative process was successful to join the sheets. For both of the applied rotational speeds, there were optimum dwell times (10 and 12s for the rotational speeds of 1100 and 900 rpm, respectively) to reach the maximum failure loads. The increasing trend of the strength as a function of the dwell time was related to the formation of a thin intermetallic (IM) layer at the joint interface. The decreasing trend was attributed to the formation of a relatively thick IM layer at the joint interface as well as the grain growth of aluminum at the exit-hole periphery where the final fracture occurred. The IM reaction layer thickness of 2.3 mu m was found to be a critical thickness. Compared to the rotational speed of 1100 rpm, stronger joints were achieved by application of 900 rpm rotational speed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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