Fatigue Behavior of Dissimilar Al-Mg-Si/Al-Zn-Mg Aluminum Alloys Friction Stir Welding Joints

doi:10.1007/s40195-016-0510-2

Abstract

Abstract:

In this study, fatigue properties and fracture mechanism of dissimilar Al-Mg-Si/Al-Zn-Mg aluminum alloys friction stir welding (FSW) joints were investigated and the effect of the sheet configuration on the fatigue behavior of the FSW joints was also discussed. Results showed that the joints owned better fatigue properties when the Al-Zn-Mg aluminum alloy was placed at the advancing side (AS). At 107 cycles, the fatigue strengths of Al-Zn-Mg-AS and Al-Mg-Si-AS joints were, respectively, 105.6 and 90.1 MPa. All joints fractured at the heat-affected zone at the Al-Mg-Si alloy side. Transmission electron microscopy results showed that better fatigue property of the Al-Zn-Mg-AS joint was associated with the bridging effect of the bigger secondary phase particles.

Key words: Fatigue behavior, Friction stir welding, Al-Mg-Si/Al-Zn-Mg aluminum alloys, Secondary phase particle

Zhong-Jie Yan1,Xue-Song Liu1,Hong-Yuan Fang1. Fatigue Behavior of Dissimilar Al-Mg-Si/Al-Zn-Mg Aluminum Alloys Friction Stir Welding Joints[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2016, 29(12): 1161-1168.

Figures/Tables 11

Table 1 Chemical compositions of the BM (wt%)

BM	Si	Fe	Cu	Mn	Mg	Zn	Ti	Cr	Al
Al-Mg-Si	0.4-0.9	≤0.35	≤0.35	≤0.50	0.4-0.8	≤0.25	≤0.10	≤0.30	Bal.
Al-Zn-Mg	≤0.30	≤0.30	≤0.20	0.2-0.7	1.0-2.0	4.0-5.0	≤0.20	≤0.30	Bal.

Table 2 Mechanical properties of the BM

BM	Tensile strength (MPa)	Yield strength (MPa)	Elongation (%)
Al-Mg-Si	284	241	25
Al-Zn-Mg	368	256	19.5

Fig. 1 Dimension of the specimen for fatigue

Fig. 2 Fatigue life of the FSW joints

Fig. 3 General views of the fracture surfaces: a Al-Zn-Mg-AS using 120 MPa, b Al-Mg-Si-AS using 140 MPa, c Al-Mg-Si-AS using 160 MPa

Fig. 4 Crack source: surface indentation a, its magnified view b, secondary phase particle c, its magnified view d, e, f EDS analyses of the secondary phase particles A and B in d

Fig. 5 Radial river-like pattern near the crack source a, its magnified view b, fatigue striations c, micro-pit d

Fig. 6 Fatigue striations near the crack source a, far from the crack source b

Fig. 7 Fracture morphologies of the final rupture regions: a Al-Zn-Mg-AS joint, b Al-Mg-Si-AS joint

Fig. 8 TEM photographs of the fracture region: a Al-Zn-Mg-AS joint, b its magnified view, c Al-Mg-Si-AS joint, d its magnified view

Fig. 9 Crack propagation when the fatigue striation spacing is 0.6 μm: a Al-Zn-Mg-AS joint, b Al-Mg-Si-AS joint

References

[1]	L. John Baruch, R. Raju, V. Balasubramanian, A.G. Rao, I. Dinaharan, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 29(5), 431 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]	S.D. Ji, Y.Y. Jin, Y.M. Yue, S.S. Gao, Y.X. Huang, L. Wang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29, 955 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]	B.S. Naik, D.L. Chen, X. Cao, P. Wanjara, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 44, 3732 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]	A.M. El-Batahgy, T. Miura, R. Ueji, H. Fujii, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 651, 904 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]	L. Zhou, H.J. Liu, Q.W. Liu, Mater. Des. 31, 2631 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]	X. Fei, X. Jin, Y. Ye, T. Xiu, H. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 653, 43 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]	Y. Wei, J. Li, J. Xiong, F. Huang, F. Zhang, S.H. Raza, Mater. Charact. 71, 1 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]	S. Ji, Z. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Zhou, P. Chai, Mater. Des. 103, 160 (2016)Google Scholar
[9]	V. Firouzdor, S. Kou, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41, 3238 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]	C. Deng, H. Wang, B. Gong, X. Li, Z. Lei, Int. J. Fatigue 83, 100 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]	Z. Zhang, W. Li, F. Wang, J. Li, Mater. Lett. 162, 94 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]	H. Barekatain, M. Kazeminezhad, A.H. Kokabi, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 30, 826 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]	Q.L. Dai, Z.F. Liang, G.Q. Chen, L.C. Meng, Q.Y. Shi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 580, 184 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]	G. D’Urso, C. Giardini, S. Lorenzi, T. Pastore, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214, 2075 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]	H.M. Rao, J.B. Jordon, B. Ghaffari, X. Su, A.K. Khosrovaneh, M.E. Barkey, W. Yuan, M. Guo, Int. J. Fatigue 82, 737 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]	Z. Shen, Y. Ding, J. Chen, A.P. Gerlich, Int. J. Fatigue 92, 78 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]	T.S. Srivatsan, M. Kuruvilla, L. Park, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527, 435 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]	E. Maggiolini, R. Tovo, L. Susmel, M.N. James, D.G. Hattingh, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 92(2), 478 (2016)Google Scholar
[19]	P. Cavaliere, G.L. Rossi, R. Di Sante, M. Moretti, Int. J. Fatigue 30(1), 198 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]	M. Bahrami, N. Helmi, K. Dehghani, M.K.B. Givi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 595(10), 173 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]	S.D. Ji, X.C. Meng, J.G. Liu, L.G. Zhang, S.S. Gao, Mater. Des. 62, 113 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]	M. Kadlec, R. Ruzek, L. Novakova, Int. J. Fatigue 74, 7 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]	M. Nakai, T. Eto, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 285, 62 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar