Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Underwater friction-stir welding of a stir-cast AA6061-SiC metal matrix composite: optimization of the process parameters, microstructural characterization, and mechanical properties

Ibrahim Sabry
Ibrahim Sabry
 und 
A.M. Hewidy
A.M. Hewidy
   | 04. Juli 2022
Materials Science-Poland's Cover Image
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zitieren
Online veröffentlicht: 04. Juli 2022
Seitenbereich: 101 - 115
Eingereicht: 23. Feb. 2022
Akzeptiert: 09. Mai 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2022-0013
Schlüsselwörter
© 2022 Ibrahim Sabry et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of UWFSW (A) UWFSW welding fixture. (B) Photo of a tool (C) tool dimension (D) specimens of 6061/18% SiC AMC
Schematic representation of UWFSW (A) UWFSW welding fixture. (B) Photo of a tool (C) tool dimension (D) specimens of 6061/18% SiC AMC

Fig. 2

(A) Photos of the specimens after tensile test. (B) Photos of the specimens before tensile test. (C) Dimensions of tensile test specimens (dimensions are in millimeter)
(A) Photos of the specimens after tensile test. (B) Photos of the specimens before tensile test. (C) Dimensions of tensile test specimens (dimensions are in millimeter)

Fig. 3

Experimentation flowchart of the UWFSW
Experimentation flowchart of the UWFSW

Fig. 4

Stress–strain curve of unwelded AA 6061 Al-SiC alloy specimens from the tensile test
Stress–strain curve of unwelded AA 6061 Al-SiC alloy specimens from the tensile test

Fig. 5

Stress-strain curve of welded AA 6061 Aluminium-silicon carbide alloy specimens from the tensile test for weld speed 10 mm/min
Stress-strain curve of welded AA 6061 Aluminium-silicon carbide alloy specimens from the tensile test for weld speed 10 mm/min

Fig. 6

The influence of UWFSW parameters on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is shown by a perturbation plot
The influence of UWFSW parameters on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is shown by a perturbation plot

Fig. 7

The influence of N and S on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D
The influence of N and S on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D

Fig. 8

The influence of SiC and S on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D
The influence of SiC and S on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D

Fig. 9

The influence of N and S on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D
The influence of N and S on the UTS of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D

Fig. 10

The influence of UWFSW parameters on the WNH is represented by a perturbation plot
The influence of UWFSW parameters on the WNH is represented by a perturbation plot

Fig. 11

The influence of N and S on the WNH of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D
The influence of N and S on the WNH of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D

Fig. 12

The influence of SiC and S on the WNH of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D
The influence of SiC and S on the WNH of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D

Fig. 13

The influence of N and S on the WNH of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D
The influence of N and S on the WNH of the UWFSW joint is represented by contour plots: (A) plot of contour 2D; (B) plot of contour 3D

Fig. 14

A graphic that predicts the best UWFSW process parameters
A graphic that predicts the best UWFSW process parameters

Fig. 15

UWFwelded macrostructure for 6061/18% (A) UWFSW at 1,000 rpm (B) UWFSW at 1,800 rpm SiC composite
UWFwelded macrostructure for 6061/18% (A) UWFSW at 1,000 rpm (B) UWFSW at 1,800 rpm SiC composite

Fig. 16

UWFSW optical microscopic for composite material at 1,000 rpm and 6,061/5%, SiC. (A) At 1,000 rpm and 6,061/10%, SiC. (B) At 1,000 rpm and 6,061/18%, SiC. (C) At 1,800 rpm and 6,061/5%, SiC min. (D) At 1,800 rpm and 6,061/10%, SiC. (E) At 1,800 rpm, SiC (F) and 6,061/18% SiC (G) Microstructure of UWFSW for AL6061 at speed 1,000 rpm (H) Microstructure of UWFSW for AL6061 at speed 1,400 rpm (I) UWFSW for AL6061 at speed 1,800 rpm
UWFSW optical microscopic for composite material at 1,000 rpm and 6,061/5%, SiC. (A) At 1,000 rpm and 6,061/10%, SiC. (B) At 1,000 rpm and 6,061/18%, SiC. (C) At 1,800 rpm and 6,061/5%, SiC min. (D) At 1,800 rpm and 6,061/10%, SiC. (E) At 1,800 rpm, SiC (F) and 6,061/18% SiC (G) Microstructure of UWFSW for AL6061 at speed 1,000 rpm (H) Microstructure of UWFSW for AL6061 at speed 1,400 rpm (I) UWFSW for AL6061 at speed 1,800 rpm

Fig. 17

XRD patterns of AA6061/SiC with different content of SiC particles
XRD patterns of AA6061/SiC with different content of SiC particles

The chemical make-up of 6061 Al-alloy

Element Mg Si Fe Cu Mn Zn Cr Ti Al
Wt.% 1.1 0.55 0.4 0.10 0.9 0.25 0.04 0.12 Remainder

The outcomes of the experiments as well as the values anticipated by the Design-Expert software for all numbers of runs

n UTS WNH
Actual UTS Predicted UTS Error% Actual WNH Predicted WNH Error%
1 205.000 204.909 0.091 64.544 59.172 5.372
2 196.000 192.538 3.462 55.243 55.779 −0.536
3 190.000 184.806 5.194 52.942 53.658 −0.716
4 200.000 200.218 −0.218 55.980 57.530 −1.550
5 190.000 187.846 2.154 53.679 54.137 −0.458
6 180.000 180.114 −0.114 51.378 52.017 −0.639
7 190.000 195.526 −5.526 55.198 55.888 −0.690
8 185.000 183.154 1.846 52.897 52.496 0.401
9 174.000 175.422 −1.422 50.596 50.375 0.221
10 202.000 200.937 1.063 56.113 57.431 −1.318
11 186.400 188.566 −2.166 53.812 54.038 −0.226
12 174.700 180.833 −6.133 51.511 51.917 −0.406
13 195.300 196.245 −0.945 54.548 55.789 −1.241
14 183.700 183.874 −0.174 52.247 52.396 −0.149
15 172.300 176.142 −3.842 49.946 50.276 −0.330
16 193.100 191.554 1.546 53.766 54.147 −0.381
17 180.030 179.182 0.848 51.465 50.755 0.710
18 170.320 171.450 −1.130 49.164 48.634 0.530
19 196.000 196.965 −0.965 56.113 55.690 0.423
20 185.100 184.593 0.507 52.380 52.297 0.083
21 176.200 176.861 −0.661 50.079 50.177 −0.098
22 191.300 192.273 −0.973 53.117 54.048 −0.931
23 184.200 179.902 4.298 50.816 50.655 0.161
24 171.200 172.169 −0.969 48.515 48.535 −0.020
25 187.100 187.582 −0.482 52.335 52.406 −0.071
26 181.100 175.210 5.890 50.034 49.014 1.020
27 166.300 167.478 −1.178 47.732 46.893 0.839

Full factorial design matrix

Run SiC N S UTS (MPa) code VHNode
1 5 1,000 10 205.00 64.544
2 10 1,000 10 196.00 55.243
3 18 1,000 10 190.00 52.942
4 5 1,000 20 200.00 55.980
5 10 1,000 20 190.00 53.679
6 18 1,000 20 180.00 51.378
7 5 1,000 30 190.00 55.198
8 10 1,000 30 185.00 52.897
9 18 1,000 30 174.00 50.596
10 5 1,400 10 202.00 56.113
11 10 1,400 10 186.40 53.812
12 18 1,400 10 174.70 51.511
13 5 1,400 20 195.30 54.548
14 10 1,400 20 183.70 52.247
15 18 1,400 20 172.30 49.946
16 5 1,400 30 193.10 53.766
17 10 1,400 30 180.03 51.465
18 18 1,400 30 170.32 49.164
19 5 1,800 10 196.00 56.113
20 10 1,800 10 185.10 52.380
21 18 1,800 10 176.20 50.079
22 5 1,800 20 191.30 53.117
23 10 1,800 20 184.20 50.816
24 18 1,800 20 171.20 48.515
25 5 1,800 30 187.10 52.335
26 10 1,800 30 181.10 50.034
27 18 1,800 30 166.30 47.732

ANOVA results for microhardness

Exporter Squares of sum df Square of mean F-value p-value
Model 260.47 9 28.94 21.80 <0.0001 Significant
A-SiC 138.06 1 138.06 104.02 <0.0001
B-N 56.45 1 56.45 42.53 <0.0001
C-S 51.50 1 51.50 38.80 <0.0001
AB 2.94 1 2.94 2.22 0.1548
AC 6.75 1 6.75 5.09 0.0376
BC 2.58 1 2.58 1.95 0.1810
A2 0.17 1 0.17 0.13 0.7234
B2 1.32 1 1.32 0.99 0.3331
C2 4.43 1 4.43 3.34 0.0852
Residual 22.56 17 1.33
283.03 26

The optimization criteria that were applied in this study

Parameters/responses of the process Goal The bare minimum The bare maximum Significance
A:SiC Is in range 6.03417 16.9658 3
B:N Is in range 10,063 1,736.36 3
C:S Is in range 10 28.409 3
UTS Maximize 186.3 202.9 3
WNH Maximize 47.732 64.544 3

UWFSW process parameters and their limits

Level
Parameter −1 0 1
Silicon carbide (SiC) (%) 5 10 18
Rotation speed (N) (rpm) 1,000 1,400 1,800
Travel speed (S) (mm/min) 10 20 30

ANOVA results for UTS

Exporter Squares of sum df Square of mean F-value p-value
Model 2,637.03 9 293.00 52.07 <0.0001 Significant
A-SiC 1,896.87 1 1,896.87 337.08 <0.0001
B-N 73.62 1 273.62 48.62 <0.0001
C-S 397.11 1 397.11 70.57 <0.0001
AB 6.56 1 6.56 1.17 0.2952
AC 1.37 1 1.37 0.24 0.6285
BC 30.72 1 30.72 5.46 0.0320
A2 47.11 1 47.11 8.37 0.0101
B2 19.92 1 19.92 3.54 0.0771
C2 0.10 1 0.10 0.018 0.8943
Residual 95.66 17 5.63
Cor Total 2,732.69 26
eISSN:
2083-134X
Sprache:
Englisch
Zeitrahmen der Veröffentlichung:
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Fachgebiete der Zeitschrift:
Materialwissenschaft, andere, Nanomaterialien, Funktionelle und Intelligente Materialien, Charakterisierung und Eigenschaften von Materialien
Zeitschrift RSS Feed