137

Chapter 6

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ON FRICTION

WELDING PROCESS FOR DISSIMILAR MATERIALS
USING DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In the present section of research, three important aspects are

investigated using design of experiments (DOE). First, a new joint

geometry was considered for investigation due to certain

advantages as presented in chapter 4. Second, influence of weld

parameters on weld interface temperature is investigated, as

temperature is very critical in friction welding of Al 6061 and SS 304

due to tendency of intermetallic layer formation at weld interface and

third, influence of weld parameters on tensile strength and upset are

investigated.

The experimental data for each of the responses (tensile

strength, upset and temperature) are analyzed using analysis of

variance (ANOVA) to identify the significant contributing factors.

Main effect plots are presented to understand the influence of

different weld parameters on responses. Interaction plots are

presented to understand whether the effect of one factor depends on

the level of other factor. Interaction plots are used to visualize

possible interactions. Mathematical model is developed to predict

tensile strength, interface temperature and upset. The relation

 138

between friction welding process inputs and measured outputs helps

in proper implementation of machine controls and it also helps in

special purpose machine design.

One factor at a time approach was not used for

experimentation because one factor at a time strategy fails to

consider any possible interaction between the factors and they are

less efficient.

6.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Al 6061 and SS 304 are welded with direct drive friction

welding setup with new joint geometry as discussed in chapter 4.

The diameter and length of weld specimens are considered as 25 mm

and 125 mm respectively. The design of experiment process is

divided into three main phases that encompasses all the

experimentation approach. The three phases are a) the planning

phase b) the conducting phase and c) the analysis phase. The block

diagram of DOE is shown in Figure 6.1.

The important controllable process variables for friction

welding process are rpm, friction time, forging time, friction pressure

and forging pressure. The three levels of process parameters and

trail details are given in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 respectively.

The uncontrollable variables such as alignment of parts,

cleanliness of weld surfaces, surface finish etc. These uncontrollable

variables are controlled for the purpose of test.

 139

The strength of weld joint is evaluated by tensile test. The

temperature developed at the weld interface is recorded with

thermocouple. The upset is measured by data acquisition system.

The experimental data for each of the response is analyzed using

analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify the significant contributing

factors. Main effect plots are studied to understand the influence of

weld parameters on tensile strength, upset and weld interface

properties. Interaction plots are studied to understand the combined

effect of two or more factors at a time. Mathematical model is

developed to predict the tensile strength, upset and weld interface

temperature.

Figure 6.1 Block diagram of design of experiment

S.No. Welding Parameters Low Medium High

1 RPM 1400 1700 2000

2 Friction Pressure (MPa) 30 50 70

3 Friction Time (Seconds) 1 2 3

4 Forging Pressure (MPa) 100 120 140

5 Forging Time (Seconds) 2 4 6

Table 6.1 Friction weld parameters and levels

 140

Friction welding parameters Responses

FRP FT FOP FOT Upset
S.No. RPM (Mpa) (Sec.) (Mpa) (Sec.) UTS (Mpa) (mm) Temp (C)

1 1400 30 1 100 2 220.9 3 186

2 1400 30 2 120 4 256.6 8 270

3 1400 30 3 140 6 250.69 12.5 230

4 1400 50 1 120 4 227.15 3.7 176

5 1400 50 2 140 6 238.79 10 197

6 1400 50 3 100 2 218.67 13.6 484

7 1400 70 1 140 6 278.65 7.5 208

8 1400 70 2 100 2 209.7 15.8 447

9 1400 70 3 120 4 233.46 15.6 418

10 1700 30 1 120 6 253.99 5.2 158

11 1700 30 2 140 2 242.95 9.8 321

12 1700 30 3 100 4 239.95 11 420

13 1700 50 1 140 2 267.32 8 213

14 1700 50 2 100 4 210.15 1.8 248

15 1700 50 3 120 6 192.83 15.8 383

16 1700 70 1 100 4 234.32 6 216

17 1700 70 2 120 6 208.74 13.2 468

18 1700 70 3 140 2 185.91 15.6 478

19 2000 30 1 140 4 250.45 8 284

20 2000 30 2 100 6 218.35 10 257

21 2000 30 3 120 2 211.63 15 410

22 2000 50 1 100 6 187.71 7 270

23 2000 50 2 120 2 212.41 13 417

24 2000 50 3 140 4 212.86 17 430

25 2000 70 1 120 2 241.45 8 340

26 2000 70 2 140 4 227.95 15 365

27 2000 70 3 100 6 194.5 16.8 486

Table 6.2 Friction welding trails

Where FRP Friction pressure, FT Friction time, FOR Forging

pressure, FOT Forging time, UTS Ultimate tensile strength
 141

6.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.3.1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Anova is a statistical technique used for analysing the data from

the experiments. ANOVA compares the response variable means at the

different factor levels to evaluate the importance of one or more

factors. It tests the hypothesis whether the means of two or more

populations are equal or not. The null hypothesis states that all

population means are equal while the alternative hypothesis states

that at least one is different. The experimental data for each of the

response (tensile strength, upset and temperature) is analysed using

ANOVA to identify the significantly contributing factors.

The Analysis outputs tensile strength, upset and temperature is

presented in the Table 6.3, Table 6.4 and Table 6.5 respectively. It

includes the source of variation, their degrees of freedom and the total

sum of square. The MS (mean-squares), F-statistics and p-values are

also included into the ANOVA table to find out whether the predictors

or factors are significantly related to the responses.

The various components of ANOVA table are Source which

represents the source of variation, either from interaction or the factor

or the error. The total is a addition of all the sources. DF is degrees of

freedom from each source.

If a factor has three levels, the degree of freedom is 2 (n-1). SS

represents sum of squares between groups (factor) and the sum of

squares within groups (error). Mean squares (MS) are found by

 142

dividing the sum of squares by the degrees of freedom. F F can be

calculated by dividing the factor MS by the error MS; Compare this

ratio against a critical F found in the table or use the p--value to find

out whether the factor is significant or not. Typically compare against

an alpha value of 0.05. If the p-value is lower than 0.05, then the

factor is significant.

6.3.1.1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ULTIMATE TENSILE

STRENGTH

The Anova table for UTS is shown below Table 6.3

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

RPM 2 1718.4 1649.5 824.8 2.30 0.133
FRP 2 1894.5 1955.4 977.7 2.72 0.096
FT 2 2727.1 2711.3 1355.6 3.77 0.045
FOP 2 2681.4 2717.2 1358.6 3.78 0.045
FOT 2 133.0 133.0 66.5 0.19 0.833
Error 16 5748.1 5748.1 359.3
Total 26 14902.4

Table 6.3 Analysis of variance for UTS, using adjusted SS for tests

The percentage contribution of factors for ultimate tensile

strength is given in phi chart as shown in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2 Pie chart for percentage contribution for ultimate tensile
strength
 143

It is observed from Figure 6.2 that, friction time and forging

pressure are the most significant factor and forging time has least

impact on ultimate tensile strength. P value indicates the level at

which the corresponding effects are considered to be significantly

different and in general the p value have to be less than 0.05 to say

the effect is statistically significant at 95% or more.

6.3.1.2 MAIN EFFECT PLOTS FOR ULTIMATE TENSILE

STRENGTH

The main effect plots for ultimate tensile strength in shown in Figure

6.3.

Figure 6.3 Main effect plots for ultimate tensile strength

Main effect plot is drawn by averages of observations at each

linking. The steeper the slope of the line, the greater is the magnitude

of the main effect. The main effect plots for the rpm, friction pressure,
 144

friction time, forging pressure and forging time are placed together in

one graph to compare their relative magnitudes.

Ultimate tensile strength decreases as rpm increases. Lower

rpm helps in minimizing the formation of intermetallic compound at

the rubbing surfaces. Thus ensures good weld strength.

Ultimate tensile strength decreases as friction time increases.

Friction time is selected so as to ensure that the interface surfaces are

cleaned by friction and temperature is raised to achieve the required

plasticity for welding. With increase in friction time the heat at the

interface increases and thus it may increases the tendency of

intermetallic layer thickness and is responsible for lower ultimate

tensile strength.

With increase in friction pressure the ultimate tensile strength

decreases up to 50 MPa then it increases. Ultimate ensile strength

increases as forging pressure increases. Forging time has least effect

on the ultimate tensile strength.

6.3.1.3 INTERACTION PLOTS FOR ULTIMATE TENSILE

STRENGTH

Interaction plots are studied to understand whether the effect of

one factor depends on the level of the other factor. Interaction plots

are used to visualize possible interactions. Parallel lines in an

interaction plot indicate no interaction. The greater the difference in

slope between the lines, higher is the degree of interaction. However,

 145

the interaction plot doesn't give information if the interaction is

statistically significant. The interaction plot for ultimate tensile

strength is given in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4 Interaction plots for ultimate tensile strength

6.3.2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR UPSET

The Anova table for upset is shown below Table 6.4.

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

RPM 2 41.445 30.168 15.084 2.62 0.104
FRP 2 43.950 52.759 26.380 4.58 0.027
FT 2 359.325 359.817 179.909 31.21 0.000
FOP 2 13.845 14.879 7.439 1.29 0.302
FOT 2 18.163 18.163 9.081 1.58 0.237
Error 16 92.239 92.239 5.765
Total 26 568.967

Table 6.4 Analysis of variance for upset, using adjusted SS for tests

The percentage contribution of factors for upset is given in pie

chart format is shown in Figure 6.5.

 146

Figure 6.5 Pie chart for percentage contribution for upset

From the Figure 6.5 it is observed that friction time has highest

contribution of 54%.

6.3.2.1 MAIN EFFECT PLOTS FOR UPSET

The main effect plots for upset are given in Figure 6.6.

Figure 6.6 Main effect plots for upset

From the Figure 6.6, it is observed that upset is influenced by

friction time, friction pressure, rpm and forging pressure. Friction

 147

time has highest influence on upset. Upset increases as friction time,

friction pressure and forging pressure increases. Higher friction time

results in greater material consumption and lower productivity.

Forging time has lease effect on upset.

6.3.2.2 INTERACTION PLOTS FOR UPSET

The interaction plot for upset is given in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7 Interaction plots for upset

It is observed from the interaction plots that there is no

interaction between friction time and forging pressure. It is also

noticed that there is no interaction between forging time and friction

time.
 148

6.3.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR WELD INTERFACE

TEMPERATURE

Friction welding of SS 304 and Al 6061 has tendency of

intermetallic layer formation at the weld interface. The growth and

formation of intermetallic layer strongly depends on local temperature

attained during welding.

For good weld strength optimum amount of heat is required.

The excessive heat generation during welding leads to intermetallic

layer formation and it is responsible for brittle failure. The Anova for

weld interface temperature is given below in Table 6.5.

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

RPM 2 23034 19748 9874 7.71 0.005
FRP 2 31802 43174 21587 16.86 0.000
FT 2 150846 138573 69287 54.13 0.000
FOP 2 12900 13563 6782 5.30 0.017
FOT 2 39345 39345 19672 15.37 0.000
Error 16 20481 20481 1280
Total 26 278408

Table 6.5 Analysis of Variance for weld interface temperature using

Adjusted SS for Tests

The percentage contribution of each weld parameter is shown in

Figure 6.8. Friction time has maximum impact on weld interface

temperature and it contributes 74 %. Forging pressure and forging

time has least effect on weld interface temperature.

 149

Figure 6.8 Pie chart for percentage contribution for weld interface
temperature

6.3.3.1 MAIN EFFECT PLOTS FOR WELD INTERFACE

TEMPERATURE

The main effect plot for weld interface temperature is given in

Figure 6.9. Weld interface temperature increases as rpm, friction

pressure and friction time increases. Friction time is very important

parameter. Lower friction time results in irregular heating and its

leads to incomplete weld. Higher friction time results in increase in

formation of brittle intermetallic compounds and it also increases

material consumption and decreases productivity. Friction pressure

controls the temperature gradient in the weld zone. High rpm

produces over heated structures whereas low rpm produces

insufficient heat. Forging pressure has marginal effect on weld

 150

interface temperature. The weld interface temperature decreases as

forging pressure and forging time decreases.

Figure 6.9 Main effect plots for weld interface temperature

6.3.3.2 INTERACTION PLOTS FOR WELD INTERFACE

TEMPERATURE

The interaction plot for weld interface temperature is given in Figure

6.10.

Figure 6.10 Interaction plots for weld interface temperature

 151

It is observed from the plot that there is no interaction between

forging pressure and friction time and also between friction time and

forging time.

6.4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Regression analysis generates an equation to describe the

statistical relationship between one or more predictors and the

response variables to predict new observations.

Regression generally uses the ordinary least squares method

which derives the equation by minimizing the sum of the squared

residuals. Regression analysis results indicate the direction, size, and

statistical significance of the relationship between a predictor and

response.

Sign of each coefficient indicates the direction of the

relationship. Coefficients represent the mean change in the response

for one unit of change in the predictor while holding other predictors

in the model constant. P-value for each coefficient tests the null

hypothesis that the coefficient is equal to zero (no effect). Therefore,

low p-values suggest the predictor is a meaningful addition to your

model. The equation predicts new observations given by specified

predictor values.
 152

The regression coefficient of weld parameters vs responses

(ultimate tensile strength, upset, weld interface temperature) are given

in Table 6.6, Table 6.7 and Table 6.8.

6.4.1 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR ULTIMATE TENSILE

STRENGTH

The regression equation for ultimate tensile strength is

UTS = 253 - 0.0326 RPM - 0.364 FRP - 12.2 FT + 0.610 FOP - 0.28 FOT (6.1)

Where UTS ultimate tensile strength, RPM Rotation per minute,

FRP Friction pressure, FT Friction time, FOP Forging pressure,
FOT Forging time

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 252.80 38.62 6.55 0.000
RPM -0.03262 0.01421 -2.30 0.032
FRP -0.3635 0.2158 -1.68 0.107
FT -12.175 4.263 -2.86 0.009
FOP 0.6100 0.2128 2.87 0.009
FOT -0.280 2.165 -0.13 0.898

Table 6.6 Regression coefficients of weld parameter vs ultimate tensile

strength

The scatter between estimated and observed values of ultimate tensile

strength is shown in Figure 6.11.

Figure 6.11 Scatter between estimated and observed values of

ultimate tensile strength
 153

6.4.2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR UPSET

The regression equation is for upset is given below

Upset = - 13.1 + 0.00427 RPM + 0.0828 FRP + 4.51 FT + 0.0406 FOP - 0.433 FOT
(6.2)

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant -13.094 4.961 -2.64 0.015
RPM 0.004265 0.001825 2.34 0.029
FRP 0.08278 0.02773 2.99 0.007
FT 4.5092 0.5476 8.23 0.000
FOP 0.04056 0.02734 1.48 0.153
FOT -0.4332 0.2781 -1.56 0.134

Table 6.7 Regression coefficients of weld parameter vs upset

The scatter between estimated and observed values of upset is shown

in Figure 6.12.

Figure 6.12 Scatter between estimated and observed values of upset

6.4.3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR WELD INTERFACE

TEMPERATURE

The regression equation for weld interface temperature is given

below

Temp = 81.9 + 0.110 RPM + 2.50 FRP + 93.5 FT - 1.33 FOP - 24.0 FOT (6.3)

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 81.92 69.73 1.17 0.253
RPM 0.11017 0.02566 4.29 0.000
FRP 2.4978 0.3897 6.41 0.000
FT 93.504 7.697 12.15 0.000
FOP -1.3306 0.3842 -3.46 0.002
FOT -24.037 3.909 -6.15 0.000

Table 6.8 Regression coefficients of weld parameter vs weld

interface temperature
 154

The scatter between estimated and observed values of weld interface

temperature is shown in Figure 6.13.

Figure 6.13 Scatter between estimated and observed values of weld

interface temperature

6.5 OPTIMIZATION

The weld strength achieved during industrial experimentation is

higher than parent material and upset and temperature are within

limits and it is higher than weld strength of parent material, therefore

further optimization is not considered. The optimized parameters

were rpm 1400, friction pressure 70 MPa, friction time 1 second,

forging pressure 140 MPa and forging time 6 second. The maximum

tensile strength achieved was 278.65 MPa and weld interface

temperature achieved was 208 C.

6.6 CONTOUR PLOTS

Contour plots helps to understand the impact of change in

experimental factor on responses.

 155

Figure 6.14 Contour plot for UTS vs friction pressure and forging
pressure

Figure 6.15 Contour plot for UTS vs RPM and forging pressure

Figure 6.16 Contour plot for UTS vs RPM and friction pressure
 156

Figure 6.17 Contour plot for UTS vs friction pressure and friction time

Figure 6.18 Contour plot for upset vs friction pressure and friction
time

Figure 6.19 Contour plot for upset vs friction pressure and forging
pressure
 157

Figure 6.20 Contour plot for upset vs friction time and forging
pressure

Figure 6.21 Contour plot for temperature vs friction pressure and

friction time

Figure 6.22 Contour plot for temperature vs friction time and forging
pressure
 158

Figure 6.23 Contour plot for temperature vs RPM and friction

pressure

6.7 EFFECT OF UPSET ON ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH

The effect of upset on ultimate tensile strength is shown in Figure

6.24. The ultimate tensile strength increase as upset increases from 3

mm to 7.5 mm and beyond 7.5 mm upset leads to decrease in

ultimate tensile strength.

Figure 6.24 Effect of upset on tensile strength

 159

6.8 EFFECT OF WELD INTERFACE TEMPERATURE ON ULTIMATE

TENSILE STRENGTH

The effect of weld interface temperature on ultimate tensile strength is

shown in 6.25. The ultimate tensile strength decrease as weld

interface temperature increases.

Figure 6.25 Effect of weld interface temperature on Tensile Strength

6.9 EFFECT OF UPSET ON WELD INTERFACE TEMPERATURE

The effect of upset on weld interface temperature is shown in

Figure 6.26.

Figure 6.26 Effect of upset on weld interface temperature

 160

6.10 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM FOR ONLINE MONITORING OF

WELDING PROCESS

In this research, a data acquisition system (DAS) was developed

to on-line monitor the quality of friction weld.

The DAS captures the resultant variation of rpm, friction

pressure, friction time, forging pressure, forging time, torque, axial

displacement etc.

The acceptance criteria for good weld strength for Al 6061 to SS 304

for online monitoring are given below:

a) The weld interface temperature should be in the range of 175 C to

270 C.

b) The upset should be in the range of 7 mm to 8.5 mm

c) The application of upset pressure (0.6 second) before breaking and

in rapid feed. (This was separately investigated in section 7.3.6 of

chapter 7)

A fault alarm is set if the upset or temperature is out of range.

The typical photo graph for good weld and bad weld is shown in

Figure 6.27 and Figure 6.28 and a typical DAS graph for good weld

and bad weld is shown Figure 6.29 and Figure 6.30.

 161

Figure 6.27 Typical good Figure 6.28 Typical bad

quality weld quality weld

Figure 6.29 DAS graph for typical good weld

Figure 6.30 DAS graph for typical bad weld