FRICTION STIR WELDING OF ADVANCED PORE MORPHOLOGY SANDWICH PANELS

ZAVARIVANJE TRENJEM ROTIRAJUĆIM ALATOM SENDVIČ PANELA S NAPREDNOM

MORFOLOGIJOM PORA

Slobodan Kralj1, Damjan Klobčar2, Zoran Kožuh1, Matija Bušić1

1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Ivana Lučića 5, 10002 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Abstract
Joining Advanced Pore Morphology (APM) sandwich panels with Friction Stir Welding (FSW) has
been investigated in this work. APM foam based sandwich panels are compound of APM foam bonded
to two 1 mm thick sheets of EN AW 6082-T6 aluminium alloy. Several different concepts of butt joint
were investigated with and without additional material between panels. A classic tool for FSW was
used with tilt angle of 1.5°. Tool rotation speed was constantly 1900 min-1. Welding speed varied from
95 to 235 mm/min. Through several iterations, the parameters were changed together with joint
design. From the visually acceptable joints specimens for macrographs and mechanical testing were
prepared. Charpy impact test and tensile strength test were conducted. A joint design with welding
parameters was determined at which acceptable welds can be obtained. Suggestion for the further
research is to increase the number of samples considering investigation of higher welding speed. The
unique properties of APM sandwich panels make them an attractive alternative as a cost effective and
easily applicable material that can be joined with FSW.

Sažetak
U ovom radu istraživano je zavarivanje trenjem rotirajućim alatom kao tehnologija spajanja sendvič
panela s naprednom morfologijom pora. Sendvič paneli sastavljeni su od jezgre s naprednom
morfologijom pora i s gornje i donje strane zalijepljenim limom aluminijske legure EN AW 6082-T6
debljine 1 mm. Istraživano je nekoliko različitih koncepta sučeljenog spoja s ili bez dodatnog elementa
između panela. Korišten je uobičajen alat za zavarivanje trenjem rotirajućim alatom uz nagib od 1.5°.
Rotacija alata bila je konstantno 1900 min-1. Brzina zavarivanja mijenjana je od 95 do 235 mm/min.
Kroz nekoliko iteracija mijenjani su parametri zajedno s oblikovanjem spoja. Iz vizualno prihvatljivih
spojeva pripremljeni su makroizbrusci i epruvete za mehaničko ispitivanje. Statički vlačni pokus i
ispitivanje udarne radnje loma provedeni su radi utvrđivanja mehaničkih svojstava spoja. Određen je
oblik spoja s pripadajućim parametrima koji omogućuju dobivanje zadovoljavajućih zavara. Za buduće
istraživanje prijedlog je povećati broj uzoraka radi detaljnijeg ispitivanje veće brzine zavarivanja.
Jedinstvena svojstva APM sendvič panela čine ih atraktivnim i jeftinim materijalom koji se lako
primjenjuje i spaja postupkom zavarivanja trenjem rotirajućim alatom.

Key words: aluminium foams, advanced pore morphology concept, sandwich panels, friction stir
welding, adhesive bonding, epoxy adhesive

Ključne riječi aluminijske pjene, koncept napredne porfologije pora, sendvič paneli, zavarivanje
trenjem rotirajućim alatom, lijepljenje, epoksidno ljepilo

1
 1. Introduction
Sandwich plates and shells are important elements in modern lightweight construction. The main
advantage of the sandwich principle is the fact that structures with high bending stiffness has low
specific weight. The classical field of application is the aeronautical field although increasing demand
for the lightweight structures is present in the naval and transport industry and civil engineering [1-5].
The typical sandwich structure is built of three principal layers: two thin face sheets with high density
and thick core made of a low density material. The face sheets transmit the in-plane and bending
loads. Through the joint with the face sheets the core carries the transverse normal and shear loads.
The sandwich core is usually made of low density material like solid foams. Foams or cellular
materials have voids implemented in the material, resulting in many attractive features such as low
density leading to high specific properties [3]. Favourable properties of metal foams are: extremely low
density, high specific stiffness and very good impact energy absorption. Other attractive properties
are insulation of heat and electromagnetic waves and very good sound absorption, recyclability
etc.[4,5]. Metal foams are produced by melting of metal powder, foaming of molten metal and
solidification of mixture. Gas necessary for foaming may be injected into molten metal or added to the
metal powder in form of a dispersing agent that allows foaming when it is heated.
Engineers responsible for joining technologies have difficulties when joining sandwich materials in
comparison with homogeneous materials. Different thicknesses of layers and different physical and
chemical properties of the materials in layers require unconventional approach on determination of the
joining technology parameters. Materials as aluminium foams are still developing and joining
technologies are in the research phase [6-18]. To avoid problems associated with the heat input in
fusion welding of thin aluminium sheets in sandwich panels Friction Stir Welding - FSW can be
appropriate joining technology. In FSW, a cylindrical shouldered tool with a pin is rotated and plunged
into the joint area between two sheets. Frictional heat between the wear resistant welding tool and the
workpieces causes the latter to soften without reaching melting point, allowing the tool to traverse
along the weld line. The plasticised material, transferred to the trailing edge of the tool pin, is forged
through contact with the tool shoulder and pin profile. On cooling, a solid phase bond is created
between the workpieces [19, 20].

2. Advanced pore morphology concept

Shaped aluminium foam parts are made by expansion of foamable precursor in temperature-resistant
foaming moulds. Foamable precursor contains foaming agent TiH2 which decomposes and releases
gas. Gas (e.g. H2) expands the liquid metal into cellular (still liquid) metal foam. The expanding foam
reproduces the inner contour of the mould resulting in a near-net shape aluminium foam part with
closed surface skin [6]. Analysing near-net shape production of closed cell aluminium foam parts in
moulds showed that the combination of heat driven foam expansion and complex heat transfer
through the mould requires specific insight and complex process management. This process route can
be economically effective only for serial production of identical geometry foam parts [6]. Due to the
difficulties in controlling the microstructure morphology during production of the aluminium foams a
number of advanced material concepts has been developed. Advanced pore morphology concept –
APM is one of that. It represents a new patented concept for production of metal foam components. It
was derived from the conventional FOAMINAL process based on thermal treatment of a powder
metallurgical precursor material incorporating a foaming agent [1]. APM foams are made from
spherical, small volume foam elements joined to each other in a separate process step with polymeric
matrix. Joining the aluminium foam elements by adhesive bonding delivers composite foam with
approximately 80–95 wt.% aluminium foam and 5–20 wt.% adhesive (polymer) [6]. Setting up cellular
structures from spherical foam elements allows for automatic part production, good pore morphology
control and cost effective aluminium foam application. Examples of APM foam spheres and APM foam
based sandwich panels are shown in figure 1.
Advantages of APM concept are:
 the pore size cannot exceed the size of the individual foam spheres
 increased reproducibility of structures is reflected in reduced scatter of properties
 no gravity induced limits to foam part height as for FOAMINAL process
 foam-filling of hollow components for improving energy absorption capabilities is facilitated,
since geometric hindrances to inserting the filling can be by-passed and consolidation only
requires heating to curing range of the used adhesive.
As a newly developed material APM sandwich panels are still producing only for laboratory analysis
and industrial application will develop after exploring all material properties and determining
appropriate joining technology. For cutting circular saw, band saw or water jet cutting can be used.

2
 Figure 1. Examples of metal foam spheres and APM foam based sandwich panels [21]

3. Experiment
The presented experiment is concerned with defining appropriate welding technology and joint design
for APM sandwich panels in butt weld configuration. When defining welding technology two
parameters should be considered. First one is that temperature during welding must be below curing
temperature of the polymeric adhesive. In this way polymeric matrix will be stable connecting
aluminium foam elements mutually and connecting sandwich core with outer aluminium sheets. If the
temperature during welding is above curing temperature of the adhesive heat input must be in the
narrow zone of the joint. The other parameter limits the pressure during welding below the
compressive strength of the APM sandwich panel.
To avoid problems associated with the heat input in fusion welding of thin aluminium sheets in APM
sandwich panels Friction Stir Welding - FSW can be appropriate joining technology. FSW offers joining
of sheets without reaching melting point, which means that polymeric matrix can be minimally heat
affected. Welding with minimal heat input also ensures less deformation of thin aluminium sheets in
APM sandwich panels.

3.1. Material in experiment

APM sandwich samples were prepared in dimensions 115 x 60 x 12 mm. Samples were produced at
Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials - IFAM Bremen.
Aluminium foam spheres with diameter approximately 10 mm were produced using AlSi10 precursor
material containing 0.8 wt. % TiH2 as foaming agent. Aluminium foam spheres were bonded together
in between two 1 mm thick sheets of EN AW 6082-T6 aluminium alloy. ARALDITE AT 1-1 produced by
VANTICO AG Switzerland was used as a bonding agent. It is single component, heat curable epoxy
adhesive in powder form for use in general industrial applications. Melting starts at 70 °C, while curing
is initiated at 120 °C. After curing the joint is thermally stable up to 180 °C [22].

3.2. FSW equipment

Milling machine Prvomajska ALG 200 (figure 2.) installed at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in
Ljubljana was used for Friction Stir Welding experiment. FSW tool was 6 mm in diameter at the
shoulder with concave surface of the shoulder. The pin was cone from 3 to 2 mm with total length of 3
mm (figure 3.) Clamping was enabled with simple welding jig.

3
 Figura 2. Prvomajska ALG 200 milling machine Figure 3. Tool pin and welding clamps

3.3. Design 1.
A plan of experiments was prepared regarding capabilities of universal milling machine used for
welding. First joint design was performed with tool rotation set at 1900 min-1 and welding speed was
93 mm/min. It was planned to achieve enough energy for local plastic deformation of the Al sheets.
Welding was performed on both sides of the butt joint with the same parameters and the same tool.
The test has shown that applied pressure in this process is to high and heat input insufficient for
welding. APM sandwich was deformed and not joined at the margin of the sheets. The conclusion was
that welding in this material configuration with defined parameters is impossible. Homogenous material
with higher compressive strength must be placed between the APM sandwiches in order to support
higher pressure of the FSW tool.

3.4. Design 2.
Second joint design was performed in butt joint configuration with two strips of EN AW 5754 both in
thickness of 2 mm placed between APM sandwich panels. Rotation of the tool and welding speed
were unchanged. During the welding added strips were deformed and vertical displacement between
the stripes cause deformities of the outer sheets.

3.5. Design 3.
The next iteration was to set up wider homogenous material between APM sandwich panels that could
support FSW tool to produce sufficient force and not to compress the APM sandwich. Third run was
performed in butt joint configuration with one additional part of EN AW 6082 (figure 4). Additional part
was 4 mm thick and 12 mm wide as was the thickness of APM sandwich. Rotation of the tool was set
at 1900 min-1. Welding speed was 93 mm/min. The speed was set slow for the purpose of monitoring
possible displacements of the materials in configuration.

4
 Figure 4. Weld performed in run 3.

First welding performed in this configuration was successful. Process parameters resulted with sound
weld that does not need any future machining or finishing. Second weld performed on the bottom side
failed because heating in the first weld caused to big initial temperature. Welding speed was to slow
and the heat was concentrated in the heat affected zone.

3.6. Design 4.
Increasing welding speed (feedrate) will reduce the heat input because the “rotation per feederate”
RPF factor will be lower [23]. Next iteration was to set the welding speed to 150 mm/min. Performed
welding resulted with sound weld at beginning, but as the welding proceeded to end of the plates the
upper sheet deformed because of lack of connection with APM core (can be seen at figure 5.). Lack of
connection can be result of failure of the epoxy adhesive during the welding or there was no
connection in the sandwich before welding. Second weld was performed 5 minutes after on the other
side to have the same heat input conditions as in run before. Almost the same error occurred as in the
upper weld. Surface was smooth at the beginning and sheet deformed at the end of the weld.
Conclusion was that heat input is still too high and epoxy adhesive could fail from overheating. Smooth
surface confirms a good tool design for this configuration of a joint.

END OF THE WELD BEGINNING OF THE WELD

Figure 5. APM sandwich joint after welding (joint design 4).

5
 3.7. Design 5
Increasing welding speed was again the solution to produce weld with lower heat input. Welding
speed was set to 235 mm/min. Rotation of the tool and other parameters were the same as previous
trials. Performed run resulted with weld with slightly rougher surface. At the end of the weld lack of
connection between sheet and APM occurred and resulted with deformation of sheet because of
applied pressure (figure 6. detail 1.). That can be caused by a large caverns on both sides of the weld
(also can be seen on figure 6. – details 1 and 2.). Second weld was performed 5 minutes after on the
other side. The same error occurred as in the upper weld and the reason is the same. Conclusion is
that welding speed can be higher and the failure was caused by the imperfections in the material –
caverns in the APM sandwich.

END OF THE WELD BEGINNING OF THE WELD

Figure 6. APM sandwich weld after welding (joint design 5)

4. Macro sections of the welds

Macrographs of the welds are made to give insight of possible errors in the structure of the joint. Table
1. presents macro sections of welds on plates 7-8 (joint design 4) and 9-10 (joint design 5). Macro
section are recorded using Leica microscope with magnification 25x. Both plates are cut into testing
specimens for mechanical testing and macro sections are recorded on these specimens. Design 4.
has produced welds without larger defects. Only lack of fusion between plate and inserted part of
aluminium can be seen on back side of joint in cross-section 2. Macrographs of the welds made in
design 5. show lack of fusion and tunneling defects. Tunneling defect also known as „the worm hole“
can be seen on macrosections of the bottom of the joint in cross-section 2. This defect can result with
lower mechanical properties of the produced joint. This deffect is common for Friction Stir Welding with
RPF parameter lower than 1 rev/mm [23] and also can be result of insufficient stirring of the material.
Lack of fusion can also be seen at the beginning of the upper weld in the cross-section 1 of this joint.

6
 Table 1. Macro sections of joints produced in run 4. and run 5.
Upper side Back side
7-8
cross-section 1

7-8
cross-section 2.

9-10
cross- section 1

9-10
cross- section 2

5. Mechanical testing
Charpy impact test and tensile strength test are selected as conventional methods for testing of APM
welded joints and specimens are most simple for preparation. Joints made in design 4 and 5 have
been mechanically tested. Testing specimens were cut from both welded joints with a band saw
according to the sketch in figure 7. Numbers 1 and 3 mark the specimens with dimensions of the
cross-section 12 mm x 12 mm made for Charpy impact test. Numbers 2 and 4 mark the specimens
with dimensions of the cross-section 26 mm x 12 mm made for tensile strength test. All of the test
specimens are 124 mm long as is the width of the welded plates.

7
 5.1 Charpy impact test
Standard machine AKTIEBOLAGEN ALPHA (Sweden) type 1H 539 with capacity of 150 J was used
for the Charpy impact test. Specimens were placed horizontally on the supporting points. The
specimen receives an impact from pendulum of a specific weight on face of the weld. All of the
specimens were broken under the impact and some of the energy was transformed into debonding of
the outer sheet from the APM sandwich core (figure 8). The energy absorbed by the specimen, when it
receives the impact from the hammer, is equal to the difference between potential energies of the
hammer before and after impact. Results are presented in the table 2. Impact resistance Ir is the ration
of the Ec - Charpy impact energy obtained for the testing specimen and length of the joint (12 mm).
= ∙ 10 [J/cm]
12

Figure 7. Arrangement and dimensions of Figure 8. Testing specimens after Charpy

the test specimens impact test

Table 2. Results of the Charpy impact testing

No. Sample designation Energy - Ec (J) Impact resistance - Ir (J/cm)
1. design 4. - 1 147,3 122,75
2. design 4. - 3 130,7 108,92
3. design 5. - 1 65,1 54,25
4. design 5. - 3 101,1 84,25

5.2. Tensile strength test

To have uniaxial tensile stress state special mechanical device was produced (figure 9.). In each
testing specimen two holes were drilled at the place where bolts are inserted to have enough grip on
the clamping pads. Ends of the mechanical device are inserted in clamps of the tensile test machine.
Universal tensile test machine EU 40mod, WPM (Gemany) was used for this test. Figure 10. presents
tensile test specimens after testing.

Figure 9. Mechanical device for uniaxial stress state in tensile strength testing

8
 Figure 10. Specimens after tensile strength testing

Tensile strength test parameters are presented in table 3. together with test results. Rm (N/mm2) is
calculated from the cross – section of the specimen although it is not relevant because of the special
type of this material. Fm is the maximal force that has been withstand just before the first break of the
specimen. Because of the joint design every specimen can have two breaking points on the same or
opposite side of the joint. These breaking points can be very close or even at the same value of the
Fm. Figures from 11. to 14. present force – elongation diagrams for test specimens. First part of every
curve is very deviant due to the gripping of the clamps with mechanical device for testing.

Table 3. Tensile strength test parameters and results

No. Sample Rm Fm (kN) Fb (kN) V0 V1 (N/s) V2 (N/s)
designation (N/mm2) (mm/min)
1. design 4. – 2 6.87 2.144 1.19 2 200 200
2. design 4. – 4 3.58 1.118 1.12 4 100 100
3. design 5. – 2 2.29 0.713 0.71 4 100 100
4. design 5. - 4 5.87 1.831 1.83 4 100 100

Figure 11. Force-elongation diagram for specimen run 4-2

.2

9
 Figure 12. Force-elongation diagram for specimen run 4-4

Figure 13. Force-elongation diagram for specimen run 5-2

Figure 14. Force-elongation diagram for specimen run 5-4

10
6. Conclusion

Conducted experiment has shown:

1. Applied pressure that is important for heat input during FSW depends upon the compressive
strength of the material below the tool. If applied pressure is too high the APM foam deforms.
Homogeneous aluminium must be placed in between the APM sandwich panels in the butt
joint during the Friction Stir Welding. Additional aluminium should be of the same or very
similar chemical composition as the sheets of the APM sandwich panels.
2. The upper limit for RPF factor is approx. 12,7. Reducing RPF will decrease the heat input. The
welding speed can be increased substantial over 150 mm/min. The maximum welding speed
still cannot be predicted. The welding speed can be significant for the appearance of the
resulted weld, but the surface mainly depends upon all the other parameters.
3. Continuity of the process and resulted weld depends upon bonding of the epoxy adhesive with
outer sheets. Aluminium sheet is free to deform under pressure or thermal loading if the
bonding fails or is not present.
4. Charpy impact test has indicated very good resistance of this type of joint to impact loading.
This can be because of original purpose of APM sandwich panels is energy absorption.
Impact resistance for the joint design 4. was = 115.85 J/cm, and for the joint design 5.
was = 69.25 J/cm.
5. Tensile strength test has indicated force – elongation curve that can be approximated but
hardly divided into elastic and plastic parts. The maximal force that has been withstanded just
before the first break in the specimen for the joint design 4. was Fm = 2.144 kN.
6. APM sandwich panels can be Friction Stir Welded using appropriate tool design, parameters
and material configuration in the joint. This technology is promising for joining APM sandwich
panels but still needs more experiments to find suitable parameters for the industrial usage.
Testing of mechanical properties has shown values that can be guidelines for future test.

Acknowledgement

The autors would like to acknowledge Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and
Advanced Materials - IFAM Bremen, specially Dipl.-Phys. Joachim Baumeister for the donated APM
sandwich panels necessary for this research.

BIBILIOGRAPHY

[1] J. Hohe, V. Hardenacke, V. Fascio, Y. Girard, J. Bumeister, K. Stoebener, J. Weise, D. Lehmhus,

S. Pattofatto, H. Zeng, H. Zao, V. Calbucci, F. Rustichelli, F. Fiori, Numerical and experimental design
of graded cellular sandwich cores fo multi-functional aerospace applications, Material and Design 39
(2012), 20 -32

[2] J. Hoffart, E. Hansen: „Design Implications of Sandwich Panels“, Welding Magazine, October
2008., 27-30

[3] K.K. Chawla, Foams, fibers and composites: Where do we stand? Materials Science and
Engineering A 557 (2012), 2-9

[4] G. Marić, I. Kramer, Ž. Alar: „Primjena metalnih pjena“ Zbornik međunarodnog savjetovanja
„Zavarivanje u pomorstvu“, Hvar, 2004.

[5] M.F. Ashby, A.G. Evans, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson, J.W. Hutchinson, H.N.G. Wadley: „Metal Foams:
A Design Guide“, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woborn, USA, 2000.

[6] K. Stoebener, G. Rausch, Aluminium foam – polymer composites: processing and characteristics,
Journal of Material Science 44 (2009), 1506 – 1511

[7] J. Banhart, D. Weaire: „On the road again: metal foams find favor“ PHYSICS TODAY, July 2002.,
Vol. 55 Issue 7, 37 - 42

11
[8] N. Sedliaková, F. Simančik, J. Kováčik, P.Minár: „Joining of Aluminium Foams“, Metallschäume:
Proc. of Symposium Metallschäume, MIT Verlag, Bremen, 1997. 177 - 185.

[9] O. B. Olurin, N. A. Fleck, M. F. Ashby: „Joining of aluminium foams with fasteners and adhesives“,
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE, 2000, Vol 35, 1079 - 1085

[10] T. Bernard, H. W. Bergmann, C. Haberling, H. G. Haldenwagen: „Joining technologies for Al-

foam-Al-sheet compound structures“, ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS, 2002, Vol. 4, No.10,
798 - 802

[11] H. P. Degischer, B. Kriszt: „Handbook of cellular Metals: Production, Processing, Applications“

Whiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2002.

[12] H. Haferkamp, J. Bunte, D. Herzog, A. Ostendorf: „ Laser based welding of cellular aluminium“,
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF WELDING AND JOINING, 2004, Vol 9., No. 1., 65 - 71

[13] J.Burzer, T. Bernard, H. W. Bergmann: „Joining of aluminium structures with aluminium foams“,
Proc. of symposium POROUS AND CELLULAR MATERIALS FOR STRUCTURAL APPLICATIONS,
Vol. 521, Materials Research Society, California, USA, 1998.

[14] T. Böllinghaus, H. von Hagen, W. Bleck: „Laserstrahlschweißen von schäumbarem

Aluminiumhalbzeug“, UTP science, 2000., Vol. 2., 23 - 26

[15] D. Contorno, L. Fratini, L. Filice, F. Gagliardi, D. Umbrello, R. Shivpuri: „ Innovative user defined
density profile approach to FSW of aluminium foam“ Proc. of 10th ESAFORM Conference of Material
Forming, 2007., 199 - 204

[16] A. A. Shirzadi, M. Kocak, E.R. Wallach: „Joining stainless steel metal foams“, SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY OF WELDING AND JOINING, 2004, Vol 9., No. 1., 277 - 279

[17] K. Kitazano, A. Kitajima, E. Sato, J. Matsushita, K. Kuribayashi: „Solid-state diffusion bonding of

closed-cell aluminium foams“ MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING A327, 2002., 128 - 132

[18] S. Kralj, Z. Kožuh, M. Bušić, Pregled tehnologija proizvodnje i spajanja metalnih pjena, Zbornik
radova međunarodno savjetovanja EUROJIN 8, (urednik Z. Kožuh) Hrvatsko društvo za tehniku
zavarivanja, svibanj 2012, Pula, Hrvatska 405 – 420

[19] W. M. Thomas, E. D. Nicholas: „Friction stir welding for the transportation industries“ MATERIALS
& DESIGN, 1997, Vol. 18, Nos 4/6, 269 – 273

[20] ESAB Technical Handbook: Friction Stir Welding, ESAB AB Sweden, 2010.

[21] K. Stoebener, J. Baumeister, G. Rausch, M. Rausch, Forming metal foams by simpler methods
for cheaper solutions, Metal Powder Report, Vol. 60. No. 1. 2005, 12-16

[22] Katalog Vantico ARALDITE AT 1-1 December 2000, Publication No. A 405 c GB

[23] D. Klobčar, L. Kosec, S. Smolej, J. Tušek, WELDABILITY OF ALUMINIUM ALLOY AlSi12 USING
FSW, Zbornik radova međunarodno savjetovanja EUROJIN 8, (urednik Z. Kožuh) Hrvatsko društvo za
tehniku zavarivanja, svibanj 2012, Pula, Hrvatska 99-106

12