developing and deploying fsw&p through standardization€¦ · 2019 tms annual meeting &...

1

Developing and Deploying FSW&P through Standardization

Dwight BurfordJoining Innovations, LLC

[email protected]

2019 TMS Annual Meeting & ExhibitionFriction Stir Welding and Processing X

Controls and Inspection

2

Maturity

• This 15 minute presentation is about:– FSW&P maturity in terms of joint efficiencies, and – potential contributions of published proceedings &

technical papers promoting FSW&P maturity• This presentation briefly:

– examines the relevance of FSW&P published data, and– outlines a pathway to recognizable FSW&P maturity

3

Motivation

• The IIW C-III-B-WGB1 Sub-commission recently prepared a revision of ISO 25239, Parts 1 thru 5– A significant topic of discussion was Table 3 of Part 4,

which provides FSW joint efficiencies– Since efficiencies are typically higher in thinner joints, a

revision was made to the table to reflect this difference– The tabulated values are still relatively low due to a lack

of data justifying publishing higher efficiency values

4

Selected Considerations

• Standardized Strength Minimums

• Perceived Joint Toughness

• MMPDS* Round Robin Test Program Results

“Joint efficiencies exceeding 90% have been reported in 7xxx alloys.”

P. L. Threadgill et al., International Materials Reviews, 2009, VOL 54, No. 2

* Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization; formerly MIL-HDBK-05

5




• MMPDS Round Robin Test Program Results

• Minimum joint efficiencies have been included in FSW standards/specification:– AWS D17.3, Table 6.4– ISO 25239, Table 3

• Consideration is given here to the perspective of design & stress engineers

6

A Design or Stress Eng. may ask…

• How should FSW joints be treated?– Similar to fusion welded joints…?

• … with a cast structure joining wrought structure, and which typically introduce chemistry changes in the material?

– As a part of a monolithic structure, e.g. as part machined from plate, a forging, an extrusion…?

• … with wrought structure joining wrought structure, in which differences in grain flow, size, etc., are addressed, especially where the section thickness changes?

7

Replaced by MMPDS

A Designer’s view

9

Standardized Strength MinimumsAWS D17.3:2016 (orig. 2010)• Spec for FSW Aluminum

in Aerospace Applications• Joint Efficiencies* per

Table 6.4:– Based on UTS from transverse

tensile test results– For precipitation-strengthened

alloys: 0.6 & 0.7

– Values are for T4, T5, & T6 respectively as specified

• In footnotes: – Values are for 6xxx series

alloys– Joint efficiencies for 2xxx &

7xxx must be specified by a referencing document

10

Standardized Strength MinimumsISO 25239-4:2011• Aluminium (all)• Table 3 joint efficiencies*

similar to AWS D17.3• Current revision

introduces two categories by thickness

• Added “0.1” to orig. values – for heat-treatable alloys – weld depth of 5 mm or below

• That is, for 5 mm or below:– 0.60.7 – 0.70.8

11

Standardized Strength MinimumsISO 25239-4:2011 (cont’d)• Unlike D17.3, tabulated

joint efficiencies* are not limited to 6xxx alloys

• However, values are only given for T4, T5 & T6 tempers

• For those tempers not listed, efficiencies must be identified in a design specification



12

Standardized Strength Minimums• Both FSW standards place

the burden on the designer to:– establish design values for

alloys/tempers not listed, or– establish joint efficiencies

higher than those listed

• Standardized minimum values affect:– Perception of a given joining

technology– Trade study outcomes– Potential areas of

applications

This can be read as:“Barrier to implementation”

13

Standardized Strength Minimums• Note: A table of low

minimum joint efficiencies on a coarse scale is not a deficiency of ether document

• Rather, it is more a lack of published design data with which designers are familiar

14

Questions• Can research presented in TMS Symposia and other

symposia generally support tech. transfer of FSW&P?• Can published data in the technical literature support

standardization and the establishment of design specs generally?

• That is, can either assist design and stress engineers?

• A roadblock? A measurement found in the literature that can hinder the use of FSW&P is discussed next.

15




• MMPDS Round Robin Test Program



16

Perceived Joint ToughnessJoint efficiency is typically:• assessed from transverse

tensile coupons• based on UTS (not yield

strength or elongation)

For welded joints:• UTS is readily measured and

unambiguously assessed• Yield strength and elongation

must be defined as relative values

17

Illustration from a Tensile Test

• Ref. SAE2003-01-2897– Aerospace Congress

& Exhibition– Montreal, Quebec,

Canada– Sept. 8-12, 2003– Alloy: AA 7075-T651

18

Perceived Joint Toughness

“Optimization Options?”• Yield Strength?

– “Use large gage length?”

• Elongation?– “Use small gage length?”

• Note:– UTS is unaffected!

19

Digital Image Correlation

20


• Next consider the joint cross-section– Affected by weld tool geometry

• Probe shape and size• Shoulder diameter• etc.

– Changes in tool geometry directly change the shape of joint zones, SZ, TMAX, & HAZ

21


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Prob

e Ba

se D

iam

eter

, mm

Probe Length, mm

Published Probe Dimensions – Probe Base:Probe LengthTMS Symp (108) 1:1

22


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Prob

e Ba

se D

iam

eter

, mm

Probe Length, mm

Published Probe Dimensions – Probe Base:Probe LengthTMS Symp (108) TWI Symp (261) 1:1

23


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Prob

e Ba

se D

iam

eter

, mm

Probe Length, mm

Published Probe Dimensions – Probe Base:Probe LengthAll 1:1 Power (All)

24


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Shou

lder

Dia

met

er, m

m

Probe Base Diameter, mm

Published Probe Dimensions – Shoulder Dia.:Probe Base Dia.Shoulder Dia. Linear (Shoulder Dia.)

25

Digital Image Correlation

26




• MMPDS Round Robin Test Program

27

6.3mm AA7075-T7651D. A. Burford, “Friction Stir Welding of Airframe Structure: From One Delivery System to Another,” SAE 2003-01-2897, presented at Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Conference & Exposition, Montreal, QC, Canada, September 2003.

See also, D. Burford, “Friction Stir Welding of Airframe Structure: From One Delivery System to Another,” SAE 2003 Transactions, Journal of Aerospace, Vol. 112, Section 1, pp. 295-300.

28

Primary Reference

• FAA Report: DOT/FAA/TC-12/51– Titled:

Evaluation of friction stir weld process and properties for aircraft applications

– Published October 2018– Covered research conducted from 2004 thru 2010– Featured a Metallic Materials Properties Development

and Standardization (MMPDS)* FSW test program *Formerly MIL-HDBK-05

29

Classic TWI 5651 tool

WiperTM - large

Tri-fluteTM

TrivexTM

Scroll

WiperTM - small

1 in. Shoulder

0.8 in. Shoulder

0.6 in. Shoulder

Tool Materials• Body – Maraging 300• Pin – MP 159

Note: Pin length for all tools was ~0.24 in.

Range of tools for FSW 6.3mm AA2024-T3 plate

FAA Report: DOT/FAA/TC-12/51

30

6.3mm AA2024-T3

1.000


31

Histogram

UTS

frequ

ency

60 62 64 66 68 700

10

20

30

40

Path Independence UTS Results – 2024-T3 0.250-in.

SnapStat: One Sample Analysis

Data variable: UTSCount = 101Average = 64.6501Standard deviation = 1.41777Coeff. of variation = 2.19299%Minimum = 61.088Maximum = 67.928Range = 6.84Stnd. skewness = 0.285286Stnd. kurtosis = -0.525823

Average Tensile Strength with Best Parameters

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.600Wiper

0.800Wiper

0.800Triflute

1.000 5651 1.000 3-flatThreaded

1.000Trivex

UTS

(ksi

)

Normal distribution tolerance limits (three tools - N=101):Joint (LT): T99: 60.9 T90: 62.5Parent MMPDS (LT): A-basis: 64 B-basis: 66

T90: 62.5 ksiT99: 60.9 ksi

* * *

*Coupons from welds of these three tools were not included in the calculations

6.3mm AA2024-T3


32

58.0

59.0

60.0

61.0

62.0

63.0

64.0

65.0

66.0

67.0

68.0

69.0

70.0

71.0

26_3

26_4

26_5

26_6

26_8

26_9

26_1

126

_12

26_1

326

_15

26_1

626

_17

26_1

827

_327

_427

_527

_727

_10

27_1

227

_13

27_1

427

_15

27_1

627

_18

45_2

45_4

45_5

45_6

45_9

45_1

145

_12

45_1

445

_15

45_1

6Pa

rent

Ave

rage

UTS

(ksi)

Phase 1 DOE Tensile Results2024-T3 0.25-in

T9062.5

T9960.9

Large Wiper Tri-Flute Small Wiper


(6.3mm)

33

(102) (127) (178) (292) (406) (484) mm/min

(168) (254) (380) (510) (595) mm/min

a.

e.FAA Report: DOT/FAA/TC-12/51

6.3mm AA2024-T3

34


35

Primary Reference

• FAA Report: DOT/FAA/TC-12/51– Titled:

Evaluation of friction stir weld process and properties for aircraft applications

– Published October 2018– Covered research conducted from 2004 thru 2010– Featured a Metallic Materials Properties Development

and Standardization (MMPDS)* FSW test program *Formerly MIL-HDBK-05

36

Air Bus 0.125-in 2024 Al

WSU 0.125-in 2024 Al

RPM

IPM

900

700

242015108

600

500

800

400

300

ALCAN 0.125-in 2024 Al

ALCAN0.25-in 2024 Al

Lockheed Martin 0.250-in 2024 Al

Lockheed Martin 0.125-in 2024 Al

WSU 0.250-in 2024 Al

Air Bus 2198-T8WSU

2189-T8 Al

ALCAN2198-T8

Lockheed Martin 2198-T8 Al

10 15 24

RPM

IPM

1600

1400

1000

800

600

1200

400

325

20

(a) (b)

Airbus 0.125-in2024 Al

Airbus 2198-T8


37


38

TMS FSW&P Symposia (I to IX)

• 211 unique lead authors featured– 600 contributing authors

• Over 200 institutions represented– Nearly half are universities

• Nearly 30 countries represented

39

Developing and Deploying FSW&Pthrough Standardization


40


By applying the disciplines of having published work include certain information required by established standards, a coherent database of information can be established, not only for reference by researchers but also for advancing the state-of-the-art of FSW&P through standards and process controls development.

41


With a complete and more verifiable dataset, published industry standards and specifications will give a more complete and positive representation of the capabilities of joints produced by FSW relative to fusion welding processes, for example.

42


Without such a coherent set of published data, the perception of maturity will be achieved more slowly due to the lack of uniformity and consistency in published results.

Think WPS!

43

Appendices

• Design Data (Allowables)• References

44

Design Data (Allowables)• Minimum values calculated by direct or indirect statistical

procedures– Calculated by direct statistical procedures

• Ftu = Design tensile stress• Fty = Design tensile yield stress (0.2% offset)

– Calculated by indirect (derived/ratioed) statistical procedures • Fsu = Design ultimate stress in pure shear (averaged)• Fcy = Design compressive yield stress (0.2% offset)• Fbru = Design ultimate bearing stress• Fbry = Design bearing yield stress

Joining Innovations, LLC9/17/2014 Dwight Burford, 44

45

Data Basis

Four basis types for mechanical property data (in increasing order of statistical confidence)• S-basis• B-basis• A-basis

Joining Innovations, LLC

Illustration of an example Weibull distribution

*Note: T99 and T90 are statistically calculated local tolerance bounds.

9/17/2014 Dwight Burford, 45

46

S-Basis• Specification minimum value

– Specified by the governing industry specification (e.g. SAEAMS specs, ASTM, etc.) or federal or military standards

– Statistical assurance is not known– May include

• Tensile ultimate strength (TUS)• Tensile yield strength (TYS)• Elongation• Reduction in areas


47

B-Basis• Statistically calculated value where at least 90

percent of the population of values is expected to equal or exceed the B-basis mechanical property allowable with a confidence of 95 percent– Established from computed T90 values– Use of B-basis design properties is permitted in design

by USA government agencies, subject to certain limitations specified by the individual agency.


48

A-Basis• The lower of either a statistically calculated number or

the specification minimum (i.e. S-basis)– As a statistically calculated number, it represents a value for

which at least 99 percent of the population of values is expected to equal or exceed the computed mechanical design property with a confidence of 95 percent.

– Established from computed T99 values and depends upon the following two cases:

• CASE 1: A value that is higher than corresponding S-basis value is presented as a footnote in the property table and is NOT qualified for general use in design unless the specification requirement is increased to equal the calculated value.

• CASE 2: A value that is equal to or lower than a corresponding S-basis value replaces the S-basis values in the document.


49

References• "Friction Stir Welding and Processing," in 2001 TMS Fall Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 2001 (November 4-8). • "Friction Stir Welding & Processing II," in 2003 TMS Annual Meeting, San Diego, California, 2003 (March 2-6). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing III," in 2005 TMS Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, 2005 (February

13-17). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing IV," in TMS 2007 Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2007

(February 25-March 1). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing V," in TMS 2009 Annual Meeting & Exhibition, San Francisco, California, USA,

2009 (February 15-19). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing VI," in TMS 2011 Annual Meeting & Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA,

2011 (February 27-March 3). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing VII," in TMS 2013 Annual Meeting & Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2013

(March 3-7). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing VIII," in TMS 2015 144th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Orlando, Florida, USA,

2015 (March 15-19). • "Friction Stir Welding and Processing IX," in TMS 2017 146th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, San Diego, California,

2017 (February 26 – March 2).

50

References (cont’d)• AWS D17 Committee on Welding in the Aircraft and Aerospace Industry, AWS D17.3/D17.3M:2016, Specification for

Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum Alloys for Aerospace Applications, 2016 ed., Miami, Florida: The American Welding Society (AWS), 2016.

• AWS D1 Committee on Structural Welding, AWS D1.2/D1.2M:2014, Structural Welding Code–Aluminum, Miami, Florida: The American Welding Society, 2014.

• AWS C6 Committee on Friction Welding, AWS C6.3/C6.3M, Recommended Practices for Friction Stir Welding, New, Ed., Miami, Florida: The American Welding Society.

• AWS D8 Committee on Automotive Welding, AWS D8.17M, Specification for Automotive Weld Quality – Friction Stir Welding, New, Ed., Miami, Florida: The American Welding Society.

• IIW C-III-B-WGB1, Friction Stir Welding Standardisation Working Group, ISO 25239:2011, Friction stir welding --Aluminium, 2011 ed., vol. 1, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2011.

• IIW C-III-B-WGB4 Friction Stir Spot Welding Standardization Working Group, ISO/FDIS 18785, Friction stir spot welding -- Aluminium, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

• S. W. Kallee, E. D. Nicholas and W. M. Thomas, "Industrialisation of friction stir welding for aerospace structures," in Structures and Technologies - Challenges for Future Launchers, Strasbourg France, 2001.

• O. T. Midling, J. S. Kvale and O. Dahl, "Industrialisation of the Friction Stir Welding Technology in Panels Production for the Maritime Sector," in 1st International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999.

51

References (cont’d)• American Bureau of Shipping, ABS Guide for the Approval of Friction Stir Welding in Aluminum, 2011, Ed., Houston,

TX: American Bureau of Shipping. • NASA LBJ SC Materials and Processes Branch/ES4, Process Specification for Friction Stir Welding, NASA, Ed.,

Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. • W. J. Arbegast, "Friction Stir Welding: After a Decade of Development," in TMS 2007 Annual Meeting & Exhibition,

Orlando, Florida, USA, 2007. • T. W. Nelson, "Friction Stir Welding: A Brief Review and Perspective for the Future," in TMS 2005 Annual Meeting &

Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. • M. W. Mahoney, Chapter 5: Mechanical Properties of friction stir welded Aluminum Alloys, 1st ed., R. S. Mishra and

M. W. Mahoney, Eds., Metals Park, Ohio: ASM International, 2007, pp. 71-110.• J. Dos Santos, C. Olea, R. Coelho, A. Kostka, C. Paglia, T. Ghidini and C. Donne Eads, Chapter 11 - Metallurgy and

weld performance in friction stir welding, 1st ed., D. Lohwasser and Z. W. Chen, Eds., Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing , 2010, pp. 314-410.

• ISO Central Secretariat, "ISO," International Organization for Standardization, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/69623.html. [Accessed October 2018].

• R. Mishra and Z. Ma, "Friction stir welding and processing," Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 50, no. 1-2, pp. 1-78, 2005.

52

References (cont’d)• C. Widener, B. Tweedy and D. Burford, "Path Independence of Allowables," in 7th AIAA Aviation Technology,

Integration and Operations Conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, Ireland, 2007. • A. P. Reynolds and W. Tang, "Alloy, Tool, Geometry, and Process Parameter Effects on Friction Stir Weld Energies

and Resultant FSW Joint Properties," in Friction Stir Welding and Processing, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2001 TMS Fall Meeting.

• M. W. Mahoney, C. G. Rhodes, J. G. Flintoff, R. A. Spurling and W. H. Bingel, "Properties of Friction-Stir-Welded 7075 T651 Aluminum," Materials Transactions A, vol. 29A, no. 7, pp. 1955-1964, July 1998.

• D. A. Burford, "Friction Stir Welding of Airframe Structure: From One Delivery System to Another," SAE Transactions, vol. Vol. 112, no. Section 1: JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE, pp. pp. 295-300, 2003.

• D. A. Burford, "SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-2897," in Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Conference & Exposition, Montreal, 2003.

• MMPDS Coordination Committee, MMPDS Handbook, MMPDS-12 ed., Battelle, Ed., Columbus, Ohio: Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS), Current.

• "Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS)," Battelle, 505 King Ave, Columbus, Ohio 43201, [Online]. Available: https://www.mmpds.org/about-us/. [Accessed September 2018].

• D. Burford, B. Tweedy and C. Widener, Evaluation of Friction Stir Weld Process and Properties for Aircraft Application, Atlantic City, NJ: Joint Advanced Materials & Structures Center of Excellence, 2007.

53

References (cont’d)• C. A. Widener, D. A. Burford and S. Jurak, "Effects of Tool Design and Friction Stir Welding Parameters on Weld

Morphology in Aluminum Alloys," Materials Science Forum, Vols. 638-642, pp. 1261-1266, 2010. • D. A. Burford, B. M. Tweedy and C. A. Widener, "Development of Design Data for FSW and FSSW," in 7th

International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Awaji Island, Japan, 20th to 22nd May 2008. • C. A. Widener, B. M. Tweedy and D. A. Burford, "An Investigation of Tool Design and Welding Parameters on Fatigue

Life in FS Welded 2024-T3," in The 7th International Friction Stir Welding Symposium, Awaji Island, Japan, May 20-22, 2008.

• S. F. Jurak, Statistical Analysis of the Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Welded AA2024 AND AA2198 AluminiumAlloys, R. Asmatulu, D. Burford and H. Lankarani, Eds., Wichita, Kansas: Wichita State University (WSU), December 2011.

• S. Jurak, D. Burford and M. McCoy, "Analysis of Mechanical and Metallurgical Properties of Friction Stir Butt Welded AA2024," in Friction Stir Welding and Processing VII, R. Mishra, M. W. Mahoney, Y. Sato, Y. Hovanski and R. Verma, Eds., San Antonio, TX: Wiley & Sons, 2013, pp. 183-194.

• C. Widener, B. Tweedy and D. Burford, "An Investigation of Tool Design and Welding Parameters on Fatigue Life in FS Welded 2024-T3," in The 7th International Friction Stir Welding Symposium, Awaji Island, Japan, May 20-22, 2008.

• D. Burford, B. Tweedy and C. Widener, "Evaluation of Friction Stir Weld Process and Properties," CECAM & AMTAS, 10 July 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.jams-coe.org/Presentations/2007-Wichita. [Accessed September 2018].

54

References (cont’d)• R. Rice, "Statistical Analysis of Friction Stir Weld Round-Robin Test Data," in 17th MMPDS Coordination Meeting:

Emerging Materials Working Group (ETWG), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April 29, 2010. • "AMS AMEC Aerospace Metals and Engineering Committee," SAE International, [Online]. Available:

https://www.sae.org/works/committeeHome.do?comtID=TEAAMSAMEC. [Accessed October 2018].• D. Burford, C. Widener and J. Brown, Evaluation of Friction Stir Weld Process and Properties for Aircraft

Application: MMPDS Initiatives, Everett, Washington: The FAA Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence, 2008.

• D. A. Burford and C. A. Widener, Evaluation of Friction Stir Welding Process and Properties for Aerospace Application: Standards and Specifications Development, Wichita, Kansas: The FAA Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence, 2009.

• D. Burford, "Material Performance / Property Specifications & Standards for Friction Stir Technologies," in AMEC MEETING NO. 214, Asilomar Conference Center Pacific Grove, CA, January 21, 2011.

• D. Burford, S. Jurak, P. G. Britos and E. Boldsaikhan, "DOT/FAA/TC-12/51: Evaluation of Friction Stir Weld Process and Properties for Aircraft Applications," Federal Aviation Administration, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08405, October 2018.

developing and deploying fsw&p through standardization€¦ · 2019 tms annual meeting &...

Documents