Materials Science and Engineering A 420 (2006) 2125

Friction stir welding characteristics of different

heat-treated-state 2219 aluminum alloy plates
Yingchun Chen a,b , Huijie Liu a,b, , Jicai Feng b
a

National Key Laboratory of Precision Hot Processing of Metals, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China
National Key Laboratory of Advanced Welding Production Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China
Received 13 May 2005; received in revised form 29 November 2005; accepted 2 January 2006

Abstract
Friction stir welding (FSW) of 2219-O and 2219-T6 aluminum alloys was performed to investigate the effects of the base material conditions
on the FSW characteristics. The experimental results indicated that the base material condition has a significant effect on weld morphologies,
weld defects, and mechanical properties of joints. In the 2219-O welds, no discernible interface exists between the stir zone (SZ) and the thermalmechanically affected zone (TMAZ), and weld defects are liable to form in the lower part of the weld. In the 2219-T6 welds, there is visible
interface between the SZ and the TMAZ, and a weld nugget with an onion ring-like morphology clearly exists. The defects are liable to form in
the upper part of the weld. The strength efficiency of 2219-O joints is 100%, while that of 2219-T6 joints is only up to 82%. In addition, the two
types of joints have different fracture location characteristics.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Friction stir welding; Aluminum alloy; Microstructure; Tensile property; Fracture location

1. Introduction

2. Experimental procedure

Friction stir welding (FSW) is a promising welding process and is being extensively studied because it can produce
high-quality joints of aluminum alloys [1,2]. A great number of
studies have focused on the effects of the welding parameters
on the FSW characteristics, such as microstructural evolution in
the joints [37], thermal cycle histories during welding [810],
residual stress distributions in the joints [11,12], material flow
behavior in the welds [1317], and mechanical properties of
the joints [1823]. Only a small number of studies have been
involved with the effects of the base material conditions on the
FSW behavior, especially the effects of heat treatment states
of the same types of aluminum alloys [24,25]. Studies on this
topic are important to reveal and comprehend the friction stir
weldability of aluminum alloys. In the present study, different
heat-treated-state aluminum alloys, 2219-O and 2219-T6, are
selected as the experimental materials for FSW. The emphasis
was placed on the morphologies, defects, tensile properties, and
fracture locations of the joints.

The base materials were 2219-O and 2219-T6 aluminum

alloy plates, with the chemical compositions and mechanical
properties listed in Table 1. The plates were all cut and machined
into rectangular welding samples, 260 mm long by 50 mm wide,
and were longitudinally butt-welded using an FSW machine.
The welding tool size and welding parameters used in the experiments are shown in Table 2.
After welding, the joints were cross-sectioned transverse to
the welding direction for metallographic analyses and tensile
tests. The cross-sections of the metallographic specimens were
polished with a diamond paste, etched with Kellers reagent
(150 ml water, 3 ml nitric acid, 6 ml hydrochloric acid, and 6 ml
hydrofluoric acid), and observed by optical microscopy.
Prior to the tensile tests, Vickers hardness profiles were measured across the stir zone (SZ), the thermo-mechanically affected
zone (TMAZ), the heat-affected zone (HAZ), and partial base
material (BM) under a load of 4.9 N for 10 s along the centerlines of the cross-sections of the tensile samples with the
distance between neighboring measured points being 1 mm.
These Vickers indentations were also used to determine the fracture locations of the joints. Room-temperature tensile tests were
carried out at a crosshead speed of 1 mm s1 using an Instron-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 451 86418146; fax: +86 451 86418146.
E-mail address: liuhj@hope.hit.edu.cn (H. Liu).

0921-5093/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.01.029

Y. Chen et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 420 (2006) 2125

22

Table 1
Chemical compositions and mechanical properties of 2219-O and 2219-T6 aluminum alloy plates
Base material condition

2219-O
2219-T6

Chemical compositions (wt.%)

Mechanical properties

Al

Cu

Mn

Fe

Ti

Zn

Si

Zr

Tensile strength (MPa)

Elongation (%)

Bal.
Bal.

6.8
6.8

0.32
0.32

0.23
0.23

0.06
0.06

0.08
0.08

0.04
0.04

0.49
0.49

0.2
0.2

159
416

17.5
15

Table 2
Welding tool size and welding parameters used in the experiments
Base material condition

2219-O
2219-T6

Tool size

Welding parameters

Shoulder diameter (mm)

Pin diameter (mm)

Pin length (mm)

Rotation speed (rpm)

Welding speed (mm min1 )

15
15

6
6

4.8
4.8

800
800

60500
60300

1186 testing machine. The marked length of each specimen was

50 mm, and the tensile properties of each joint were evaluated
using three tensile specimens cut from the same joint.
3. Results
3.1. Morphologies and defects of welds
The typical cross-sections of the defect-free 2219-O and
2219-T6 welds are shown in Fig. 1, in which the retreating side
and the advancing side of each joint is denoted by RS and AS,
respectively. It can be seen from this figure that the morphology
of the 2219-O welds is significantly different from that of the
2219-T6 welds. In the 2219-O welds, there was no weld nugget
with elliptical rings, no matter how the welding parameters were

changed, and there was no discernible interface between the SZ

and the TMAZ. In the 2219-T6 welds, however, the weld nugget
exhibited an onion ring-like morphology, and there is obvious
plastic flow and a discernible interface between the SZ and the
TMAZ. These differences imply that the base material condition
has a significant effect on the weld morphologies.
Fig. 2 shows the typical welding defects observed in 2219-O
and 2219-T6 welds. It should be noted that the defects for both
are formed at the high welding speeds. Comparing Fig. 2a with
Fig. 2b can find that the weld defect distribution for the 2219-O
welds is significantly different from that for the 2219-T6 welds.
In the former welds, a defect is located in the lower part of the
weld. In the latter weld, a defect is located in the upper part of
the weld. It should be noted that weld defects of both types of
welds occur in the weld on the AS.

Fig. 1. Cross-sections of FSW joints welded at 200 mm min1 : (a) 2219-O joint and (b) 2219-T6 joint.

Fig. 2. Cross-sections of FSW joints: (a) 2219-O joint welded at 500 mm min1 and (b) 2219-T6 joint welded at 300 mm min1 .

Y. Chen et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 420 (2006) 2125

23

Fig. 3. Mechanical property efficiencies of 2219-O and 2219-T6 joints: (a) TSE and (b) EE.

Fig. 4. Strain distributions in the joints: (a) 2219-O and (b) 2219-T6.

3.2. Tensile properties of joints

Fig. 3 shows the tensile strength efficiency (TSE) and the
elongation efficiency (EE) of the 2219-O and 2219-T6 joints
welded at different welding speeds. The TSE is defined as the
ratio of the tensile strength of the joints to that of the base material, while the EE is the ratio of the elongation of the joints to that
of the base material. It can be seen from this figure that the base
material condition has different-extent effects on the TSE and
the EE. For the 2219-O joints, when the welding speed is slower
than 400 mm min1 , the TSE of 2219-O joints does not change
with the welding speed and is equal to 100%, and the EE changes
between 58% and 69%. When the welding speed is faster than
400 mm min1 , the TSE and the EE dramatically decrease to
considerably lower levels. For the 2219-T6 joints, when the
welding speed is slower than 220 mm min1 , the TSE of the
joints changes with the welding speed, and the highest TSE,
82%, can be obtained at a welding speed of 220 mm min1 , and
the corresponding EE is 49%. When the welding speed is faster
than 220 mm min1 , the TSE and the EE seriously decrease.
These results indicate that the effective range of the welding
parameters for 2219-O plates are significantly wider than that
for 2219-T6 plates; the maximum tensile strength of 2219-O
joints is equivalent to that of the base material, but the one for
2219-T6 joints is lower than that of the base material.

samples, and the distance between the neighboring indentations

was 1 mm and it was defined as d1. After tensile test, the distance
between the neighboring indentations was measured and it was
defined as d2. The strain is defined as: (d2 d1)/(d1). In this
way, the strain distributions in the joint can be obtained. The
maximum-strain location of each joint is the fracture location
of the joint. As seen from the figure, the 2219-O and 2219T6 joints have clearly different fracture location characteristics.
Concerning the 2219-O joints, when the welding speed is slower
than 400 mm min1 , the maximum strain occurs at the BM away
from the weld (see Fig. 4a), the joint fractures in the BM; when
the welding speed is faster than 400 mm min1 , the maximum
strain occurs at the weld on the AS, the joint fractures in the weld
on the AS. With regard to the 2219-T6 joints, when the welding
speed is slower than 220 mm min1 , the maximum strain occurs
at the HAZ on the AS, the joint is fractured in the HAZ on
the RS; when the welding speed is faster than 220 mm min1 ,
the maximum strain occurs at the weld on the AS, the joint
is fractured in the weld on the AS. These results indicate that
when the welding speed is smaller than a certain critical value,
the 2219-O joints tend to fracture in the BM, while the 2219-T6
joints are prone to fracture in the HAZ on the RS. When the
welding speed is greater than the critical value, all the joints
fracture in the weld on the AS.
4. Discussion

3.3. Fracture locations of joints

Fig. 4 shows the strain distributions of the joints welded at
different welding speeds. The strain is determined as follows.
Prior to the tensile tests, Vickers hardness indentations were
made along the centerlines of the cross-sections of the tensile

FSW process is similar to an extrusion process [26,27]. During each rotation of the tool, a thin-layer plasticized material
is pushed to the back of the tool [26]. The weld along welding
direction is characterized by the accumulation of multi-layer
plasticized material. Therefore, the cross-section of the weld

24

Y. Chen et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 420 (2006) 2125

Fig. 5. Micro-hardness distributions in the joints: (a) 2219-O and (b) 2219-T6.

shows the onion ring-like morphology. In addition, Sutton

et al. showed that the onion ring-like morphology is characterized by a segregated banded microstructure consisting of
alternating hard particle-rich and hard particle-poor regions [27].
This indicates that the onion ring-like morphology is related
to the distributions of precipitates. For 2219-T6 BM, a large
amount of precipitates exist in the form of quasi-stable state,
and a small amount of precipitates exist in the form of stable
state. The metastable precipitates are dissolved and solutionized
in the aluminum matrix during FSW, but the stable precipitates
are remained and prone to segregate in the high-strain region,
thus resulting in visible bands of high and low particle density
[27]. Such visible bands form so-called onion ring-like morphology in the 2219-T6 weld. However, for 2219-O BM, the
precipitates exist in the form of stable state, and the number is
large. The peak temperature during FSW is about 400 C and is
not sufficient to force the stable precipitates to dissolve and solutionize into the aluminum matrix. Therefore, a large number of
stable precipitates are distributed in the 2219-O weld. So large
numbers of particles conceal the feature of the onion ring-like
morphology in the 2219-O weld.
The formation of a void defect in the weld can be explained
by the basic mechanics of FSW. The tool generates friction heat
and causes a significant plastic deformation of the material. The
weld is formed by forging the plasticized material into the cavity
behind the tool from the RS to the AS. When FSW is performed
at a higher speed, the material receives less work per unit of weld
length, i.e. fewer tool rotations per mm. Under such conditions,
the plasticized material may be cooler, and less easily forged by
the tool, resulting in voids remaining unconsolidated in the AS
[28]. Moreover, Shinoda indicated that a location of the stagnant
metal flow exists in the upper part of the weld in the AS. This
insufficient metal flow results in a void defect in this area [29].
Therefore, in a higher welding speed, the void defect is liable to
occur in the upper part of the weld in the AS. It should be pointed
out that when the BM possesses higher plasticized ability, i.e.,
in soft condition, the effect of the shoulder on the flow ability
of plasticized materials is not neglect. The shoulder force more
plasticized material to go into flow status in thickness direction
during FSW. Therefore, the location of the stagnant metal flow
is compelled to the lower part of the weld in the AS and the
defect is prone to occur in such a location. The difference of the
plasticized ability of the different heat-treat condition of BM
determines the different defect location during FSW.

The tensile properties and fracture locations of the joints

are dependent on the micro-hardness distributions and the weld
defects of the joints [18,19]. When the welding speed is slower
than a certain critical value, the FSW can produce defect-free
joints (see Fig. 1). In this case, the tensile properties and fracture
locations of the joints are dependent only on the microhardness
profiles in the joints, as shown in Fig. 5. For the 2219-O joints, the
minimum-hardness zone is in the BM of each joint (see Fig. 5a),
therefore the joint is fractured in the BM and the tensile strength
of the joint is equal to that of the base material. For the 2219-T6
joints, the micro-hardness of the weld is lower than that of the
base material and the minimum-hardness zone of the joint is in
the HAZ on the RS (see Fig. 5b). Therefore, the tensile strength
of the joint is lower than that of the base material and the joint
is fractured in the HAZ on the RS.
On the other hand, when the welding speed is faster than the
critical value, welding defects can be produced in the joints (see
Fig. 2). The defects act as a crack initiation site during tensile
test. Therefore, the tensile properties and fracture locations of
the joints are determined by the welding defects. For the 2219-O
joints, void defects occur in the lower part of the weld on the
AS, so the joint fractures in the weld on the AS. For the 2219-T6
joints, void defects exist in the upper part of the weld on the AS,
and thus the joint is fractured in the weld on the AS.
5. Conclusions
(1) The base material condition has a significant effect on the
weld morphology and defects of AA2219 welds. In the
2219-O welds, there is no weld nugget with elliptical rings
and there is no discernible interface between the SZ and the
TMAZ. The defects are prone to occur in the lower part of
the weld on the AS. In the 2219-T6 welds, however, the
weld nugget with an onion ring-like morphology clearly
exists, and there is a discernible interface between the SZ
and the TMAZ. The defects are prone to form in the upper
part of the weld on the AS.
(2) The base material condition has a significant effect on the
tensile properties of the FSW joints. The strength efficiency
of 2219-O joints is 100%, and the one of 2219-T6 joints is
only up to 82%.
(3) The 2219-O and 2219-T6 joints have clearly different fracture location characteristics. When the welding speed is
smaller than a certain critical value, the 2219-O joints tend

Y. Chen et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 420 (2006) 2125

to fracture in the BM, while the one for the 2219-T6 joints
are prone to fracture in the HAZ on the RS. When the welding speed is greater than the critical value, the two types of
joints are all fractured in the weld on the AS.
References
[1] C.J. Dawes, W.M. Thomas, Weld. J. 75 (4) (1996) 41.
[2] K.E. Knipstrom, B. Pekkari, Weld. J. 76 (9) (1997) 55.
[3] H. Jin, S. Saimoto, M. Ball, P.L. Threadgill, Mater. Sci. Technol. 17
(12) (2001) 1605.
[4] Y.S. Sato, M. Urata, H. Kokawa, K. Ikeda, M. Enomoto, Scripta Mater.
45 (1) (2001) 109.
[5] S. Benavides, Y. Li, L.E. Murr, D. Brown, J.C. Mcclure, Scripta Mater.
41 (8) (1999) 809.
[6] G. Liu, L.E. Murr, C.S. Niou, J.C. Mcclure, F.R. Vega, Scripta Mater.
37 (3) (1997) 355.
[7] Y.S. Sato, H. Kokawa, M. Enomoto, S. Jogan, Metall. Mater. Trans. A
30 (9) (1999) 2429.
[8] M. Song, R. Koracevic, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Utah, USA, TWI Ltd., May, 2003.
[9] T. Nishihara, Y. Nagasaka, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Utah, USA, TWI Ltd., May, 2003.
[10] P. Colegrove, M. Painter, D. Graham, T. Miller, Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Gothenburg,
Sweden, TWI Ltd., June, 2000.
[11] M. James, M. Mahoney, D. Waldron, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, CA, USA, TWI Ltd., June,
1999.
[12] C.D. Donne, E. Lima, J. Wegener, A. Pyzalla, T. Buslaps, Proceedings
of the Third International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Kobe,
Japan, TWI Ltd., September, 2001.
[13] T.U. Seidel, A.P. Reynolds, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 32 (11) (2001) 2879.
[14] Y. Li, L.E. Murr, J.C. Mcclure, Scripta Mater. 40 (9) (1999) 1041.

25

[15] A.P. Reynolds, T.U. Seidel, M. Simonsen, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, CA, USA, TWI Ltd.,
June, 1999.
[16] K. Colligan, Weld. J. 78 (7) (1999) 229.
[17] B. London, M. Mahoney, W. Bingel, M. Calabrese, D. Waldron, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding,
Kobe, Japan, TWI Ltd., September, 2001.
[18] H.J. Liu, H. Fujii, M. Maeda, K. Nogi, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Kobe, Japan, TWI Ltd.,
2728 September, 2001.
[19] H.J. Liu, H. Fujii, M. Maeda, K. Nogi, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 20 (1)
(2004) 103.
[20] M.W. Mahoney, C.G. Rhodes, J.G. Fiulintoff, R.A. Spruling, W.H. Bingel, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 29 (7) (1998) 1955.
[21] M.G. Dawes, S.A. Karger, T.L. Dickerson, J. Przyoatek, Proceedings of
the Second International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Gothenburg, Sweden, TWI Ltd., June, 2000.
[22] T. Hashimoto, S. Jyogan, K. Nakada, Y.G. Kim, M. Ushio, Proceedings
of the First International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, CA,
USA, TWI Ltd., June, 1999.
[23] P.S. Pao, E. Lee, C.R. Feng, H.N. Jones, D.W. Moon, Proceedings of the
Fourth International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Utah, USA,
TWI Ltd., May, 2003.
[24] C. Juricic, C.D. Donne, U. Drebler, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Kobe, Japan, TWI Ltd.,
September, 2001.
[25] Y.S. Sato, M. Urata, H. Kokawa, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 33 (3) (2002)
625.
[26] K.N. Krishnan, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 327 (2) (2002) 246.
[27] M.A. Sutton, B. Yang, A.P. Reynolds, R. Taylor, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 323
(1) (2002) 160.
[28] A.J. Leonard, S.A. Lockyer, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Utah, USA, TWI Ltd., May, 2003.
[29] T. Shinoda, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, Kobe, Japan, TWI Ltd., September, 2001.