Effect of welding parameters on the

microstructure and mechanical properties

of the friction-welded dissimilar joints of
AA6063 alloy and faying surface-tapered
AISI304L alloy
Senthil Murugan S, Noorul Haq A &
Sathiya P

Welding in the World

The International Journal of Materials
Joining

ISSN 0043-2288
Volume 64
Number 3

Weld World (2020) 64:483-499

DOI 10.1007/s40194-020-00846-x

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by International
Institute of Welding. This e-offprint is for
personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Welding in the World (2020) 64:483–499
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-00846-x

RESEARCH PAPER

Effect of welding parameters on the microstructure and mechanical

properties of the friction-welded dissimilar joints of AA6063 alloy
and faying surface-tapered AISI304L alloy
Senthil Murugan S 1 & Noorul Haq A 1 & Sathiya P 1

Received: 23 August 2019 / Accepted: 1 January 2020 / Published online: 29 January 2020
# International Institute of Welding 2020

Abstract
Mechanical bonding between dissimilar metals is challenged due to the differences in their properties. In this paper, the influence
of tapering in friction welding (FW) between AA6063 and AISI304L and the effect of welding parameters are investigated to
obtain quality joints. Different experiments were carried out for this study with main influencing parameters such as upset
pressure (UP), friction time (FT) and friction pressure (FP). Tensile test, impact test and microhardness distribution along weld
zone, heat affected zone (HAZ), parent zone of welded joint were evaluated and the results were compared. Microstructure study
observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed the bonding between two dissimilar metals. Fractography analysis
showed the dimple rupture. Tensile strength and peak load increased with increasing friction pressure. The formation of inter-
metallic compounds at the weld interface was confirmed with the EDX spectrum. The tapering on faying surface of SS304L
specimen reduced the friction time needed for sound weld joints and increases the properties of joint. Since no appreciable
researches have been done on the joining between AA6063 and AISI304L with minimum working pressure through FW, special
attention was given to this work with a taper on faying portion. The minimum parameters required for the joining were also
understood through this investigation.

Keywords Tapering . Dissimilar welding . Microhardness . Fractography . Rotary friction welding

1 Introduction more interest in recent years. Among rotary friction welding

(RFW), inertia friction welding (IFW) and linear friction
Rotary friction welding (RFW) is an effective technique for welding (LFW), IFW has the drive which is smaller at equal
joining dissimilar metals by reason of its efficient, economic sample dimensions [21]. Yong Liu et al. [31] did research on
and occupational safety advantages in the absence of smoke, aluminium/stainless steel dissimilar metals with IFW and
fume and IR rays during welding. Applications of the friction found that intermetallic compound layer (IMC) was devel-
welding processes and dissimilar joints are inevitable in many oped at the joining interface of the weld, and a thicker IMC
industries as different properties are necessary with accurate layer was observed while increasing rotational speed.
applications [10–12, 18, 26, 28]. For instance, friction welding Lightweight structures with high strength to weight ratio are
proved as a technology for fabricating titanium alloy bladed appreciated for transportation vehicles. However, the develop-
disks in aero engines and aircraft structural components [6, 7, ment of such structures could not be possible without the
27]. Joining techniques for dissimilar metals have received innovations in welding techniques and dissimilar metal joints.
So a state-of-the-art technology is needed to joint dissimilar
Recommended for publication by Commission III - Resistance Welding,
joints with good joining properties. Friction welding is a
Solid State Welding, and Allied Joining Process promising technique and one of the pressure welding tech-
niques to joint dissimilar metals due to its high efficiency with
* Senthil Murugan S a narrow heat-affected zone (HAZ) [13, 16]. In FW, among
gctsegan@gmail.com two rods while rotating one of them in the chuck and holding
the other in a pneumatic operated holder, the axial load gen-
1
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of erates frictional heat between two rods to weld both of them
Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu 620 015, India together. Friction welding means the generation of heat
 Author's personal copy
484 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

Table 1 Chemical composition of stainless steel 304L Table 3 Experimental factors and their levels for this study

Elements C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Fe Parameters Friction Upset pressure – Friction

pressure – FP (MPa) UP (MPa) time – FT
Weight % 0.023 0.38 1.43 0.034 0.009 19.15 8.09 Balance (s)

Level 1 12 18 3
Level 2 15 21 5
required for joining by the interaction between two faying
Level 3 18 24 7
surfaces of the metals during rotation in the friction welding
machine. Actually, the intermolecular diffusion developed be-
tween the two faying faces performed the welding. Here, the
interface temperature is lower than the melting temperature of values obtained at 1200 rpm and for 4-s time. Paventhan et al.
base metals so melting will not occur in FW [20]. FP, UP and [25] welded AA6082 alloy and AISI 304 dissimilar metals by
FT are important parameters and are varied for optimizing the friction welding and found through response surface method-
strong joint. When operating with high pressure, the quantity ology (RSM) that friction pressure had a greater influence on
of the released heat, as well as extruded metal heat, is also the tensile strength of joints followed by friction time. Bennett
increasing [23]. However, during friction welding of alumin- [8] did research with inertia friction welding on CrMoV alloy
ium and steel, there is some possibility of forming a thin layer and concluded that when high pressure was used for the
of brittle intermetallic compounds [24]. In joining steel with welding, and the HAZ width was reduced. Chanbao Song
aluminium, the fragile intermetallics lead to having weld deg- et al. [9] analysed atomic diffusion behaviour, plastic defor-
radation [5]. Emel Taban et al. [12] confirmed the formation of mation and temperature change while welding between titani-
Al–Fe intermetallics related to FeAl and Fe2Al5 through their um (Ti)-based alloys by linear friction welding. Their investi-
investigation of joining AA6061 alloy with AISI1018 steel. gation revealed that the deformed area of the welded zone was
Kimura et al. [18] studied the importance of friction time (FT) increased with the increase of friction time and also Ti showed
in joining AA6063 with SS304 at friction pressure 30 MPa higher diffusion ability than that of aluminium. Friction time
and concluded that when friction time increases, the weld substantially affects the quality of weld, and El-oualid
interface temperature also increases, which in turn soften the bouarroudj et al. [11] did work on the numerical simulation
weld interface. Peak temperature and cooling rate near play a in order to analyse heat transfer between metals during friction
vital role since they influence the residual stress in the welded welding by establishing a thermal map. Most of the literature
joint. Introduction of nickel interlayer improves the mechani- described the research with different material combinations
cal property by replacing Fe2Ti phase [29], and silver as an like aluminium to stainless steel, carbon steel to aluminium,
interlayer in weld interface replaces the magnesium content in steel to copper alloys, aluminium to copper alloys, aluminium
the aluminium side, thus reducing the width of the intermetal- to magnesium, carbon steel to stainless steel, etc. and need of
lic layer and increasing tensile strength [30]. Their work pre- joining dissimilar metals [15]. Zhida liang et al. [32] evaluated
sented an analysis of microstructure and mechanical proper- the weldability of Al and Mg dissimilar joints with laser weld–
ties on the weld joint in different parameters. Adrian Lis et al. bonded process. Kannan P et al. [17] studied the effect of
[1] did work on linear friction welding with 250 HZ oscilla- silver interlayer in joining AA6061 metal matrix composite
tion frequency for joining AA5052 and AA6063 and found with AISI304 by FW. Through the research, Kannan et al.
that the sound joint was achieved at 30-MPa friction pressure reported that the Ag interlayer decreases the particle fracture
and discussed the importance of frictional time also. The ef- and fictional coefficient also. Koshiro Aoki and Takuyu
fects of softening AA6063 and hardening AA5052 were iden- koezawa [19] studied the effect of FW technique in joining
tified through their research and also proved that the pressure ECAE deformed 6063-T5 aluminium alloy and reported that
reduction narrowed down the thickness of the softened HAZ. the ECAE process improves the welding efficiency above
An trial was tried by Ajith et al. [2] to weld S32205 duplex 70%. But the research on joining austenitic stainless steel
stainless steel and the study said about the percentage contri- (low carbon content) with Al-Si-Mg alloys by rotary friction
bution of input parameters, for instance, upset pressure (47%) welding is limited. From the literature study, it is observed that
and friction pressure (27%) were dominating majorly. to face the difficulty while welding dissimilar metals which
Rupinder Singh et al. [27] have done work on joining dissim- are with different coefficients of thermal expansion. In this
ilar polymer materials with friction welding. The maximum investigation, an attempt has been tried to joint AA6063 with

Table 2 Chemical composition

of aluminium 6063 Elements Si Mn Cu Fe Zn Mg Ti Cr Al

Weight % 0.50 0.044 0.029 0.26 0.061 0.41 0.020 0.009 98.58
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 485

Machine chuck AISI304L Faying surfaces AA6063 Table 4 Experimental parameters used in this study

Experiments numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Friction pressure (MPa) 12 12 12 15 15 15 18 18 18

Upset pressure (MPa) 18 21 24 18 21 24 18 21 24
Friction time (s) 3 5 7 5 7 3 7 3 5

Fig. 1 Friction welding concept used in this study is major, which is around 70% in SS304L. The austenitic
grains and delta ferrite are present in SS304L [16]. Silicon,
tapered AISI 304 L specimen by RFW. This study is for de- iron and magnesium are the major elements besides alumini-
fining the effect of tapering on the welded samples through um in AA6063.
mechanical and microstructural characterization and
fractography studies in order to evaluate the weld quality. 2.2 Welding parameters selection
This new approach is initiated for the benefit of researchers
around the world. Quality of the solid-state friction welding is depending on the
proper parameter selection [3]. Usually, in FW, the parameter
selection is a vital one since they determine the amount of
2 Materials and experiment energy and the heat generation rate at the weld interface.
Table 3 confers the data about the welding parameters selected
AISI304L (ferrous-austenitic stainless steel) and AA6063 in this study. Rotational speed, upset time and penetration rate
(non-ferrous aluminium) were selected for this investigation are followed constantly with the values 1500 rpm, 3 s and
due to their massive applications in the industrial and domes- penetration rate 3 mm/min, respectively. Upset pressure
tic purpose usage. The chemical composition of the material (UP) was higher than FP since UP should be equal/greater
was analysed to identify the elements in the materials by op- than FP during friction welding. Optimal welding parameters
tical emission spectroscopy (OES) as per the standard ASTM are able to create adequate frictional heat flux during FW
E1251 and reported here. The welding was done by RFW, and which would direct to the plasticizing of the interface for the
the details and specification are reported here. production of high strength joint. In this study, the selected
input parameters were friction time, friction pressure and up-
2.1 Materials set pressure. Aluminium is soft and stainless steel is moder-
ately hard, so moderate friction pressure is required to get
AISI304L/SS304L has wide applications because of its good joint between them.
strength, resistance to corrosion, hardness, high flexibility
and its ability to tolerate sudden loads. It is moderately hard. 2.3 Experiment and characterization
It is a low carbon austenitic stainless steel category as it has a
lesser carbon content of 0.03% max. The elements present in Two cylindrical samples (ϕ12 mm dia., length = 100 mm)
the SS304L aluminium and AA6063 used in this study are made of AA6063 and AISI/SS 304 L (tapered with 6 mm
given in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The iron content diameter and 6 mm length) were welded by RFW as the con-
cept shown in Fig. 1. In case of RFW, among the parts to be
welded, one of the parts with tapering (SS) is rotated, and the
A
other part (Al) is pushed in the axial direction against it for a
certain period of time called friction time [22]. The surfaces of
both stainless steel and aluminium are prepared well during
a) AISI304L with tapering b) AA6063
the welding experiments. Here, the coalescence of both dis-
similar metals is acquired by the combined effect of pressure

l Half 1
Weld flash
AISI AA
d

AISI 304L AA6063

Half 2
A

Fig. 2 Samples for FW experiments (l, d = 6 mm) and tapering

penetration Fig. 3 Friction-welded specimens
 Author's personal copy
486 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

‘U’ shape penetration and relative motion of two workpieces heating the joint
boundary and inducing plastic deformation of material [4,
14]. The tapering was done at almost ½ ratio of the diameter
of the cylindrical samples (Fig. 2). Friction welding was done
AA6063 AISI304L
on continuous rotary friction welding machine (Model:
KUKA, welding research institute, BHEL), which is capable
of 15 ton, as per the parameters in Table 4. During FW, alu-
minium (Al) was deformed to a larger degree, and the weld
Fig. 4 Specimen (showing U-shaped penetration due to tapering) flash on the Al side is huge (Fig. 3). It is to be considered that
the elements from the stainless steel side would diffuse into
the aluminium side and vice versa. The thermal conductivity

a b

Weld interface
AA6063

Weld interface

AISI304L

c d

HAZ AISI304L Base AISI304L

e
Refined grains

HAZ AA6063 zone

Fig. 5 SEM images of weld interface produced at FP = 12, UP = 21, FT = 5, where c and d for SS side and e for Al side – low friction pressure
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 487

of aluminium is almost 10 times greater than that of steel, so investigations. The microstructures of the welded joint and
aluminium alloy gets cooled fast. The effect of welding con- fractured surfaces were analysed by scanning electron
ditions was examined using a test specimen without burr. The microscopy (SEM). Element diffusion and its quantity
prepared samples for RFW are shown in Fig. 2. The welded in percentage are analysed by EDS, which is an elemen-
samples were machined to the required dimensions of ASTM tal chemical microanalysis technique performed in con-
standards, and the flash was removed. The tensile test was junction with SEM. Features or phases as small as
done on dissimilar weld joint using UTM (Model: MTS 100 about 1 μm can be analysed. Figure 4 shows the sample
kN INSIGHT). Microhardness distribution of welds was mea- after machining, in which the weld interface is in ‘U’
sured using Vickers hardness tester (0.5-kgf load). Samples shape due to tapering which in turn means the influence
were cut from the welded specimens and prepared as per stan- of tapering during RFW. The behaviour along the weld
dard procedure for the microstructural and mechanical zone was also analysed.

a b
AA6063
Tapering corner

Deformed grains
AA6063

Weld interface Weld interface

AISI304L AISI304L

c d

HAZ AISI304L zone

HAZ AA6063 Zone

e f
particles

Plastic folding

HAZ AA6063 Zone

AA6063 base metal Zone

Fig. 6 SEM images of weld interface produced at FP = 18, UP = 24, FT = 5, where a and c for AA side and b and d for SS side – high friction pressure
 Author's personal copy
488 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

Fig. 7 EDS report of joints

welded at FP = 12, UP = 21,
FT = 5

3 Results and discussion PZ. Weld interface was in ‘V’ shape due to the tapering on the
specimen, which is shown in the SEM image (Fig. 6g). In
3.1 SEM and EDS analysis (microstructure zone near weld interface, the process temperature was higher
and element diffusion) than the other areas towards base metal. So there is the possi-
bility that the structure may be heterogeneous nearby WZ. In
From the friction-welded joint appearance, it was observed this zone, both materials suffered from huge mechanical force
that the flash was formed due to the insertion of SS onto AA during FW and the grains refined. The SEM images of the as-
and flash would be greater if FP is greater. From the micro- welded joint along HAZ zone of AA side are shown from
structures, no weld defects such as cracks, fissures and poros- weld interface in Fig. 5b and e, respectively. Owing to fric-
ity were identified. Microstructural characterization was done tional heating effect, the grains were recrystallized, and major
for the comparison on the welded specimens which are having Fe debris were observed in the HAZ of AA area. No deformed
low tensile strength (Exp. no. 2) and high tensile value with grains were found in HAZ, instead, that is available nearby
maximum axial shortening (Exp. no. 9) with same FT. weld interface. And the delta ferrite quantity decreased from
Characterization area was divided into three different zones, PZ to weld interface. The austenite grains were also noticed.
namely, weld zone (WZ), heat-affected zone (HAZ) and par- Plastic deformation was crucial in the WZ rather than HAZ.
ent zone (PZ), shown in Fig. 5a–e and Fig. 6a–h. The refined grains and the debris of the SS content into AA
Microstructures have little difference from weld interface to during FW are shown in Fig. 5e. From the Fig. 6a and b, no

Fig. 8 EDS report of joints

welded at FP = 18, UP = 24,
FT = 5
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 489

Table 5 Mass values of elements percent (with atomic number) in Weld interface
specimens

Element Al. (13) Fe (26) C (6) Cr (24) Ni (28) Si (14)

AISI304L AA6063

% in Exp. 2 5.45 58.12 13.89 12.41 7.95 2.17

% in Exp. 8 54.88 25.48 9.78 7.28 2.58 – Fig. 10 Specimen after tensile testing

Figures 7 and 8 show the EDS observation on the dissimilar

strip like delta (δ) ferrite is observed nearby weld interface. joints welded with FP 12 MPa and 18 MPa, respectively. The
Carbon (C) was likely to cross weld boundary and fanned out elements like Fe, Cr, C, Si, Al and Ni were observed on the
along austenitic grains. The formation of weld interface in ‘V’ samples welded with low FP and ‘Fe’ observed a maximum of
shape as the tapering on SS is shown in Fig. 6a. The weld around 58% in a mass fraction at 6.5 keV and 1.6 cps/eV
interface is shown in Fig. 6b, for which it is observed that in (Fig. 7) followed by carbon and chromium. The silicon pres-
the nearby weld boundary, the grains are refined due to fric- ent in both SS and AA is a maximum of 0.38%, but according
tion pressure, and the debris is available in micron size also. to the EDS, the silicon produced is 2.17%. Similarly, the weld
The thermo-mechanically affected zone is nearby weld joint contains ‘Al’ element, and its diffusion is observed since
boundary and the thick of boundary also narrow. The weld its mass fraction is as 5.45%, which is much low compared to
boundary is thick if the friction pressure rose from 12 to the value of 98% in AA6063, and the ‘Fe’ element is diffused
18 MPa. Figure 6c and d are showing heat-affected zones of across joint around 13% mass fraction which is obtained by
SS and AA, respectively. Figure 6e and f show HAZ of AL considering the iron content in SS and EDS result in Fig. 7.
and PZ of AL, respectively, from the images delta ferrite dif- These element diffusions prove the formation of Fe and Al-
fusion nearly HAZ is observed. The deformation was happed related intermetallics in the weld zone. Similarly, the interme-
on AA specimen due to the penetration of SS. The plastic tallic with Cr, Ni is also possible. From the values observed in
folding is observed on AA metals. Diffusion of elements dur- EDS spectrum (Fig. 8), the silicon (Si) element is not present
ing friction welding was observed by SEM and EDS analysis in the joint welded with 18 MPa, so it shows that the change of
in this study. Element diffusion may cause the formation of element is possible with the change of FP. The mass fraction
intermetallics. According to the literature, during FW of steel and atoms present in percentage were varied comparatively to
to aluminium, the elements like chromium (Cr), Vanadium the FP 12 MPa. This is due to the impact of friction pressure
(V) and tungsten (W) cannot be diffused into aluminium, but and while analysing the values obtained; ‘Al’ is in peak with
the weld region may have intermetallics and some alloying 58% of mass fraction and followed with 25% of ‘Fe’. While
elements. taking this into account, the formation of ‘Fe’- and ‘Al’-based
Formation of these intermetallic phases is due to interdif- intermetallics is possible with less count than FP 12 MPa.
fusion phenomenon depending on the time and temperature. Table 5 shows the comparative study of mass values of ele-
Friction welding, such a solid-state welding process, is pre- ment present in the dissimilar weld zone. From the table, it
ferred for the reduced formation of intermetallics in contrast to was observed that the ‘Si’ was not found in experiment 8 weld
fusion welding processes. As a result of the difference be- joint, whereas the ‘Cr’ and ‘Ni’ values were also higher for the
tween the chemical compositions of two base metals, there experiment 2 weld joint. From Figs. 7 and 8, it is considered
is a possibility of having intermetallics with the combination that dissimilar joint welded with the parameters 12 MPa FP,
of Fe and Al in the welded zone. In order to identify the 21 MPa UP and 5 FT may be better in corrosion resistance
elements diffusion percentage during FW, EDS analysis was than that of the joint fabricated with 18 MPa FP, 24 MPa UP
done on the central joint core. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy and 5 FT since the ‘Cr’ mass is higher for the former param-
(EDS) is based on the atomic number of the elements present eters and ‘Ni’ acts as a stabilizer. The significance of tapering
in the welded joint and their distribution. It allows identifying
what those particular elements are and wt% is giving the rel-
ative concentration of the element present in the sample.

Weld interface

AISI304L AA6063

Fig. 9 Specimen for tensile testing Fig. 11 Tensile-tested samples for nine experiments
 Author's personal copy
490 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

Table 6 Tensile test results for various parameters

Exp. no. Parameters Observed properties Observed properties (without tapering)

(with tapering)

Friction pressure Upset Time Tensile strength Peak load Axial shortening Tensile strength Axial shortening
(MPa) pressure (s) (MPa) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (mm)
(MPa)

1 12 18 3 155.7 10 11 154 13.7

2 12 21 5 137.5 8.8 12 159 19.1
3 12 24 7 154.3 9.9 13 156 19.5
4 15 18 5 168 10.6 13.5 167 21.8
5 15 21 7 190.3 12 16 158 23.6
6 15 24 3 194.3 12.5 17 157 18.1
7 18 18 7 204.8 13 21 177 26.9
8 18 21 3 217.4 14 24 172 20.5
9 18 24 5 203.7 13 28 189 25.0

effect on element diffusion during FW was understood than shortening parameter also. According to the results, ultimate
conventional dissimilar joint by FW. tensile strength (UTS) values increase if the friction pressure
increases, which showed that the load required fracturing weld
3.2 Tensile properties testing joint, which will be high at maximum friction pressure. The
peak load is increased by increasing FP. The maximum peak
The tensile test was carried out on as-welded joints at different value observed is 14 kN for Exp. no. 8, whereas the maximum
parameters. For testing, the samples from the welded samples UTS noted is 217.4 MPa for the same experiment with max-
were prepared according to ASTM E8 standard, and it is imum FP, UP but minimum FT of all parameter values follow-
shown in Fig. 9. The testing specimens were prepared with ed in this study. But with proper parameters values selection,
45 mm of initial gauge length and 50 mm of final gauge length the tensile strength and ductility can be improved. Most of the
and ϕ9-mm diameter. The tested specimen is given in Figs. 10 breakage happened at the outside of the weld. The experi-
and 11. The fracture is ductile, and if the FP increases, there ments with 5s FT showed low strength. The least UTS obtain-
would be clarity on the ductile nature. Table 6 furnishes the ed were 137.5 MPa, in which the low FP 12 MPa is also one of
details about the observed values of various experiments with the reasons apart from FT, whereas the maximum tensile value
pressures (FP and UP), and friction time (FT) and shows the was 155.7 MPa. The eighth experiment achieved a maximum
comparison of the values with and without tapering SS304L of 217 MPa for 18 MPa compared to the values of 194.3 MPa
specimen during FW. The tensile values are good for the joints for 15 MPa. The axial shortening of the aluminium metal part
without tapering from Exp. no. 1 to Exp. no. 3 while from in the dissimilar joint is higher due to the penetration of SS
Exp. no. 4 to Exp. no. 9, the tensile strength for the joints with which is harder than AA. If the FP is 18 MPa and UP is
tapering specimens. It is considered that the taper will be ef- 24 MPa, the maximum axial shortening is observed due to
fective for experiments 4 to 9 and the taper affects the axial the frictional force created during FW. Figures 10 and 11 are
the evidence for the fracture happened during tensile testing

Fig. 12 Comparison graph among experiments (with tapering) for peak

load required for weld breakage Fig. 13 Tensile strength comparison among experiments
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 491

diameter rod with taper on the specimen. From this study, it

UP=21
UP=24 UP=18
is summarized that though FP 18 MPa produced a maximum
UP=24 UP=21
of UTS, FP 15 MPa is enough and the minimum required
UP=18 value for good joint between two dissimilar metals. While
UP=18 UP=24
comparing the results, FP 12 MPa produced the unsatisfied
UP=21
results which is insufficient to make a joint between non-
ferrous alloys (Al) and ferrous alloy (SS). In the case of upset
pressure, the maximum strength is obtained at 21 MPa.
Though the UP is sufficient (higher than FP), the recommen-
dation with UP of atleast 50% higher than FP would give
Fig. 14 Effect of FP, UP and FT on UTS of the weld joint
superior mechanical properties.
Figure 14 shows the relationship between friction pressure,
upset pressure and friction time and peak stress observed on
and also in turn showed the ductile fracture. All the fracture
the weld joint during UTS testing. From the figure, it is clearly
happened outside of the weld with elongation and the speci-
observed that the FT, FP and UP are the influencing parame-
men showed plastic formation during testing.
ters on peak stress values. The combinations of these
Figure 12 shows the comparison of various experiments in
parameters with minimum difference may also changes
terms of peak load. The maximum and minimum peak loads
the properties. Anyhow, the high FP, UP produces max-
for occurring fracture on weld joint are 14 kN for FP =
imum UTS with less FT. From the test which was con-
18 MPa, UP = 21 MPa, FT = 3 s and 8.8 kN for FP =
sidered for the joints welded as per the parameters
12 MPa, UP = 15 MPa, FT = 3 s, respectively. FP and FT are
available in Exp. nos. 7, 8 and 9, the UTS value ob-
the main processing parameters in friction welding which may
tained was different since the combinations of parame-
influence the peak load required. When FT was 3 s, the max-
ters were different in every experiment during FW even
imum peak value was obtained compared to 5 s and 7 s which
though the FP is the same for all the three experiments.
means that the energy absorbed by the weld joint during fric-
Among these, the maximum UTS value was measured
tion welding was good. The reason is described as the pene-
as 217.4 MPa for 3 s at FP = 18 and UP = 21 Mpa.
tration of AISI304L onto AA6063 during FW with chamfer-
From this statement, it is to be taken into account that
ing effect was easy to occur. But in due course, the plasticity
friction time is influencing the value of UTS. The ta-
reduced and the boundary deformed and deteriorated the
pering effect influencing the mechanical properties and
strength of weld at high FT. Figure 13 shows the comparison
reduced the time needed.
of various experiments about the tensile strength of welded
The material loss (axial shortening) happened for all exper-
joints. It is to be understood that initially, the tensile strength is
iments during friction welding of dissimilar metals is shown in
good, and during the second experiment, the values reached
Fig. 15. The figure shows the gradual increase of curve in
low and gradually increasing while increasing pressure. The
terms of loss when the pressure increases during FW. The
eighth experiment reached a maximum of around 217 MPa.
minimum loss was observed for 12-MPa FP and 3s FT. This
Figure 13 describes the effect of friction time on UTS of the
is due to the low time required for one metal penetration into
welded joint. From the figure, it is inferred that the Exp. no. 8
another metal during friction welding as well as the plasticity
with FT 3 s got maximum value and proved that the FT 3 s is
and frictional heat generation with least time were poor owing
enough for joining AISI 304 L and AA 6063 of 12-mm
to insufficient FP. Usually, by practice, the material loss range
between 10 and 30 mm is accepted. Fortunately, in this study,
the material loss range was maintained between 11 and
28 mm. So the parameters used in this study were accepted
and satisfied with the minimum requirement for joining fer-
rous and non-ferrous (Al and SS) metals via friction welding.
Though the strength of experiment 9 is less compared to the

AA debris Weld interface

AA6063 AISI304L

Fig. 15 Comparison of axial shortening for various experiments Fig. 16 Fractured tensile specimen
 Author's personal copy
492 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

a b

Core AA Debris

Fractured with plasticity

Ring pattern

c d

Brittle fracture
Dimple fracture

Fracture with deformation

Fig. 17 Fracture images of tensile specimen (FP = 12, UP = 21, FT = 5), where a and c for AA6063 side and b and d for AISI304L side

eighth experiment, the material loss is 28 mm which is 4 mm force. The dimple rupture portion was much less which indi-
higher than the experiment 8 that is due to the increase of time. cate that the ductility of specimen worse. The heterogeneous
microstructure was found in the weakest part. The weakest
3.3 Fracture analysis contents transferred from the weld zone to the base metal, thus
the fracture happened at the AA6063 alloy with the lowest
Since the fracture happened nearby weld interface with ductil- tensile strength and the low pressure.
ity, there is a study of fracture analysis on the tested fractured Although the weld joint was good, the tensile strength is
specimens (Fig. 16). SEM images of the fractured specimen varying according to the change in welding parameters, and
are shown in Fig. 17a–d. There is a possibility to have Al3Fe4 among them, the FP is one. The Fig. 18a and b are the core of
and Al5Fe2 intermetallics while joining aluminium and stain- fractured AA and SS part, respectively. Black dot spots were
less steel. Such hard and brittle intermetallics may degrade the observed in AA-fractured part (Fig. 18a). While analysing the
quality of the welding by reducing strength. Most of the microstructures (Figs. 17b and 18b), which are for the frac-
failures were observed in the plasticized layer on the alumini- tured core of SS part and welded with FP 12 MPa and FP
um side of the joint. The sample of the fracture specimen is 18 MPa, respectively, but the FT was 5 s for both, the number
shown in Fig. 18, and the SEM images of the specimen having of turns in ring pattern is less, and the ferrite diffusion was
the least and best UTS values are shown in Figs. 17 and 18, great for 18 MPa. The dimple rupture portion was also much
respectively. From the Fig. 17a and b, the ring patterns formed higher for higher FP (18 MPa, Fig. 18c), thus the peak load
due to frictional effect between specimens during FW with low needed for the fracture was increased by improving tensile
pressures are viewed for AA and SS, respectively. Near the strength. Very fine dimple fracture has more strength
weld zone, the fracture mode is a dimple fracture as shown in (Fig.18c) than coarse dimples. The ductility was better for
Fig. 17c and d, and the result showed that the fracture happed the 18 MPa, and the fracture happened was ductile fracture
in aluminium base metal. The EDS results showed the diffu- nearby weld joint as shown in Fig. 18c and d. The plasticity
sion of ferrite contents. Initially, the fracture happened in the was made around the turn of ring pattern like filament cluster
aluminium zone, and it propagates when increasing tensile but not in the core.
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 493

a b
Less turn in ring pattern

AA debris on AISI

Plasticity like filament

c d

AISI304L fractured zone

AA6063dimple fracture

Fig. 18 Fracture images of the tensile specimen (FP = 18, UP = 24, FT = 5), where a and c for AA6063 side and b and d for AISI304L side

3.4 Impact toughness testing impact toughness on joint after friction welding. The notch
has to be carefully prepared, and its position was in the middle
The impact test specimens were prepared according to of the U-shaped penetration (Fig. 4) in the impact test speci-
ASTM-E23 standard. The specimen was 55 mm in length, men since tapering effect. Due to the U-shaped penetration, it
10 mm in width and height, 45° angle of the notch, the notch is hard to position the V-notch in the dissimilar joints to iden-
height was 2 mm and the height of below notch was 8 mm. tify its actual impact toughness. The test is used to measure (in
The impact test is to identify the ability of the weld joint to terms of Joules) the amount of energy that a joint absorbs
bear the impact load. Figure 19a shows the specimens which before fracturing under a high rate of deformation. The test
were prepared for the Charpy V-notch test to identify the was conducted at room temperature on the friction-welded

Fig. 19 Impact test specimen

with V-notch (Charpy) test a b
samples: a Before testing, b after
testing

V- Notch
 Author's personal copy
494 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

Table 7 Impact values observed during testing of various samples

Exp. no. Parameters Impact strength

obtained with tapering
Friction pressure Upset Friction (Joule/cm2)
(MPa) pressure time
(MPa) (s)

1 12 18 3 12
2 12 21 5 10
3 12 24 7 12
4 15 18 5 12
5 15 21 7 11
Fig. 21 Comparison graph between friction time and impact values of
6 15 24 3 18 various experiments with tapering
7 18 18 7 21
8 18 21 3 24 7 s. While comparing all the experiments, the maximum value
9 18 24 5 20 reached was 24 J/cm2 for Exp. no. 8, whereas the min-
imum value was obtained for Exp. 2. Thus, friction time
(FT) plays a vital role in having a sound joint of ta-
specimen as it influences the impact toughness. The break
pered metals in terms of impact strength. During impact
happened in the Al base metal portion during impact test.
testing of the joints without tapering, it was observed
The specimens after the test are shown in Fig. 19b, which
that the maximum impact strength reached as 36 J/cm2
confirms the plasticity and ductile nature of welded joint dur-
for the experiment 9 and the minimum value as 30 J/
ing testing due to the tapering effect. The fracture was making
cm2 for the experiment 1.
cone-like shape on the AA part. From the results, it was ob-
Figure 20 shows the comparison of the impact strength of
served that the penetration of tapered SS alloy on aluminium
the welded joints fabricated through different experiments.
alloy was obvious and the same is indicated in Fig. 19b. In
The U-shaped formation in the test specimen due to the taper-
most of the specimens, the impact rupture happened outside of
ing may reduce the impact strength due to the difficulty to
the weld on base metal (out of v-notch) because of the effect of
identify the V-notch position in the dissimilar weld. If the FP
tapering on the rotating part (SS304L). The rupture showed
was maintained at 18 MPa, the impact values were good, and
the generation of brittle nature because of the improper bond-
it retained the values in the range of 20–24 J/cm2. The maxi-
ing between these two dissimilar metals during FW with in-
mum value reached 24 J/cm2 for the eighth experiment, which
adequate process parameters. The values observed during im-
is mainly due to the time taken for the frictional effect between
pact testing are reported in Table 7 against the experiments
the tapered specimen (part 1) and the other (part 2) is less with
done. From Table 7, it is obvious that the maximum friction
more FP and UP. Low FP produced the least impact strength,
pressure would improve impact strength. Here, the values ob-
and FT was also one of the important factors which may affect
tained are good for FP = 18 MPa. It is noted that by varying
the behaviour of the welded joint. Here, the FT and UP simul-
the time from 3 to 7 s, the FT 3 s produces the sound joint
taneously affect the performance. Among the 3-, 5- and 7-s
compared to the remaining. At the same time, there was not
friction time, the time 3 s (Fig. 21) showed the good result
much difference between the impact values obtained for 5 and

21.7

13.7
11.3

Fig. 20 Impact toughness (J/cm2 ) on the weld joint for various

parameters (experiments with tapering) Fig. 22 Effect of friction pressure on impact value of dissimilar joint
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 495

3.5 Fracture analysis

The fracture surfaces of impact tested specimens were studied

through fractography, which is used to find out the cause of
failures in the metals. Here, Fig. 24 a–d are the fracture appear-
ances on the dissimilar welded sample with low impact values.
But the Fig. 25 a–d are showing the behavioural study of the
dissimilar welded sample with high impact values. The ring
pattern produced by the friction between specimens during FW
was clearly shown in fracture images A and B (A–Al., B–SS),
which in turn proved the greatness of friction developed by the
FP 12 and 18 MPa. It is observed from the Figs. 24 and 25 that
the number of turns in the ring pattern produced was less for
Fig. 23 Effect of welding parameters on impact strength – a comparison
chart higher FP; thus it indicates that the impact values are good for
less number of turns in ring pattern. The rupture with dimples
are also much higher for the higher FP; it showed the improve-
which means that the tapering configuration on specimen ment on impact values. Some of the debris due to diffusion is
would reduce the time taken for the FW for the sound joint. also visible in images C and D, the fracture zone without duc-
Figure 22 shows the comparative analysis of impact values tility reduces the strength and the evidence of deformation
with FP. For the friction welding of 12-mm diameter rods, the during impact testing showed better results in properties. The
FP 18 MPa was sufficient for strong strength. Figure 23 shows filament ductility was identified along the turn of the ring pat-
the results and the effect of FT on impact strength and tern which showed that the turn available in ring took maxi-
commended that the values are good for 3 s followed by 7 s mum effort to get plasticity during the test. The diffusion of
and 5 s. elements was confirmed with EDS result.

a b
Ring pattern in SS

Filament ductility around ring

Delta ferrite
Ring pattern in AA

c d

Fracture without
ductility Deformation in peripheral area

Fig. 24 Fracture images of impact specimen (FP = 12, UP = 18, FT = 5), where a and c are for AA side and b and d are for SS side
 Author's personal copy
496 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

a b

Less frictional effect

None deformed zone

Ring pattern in AA More frictional effect

c d
Fracture zone in AA

Deformed zone near core

None deformed zone

Fig. 25 Fracture images of impact specimen (FP = 18, UP = 24, FT = 5), where a and c for AA side and b and d for SS side

The less frictional effect happened in the core area, and the are acting as the evidence for the rupture due to the brittle
more frictional effect happened along the ring turns produced nature in some areas of the specimen.
due to friction (Fig. 25b). More dimples are available in the
higher FP (Fig. 25c) rather than low FP (Fig. 24c). The ductile 3.6 Vickers microhardness
nature was seen in the deformed zone, and the low brittle
nature is also shown in Fig. 25d. Thus, the fractography study Hardness distribution at different zones of the welded joints
on the impact tested specimen showed the generation of duc- were analysed in the comparison among the experiments is
tility on welded specimen during testing, and the images also given in Figs. 26–28. Figure 26 shows the graph drawn

Fig. 26 Hardness distribution 350

along the SS304L portion from
the weld interface 300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Ex.1 Ex.2 Ex.3 Ex.4 Ex.5 Ex.6 Ex.7 Ex.8 Ex.9
SS weld zone 333 329 323 310 279 323 318 329 319
SS HAZ 310 290 310 275 272 313 307 302 304
SS parent zone 282 269 298 261 278 269 285 291 280
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 497

350
325
a EX.1 third experiment achieved a maximum of 64, 70 and 75 Hv in
300 EX.2 AA-welded zone, HAZ and PZ, respectively. While consider-
275 EX.3 ing the entire zone of the AA portion in the welded joint, the
250 a EX.4
225
average value is in the range of 60–70 Hv hardness. The
EX.5
200 b experiment no. 3 shows the good hardness distribution among
175 EX.6
150
the others and followed by the seventh experiment. In terms of
EX.7
125
b friction pressure, the value at 12 MPa achieved good joint
EX.8
100
EX.9
followed by 18 MPa and 15 MPa. In the dissimilar joining
75
50
between stainless steel and aluminium, in the aluminium part,
0 0.5S 0.3S 0.1S 0.1A 0.3A 0.5A PZ is harder than HAZ and the weld zone. This is mainly
owing to the soft nature of the AA created by the hard attack
Fig. 28 Comparison of hardness distribution along dissimilar joint of the SS part onto the AA during friction welding with a low
temperature near the interface.
between the experiments done by different welding parame- The hardness values for the weld joints fabricated without
ters’ values and the microhardness of the SS part. In the as- tapering on SS304L specimen were also observed. The max-
welded joint, the weld zone of ‘SS’ is harder than the HAZ imum hardness value nearby SS weld zone of the joint without
and parent zone. The maximum value was observed as 333 for tapering is 314 Hv for the experiment no. 8, and the minimum
experiment 1. The value is better for low FP rather than high value is 276 Hv for the experiment no. 5. While comparing the
FP. The average value for 18 MPa FP is 322 Hv, for 12 MPa data without and with tapering effect, it is understood that the
FP is 328 Hv and for 15 MPa FP, and the average hardness tapering effect stimulates the hardness property. Figure 28 fur-
value in Hv is 304, which is due to the poor values obtained in nishes about the microhardness values along the path from the
the fifth experiment. Low pressure 12 MPa is enough for the base metal to the weld zone (distance in mm). About 0.1 mm
good hardness, and the time for friction is 3 s. Similarly, the distance from the weld interface towards SS PZ is having
hardness values for the SS part are also analysed in the HAZ maximum values. Similarly, 0.5 mm distance from the weld
and parent zone (PA) and depicted in Fig. 26. In the overall joint is having maximum values. For all the experiments, the
view, the first experiment is better for the weld zone, the sixth hardness values gradually increased towards SS weld zone up
experiment reached a maximum value at HAZ and third ex- to 0.3 mm, after that there was a sudden steep hike there, that
periment is good for PZ. The drop of hardness in PZ of the SS is shown in Fig 28 at ‘a’ side. Vice versa, in AA side, the
part is due to the coarse austenite content. Figure 27 shows the hardness values are decreasing gradually from the parent zone
hardness distribution along the aluminium in the welded joint. (base metal) to HAZ, and also, there was a sudden decrease in
But here, the hardness values are in the range of 50–70 Hv. hardness after HAZ to weld zone as shown in Fig. 28 at ‘b’
The maximum values were obtained in AA PZ compared to side. In this work, it is observed that the hardness values are
AA weld and HAZ. This is mainly due to the deformation by increasing while moving from SS PZ to SS WZ. But in con-
the penetration of stainless steel (tapered specimen) and the trast, the hardness values are increasing while moving from
value would be more away from the weld interface. Here, the AA weld zone to AA base metal (PZ).

Fig. 27 Hardness distribution 80

along the AA6063 portion from
the weld interface 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ex.1 Ex.2 Ex.3 Ex.4 Ex.5 Ex.6 Ex.7 Ex.8 Ex.9
AA weld 58 60 64 62 56 59 66 57 62
AA HAZ 62 64 70 66 58 62 64 60 64
AA parent 71 55 75 70 68 69 74 62 70
 Author's personal copy
498 Weld World (2020) 64:483–499

4 Conclusion 4. Anand K, Birendra Kumar Barik, Tamilnannan K, Sathiya P,

“Artificial neural network Modelling studies to predict the friction
welding process parameters of Incoloy 800H joints”, engineering
The research covers the joint properties of friction-welded science and technology, Int J, 18, 2015, 394–407. https://doi.org/
specimens through the thorough behavioural study of micro- 10.1016/j.jestch.2015.02.001
structural and mechanical characterization. In this work, the 5. Andrzej Ambroziak, Marcin Korzeniowski, Pawel Kustron, Marcin
dissimilar metals AA6063 and SS304L with tapering on spec- Winnicki, Pawel Sokolowski, And Ewa Jarapinska, “Friction
Welding Of Aluminium And Aluminium Alloys With Steel”, Adv
imens were successfully joined by rotary friction welding Mater Sci Eng, Vol 2014, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/
(RFW). From the literature, it is understood that researchers 981653
considered friction pressure in the range of 20–30 MPa. To 6. Anthony RM, Colegrove PA, Buhr C, Flipo BCD, Vairis A (2018)
study the behaviour of welded joints which are made less than A literature review of Ti-6AL-4V linear friction welding. Prog
Mater Sci 92:225–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.
20 MPa, a new attempt has been tried taking into consider- 003
ation the friction pressure (FP) values in the range of 12– 7. Baffari D, Buffa G, Campanella D, Fratini L, Micari F (2014)
18 MPa. The parameter values need to be more than that of Friction based solid state welding techniques for transportation in-
the values tried in this paper for good bonding between ta- dustry applications. Procedia CIRP 18:162–167. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.procir.2014.06.125
pered SS and Al. SEM and EDS results reported the effect of
8. Bennett C (2015) Finite element Modelling of the inertia friction
tapering on the specimen. Tensile test values showed that the welding of a Crmov alloy steel including the effects of solid-state
most wanted FT was 3 s for the sound weld joint, and the peak phase transformations. J Manuf Process 18:84–91. https://doi.org/
load for fracture was raised to 14 kN due to the effect of 10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.01.003
tapering on the specimen. But elongation could not be obtain- 9. Changbao S, Lin T, He P, Jiao Z, Tao J, Ji Y (2014) Molecular
dynamics simulation of linear friction welding between dissimilar
ed due to poor plasticity. It is understood that the tapering Ti-based alloy. Comput Mater Sci 83:35–38. https://doi.org/10.
effect reduced the time required for sound joint and 3 s is 1016/j.commatsci.2013.11.013
sufficient. From the impact test and fractography analysis, it 10. Muralimohan C, Haribabu S, Hariprasada Reddy Y, Muthupandi V,
was observed that fracture happened at base metal with least Sivaprasad K (2014) Evaluation of microstructures and mechanical
properties of dissimilar materials by friction welding. Procedia
plasticity. Though the breaking happened at the outside of the
Mater Sci 5:1107–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.
weld, the weld joint strength was not at the expected level. The 404
tried parameter values would not be entertained for sufficient 11. El-Oualid B, Chikh S, Abdi S, Miroud D (2017) Thermal analysis
impact toughness and tapering may not be effective for impact during a rotational friction welding. Appl Therm Eng 110:1543–
test due to its U-shaped penetration which is hard for identi- 1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.067
12. Emel T, Gould JE, Lippold JC (2010) Dissimilar friction welding of
fying V-notch position in dissimilar joint. From microhard- 6061-T6 aluminium and AISI 1018 steel: properties and micro-
ness test, it was observed that the hardness is harder in weld structural characterisation. Mater Des 31:2305–2311. https://doi.
zone than HAZ and PZ of SS part of dissimilar joint, but vice org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.12.010
versa, the hardness is harder nearby PZ of AA part of dissim- 13. Florian AB, Schindele P, Grant RJ, Stegmuller MJR (2016) Friction
crush welding of aluminium, copper, and steel sheetmetals with
ilar joint followed by HAZ and AA weld zone. Thus, it is
flanged edges. J Mater Process Technol 234:72–83. https://doi.
concluded that tapering on faying surface of SS304L showed org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.03.012
the changes in property of weld joint compared to the joints 14. Hazman S, Ismail AIM, Ranchman E, Ahmad ZA (2010)
fabricated without faying surface tapering. Mechanical evaluation and thermal modelling of friction welding
of mild steel and aluminium. J Mater Process Technol 210:1209–
1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.03.007Get rights
and content
15. Hong M, Qin G, Geng P, Li F, Meng X, Banglong F (2016) Effect
References of post-weld heat treatment on friction welded joint of carbon steel
to stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol 227:24–33. https://doi.
1. Adrian L, Mogami H, Matsuda T, Sano T, Yoshida R, Hori H, org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.08.004
Hirose A (2018) Hardening and softening effects in Aluminium 16. Hong M, Qin G, Geng P, Fei Li Banglong F, Meng X (2015)
alloys during high-frequency linear friction welding. J Mater Microstructure characterisation and properties of carbon steel to
Process Tech 255:547–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec. stainless dissimilar metal joint made by friction welding. Mater
2018.01.002 Des 86:587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.068
2. Ajith PM, Barik BK, Sathiya P, Aravindan S (2015) Multi objective 17. Kannan P, Balamurugan K, Thirunavukkarasu K (2014) An exper-
optimisation of friction welding of UNS S32205 duplex stainless imental study on the effect of silver interlayer on dissimilar friction
steel. Defense Technology 11:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. welds 6061-T6 aluminium MMC and AISI 304 stainless steel.
dt.2015.03.001 Indian J Eng Mater Sci 21:635–646 http://hdl.handle.net/
3. Ajith PM, Afsal Husain TM, Sathiya P, Aravindan S (2015) Multi- 123456789/30523
objective optimisation of continuous drive friction welding process 18. Kimura M, Suzuki K, Kusaka M, Kaizu K (2017) Effect of friction
parameters using response surface methodology with intelligent welding condition on joining phenomena and mechanical proper-
optimisation algorithm. J Iron Steel Res Int 22(10):954–960. ties of friction welded joint between 6063 aluminium alloy and
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1006-706X(15)30096-0 AISI 304 stainless steel. J Manuf Process 26:178–187. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2017.02.008
 Author's personal copy
Weld World (2020) 64:483–499 499

19. Koshiro A, Koezawa T et al (2017) Characteristics of friction MetSocChina 25:3625–3633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-

welding within a short time for aluminium alloy deformed by 6326(15)63959-0
ECAE process. Procedia Eng 207:597–602. https://doi.org/10. 27. Rupinder S, Kumar R, Feo L, Fraternali F (2016) Friction welding
1016/j.proeng.2017.10.1027 of dissimilar plastic/polymer materials with metal powder rein-
20. Maalekian M (2007) Friction welding-critical assessment of litera- forcement for engineering applications. Composites Part B 101:
ture. Sci Technol Weld Join 12:738–759. https://doi.org/10.1179/ 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.082
174329307X249333 28. Samaresh MP, Reinhardt R, Rethmeier M, Schmid A (2014) Joint
21. Kessler M, Suenger S, Haubold M, Zaeh MF (2016) Modelling of site structure friction welding method as a tool for drive pinion light
upset and torsional moment during inertia friction welding. J Mater weighting in heavy duty trucks. J Mater Process Technol 214:1921–
Process Technol 227:34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec. 1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.03.027
2015.07.024 29. Fukumoto S, Inoue T, Mizuno S, Okita K, Tomita T, Yamamoto A
22. Mumim S, Akata HE, Ozel K (2008) An experimental study on (2010) Friction welding of TiNi alloy to stainless steel using Ni
joining of severe plastic deformed aluminium materials with fric- interlayer. Sci Technol Weld Join 15(2):124–130. https://doi.org/
tion welding method. Mater Des 29:265–274. https://doi.org/10. 10.1179/136217109X12577814486692
1016/j.matdes.2006.11.004 30. Suresh D, Meshram G (2015) Madhusudhan Reddy, “Friction
23. Nada R, Arsic D, Lazic V, Nikolic RR, Hadzima B (2016) welding of AA60612 to AISI 4340 using silver interlayer”.
Microstructure in the joint friction plane in friction welding of Defence Technology 11:292–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.
dissimilar steels. Procedia Eng 149:414–420. https://doi.org/10. 2015.05.007
1016/j.proeng.2016.06.686 31. Yong Liu, Haiyan Zhao, Yun Peng, Xiaofei Ma, “Mechanical prop-
24. Ochi H, Ogawa K, Yamamoto Y, Suga Y (1998) Friction welding of erties of the inertia friction welded aluminium/stainless steel joint,”
aluminium alloy and Steel. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 8(2) paper ID: Welding in the world, 2019, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-
ISOPE-98-08-2-140 019-00793-2
25. Paventhan R, Lakshminarayan PR, Balasubramanian V (2011) 32. Zhida L, Qin C, Wang L, Meng X, Li F (2015) Microstructural
Prediction and optimisation of friction welding parameters for join- characterisation and mechanical properties of dissimilar friction
ing aluminium alloy and stainless steel. Trans Of Nonferrous welding of 1060 aluminium to AZ31B magnesium alloy. Mater
MetSoc China 21:1480–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003- Sci Eng A 645:170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.07.
6326(11)60884-4 089
26. Kumar R, Balasubramanian M (2015) Application of response sur-
face methodology to optimise process parameters in friction Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
welding of Ti-6Al-4V and SS304L rods. TransNonferrous tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.