Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271

www.elsevier.com/locate/jma

Full Length Article

Mechanical and metallurgical properties of friction stir welded dissimilar
joints of AZ91 magnesium alloy and AA 6082-T6 aluminium alloy
Sameer MD∗, Anil Kumar Birru
National Institute of Technology, Imphal, Manipur, India
Received 18 June 2018; received in revised form 21 September 2018; accepted 29 September 2018
Available online 5 April 2019

Abstract
In the present research work, AZ91 magnesium alloy and AA6082-T6 aluminium alloy were joined by friction stir welding process. The
comparison of microstructure and mechanical properties between different joints by varying the different materials on advance and retreating
sides were mainly studied. Four different welds have been prepared to find the material mixing between the similar and dissimilar joints. The
joint interfaces of the welds have been investigated by employing an optical microscope and scanning electron microscope. When Mg was
placed on advancing side (AS), more aluminium content was soluble in nugget zone than the case where Mg was placed on the retreating
side (RS). Thin intermetallic layer in the joint interface of Mg/Al and thick intermetallic layer with poor adhesion of the aluminium and
magnesium have been observed in the dissimilar joints varying the sides. The highest UTS of 172.3 MPa was found for Mg-Al when Mg
was placed on AS and lower UTS of 156.25 MPa was obtained when Mg was placed on RS. Hardness of 86 Hv and 89 Hv were observed
in the Stir zone for the dissimilar AZ91 Mg alloy and AA6082-T6 Al alloy when AZ91Mg alloy was placed on the AS and on the RS
respectively. Fractography was also carried out to find the mode of failure.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chongqing University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer review under responsibility of Chongqing University

Keywords: Friction stir welding; Magnesium alloy; Aluminium alloy; Microstructure; Mechanical properties.

1. Introduction developed, among them AZ series are most widely used in

In the year 1991, the welding institute (TWI) in the UK
invented a technology to join the materials in is solid-state
welding process called as friction stir welding (FSW) [1]. Dif-
ferent welding configurations on welding such as butt weld-
ing, lap welding and spot welding were successfully joined
via FSW [2]. FSW has been mainly used to weld Al alloys
[3]. Welding Al alloy and Mg alloy has gained importance in
recent years, since these materials are difficult to weld by fu-
sion welding technique [4,5]. The automobile, aerospace and
marine industries are in requirement of lightweight materi-
als especially magnesium (Mg) and its alloys. The density
of the Mg is 1/3 lighter than aluminium. On the other hand,
they have poor ductility and weldability which make them
difficult to join. Recently many magnesium alloys have been
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sameer.mtech2010@gmail.com (S. MD).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2018.09.004
2213-9567/© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chongqing University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer review under responsibility of Chongqing University
engineering applications. They contain aluminium and zinc
as major elements in their chemical composition. Joining of
magnesium and aluminium is difficult through fusion welding
process because of the unstable weld pool, high hydrogen sol-
ubility and high oxidation [6]. All the issues concerning the
traditional fusion method joining can be addressed by FSW,
a popular joining method to weld variety of materials with
high energy efficiency and does not require a filler material.
The complete information about the process of FSW was
explained by many researchers in the past in different publi-
cations [7–11]. A lot of investigations have been carried out
on dissimilar FSW of aluminium alloys [12,13], dissimilar
Mg alloys [14], Al and steel [15,16], Al and Mg [17–20].
However, the information related to the FSW of dissimilar
Mg alloys and Al alloys is very meager. Yong et al. [21] ex-
plained the friction stir welding of dissimilar 5052 Al alloy
and AZ31 Mg alloy and found that Defect-free joint was pro-
duced at rotational speed of 600 rpm and traverse velocity of
 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271
Table 1
The chemical composition of AZ91 Magnesium alloy.
Alloy Proportion of the constituting elements (wt.%)
Magnesium Aluminum
AZ91 90.8 8.25
Table 2
The chemical composition of AA6082-T6 aluminum alloy.
Alloy Proportion of the constituting elements (wt.%)
Mg Zn Cr Si Mn Fe
AA6082-T6 1.1 0.20 0.25 0.90 0.70 0.50
40 mm/min. Further, they explained that intricate flow of the
material is identified by analyzing embedded lamellae devel-
oped in the weld nugget zone. Buffa et al. [22] investigated
on dissimilar aluminium and magnesium of grades AA6016-
T6 and AZ91 where plates were joined in butt configuration,
they reported that sheet mutual position is an important factor
in determining the quality of the joint and also found that the
intermetallic compounds formed in the stir zone is the major
effect in the production of quality joints. They finally con-
cluded that Defect-free joint can be obtained when Mg was
placed on advancing side (AS). McLean et al. [23] reported
that the separation of liquid in the stir zone of the weld dur-
ing welding due to high temperatures involved in the welding
process. This phenomenon is known as liquation which pro-
duces intermetallic compounds which are brittle in nature and
characterized by the divorced lamellar eutectic microstruc-
ture of Al12 Mg17 and magnesium. Sunil et al. [24] studied
the dissimilar friction stir welding of AZ91 and AZ31 with
3 mm thickness, Defect –free joint was produced at 1400 rpm
25 mm/min tool rotational speed and traverse speed respec-
tively. The stir zone was mixed with both the metals but
most of the material was related to AZ31 as this is softer
than AZ91. Singh et al. [25] investigated on the friction stir
welding of AZ61 of 4 mm thick plates with the H-13 tool, the
manufactured joints exhibited the tensile strength of 220 MPa,
yield strength of 175 MPa and percentage elongation of 7.2%
and the obtained efficiency of the joint was 82% at the tool
rotational speed of 1400 rpm and 25 mm/min welding speed.
Mofid et al. [26] conducted experiments on friction stir weld-
ing of 3 mm thick AA5083 aluminium alloy and AZ31 C
magnesium alloy in air and under liquid nitrogen environ-
ment, they showed that the grain growth was reduced in the
liquid nitrogen condition and smaller grain size was obtained
when compared to in air condition. The tensile test results
show that the fracture occurred at stir zone.
Table 3
Mechanical properties of the materials.
Material Tensile strength (MPa)
AZ91 Mg alloy 240
AA6082-T6 Al alloy 280
265
Zinc Manganese Silicon Ferrous Beryllium
0.63 0.22 0.035 0.014 0.002
In this paper, AZ91 Mg alloy and AA6082-T6 Al alloy
plates were welded by FSW process. The mechanical proper-
ties such as ultimate tensile strength, Vicker’s hardness were
evaluated to analyze the quality of the joint produced. The
Cu + Ag Al
metallurgical characteristics were evaluated by employing an
0.10 Bal optical microscope and scanning electron microscopy. Fur-
thermore, fractured surface of the tensile specimen was also
studied to find the mode of the failure of the joint.
2. Materials
The base metals (BM) used in the present investigation is
commercially available AZ91 Magnesium alloy and AA6082-
T6 aluminium alloy plates (220 × 75 × 6 mm). The chemi-
cal composition of the alloys is furnished in Table 1 and
Table 2. Mechanical properties of the base metals are shown
in Table 3.
2.1. Friction stir welding
Before welding the samples are cleaned with emery pa-
pers to get rid of the dirt and oxidation layer. The welding
was performed on a 3-axis vertical milling machine. A ta-
pered cylindrical threaded tool which was made of H13 tool
steel is used. The shoulder diameter of 18 mm with pin di-
ameter of 3.2 mm at bottom and 6 mm at top and pin length
of 5.6 mm is used as the FSW tool as shown in Fig. 1. The
input variables used for the production of the joints are given
in the Table 4 .The tool rotated in the counterclockwise di-
rection and the tool tilt angle of 1.5° is kept constant. The
relative positions of the alloys are varied to observe the effect
of the material flow on FSW of the dissimilar AZ91 Mg alloy
and AA6082-T6 Al alloy. Four different joints are prepared
at constant tool rotational speed of 560 rpm and tool travel
speed of 36 mm/min. The joints are defined as S1- similar
AA6082-T6 Aluminum alloy joint, S2- similar AZ91 Mag-
nesium alloy joint, D1- dissimilar AA6082-T6 Al alloy and
AZ91 Mg alloy when AZ91 Mg alloy on AS, D2- dissim-
ilar AZ91 Mg alloy and AA6082-T6 when AA6082-T6 Al
alloy on AS. The details of welding parameters are listed
in Table 4.
Yield strength (MPa) Elongation (%) Hardness
160 2.9 76 HV
240 10 95 HV
266 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271

Fig. 1. Tapered cylindrical grooved tool (designed in CATIA V).

Table 4
Main FSW parameters used in the study.

weld Materials Material located on AS Rotational speed (rpm) Travel speed (mm/min) Downward force (kN) Tilt angle (° )
Similar S1 6082–6082 6082 560 36 5.0 1.5
S2 AZ91–AZ91 AZ91 560 36 5.0 1.5
Dissimilar D1 6082–AZ91 AZ91 560 36 5.0 1.5
D2 AZ91–6082 6082 560 36 5.0 1.5

2.2. Mechanical testing

Mechanical testing consists of tensile test and Vicker’s

hardness testing. Tensile test samples were machined accord-
ing to the ASTM E8 standard and tested using universal test-
ing machine (UTM). For each fabricated joint three samples
are cut from the joint in the direction perpendicular to weld-
ing and tested. The hardness of the samples were tested with
applied load of 1–100 kgf for 10–15 s on Vicker’s hardness
machine.

2.3. Metallography

The metallographic samples were made according to

the standard procedures and the cross section of the
weld was etched with different etchants (1 ml HNO3 + 1 ml
CH3 COOH+1 g H2 C2 O4 +150 ml distilled water for the Mg
alloy; 2 ml HF +5 ml HNO3 +95 ml distilled water for Al al-
loy). The flow of the material, grain structure and joint inter-
face were evaluated using an optical microscope and scanning
electron microscopy.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Macrostructure
The macrostructural examination of the cross-section of
the joints was studied to identify any defects formed in the
weld nugget and understand material mixing in the nugget
zone. Fig. 2 (a)–(d) presents macrographs of different welds.
Fig. 2(a) and (b) gives similar metals macrostructures. In
Fig. 2(b) tunnel defect can be observed in the joining area
of similar magnesium metals. Fig. 2(c) and (d) represents
Fig. 2. Macrostructure of samples (a) S1 (b) S2 (c) D1 and (d) D2.
dissimilar joints. Firstly, Fig. 2(c) gives magnesium on AS
(Mg is dark in contrast and Al is light in contrast) and alu-
minium on RS. Mg on the RS is presented in the Fig. 2(d).
In Fig. 2(c) magnesium has penetrated in the aluminium side
indicating good flow of material without any visible defects.
In case of Fig. 2(d) the magnesium was placed on RS, the
aluminum has only little penetration in the bottom area but
a small void is clearly visible in nugget zone indicating poor
mixing of materials. Therefore it can be concluded from the
macrostructural studies that formation of sound welds are seen
in similar Al–Al materials, Mg–Mg materials and dissimilar
Mg–Al when magnesium alloy was placed on advancing side.
3.2. Microstructure of welded joints
Fig. 3 illustrates the microstructures of weld D1 and D2.
The images show the Mg/Al interface of the specimens. The
 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271 267

Fig. 3. Microstructures of welds (a) admixture pattern of D1 (b) stir zone with finer grain structure of D1 (c) admixture pattern of D2 (d) stir zone with
coarser grain structure of D2.

Fig. 4. SEM images of weld interfaces of dissimilar metals (a) D1 and (b) D2.
268 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271

Fig. 5. Fracture location of weld (a) S1 and (b) D1.

magnesium is dark etched-layer whereas the aluminium is a

lighter-etched layer due to high magnesium content and more
prone to corrosion which gives the dark contrast when etched.
In the present study the focus was on material flow in dis-
similar metals, therefore only D1 and D2 has been studied in
detail. Fig. 3(a) shows the Al/Mg interface when Mg is on
AS. Fig. 3(c) shows clear interface with cracks, voids and in-
termetallic compound layer (IMC) which are brittle in nature
[27].
A good joint with finer microstructure can be observed in
the Fig. 3(b). The stir zone interface is shown as the highly
magnified image of Fig. 3(a) which contained Mg17 Al12 phase
at the grain boundary as α+β and aluminium alloy phase
as α-phase. The stir zone is more with Mg17 Al12 phase in-
dicated by white arrows and reduced amount of secondary
phase α- grains indicated by black arrows with smaller grain
size is observed, similar findings were reported by Prasad
Fig. 6. Average UTS values for different welds.
et al. [28]. Fig. 3(d) presents coarser grain structure with the
less Mg17 Al12 phase at the boundaries. Therefore from the
microstructure observations, the higher amount of aluminium intermetallic compound at the joint interface have three
is dissolved in stir zone of D1 which suggests good mechan- stages. The first stage is generation of a supersaturated solid
ical properties are established than the D2 specimen. Hence solution due to diffusion of atoms in the interface. The formed
it can be concluded that when Mg is placed on AS more alu- solid solution will transform in to IMC in the second stage
minium content is soluble in nugget zone than Mg placed on when it reaches to the saturation level at a required temper-
RS which influences the mechanical properties. ature and pressure conditions. Finally, in the third stage the
The SEM images of the magnified weld interface are pre- solute atoms will diffuse into formed IMC layer which grows
sented in Fig. 4. It reveals a thin intermetallic layer in the gradually. In FSW process, the high pressure is involved, large
joint interface of Mg/Al of D1 specimen when Mg alloy was strain, and strain rate along with the high temperature which
placed on advancing side as shown in Fig. 4(a). The thick promotes the growth of the IMC.
intermetallic layer with poor adhesion of the aluminium to According to Buffa et al. [22] when Al alloy is in the
magnesium can be observed for specimen D2 interface as AS, the stronger mechanical action of harder metal Mg alloy
shown in Fig. 4(b). It can also be seen that a good bond has can push the softer material Al alloy to longer distance. As
produced between intermetallic and magnesium alloy whereas a result an increase in area was produced by the large de-
a weak bond has been produced between intermetallic and formation. In this manner, the occurrence of solid diffusion
aluminium, similar findings were reported by Mcclean et al. (promoted by strain) producing larger area with the high strain
[23]. The formation of thicker intermetallic compounds when and material flow is influenced by the mutual position of the
mg is placed on RS and Al placed on AS can be attributed sheets in turn which influences the IMCs. In order to avoid
to the flow of material and larger area with high strain. Ac- intermetallic layer formation two methods can be adopted (i)
cording to Rathod and Kutsuna [29] formation and growth of by the lower temperatures i.e. maintained below 437 °C during
 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271
Fig. 7. Stress–Stain diagrams of various similar and dissimilar welds.
welding and (ii) by employing another intermediate material
in the joining line.
3.3. Mechanical properties
All the joints prepared are tensile tested on the universal
testing machine. The tensile test specimens after testing are
presented in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) shows the fracture location in
HAZ towards the Al side when Mg placed on AS indicating
sound weld joint whereas Fig 5(b) shows the fracture location
in the stir zone for the specimen placed on RS indicating weak
weld was formed with parameters used in the present study.
Fig. 8. Fracture surface of the tensile specimen (a) similar Al–Al weld and (b) dissimilar Mg–Al weld (Mg placed on AS).
269
Fig. 6. illustrates the average UTS values for similar and
dissimilar welds. The highest value of UTS is found for sim-
ilar AA6082-T6 Al alloys with 201.3 MPa and AZ91 Mg al-
loys was 180.3 MPa. In case of dissimilar metals, the highest
UTS of 172.3 MPa was found for Mg-Al when Mg placed on
AS. Lower UTS of 156.25 MPa was obtained when Mg was
placed on RS. The formation of intermetallic compounds in
dissimilar welds has lowered the UTS values when compared
to similar welds.
The stress-strain curves for similar and dissimilar FSW
are shown in Fig. 7, the brittle nature of IMCs formed was
correlated with that of fracture occurring at low strain levels
whereas similar welds exhibited high strain levels. Simoncini
et al. have observed similar result while investigating friction
stir welding of AZ31 and AA5754 [30].
Fig. 8 presents the fracture surface images of the similar
AA6082-T6 Al alloy welds and dissimilar Mg–Al weld spec-
imen when Mg was placed on AS. In Fig. 8(a) the S1 weld
showed dimples on the fracture surface which confirm the na-
ture of the fracture as the ductile mode of failure. The dimples
are characterized by cup-like structure [31,32]. Quasi- cleav-
age fracture was observed for dissimilar specimen D1 indi-
cating brittle nature of the joint. The fracture occurred was at
the joint interface along the intermetallic layer which is weak
and brittle. Therefore from the fractography results, it can
be concluded that dissimilar Mg-Al has the brittle mode of
failure due to the presence of IMC layer in the weld nugget.
3.4. Hardness distribution
The hardness results measured along the middle of the
cross-section of similar and dissimilar joints are given in
270 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271
Fig. 9. Hardness profile of similar and dissimilar welds.
Fig. 9. The hardness of the base metal AA6082-T6 Al alloy
was found to be 110 Hv and base metal AZ91 Mg alloy was
60 Hv. Stir zone hardness for the dissimilar Mg–Al when Mg
placed on the AS was 86 Hv and 89 Hv for the dissimilar
joint when Mg was placed on the RS, it can be observed that
there is a slight change in the hardness of the joint when Mg
was placed on RS due to material flow and formation of thick
IMC layer in case of Mg placed on RS. On the other hand,
stir zones of similar welds showed lower hardness when
compared to dissimilar welds. The increase in the hardness
of the stir zone is attributed to two major factors (i) grain
refinement and (ii) presence of IMCs. Factor one is due to
Hall–Petch relation, the hardness increases as the grain size
decreases. And factor two due to Orowan mechanism which
states that IMCs particles increase consequently the hardness
of the joint [33]. In Fig. 9 the S1 curve represents the hard-
ness profile of similar Al joint where hardness has reduced in
the stir zone compared to base metal due to the dissolution
of precipitate in 6XXX series alloys caused by high temper-
atures during welding process [34]. In any application which
involves welding of precipitation hardened materials such as
AA6082-T6, the weld area has lower mechanical properties
than base metals [35]. The main strengthening factor in the
AA6082-T6 Al alloy is the precipitate β ’’ -Mg5 Si6 which is
stable at temperature below 200◦ C. When the temperature
reaches higher than 250 °C these β ’’ precipitates dissolved.
In the stir zone no fine scale precipitates are found hence
the MgSi precipitates are dissolved in stir zone according
to Dragatogiannis et al. [36]. The S2 curve represents for
similar Mg alloys showing increased hardness in the stir zone
due to continuous dynamic recrystallization (CDRX) forming
equiaxed grain structure. Therefore from the hardness results,
it can be concluded that IMC layer thickness at the joint
interface influences the hardness in the stir zone in joining
of dissimilar AA6082-T6 Al alloy and AZ91 Mg alloy. The
thicker IMCs have high hardness and leads to extremely
fragile behavior of the joint [22]. Hence poor performance
of the joint D2 was observed during tensile tests.
4. Conclusions
The friction stir welding of dissimilar AA6082-T6 alu-
minium alloy and AZ91 magnesium alloy metals have carried
out in the present investigation and the following conclusions
are made
(1) From the microstructural studies when AZ91 Mg was
placed on AS, more aluminium content was soluble in
nugget zone than AZ91 Mg placed on RS which influ-
ences the mechanical properties.
(2) Thin intermetallic layer in the joint interface of
D1 specimen where Mg is placed on advancing side
whereas the thick intermetallic layer with poor adhesion
of the aluminium to magnesium has been observed for
specimen D2.
(3) The highest UTS of 172.3 MPa was found for dissim-
ilar AZ91 Mg and AA6082-T6 Aluminum alloy when
Mg placed on AS and lower UTS of 156.25 MPa was
obtained when Mg placed on RS. The formation of in-
termetallic compounds in dissimilar welds has lowered
the UTS values when compared to similar welds.
(4) The fractography results reveal dissimilar AZ91 Mg
and AA6082-T6 Aluminum alloy joints has the brittle
mode of failure due to the presence of IMC layer in the
weld nugget which showed the quasi-cleavage fracture.
(5) In dissimilar AZ91 Mg and AA6082-T6 Aluminum al-
loy joint when AZ91 Mg was placed on the AS the
hardness was 86 Hv and 89 Hv for the joint when
placed on the RS, a slight change in the hardness of
the joint when Mg was placed on RS was noticed due
to material flow and formation of thick IMC layer.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgment
Mr. Sameer MD, Research Scholar (Enrolment No.:
16407002) under the guidance of Dr. Anil Kumar Birru, As-
sistant professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering,
NIT Manipur, would also like to acknowledge the cooper-
ation of NIT Warangal to carry SEM analysis and Fr. Rev
Augustine Reddy Director, CJITS for his support in carrying
this research work.
References
[1] W.M. Thomas, E.D. Nicholas, J.C. Needham, M.G. Church, P. Temple-
Smith, C.J. Dawes, GB Patent Application No. 9125978.9 (1991).
[2] G. Liu, L.E. Murr, C.-S. Niou, J.C. McCDluse, F.R. Vega, Scripta Mater.
37 (1997) 355–361.
[3] C.J. Dawes, W.M. Thomas, Weld J. 75 (1996) 41–45.
[4] W.N. Thomas, E.D. Nicholas, Mater. Des. 18 (1997) 269–273.
[5] J.Q. Su, T.W. Nelson, R. Mishra, M. Mahoney, Acta Mater. 51 (2003)
713–729.
 S. MD and A.K. Birru / Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 7 (2019) 264–271
[6] N. Kumar, W. Yuan, R.S. Mishra, In Friction Stir Welding and Process-
ing, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015 1-13,ISBN 9780128024188.
[7] J.A. Esparza, W.C. Davis, L.E. Murr, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 38
(2003) 941–952.
[8] H.J. Zhang, H.J. Liu, L. Yu, Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 4402–4407.
[9] J.A. Esparza, W.C. Davis, E.A. Trillo, L.E. Murr, J. Mater. Sci. Lett.
21 (2002) 917–920.
[10] Y. Zhao, Q. Wang, H. Chen, K. Yan, Mater. Des. 56 (2014) 725–730.
[11] Z. Huda, P. Edi, Mater Des. 46 (2013) 552–560.
[12] Y. Li, L.E. Murr, J.C. McClure, Scripta Mater. 40 (1999) 1041–1046.
[13] F. Sarsilmaza, U. Caydas, A. Hascalik, L. tanriover, Int. J. Mater. Res.
101 (2010) 692–699.
[14] W.B. Lee, Y.M. Yeon, S.B. Jung, Mater. Eng. A. 355 (2003) 154–159.
[15] H. Springer, A. Kostka, J.F. dos Santos, D. Raabe, Master. Sci. Eng. A.
528 (2011) 4630–4642.
[16] T. Watanabe, H. Takayama, A. Yanagisawa, A. Yanagisawa, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 178 (2006) 342–349.
[17] A.C. Somesekharan, L.E. Murr, Mater, Charact. 52 (2004) 49–64.
[18] A. Kostka, R.S. Coelho, J. Dos Santos, A.R. Pyzalla, Scripta Mater. 60
(2009) 953–956.
[19] P. Venkateswaran, A.P. Reynold, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 545 (2012)
26–37.
[20] P. Venkateswaran, Z.-H. Xu, X. Li, A.P. Reynolds, Mater. Sci. 44 (2009)
4140–4147.
[21] Y. Yong, D.-T. Zhang, D.-T. Zhang, W. Zhang, Trans. Nonferrous Met.
Soc. China 20 (2010) 619–623.
[22] G. Buffa, D. Baffari, A. Di Caro, L. Fratini, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.
20 (2015) 271–279.
271
[23] A.A. McLean, G.L.F. Powell, I.H. Brown, V.M. Linton, Scie. Technol.
Weld. Join. 8 (2003) 461–464.
[24] B. Ratna Sunil, et al., J. Magnes. Alloys 3 (2015) 330–334.
[25] K. Singh, et al., J. Magnes. Alloys (2018), doi:10.1016/j.jma.2018.05.
004.
[26] M.A. Mofid, et al., Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71 (2014) 1493–1499.
[27] Y.C. Chen, K. Nakata, Scripta Mater. 58 (2008) 433–436.
[28] B.L.N. Prasad, G. Krishna, M.G. Ramana, S.V.V. Prakash, K.S. Sarika,
G. Reddy, G.P.K. Dumpala, B. Ravikumar Sunil, Ratna J. Magnes. Al-
loys 6 (2018) 71–76.
[29] M. Rathod, M. Kutsuna, Weld. J. 83 (2004) 16–26.
[30] M. Simoncini, A. Forcellese, M. Simoncini, A. Forcellese, Mater Des.
41 (2012) 50–60.
[31] G.E. Dieter, D.J. Bacon, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.
[32] S.M. Chowdhury, D.L. Chen, S.D. Bhole, X. Cao, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
527 (2010) 6064–6075.
[33] A. Barcellona, G. Buffa, L. Fratini, D. Palmeri, J Mater. Process. Tech-
nol. 177 (2006) 340–343.
[34] N.M. Daniolos, D.I. Pantelis, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 88 (2017)
2497–2505.
[35] D.I. Pantelis, P.N. Karakizis, N.M. Daniolos, C.A. Charitidis,
E.P. Koumoulos, D.A. Dragatogiannis, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (2016)
264–274.
[36] D.A. Dragatogiannis, E.P. Koumoulos, I. Kartsonakis, D.I. Pantelis,
P. N.Karakizis, C.A. Charitidis, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (2016)
2101–2114.