Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255
DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1716-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Statistical analysis on mechanical properties
of friction-stir-welded AA 1050/AA 5083 couples
Furkan Sarsılmaz & Ulaş Çaydaş
Received: 20 March 2008 / Accepted: 15 August 2008 / Published online: 4 September 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008
Abstract In this study, the effect of friction-stir welding
(FSW) parameters such as spindle rotational speed, traverse
speed, and stirrer geometry on mechanical properties of AA
1050/AA 5083 alloy couples were experimentally investi-
gated. Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and hardness of
welded joints were determined for this purpose. The full-
factorial experimental design was conducted to obtain the
response measurements. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and main effect plot were used to determine the significant
parameters and set the optimal level for each parameter. A
linear regression equation was derived to predict each
output characteristic. The experimental and predicted
values were in a good agreement with a R2 of 0.82 and
0.93 for UTS and hardness, respectively.
Keywords Friction-stir welding . ANOVA . DOE .
Aluminum alloys
1 Introduction
Friction-stir welding (FSW) is a relatively new technique
developed by The Welding Institute (TWI) for the joining
of aluminum alloys [1]. This process has been widely used
in the area of space, aircraft, marine, fuel tank, and food-
saving industry for about a decade. Among the other
methods of material welding processes, FSW has drawn a
great a deal of researchers’ attention because of its broad
industrial applications. A rotating pin tool is used as stirrer
F. Sarsılmaz : U. Çaydaş (*)
Department of Manufacturing, Technical Education Faculty,
University of Firat,
Elazig, Turkey
e-mail: ucaydas@firat.edu.tr
to join two similar/dissimilar sheets. [2]. Low distortion,
high quality, lower residual stresses, fewer weld defects,
and low cost joints are the main advantages of this method.
The mechanical properties of the joints mainly depend on
the welding parameters such as pin rotation speed, traverse
speed and stirrer geometry. In order to increase the welding
efficiency, mechanical properties of joints must be maxi-
mized and that of the defects minimized in the FSW
process. Therefore, studying the mechanical properties and
related significant factors would be effective to enhance the
welding productivity and process reliability. A series of
investigations have been conducted on modeling the FSW
process with different approaches.
Okuyucu et al. [3] used the artificial neural networks
(ANNs) for the calculation of the mechanical properties of
welded Al plates using FSW method. It was found that the
correlations between the measured and predicted values of
tensile strength, hardness of HAZ, and hardness of weld
metal were better than those of elongation and yield
strength. Frigaard et al. [4] developed a numerical three-
dimensional (3D) heat flow model for FSW of AA 6082-T6
and AA 7108-T79 aluminum alloys based on the method of
finite differences. Zhang et al. [5] applied the finite-element
method (FEM) to model the 3D material flow in FSW.
Results indicate that the distribution of the equivalent
plastic strain correlates well with the distribution of the
microstructure zones in the weld. Fersini and Pirondi [6]
performed an FE analysis to predict the crack path and the
stress intensity factor at the crack tip and the lifetime of
base material using the AFgrow software. Buffa et al. [7]
aimed two different analytic models to the determination of
the average grain size due to continuous dynamic recrys-
tallization phenomena in FSW process of AA 7075-T6
aluminum alloys have been implemented in a 3D FEM
model and numerical analyses of the welding processes
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255
Table 1 Welding parameters and their factor levels
Symbol AWJ cutting parameter Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
F Traverse speed (mm/min) 160 200 250
N Tool ratational speed 900 1120 1400
(rev/min)
T Stirrer geometry Screw Triangular –
have been performed to verify their effectiveness. The same
authors developed a linear regression model to predict local
effects of strain, strain rate, and temperature in FSW of AA
6082-T6 alloy [8]. Chen and Kovacevic [9] used a three-
dimensional model based on finite-element analysis to
study the thermal history and thermo-mechanical process
in the butt welding of aluminum alloy 6061-T6. The
relationship between the calculated residual stresses of the
weld and the process parameters such as tool traverse speed
was presented. It was anticipated that the model could be
extended to optimize the FSW process in order to minimize
the residual stress of the weld. Wang and Mishra [10] used
a finite-element model to demonstrate the concept of
selective superplastic forming of 7075 Al alloy via FSW
processing. The final thickness distribution of the formed
part, the pressure schedule, and the overall forming time
were calculated. Heurtier et al. [11] presented a three-
dimensional thermo-mechanical model for FSW. Based on
the velocity fields classically used in fluid mechanics and
incorporating heat input from the tool shoulder and the
plastic strain of the bulk material, the semi-analytical model
used to obtain the strains, strain rates, and estimations of
the temperatures and microhardness in the various weld
zones. The calculated results were in good agreement with
experimental measurements performed on an AA2024-
T351 alloy FSWed joint. Lockwood et al. [12] examined
the global and local mechanical response of FSWed
AA2024 experimentally and numerically. Full field strain
measurements were obtained on transversely loaded tensile
specimens via the digital image correlation technique.
Assuming an iso-stress configuration, local constitutive
data were determined for the various weld regions and used
as input for a 2D finite-element model. The simulation
results were compared with the experimental results to
assess the viability of the modeling approach and the
validity of the iso-stress assumption. Kamp et al. [13]
applied a numerical model to a different 7000 series alloy in
Table 2 The nominal chemical compositions of Al alloys
Alloy Element
Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Zn Ti Cr Al
AA 1050 0.25 0.4 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.005 – Balance
AA 5083 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.70 4.73 0.10 0.05 0.08 Balance
249
Stirer tool
Welded couple
Clamped plate
Welding interface
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the welding instrument
order to predict microstructure, strength, and hardness of
FSW joints. The predicted microstructures were found to be
in good quantitative agreement with the characterized
experimental microstructures. Bastier et al. [14] presented
a steady-state simulation of FSW based on a prior
computational method. Additionally, a parametric study
about the influence of welding and rotational speeds was
carried out. This parametric study showed that the higher
the welding speed and the lower the rotational speed, the
lower the temperatures and the lower the residual dis-
tortions. An attempt has been made to predict the thermal
residual stress developed in metal alloys upon FSW by
employing sequentially coupled finite-element analysis by
Khandkar et al. [15]. Simar et al. [16] developed an
integrated three-step model for predicting the precipitates
evolution, yield strength, and strain hardening for FSWed
joints of an AA 6005A-T6 alloy. Ulysse [17] attempted to
model the FSW process using 3D visco-plastic modeling.
Parametric studies have been conducted to determine the
effect of tool speed on plate temperatures and to validate the
model predictions with available measurements. In addition,
forces acting on the tool have been computed for various
welding and rotational speeds. It was found that pin forces
increased with increasing welding speeds, but the opposite
effect was observed for increasing rotational speeds.
It seems that the literature contains various modeling
techniques applied to the FSW process. Furthermore, it is
possible to find a comprehensive literature review of the
Triangular pin profile All Units: mm Screw pin profile
Shoulder cavity
Tool shoulder
Fig. 2 Stirrer geometry and sizes used in the study (all dimensions are
in mm)
250 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255

Fig. 3 Plot of main effects on

F (mm/min)
Traverse speed Rotational N
speed (rpm)
ultimate tensile strength 95

Mean Ultimate Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

90

85

80

75
160 200 250 900 1120 1400
Stirer geomerty
T
95

90

85

80

75
Screw Triangular

application of these techniques to different welding pro-
cesses in the study of Benyounis and Olabi [18]. Among
these studies, parametric optimization of process and
relative effect of each factor on welding mechanical
properties is rather lacking. The aim of this study is to find
out from which welding parameters (factors), tensile
strength and hardness of weld nugget, are affected and to
which factor interactions they are related. This is usually
done by means of analysis of variance (ANOVA). Further-
more, regression analysis is used to establish the correlation
between factors and responses (UTS and hardness of weld
nugget). The appropriate degree of the linear regression
equation is found which is thought to be useful assessment
of the predictive equation. Finally, the optimal factor levels
are obtained.
2 Experimentation
2.1 Experimental design
During FSW experiments, the welding parameters (factors)
were tool rotational speed (N), traverse speed (F), and
stirrer geometry. N and F were varied at three levels while

Fig. 4 Plot of main effects on

F (mm/min)
Traverse speed Rotational speed (rpm)
nugget hardness

65
Mean Nugget Hardness (HV)

60

55

160 200 250 900 1120 1400

Stirer geometry

65

60

55

Screw Triangular
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255 251

Table 3 Regression coefficients for UTS Table 5 Regression coefficients for nugget hardness

Term Coefficient S.E. coef. T P Term Coefficient S.E. coef. T P

Constant 86.2719 2.181 39.559 0.000 Constant 62.2004 1.0642 58.447 0.000
F 8.2831 1.172 7.067 0.000 F 6.7558 0.5719 11.812 0.000
N −3.1360 1.172 −2.676 0.020 N −3.4113 0.5719 −5.965 0.000
F×F −1.0125 2.057 −0.492 0.631 F×F 0.0000 1.0039 0.0000 1.000
N×N 0.0473 2.062 0.023 0.982 N×N −1.8669 1.0063 −1.855 0.088
F×N 0.8282 1.427 0.580 0.573 F×N 0.1461 0.6966 0.210 0.837

screw and triangular profiles were used for stirrer geometry.
Table 1 shows the factors and factor levels assessed in this
study. The design of experiments was performed through
full-factorial experimental design. All the main effects of
factors and two-order interactions were desired to be
considered in this study.
2.2 Experimental equipment and setup
nugget structure. The tensile tests were carried out at room
temperature using an Instron-type testing machine with
crosshead speed of 1.67×10−2 mm/s. The Vickers micro-
hardness tests were performed on the center of the nugget
using a 10-g load for 10 s. In addition, a scanning electron
microscope equipped with field emission gun has been
employed to study the fracture surfaces of the material after
tensile tests.

The material used in this study, an AA1050 aluminum

alloy, is low-strength commercial aluminum alloy used in
chemical process plant equipment, pyrotechnic powder,
architectural flashings, lamp reflectors, and cable sheathing.
Non-age-hardenable AA5083 relies primarily on a high
solute concentration and associated work hardening for its
strength and was supplied in a heavily cold-rolled condition
(approximately H321) with a high hardness. The chemical
compositions of both original alloys can be seen in Table 2.
The alloys were machined to 120×65×6 mm3 dimensions
by a vertical CNC milling center under the same machining
conditions for standardization purpose. The plates were
fixed with block-clamping fixtures so that they would not
be separated during the welding process (Fig. 1). Two
different stirrers, namely screw and triangular were used.
The stirrers can be seen in Fig. 2. The tilt angle was kept at
2.5° [19, 20].
S10 sample was prepared by standard metallographic
techniques and etched with Keller’s reagent to reveal the
3 Data analysis
3.1 Effect of factors on tensile strength and nugget hardness
Figures 3 and 4 depict the plots of the main effects for UTS
and nugget hardness, respectively. Note that these plots
illustrate data means versus factor level. Based on these
plots, the effect of each factor can be graphically assessed.
Figures 3 and 4 also show that traverse speed factor has a
significant effect on both UTS and nugget hardness. It can
also be seen from these figures that the effect of this factor
is directly proportional to responses. Also, it can be stated
that by increasing the traverse speed factor, the UTS and
nugget hardness increase significantly. Stirrer geometry
shows the same effect on UTS as traverse speed does, but
UTS has the tendency to decrease with increasing rotational
speed. It is easy to find a similar effect of both traverse
speed and rotational speed on nugget hardness in Fig. 4.

Table 6 ANOVA test results for regression model for nugget

Table 4 ANOVA test results for regression model for UTS hardness

Source df SS MS F P Source df SS MS F P

Regression 5 943.09 188.618 11.47 0.000a Regression 5 709.506 141.901 36.23 0.000a
Linear 2 933.56 470.257 28.59 0.000a Linear 2 695.856 343.485 87.71 0.000a
Square 2 3.99 1.996 0.12 0.887 Square 2 13.478 6.739 1.72 0.220
Interaction 1 5.54 5.536 0.34 0.573 Interaction 1 0.172 0.172 0.04 0.837
Residual error 12 197.35 16.446 Residual error 12 46.994 3.916
Total 17 1140.44 Total 17 756.500

R2 =0.827 R2 =0.938
df Degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square df Degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square
a a
Significant Significant
252 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255

Fig. 5 Plots of residuals for

ultimate tensile strength 6 6

3 3

Residual

Residual
0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
75 80 85 90 95 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Fitted Value Observation Order

But surprisingly, triangular geometry led to softer nugget
occurrence in the welding zone than the screw one. This
decrease in hardness seems to be straighter. It is well known
that the temperature between shoulder surface and plates is
the main factor on frictional heat and it affects the
mechanical properties of weldment. Higher rotational speed
produces higher frictional heat and this phenomena leads to
a decrease in UTS and hardness of materials. Higher
traverse speed means that the pin stirs the nugget for a
lower time and temperature and so, deformation occurs,
and, as a result of this, the grains tended to forge with
coarsing. Plastic deformation and lower temperature led to
an increase in both UTS and hardness values.
3.2 Regression analysis
Regression analysis is performed to find out the relation-
ship between welding factors and UTS and nugget
hardness. By using R2adj test, the full quadratic model was
found the best one in comparison with the linear, linear+
squares, and linear+interaction that can be used with
factors and factor levels. The R2 values indicate that the
predictors explain 82 and 93% of the variance in UTS and
nugget hardness, respectively. Table 3 shows the coeffi-
cients of factors and factor effects in regression model for
UTS. It can be seen from Table 3 that all the interaction
effects have no significant effect on the regression model
because their P value is higher than 0.005. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) table for the UTS using the fitted model
with linear, square, and interaction terms is shown in
Table 4. The P value shows that the model is significant at
an α level of 0.005. The interaction and square effects on
UTS are insignificant.
Least squares method is used in regression analysis to
find the coefficients of the equation. It is shown as Eq. (1).


UTS N mm2 ¼ 60:3071 þ 0:3044

Traverse speed  0:0294

Rotational speed  0:0005

Traverse speed
Traverse speed
þ 0:0001
Traverse speed

Rotational speed ð1Þ
Note that the squared effect of rotational speed has been
removed from the equation since it has no significant effect.
The factor effects and ANOVA table for nugget hardness
are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The similar
procedure employed for nugget hardness and the regression
equation is obtained as follows:
Nugget hardnessðHVÞ ¼ 10:6740 þ 0:1352

Traverse speed þ 0:0524

Rotational speed ð2Þ
Here, all the terms have been removed from the equation
except for linear terms to obtain an improved model. Apart
from the R2 values gathered, the residual analysis has also
been employed to the study to check the adequacy of
models. Figures 5 and 6 show the residual plots for UTS
and nugget hardness, respectively. Each figure contains
residual versus fits, residual versus order of the data, and
normal probability plots of residuals. The residuals’
constant variances, in a plot of residual versus fits, show

Fig. 6 Plots of residuals for 2 2

ultimate nugget hardness
Residual

Residual

0 0

-2 -2

50 55 60 65 70 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Fitted Value Observation Order
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255 253

Table 7 Comparison of regression model results with experimental

measurements

Exp F N Tool Measured Predicted 70

Nugget hardness (HV)

no profile
UTS Hardness UTS Hardness

1 200 900 Screw 87 65 88.6144 63.010 60

2 200 1400 Triangular 84 58 82.1584 56.155
3 250 900 Triangular 99 70 95.8977 70.355
4 200 1120 Triangular 88 61 85.7271 61.834
5 250 1400 Screw 86 62 91.2821 63.824 50
1000
6 160 1400 Triangular 72 49 73.0595 50.020 250 1200 N
7 200 900 Triangular 90 60 88.6144 63.010 200
1400
8 160 1120 Screw 78 57 77.4527 55.845 F 150
9 250 1400 Triangular 96 66 91.2821 63.824
Fig. 8 Estimated response surface of nugget hardness vs. traverse
10 250 900 Screw 92 72 95.8977 70.355 speed and tool rotational speed
11 200 1120 Screw 84 63 85.7271 61.834
12 250 1120 Triangular 101 67 93.8202 69.321
13 160 1120 Triangular 75 56 77.4577 55.845 Figure 7 shows the estimated response of UTS, varying
14 250 1120 Screw 88 70 93.8202 69.321 the factors of welding speed and tool rotational speed. As
15 160 1400 Screw 75 50 73.0595 50.020 can be clearly seen in this figure, the UTS values tend to
16 160 900 Screw 80 59 80.9878 57.135 increase with the lower rotational speed and higher traverse
17 160 900 Triangular 83 55 80.9878 57.135 speed values. In the other hand, by increasing traverse
18 200 1400 Screw 80 55 82.1584 56.155
speed values in the lower values of tool rotational speed,
the UTS values increase. Also, in the lower values of
traverse speed, by decreasing the traverse speed values,
the models’ adequacy to predict the responses in an
UTS values increase. A similar effect of welding parame-
acceptable manner. On the other hand, tendencies to have
ters can be in Fig. 8 for nugget hardness.
runs of positive and negative residuals, in plots of residual
against order of experimentation, indicate the existence of
3.3 Determination of the optimum condition
certain correlation [21].
Table 7 shows the verification of the test results. The
Optimal condition is detected by means of signal to noise
predicted welding parameters performance compared with
(S/N) ratio method. The rationale behind this method is to
the actual welding performance and a good agreement was
find a condition under which the effect of signals
obtained between these performances. The above mathe-
(controllable factors) is the greatest of all compared with
matical models for UTS and nugget hardness are of great
effects of noises (uncontrollable factors). S/N ratio statistics
importance to the proper selection of welding parameters
(η) can be obtained as follows [22]:
during the butt welding of AA 1050/5083 alloy couples.
!
1X n
1
h ¼ 10 log10 ð3Þ
n i¼1 y2i

where yi is the ith observation of a treatment combination

and n is the number of replications. Here, the higher UTS
and nugget hardness are indication of better performance.
90 Therefore, the higher the value is, the better was it selected
for determination of S/N ratio. The factor level which

80 Table 8 S/N ratio for UTS

Symbol welding parameters Mean S/N ratio (dB)

70
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
250 1000
200 1200
N F (Traverse speed) 77.167 85.500 93.667a
F 1400 N (Rotational speed) 88.500a 85.667 82.167
150
T (Stirrer geometry) 83.333 87.556a –
Fig. 7 Estimated response surface of UTS vs. traverse speed and tool
a
rotational speed Optimum level
254
Table 9 S/N ratio for nugget hardness
Symbol welding parameters Mean S/N ratio (dB)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
F (Traverse speed) 54.333 60.333 67.833a
N (Rotational speed) 63.500a 62.333 56.667
T (Stirrer geometry) 61.444a 60.222 –
a
Optimum level
produces the largest η is detected as the factor level which
pertains to the optimal condition. The S/N ratio results are
given in Tables 8 and 9 for UTS and nugget hardness,
respectively. Accordingly, the optimal welding perform-
ances for UTS was obtained at 250 mm/min traverse speed,
900 rpm rotational speed, and triangular profile geometry
conditions. Thus, F3N1T2 (level 3 for F, level 1 for N and
level 2 for T) was the optimal welding performance for
UTS. Similarly, F3N1T1 is optimum welding conditions for
nugget hardness.
4 Metallographic inspections
Figure 9 shows an overview of the top surface of the
FSWed AA 1050/5083 alloy couple. The sample S10 was
taken as an example for macrograph of sample representa-
tion. From the visual inspection on the surface of the
sample, the weld zone is continuous and contains no
defects such as voids and cracks. The quality of the top
surface of FSW joints is very smooth compared with the
fusion welding techniques such as gas tungsten arc (GTA)
and metal inert gas (MIG). From the point of view of
surface quality, FSW is an applicable welding method.
Figure 10 illustrates an optical micrograph of a nugget of
S10 sample. As seen from the figure, the boundary of the
nugget between dissimilar plates is clear. The width of the
nugget throughout the cross section is variable for every
point. The top and bottom wideness are bigger than the
center width.
Fig. 9 An overview of the top surface of sample S10 after FSW
process
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255
Fig. 10 Macrograph of nugget
The fracture surfaces of samples after tensile test were
also studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Typical fractograph shown in Fig. 11 shows that fracture
characteristic of S10 is dominated by the mixed fracture
mechanism, covered with a broad population of microscop-
ic voids of different dimensions and shapes. At room
temperature, the material showed some ductility with
fracture and revealed local ductile characterization.
5 Conclusion
In this research, an experimental investigation was per-
formed to consider UTS and nugget hardness in FSW of
AA 1050/5083 alloy couples. Mathematical models for
responses have been developed to correlate the important
FSW. The experimental plan was a full-factorial design
method. The three important welding parameters such as
traverse speed, tool rotational speed, and stirrer geometry
considered for the present research. The relative effect of
each factor and combination of factors on responses was
obtained by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The welding
parameters were optimized by using the S/N ratio approach.
The welding zone and fracture surfaces were also studied
Fig. 11 Fracture surface of the tensile-tested specimen (S10)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:248–255
by using optic and scanning electron microscopes (SEM),
respectively. Summarizing the mean features of the results,
the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The UTS and nugget hardness increase with traverse
speed.
2. The UTS and nugget hardness decrease with tool
rotational speed.
3. According to the ANOVA results, the most important
factor on UTS was found as traverse speed (71.62%),
while the rotational speed was the second ranking
factor (10.59%) and stirrer geometry was the least
(7.03%).
4. According to the ANOVA results, the most important
factor on nugget hardness was found as traverse speed
(72.57%), while the rotational speed was second
ranking factor (21.19%) and stirrer geometry was the
least (0.89%).
5. According to S/N ratio results, the combinations of
F3N1T2 and F3N1T1 were the optimal welding
conditions for UTS and hardness, respectively.
6. The wideness of the nugget was varying throughout the
cross section of the welding zone.
7. Ductile fracture characterization was observed after
tensile tests, as expected. The fracture surfaces were
covered with a broad population of microscopic voids
of different dimensions and shapes.
References
1. Thomas WM, Nicholas ED (1997) Friction stir welding for the
transportation industries. Mater Des 18:269–273
2. Elangovan K, Balasubramanian V (2007) Influences of pin profile
and rotational speed of the tool on the formation of friction stir
processing zone in AA2219 aluminium alloy. Mater Sci Eng A
459:7–18 doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.12.124
3. Okuyucu H, Kurt A, Arcaklioglu E (2007) Artificial neural
network application to the friction stir welding of aluminum
plates. Mater Des 28:78–84
4. Frigaard O, Grong O, Midling OT (2001) A process model for
friction stir welding of age hardening aluminum alloys. Metall
Mater Trans A 32:1189–1200 doi:10.1007/s11661-001-0128-4
5. Zhang HW, Zhang Z, Chen JT (2007) 3D modeling of material
flow in friction stir welding under different process parameters. J
Mater Process Technol 183:62–70 doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.
2006.09.027
6. Fersini D, Pirondi A (2008) Analysis and modeling of fatigue
failure of friction stir welded aluminum alloy single-lap joints.
255
Engineer Fract Mech 75:790–803 doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.
2007.04.013
7. Buffa G, Fratini L, Shivpuri R (2007) CDRX modeling in friction
stir welding of AA 7075-T6 aluminum alloy: analytical
approaches. J Mater Process Technol 191:356–359 doi:10.1016/
j.jmatprotec.2007.03.033
8. Fratini L, Buffa G (2005) CDRX modeling in friction stir welding
of aluminum alloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1188–1194
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.12.001
9. Chen CM, Kovacevic R (2003) Finite element modeling of
friction stir welding—thermal and thermomechanical analysis. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 43:1319–1326 doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(03)
00158-5
10. Wang Y, Mishra RS (2007) Finite element simulation of selective
superplastic forming of friction stir processes AA 7075 Al alloy.
Mater Sci Eng A 463:245–248 doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.08.118
11. Heurtier P, Jones MJ, Desrayaud C et al (2006) Mechanical and
thermal modeling of friction stir welding. J Mater Process Technol
171:348–357 doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.07.014
12. Lockwood WD, Tomaz B, Reynolds AP (2002) Mechanical
response of friction stir welded AA 2024: experiment and
modeling. Mater Sci Eng A 323:348–353 doi:10.1016/S0921-
5093(01)01385-5
13. Kamp N, Sullivan A, Robson JD (2007) Modeling of friction stir
welding of 7xxx aluminum alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 466:246–255
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.02.070
14. Bastier A, Maitournam MH, Roger F, et al (2007) Modeling of the
residual state of friction stir welded plates. J Mater Process
Technol. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.10.083
15. Khandkar MZH, Khan JA, Reynolds AP et al (2006) Predicting
residual thermal stresses in friction stir welded metals. J Mater
Process Technol 174:195–203 doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.
2005.12.013
16. Simar A, Brechet Y, Meesser B et al (2007) Sequential modeling
of local precipitation, strength and strain hardening in friction stir
welds of an aluminum alloy 6005A-T6. Acta Mater 55:6133–6143
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2007.07.012
17. Ulysse P (2002) Three-dimensional modeling of the friction stir-
welding process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:1549–1557
doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(02)00114-1
18. Benyounis KY, Olabi AG (2007) Optimization of different
welding processes using statistical and numerical approaches—a
reference guide. Adv Eng Softw 39:483–496
19. Naidu R (2006) Friction stir welding: Thermal effects of a
parametric study on butt and lap welds. M.S. Thesis, Bachelor
Engineering, Shivaji University, India
20. Khaled T (2005) An outsider looks at friction stir welding. Federal
Aviation Administration. Report ANM-112N-05-06-FAA-USA
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/csta/
publications/media/friction_stir_welding.pdf
21. Palanikumar K, Kartikeyan R (2006) Optimal machining con-
ditions for turning of particulate metal matrix composites using
Taguchi and response surface methodologies. Mach Sci Technol
10:417–433 doi:10.1080/10910340600996068
22. Zarepour H, Tehrani AF, Karimi D et al (2007) Statistical analysis
on electrode wear in EDM of tool steel DIN 1.2714 used in
forging dies. J Mater Process Technol 187–188:711–714