Welding in the World (2021) 65:441–450

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-01037-4

RESEARCH PAPER

Investigation of tool offset on mechanical properties of dissimilar

AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6 joint in parallel FSW process
Amir Ghiasvand 1 & Soran Hassanifard 2 & Maziar Mahdipour Jalilian 3 & Hasan Kheradmandan 4

Received: 31 March 2020 / Accepted: 22 November 2020 / Published online: 6 January 2021
# International Institute of Welding 2021

Abstract
This paper presents a new two-pass friction stir welding (FSW) implementation called parallel friction stir welding (P-FSW). This
process is classified into two categories: Advanced parallel friction stir welding (AP-FSW) and retreating parallel friction stir
welding (RP-FSW). The effects of three parameters named the type of process, tool offset in first pass, and tool offset in the
second pass on tensile strength of AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6 joint in FSW have been investigated experimentally. To design
experiments, optimization, and analyzing the results, response surface methodology (RSM) has been used. Quantitative and
qualitative variables have been considered in five and two levels, respectively. Based on obtained results, it has been observed
that tool offset in the second pass, type of process, and tool offset in the first pass have the most effect on tensile strength of
welded joint, respectively. In both AP-FSW and RP-FSW processes, the maximum tensile strength occurred at the maximum
value of tool offset in the second pass and minimum value of tool offset in the first pass. The maximum joint efficiency of AP-
FSW and RP-FSW processes with respect to AA6061-T6 were obtained 83.1% and 95.4%, respectively.

Keywords Parallel friction stir welding (P-FSW) . Tool offset . Tensile strength . Response surface methodology (RSM) .
Optimization

1 Introduction are classified into two general categories of process variables

Friction stir welding (FSW) is a solid-state joining technique,
which can be used to connect similar/dissimilar materials with
different geometries [1]. In the FSW process due to tool rota-
tion, tool linear velocity, and friction, a great amount of heat is
generated that facilitates plastic flow formation and connec-
tion between workpieces. The effective parameters in FSW
Recommended for publication by Commission III - Resistance Welding,
Solid State Welding, and Allied Joining Process
* Amir Ghiasvand
Amir.Ghiasvand@Tabrizu.ac.ir
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz,
Tabriz, Iran
2
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson
University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kermanshah Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Arak, Iran
and tool geometry. Each of these two general categories has
subcategories [2]. By varying each of these parameters, the
distribution of plastic flow, the generated heat, and its distri-
bution will change [3]. Temperature distribution in the work-
piece is the most effective parameter on the quality and effi-
ciency of the joint [4]. Although the plastic flow plays an
important role in heat generation, the friction between tool
and workpiece is the main factor [5]. Continuous and uniform
heat distribution in FSW causes uniform plastic flow in the
weld section and consequently reducing defects and increas-
ing joint efficiency. According to temperature distribution and
plastic flow, FSW is an asymmetric process [6]. Because of
the difference in the direction of rotational and linear speed,
two distinct regions are created at each side of the weld line.
The side where rotational and linear speed has the same direc-
tion is called advanced side (AS) and another side is called
retreating side (RS). These regions have significant differ-
ences in heat plastic flow distribution which leads to different
mechanical and metallurgical properties [7]. By increasing the
asymmetry in the FSW process, defects increase. This phe-
nomenon is more obvious while welding dissimilar work-
pieces which affects the joint mechanical properties. If one
442
Fig. 1 The schematics of AP-
FSW and RP-FSW processes
can reduce the asymmetry in FSW, the quality and efficiency
of similar or dissimilar joints will increase. Using tool offset-
ting, reverse dual-rotation friction stir welding (RDR-FSW),
tandem tools or multi-pass friction stir welding (MP-FSW)
with reverse rotation can reduce asymmetry in the FSW
process.
In the open literature, a number of investigations can be
found dealing with the abovementioned fields. Ramachandran
et al. [8] investigated the effect of offset magnitude in FSW of
HSLA steel and AA5052-H13 aluminum alloy and found that
the offset magnitude has a great effect on mechanical proper-
ties and microstructure of the joint. Naghibi et al. [9] studied
the effect of offset in FSW of AA5052 and AISI 304 on
ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of joint. Based on the obtained
Fig. 2 Schematics of specimens
welded by AP-FSW and RP-FSW
Weld World (2021) 65:441–450
results, 2 mm offsetting toward the steel alloy leads to maxi-
mizing the UTS. In another study, Sahu et al. [10] investigated
the FSW of aluminum and copper and realized that setting
copper in AS and offsetting toward aluminum cause the best
quality. Kar et al. [11] studied the effect of offset in FSW of
aluminum and titanium and found that by offsetting, plastic
flow increases significantly. Mastanaiah et al. [12] investigat-
ed the offsetting in FSW of AA5083 and AA2219. The results
showed that proper offsetting can cause a defectless weld.
Tamjidy et al. [13] optimized the FSW process of AA6061
and AA7075 by studying the process parameters and offset-
ting. The AA6061 alloy was set as AS and different offsettings
were applied toward each side. Based on the results, offsetting
toward RS leads to increment in tensile properties. Liu and Li
Weld World (2021) 65:441–450 443

Table 1 Chemical composition

of AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6 Aluminum alloy Chemical composition (%)

AA6061-T6 Al Mg Si Cu Fe Cr Mn Zn Ti
Balance 0.81 0.61 0.29 0.2 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.01
AA7075-T6 Al Zn Mg Cu Fe Si Cr Ti Mn
Balance 5.11 2.04 1.11 0.61 0.33 0.229 0.027 0.014

[14–16] investigated the RDR-FSW of AA2019-T6 by
applying reverse rotational speeds to pin and shoulder.
The results showed significant improvement in the me-
chanical and metallurgical quality of the joint and re-
duction in downforce and required torque to perform the
process. Shi et al. [17] performed the mechanical and
thermal modeling of RDR-FSW. Based on the obtained
results, it was observed that RDR-FSW has little effect
on generated heat but leads to relatively symmetric heat
distribution and plastic flow. Thomas et al. [18] first
used tandem tools in the FSW process. In this tech-
nique, two tools with reverse rotational speeds move
in a line and perform the weld procedure. The results
showed that this technique in comparison with the com-
mon FSW process has significant advantages like in-
creasing the efficiency of joint and decreasing the
clamping force, torque, and defects. Liu and Zhang
[19] used re-welding to eliminate the groove defect.
They set reverse rotational speeds in the first and sec-
ond pass. This technique led to removing the defects
and an increase in joint efficiency. Kumari et al. [20]
produced a tandem tool with two distinct pins and per-
formed the FSW process. It was observed that the joint
efficiency in almost all of two-pass FS welded work-
pieces is higher than tandem-FS welded ones. Jain
et al. [21] investigated the FSW with the inline twin-
pin tool numerically. The rotational speeds of pins were
reversed. It was shown that using the mentioned tool
resulted in increasing the maximum temperature of the
process, symmetric distribution of strain, and decreasing
the FSW defects.
This study introduces a new combined two-pass technique
with offsetting named parallel friction stir welding (P-FSW).
In this technique, first and the second passes are performed
with a certain offset in which rotational speeds in passes are
set to reverse to achieve symmetric conditions of plastic flow
and temperature distribution. Due to rotational speed direc-
tions, two different processes can be considered which choos-
ing each process type and tool offset in the first and second
pass can significantly affect the weld quality. Investigation of
the mentioned parameters in the FSW process has not been
performed in any research yet. Thus in this study, the effects
of type of process and tool offset in the first and second passes
in FSW of AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6 dissimilar alloys on
the mechanical properties of joint have been studied experi-
mentally and numerically. To design the experiments, perform
analysis, and optimization, RSM has been used.
2 Materials and methods
The P-FSW process has two different aspects. If the
rotate direction in the first and second passes is such
that the outer borders of specimens are located at RS
region, the process is called advancing parallel-friction
stir welding (AP-FSW). On the other hand, if the outer
borders of specimens are located in the AS region, the
process is called retreating parallel-friction stir welding
(RP-FSW). The schematics of the mentioned processes
are shown in Fig. 1. Also, two welded specimens by
mentioned methods are shown in Fig. 2.
One of the challenging parameters affecting the UTS of
joint is the location of dissimilar alloys in FSW. By using P-
FSW, one can be sure that this problem is solved because of
relatively symmetric conditions in the process.

Table 2 Mechanical properties of AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6

Aluminum alloy Yield stress (MPa) UTS (MPa) Elongation (%)

AA6061-T6 268 311 17

AA7075-T6 485 568 11
Fig. 3 Used tool in P-FSW process
444
Fig. 4 Dimensions of test coupons
In the current study, the AP-FSW and RP-FSW processes
have been utilized to join AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6 dis-
similar alloys. In each process, welding was performed in two
consecutive passes with the same directions, which the tool
rotating direction and position changed. Traveling and rota-
tional speeds were set as 90 mm/min and 1180 rpm, respec-
tively. The dimensions of specimens were 5 mm × 50 mm ×
100 mm. Also, surface finishing was performed on the weld
areas before welding. The specimens were made of AA6061-
T6 and AA7075-T6 which their chemical composition and
mechanical properties are shown in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively.
The tool was set unchanged for all of the P-FSW
processes. Tool shoulder diameter, pin diameter, and
pin length were considered as 16 mm, 4 mm, and 4.7
mm, respectively. To create a proper vertical flow and
facilitate its moving, a threaded pin and a shoulder with
the smooth area made of steel H-13 were used. After
tool production, heat treating was performed to increase
its hardness based on related standards [22]. The tool is
shown in Fig. 3. The depth of shoulder penetration in
all specimens and dwell time for the first pass were
considered as 0.1 mm and 5 s, respectively.
To investigate the mechanical properties of welded
specimens, tensile tests were used. Test coupons were pre-
pared in accordance with ASTM-E8 [23]. It should be
mentioned that for each test, three samples were consid-
ered and the main results were obtained. The dimensions
of test coupons are shown in Fig. 4. To perform tensile
Table 3 Considered variables
and their levels Factors
Tool offset-first pass
Tool offset-second pass
P-FSW process
Weld World (2021) 65:441–450
tests, SANTAM-25KN servo-hydraulic apparatus were
used at 1 mm/min speed. For each tensile test, three rep-
licates were considered and results were obtained from the
average of three replicates.
3 Design of experiments
In this section, design of experiments (DOE) has been used to
study the effects of variables on the P-FSW process. In this
manner, central composite design (CCD) has been utilized to
investigate the main and interaction effect of variables. CCD
is an experimental quadratic design, which is beneficial in
response surface methodology (RSM). MINITAB software
has been utilized to implement this method and performing
analysis of variances (ANOVA). In the current research, two
quantitative variables named tool offset in first and second
welding passes and a qualitative variable, the type of process
have been considered as inputs and their effects on UTS of
welded specimens have been studied. Each of the quantitative
variables and qualitative variables has five and two levels,
respectively. Variables and their levels are shown in Table 3.
Because of the further hardness of AA7075-T6 compared
to AA6061-T6, two welding passes should take place in such
a way, which AA7075-T6 is exposed to major thermal cycles
to facilitate the plastic flow. Therefore, for both AP-FSW and
RP-FSW processes, in first and second welding passes, the
tool was offsetted toward AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6, re-
spectively. By this method, AA7075-T6 experiences a higher
plastic deformation.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Model and responses
CCD was used to develop the design matrix. To do so, twenty-
six specimens were prepared and welded. After that, the UTS
of each specimen was determined using the tensile test. DOE
matrix and UTS values are shown in Table 4.
In DOE, the closer adjusted R-squared gets to one, the
accuracy of the obtained regression equation increases. The
statistical coefficients of the used model in the current study
are shown in Table 5. In addition, the confidence level of 95%
was considered in this work and ANOVA was utilized to
Unit Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
mm 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mm 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
AP-FSW RP-FSW - - -
Weld World (2021) 65:441–450 445

Table 4 DOE matrix and UTS

values Run order Tool offset-first pass Tool offset-second pass P-FSW process UTS (MPa)

1 0.5 0.5 AP-FSW 156

2 1.5 0.5 AP-FSW 199
3 0.5 1.5 AP-FSW 211
4 1.5 1.5 AP-FSW 220
5 0 1 AP-FSW 176
6 2 1 AP-FSW 202
7 1 0 AP-FSW 127
8 1 2 AP-FSW 252
9 1 1 AP-FSW 195
10 1 1 AP-FSW 200
11 1 1 AP-FSW 195
12 1 1 AP-FSW 197
13 1 1 AP-FSW 204
14 0.5 0.5 RP-FSW 182
15 1.5 0.5 RP-FSW 221
16 0.5 1.5 RP-FSW 241
17 1.5 1.5 RP-FSW 248
18 0 1 RP-FSW 226
19 2 1 RP-FSW 218
20 1 0 RP-FSW 150
21 1 2 RP-FSW 277
22 1 1 RP-FSW 219
23 1 1 RP-FSW 222
24 1 1 RP-FSW 219
25 1 1 RP-FSW 220
26 1 1 RP-FSW 218

determine the effectiveness of variables. ANOVA parameters
for the UTS are shown in Table 6.
To validate the regression model, normal distribution
of regression residuals and independency among resid-
uals are needed. Due to coefficients shown in Table 5,
the regression model of 2FI was chosen. One can see
the main factors and effective interactions in this model.
To verify this model, it was statistically evaluated which
can be seen in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5(a) and (c), model re-
siduals scattering around normal line can be observed.
So, model residuals are dependent to normal distribution
procedure which is also verified by Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test. Figure 5(b) and (d) show uniform
distribution and the independency among regression re-
siduals, respectively.
Based on the statistical model, the UTS regression equa-
tions in AP-FSW and RP-FSW were obtained which are illus-
trated in Table 7.
4.2 Main effects and optimization
Based on the ANOVA and regression equations presented in
Table 7, three main variables affect the UTS of specimens. In
Fig. 6, the effectiveness and corporation have been illustrated
as a Pareto chart.

Table 5 The statistical

coefficients of used model Source Std. Dev. R2 Adjusted R2 Predicted R2 PRESS

Linear 10.55 0.9050 0.8921 0.8547 3746.44

2FI 9.37 0.9353 0.9148 0.8348 4261.49 Suggested
Quadratic 9.45 0.9411 0.9034 0.7846 5555.39
Cubic 4.20 0.9918 0.9829 0.8752 3219.78 Aliased
446 Weld World (2021) 65:441–450

Table 6 ANOVA parameters for UTS

Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean square F-value p value

Model 24,123.15 6 4020.53 45.76 < 0.0001 Significant

A—tool offset-first pass 748.17 1 748.17 8.52 0.0088 Significant
B—tool offset-second pass 18,481.50 1 18,481.50 210.35 < 0.0001 Significant
C—P-FSW process 4112.65 1 4112.65 46.81 < 0.0001 Significant
AB 544.50 1 544.50 6.20 0.0222 Significant
AC 228.17 1 228.17 2.60 0.1236 Not significant
BC 8.17 1 8.17 0.0930 0.7638 Not significant
Residual 1669.35 19 87.86
Lack of fit 1601.35 11 145.58 17.13 0.0002 Significant
Pure error 68.00 8 8.50
Cor total 25,792.50 25

According to Fig. 6, in the P-FSW process, tool offset
(toward AA7075-T6) in the second pass is the most effective
variable. Also, the type of P-FSW process and tool offset in
the first pass are in the following ranks of effectiveness on
UTS. Among five interactions, only the tool offset in the first
pass-tool offset in second pass interaction was determined to
be effective. The UTS vs. tool offset in first pass and tool
offset in second pass diagrams have been illustrated in Figs.
7 and 8, respectively.
According to Figs. 7 and 8, it was observed that tool-
offsetting in first and second passes results in increment in
joint efficiency in both AP-FSW and RP-FSW processes. In
general, in FSW of dissimilar alloys, the participation of alloys
in plastic flow affects the joint efficiency [19]. Unbalancing in
the plastic flow ratio results in the increase of weld defects
density and consequently significant drop of mechanical prop-
erties. Optimized plastic flow ratio of dissimilar alloys is a
function of difference in mechanical properties. The plastic

Fig. 5 Regression model evaluation: (a) normal probablity, (b) versus fits, (c) histogram, (d) versus order
Weld World (2021) 65:441–450 447

Table 7 UTS regression

equations P-FSW process Regression equation of UTS

AP-FSW UTS (MPa) = 82.3 + 56.6A + 101.6B − 3.16A2 − 7.16B2 − 33.0AB

RP-FSW UTS (MPa) = 117.5 + 44.3A + 104.0B − 3.16A2 − 7.16B2 − 33.0AB

Fig. 6 Variables effectiveness

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
Term (response is UTS (MPa), α = 0.05)
2.1 1

AB

AC
Factor Name
BB A Tool Offset-First Pass
B Tool Offset-Second Pass
AA
C P-FSW Process
BC

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Standardized Effect

flow of a harder alloy should be greater [20]. This ratio is
unique and obtained by experiments. Generally, by increasing
the plastic flow amount in a constant volume, mechanical
properties improve [4]. AA7075-T6 is significantly harder in
comparison with AA6061-T6. So, the P-FSW processes
should be implemented in such a way which the portion of
AA7075-T6 in plastic flow is equal to or greater than
AA6061-T6 portion. By this plan, the welding defects de-
crease. Based on the literature survey, mechanical properties
are higher in the RS region compared to the AS region, which
is due to greater plastic flow [20–22]. Because of inverse
plastic flow and tool travel direction in the AS region, plastic
flow is lower than the RS region, which leads to concentrate
defects. In the RP-FSW process, the central part of the weld is
completely located in the RS region, which causes an increase
in plastic flow and improvement in microstructures. Similarly,
it was shown in this research that in all tool offsets, the UTS of
RP-FSW is greater than AP-FSW. In addition to the main
variables’ effects, the interaction between variables can signif-
icantly affect the UTS. Interactions of tool offset in first and
second passes on UTS for AP-FSW and RP-FSW are shown
in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, in both AP-FSW and
RP-FSW processes, the maximum UTS occurs when the

Fig. 7 UTS vs. tool offset in first pass Fig. 8 UTS vs. tool offset in second pass
448 Weld World (2021) 65:441–450

Fig. 9 Interaction of tool offset in first and second passes on UTS for AP-FSW

Fig. 10 Interaction of tool offset in first and second passes on UTS for RP-FSW

tool offset in first and second passes are minimum and
maximum, respectively. Based on the obtained results,
the maximum joint efficiencies of AP-FSW and RP-
FSW processes are 83.1% and 95.4%, respectively. It
was observed that by not using tool offsetting in both
passes, the minimum UTS is obtained. In Table 8, the
optimized condition for UTS has been illustrated. To
validate the model, a specimen was welded with opti-
mum parameters, which is shown in Fig. 11. A compar-
ison between predicted and measured UTS has been
done in Table 8. In addition, the stress-strain curve of
this specimen is illustrated in Fig. 12.

Table 8 Optimized values of

variables Tool offset-first Tool offset-second P-FSW UTS (MPa) pre- UTS (MPa) experi-
pass pass process dicted mental

0 2 RP-FSW 296.8 290.3

Weld World (2021) 65:441–450 449

& In both RP-FSW and AP-FSW processes, increasing in

tool offset results in an increase in joint efficiency and this
increment is more intensive in the second pass.
& In both RP-FSW and AP-FSW processes, the maximum
UTS occurs when the tool offsets in first and second
passes are minimum and maximum, respectively.
& The maximum joint efficiencies of AP-FSW and RP-FSW
processes are 83.1% and 95.4%, respectively.

Authors’ contributions The authors read and corrected the manuscript.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability All data analyzed during this study are available from
the corresponding author on request.

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing

interests.

Fig. 11 Welded specimen due to optimum situations

References
1. Devaiah D, Kishore K, Laxminarayana P (2018) Optimal FSW
5 Conclusions process parameters for dissimilar aluminium alloys (AA5083 and
AA6061) Using Taguchi Technique. Mater Today: Proc 5(2):
In this research, the effects of three variables named type of P- 4607–4614
FSW, tool offset in first and second passes on UTS of 2. Mishra RS, De PS, Kumar N (2014) Friction stir welding and pro-
cessing: science and engineering. Springer
AA7075-T6 and AA6061-T6 FS welded joint were investi- 3. Schmidt H, Hattel J, Wert J (2003) An analytical model for the heat
gated. To design experiments, optimization, and analysis of generation in friction stir welding. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng
results, the CCD method was utilized and the following results 12(1):143
were obtained: 4. Akbari M, Aliha M, Keshavarz S, Bonyadi A (2019) Effect of tool
parameters on mechanical properties, temperature, and force gener-
ation during FSW. Proc Instit Mech Eng Part L: J Mater: Des Appl
& It was observed that tool offset in the second pass, type of 233(6):1033–1043
P-FSW process, and tool offset in the first pass are the 5. Aziz SB, Dewan MW, Huggett DJ, Wahab MA, Okeil AM, Liao
most effective variables on the UTS of joint. TW (2016) Impact of friction stir welding (FSW) process parame-
& For all tool offset values in first and second passes, UTS of ters on thermal modeling and heat generation of aluminum alloy
joints. Acta Metall Sin (Engl Lett) 29(9):869–883
RP-FSW is greater than AP-FSW. 6. Meyghani B, Awang M, Emamian S, Nor MKBM (2019) Thermal
modelling of friction stir welding (FSW) using calculated Young’s
modulus values, in The advances in joining technology. Springer,
700
pp 1–13
7. Zhao Z, Liang H, Zhao Y, Yan K (2018) Effect of exchanging
600 advancing and retreating side materials on mechanical properties
and electrochemical corrosion resistance of dissimilar 6013-T4 and
500 AA6061-T6 7003 aluminum alloys FSW joints. J Mater Eng Perform 27(4):
AA7075-T6 1777–1783
Stress (MPa)

400 8. Ramachandran K, Murugan N, Kumar SS (2015) Effect of tool axis

AA7075-AA6061 P-FSW
offset and geometry of tool pin profile on the characteristics of
300 friction stir welded dissimilar joints of aluminum alloy AA5052
and HSLA steel. Mater Sci Eng A 639:219–233
200
9. Naghibi HD, Shakeri M, Hosseinzadeh M (2016) Neural network
and genetic algorithm based modeling and optimization of tensile
100
properties in FSW of AA 5052 to AISI 304 dissimilar joints. Trans
0
Indian Inst Metals 69(4):891–900
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 10. Sahu PK, Pal S, Pal SK, Jain R (2016) Influence of plate position,
Strain
tool offset and tool rotational speed on mechanical properties and
Fig. 12 Stress-strain curve of base alloys and specimen with optimum microstructures of dissimilar Al/Cu friction stir welding joints. J
situation Mater Process Technol 235:55–67
450
11. Kar A, Suwas S, Kailas SV (2019) Significance of tool offset and
copper interlayer during friction stir welding of aluminum to titani-
um. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100(1-4):435–443
12. Mastanaiah P, Sharma A, Reddy GM (2016) Dissimilar friction stir
welds in AA2219-AA5083 aluminium alloys: effect of process pa-
rameters on material inter-mixing, defect formation, and mechani-
cal properties. Trans Indian Inst Metals 69(7):1397–1415
13. Tamjidy M, Baharudin B, Paslar S, Matori K, Sulaiman S,
Fadaeifard F (2017) Multi-objective optimization of friction stir
welding process parameters of AA6061-T6 and AA7075-T6 using
a biogeography based optimization algorithm. Materials 10(5):533
14. Liu H, Li J, Duan W (2013) Research on reverse dual rotation
friction stir welding process. In: Proceedings of the 1st
International Joint Symposium on Joining and Welding. Elsevier,
pp. 25–32
15. Li J, Liu H (2013) Characteristics of the reverse dual-rotation fric-
tion stir welding conducted on 2219-T6 aluminum alloy. Mater Des
45:148–154
16. Li J, Liu H (2015) Effects of the reversely rotating assisted shoulder
on microstructures during the reverse dual-rotation friction stir
welding. J Mater Sci Technol 31(4):375–383
17. Shi L, Wu C, Liu H (2015) The effect of the welding parameters
and tool size on the thermal process and tool torque in reverse dual-
rotation friction stir welding. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 91:1–11
Weld World (2021) 65:441–450
18. Thomas W, Staines D, Watts E, Norris I (2005) The simultaneous
use of two or more friction stir welding tools, vol 13. TWI pub-
lished on the Internet, Abington
19. Liu H-j, Zhang H-j (2009) Repair welding process of friction stir
welding groove defect. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 19(3):
563–567
20. Kumari K, Pal SK, Singh SB (2015) Friction stir welding by using
counter-rotating twin tool. J Mater Process Technol 215:132–141
21. Jain R, Kumari K, Pal SK, Singh SB (2018) Counter rotating twin-
tool system in friction stir welding process: a simulation study. J
Mater Process Technol 255:121–128
22. Totten GE (2006) Steel Heat Treatment Handbook, -2 Volume Set.
CRC press
23. A. Standard, E8/E8M (2009) Standard test methods for tension
testing of metallic materials. ASTM international, West
Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/E0008-E0008M-09 www.
astm.org
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.