Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 https://doi.org/10.

1088/2053-1591/ab1baa

PAPER

Evaluating the tensile strength of friction welded (AA6061 &

RECEIVED
11 February 2019
AA7075-T6) dissimilar joints by using response surface
REVISED
16 April 2019
methodology
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
23 April 2019
PUBLISHED
M Bakkiyaraj1 , P Palanisamy2 and Balasubramanian V3
8 May 2019 1
Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai-600025, India
2
Mechanical Engineering, Saveetha Engineering College Chennai-602105, India
3
Manufacturing Engineering, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamilnadu-608002, India
E-mail: bakya1984@gmail.com

Keywords: friction welding, dissimilar aluminium alloys, microstructure, optimization

Abstract
This paper aims at formulating a numerical model to predict and optimize the friction welding (FW)
process parameters on the tensile strength of the dissimilar, (AA6061/AA7075-T6) aluminium alloy
joints. The ultimate tensile strength of friction welded dissimilar joints can be obtained by varying the
FW parameters within the process windows. The response surface methodology (RSM) was identified
as the method for optimizing the FW process parameters to maximize the tensile strength of dissimilar
joints and the optimized parameters were accounted. Finally, the characterization of specimens at the
weld zone was studied by using scanning electron microscope (SEM), energy-dispersive spectroscopy
(EDS) and optical microscope (OM).

1. Introduction

FW is a solid state welding process, which is utilized to join (similar and dissimilar) all kind of ferrous and non-
ferrous metals. Due to the quick fabrication and feasibility of joints, FW process attracts the researchers towards
the area. In particular, joining dissimilar metals, FW process is the pioneer. As the fusion welding process is not
appropriate for joining dissimilar metal owing to their real distinction in physical and the chemical properties
[1–3]. Moreover, issues like the formation of porosity, solidification cracking, and chemical reaction may
emerge by joining dissimilar materials under fusion welding. On the other hand, all these issues can be
diminished or elinimineted in FW by the appropriate selection of process parameters [4, 5]. Aluminum alloy
6061 is extensively used in various engineering applications because of its excellent resistance against erosion as
well as possessing great formability. On the other side aluminum alloys 7075-T6 possess high specific strength
and low weight proportion which is a part of the aviation application. Owing to its unique joining combinations,
many demands are available in various industries like transportation, aviation and other manufacturing
industries.
Kiruma et al [6] studied the mechanical behaviors of FW dissimilar joint between AA6063 and AISI 304
stainless steel; the effect of FW parameters on the joints and mechanical properties were evaluated. Meisnar et al
[7] joined dissimilar AA6082 and Ti-6Al-4V by rotary friction welding and reported the features of weld
interfaces and microstructure with the assistance of XRD and SEM. Vigneshwar et al [8] joined AA6061 with
AA2024 [dissimilar joint] by FW and investigated the joint strength and fatigue behavior of the specimen under
the optimized conditions. Selvamani et al [9] adopted the RSM tool to maximize the strength of the friction
welded AISI 1035 carbon steel joints; accounted that the maximum strength attained was 548.439 MPa and sated
the reasons for the variation in grain size of the weld zone as the fluctuation in forging pressure and temperature
distribution. The optimization of FSS welding parameters for joining AA2024 using RSM was studied by
Karthikeyan et al [10], and reported that the developed empirical relationship for AA2024 joints incorporating
the process parameters at 95% confidence level. Palanivel et al [11] detailed the significance of FW parameters

© 2019 IOP Publishing Ltd

Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Table 1. Mechanical properties of parent material.

Alloy Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) Elongation (%)

AA6061 272 304 19.3

AA7075-T6 512 569 13.2

Table 2. Chemical compositions of AA6061 and AA7075-T6 (wt%).

Alloy Zn Mg Cu Fe Cr Mn Si Ti Al

AA6061 0.008 0.925 0.246 0.217 0.215 0.069 0.507 0.018 Bal.
AA7075 -T6 5.458 2.223 1.636 0.601 0.236 0.109 0.087 0.064 Bal.

Table 3. Important FW parameters and its level.

Level
Parameter
−2 −1 0 1 2

Friction pressure, P (MPa) 15 25 35 45 55

Friction time, Q (sec) 1 2 3 4 5
Forging pressure, R (MPa) 15 25 35 45 55
Forging time, S (sec) 1 2 3 4 5

titanium tubes using RSM technique; and reported that variation of tensile strength with reference to pores, fine
nodules, poor consolidation and excessive ejection of material which are observed through the macro and
microstructure.
From the works of literature, it has been noticed that few research works have been carried out in solid-state
welding of dissimilar aluminum alloys and no work has furnished the complete details in the combination of FW
between AA6061 and AA7075-T6 which is extensively used in aerospace and automotive industries with the
assistance of optimization tool. The response surface methodology is a good technique to develop the numerical
model and optimize the process parameters to generate the process window for a given condition [9–14]. This
research work focuses on the prediction and optimization of FW parameters to maximize the tensile strength of
dissimilar (AA6061-AA7075-T6) joints.

2. Experimentation

2.1. Identification of crucial FW process parameters

The FW process parameters, which are affecting the TS of the dissimilar joint such as friction pressure (P),
friction time (Q), forging pressure (R) and forging time (S).have been identified at a rotational speed of 1200 rpm
through trial and error method.

2.2. Finding the limits of process variable

Rods of 75 mm length with 12 mm diameter were prepared to fabricate the joints. Trail experiments were
conducted to locate the upper and lower limits of process parameters by varying one in every set and keeping the
others as constant. The mechanical properties and chemical composition of parent metals are enumerated in
tables 1 and 2 respectively. The permissible limits of the process parameter have been selected to such an extent
that the fabricated FW joint must be free from the visible defects. The code value of +2 represents the upper limit
whereas −2 represent the lower limit. The intermediate value can be calculated from the following relationship
[15].
2(2X - (Xmax + Xmin ))
Xi =
(Xmax - Xmin )

where, Xi is the fixed coded value of a variable X; X is any value which varies from Xmin to Xmax; the selected
FW parameters with boundary conditions, units and notations are given in table 3.

2.3. Development of matrix designed

The computed design matrix using software is shown in table 4. It is a full factorial (24=16) central composite
design with 31 sets of coded conditions with 7 center points and 8 star points. Accordingly, the possible set of

2
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Table 4. Design matrix and experimental values.

FW process parameter UTS (MPa)

Sl.No.
Code Actual
Experimental Predicted
P Q R S P Q R S

1 −1 −1 −1 −1 25 2 25 2 164 160.89
2 1 −1 −1 −1 45 2 25 2 178 183.05
3 −1 1 −1 −1 25 4 25 2 177 179.29
4 1 1 −1 −1 45 4 25 2 188 188.45
5 −1 −1 1 −1 25 2 45 2 173 175.05
6 1 −1 1 −1 45 2 45 2 198 197.21
7 −1 1 1 −1 25 4 45 2 179 178.45
8 1 1 1 −1 45 4 45 2 186 187.61
9 −1 −1 −1 1 25 2 25 4 158 156.63
10 1 −1 −1 1 45 2 25 4 181 178.79
11 −1 1 −1 1 25 4 25 4 184 183.55
12 1 1 −1 1 45 4 25 4 196 192.71
13 −1 −1 1 1 25 2 45 4 165 170.79
14 1 −1 1 1 45 2 45 4 197 192.95
15 −1 1 1 1 25 4 45 4 180 182.71
16 1 1 1 1 45 4 45 4 192 191.87
17 −2 0 0 0 15 3 35 3 152 148.84
18 2 0 0 0 55 3 35 3 178 180.16
19 0 −2 0 0 35 1 35 3 176 175.84
20 0 2 0 0 35 5 35 3 194 193.16
21 0 0 −2 0 35 3 15 3 172 173.84
22 0 0 2 0 35 3 55 3 190 187.16
23 0 0 0 −2 35 3 35 1 191 195.50
24 0 0 0 2 35 3 35 5 201 195.50
25 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 217 222.86
26 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 228 222.86
27 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 221 222.86
28 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 223 222.86
29 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 222 222.86
30 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 222 222.86
31 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3 222 222.86

experiments have been conducted for estimating the linear/quadratic and both way interactive effects of the FW
parameters on the ultimate tensile strength.

2.4. Experimentation as per the matrix designed

The experiments were carried out by using matrix design with the aid of a hydraulic controlled friction welding
machine of capacity 20kN. The rod AA7075-T6 was placed in the rotating side and AA6061 was placed in the
moving side. The welded joint samples are shown in figure 1.

2.5. Recording the response

For each welding conditions, three joints were manufactured as per the design matrix. The welded samples were
machined and tested as per the standard (ASTM E8) [16]. The test was conducted on a 100 KN automated
universal testing machine. The mean values (experimented) of TS calculated from fabricated joints were
presented in table 4. Figure 2 portraits fractured specimens after the tensile test.

2.6. Macrostructural analysis

Specimens were sized for macro studies and it was made parallel to the specimen axis. The standard
metallographic procedure was used to polish the specimens with the aid of concentric Keller etchant. Finally, the
macro and micro perceptions were performed to ensure the quality of FW joints using optical microscope and
digital optical scanner.

2.7. Developing empirical relationship

The ultimate TS of dissimilar joint (AA6061-AA7075T6) is a function of the FW parameters such as a friction
pressure (P), friction time (Q), forging pressure (R) and forging time (S) and it can be expressed as

3
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Figure 1. Friction welded samples.

Figure 2. Fractured tensile specimen.

s = f (P , Q, R , S) (1)
The 2nd order polynomial equation to represent the response σ is given by
s = b0 + å bi Xi + å bii X 2i + å bijXiX j (2)
and the polynomial of four factors could be articulated as
s = b 0 + b1P + b2 Q + b3 R + b4 S + b11P 2 + b22 Q2 + b33 R2 + b44 S2 + b12 PQ
+ b13 PR + b14 PS + b23 QR + b24 QS + b34 RS (3)
where, b0 is the average responses and b1, b2, K., b44 are the response coefficients which, depends on the
respective main and interaction effects of parameters [17, 18]. The value of coefficients was calculated using
DOE software and the insignificant coefficients were eliminated. In this case, P, Q, R, PQ, QR, QS, P2, Q2, R2,
and S2 are significant model terms. Finally, the empirical relationship was calculated based on significant
coefficients and developed the final mathematical equation is given below:
s = 222.86 + 7.83P + 4.33Q + 3.33R - 3.25PQ - 3.75QR + 2.13QS - 14.59P 2
- 9.59Q2 - 10.59R2 - 6.84S2 (4)

2.8. Checking the adequacy of developed model

The competence level of developed empirical relation got confirmed by Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
technique. An ANOVA generated statistical evaluation and the outputs are given in tables 5 and 6 respectively.
The assessment of F is 108.99 which infers the model is significant. For the expected output of the numerically
developed model, R2 value is nearer to be 1. The computed R2 Value for this model is 0.989. This suggests that
the predicted value almost (98%) similar to experimental value with the desired level. The adjusted and
predicted R2 values 0.98 and 0.95 both highly advocate with implication of the model. For adequate precision,
the proportion of signal to noise ratio should be greater than 4 [19]. In this investigation, the proportion of
36.287 demonstrates a satisfactory flag. A typical scatter diagram between actual tensile strength and predicted
tensile strength is illustrated in figure 3. The scrutinized values (predicted and experiment) of the outputs are
dispersed near a 45° line, which shows that relatively robust with the developed model [20]. Figure 4 shows the

4
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Table 5. Statistical results of developed model.

Response R-square Adjustable R-square Predicted R-square Adequate precision Higher F value

UTS 0.989 0.98 0.95 36.29 171.23 (P)

UTS- ultimate tensile strength.

Table 6. ANOVA results of developed model.

Response Root Sum of square Mean square DM F-ratio

UTS Regression 13123.49 937.39 14 108.99

P 1472.66 1472.66 1 171.23
Q 450.66 450.66 1 52.4
R 266.66 266.66 1 32
S 37.5 37.5 1 4.36
Residual 137.6 8.6 16 —
Lack of fit ——— 10.14 ——— 1.91

DM-Degree of Freedom.

Figure 3. Correlation graph.

Figure 4. Normal probability plot.

5
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Table 7. Conformity tests results.

FW process parameters UTS (MPa)

Trail No. Error%
P Q R S Actual Predicted

1 25 3 35 4 209.12 207.28 0.87

2 45 3 35 4 206 209.26 −1.55
3 35 2 15 2 165.15 163.06 1.27

Figure 5. Response graph and contour plots of friction time versus friction pressure.

Figure 6. Response graph and contour plots of forging time versus forging pressure.

probability plot for tensile strength which communicates that residuary falls on the 45° line, as it concludes that
the flaws are dispersed regularly. The verification of mathematical was done for different values other than
plotted in the matrix designed. Conformity test was conducted, the reasonable results were obtained and its
particulars are given in table 7.

3. Optimization of FW parameters

The experimental observations were used as the input to develop the empirical model. Four factorial RSM
employed in this study for optimization of FW parameters of the dissimilar (AA6061/7075-T6) joints. RSM is an
optimization tool for drafting a set of experiments between the limits, developing the numerical models,
scrutinizing the best level of parameters on the tensile strength (TS) and express all TS values in the form of
graphs for a given condition of problems. The two parameters were picked from the intermediate level of the
limits to form the empirical relation and it has been presented in two mutually perpendicular directions as
shown in figures 5 and 6. The graphical form of developed surface plots and contour plots are the evident to
analyze the effect of optimized process parameters on the output (TS). Within the experimental window, the TS
value of any region is to be calculated with an aid of contour responses.

6
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Figure 7. Variation in ultimate tensile strength is a of FW parameters (a) Friction pressure, (b) Friction time, (c) Forging pressure & (d)
Forging time.

The maximum achievable tensile strength is observed as an apex in the response plots. Contour plots play a
major role to visually expose the region of the optimal process parameters. In second-order responses,
generating such type of contour plot may be more difficult than the first order model which shows outputs in the
form of parallel line. The highest value of F (P-171.23) in table 5 declares that the relevant response (TS) is more
significant [21, 22]. From the observation of F ratio values for all (P, Q, R and S) parameters, it is clear that the
parameter P (friction pressure) contributes more effect on TS, followed by R, Q and S. In this optimization, the
model suggests that the maximum achievable TS value is 222.8 MPa at the friction pressure of 35 MPa, friction
time of 3 s, forging pressure of 35 MPa and the forging time of 3 s. The experimentally obtained maximum TS of
the dissimilar joints was found to be 228 MPa under the same set of parameters.
From the experimental observation, the mean value of TS on the optimum level of friction pressure (P) of
35 MPa was found to be 206.46 MPa followed by forging pressure (R) at 35 MPa was found to be 204 MPa,
friction time (Q) of 3 s was 203.38 MPa and forging (S) time of 3 s was 201.69 MPa. The estimated value of TS
using the empirical relation equation (4) also reveals that same order at optimum levels and the TS value of P, R,
Q and S were found to be 206.23 MPa, 203.77 MPa, 203.15 MPa, and 201.4 MPa respectively. A variation of UTS
with respect to all friction welding parameters is shown in figures 7(a)–(d). Also, it was observed that friction
pressure other than the optimum level (35 MPa) has considerably lowered the UTS value, irrespective of friction
time and forging time. From this all, it has been concluded that the friction pressure has influencing parameter
on the tensile strength of the FW dissimilar joints.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Macrostructure
From the experimental results and Analysis of variance are shows that friction pressure is the most influenced
parameter to decide the tensile strength of the FW dissimilar joints. In order that, the macro structural views of
the specimens at different friction pressure are presented in the figures 8(a)-(c). Although no porosity is observed

7
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Figure 8. Optical macroviews of the FW dissimilar joints at various friction pressure (a) 15 Mpa, (b) 35 MPa and (c) 55 MPa (Q=3 s,
R=35MPs & S=3 s).

in the figures 8(b)-(c) and minor defects were observed (figure 8(a)) in the weld region of the joints fabricated at
lower friction pressure of 15 MPa. The joints fabricated at lower friction pressure mostly fractured (brittle) with
a lower strain rate between 6.5% to 9.6%. It is clear that metals were not bonded through the circumference due
to lack of heat generation and creation of such minor defects led to the fracture with lower strength. From
figure 8(b). it is observed that the increase in friction pressure resulted in more heat generation which causes
sufficient plastic deformation between the friction surfaces to authenticate the sound welds.

4.2. Microstructure
Microstructure observations of the parent metals (AA6061 & AA7075-T6) captured by the optical microscope
are shown in figures 9(a)-(b). The needles structure were observed in the microstructure (figure 9(b)) of
aluminum alloy 7075–T6 and the formation of grains were viewed to be in the direction along the rolling
/forming of AA 7075. Figures 10(a)-(c) represents the grain size disparity at different friction pressure for the
weld zone. The range of grain size in the weld region has been changed from 2.8 μm at 15 MPa to 1.6 μm at
55 MPa. It is observed that, an increase in friction pressure resulted in decreasing the grain size up to the
optimum level of friction pressure. The generation of frictional heat at low friction pressure (15 MPa) was a bit
low compared to the optimum level of 35 MPa. This might be confirmed through the microvoid which was
observed in the micrographs view of the fractured specimen as indicated in figure 10(a). At the friction pressure
of 35 MPa, the finer material distribution is observed in figure 9(b). This suggests that sufficient heat generation
and flash rate are predominant factors to reduce the grain size and to produce the sound weld. From the
figures 10(a) and (c) uneven material distribution was observed. Especially, the flow of AA 7075-T6 (dark colors)
randomly dispersed. The mechanically interlocking zone (10c) shows the mixing of AA7075-T6 with AA 6061
and it could be further analyzed by using SEM with EDS.
Figure 11(a) shows the fusion zone of the FW dissimilar joint fabricated by using optimum parameters.
Three different layers of S1, S2 & S3 can be observed in the weld zone of the FW dissimilar joints and these layers
was further examined by using EDS which is shown in figures 11(b)–(d). From this all layers, it was observed that
the percentage of all alloying elements in the weld zone is less compared to AA7075-T6 base metals.
On the other hand, the percentage of aluminium is higher than AA 7075 –T6 base metals. It concludes that
alloying elements are diffused in the aluminium during the joints fabrication and no Zn and Cu particles was

8
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Figure 9. Optical micro views of the base metals (a) AA6061 b) AA7075-T6.

Figure 10. Optical micro views of the FW dissimilar joint at various friction pressure (a) 15 Mpa, (b) 35 MPa & (c) 55 MPa (Q=3 s,
R=35 MPa & S=3 s).

observed in the S2 zone. The amount of Fe in the spectrum 2 (S2) zone is 70% higher than AA6061 base metal
whereas, in the zone of S1 and S3, it is found to be less. Overall the average value of Fe, Mg, Zn and Cu in all zone
are found to be less when compared to both base metals. Hence, it is evident that dissimilar joint exhibit the
lower tensile strength compared to the base metals.

4.3. Tensile properties and fracture surfaces

The stress-strain relationship curve at different friction pressure of 15 MPa, 35 MPa & 55 (design matrix no. 17,
18 & 26) is shown in figure 12.
The joint produced at friction pressure of 15 Mpa and 55 Mpa exhibits the tensile strength of 152 MPa and
178 MPa respectively. Joint fabricated at optimum friction pressure (35 Mpa) displayed the maximum strength

9
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Figure11. SEM weld zone image and EDS showing the percentage of chemical compositions.

Figure 12. Stress-strain curve at different friction pressure (P); (Q=3 s, R=35 MPa & S=3 s).

of 228 MPa which is 1.5 times higher than the strength of low friction pressure and 1.28 times higher than the
joint produced at high friction pressure. Figure 13(a) shows that, the fracture surface characterized with a large
number of unequal dimples compare to the other two surfaces and the observed microvoids are in different size.
The large voids associated with coarse precipitates whereas small voids are associated with finer precipitates.
This may be the reason for insufficient heat generation during fabrication of joints.
The tensile curve of low friction pressure (15 MPa) also reveals the same with less strain rate of about 9.6%.
On the other side, the joint fabricate at optimum (intermediate) level of friction pressure (35 MPa) exhibits a
higher strain rate of 13%. The corresponding fracture surface morphology (figure 13(b)) shows that the
comprehensive existence of fine nodules, points out the mode of ductile fracture. It may be a reason that the

10
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

Figure 13. SEM fractography of the failed specimens at friction pressure; (a) 15 MPa, (b) 35 MPa & (c) 55 MPa (Q=3 s, R=35 MPa
& S=3 s).

grain size controlled by sufficient heat generation and the optimum level of plastic deformation. On the other
side, further increase in friction pressure of 55 MPa decrease in tensile strength and the strain rate about 10.9%.
The corresponding fracture surface (figure 13(c)) shows some shallower dimples which have led to rupture
mode when the load applied is beyond the working load. Although, some undeveloped nodules are present that
not seems to be uniformly distributed throughout the fracture morphology. The failure mechanism is depicted
by the blend of micro-voids and these micro-voids could originate at the area adjoining with second phase
particles, grain boundaries and inclusions. From these all fracture surfaces, it is known that dimple fracture
mechanism happened with some level of ductility in blending these two alloys.

5. Conclusions

The RSM technique is used to establish an empirical relationship for attain the maximum TS of dissimilar joints
(AA6061/AA7075-T6) produced by friction welding, incorporate the process parameters. The predicted TS
values were compared with experimental values resulted almost similar and the contour plot and surface
responses were carried out to analyse the influences of FW process parameters on TS of dissimilar joints between
AA6061/AA7075-T6 at confidence level of 95%.
The optimized process parameters were correlated with macro and microstructures and these parameters
influenced the weld zone via blending of materials, formation of brittle and ductile phase. It was noticed that
lower value of process parameters led to weak joints due to insufficient heat generation that resulted in poor
consolidation material. On the other hand, the higher value of process parameters resulted in excessive heat
generation that ended in the ejection of hot material from the joint surface.
The maximum TS value 228 MPa was obtained at the following welding condition; friction pressure (P) of
35 MPa, friction time (Q) of 3 s forging pressure (R) of 35 MPa and forging time (S) of 3 s. A good number of fine
nodules are noticed in the fractured surface of the dissimilar joints fabricated by optimum process parameter
which led to higher tensile strength. Most of the specimen were fractured at weld zone and few were fractured at
partially deformed zone and base metal.

11
Mater. Res. Express 6 (2019) 086527 M Bakkiyaraj et al

However dissimilar joint exhibits low tensile strength compared to the base metals and it was confirmed
through EDS results which showing the major alloying elements are diffused in the aluminum during the
fabrication.

ORCID iDs

M Bakkiyaraj https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7917-780X

References
[1] Meshram S D, Mohandas T and Reddy G M 2007 Friction welding of dissimilar pure metals Journal of Material Processing Technology
184 330–7
[2] Udayakumar Raja T K, Abhijit A T and Sathiya P 2013 Experimental investigation on mechanical and metallurgical properties of super
duplex stainless steel joints using friction welding process Journal of Manufacturing Process 15 558–71
[3] Sammaiah P, Suresh A and Tagore G R N 2010 Mechanical properties of friction welded 6063 aluminum alloy and austenitic stainless
steel Journal of Material Science 45 5512–21
[4] Hakan A, Mehmet T and Adem K 2007 Effect of friction pressure on the properties of friction welded MA956 iron-based superalloy
Materials and Design 28 948–53
[5] Ozdemir N 2005 Investigation of mechanical properties of friction welded joints between AISI 304 L and AISI 4340 steel as a function of
rotational speed Materials Letters 59 2504–9
[6] Kimura M, Suzuki K, Kusaka M and Kaizu K 2017 Effect of friction welding condition on joining phenomena and mechanical
properties of friction welded joint between 6063 aluminium alloy and AISI 304 stainless steel J. Manuf. Processes 26 178–87
[7] Meisnar M, Baker S, Bennett J M and Bernad A 2017 Microstructural characterisation of rotary friction welded AA6082 and Ti-6Al-4V
dissimilar joints Materials and Design 132 188–97
[8] Vigneshwar M, Selvamani S T, Hariprasathd P and Palanikuma K 2018 Analysis of mechanical, metallurgical and fatigue behavior of
friction welded AA6061-AA2024 dissimilar aluminum alloys in optimized condition Materials Today: Proceedings 5 7853–63
[9] Selvamani S T and Palanikumar K 2014 Optimizing the friction welding parameters to attain maximum tensile strength in AISI 1035
grade carbon steel rods Measurement 53 10–21
[10] Karthikeyan R and Balasubramaian V 2010 Predictions of the optimized friction stir spot welding process parameters for joining
AA2024 aluminum alloy using RSM Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 51 173–83
[11] Palanivel R, Laubscher R F and Dinaharan I 2017 An investigation into the effect of welding parameters on tensile strength of titanium
tubes by utilizing an empirical relationship Measurements 98 77–91
[12] Martinez-Conesa E J and Egea J A 2017 Valentin miguel optimization of geometric parameters in a welded joint through response
surface methodology Constr. Build. Mater. 154 105–14
[13] Srinivasa Rao P, Gupta O P, Murty S S N and Koteswara Rao A B 2009 Effect of process parameters and mathematical model for the
prediction of bead geometry in pulsed GMA welding The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 45 496–505
[14] Nakhaei M R, Mostafa Ara N B and Naderi G 2013 Application of response surface methodology for weld strength prediction in laser
welding of polypropylene/clay nanocomposite Iran. Polym. J. 22 351–60
[15] Gunaraj V and Murugan N 1999 Application of response surface methodology for predicting weld bead quality in submerged arc
welding of pipes Journal of Material Processing Technology 88 266–75
[16] Etesami S A, Enayati M H, Karimzadeh F and Rasta V 2015 Investigating the properties of friction welded 2014 aluminum joints
prepared with different rotational speeds Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 68 479–89
[17] Lakshiminarayanan A K and Balasubramanian V 2009 Comparison of RSM with ANN in predicting tensile strength of friction stir
welded AA7039 aluminum alloy joints Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 19 9–18
[18] Ajith P M, Husain T M A, Sathiya P and Aravindan S 2015 Multi-objective optimization of continuous drive friction welding process
parameters using response surface methodology with intelligent optimization algorithm Journal of Iron Steel Research International 22
954–60
[19] Palanivel R and Koshymathews P 2012 Prediction and optimization of process parameter of friction stir welded AA5083−H111
aluminum alloy using response surface methodology Journal of Central South University 19 1–8
[20] Paventhan R, Lakshminarayanan P R and Balasubramanian V 2011 Prediction and optimization of friction welding parameters for
joining aluminium alloy and stainless steel Transactions of Nonferrous Material Society of China 21 1480–5
[21] Balta B, Arici A A and Yilmaz M 2016 Optimization of process parameters for friction weld steel tube to forging joints Materials and
Design 103 209–22
[22] Kumar R and Balasubramanian M 2011 Application of response surface methodology to optimize process parameters in friction
welding of ti–6al–4v and ss304l rods Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 25 3625–33

12