Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Study on the weldability and mechanical performance of dissimilar

AA7075-AZ31 alloys in friction stir welding
Umesh Kumar Singh a,⇑, Avanish Kumar Dubey a
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, MNNIT Allahabad, Prayagraj 211004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: AA7075 alloy and AZ31 alloy are light weight structural materials which have high specific strength, but
Available online xxxx weldability of these alloys are poor which restrict their applications. In the present work, joining perfor-
mance of dissimilar AA7075 alloy and AZ31 alloy in butt configuration have been evaluated by Friction
Keywords: Stir Welding at different operating parameters. H13 tool steel, HSS and tungsten carbide have been used
Friction stir welding for tool materials to weld 6.35 mm thick plates. A successful joint was obtained by using tungsten carbide
Tensile strength tool at rotational speed of 900 rpm, traveling speed of 30 mm/min and tool tilt angle of 3°. Optical image
Microstructure
of welded sample shows tunnel, voids and insufficient penetration in pin influenced zone of the weld.
Aluminium alloy
Magnesium alloy
Tensile strength and microhardness of the welded sample were 41.97 MPa and 177.4 Hv, respectively.
Also, intermetallic compounds Al12Mg17 and Al3Mg2 were observed in XRD analysis of stir zone.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Con-
ference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Nanotechnology.

1. Introduction
Both, Aluminium (Al) and Magnesium (Mg) alloys are light
weight structural materials with good specific strength. The com-
binations of these alloys have been utilized in aerospace, automo-
bile and shipbuilding industries for weight reduction, energy
saving and increase design flexibility. In manufacturing industries,
there are many cases in which joining of these two dissimilar
alloys might be needed because of technical and economical pur-
poses. However, the joining of dissimilar Al-Mg alloys by fusion
welding are difficult due to the development of coarse grains and
intermetallic compounds (IMCs) like Al12Mg17 and Al3Mg2 in the
fusion zone [1–3]. Problem associated with fusion welding can be
overcome by Friction Stir Welding (FSW) process, which is a newly
developed technique for welding of materials with energy effi-
ciency and without any use of filler materials [4,5].
FSW is an advanced technique for solid state joining, which was
initially developed for joining of Al alloys, but now FSW is
extended to both ferrous and non-ferrous type metals. The FSW
process was originated in 1991 by The Welding Institute (TWI),
UK. As the name suggests, heat required to produce the welded
joint is generated by friction between the tool shoulder and
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: umeshkumarsingh2008@gmail.com (U.K. Singh).
workpiece. Stirring action by tool plasticizes the material, and pro-
motes a complex flow pattern which produces solid bonding [6,7].
Few studies have been conducted on dissimilar Al alloys [8,9],
dissimilar Mg alloys [10], dissimilar Al and Mg alloys [4,11,12],
and dissimilar steel alloys [13], so far. The influence of processing
parameters and material position during FSW of AA6061 and A390
alloys have been investigate by Eskandari et al. [14]. These investi-
gators found that the material mixing, and atomic diffusion were
more satisfactory when A390 was located on advancing side. In
case of AA6061 on advancing side, these investigators observed
that the impact of strain rate was more when compared with tem-
perature on grain size in stir zone (SZ). Tabasi et al. [15] welded
7075 Al alloy to AZ31 Mg alloy by using nanoparticles of SiC
through FSW and found that the weld quality in the welded zone
was influenced by intermetallic formed. Authors claimed that for
promoting better intermixing in dissimilar joint, the rotational
speed (RS) should be high, and traveling speed (TS) should be
low. Authors also claimed that the development of hard and brittle
IMCs lowered the strength and ductility of weld. Kwon et al. [16]
used FSW for joining of 2 mm thick A5252P-O (advancing side)
and AZ31B-O (retreating side) at a fixed TS of 300 mm/min and
RS ranging from 800 to 1600 rpm. Kwon et al. found maximum
tensile strength of 132 MPa at 1000 rpm. These researchers also
observed that the mixed type of microstructure was produced near
the joined interface. Masoudian et al. [17] joined AZ31-O Mg alloy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.811
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Nanotechnology.

Please cite this article as: Umesh Kumar Singh and Avanish Kumar Dubey, Study on the weldability and mechanical performance of dissimilar AA7075-
AZ31 alloys in friction stir welding, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.811
Umesh Kumar Singh and Avanish Kumar Dubey
(retreating side) and 6061-T6 Al alloy (advancing side) of 3 mm
thickness by the FSW. These research candidates varied RS
between 600 and 1400 rpm and TS between 20 and 60 mm/min,
and they claimed defect free joint at RS of 1000 rpm and TS of
40 mm/min. They observed that the intercalated microstructure
was appeared in some welded region, and uneven variation in
microhardness was noted due to complex flow pattern. Azizieh
et al. [18] fabricated the joint between AZ31 and AA1100 by FSW
and evaluated mechanical and microstructural properties of joint.
Azizieh et al. observed a sound weld when stirring pin offset from
center line to AZ31 side. These research candidates claimed that
formation of intermetallic compound was related to the ratio of
RS to TS. They also observed poor welding at very low and very
high RS due to low material flow and excessive liquation forma-
tion, respectively. Prasad et al. [19] joined AZ91 alloy with
Al6063 alloy by FSW and revealed that the cause of joint produced
between these alloys are mechanical intermixing with improper
metallurgical bonding. Microhardness and microstructural obser-
vation revealed a sharp inter phase between weld nugget zone
and Al6063 base material. Effect of RS and TS are taken to observe
the mechanical and corrosion properties of FSWed dissimilar AZ31
and AA 6061 alloys by Verma et al. [20]. In SZ they observed lamel-
lar shear band of Al and Mg. They also claimed high RS and low tra-
vel speed increases the corrosion resistance.
From research study it is found that the AA7075 is an armour
grade series of Al alloy having hardness and strength higher than
the other (like 5XXX and 6XXX) series of Al alloys, but in terms
of weldability its behavior is poor [21]. AZ series of Mg alloy is
extensively used in engineering applications [10], but poor weld-
ability limits its applications [4]. The main challenge in joining of
Al-Mg alloys is to establish a perfect weld joint. Instead of high
demand of Al-Mg alloys, the literatures on dissimilar AA7075 and
AZ31 alloys are not sufficient to make a concluding remark on
weldability of chosen materials. Hence, in present work, authors
have tried to weld AA7075 Al alloy with AZ31 Mg alloy in butt con-
figuration by FSW to find out the welding conditions at different
processing parameters. A detailed study on microstructural and
mechanical properties of welded joint have also been presented.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental conditions
AA7075 alloy and AZ31 alloy of dimensions
120 mm
55 mm
6.35 mm was used to produce dissimilar joint
by using FSW. The compositions of parent metals are presented in
Table 1. During welding, AA7075 and AZ31 alloys were put on
advancing and retreating side, respectively. The FSW process per-
formed on FSW-3T-NC available at IIT (BHU) Varanasi, India. Pro-
cess parameters for each trial are listed in Table 2. Weld joint
obtained at RS of 900 rpm and TS of 30 mm/min is investigated.
2.2. Testing procedure
For microstructural and mechanical properties, samples were
cut through wire-cut electric discharge machine perpendicular to
the weld direction according to ASTM B557M-15. Tensile test
was performed on tensile testing machine (BISS; Model No.
Table 1
Chemical composition (wt. %) of base metals [1,20].
Alloy Al Mg Zn
AZ31 2.5–3.5 Bal. 0.6–1.4
AA7075 Bal. 2.1–2.9 5.1–6.1
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 2
List of experiments at different process parameters.
Trial No. Process Parameters (RS (rpm), TS (mm/min), Welded Joint
TTA (°), SD (mm), PD (mm), Pin Type, Tool
Material)
1 800, 100, 0.5, 18, 6, cylindrical, H13 Not formed
2 1000, 75, 1.5, 18, 6, cylindrical, HSS Not formed
3 600, 35, 2.5, 18, 6, cylindrical, HSS Not formed
4 1400, 150, 2.5, 18, 6, cylindrical, HSS Not formed
5 1500, 50, 2.5, 15, 4.8, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
6 700, 100, 2.5, 15, 4.8, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
7 600, 75, 2.5, 15, 5, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
8 900, 30, 3, 15, 5, cylindrical taper, WC Formed
9 900, 30, 3.5, 15, 5, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
10 1100, 30, 3, 19, 5, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
11 1000, 30, 3, 19, 5, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
12 900, 30, 3, 19, 5, cylindrical taper, WC Not formed
Bi-05-172) having the load capacity of 25 kN, at the strain rate of
1 mm/min. The evaluation of microhardness was performed on
RADICAL Vicker hardness tester with 15 sec dwell time and
200 g load. Standard procedure was followed for preparation of
metallographic test sample and etching was done according to
ASTM E407 in which Al side of weld cross section was etched with
Keller’s reagent (HF (1 ml) + HNO3 (2.5 ml) + HCl (1.5 ml) + distilled
water (95 ml)) while Mg side of weld cross section was etched with
Picral reagent (CH3COOH (2.5 ml) + (O2N)3C6H2OH (3 g) + C2H5OH
(50 ml) + distilled water (5 ml)). After etching the sample, it was
observed in optical microscopy and scanning electron microscope
(SEM) CARL ZEISS EVO 50. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis (at
0.02° step size and 10 degree per min scan speed by using radiation
of Cu Ka (k = 1.5405 Å)) was also done to identify the presence of
different phases in welded region.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Weld appearance
The trials were started with RS of 800 rpm and TS of 100 mm/
min with H13 tool of 18 mm and 6 mm shoulder diameter (SD)
and pin diameter (PD), respectively at 0.5° tool tilt angle (TTA),
but tool pin get sheared off immediately when tool starts travelling
as shown in Fig. 1(a). We tried the same condition again on the
same sample but this time we observed that no weld joint pro-
duced (Fig. 1(a)) and stirred material was separated from both
the base metals, and the pin was deformed. Then, we tried with
HSS tool of 18 mm and 6 mm SD and PD, respectively at 2.5° TTA
at different process parameters but did not get desired result,
and pin sheared off at 1400 rpm RS and 150 mm/min TS as shown
in Fig. 1(b).
Due to breakage of pin, we started with tungsten carbide (WC)
tool of 15 mm and 4.8 mm SD and PD, respectively at 2.5° TTA to
obtain the joint, but again tool pin broke at RS of 700 rpm and
TS of 100 mm/min as shown in Fig. 2(a). Subsequently, we
increased TTA to 3° and obtained a weld joint at 900 rpm RS and
30 mm/min TS with 5 mm PD as shown in Fig. 2(b).
From visual inspection we observed that the material is not stir
properly. Hence, to increase the stirring effect, we further
Fe Cu Mn Si
– – 0.2 Min. 0.1 Max.
0.5 1.2–2 – 0.4
Umesh Kumar Singh and Avanish Kumar Dubey Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig 1. Experiment (a) trial 1, no weld joint produced, tool deformed; (b) trial 2, no weld joint produced.

increased TTA to 3.5° and remaining other parameters same, but

tool broken into two parts during plunging as shown in Fig. 3.
We also tried with tool of 19 mm and 6 mm SD and PD, respec-
tively at 3° TTA, but not get welded joint. At lower heat input i.e.,
at higher TS and lower RS, material around the tool pin and along
the welding direction did not get plasticised properly. Presence of
unplasticized material exert thrust force on the tool pin, and this
may be the cause for breaking of the tool pin. Since, Al is having
FCC crystal structure (12 slip system) while Mg is having HCP crys-
tal structure (3 slip system) due to which Al has better flowability
as compare to Mg. Hence, due to less flowability of Mg, it offers
more resisting force as compare to Al, and this may be another
cause of breaking the tool pin and improper mixing of stir material.
Also, Al and Mg have different thermal expansion coefficient due to
which they experienced different thermal stresses. Since, brittle
intermetallics are sensitive to cold cracking, and in dissimilar Al-
Mg welding the formation of intermetallics is a major problem.
At the same time, the presence of different thermal stresses initi-
ates the cracks where intermetallics are present, and this may be
the cause of cracking during the welding [18,19].
3.2. Microstructure
In FSW, intense plastic deformation takes place during the pro-
cess, and plastically deformed material experiences different phe-
nomenon when moving both, below the shoulder and away from
the pin. Different materials have different properties due to which
they act differently during the process. During the Al-Mg dissimilar
welding, due to difference in flowability of plasticized materials,
they hinder the proper intermixing required for mechanical bond
formation. The surface morphology of welded zone at 900 rpm
RS and 30 mm/min TS is shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4(a) shows the flow
pattern of material in pin influenced zone (PIZ). From the Fig. 4
Fig 3. Trial 9, both tool shank and tool pin breaks during plunging.
(a), it can be observed that materials are only intermixed in PIZ.
Fig. 4(b, d) and Fig. 4 (c, e) shows the optical and SEM image of
advancing and retreating side, respectively with a continuous crack
line at Al-Mg interfaces. Fig. 4(d, f) show more tunnel, voids and
insufficient penetration (IP) defects in PIZ towards Mg side of the
joint. Fu et al. [22], Zhang et al. [23] and Li et al. [24] have also
reported this type of feature in dissimilar FSW of AA 6061-AZ31B
alloys, AZ31 alloy and AZ91-A383 alloys, respectively. As men-
tioned earlier, Al has more flowability as compare to Mg. In case
of FSW, material which has more flowability should be placed on
retreating side for better strength [25]. But, when we placed Al
on retreating side, no joints were produced. Also, MD et al. [4]
reported the thick layer of intermetallic compound at Al-Mg inter-
face with poor joint strength when Al is placed on advancing side.
Hence, the presence of tunnel defects, voids and IP may be due to
the insufficient flowability during stirring, which may cause
improper intermixing and deposition of material behind the tool.
Cracking of Al-Mg weld interface may be due to the formation of
liquid film i.e., eutectic melting (L) at Al-Mg weld interface, and

Fig 2. Experiment (a) trial 6, tool pin breaks when tool starts travelling; (b) trial 8, weld joint produced.

3
Umesh Kumar Singh and Avanish Kumar Dubey
Fig 4. Optical and SEM images of weld zone (a) material flow pattern in PIZ; (b) Al side of the weld; (c) Al side of the weld; (d) PIZ; (e) PIZ; Mg side of the weld; (f) tunnel,
voids and IP in PIZ of the weld.
after solidification it results in hot cracking and intermetallic for-
mation [18], and this is clearly visible in SEM images shown in
Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 4(e).
Fig. 4(c, e) shows the SEM images of PIZ-Al side and PIZ-Mg side,
respectively. From Fig. 4(c, e), a white band with cracks of avg.
width ~ 200 mm can be seen in between the PIZ-Mg side
while ~ 9.90 mm towards PIZ-Al side. The EDS results of white band
in Fig. 4(e) is shown in Table 3. EDS results shows the probability of
formation of intermetallic compounds in stir material due to ade-
quate amount of heat input. The eutectic reactions between Al and
Mg as per temperature generated during the process are listed in
Eqs. (1) and (2) [26]:
L ! Mg ðSÞ þ Al12 Mg 17 ðSÞ ðat 437  CÞ
L ! Al ðSÞ þ Al3 Mg 2 ðSÞ ðat 450  CÞ
The Gibbs free energy value for the phase Al12Mg17 is lower
than the phase Al3Mg2 hence Al12Mg17 precipitate first during
solidification [24]. Also, XRD analysis is done to observe the pres-
ence of different phases in SZ. Peaks obtained from the XRD anal-
Table 3
EDS results of white band in Fig. 4(e).
Point Composition (wt.%)
O Mg
1 63.87 34.67
2 45.06 40.48
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
ysis shows the existence of intermetallic compounds Al3Mg2 and
Al12Mg17 in welded zone as shown in Fig. 5. Microscopy image of
bottom side of weld zone shows alternate bright and dark layers
of intermixed base materials, and this is the interpenetrating fea-
ture (IPF) zone [1] as shown in Fig. 4(d, f).
3.3. Microhardness
The microhardness of the welded sample was measured at
2 mm depth from top surface and the distance between two con-
secutive indentations were 0.75 mm and measured values are
shown in Fig. 6. The base metals AA7075 and AZ31 have micro-
hardness of 172 Hv and 66 Hv, respectively. The highest micro-
ð1Þ hardness value 177.4 Hv is obtained at weld centre line and this
value is not much higher as compared to base metal AA7075. An
intercalated structure along with intermetallics in PIZ are obtained.
ð2Þ
The intermixing of materials which formed an intercalated struc-
ture in the SZ may be the cause of fluctuation [24]. Moreover, the
value of microhardness measured across the weld direction shows
the uneven variation, and this variation is due to (1) high deforma-
tion (plastic) which leads to grain refining [27], and (2) the
Interpretation
Al Cu Zn
1.31 0.23 0.10 Solid solution of Al in Mg matrix
11.40 0.28 2.77 Oxide + Al12Mg17-Phase
4
Umesh Kumar Singh and Avanish Kumar Dubey
Fig 5. XRD pattern for Al-Mg dissimilar welded zone.
Fig 6. Microhardness graph of weld zone at rotational speed of 900 rpm, travelling
speed of 30 mm/min and 3° tool tilt angle.
development of intermetallic compound in the SZ. Grain refine-
ment can be explained by Hall–Petch relation and according to
which hardness increases with decrease in grain size. In case of
Fig 7. Tensile strength (a) comparison of tensile strength; (b) fractography of welded sample; (c) specimen of 100 mm length according to ASTM B557M-15; (d) tensile tested
sample.
5
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
intermetallics, Orowan mechanism can be followed. According to
Orowan mechanism, intermetallics increases the hardness [4].
However, maximum variation is shown on Al side as compared
to Mg side and this is because of temperature distribution on
retreating side is more uniform as compare to advancing side
[24]. The dissolution, coarsening and reprecipitation of strengthen-
ing particles because of thermal cycle in SZ away from PIZ, and
hence the value of microhardness is decreased as compare to base
metal [28,29].
3.4. Tensile strength
Many authors have worked on Al-Mg FSW, some of them
reported good result and some of them reported average result
[25,28]. Authors [22–24] reported problem similar to our case i.e.,
improper bond formation between Al-Mg alloys. Tensile strength
obtained in present work has the value of 41.97 MPa, which is very
poor as compare to base material as shown in Fig. 7(a). The welded
sample breaks from interface present in SZ of Al-Mg alloy during
tension test. The welded joint breaks immediately after application
of load i.e., at very low amount of tensile load. When tensile load is
applied on the sample then due to the crack, tunnel defect present
Umesh Kumar Singh and Avanish Kumar Dubey
at bottom side of weld and lack of penetration as well as intermix-
ing at Al-Mg interface, material get separated from interface which
is the main cause of lower strength of welded joint. This lower ten-
sile strength represents improper metallurgical bonding between
these two alloys. The SEM image of fractured surface of the sample
was taken to observe the type of failure. The fractured surface
topography is shown in Fig. 7(b). This fractography shows feature
less surface which represents the poor consolidation [30] i.e., poor
metallurgical bonding of Al-Mg materials. A continuous crack line
and hard particles are also present in fractured surface. This poor
metallurgical bonding represents pity intermixing.
4. Conclusions
FSW of dissimilar AA7075 aluminium and AZ31 magnesium
alloys are tried. In all these trials only one sample is successfully
welded. The microstructural and mechanical properties of weld
joint are evaluated, and the observations may be summarised as
follows:
 The tool material suitable for 6.35 mm plate is WC in present
study though it also breaks during the process.
 The maximum microhardness is obtained in weld nugget zone,
and has value of 177.4 Hv which is more than both the parent
metals.
 The interfaces have cracks due to which it breaks immediately
after application of load during tensile testing, and the tensile
strength obtained is 41.97 MPa.
 The weldability of dissimilar AA7075 aluminium and AZ31
magnesium alloy is very poor because of poor metallurgical
bonding due to the difference in flowability and formation of
intermetallic compounds.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Umesh Kumar Singh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data
curation, Investacjigation, Writing - original draft. Avanish Kumar
Dubey: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Authors want to acknowledge UGC, New Delhi, India and
MNNIT Allahabad, Prayagraj, India under TEQIP-III scheme for pro-
viding the research assistantship and Dr. M. Z. Khan Yusufzai
(Associate Professor), Mr. Avinash Ravi Raja and Mr. Mithlesh from
Mech. Eng. Dept., IIT (BHU) Varanasi, U.P., India for conducting the
experiments.
References
[1] P. Venkateswaran, A.P. Reynolds, Factors affecting the properties of friction stir
welds between aluminium and magnesium alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 545
(2012) 26–37.
[2] Y.S. Sato, S.H.C. Park, M. Michiuchi, H. Kokawa, Constitutional liquation during
dissimilar friction stir welding of Al and Mg alloys, Scr. Mater. 50 (9) (2004)
1233–1236.
[3] K.P. Mehta, V.J. Badheka, A review on dissimilar friction stir welding of copper
to aluminum: Process, properties, and variants, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (3)
(2016) 233–254.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[4] S. MD, A.K. Birru, Mechanical and metallurgical properties of friction stir
welded dissimilar joints of AZ91 magnesium alloy and AA 6082–T6 aluminium
alloy, J. Magnes. Alloy. 7 (2) (2019) 264–271.
[5] S. Sinhmar, D.K. Dwivedi, Effect of weld thermal cycle on metallurgical and
corrosion behavior of friction stir weld joint of AA2014 aluminium alloy, J.
Manuf. Process. 37 (2019) 305–320.
[6] R.S. Mishra, Z.Y. Ma, Friction stir welding and processing, Mater. Sci. Eng. R
Reports. 50 (1-2) (2005) 1–78.
[7] Z. Shen, Y. Ding, J. Chen, L. Fu, X.C. Liu, H. Chen, W. Guo, A.P. Gerlich,
Microstructure, static and fatigue properties of refill friction stir spot welded
7075–T6 aluminium alloy using a modified tool, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 24 (7)
(2019) 587–600.
[8] P.L. Niu, W.Y. Li, N. Li, Y.X. Xu, D.L. Chen, Exfoliation corrosion of friction stir
welded dissimilar 2024-to-7075 aluminum alloys, Mater. Charact. 147 (2019)
93–100.
[9] M. Raturi, A. Garg, A. Bhattacharya, Joint strength and failure studies of
dissimilar AA6061-AA7075 friction stir welds: effects of tool pin, process
parameters and preheating, Eng. Fail. Anal. 96 (2019) 570–588.
[10] U.K. Singh, A.K. Dubey, Study of joining performance of dissimilar Mg alloys in
friction stir welding, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406220959096.
[11] Z. Liu, S. Ji, X. Meng, Improving joint formation and tensile properties of
dissimilar friction stir welding of aluminum and magnesium alloys by solving
the pin adhesion problem, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 27 (3) (2018) 1404–1413.
[12] C.L. Yang, C.S. Wu, X.Q. Lv, Numerical analysis of mass transfer and material
mixing in friction stir welding of aluminum/magnesium alloys, J. Manuf.
Process. 32 (2018) 380–394.
[13] A. Tiwari, P. Singh, P. Pankaj, P. Biswas, S.D. Kore, S. Pal, Effect of tool offset and
rotational speed in dissimilar friction stir welding of AISI 304 stainless steel
and mild steel, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 28 (10) (2019) 6365–6379.
[14] M. Eskandari, H. Jamshidi Aval, R. Jamaati, The study of thermomechanical and
microstructural issues in dissimilar FSW of AA6061 wrought and A390 cast
alloys, J. Manuf. Process. 41 (2019) 168–176.
[15] M. Tabasi, M. Farahani, M.K.B. Givi, M. Farzami, A. Moharami, Dissimilar
friction stir welding of 7075 aluminum alloy to AZ31 magnesium alloy using
SiC nanoparticles, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 86 (1-4) (2016) 705–715.
[16] Y.J. Kwon, I. Shigematsu, N. Saito, Dissimilar friction stir welding between
magnesium and aluminum alloys, Mater. Lett. 62 (23) (2008) 3827–3829.
[17] A. Masoudian, A. Tahaei, A. Shakiba, Microstructure and mechanical properties
of friction stir weld of dissimilar AZ31-O magnesium alloy to 6061–T6
aluminum alloy, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 24 (2014) 1317–1322.
[18] M. Azizieh, A. Sadeghi Alavijeh, M. Abbasi, Z. Balak, H.S. Kim, Mechanical
properties and microstructural evaluation of AA1100 to AZ31 dissimilar
friction stir welds, Mater. Chem. Phys. 170 (2016) 251–260.
[19] B.L. Prasad, G. Neelaiah, M.G. Krishna, S.V.V. Ramana, K.S. Prakash, G. Sarika, G.
P.K. Reddy, R. Dumpala, B.R. Sunil, Joining of AZ91 Mg alloy and Al6063 alloy
sheets by friction stir welding, J. Magnes. Alloy. 6 (1) (2018) 71–76.
[20] J. Verma, R.V. Taiwade, C. Reddy, R.K. Khatirkar, Effect of friction stir welding
process parameters on Mg-AZ31B / Al-AA6061 joints, Mater. Manuf. Process.
33 (3) (2018) 308–314.
[21] U.K. Singh, A.K. Dubey, Study of Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Welded
Armour Grade Aluminium Alloy Plates Proceedings of the ASME 2020 15th
International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference 2 (2020).
doi:10.1115/MSEC2020-8349.
[22] B. Fu, G. Qin, F. Li, X. Meng, J. Zhang, C. Wu, Friction stir welding process of
dissimilar metals of 6061–T6 aluminum alloy to AZ31B magnesium alloy, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 218 (2015) 38–47.
[23] H. Zhang, S.B. Lin, L. Wu, J.C. Feng, S.L. Ma, Defects formation procedure and
mathematic model for defect free friction stir welding of magnesium alloy,
Mater. Des. 27 (9) (2006) 805–809.
[24] P. Li, G. You, H. Wen, W. Guo, X. Tong, S. Li, Friction stir welding between the
high-pressure die casting of AZ91 magnesium alloy and A383 aluminum alloy,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 264 (2019) 55–63.
[25] D. Liu, H. Nishio, K. Nakata, Anisotropic property of material arrangement in
friction stir welding of dissimilar Mg alloys, Mater. Des. 32 (10) (2011) 4818–
4824.
[26] J. Mohammadi, Y. Behnamian, A. Mostafaei, H. Izadi, T. Saeid, A.H. Kokabi, A.P.
Gerlich, Friction stir welding joint of dissimilar materials between AZ31B
magnesium and 6061 aluminum alloys: microstructure studies and
mechanical characterizations, Mater. Charact. 101 (2015) 189–207.
[27] U.K. Singh, A.K. Dubey, Welding of dissimilar Mg alloys using indigenously
developed friction stir welding set-up, Mater. Today Proc. (2020), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.008.
[28] D. Hernández-García, R. Saldaña-Garcés, F. García-Vázquez, E.J. Gutiérrez-
Castañeda, R. Deaquino-Lara, D. Verdera, Friction stir welding of dissimilar
AA7075-T6 to AZ31B-H24 alloys’, Int. Mater. Res. Congr. XXVI 2 (2017) 4055–
4063.
[29] J.-Q. Su, T.W. Nelson, R. Mishra, M. Mahoney, Microstructural investigation of
friction stir welded 7050–T651 aluminium, Acta Mater. 51 (3) (2003) 713–
729.
[30] C. Sharma, V. Upadhyay, D.K. Dwivedi, P. Kumar, Mechanical properties of
friction stir welded armor grade Al–Zn–Mg alloy joints, Trans. Nonferrous Met.
Soc. China 27 (3) (2017) 493–506.