Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Investigation on dissimilar underwater friction stir lap welding

of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy to pure copper
Jingqing Zhang, Yifu Shen , Xin Yao, Haisheng Xu, Bo Li
College of Materials Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA), Yudao Street 29, 210016 Nanjing, PR China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 15 June 2014
Accepted 18 July 2014
Available online 26 July 2014
Keywords:
Underwater
Friction stir welding
Dissimilar
Temperature history
Intermetallic compounds

a b s t r a c t
Friction stir welding (classical FSW) is considered to offer advantages over the traditional fusion welding
techniques in terms of dissimilar welding. However, some challenges still exist in the dissimilar friction
stir lap welding of the aluminum/copper (Al/Cu) metallic couple, among which the formation of the
AlCu intermetallic compounds is the major problem. In the present research, due to the fact that the
formation and growth of the intermetallic are signicantly controlled by the thermal history, the underwater friction stir welding (underwater FSW) was employed for fabricating the weld, and the weld
obtained by underwater FSW (underwater weld) was analyzed via comparing with the weld obtained
under same parameters by classical FSW (classical weld). In order to investigate the effect of the external
water on the thermal history, the K-type thermocouple was utilized to measure the weld temperature,
and it is found that the water could decrease the peak temperature and shorten the thermal cycle time.
The XRD results illustrate that the interface of the welds mainly consist of the AlCu intermetallic compounds such as CuAl2 and Cu9Al4 together with some amounts of Al and Cu, and it is also found that the
amount of the intermetallic in the underwater weld is obvious less than in the classical weld. The SEM
images and the EDS line scan results also illustrate that the AlCu diffusion interlayer at the AlCu interface of the underwater weld was obviously thinner than that of the classical weld.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many hybrid components have been widely used in aerospace,
nuclear, transportation and electronics industries, especially for
the aluminum/copper (Al/Cu) metallic couple. However, the physical and mechanical properties of both metals are signicantly
different. As a consequence, some challenges still exist in the dissimilar welding. The major problem arises from the chemical afnity at temperatures higher than 120 C, which could lead to the
formation of the Al/Cu brittle intermetallic phase and low melting
point eutectics [1]. Thus, the solid joining processes have been considered as the qualied welding methods for these metals [2,3].
Friction stir welding (FSW) is a novel solid joining technology
invented by the welding institute (TWI) in 1991 [4]. This welding
technology has initially been developed for aluminum alloys, and
soon spread to many other materials and materials combinations.
Since its discovery, FSW technique has been widely applied in
aerospace, shipbuilding, electronics and railway industries [57].

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 025 84895940; fax: +86 2552112626.

E-mail addresses: jingqing_zhang@hotmail.com (J. Zhang), yifushen@nuaa.edu.
cn (Y. Shen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.036
0261-3069/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Comparing with the conventional fusion joining techniques,

FSW owns many advantages [8]. During this welding process the
peak temperature is lower than the metal melting point, and it
has the excellent ability to weld dissimilar metals. Since its discovery, many researchers have focused on the dissimilar FSW.
Abdollah-Zadeh et al. [9] studied the microstructural and
mechanical properties of friction stir welded aluminum/copper
lap joints. They observed the various microstructures with different
morphologies and properties in the stir zone. It is found that Cu9 Al4,
CuAl and Cu Al2 are the main intermetallic compounds formed in
the interfacial region. A high heat input could increase the amount
of intermetallic compounds and then decreased the mechanical
properties. Even so, the heat input should not be too low, because
an extremely low heat input could result in the imperfect joint. Ouyang et al. [10] investigated the microstructural evolution in the
friction stir welded 6061 aluminum alloy (T6-temper condition)
to copper. They concentrated on the relationship between the temperature distribution and the intermetallic. It is also found the intermetallic compounds such as CuAl2, CuAl and Al4Cu9 together with
small amounts of a-Al and the saturated solid solution of Al in Cu
exist in the mechanically mixed region. The primary dendrites of
a-Al, CuAl2, CuAl and the eutectic of a-Al/CuAl2 are formed in the
weld nugget during solidication. They perfectly explained the

J. Zhang et al. / Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

phases present in the welds basing on the AlCu binary phase diagram. Galvo et al. [1] analyzed the inuence of aluminum alloy
type on dissimilar friction stir welding of aluminum to copper. They
chosen the AA 6068 (a heat-treatable aluminum alloy) and the AA
5083 (a non-heat treatable aluminum alloy to be friction stir lap
welded to copper. They studied the differences in welding results
of the two type aluminum basing on the macro and microscopic
analysis, and obtained many useful and meaningful conclusions
for the investigation on the friction stir lap welding of aluminum
to copper.
Despite the excellent ability of the FSW for jointing dissimilar
Al/Cu metals, intermetallic compounds are still a major problem.
From the previous works, it can be concluded that three factors
inuence the welding results. Primarily, a suitable ow of the softened material contributes to the complete formation of the weld.
Extremely low rotational speed or high welding speed always
results in imperfect joints. Secondly, cracking tends to incidence
in intermetallic-rich zones, which is the major reason for the premature failure of dissimilar Al/Cu friction stir welds. The formation
and growth of intermetallic compounds depend on the local peak
temperature and the length of the incubation period, respectively.
Low welding temperature and short incubation time could contribute to decrease the amount of the brittle intermetallic compounds.
Thirdly, during the FSW, which is also a hot working process, the
dynamic recovery and recrystallization mechanisms are still
applied [11], thus, it is necessary to control the formation and
growth of the grain. For the classical FSW process, it is difcult
to take the three factors into account at the same time. However,
this situation would become different when the process is
conducted in a water circumstance, because the external liquid
accelerates the heat dissipation, and then affects the thermal
cycles. This modied FSW process is named underwater friction
stir welding (underwater FSW) [9]. For the convenience of discussion, the weld obtained by classical FSW is called classical weld
and that obtained by underwater FSW is called underwater weld.
In recent years, the underwater FSW has been demonstrated to
be available for the strength improvement of classical welds. Liu
et al. [12] studied the mechanical properties of underwater FSWed
2219 aluminum alloy. They found that compared with the classical
weld the tensile strength of the underwater weld can be indeed
improved, however, the plasticity is deteriorated. Then they further
investigated the effect of welding speed and rotation speed on
microstructures and mechanical properties of underwater FSWed
2219 aluminum alloy [13,14]. The results reveal that the precipitate
deterioration in the thermal mechanically affected zone and the
heat affected zone is weakened with the increase of welding speed,
which leading to a narrowing of softening region and an increase in
lowest hardness. It is also found that the joint welded at lower rotation speed tends to be fractured in the SZ, and at higher rotation
speeds, the hardness increase in the stir zone (SZ) makes the fracture locations of defect-free joints move to the thermalmechanically affected zone (TMAZ) or heat affected zone (HAZ). Zhao et al.
[15] analyzed the microstructure and mechanical properties of
spray formed 7075 aluminum alloy by underwater friction stir
welding. The results show that tensile strength and hardness of
the underwater weld are higher than that of the classical weld,
and the underwater weld has a ne grained microstructure without
S line defect. Zhang et al. [16] developed a three-dimensional heat
transfer model of underwater FSW of high strength aluminum alloy.
The simulation and experimental results indicate that, in contrast to
the classical weld, the maximum peak temperature of underwater
weld is signicantly lower, although the surface heat ux of the
shoulder is higher during the respective welding process. It is also
found that the high-temperature area could be dramatically
reduced, and the welding thermal cycles in different zones could
be effectively controlled by the external liquid (owing water).

75

Currently, Al/Cu underwater FSW has been less explored than

the Al/Cu classical FSW, especially for the lap welding. In the present work, based on the potential industrial applications of this
metallic couple, a feasibility investigation of lap joining 6061 aluminum alloy to pure copper by underwater FSW was performed.
The thermal histories, macrostructure and intermetallic compounds of the underwater weld were analyzed by comparing with
the classical weld.
2. Experimental procedures
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the pure copper plate (2 mm-thick,
100 mm-width, 200 mm-length) was placed at the top of 6061-T6
aluminum alloy plate (8 mm-thick, 100 mm-width, 200 mmlength), this conguration enables copper cladding over small
areas. [1]. In order to better study the underwater FSW process,
under the same welding parameters (as listed in Table 1), two
experiments were conducted under water and in air, respectively.
The friction stir welding tool consists of two parts: the concave
shoulder and the conical unthreaded pin. The tool schematic sketch
is shown in Fig. 2 and the tool shape dimensions are presented in
Table 2.
For the dissimilar (underwater) friction sir lap welding process,
the thermal history and peak value at the interface of the two metals signicantly inuenced the welding results. Thus, in this investigation, K-type thermocouples were utilized to measure the
temperature. The schematic diagrams of thermocouples locations
are shown in Fig. 3. The thermal histories of classical FSW were
measured by thermocouples K1, K2 and K3, and the thermal histories of underwater FSW were monitored by thermocouples Ka, Kb
and Kc. It is noteworthy that the temperature distribution between
the advancing side (AS) and retreating side (RS) is asymmetric, and
it is skewed to the AS and toward the leading edge of the tool [17
19]. Considering this asymmetric temperature distribution, the
thermocouples were located in the AS.
After welding, the welds were characterized by the optical
microscopy, the X-ray diffraction (XRD), and the energy dispersive
spectroscopy (EDS).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Thermal histories
During the FSW process, the weld heat is principally generated
at the tool shoulder by the frictional heating, and the friction coefcient is adjusted so that the peak temperature did not exceed the
melting temperature, thus, in the present work, the heat was
mainly generated by the friction between the copper and the tool
shoulder, and due to the heat absorption capacity of water is rather
higher than that of air, the two FSW process present obviously different thermal cycle characters.
The thermal histories of classical FSW and underwater FSW are
shown in Fig. 4a and b, respectively. It can be found that the peak
temperature exists within the region close to the tool pin, and for
the classical FSW it is 850 K while for the underwater FSW it is
821 K. It is worth mentioning that the melting point of the Al
Cu eutectic or some of the AlCu hypo-eutectic and hyper-eutectic
alloys is 825 K [10,20]. In the case of the peak temperature, during the classical FSW process, the high temperature (850 K) and
long incubation time (15 s) could lead the formation and growth
of the AlCu eutectic alloys. However, for the underwater FSW, the
external water distinctly decreased the peak temperature value,
and it should be able to prevent the formation of the intermetallic.
In addition, comparing with the classical FSW thermal history
(Fig. 4a), the measured temperature of the underwater FSW

76

J. Zhang et al. / Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of underwater FSW (water lled the sink) and classical FSW (no water in the sink).

Table 1
The FSW parameters in this investigation.
Parameter

Value

Welding velocity, v
Tool angular velocity, n
Plunge depth, w

30 mm/min
1000 rpm/min
0.2 mm

two parts: the boiling water and the non-boiling water. Within
the boiling water region, some water could be vaporized, and the
region nearer the tool the more vaporization occurred and
the high-temperature vapor weaken the cooling inuence. When
the heat generation and the heat dissipation get a quasi-steady
state, the temperature of the work-piece far away the tool would
nally become steady (420 K for the classical FSW and 310 K
for the underwater FSW).
3.2. Macrostructure observations

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the tool.

Table 2
Dimensions of the tool.
Parameter

Value (mm)

Shoulder radius, R1
Pin top radius, R2
Pin bottom radius, R3
Pin length, h

8
2
1.5
4

changed quickly when the tool reached and left the thermocouples,
this drastic temperature change lasted 25 s, the temperature of
the position that far away from the tool is low (310 K) and changed slightly, as shown in Fig. 4b. In other words, within the region
near the tool, the heating rate and the cooling rate of the underwater FSW are both higher than that of classical FSW, and the high
rates can shorten the hot working time. In fact, during FSW
process, the dynamic recovery and recrystallization always occur
concomitantly with large-strain deformation, thus, the external
water should also be able to inhibit the growth of the grains [11].
Another interesting conclusion can be drawn from Fig. 4 is that
the cooling inuence of the owing water increases from the joint
line to the edge of the work-piece. The reason is that during the
underwater FSW the water around the tool can be divided into

Fig. 5 shows the welds surface of classical and underwater FSW.

Signicant differences can be observed by comparing Fig. 5a with
b. The different surface colors indicate that an obvious copper
oxidation occurred in the classical weld surface, while almost no
oxidation occurred in the underwater weld surface. The main reason for this phenomenon is that the copper could easily react with
the oxygen under a high temperature, and the external water could
prevent the copper exposing in the air. Thus, comparing with the
classical FSW, the underwater FSW has the advantage of preventing oxidation.
Fig. 6 shows the etched weld cross-sections. Although the two
welds were formatted of same materials and under the same
parameters, different mixing conditions can be observed by comparing Fig. 6a with b. For the classical FSW, the welded interface
of dissimilar metals almost in a line with the originally assembled
interface, while for the underwater FSW the two metals obviously
inserted in each other. In other words, during the classical FSW
process material mainly owed in the horizontal direction, but
for the underwater FSW process material also signicantly owed
in the vertical direction. It can be explained as follows. During the
FSW process the material ow is complex, and this ow can be
decomposed in the horizontal and vertical directions [21,22]. In
the present work, however, the tool pin was conical and
unthreaded, thus material ow in vertical is not dramatic. The
material ow in vertical direction is mainly controlled by two factors: the plunge press and the frictional coefcient. For the classical
and underwater FSW, the plunge press is set to be same. The frictional coefcient depends on the temperature, and it decreases
with the temperature rises [23]. For the classical FSW, the material
in front of the tool was preheated by the weld heat and it would be
softened before touching with the tool. As a consequence, the friction became weak thereby material ow mainly occurred in the
horizontal direction. For the underwater FSW, due to the inuence
of the water, the material could keep in a lower temperature, and
the frictional coefcient was higher than that during the classical
FSW. Thus the material ow in vertical direction is stronger during
underwater FSW than classical FSW. This reason could also be used

J. Zhang et al. / Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

77

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the thermocouples positions.

900

(a)

850

K1
K2
K3

Melting point of Al-Cu eutectic

800
750

Temperature (K)

700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fig. 5. Weld surface macrographs of (a) classical FSW (b) underwater FSW.

Time (Sec)
900
850

(b)

Ka
Kb
Kc

Melting point of Al-Cu eutectic

800

Temperature (K)

750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (Sec)
Fig. 4. Thermal histories of (a) classical FSW, (b) underwater FSW.

for explaining why the defects of the two FSW process located in
different positions.
3.3. Phase identications
Fig. 7 shows the X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrums at fracture
interfaces of the dissimilar metals welds. The XRD results illustrate
that the interface of the classical and underwater welds mainly

consist of the AlCu intermetallic compounds such as CuAl2 and

Cu9Al4 together with some amounts of Al and Cu. Variations of
intermetallic compounds, Cu and Al peaks demonstrate the complex mixing of the aluminum and copper grains in the weld zone
[10]. In the sense of the respective intensity that compared with
the strongest peak, more of the CuAl2 and Cu9Al4 intermetallics
were detected in the classical weld than underwater weld. From
the XRD spectrum of the classical weld, the strong CuAl2 peaks
indicate that during the classical FSW process a sufcient interaction between Al and Cu occurred. It can be explained by the thermal histories (as shown in Fig. 4a). During this process, the
aluminum and copper were welded under the conditions that
include dramatic plastic deformation and hot working. And the
temperature higher than the melting point of AlCu eutectic
(825 K) lasted 16 s. Moreover, the materials were cooling under
a slow rate. The two major reasons contributed for the formation
and growth of the eutectics. When this welding process was conducted under the water, however, the external liquid decreased
the peak temperature to 820 K, which is lower than the melting
point of AlCu eutectic. Whats more, the water also accelerated
the cooling rate. Thus, during the underwater FSW, the amount
of the AlCu intermetallic compounds was signicant inhibited.
It is delightful to draw the conclusion that compared with the
classical FSW the underwater FSW also has the advantage of
inhibiting the amount of brittle intermetallic compounds. It should
be noted that though the peak temperature during the underwater
FSW process was low than 825 K, there were still some AlCu
intermetallic in the weld interface. Two reasons could explain it.
First, the measured error inevitably existed in the temperature

78

J. Zhang et al. / Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

Fig. 6. Etched weld cross-section macrographs of (a) classical FSW (b) underwater
FSW.

Cu
CuAl2

Intensity (a.u.)

Classical FSW

Al
Cu9 Al4

Underwater FSW

16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92
2 ( ))
Fig. 7. X-ray diffraction spectrums at fracture interfaces of the stir zone.

result, and in general, the measured temperature is slightly lower

than the true one. Second, during the FSW process, the severe plastic deformation of the material could increase the density of the
lattice defect and the dislocation, and then promotes the diffusion
of the atom. Whats more, the strong inuence of stirring could
provide the extra energy for the reaction between the aluminum
and copper [11].
3.4. Microstructure analyses
Fig. 8 gives the SEM images of the partial classical and underwater FSWed interfaces, as marked by the region A and region B in
Fig. 6a and b, respectively. The SEM results indicate that, for the

Fig. 8. SEM images of (a) the localized region A marked in Fig. 6a and (b) the
localized region B marked in Fig. 6b.

classical FSW an obvious AlCu diffusion interlayer appeared at

the weld interface, while for the underwater FSW the AlCu interface is distinct. From the EDS line scan results, as shown in Fig. 9, it
is further indicated that the AlCu diffusion interlayer in the classical weld is 18 lm, which is much thicker than that in the
underwater weld (only 2 lm). The SEM and EDS results show
good agreement with the XRD results. It is worth mentioning that,
for the underwater FSW process, the 2 lm diffusion interlayer
has some kind of special meanings. First of all, compared with
the classical FSW, it is proved that the external water could
decrease the thick of the AlCu interlayer, which could contribute
to decrease the amount of the brittle AlCu intermetallics and
improve the mechanical properties of the weld. In addition, the
thin diffusion interlayer indicates that an effective joint formatted
between the two matrices.
From Fig. 8, it is also found that, during the classical FSW process a lot of Cu fragments came into the Al matrix, while during
the underwater FSW process the amount and size of this Cu fragments were less and smaller. This phenomenon was mainly inuenced by the viscosity. For the classical FSW, the peak temperature
was higher than the underwater FSW, thus the viscosity of the
material being welded was obviously lower than the underwater
FSW, and the lower viscosity of the Al material allowed the Cu fragments more easily stirred into. Another interesting phenomenon is
that for both the classical and underwater FSW, almost no Al fragments stirred into the Cu matrix. This can be explained by two factors. First, the melting point of the copper is higher than the
aluminum, and under the same temperature, the softening degree
of the aluminum is stronger than the copper, i.e., the viscosity of

79

J. Zhang et al. / Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

(a)

20
15
10

Cu
5

Intensity

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

140
120
100

Al

80
60
40
20
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

(b)

25
20
15

Cu

10

Intensity

5
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

250
200
150

Al

100
50
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Distance (m)
Fig. 9. Main element proles by EDS line scan detection in (a) Fig. 8a and (b) Fig. 8b.

the aluminum is lower than that of the copper, Thus it is more easily for the Cu fragments being stirred into the Al matrix than the
opposite situation. Second, the density of the copper is bigger than
that of the aluminum, and in the present work, the pure copper
plate was placed at the top of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy plate, and
under the effect of the gravity, it is more easily for the Cu fragments stirred into the Al matrix.
4. Conclusions
The dissimilar underwater friction stir lap welding of 6061-T6
aluminum alloy to pure copper was investigated via comparing
with the classical FSW process under the same parameters. From
the analysis in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Thermal histories of the classical and underwater FSW were
measured by K-type thermocouples. The results show that
the external water could decrease the peak temperature

and shorten the hot working time (i.e. shortened the thermal
cycling time). In this study, for the classical FSW the peak
temperature was 850 K while for the underwater FSW it
was 821 K.
(2) During the underwater FSW process, the external water
could prevent the weld from oxidizing. And during the classical FSW process material mainly ow in the horizontal
direction, but for the underwater FSW process material also
signicantly ow in the vertical direction.
(3) The XRD results illustrate that the interface of the classical
and underwater welds mainly consist of the AlCu intermetallic compounds such as CuAl2 and Cu9Al4 together with
some amounts of Al and Cu, and the intermetallics were less
in the underwater weld than in the classical weld.
(4) For the classical FSW an obvious AlCu diffusion interlayer
(18 lm in thick) appeared at the weld interface, while for
the underwater FSW this interlayer was much thinner
(2 lm in thick).

80

J. Zhang et al. / Materials and Design 64 (2014) 7480

Acknowledgement
The study work of this paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51075205).
References
[1] Galvo I, Verdera D, Gesto D, Loureiro A, Rodrigues DM. Inuence of aluminium
alloy type on dissimilar friction stir lap welding of aluminium to copper. J
Mater Process Technol 2013;213:19208.
[2] Midling OT, Grong U. A process model for friction welding of AlMgSi alloys
and AlSi alloys and AlSiC metal matrix composites-I. HAZ temperature and
strain rate distribution. Acta Metall Mater Trans 1994;42:1595609.
[3] Yibas BS, Sahin AZ, Kahraman N, Al-Garni AZ. Friction welding of steelAl and
AlCu materials. J Mater Process Technol 1995;49:43143.
[4] Thomas WM, Nicholas ED, Needham JC, Murch MG, Templesmith P, Dawes CJ,
et al. Patent Application No. 9125978.8; 1991.
[5] Zhao J, Jiang F, Jian HG, Wen K, Jiang L, Chen XB. Comparative investigation of
tungsten inert gas and friction stir welding characteristics of AlMgSc alloy
plates. Mater Des 2010;31:30611.
[6] Cavaliere P, Cabibbo M, Panella F, Squillace A. 2198 AlLi plates jointed by
friction stir welding: mechanical and microstructural behavior. Mater Des
2009;30:362231.
[7] Thomas WM, Nicholas ED. Friction stir welding for the transportation
industries. Mater Des 1997;18:26973.
[8] Mishra RS, Ma ZY. Friction stir welding and processing. Mater Sci Eng R
2005;50:178.
[9] Abdollah-Zadeh A, Saeid T, Sazgati B. Microstructural and mechanical
properties of friction stir welded aluminium/copper lap joints. J Alloy Compd
2008;460:65788.
[10] Ouyang JH, Yarrapareddy E, Kovacevic R. Microstructural evolution in the
friction stir welded 6061 aluminum alloy (T6-temper condition) to copper. J
Mater Process Technol 2006;172:11022.

[11] McNelley TR, Swaninathan S, Su JQ. Recrystallization mechanisms during

friction stir welding/processing of aluminum alloys. Scripta Mater
2008;58:34954.
[12] Liu HJ, Zhang HJ, Huang YX, Yu L. Mechanical properties of underwater friction
stir welded 2219 aluminum alloy. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China
2010;20:138791.
[13] Liu HJ, Zhang HJ, Yu L. Effect of welding speed on microstructures and
mechanical properties of underwater friction stir welded 2219 aluminum
alloy. Mater Des 2011;32:154853.
[14] Zhang HJ, Liu HJ, Yu L. Microstructure and mechanical properties as a function
of rotation speed in underwater friction stir welded aluminum alloy joints.
Mater Des 2011;32:44027.
[15] Zhao Y, Wang QZ, Chen HB, Yan K. Microstructure and mechanical properties
of spray formed 7055 aluminum alloy by underwater friction stir welding.
Mater Des 2014;56:72530.
[16] Zhang HJ, Liu HJ, Yu L. Thermal modeling of underwater friction stir welding of
high strength aluminum alloy. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China
2013;23:111422.
[17] Zhang JQ, Shen YF, Li B, Xu HS, Yao X, Kuang BB, et al. Numerical simulation
and experimental investigation on friction stir welding of 6061-T6 aluminum
alloy. Mater Des 2014;60:94101.
[18] Cho HH, Hong ST, Roh JH, Choi HS, Kang SH, Steel RJ, et al. Three-dimensional
numerical and experimental investigation on friction stir welding processes of
ferritic stainless steel. Acta Mater 2013;61:264961.
[19] Chen GQ, Shi QY, Li YJ, Sun YJ, Dai QL, Jia JY, et al. Computational uid
dynamics studies on heat generation during friction stir welding of aluminum
alloy. Comp Mater Sci 2013;79:5406.
[20] ASM Handbooks, vol. 3. Alloy phase diagrams, ASM International, Materials
Park, Ohio; 2002.
[21] Hamilton C, Dymek S, Blicharski M. A model of material ow during friction
stir welding. Mater Charact 2008;59:120614.
[22] Neto DM, Neto P. Numerical modeling of friction stir welding process: a
literature review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2013;65:11526.
[23] Hamilton C, Dymek S, Sommers A. A thermal model of friction stir welding in
aluminum alloys. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 2008;48:112030.