Friction stir welding: A sustainable manufacturing process

Abstract

Sustainable manufacturing aims at the effective and efficient utilization of resources and energy with minimum impact on the environment. Sustainable manufacturing includes enforcing energy-efficient and eco-friendly manufacturing techniques. Welding is an important manufacturing process that is used to fabricate complex structures. Fusion welding involves the use of consumables in the form of filler materials, electrode coatings, shielding gases, or fluxes leading to the formation of hazardous fumes which have a serious impact on both environment and human health. Friction stir welding (FSW) being a solid-phase joining process is regarded as one of the energies efficient and eco-friendly manufacturing processes and is so-called green manufacturing technology as it ensures no emission of harmful gasses or radiations to the environment. FSW has found its applications in various areas including aerospace, locomotives, marines, automobiles and so more. This paper explores the sustainability manufacturing characteristics of the FSW process and explains in detail the potential benefit of FSW in various industries in the future subjected to its characteristics of energy-efficient and environment friendliness.

Full text

Friction stir welding: A sustainable manufacturing process
Tanveer Majeed
a,
⇑
, Mohd Atif Wahid
b
, Md Nadeem Alam
c
, Yashwant Mehta
a
, Arshad Noor Siddiquee
c
a
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technical Campus, Greater Noida, Delhi, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India
article info
Article history:
Received 18 March 2021
Received in revised form 30 March 2021
Accepted 3 April 2021
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Friction stir welding
Fusion welding
Sustainability
Energy efficient
Environment friendly
abstract
Sustainable manufacturing aims at the effective and efficient utilization of resources and energy with
minimum impact on the environment. Sustainable manufacturing includes enforcing energy-efficient
and eco-friendly manufacturing techniques. Welding is an important manufacturing process that is used
to fabricate complex structures. Fusion welding involves the use of consumables in the form of filler
materials, electrode coatings, shielding gases, or fluxes leading to the formation of hazardous fumes
which have a serious impact on both environment and human health. Friction stir welding (FSW) being
a solid-phase joining process is regarded as one of the energies efficient and eco-friendly manufacturing
processes and is so-called green manufacturing technology as it ensures no emission of harmful gasses or
radiations to the environment. FSW has found its applications in various areas including aerospace, loco-
motives, marines, automobiles and so more. This paper explores the sustainability manufacturing char-
acteristics of the FSW process and explains in detail the potential benefit of FSW in various industries in
the future subjected to its characteristics of energy-efficient and environment friendliness.
Ó2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 3rd International Conference on Futuristic Trends
in Materials and Manufacturing.
1. Introduction
Manufacturing may be defined as the process of converting raw
materials into final products to meet the specifications or expecta-
tions of consumers. The current competitive manufacturing pro-
cess enforces process efficiency, optimum utilization of resources
and energy with minimum impact on the environment. Sustain-
able manufacturing includes the manufacturing of products that
rely on processes that are energy-efficient, eco-friendly, economi-
cally sound, and conserve resources, safe for employees, con-
sumers and communities. Sustainable manufacturing aims at the
reduction or elimination of harmful gases, wastes, and conserva-
tion of natural resources with energy-efficient processing includ-
ing minimum impact on the environment. Welding is an
important manufacturing process to fabricate complex products/
structures. Sustainable welding leads to maximum process effi-
ciency, minimum environmental impact, maximum energy effi-
ciency, optimum resource utilization, and minimum wastage of
resources [1].Fig. 1 represents the factors affecting the sustainabil-
ity of the welding process. Conventional fusion welding (FW) pro-
cesses such as arc welding, gas welding, and laser welding involve
a large amount of heat input (energy) during the welding process
and result in the formation of various weld defects such as cracking
and porosity during the solidification process [2]. Furthermore,
conventional FW involves the use of consumables as fillers and
emission of harmful gases or radiations leading to inefficient uti-
lization of resources and adverse impact on the environment. In
brief, we can conclude that conventional FW is not a suitable,
energy efficient and eco-friendlier joining process.
To encounter the challenges in conventional FW techniques;
solid-state welding processes such as friction welding, diffusion
welding, and friction stir welding (FSW) were discovered. FSW is
a solid-state welding process in which a non-consumable round
rotating tool is used to join similar or dissimilar materials [3].
Fig. 2 illustrates the FSW process along with standard nomencla-
ture. FSW is a suitable joining process to join materials that are
considered unweldable by conventional FW processes. Further-
more, FSW is considered an environmentally friendlier, energy-
efficient, versatile, and economically sound joining technique and
is so-called green technology as it ensures zero emission of harm-
ful gasses or radiations to the environment [4]. FSW as a branch of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.025
2214-7853/Ó2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 3rd International Conference on Futuristic Trends in Materials and Manufacturing.
⇑
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tanveer_02phd18@nitsri.net (T. Majeed).
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr
Please cite this article as: T. Majeed, Mohd Atif Wahid, Md Nadeem Alam et al., Friction stir welding: A sustainable manufacturing process, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.025

the manufacturing process is used to join unweldable aluminum
alloys (2xxx and 7xxx series). Furthermore, FSW is considered as
the promising approach to join similar or dissimilar equal/unequal
thickness material below the melting point which in turn over-
comes the limitations of conventional FW techniques such as solid-
ification cracking, porosity, hydrogen embitterment, and slag
inclusions. Based on applications and advantages, FSW has
obtained widespread attention in recent years in various areas
including aerospace, locomotives, marine ships, automotive, and
so on. The present study aims to investigate the different sustain-
able aspects of FSW and how it will offer a sustainable manufactur-
ing process to various industries in the future.
2. Eco-friendlier aspect of fusion welding
The sustainable welding process has enforced the energy-
efficient, eco-friendly and optimum utilization of resources with
minimum impact on the environment. Modern welding processes
rely on the use of green technologies with minimum effect on
the environment. FW involves the coalescence of similar/dissimilar
materials by heating the workpieces to their melting point with or
without the use of filler material and with or without the applica-
tion of pressure [5]. During FW a significant amount of energy
(heat) is required to bring the materials to their joining/melting
temperatures leading to the susceptibility of the joint to various
defects such as porosity and cracking. Besides, a significant amount
of energy in the form of radiation is lost to the environment during
the solidification of the weld resulting in an undesirable impact on
the environment. Furthermore, the use of filler materials, fluxes,
electrode coatings (as flux), and shielding gases during FW leading
to generations of fumes, emission of harmful gases, and radiations
to the environment. The emission of harmful fumes gases, and
radiations having a hazardous impact on human health and the
environment. Arc welding includes high temperature with con-
sumable electrodes and fluxes or shielding gas leading to the for-
mation of fumes, vaporization of alloying elements, and
condensation of vapours causing adverse impact on the environ-
ment. Moreover, arc welding is incapable to join dissimilar materi-
als, composites, non-metallic materials, and shape memory alloys
affecting the process efficiency of arc welding [6]. The low energy
density of the FW process results in the wider heat affected zone
(HAZ), reduction in strength, high distortion, and high level of
solidification defects. In submerged arc welding (SAW) and
shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), the use of flux is essential
as per the required technology; leading to the formation of fumes
and condensation of vapours to solid particles creates health haz-
ards and also affects the eco-friendly aspect of sustainable manu-
facturing. Moreover, flux used in SAW cannot be used again and
the energy consumption is more as compared to other arc welding
techniques. The use of shielding gases despite flux as the atmo-
spheric shield in gas metal arc welding (GMAW), gas tungsten
arc welding (GTAW), and plasma arc welding (PAW) has elimi-
nated the formation of fumes. However, it affects the economic
aspect of green technology as shielding gases are more expensive
than fluxes. GMAW, GTAW, and PAW all operate with shielding
gases to prevent the weld from atmospheric contaminants. How-
ever, the shielding gas generates fumes that are cytotoxic and bio-
toxic increasing the risk of lung cancer in the welder. Laser welding
is a process efficient and eco-friendlier operate at high welding
speed are easy to automate, controlled focus on localized area
and flexible power diffraction system. Laser welding is also capable
to apply to conductive materials, non-conductive materials, dis-
similar materials, different thickness materials, nano, micro, and
macro components represent its process efficiency or process flex-
ibility. However, laser welding is not energy efficient welding tech-
nique as the overall power consumption is more, and usually is
associated with shielding gases as a protective atmosphere creat-
ing a hazardous impact on the environment but the effect is less
adverse in comparison to arc welding. On the other hand, electron
beam welding (EBW) is more energy-efficient and eco-friendly in
comparison to laser welding as in EBW joining takes place in a vac-
uum, thus preventing the weld/joint contamination from atmo-
spheric contaminants. However, the vacuum limits the
dimensions of the workpiece, and materials that retain magnetic
properties create a problem. Also, the process cost such as machine
hour rate, welding time, productive time, and the cost factor is not
comparable. Also, as the material becomes more intricate in chem-
ical composition to provide better specific functional properties;
conventional FW is incapable to provide optimal efficiency and
effectiveness in joining these materials. There is a requirement of
either producing new welding techniques or modify the current
conventional welding techniques by modifying or hybridizing
them with other welding techniques to make the welding process
energy-efficient, eco-friendlier, economical, and process efficient.
Campbell et al. [7] reported that the automatic self-regulating
shielding gas device in GMAW has reduced the cost by 50% by
reducing shielding gas flow without compromising the weld qual-
ity. Tseng [8] used the genetic algorithm (GA) based optimization
algorithm in resistance spot welding by using a combination of
process parameters such as weld-on time, electrode force, sheet
thickness, and current, and achieved the minimum energy con-
sumption without compromising the weld quality. Thus it is clear
that by developing an automatic system or modifying the welding
Fig 1. Factors affecting the sustainability of the welding process.
Fig 2. Schematic diagram of FSW process [3].
T. Majeed, Mohd Atif Wahid, Md Nadeem Alam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
2

equipment or using a range of welding process parameters, the
economic, eco-friendlier, energy-efficient, waste minimization,
and process efficient aspects of sustainability of FW can be
improved.
3. Sustainable manufacturing aspects of FSW
There is an emerging demand for novel welding techniques that
are sustainable, eco-friendlier, and economic, and process efficient.
The aforementioned aspects make FSW a globally accepted green
manufacturing technology [9]. FSW being so-called green technol-
ogy is a novel solid-state joining technique consisting of the non-
consumable rotating tool with a specially profiled pin that is
plunged into the faying surfaces until the tool shoulder touches
the workpiece surface. After a specified dwell, the tool is advanced
along the joint line at predetermined process parameters such as
welding speed, rotational speed, tool tilt angle, tool offset, and so
on to accomplish the welding process. The heat required for joining
is produced by the combined effect of friction between the tool and
workpiece; pin and workpiece and by plastic deformation of the
workpiece material. As the tool moves forward along the weld line
the pin stir and moves the plastically deformed material from the
leading side to the trailing side where in combination with the
forging action of the tool shoulder results in a solid-state joint
behind the tool pin. FSW is a novel welding technique bearing
worldwide applications especially in the fabrication of lightweight
aluminium structures. FSW is widely used to join so-called
unweldable aluminum alloys such as 2xxx and 7xxx alloy series
that find a wide range of applications in space shuttles, automo-
biles, aircraft wings, and panels. FSW finds extensive applications
in various industries such as aerospace-aircraft, shipbuilding, loco-
motives, and automotive industries [10]. Since the joining takes
place below the melting point, the joints are free from solidifica-
tion defects like porosity and cracking. Furthermore, no fluxes,
shielding gases, filler materials are used in FSW leading to less
adverse impact on the environment. Also, the formation of unnec-
essary phases in microstructure by mixing of base and filler mate-
rial in FW is avoided in FSW. Besides in FSW, the energy
consumption is less as compared to FW. FSW finds wide interest
in rocket fuel tanks, Boeing; external fuel tanks, aerospace struc-
tures. FSW has replaced 70% of the rivets in aircraft thus reducing
the cost, materials, overall weight, and increase in the production
rate of commercial aircraft. The sustainability of the FSW process
is quantified in terms of optimum utilization of resources, mini-
mum specific energy consumption, and minimum emission of
harmful gasses, maximum reduction of wastes, maximization of
recycling, and maximization of renewable energy. Mathematically
modeling and simulation of FSW to design optimum process
parameters has resulted in the reduction of trial and error experi-
ments for obtaining an optimum range of parameters leading to
optimum utilization of resources and cost reduction by reducing
the experimentation time. Fig. 3 represents the sustainability
approach of FSW process.
3.1. Eco-friendly aspect of FSW
FSW is called eco-friendly as it is free from consumables, shield-
ing gases, fumes, smoke, or radiations that have an adverse impact
on the environment and the health of persons involved. The com-
mon health disorders associated with FW include irritation of the
nose, eyes, and throat, pulmonary edema, and Parkinson’s disease.
The disorders are caused due to fumes, shielding gases, sparks, and
flash, x-rays, infrared rays, and ultrasonic rays generated during
FW. On the other hand, FSW ensures zero-emission of smoke or
ultraviolet, x-ray, or infrared radiations. FSW is named green tech-
nology as it does not affect the ecosystem in any way in the form of
water pollution, air pollution, soil pollution, and noise pollution.
Kumarana et al. [11] compared the eco-friendly aspect of FSW with
GMAW and reported that material wastage, labour cost, consum-
ables, mass, and power utilization are more in GMAW as compared
to FSW. In addition to lower temperatures in FSW, there is low
energy consumption, maximum resource utilization, minimum
emission of harmful gases, less health hazards, and lower environ-
mental impacts as compared to conventional and modern FW pro-
cesses. Matczak and Gromiec [12] investigated the particulate
matter (PM) 0.8 particulate emission in welding Al5083 in an 8-
hour shift and reported the average emission of 1 mg/m
3
to
3.6 mg/m
3
. Cole et al. [13] investigated the PM 5 particulates in
GMAW of AA6061 and estimated the average of 14.1 mg/m
3
for
Al5356 wire and 12 mg/m3 for Al 4043 wire. Pfefferkorn et al.
[14] investigated the emission of PM 2.5 particulates of 0.015–
0.022 mg/m
3
for Al 5083-H111 and 0.018–0.029 mg/m
3
for Al
6061-T6. From the above discussion, it is can be concluded that
particulate emission in FSW is much lower than GMAW process.
3.2. Economic aspect of FSW
The efficiency of the joining process depends on the extent to
which the efforts or time is utilized for performing the joining task.
To improve efficiency and reduce cost, the joining process requires
automation and robotization; the main factors that increase the
welding efficiency and reduce error in performing the particular
welding process are automation and shifting from manual to semi-
automatic to fully automatic joining. Automation and robotization
reduce labour input, and eliminates human involvement thereby
reducing the risk of accidents that may otherwise occur. As far eco-
nomic aspect of the FSW process is concerned; the mathematical
modeling and numerical simulation of FSW process parameters
have resulted in minimizing the number of experiments to be per-
formed for obtaining optimum process parameters. Therefore, the
material usage, emission of radiations, process cost, time, and
energy consumption can be considerable reduced in the FSW pro-
cess by obtaining the optimum process parameters by these math-
ematical techniques. For instance, Norwegian extrusion company
reported that FSW prefabricated panels for shipyards resulted in
the reduction of man-hour per ton rate by 15%. The airbus Boeing
company reported a 60% cost saving and 26% reduction in produc-
tion time in designing of FSW fabricated Delta IV and Delta II for
satellite launch vehicles. The US army’s cargo interface pallet for
slippers reported that the FSW process reduced the cost of sand-
wich assembly fabrication cost from 61% to 91%. The high repro-
ducibility and minimum distortion make FSW an economically
attractive joining technique. FSW also finds wide application in
the fabrication of panels in the marine and aerospace industry.
FSW is easily automatic than arc welding which involves difficul-
ties such as arc stability and arc gap. The automation of the FSW
process makes it an economical welding process as compared to
conventional and advanced FW processes. Mononen et al. [15] car-
ried out the cost analysis of FSW with GMAW based on machine
investment cost, patent licensing cost, consumable cost, tooling
cost, and production time and reported that the overall cost of
GMAW was more as compared to FSW. Defalco et al. [16] com-
pared the FSW and GMAW based on cost and estimated that the
capital cost of FSW is more as compared to GMAW; however, the
cost per unit length was 1.6 times lower than GMAW owing to
low pre-preparation processing cost and high welding speed.
3.3. Energy efficient aspect of FSW
Since in FSW process, the joining takes place below the melting
point of base materials leading to lower energy consumption in
T. Majeed, Mohd Atif Wahid, Md Nadeem Alam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
3

FSW in comparison to FW which involves the melting of base
materials resulting in higher energy input. Dawood et al. [17] com-
pared the FSW process with the GMAW and investigated that for
the same weld strength, the energy consumption for GMAW was
four times larger than in the FSW process. Furthermore, GMAW
resulted in wider HAZ and large emission of greenhouse gases as
compared to that of FSW process. Shrivastava et al. [18] made a
comparison between FSW and GMAW based on energy consump-
tion and environmental impact and concluded that FSW consumes
42% less energy, produced 31% less greenhouse gases, consumes
10% less material than GMAW for the same joint strength. Fig. 4
illustrates the energy consumption in FSW and GMAW processes.
Lakshminarayanan et al. [19] compared the FSW with GMAW
and GTAW process using aluminium AA6061 based on heat input.
It was reported that heat input in FSWed joints was 2 times and 1.5
times lower than for GMAW and GTAW respectively. Additionally,
joint strength of FSWed joints was 34% and 15% higher than
GMAW and GTAW processes respectively. The microstructural
and mechanical properties of FSW joints are far better than FW
and require no pre-or post-heat treatment. Thus FSW process
proves an energy-efficient welding process. Honda motors Co. Ltd
announced the robotization of FSW in joining aluminium to steel
has resulted in a reduction in energy consumption by 50% as com-
pared to GMAW. It was also reported that energy expenditure in
FSW is 2.5% less as compared to laser welding resulting in overall
power saving. From the above literature, it was concluded that
FSW is an energy-efficient process and consumes less energy as
compared to FW techniques.
3.4. Process efficient aspect of FSW
FSW is used to join lightweight materials like alloys of magne-
sium, aluminium that are widely used to construct aerospace
structures, shipbuilding panels, rocket fuel tanks, high-speed
trains, and light vehicles. For instance, Fjellstrand, a Norwegian
shipbuilding company reported the FSW prefabricated panels used
in shipbuilding has reduced the production time from 10 months
to 6 months i.e., 40% increase in production capacity. US defense
company; General Dynamics Land System reported that the FSW
process has resulted in a reduction of process/cycle time upto
400%, and had enhanced ballistic result tests. Eclipse Aviation Cor-
poration of Albuquerque, New Mexico has replaced 7000 rivets and
fasteners by FSW process in Eclipse 500 and claimed that in Eclipse
500 the FSW besides eliminating the drilling operation in riveting
has resulted in high joining speeds (20 times) as compared to man-
ual riveting. Prasad and prassana [20] investigated the microstruc-
ture and microhardness of FSW and GMAW and reported that HAZ
in GMAW was wider due to high heat input during the GMAW pro-
cess. FSW requires no pre-processing preparation of plates even for
50 mm thick welds. Furthermore, FSW requires no post-processing
operation due to the absence of filler material that otherwise
requires grinding or machining and low temperature experienced
during the welding process leading to low thermal distortion
[21]. The low distortion incorporated in FSW has led to the fabrica-
tion of modern car bodies of the train such as Hitachi in 2000
where FSW has resulted in cost-effective fabrication of high integ-
rity, and high-speed train car bodies. Texier et al. [22] investigated
the fatigue strength of GMAWed and FSWed joints using AA6011-
Fig 3. Schematic diagram illustrating the sustainability of FSW process.
Fig 4. Energy consumption in FSW and GMAW in various stages [18].
T. Majeed, Mohd Atif Wahid, Md Nadeem Alam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
4

T6 and observed that fatigue strength at 2 million and 10 million
cycles was 10% and 20% higher for FSWed joint as compared to that
of GMAWed joints. Suresh et al. [23] investigated the stress corro-
sion cracking resistance of FSW and GMAW processes of marginal
steel and observed that FSWed joints have better stress corrosion
cracking resistance as compared to GMAWed joints. Lailesh et al.
[24] studied the influence of FSW and FW processes on mechanical
properties, microstructure, and crystallographic structure of mild
steel. It was observed that FSWed joints exhibit higher yield
strength and tensile strength in addition to higher elongation
due to fine dynamically recrystallized grains in the nugget zone
(NZ). Zhen-bo et al. [25] studied the influence of FSW and GTAW
processes on mechanical properties of Al-Mg-Mn-Sc-Zr alloy and
reported that high welding co-efficient, joint strength, and elonga-
tion of FSWed joints as compared to GTAWed joints.
4. Limitations of FSW
Besides the potential advantages of FSW, there are various
limitations in its real applications [26]. For instance, FSW is
not a suitable welding technique to join high melting point
alloys/materials. Joining higher melting point materials by FSW
requires costlier tool materials that can withstand higher operat-
ing temperatures and should possess high hot-hardness. Also, the
joining of unequal thickness similar/dissimilar materials of
higher thickness ratio’s by the FSW process results in joints with
lower weld quality. The FSW process ends with an exit hole that
leads to the wastage of a significant amount of material/re-
sources. Unlike FW, the FSWed joints are associated with various
joint defects such as tunneling defects, kissing bond defects, JLR
defects, void defects, hooking defects, and excess flash that dete-
riorate the joint properties. Defect formation in FSW is caused by
an improper combination of process parameters leading to insuf-
ficient heat generation, inadequate material mixing, and incom-
plete material consolidation behind the pin. Moreover, FSW
requires complex fixture requirements for holding the base
materials during the welding process. Besides, FSW is less flexi-
ble as compared to the conventional FW process and is not cap-
able of joining in complex joint configurations. In addition to
this, the FSW process involves a higher initial cost as compared
to the FW process. However, the FSW process can be made more
reliable by hybridizing the FSW process with other joining tech-
niques, by automation and robotization of FSW to make it more
process efficient and economic for welding high strength
materials.
5. Conclusion
FSW bears potential applications in various industries. How-
ever, there are few limitations to the FSW process and needed to
be addressed. The major conclusions drawn from the above study
are enlisted below:
1. Sustainable manufacturing aims at the reduction or elimination
of harmful gases, wastes, and optimum utilization of natural
resources with energy-efficient processing involving minimum
impact on the environment.
2. Sustainable welding aims at maximizing process efficiency,
minimizing environmental impact, maximizing energy effi-
ciency, optimizing resource utilization, and minimizing
wastage of resources.
3. FW being a flexible joining process but involves the use of filler
materials, fluxes, electrode coatings (as flux), and shielding
gases leading to generations of fumes, emission of harmful
gases, and radiations to the environment.
4. FSW is an environment friendlier joining technique as it elimi-
nates the use of consumables in the form of shielding gases,
fluxes, filler materials, electrode coatings which generates haz-
ardous fumes contaminating the natural earth’s atmosphere as
in the form of air pollution.
5. FSW is an economically efficient process as it involves the
mathematical modeling and simulation of process parameters
which minimizes the number of trial experiments, cost, mate-
rial usage, and energy.
6. FSW is an energy-efficient joining technique as compared to FW
as the joining takes place below the melting temperature of
base materials, reducing the considerable amount of energy.
7. FSW is a process-efficient process involving no pre or post-
processing operations; low thermal distortion and low energy
consumption.
8. Despite the various advantages of the FSW process it is also
subjected to certain limitations and the process of hybridizing,
automation, and robotization of FSW can offset some of its
limitations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tanveer Majeed: Writing original draft. Mohd Atif Wahid:
Methodology. Md Nadeem Alam: Conceptualization. Yashwant
Mehta: Supervision. Arshad Noor Siddiquee: Writing review and
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.
References
[1] K.P. Mehta, Sustainability in welding and processing, innovations in
manufacturing for sustainability, Mater. Forming Machining Tribol. (2018)
125–145, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03276-0-6.
[2] S. Bag, E.T. Akinlabi, Eco-friendly aspects in hybridization of friction stir
welding technology for dissimilar metallic materials, Encycl. Renewable
Sustainable Mate. 1 (2020) 225–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
803581-8.11153-1.
[3] R.S. Mishra, Z.Y. Ma, Friction stir welding and processing, Mater. Sci. Eng., R 50
(1-2) (2005) 1–78.
[4] R. Nandan, T. Debroy, H. Bhadeshia, Recent advances in friction-stir welding –
Process, weldment structure and properties, Prog. Mater. Sci. 53 (6) (2008)
980–1023.
[5] J. Bonvoisin, R. Stark, G. Seliger, Field of research in sustainable manufacturing.
In: Sustainable manufacturing. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,
3(2017) 1-20.
[6] K.S. Sangwan, C. Herrmann, P. Egede, V. Bhakar, J. Singer, Life cycle assessment
of arc welding and gas welding processes, Procedia CIRP 48 (2016) 62–67.
[7] S.W. Campbell, A.M. Galloway, N.A. McPherson, Techno economic evaluation of
reducing shielding gas consumption Ngmaw whilst maintaining weld quality,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 63 (2012) 975–985.
[8] H.Y. Tseng, Welding parameters optimization for economic designusing neural
approximation and genetic algorithm, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 27 (2006)
897–901.
[9] EA. El-Danaf, MM. El-Rayes, Microstructure and mechanical properties of
friction stir welded 6082 AA in as welded and post weld heat treated
conditions. Materials & Design. 46 (2013) 561-72.
[10] Z.Y. Ma, Friction stir processing technology: a review, Metallurgical and
Materials Transactions A (39A) (2008) 642–659.
[11] S.S. Kumarana, S. Muthukumarana, D. Venkateswarlua, G.K. Balajia, S. Vinodh,
Eco friendly aspects associated with friction welding of tube-to-tube plate
using an external toolprocess, Int. J. Sustainable Eng. 5 (2011) 120–127.
[12] W. Matczak, J. Gromiec, evaluation of occupational exposure to toxic metals
released in the process of aluminum welding, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 17 (4)
(2002) 296–303.
[13] H. Cole, S. Epstein, J. Peace, Particulate and gaseous emissions when welding
aluminum alloys, J. Occupational Environ. Hygiene 4 (9) (2007) 678–687.
[14] F.E. Pfefferkorn, D. Bello, G. Haddad, J.Y. Park, M. Powell, J. McCarthy, K.L.
Bunker, A. Fehrenbacher, Y. Jeon, M.A. Virji Abbas, G. Gruetzmacher, M.D.
Hoover, Characterization of exposures to airborne nanoscale particles during
T. Majeed, Mohd Atif Wahid, Md Nadeem Alam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
5

friction stir welding of aluminum, Ann. Occupational Hygiene 54 (2010) 486–
503.
[15] J. Mononen, M. Siren, H. Hanninen, Cost comparison of FSW and MIG welded
aluminum panels, Welding in the World 47 (2003) 32–35.
[16] J. Defalco, Friction stir welding vs fusion welding, Welding J. 85 (2006) 42–44.
[17] H.I. Dawood, K.S. Mohammed, M.Y. Rajab, Advantages of the green solid state
FSW over the conventional GMAW process, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014 (2014)
1–10.
[18] S. Amber, K. Manuela, F.E. Pfefferkorn, Comparison of energy consumption and
environmental impact of friction stir welding and gas metal arc welding form
aluminum, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 9 (2015) 159–168.
[19] A.K. Lakshminarayanan, V. Balasubramanian, K. Elangovan, Effect of welding
processes on tensile properties of AA6061 aluminum alloy joints, Int. J. Adv.
Manufacturing Technol. 40 (2009) 286–296.
[20] A.B. Prasad, P. Prasanna, Experimental comparison of the MIG and friction stir
processes for AA 6061(Al Mg Si Cu) aluminium alloy, Int. J. Mining Metallurgy
Mech. Eng. 1 (2013) 137–140.
[21] M.A. Wahid, Z.A. Khan, A. N. Siddiquee, A review on Friction stir welding: A
variant of friction stir welding with great potential of improving joint
properties, Transaction of non-ferrous metals society of China, 28 (2018)
193-2019.
[22] D. Texier, F. Atmani, P. Bocher, F. Nadeau, J. Chen, Y. Zedan, N. Vanderesse, V.
Demers, Fatigue performances of FSW and GMAW aluminum alloys welded
joints: Competition between microstructural and structural-contact-fretting
crack initiation, Int. J. Fatigue 116 (2018) 220–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2018.06.020.
[23] D. Suresh, Meshrama, G. Paradkara, R. Madhusudhan, P. Sunil, Friction stir
welding: an alternative to fusion welding for better stresscorrosion cracking
resistance of maraging steel, J. Manuf. Processes 25 (2017) 94–103.
[24] K. Laileshr, K. Yazar, P. Sudipt, Effect of fusion and friction stir welding
techniques on the microstructure, crystallographic texture and mechanical
properties of mild steel, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 754 (2019) 400–410.
[25] H.E. Zhen-bo, P.E.N.G. Yong-yi, Y.I.N. Zhi-min, L. Xue-feng, Comparison of FSW
and TIG welded joints in Al-Mg-Mn-Sc-Zr alloy plates, Trans. Nonferrous Met.
Soc. China 21 (8) (2011) 1685–1691.
[26] M.A. Wahid, A.N. Siddiquee, Z.A. Khan, T. Majeed, N. Sharma, Friction stir
welding of AA5754 in water and air: a comparative study, Mater. Res. Express
6 (2018) 1–19.
T. Majeed, Mohd Atif Wahid, Md Nadeem Alam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
6