The use of the friction stir welding (FSW) process as a relatively new solid-state welding technology in the aerospace industry has pushed forward several developments in different related aspects of this strategic industry. In terms of the FSW process itself, due to the geometric limitations involved in the conventional FSW process, many variants have been required over time to suit the different types of geometries and structures, which has resulted in the development of numerous variants such as refill friction stir spot welding (RFSSW), stationary shoulder friction stir welding (SSFSW), and bobbin tool friction stir welding (BTFSW). In terms of FSW machines, significant development has occurred in the new design and adaptation of the existing machining equipment through the use of their structures or the new and specially designed FSW heads. In terms of the most used materials in the aerospace industry, there has been development of new high strength-to-weight ratios such as the 3rd generation aluminum–lithium alloys that have become successfully weldable by FSW with fewer welding defects and a significant improvement in the weld quality and geometric accuracy. The purpose of this article is to summarize the state of knowledge regarding the application of the FSW process to join materials used in the aerospace industry and to identify gaps in the state of the art. This work describes the fundamental techniques and tools necessary to make soundly welded joints. Typical applications of FSW processes are surveyed, including friction stir spot welding, RFSSW, SSFSW, BTFSW, and underwater FSW. Conclusions and suggestions for future development are proposed.

This study presents results of experimental tests on quality of dissimilar welded joints between 316L austenitic and 2304 lean duplex stainless steels, welded without ceramic backing. Fiber laser welded butt joints at a thickness of 8 mm were subjected to non-destructive testing (visual and penetrant), destructive testing (static tensile test, bending test, and microhardness measurements) and structure observations (macro- and microscopic examinations, SEM, element distribution characteristics, and ferrite content measurements). Non-destructive tests and metallographic examinations showed that the welded joints meet the acceptance criteria for B level in accordance with EN ISO 13919–1 standard. Also the results of the destructive tests confirmed the high quality of the joints: specimens were fractured in base material with lower strength—316L austenitic stainless steel and a 180° bending angle was obtained confirming the high plasticity of the joints. Microscopic examination, SEM and EDS analysis showed the distribution of alloying elements in joints. The microhardness of the autogenous weld metal was higher by about 20 HV0.2 than that of the lean duplex steel. Ferrite content in the root was about 37% higher than in the face of the weld. The Schaeffler phase diagram was used to predict the phase composition of the welded joints and sufficient compliance with the magnetic method was found. The presented procedure can be used for welding of 316L–2304 stainless steels dissimilar welded joints of 8 mm thickness without ceramic backing.

In this article, the mechanical properties and microstructure of 304L austenitic stainless steel/Incoloy 800HT nickel alloy dissimilar welded joints are investigated. The joints were made of 21.3 mm × 7.47 mm tubes using the TIG process with the use of S Ni 6082 nickel filler metal. No welding imperfections were found and high strength properties of joints were obtained, meeting the assumed acceptance criteria of the product’s standards. The tensile strength of the welded joints was higher than for the joined materials (Incoloy 800HT). Macro- and microscopic metallographic tests revealed the correct morphology of the joints and the appropriate structures in their critical zones. However, differences were found in the morphologies of the zones between the weld and the base materials. In fusion boundary from the side of the Incoloy 800HT alloy, no clear outline of the fusion line was observed (type A fusion boundary), while increased grain size and an epitaxial structure were observed. In turn, in the zone: weld–304L steel, a distinct fusion line was observed with areas with an increased amount of high-temperature δ ferrite (type B fusion boundary). No precipitates were found that could reduce the resistance of the joints to intergranular corrosion. A hardness decrease (approximately 30 HV0.1) in the transition zone: austenitic steel–weld and an increase of hardness (approximately 10 HV0.1) on the opposite side of the welded joint were observed.

Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) is an additive manufacturing process based on the arc welding process in which wire is melted by an electric arc and deposited layer by layer. Due to the cost and rate benefits over powder-based additive manufacturing technologies and other alternative heat sources such as laser and electron beams, the process is currently receiving much attention in the industrial production sector. The gas metal arc welded (GMAW) based WAAM process provides a higher deposition rate than other methods, making it suitable for additive manufacturing. The fabrication of mild steel (G3Si1), austenitic stainless steel (SS304), and a bimetallic sample of both materials were completed successfully using the GMAW based WAAM process. The microstructure characterization of the developed sample was conducted using optical and scanning electron microscopes. The interface reveals two discrete zones of mild steel and SS304 deposits without any weld defects. The hardness profile indicates a drastic increase in hardness near the interface, which is attributed to chromium migration from the SS304. The toughness of the sample was tested based on the Charpy Impact (ASTM D6110) test. The test reveals isotropy in both directions. The tensile strength of samples deposited by the WAAM technique measured slightly higher than the standard values of weld filament. The deep hole drilling (DHD) method was used to measure the residual stresses, and it was determined that the stresses are compressive in the mild steel portion and tensile in austenitic stainless steel portion, and that they vary throughout the thickness due to variation in the cooling rate at the inner and outer surfaces.

This article deals with the dissimilar joining of two different grade Cr-Mo steel (2.25Cr-1Mo: P22 and modified 9Cr-1Mo: P91) for power plant application. The dissimilar butt-welded joint was produced for conventional V groove design by using the gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) process with the application of an ERNiCrMo-3 Ni-based super alloy filler. A microstructure characterization was performed to measure the inhomogeneity in the microstructure and element diffusion across the interface in a welded joint. The experiments were also performed to evaluate the mechanical properties of the dissimilar welded joint in as-welded (AW) and post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) conditions. An acceptable level of the mechanical properties was obtained for the AW joint. After PWHT, a significant level of the element diffusion across the interface of the weld metal and P22 steel was observed, resulting in heterogeneity in microstructure near the interface, which was also supported by the hardness variation. Inhomogeneity in mechanical properties (impact strength and hardness) was measured across the weldments for the AW joint and was reduced after the PWHT. The tensile test results indicate an acceptable level of tensile properties for the welded joint in both AW and PWHT conditions and failure was noticed in the weak region of the P22 steel instead of the weld metal.

The purpose of the following study was to compare the effect of the shape of a tool on the joint and to obtain the values of Friction Stir Welding (FSW) parameters that provide the best possible joint quality. The material used was an aluminium alloy, EN AW-3004 (AlMn1Mg1). To the authors’ best knowledge, no investigations of this alloy during FSW have been presented earlier. Five butt joints were made with a self-developed, cylindrical, and tapered threaded tool with a rotational speed of 475 rpm. In order to compare the welding parameters, two more joints with a rotational speed of 475 rpm and seven joints with a welding speed of 300 mm/min with the use of a cylindrical threaded pin were performed. This involved a visual inspection as well as a tensile strength test of the welded joints. It was observed that the value of the material outflow for the joints made with the cylindrical threaded pin was higher than it was for the joints made with the tapered threaded pin. However, welding defects in the form of voids appeared in the joints made with the tapered threaded tool. The use of the cylindrical tool resulted in higher values for about 37% of mechanical properties compared with the highest result for the tapered threaded joint. As far as the parameters were concerned, it was concluded that most of the specimens were properly joined for a rotational speed of 475 rpm. In the joints made with a welding speed of 300 mm/min, the material was not stirred properly. The best joint quality was given for a rotational speed of 475 rpm as well as a variety of welding speed values between 150 and 475 mm/min.