MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409178700 · doi:10.1080/01694243.2025.2483266

A comprehensive review of progressive developments and challenges in dissimilar welding of aluminum and magnesium alloy by friction stir welding

2025· review· en· W4409178700 on OpenAlexaff
Husain Mehdi, Shallender Singh Bhati, Pradeep Kumar Mouria, Subhash Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adhesion Science and Technology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFriction stir weldingWeldingMetallurgyAluminiumMagnesiumAlloyMagnesium alloyComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friction stir welding has emerged as a promising solid state joining technique for aluminum-magnesium alloys, widely used in autmotive, aerospace, and marine industries due to their excellent corrosion and strength-to-weight ratio. This review critically examines the mechanical properties, microstructural evolution of the welded joints. The novelty of this review is the correlation between grain refinement, welding parameters, and tool geometry on microstructural control. Despite these advantages, studies have reported the occurrence of intermetallic compound (IMCs) in FSW of Mg-Al joints, welding parameters, and input heat influence their amount and thickness. It underscores the importance of optimizing weld parameters to minimize the adverse effect of IMCs. While various interfaces in butt joints have been explored, the mechanism of interfacial interaction and ways to enhance joint quality have not been extensively reviewed. The objective of this review paper is to fill that gap by analyzing past research on microstructure interface evolution, joint mechanism, and welding parameters. It was observed that most research has focused on the structural morphology, technological feasibility, and mechanical properties of Al/Mg weldments, with limited attention to environmental degradation and operational failure. Future research must focus on developing strategies for IMC formation, optimizing welding parameters, and enhancing joint efficiency for reliable and sustainable use in industrial applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adhesion Science and TechnologySame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207