Special Issue:

Ships

Navy Experts Explain the Newest Material & Structural Technologies

AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Administered by the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Technical Information Center

The issue you hold in your hands has been 14 months in the making. It began with a simple idea: turn the spotlight on the age-old art of building ships. We wanted to show the exciting new technologies that are offering novel materials for ship construction, changing the way ships are built, and indeed creating one of the most fundamental shifts in Navy combatants since steel replaced wood. This simple mission turned out to be much more complex. The project underwent a number of different iterations, but finally settled in and came together. It has been a labor of love for yours truly, for I really do believe that even though airplanes and tanks often grab the spotlight, Navy ships are still the most challenging structural and materials engineering systems fielded in todays military. Nothing has the complexity, impact, size, and sheer force of a fighting vessel, nor can many things capture the imagination in quite the same way. So here it is, finally, and I am thankful that it is done. Not just because it is off my desk and I can get on to the next project, but we are proud because AMPTIAC has compiled something that probably has not existed before: an overview of the newest technologies being incorporated into structures and materials for use aboard Navy combatants. And the people providing the perspective are the experts at the Office of Naval Research, NSWC-Carderock, and the Naval Research Lab. You wont find this level of detail, variety, and expert content focused on this subject anywhere else. That all being said, there is one critical feature of this publication that needs some attention: the DOD center behind it. Some of you out there have been reading this publication for seven years now. You undoubtedly remember about two years ago when we shifted over to our current layout format and full

Editorial: Theres More to AMPTIAC than the Quarterly

color reproduction. You also have probably noticed that we are publishing these large special issues fairly often. It is all a part of our mission to bring you the most in-depth, focused, and technologically exciting coverage of Defense materials and processing advances available anywhere. But the side effect of the more noticeable and attentiongrabbing Quarterly, is that AMPTIAC itself has lost some attention. The reality is that the center has grown with numerous projects, focused reports, and database efforts over the past few years, but there are many out there that may read this publication and not even know that the center exists. We want to put more emphasis on the other efforts AMPTIAC is involved in, and let our customers and potential customers know that we are here for you. We help with questions, assist in materials selection, and provide consultation on a variety of materials and processing-related issues. We have more than 210,000 DOD technical reports in our library and direct access to hundreds of thousands more throughout DOD, DOE, NASA, and other US Government agencies. We have dozens of focused reports tailored to specific technology areas and many more compiling vast amounts of data into handbook-style resources. The basic message here is to take note of this magazine, read it, and enjoy. But if you think AMPTIAC is just the Quarterly, Think Again.

Wade Babcock Editor-in-Chief http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac

Editor-in-Chief Wade G. Babcock Creative Director Cynthia Long Information Processing Judy E. Tallarino Patricia McQuinn Inquiry Services David J. Brumbaugh Product Sales Gina Nash Training Coordinator Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information Analysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world. Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to
David H. Rose
Director, AMPTIAC 315-339-7023
EMAIL: URL:

amptiac@alionscience.com

h t t p :/ / a m p t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:
AMPTIAC
ATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK 201 Mill Street Rome, New York 13440
PHONE: 315.339.7008 FA X : 3 1 5 . 3 3 9 . 7 1 0 7
EMAIL:

amptiac_news@alionscience.com

Maria Posada, Jennifer P. Nguyen, David R. Forrest, Johnnie J. DeLoach Welding and NDE Branch Robert DeNale Metals Department Survivability, Structures, and Materials Directorate Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center West Bethesda, MD

INTRODUCTION Lighter, stronger, faster: This mantra drives structural materials research and development for Navy systems. Ships that can be quickly deployed, carry larger payloads, reliably withstand the assaults of high sea states, and travel safely through harms way are the ultimate goal of the scientists and engineers working on advanced materials and the technologies for building them. One means of achieving lighter, stronger, and faster ships and submarines is through the introduction of materials with specific property improvements including titanium and aluminum alloys, and higher strength steels. Effectively exploiting these advanced materials for ship construction requires developing effective joining technologies, and friction stir welding (FSW) is an important part of this program. FSW is a rapidly maturing solid state joining process that offers significant benefits over conventional joining processes. Invented by The Welding Institute (TWI) in 1991, FSW uses a combination of frictional heating and compressive loading to join metal plates that are butted against each other and tightly clamped to the anvil of the machine. The process, shown schematically in Figure 1, is initiated by rotating a welding tool (consisting of a shoulder and pin assembly) at speeds up to several X hundred revolutions per minute (rpm) before it is lowered into contact with the Y
a b

plates to be joined. A vertical force (z-axis load) is applied perpendicularly to the joint line, driving the rotating pin into the work piece. Frictional heat is generated at the top surface of the workpiece under the FSW tool shoulder, and in the base material at the interface with the pin. For steels and other higher melting temperature alloys, a small-diameter hole is pre-drilled in the joint line to lessen the forces acting on the welding tool during the plunge. After sufficient dwell time to allow for homogeneous heating and softening of the material, a lateral force (x-axis load) is applied in the direction of travel. Both z- and x-axis loads act on the rotating welding tool as it traverses along the joint line, sweeping the softened material along the periphery of the pin and depositing it in the tools wake. This stirring action, along with the pressure and restraining forces induced by both the tool and fixturing, creates a heavily deformed region of material which upon cooling defines a strong, metallurgical joint that is fine-grained with no entrapped oxides or gas porosity. Characteristics that make solid state joining attractive are included in Table 1. Friction stir welding of relatively low-melting temperature materials, such as alloys of aluminum and magnesium, has matured significantly and is being adopted by the aerospace community. For example, NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center plans to use FSW for constructing Al-Li external fuel tanks, and Eclipse Aviation has used FSW in the fabrication of jet aircraft. The Navy is interested in extending this technology to shipbuilding and optimizing it for joining naval materials, such as carbon steels, stainless steels, titanium alloys and nickel aluminum bronze. FSW FOR SHIPBUILDING For future naval construction, emerging higher strength, stiffness, and toughness steels and stainless steels are of interest. High strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels and AL-6XN are currently being investigated. HSLA-65 steel is an alternative to DH-36 for aircraft carrier construction.

Z
c d

Figure 1. Schematic of FSW Process (left) and a Photo of an Actual FSW Tool (right) (Photo courtesy of University of South Carolina)

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

13

Table 1. Characteristics of Solid State Joining.

Minimization of fume generation since the heat generated during this process remains below the melting temperature of the material Reduced distortion The ability to form strong joints without filler wire Reduced joint preparation and post-weld clean-up Reduced post-weld inspection and rework Various inherent user- and environmentally-friendly properties, such as the ability to be automated
Figure 2. USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51).

With improved property-to-weight ratios, HSLA-65 will theoretically enable thinner-gauge sections to be used, resulting in lighter weight designs. (Please see the accompanying article by Czyryca, et. al. in this issue.) AL-6XN is a high-toughness, nonmagnetic, super-austenitic stainless steel being evaluated as a structural material for Advanced Double Hull (ADH) surface combatants. (Please see the accompanying article by Beach in this issue.) In order to exploit the improved properties of these advanced steels, advanced joining technologies will also be required. Conventional welding techniques applied to large steel plates with thin gauge sections result in unacceptable levels of distortion in the final product that require expensive flame-straightening or rework efforts. For stainless steels, weld distortion is expected to be even greater than for carbon steels due to lower thermal conductivity and higher thermal expansion. Costs associated with distortion correction can be high; for the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)-class ship (Figure 2), flame straightening consumes significant labor costs for each ship constructed.[1] Considering other factors affected by flame straightening operations, such as material costs, interruption of other trades, and increased fitting time, the total cost of not controlling distortion can reach approximately $3.4 million per ship for conventional steel construction and is expected to be greater if austenitic stainless steels are used. Another significant challenge that FSW should overcome is the generation of hexavalent chromium (Cr6+), a known carcinogen. Conventional welding technologies used on stainless steel alloys require melting the workpiece, and consequently generate hexavalent chromium in fumes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is planning to reduce workers permissible Cr6+ exposure limit to 0.5g/m3. Data collected by a joint Navy/Industry task group showed that Cr6+ levels generated during arc welding of both carbon steel and stainless steel exceed the proposed OSHA limit. These requirements will significantly increase fabrication costs; the Navy estimated that the cost of complying with the new Cr6+
14
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

requirement could reach $80M per year for US Navy ship construction after a one time $30M implementation cost. THE R&D PROGRAM In response to these challenges, the Navy is investigating advanced joining methods, including FSW for joining of carbon and austenitic stainless steels. The overall program includes science and technology directed toward advanced equipment development, tool design and tool material development, welding process parameter optimization, and understanding and predicting microstructural and mechanical property evolution during joining. As part of these efforts, the Office of Naval Researchs (ONR) Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH) office investigated friction stir welding of 2519 aluminum for the Marine Corps Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).[2] The FSW demonstration projects successfully met ballistic, productivity, and distortion requirements that could not be obtained with conventional arc welding. The initial results of steel FSW trials, including weld evaluation and demonstration projects conducted, are presented here. Friction Stir Weld Evaluations The quality and mechanical properties of steel friction stir weldments were evaluated through metallography, hardness measurements, chemical analysis and mechanical testing. The following paragraphs describe general trends and observations found in DH-36, HSLA-65, AL-6XN and 304L stainless steel friction stir welds. DH-36 Weld Evaluation A typical FSW cross-sectional micrograph and corresponding hardness map are shown in Figure 3. In general, friction stir welds in most metals have three microstructurally distinct regions: the stir zone (SZ) along the weld centerline, a swirl region within the stir zone, and a heat-affected zone (HAZ) surrounding the stir zone and extending to the base metal [3, 4]. In some cases a fourth thermal-mechanically affected zone

Figure 3. DH-36 FSW Cross-section Showing the Four Microstructurally Distinct Regions and Corresponding Hardness Values (Vickers Microhardness).

(TMAZ) can be present, as indicated in Figure 3. In DH-36, hardness measurements increase from the base metal through the HAZ into the SZ. The peak hardness corresponds to the swirl region within the SZ. While this general hardness profile was observed for all the conditions studied, specific trends were observed to be functions of travel speed. As the travel speed increased (1) the width of the SZ and HAZs decreased, (2) peak hardness increased, (3) yield strength and ultimate tensile strength increased, and (4) ductility as measured by percent elongation decreased. Figure 4 shows tensile properties as a function of travel speed. Substantial overmatching was noted within the stir zone of 0.25 inch thick welds, and to a lesser extent in 0.5 inch thick weld. Ductility in the stir zone was greatly reduced in 0.25 inch thick plates and toughness values were lower for 0.5 inch thick welds. Bulk chemical analysis of DH-36 showed a residual amount of material left behind in the weld region by the pin tool as it wears. (Numbers indicated {kJ/in} above the tensile strength
120

data points are a measure of heat imparted during the weld. Closed diamond and square markers are for tests on 0.25 inch DH-36; open markers are tests on 0.5 inch HSLA-65.) HSLA-65 Weld Evaluation Consistent with DH-36, HSLA-65 can be friction stir weldedalthough the resulting structures and properties differ. Friction stir welded sections from 0.25 inch to 0.5 inch thick have been successfully produced, at speeds on the order of 5 inches/minute (ipm). Figure 5 shows the overall structure of an HSLA-65 friction stir weld (in 0.5 inch plate) compared to that of an HSLA steel conventional arc weld (in 1.0 inch plate). (Note that the conventional weld shown in Figure 5 is actually HSLA-100, a different alloy composition but one for which hardness maps were available. [5]) Although both welds have similar gross features (a weld zone, a heat-affected zone, and the base metal), their microstructures and properties are very different. Within the stir zone of the friction stir weld a swirl region shows evidence of vertical flow

(24.6 kJ/in) Tensile Property [Yield Strength (ksi) or % elongation] 100 (67 kJ/in) (69 kJ/in) 80 Plate Yield Strength: 62 ksi (26 kJ/in)

(19 kJ/in)

Yield Strength % Elongation

60

40 Plate Elongation: 22%

20

10 Travel Speed (ipm)

15

20

Figure 4. Plot Showing Increase in Yield Strength and Decrease in Percent Elongation as a Function of Travel Speed.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

15

HAZ Base Metal

Weld Nugget

Swirl Region

Stir Zone

HAZ

Friction Stir Weld

Conventional Arc Weld

Figure 5. Optical Micrographs Comparing the Major Features of an FSW and a Conventional Arc Weld (Transverse Cross Sections).

of material. The 0.5 inch thick friction stir weld was produced in two passes; the first on what is now the bottom of the photograph, and the second on the top. The 1.0 inch thick conventional weld was produced using approximately 25 successive weld passes starting at the bottom of a V-shaped notch. (It is possible however, to use fewer passes to complete the weld). Hardness maps of weld cross sections are shown in Figure 6. In this case there is a softening of the metal in the HAZ around the stir zone of the friction stir weld, although this does not always occur. In general, the stir zone is stronger and harder than the base metal, but not as tough. There is additional hardening in the stir zone of the first pass, just outside the HAZ of the second pass. (This can be seen along the bottom of the FSW hardness map in Figure 6 at 15,000 and 29,000 microns.) The conventional weld HAZ is harder than the weld or base metal. Friction stir welds in HSLA-65 have also been compared with those in DH-36, an alloy with higher C, Ni, and Cr that has been used extensively in naval structural applications. The hardness profile of an FSW in HSLA-65 differs dramatically from that of DH-36 and other typical steels. In this evaluation, the

hardness profile of HSLA-65 softened in the HAZ region and the peak hardness in the stir zone was not significantly higher than the base metal hardness. (The difference in hardness from the base metal to peak hardness was approximately two times greater in DH-36 than in HSLA-65.) The stir zones yield and ultimate tensile stresses were fairly comparable to the base metal properties and it maintained good ductility. At strength levels of 94 ksi for the HSLA-65 and 107 for the DH-36, charpy impact energies of the HSLA-65 material were significantly higher than those of the DH-36 (Figure 7). AL-6XN Weld Evaluation Bulk chemical analysis of AL-6XN welds showed pin tool material pick-up, particularly in the plunge area. The hardness profile for AL-6XN was similar to that of DH-36 in which the hardness increased from the base metal through the HAZ and into the SZ. The SZ properties significantly overmatched the base metal properties with a significant reduction in elongation. [6] Centerline sigma phase (a hard, brittle intermetallic phase) was observed in 0.25 inch thick plate and not in the 0.5 inch thick plate (Figure 8). Energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis

10000 7500 5000 2500 0 0 10000 20000 30000 Distance (m) 40000

Distance (m)

170 180 190

200 210 220 230 240 250 Vickers Microhardness

Vickers Microhardness 216 326 436

Friction Stir Weld

Conventional Arc Weld [5]

Figure 6. The Hardness Maps of the FSW and Conventional Welds in Figure 5 Show Significantly Different Patterns.

16

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

160 Charpy Impact Energy (ft-lbs) @ -20F 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 HSLA-65 weld 1 HSLA-65 weld 2 DH-36 weld

Figure 7. Friction Stir Welds of HSLA-65 Show the Potential of Significantly Tougher Behavior.

of various regions of the weldment demonstrated that (1) the swirl region contained tungsten particles (i.e., pin tool material), (2) banded regions outside the weld area had distinct concentration differences of Mo, Cr, and Ni (compositional elements of the sigma phase), and (3) intergranular precipitation of sigma phase was observed in bands with higher concentrations of Mo, Cr, and Ni. In the 0.5 inch thick plate, the stir zone exhibited excellent toughness, equivalent to that of the base metal. 304L Weld Evaluation Similar to DH-36 and AL-6XN, bulk chemical analysis showed pin tool material pick-up within the weld region of the 304L. Its hardness profile showed little variance in hardness across the various weld regions, and the stir zone properties exceeded both the base metal and weld metal requirements while maintaining high ductility (~65% elongation). [3] Technology Development This series of evaluations have demonstrated the feasibility and promise of FSW for joining steel plate compositions used in naval construction. They have also illustrated the challenges that must be addressed in order to successfully exploit this revolutionary technology. The Navy is committed to understanding, describing and simulating the myriad technical issues being

addressed by the Navy laboratory and warfare centers, universities and industry. These include specifically the mechanisms of severe deformation, influences of initial workpiece condition (compositionally and microstructurally), influences of tool materials and geometries, effects of welding parameters on mechanical and microstructural properties, and many others. The initial technological focus was motivated by evolving Navy warfare requirements and increasingly stringent environmental regulations that create a need for improved welding processes to fabricate military and commercial structures using ferrous materials. The focus was expanded to include combined Navy/industry interest in the development for self-reacting FSW tool technology for 2519, 2219, and 2195 aluminum alloys, as well as AL-6XN and HSLA-65 steels. This expansion was motivated by three FSW technology related developments. They were: adjustable, self-reacting FSW pin tool capabilities patented by MTS [7] the emergence of FSW technology advancements with increasing potential benefits to the near term success of the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) Program, commercial interest in similar FSW technology advancements for aerospace applications. The approach has included advanced equipment development, tool material evaluation, welding process parameter development, mechanical property measurements, and metallurgical evaluation. Various materials were successfully welded and evaluated namely, 0.125 inch thick A588, 0.25 inch thick 304L stainless steel, 0.25 inch and 0.5 inch thick DH-36, 0.25 inch and 0.5 inch thick HSLA-65, 0.25 inch and 0.5 inch thick AL6XN, and 0.320 inch and 1 inch thick 2519, 2219, and 2195 Al alloys. Development of welding process parameters for DH36, HSLA-65, AL-6XN, and the Al alloys as a function of pin tool type (fixed and adjustable self-reacting) and joining method (single-sided {welded only from one side of the plate}, doublesided {welded from both sides of the plate}, overlapped plates, and tapered welds {joining two plates of different thickness}) continues. Two projects were used to demonstrate the specific applicabil-

Figure 8. Micrographs Showing (a) Centerline Sigma Phase (Dark Strip) Observed in 0.25 Inch Thick Plate and (b) No Centerline Sigma Phase Present in 0.5 Inch Thick Plate.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

17

Z (inches)

Z (inches)

Z (inches)

Y (inches)

Y (inches)

Y (inches)

Figure 9. Comparison of Baseline (Grid) and Post-weld (Solid) Distortion Measurements of (a) FSW, (b) SAW, and (c) GMAW Plates.

ity of the FSW process. The first was a comparative distortion study between conventional arc and friction stir welded plates, and the second was an assessment of shock loading tolerance (which was also the first reported dynamic fracture test of a steel friction stir weld). Post Weld Distortion Study Results HSLA-65 plates with a thickness of 0.25 inch were used for the distortion studies. Conventional arc and friction stir welded plates were fabricated at Bath Iron Works and the University of South Carolina, respectively. All welds used a square butt joint configuration and were fabricated in the flat position. The conventional arc welds were fabricated using two distinct welding conditions. Case 1 consisted of a double-pass, two-sided submerged arc weld (SAW) and Case 2 consisted of a single-pass, single-sided gas metal arc weld (GMAW). Comparisons between measurements taken before (baseline) and after welding indicated that the friction stir welded plates displayed significantly lower angular distortion as compared to arc-welded plates [8]. Figure 9 shows baseline and post weld measurements for FSW, SAW, and GMAW plates. Shock Hole Test Results A shock hole test panel was fabricated by friction stir welding two, 0.5 inch thick HSLA-65 plates, each 26 inches wide and 50 inches long; the longest length
HSLA-65 Test Panel

corresponding to the weld direction. After machining, the 50 inch diameter test panel was bolted to a paddle wheel test fixture (schematically shown in Figure 10) and tested underwater with an explosive charge. Results indicated that the friction stir welded HSLA-65 test panel had shock holing resistance equivalent to the base metal HSLA-65 test panel under identical test conditions. [9] Figure 11 shows the resulting deformation of both the base and friction stir welded plate after testing. FUTURE EFFORTS Friction stir welding is proving to be a viable option for joining high strength steels. The Navys goal is to friction stir weld up to 0.5 inch thick HSLA-65 steel for an uninterrupted length of 80 feet at a travel speed that would make FSW competitive with current conventional arc welding techniques. However, important technical challenges remain due to the higher temperatures and forces involved which cause accelerated degradation of tool assemblies and severely limit productivity. A two-pronged approach is being used to meet the immediate needs of getting the process to the shipyard and developing the understanding that will enable wider, more effective exploitation of this tremendous technological opportunity. A shipyard implementation plan is under development to address critical technology areas, including: novel methods to improve process efficiency, including processes such as thermal management to enhance tool life joint design optimization, including fit-up requirements and tool change out methods improved modeling capabilities validated for materials of interest to the Navy quality assurance and non-destructive evaluation techniques to identify common welding discontinuities and confirm that these discontinuities can be detected by traditional NDE techniques material and structural certification to determine mechanical properties and fracture performance, fatigue life, structural performance, and corrosion behavior process certification requirements production implementation which includes technology transfer and training, performing procedure qualification, and performing operator qualification.

Charge

Figure 10. Schematic of Shock Hole Test Fixture.

18

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

12 10

HSLA-65, FSW: Along Weld HSLA-65, FSW: Perpendicular to Weld HSLA-65 Baseplate

Deformation (in.)

8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance Across Diameter (in.)

Figure 11. Photo of FSW Plate After Testing and Comparative Deformation Plot of Base- and Friction Stir Welded-HSLA-65 Plate.

Concurrent with shipyard implementation, important research and development continues to build the base for understanding and exploiting the critical mechanisms at work in FSW. This work is aimed at identifying and predicting optimal processing conditions, including tool design and tool material. Alloys and microstructures that are most amenable to FSW may be predicted, then further development will tailor welded joints for high performance and robust responses to a wide spectrum of loading and environmental conditions. Emerging simulation and predictive modeling capability will further guide FSW developments and enable design engineers to confidently exploit this revolutionary technology. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Friction stir welding is a transformational, solid state joining technology offering the potential for high performance and affordability for naval applications. The initial efforts demonstrating the Navys interest and commitment to develop the practical processes and systems for shipyard implementation of FSW have been described here. The underlying technology enabling longer-term payoff for an extended array of materials and component requirements for FSW has also been demonstrated. The ONR-sponsored Dual Use Science and Technology program successfully demonstrated the feasibility of FSW in steels and stainless steels, as well as the utility of selfadjusting pin tool designs. The demonstration projects showed reduced angular distortion in FSW compared with conventionally arc welded plates and excellent shock holing resistance (equivalent to that of the base metal) from underwater testing. Future efforts focus on building the understanding needed to critically assess the viability of, and gain the maximum benefit from, FSW.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was sponsored by the ONR Seaborne Structural Metals Program, Julie A. Christodoulou Program Manager. REFERENCES [1] C. Conrardy, and R. Dull, Control of Distortion in Thin Ship Panels, Journal of Ship Production, v. 13, no. 2, pp. 83-92 [2] T. Trapp and T. Stotler, Friction Stir Welding of the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle, presented at the 2002 American Welding Society International Welding & Fabricating Exposition, Chicago, IL, March 2002 [3] M. Posada, J. DeLoach, A.P. Reynolds, M. Skinner, and J. Halpin, Friction Stir Weld Evaluation of Steel and Stainless Steel Weldments, Proceedings of the Symposium on Friction Stir Welding and Processing, eds. K.V. Jata, M.W. Mahoney, R.S. Mishra, S.L. Semiatin, and D.P. Field, TMS 2001, Indianapolis, Indiana, 5-7 November 2001, pp. 159-171 [4] T.J. Lienert, W.L. Stellwag, JR., B.B. Grimmett, and R.W. Warke, Friction Stir Welding Studies on Mild Steel, The Welding Journal, Research Supplement, v. 82, no. 1, 1s 9s (January 2003) [5] D.W. Moon, R.W. Fonda and G. Spanos, Microstructure and Property Evolution in HSLA-100 Steel Welds Fabricated with New Ultra Low Carbon Filler Metals, The Welding Journal, Research Supplement, v. 79, no. 10, 278s-285s (October, 2000) [6] M. Posada, J. DeLoach, A.P. Reynolds, and J.P. Halpin, Mechanical Property and Microstructural Evaluation of Friction Stir Welded AL-6XN, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Trends in Welding Research, eds. S.A. David, T. DebRoy, J.C. Lippold, H.B. Smartt, and J.M. Vitek, Pine Mountain, Georgia, 15-19 April 2002, pp. 307-311

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

19

[7] J. Halpin and R. Edwards, Friction Stir Welding Technology Commercialization for High Strength Structural Alloys, Final Report for Agreement N00014-00-3-008 between The Office of Naval Research and MTS Systems Corporation, 10 December 2002 [8] Campbell et. al., Welding Head, US Patent No. US6,1999,745 B1, dated March 13, 2001

[9] M. Posada, J. DeLoach, A.P. Reynolds, J. Halpin, Evaluation of Friction Stir Welded HSLA-65, to be published in proceedings for the 4th International Symposium of Friction Stir Welding, Park City, Utah, 14-16 May 2003

Ms. Maria Posada is a materials engineer in the Welding and NDE branch at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Ms. Posada received her BS in Metallurgical Engineering (1996) and an MS in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering (1998) from the University of Texas at El Paso. She is currently leading a Navy effort to evaluate the Friction Stir Welding (FSW) process that may provide an affordable alternative to conventional arc welding of steels and nonmagnetic stainless steels. Ms. Posada has contributed to numerous technical publications and technical presentations in this area.

Ms. Jennifer Nguyen is a materials engineer in the Welding and NDE branch at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division. Ms. Nguyen received her BS in Materials Science and the Biomedical Engineering (2002) from Johns Hopkins University. She is pursing her PhD in materials science at the University of Maryland-College Park.

Dr. David Forrest is a materials engineer with the Welding and NDE group at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (Carderock). He is involved with projects relating to the friction stir welding, the laser fabrication of HSLA-65, and the mathematical modeling of welding. He has been a consultant in advanced materials technology with Baverstam Associates, and has worked in plant operation and research positions in the steel industry between 1978 and 1999, with Republic Steel, Bethlehem Steel, and Allegheny Ludlum Corp. He specialized in microstructural analysis, computational and statistical methods for optimizing mechanical properties, and in the mathematical modeling of metallurgical processes. He completed his doctorate degree at MIT and is also President of the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a non-profit organization. Robert DeNale is head of the Metals Department at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division. His areas of scientific and engineering interest include welding, nondestructive evaluation and high strength steel casting metallurgy. He has authored numerous publications and US Navy technical reports. He has been awarded 7 US patents, edited two books, and made more than 50 presentations at professional society meetings.

Mr. DeLoach is the Head of the Welding & NDE Branch at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. He received his BS in Materials Science and Engineering from Brown University and his Masters of Materials Science and Engineering from Johns Hopkins University. Mr. DeLoach has twenty years of experience in the materials and welding areas. He has more than 100 technical contributions (papers, publications, etc.) in the areas of welding, materials, and nondestructive evaluation.

20

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3