Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:03:51.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transmission electron microscopy of an ultrasonically consolidated copper–aluminum interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2014

Jennifer M. Sietins ,
John W. Gillespie Jr.  and
Suresh G. Advani
Jennifer M. Sietins*
Affiliation:
Department of Material Science and Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; and Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
John W. Gillespie Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Material Science and Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Suresh G. Advani
Affiliation:
Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
*
b)Address all correspondence to this author.e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Ultrasonic consolidation is a rapid manufacturing process for metal matrix composite (MMC) preimpregnated composite (prepreg) tapes or foils. One of the main advantages of this manufacturing technique over traditional MMC methods is the ability to produce multimaterial structures through the layer-by-layer build-up procedure. The interface of an ultrasonically consolidated bimaterial interface has not been studied on the nanometer scale through transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which can help better understand the bonding mechanisms. An ultrasonically consolidated copper–aluminum (Cu–Al) interface was explored through TEM, through which a 1-µm recrystallized subgrain region was observed on the aluminum side and dislocation pile-up was viewed between the subgrain and bulk aluminum interface. Phase changes were suspected due to varying contrast bands parallel to the Cu–Al interface and were confirmed through an x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) linescan. An apparent diffusion coefficient was calculated, which supported bulk diffusion at the measured welding temperature of 493 °C and subgrain size of 20–50 nm.

Keywords

transmission electron microscopydiffusionphase transformation
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 29 , Issue 17: Focus Issue: The Materials Science of Additive Manufacturing , 14 September 2014 , pp. 1970 - 1977
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cheng, X. and Li, X.: Investigation of heat generation in ultrasonic metal welding using micro sensor arrays. J. Micromech. Microeng. 17, 273 (2007).Google Scholar
Janaki Ram, G.D., Robinson, C., Yang, Y., and Stucker, B.E.: Use of ultrasonic consolidation for fabrication of multi-material structures. Rapid Prototyping J. 13, 1 (2007).Google Scholar
Langenecker, B.: Effects of ultrasound on deformation characteristics of metals. IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. 13, (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuoka, S. and Imai, H.: Direct welding of different metals used ultrasonic vibration. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209, 954 (2009).Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Janaki Ram, G.D., and Stucker, B.E.: Bond formation and fiber embedment during ultrasonic consolidation. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209, 4915 (2009).Google Scholar
Mueller, J.E., Gillespie, J.W., and Advani, S.G.: Effects of interaction volume on x-ray line-scans across an ultrasonically consolidated aluminum/copper interface. Scanning 35, 327 (2013).Google Scholar
Mariani, E. and Ghassemieh, E.: Microstructure evolution of 6061 O Al alloy during ultrasonic consolidation: An insight from electron backscatter diffraction. Acta Mater. 58, 2492 (2010).Google Scholar
Sriraman, M.R., Babu, S.S., and Short, M.: Bonding characteristics during very high power ultrasonic additive manufacturing of copper. Scr. Mater. 62, 560 (2010).Google Scholar
Gourdet, S. and Montheillet, F.: A model of continuous dynamic recrystallization. Acta Mater. 51, 2685 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., Edmonds, H.C., Higginson, R.L., and Harris, R.A.: New discoveries in ultrasonic consolidation nano-structures using emerging analysis techniques. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part L 225, 277 (2011).Google Scholar
Kenik, E. and Jahn, R.: Microstructure of ultrasonic welded aluminum by orientation imaging microscopy. Microsc. Microanal. 9, 720 (2003).Google Scholar
Li, D. and Soar, R.C.: Plastic flow and work hardening of Al alloy matrices during ultrasonic consolidation fibre embedding process. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 498, 421 (2008).Google Scholar
Porter, D.A. and Easterling, K.E.: Phase Transformations in Metals and Alloys, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: New York, 1992.Google Scholar
Gottstein, G. and Shvindlerman, L.S.: Grain Boundary Migration in Metals: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, Applications, 2nd ed.; Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FL, 2010.Google Scholar
Mehrer, H.: Diffusion in Solids: Fundamentals, Methods, Materials, Diffusion-Controlled Processes (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007).Google Scholar
Priester, L.: Grain Boundaries: From Theory to Engineering (Springer, New York, 2013).Google Scholar
Brandes, E.A. and Brook, G.B.: Smithells Metals Reference Book, 7th ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, England, 1992.Google Scholar
Watanabe, M. and Williams, D.B.: The quantitative analysis of thin specimens: A review of progress from the cliff-lorimer to the new ζ-factor methods. J. Microsc. 221, 89 (2006).Google Scholar
Williams, D.B. and Carter, C.B.: Transmission Electron Microscopy: A Textbook for Materials Science, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, 2009.Google Scholar
Koellhoffer, S., Gillespie, J.W. Jr., Advani, S.G., and Bogetti, T.A.: Role of friction on the thermal development in ultrasonically consolidated aluminum foils and composites. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 211, 1864 (2011).Google Scholar
Abdollah-Zadeh, A., Saeid, T., and Sazgari, B.: Microstructural and mechanical properties of friction stir welded aluminum/copper lap joints. J. Alloys Compd. 460, 535 (2008).Google Scholar
Elrefaey, A., Takahashi, M., and Ikeuchi, K.: Microstructure of aluminum/copper lap joint by friction stir welding and its performance. J. High Temp. Soc. 30, 286 (2004).Google Scholar
Ouyang, J., Yarrapareddy, E., and Kovacevic, R.: Microstructural evolution in the friction stir welded 6061 aluminum alloy (T6-temper condition) to copper. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 172, 110 (2006).Google Scholar
Paul, H., Lityńska-Dobrzyńska, L., and Prażmowski, M.: Microstructure and phase constitution near the interface of explosively welded aluminum/copper plates. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 44, 3836 (2013).Google Scholar
Zhu, X.K. and Chao, Y.J.: Numerical simulation of transient temperature and residual stresses in friction stir welding of 304L stainless steel. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 146, 263 (2004).Google Scholar
Troug, A.G.: Bond improvement of Al/Cu joints created by very high power ultrasonic additive manufacturing. Master of Science thesis, The Ohio State University, (2012).Google Scholar
Chamberlain, M.B. and Lehoczky, S.L.: Lattice and grain boundary diffusion of copper in thin aluminum films. Thin Solid Films 45, 189 (1977).Google Scholar