Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 23307 (2024 ) Cite this article 45B steel bar
Conventional welding methods encounter significant challenges, including poor weldability, low joint strength, and the formation of brittle intermetallic compounds, primarily due to the substantial disparities in the physical and chemical properties of aluminum and iron. To mitigate these issues, the vaporizing foil actuator welding (VFAW) process has emerged as a highly promising solid-phase welding technology, particularly suitable for joining dissimilar metals with pronounced differences in properties, such as aluminum alloys and stainless steels. The present study provides an innovative quantitative analysis of the interfacial impact energy conversion mechanisms within the VFAW process. The analysis reveals that the energy responsible for accelerating the flyer workpiece comprises burst vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) and continuous vaporization energy (\(E_p\) ), with \(E_d\) identified as the primary energy source, contributing approximately 65–80% of the total energy required for acceleration. Further examination elucidates the mechanisms underlying heat generation and transfer during the interface collision. The investigation identifies the formation of an overheating zone at the interface, attributed to the combined effects of plastic deformation energy and adiabatic shear energy within the flyer workpiece. Consequently, the interface temperature can rise significantly, reaching up to 1394 K, with impact velocities as high as 925 m/s. The analyses contribute to establishing a theoretical foundation for understanding the interface bonding mechanisms characteristic of the vaporizing foil actuator welding method.
The use of dissimilar materials, particularly in the joining of aluminum and stainless steel, has seen increasing application in recent years across various industries, including aerospace, chemical processing, and the production of components and equipment in other sectors1,2,3,4,5,6,7. According to disparities in the physical and chemical properties of these materials, the welding of aluminum and stainless steel presents a pressing technical challenge that requires immediate resolution8. Aluminum and stainless steel possess distinct physical and chemical properties, as well as chemical compositions, resulting in significant performance disparities9,10,11,12,13. The formation of intermetallic compounds (IMCs) plays a critical role in determining the quality of joints between dissimilar metals14,15. A major challenge encountered in various welding techniques is the formation of thick \(\hbox {Fe}_2\hbox {Al}_5\) layers, which are known for their brittleness and detrimental impact on joint strength16,17. To achieve reliable joints between aluminum and stainless steel, welding methods such as friction stir welding18, tungsten insert gas-metal inert gas hybrid welding19, laser welding20, and cold metal welding focus on controlling the thickness of IMCs21. Strategies to address these challenges include optimizing welding parameters to regulate heat input and investigating the use of interlayers or coatings to inhibit excessive IMC growth22.
The vaporizing foil actuator (VFA) technique23 is an innovative method for pulse forming that has been developed based on magnetic pulse forming technology. The power supply equipment used in this method is the same as that used in magnetic pulse forming24. In this technique, the aluminum foil rapidly vaporizes due to high-voltage pulses25 (ranging from 3 to 20 kV) and large currents (ranging from 50 to 300 kA) within a short period of time (less than 20 \(\upmu\) s). The workpiece located near the aluminum foil experiences a significant impact from the energy generated by the vaporization process. The VFA technique has great potential for various metal processing applications. When compared to magnetic pulse forming, the workpiece can achieve higher pressure under equivalent energy input conditions, thanks to the influence of vaporization. Vaporizing foil actuator welding (VFAW)26,27 is the most extensive area of application for the VFA method. The plasma generated from the vaporization of aluminum foil drives one workpiece to collide with another at high velocities ranging from 200 to 1500 m/s, thereby achieving the weld. This mechanism is analogous to magnetic pulse welding and explosion welding. The process eliminates the need for external heat input, filler metal, or shielding gas, relying instead on a high-velocity oblique impact between the workpieces. The localized high temperature at the collision interface triggers a metallurgical reaction in some regions, either through melting or mutual atomic diffusion, resulting in a reliable joint. In this process, one workpiece is propelled at high velocity by the energy released from the vaporized aluminum foil, while the other workpiece remains fixed to a metal seat. The gap between the two is precisely adjusted by a support block to ensure the flyer workpiece achieves the necessary acceleration distance before impact23 Compared to other welding methods for dissimilar metals28, the VFAW process is characterized by its simplicity, controllability, short welding time, ease of automation, and high production efficiency.
Vivek and Daehn23,26,29,30 have conducted extensive research on the adaptability of VFAW to the welding of dissimilar materials and the influence of process parameters on interface morphology, yielding significant findings. Given the inherent characteristics of this process, specialized small-scale equipment is manufactured specifically for the VFAW process. Initial experiments have demonstrated that copper, titanium, and steel can form joints with satisfactory performance using VFAW31. However, the area directly facing the aluminum foil fails to generate a jet due to the absence of a collision angle, resulting in an unreliable connection. The thickness and distribution of intermetallic compounds at the joint interface significantly impact the mechanical properties of the joint. Thinner and continuously distributed intermetallic compounds at the interface contribute to enhanced joint performance. The VFAW process has successfully produced joints in materials such as copper, Ti–6Al–4V, and 1018 steel32,33 without the formation of intermetallic compound layers, with the interface typically exhibiting wave-like characteristics34,35,36,37. However, creating a wavy bonding interface can be challenging when dealing with materials that exhibit substantial differences in hardness and density. The wave-like bonding at the interface is advantageous, as it enhances mechanical properties38. Additionally, the impact during the welding process leads to grain refinement in the target metal near the interface, and thin intermetallic compounds may form at the interface. A comparison of Cu–Ti and Fe–Cu interfaces revealed the presence of intermetallic compounds at the Fe–Ti interface39,40,41,42, while no intermetallic compounds were observed at the Fe–Cu interface. These intermetallic compounds have minimal impact on the high-cycle fatigue properties of dissimilar VFAW spot joints43.
At present, the theory regarding heat generation at the interface in vaporizing foil actuator welding is not fully understood, and the existing explanations of the mechanism are inadequate, thus hindering the expansion and application of the vaporizing foil actuator welding process. Specifically, the vaporizing foil actuator welding process for dissimilar material composite structures is still in the early stages of development. The welding of 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel holds significant potential for applications in the aerospace and chemical industries. However, ensuring reliable welding between these materials remains a critical technical challenge that urgently requires resolution. Despite optimizing the process parameters, satisfactory joint performance cannot be achieved when welding certain grades of aluminum alloy and steel. In response to these challenges, this study examines the influence of impact speed and impact angle on interface heat generation and investigates the mechanism of energy absorption and conversion during high-speed impact, thereby providing theoretical support for the interface bonding mechanism.
The flyer sheet was positioned directly against an aluminum foil, which was insulated with a 0.12 mm thick polyimide tape (commercially known as Kapton). The ends of the steel terminals were connected to a capacitor bank. Prior to welding, the impacting surfaces of all materials were cleaned with acetone following grinding with emery paper to ensure optimal surface conditions. In this experiment, the flyer workpiece is made of 3003 aluminum alloy while the target workpiece is made of 321 stainless steel. Both the workpieces have a length and width of 70 mm. The flyer workpiece has a thickness of 1.8 mm, whereas the target workpiece has a thickness of 4 mm. In the VFAW welding process, the impact force that propels the flying plate to hit the target plate at high speed is generated by the vaporization of the aluminum foil under the influence of pulse current. The efficiency of energy conversion plays a crucial role in achieving maximum acceleration of the flying plate. To investigate the energy conversion process and efficiency during the vaporization of aluminum foil under different energy input conditions, aluminum foils with thicknesses of 0.051 mm, 0.076 mm, and 0.127 mm were used. These foils are made of 1100 aluminum alloy and their dimensions are shown in Fig. 1.
The experimental setup, which includes the test power supply and flying board speed measurement tooling, is depicted in Fig. 2. In this study, the gap distance was set at 3 mm, 4.5 mm, and 5.25 mm, which correspond to impact angles of approximately 6°, 8°, and 10°, respectively. Aluminum foils with thicknesses of 0.051 mm, 0.076 mm, and 0.127 mm were used in the experiment to monitor the current, voltage, and impact velocity of the flyer workpiece during the foil vaporization process. The energy inputs ranged from 2 to 12 kJ, increasing by 2 kJ increments.
Schematic of equipment and apparatus in VFAW process (a) VFAW power supply; (b) PDV apparatus; (c) Schematic diagram of PDV test.
The MAGNEFORM-16 electromagnetic pulse forming power supply, shown in Fig. 2-a, is used as the power source in the conducted test. It has a maximum charging energy of 16 kJ, a voltage of 8.16 kV, and a capacitance of 426 \(\upmu\) F. Detailed specifications can be found in Table 1.
The Photonic Doppler velocimetry (PDV) technology44,45 utilizes a recently introduced fiber laser component to measure the frequency difference between the original frequency of the laser and the Doppler frequency shift. The tooling setup for measuring the impact velocity of the flyer workpiece is illustrated in Fig. 2b. To accurately measure the impact velocity at various stages during the aluminum foil vaporization process, a 30 mm \(\times\) 60 mm area in the center of the fixed seat is equipped with 7 rows and 13 columns of observation holes, each with a diameter of 3 mm. For the flyer velocity measurement test, a transparent polycarbonate plate was used in place of the stainless-steel target workpiece, allowing the measurement laser to directly irradiate the surface of the flyer workpiece, as depicted in Fig. 2c. The gap distance between the flyer workpiece and the target workpiece is a critical parameter, as it significantly influences both the impact velocity and the impact angle. A high-speed oscilloscope is used to collect the signals, which are then analysed using data analysis software to determine the speed of the object being measured. The laser wavelength used in this system is 1550 nm, with an original frequency of \(1.94\times 10^5\) GHz. The signal acquisition system employs the LeCroy 620Zi, which has a bandwidth of 2 GHz and an adoption rate of 20 GS/s, enabling the collection of speeds up to 1500 m/s for moving objects.
The measurement system used to monitor the current, voltage of aluminum foil vaporization, and flyer workpiece impact velocity in the VFAW process consists of a Rogowski coil, a high-voltage probe, and a PDV system, as illustrated in Fig. 3. To record the current variations during the aluminum foil vaporization process, a Rogowski coil with a ratio of 50 kA:1 V was employed. Voltage fluctuations were monitored using a Tektronix P6015A high-voltage probe with a ratio of 1000 V:1 V. The LeCroy 620Zi oscilloscope, equipped with 4 channels, 2 GHz bandwidth, and a sampling rate of 20 GS/s, was used to capture voltage, current, and PDV signals. The collected data were then analysed using MATLAB software.
Schematic of current, voltage and PDV system.
During the foil vaporization process, the burst time of the pulse current is extremely short, typically lasting between 8 and 12 \(\upmu\) s. The thermal diffusion of the energy impacting the aluminum foil can be neglected. The energy is primarily directed towards the aluminum foil, causing it to vaporize once a specific threshold is reached. As a result, the aluminum foil expands and exerts force on the nearby flyer workpiece, leading to increased acceleration of the flying plate. Figure 4 depicts the variations in voltage and current over time during foil vaporization in the VFAW process, with a thickness of 0.076 mm and an energy input of 6 kJ. The results demonstrate that the pulse current acting on the aluminum foil reaches a peak value of 130 kA after 10 \(\upmu\) s and then gradually weakens. The voltage of the foil spikes after the current reaches its peak value and subsequently decreases. This phenomenon indicates the vaporization of the working area, namely the aluminum foil, in the vaporization impact welding process. The time from power-on to the vaporization phenomenon is referred to as the aluminum foil vaporization time (Brust time), denoted as \(t_b\) . The velocity curve of the flyer workpiece reveals that during the rising stage of the current acting on the aluminum foil, eddy currents are induced on the surface of the flyer workpiece due to the magnetic field generated by the aluminum foil. The induced eddy current undergoes plastic deformation due to the electromagnetic force induced by the pulse current passing through the aluminum foil, resulting in the flyer workpiece reaching a speed of approximately 50 m/s. With the further increase in pulse current, the aluminum foil undergoes vaporization, leading to a significant acceleration of the flyer workpiece. The speed initially rises from 50 m/s to approximately 250 m/s, further increasing to about 620 m/s following a surge, and ultimately impacting the target workpiece.
The current, voltage and flyer velocity of 0.072 mm foil with energy input 6 kJ.
The experimentation of the vaporization process of the aluminum foil was conducted by adhering to the predetermined process parameters. In Fig. 5, the current and voltage curves of the aluminum foil with varying thicknesses during the vaporization process are presented. These curves were obtained using a high-voltage pulse capacitor power supply, where the thickness of the aluminum foil was set at 0.76 mm. Furthermore, Table 2 provides information regarding the time and peak current required for the vaporization of aluminum foil with different thicknesses.
Current and voltage of 0.076 mm thickness foil with different energy input.
The findings from the experiment demonstrate that the voltage across the aluminum foil experiences sudden jumps when the energy input reaches 2 kJ, 4 kJ, 8 kJ, and 10 kJ. These voltage jumps are a common occurrence in VFA metal processing. The primary cause of this phenomenon is the high current density exhibited by the aluminum foil. The vaporization process generates high voltage, which in turn leads to the expansion of the plasma and subsequent pressure reduction. Once the voltage surpasses the breakdown voltage of the plasma, the conductive effect of the plasma enables the vaporization of the aluminum foil on both sides of the vaporization area until either the capacitor bank is fully discharged or the voltage drops below the breakdown voltage of the plasma. The data presented in Table 2 reveals that the 0.051 mm thick aluminum foil demonstrates efficient vaporization within the energy input range of 2–8 kJ. Specifically, when an energy input of 2 kJ is applied, the 0.051 mm thick aluminum foil exhibits the longest vaporization time, with vaporization ceasing once the current reaches its peak value. On the other hand, when the energy input is increased to 4 kJ, the current peak value rises from 70 to 90 kA, resulting in a reduction of vaporization time to 8.5 \(\upmu\) s. Similarly, with an energy input of 6 kJ, the current peak value increases by only 5 kA compared to 4 kJ, causing a reduction in burst time to 8.5 \(\upmu\) s. This represents a decrease in time required by 1.3 \(\upmu\) s compared to the 4 kJ energy input. Finally, when the energy input is set at 8 kJ, the current peak value increases by 5 kA compared to 6 kJ, resulting in a vaporization time reduction of only 0.4 \(\upmu\) s. Additionally, the aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.076 mm exhibits voltage fluctuations within the energy input range of 2–10 kJ. For energy inputs exceeding 6 kJ, the current reaches its peak as the aluminum foil undergoes vaporization. However, when the thickness of the aluminum foil is increased to 0.127 mm and an energy input of 2 kJ is applied, vaporization does not occur. Moreover, for energy inputs exceeding 8 kJ, the vaporization time of the aluminum foil closely matches the system’s current rise time. The duration needed for the vaporization of aluminum foil gradually decreases as the input energy increases in the presence of pulse current, while it notably increases with thicker aluminum foil. The power supply parameters demonstrate that the time it takes for the system’s short-circuit current to reach its peak is 12 \(\upmu\) s. Aluminum foil of a specific thickness achieves its highest energy utilization rate when its burst time aligns with the system’s short-circuit current time. Once this critical value is exceeded, the duration required for aluminum foil vaporization gradually decreases. Upon reaching a certain level of input energy, both the burst time and peak current of the aluminum foil remain constant. This observation suggests that, in the VFAW process, the most effective strategy to enhance the energy utilization of aluminum foil is to reduce the rise time of the system’s short-circuit current. Influenced by the principles of the system, as the energy of the pulse capacitor increases, both the systems short-circuit current, and the peak rise time of the system discharge current gradually increase. Therefore, increasing the energy input and ensuring that the burst time of the aluminum foil is shorter than the rise time of the system’s short-circuit current are prerequisites for maximizing energy generation from aluminum foil vaporization. Under the influence of the pulse current from the capacitor, the energy stored in the high-voltage pulse capacitor induces a vaporization impact force in the aluminum foil. Quantitative analysis of the energy conversion of the aluminum foil under the action of pulse current involves analysing the energy of the vaporization process of the aluminum foil.
I(t)—Aluminum foil current as a function of time
U(t)—Aluminum foil voltage as a function of time
\(t_b\) —Aluminum foil burst time
By examining the current–voltage curves of aluminum foils with different thicknesses under various energy input conditions, it is possible to calculate the portion of the system’s input energy involved in the vaporization of aluminum foil by analysing the current (I(t)) and voltage (U(t))) of the aluminum foil during pulse current application. The energy (\(E_d\) ) of instantaneous vaporization in the central region of the aluminum foil is determined by integrating from the time of energization to the time of vaporization (\(t_b\) ).
The vaporization energy \(E_d\) of aluminum foil with varying thicknesses is calculated using Eq. (1), utilising the data from Table 2 and considering input energy ranging from 2 to 12 kJ, as illustrated in Table 3.
The results indicate that as the thickness of the aluminum foil increases, the volume of the vaporization area also increases, thereby increasing the energy \(E_d\) required for vaporization. However, as the energy input for aluminum foil of the same thickness reaches a certain level, the rate of increase in vaporization energy gradually decreases. For aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.051 mm, the vaporization energy \(E_d\) remains constant when the energy input exceeds 6 kJ. Similarly, for aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.076 mm, the vaporization energy \(E_d\) remains unchanged when the energy input exceeds 8 kJ. In contrast, for aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.127 mm, the energy of vaporization gradually increases when the energy input exceeds 4 kJ, but the rate of increase gradually diminishes. Overall, the thickness of the aluminum foil is the primary factor determining its vaporization energy. The arc-shaped characteristics of aluminum foil result in an effective working area with arc-shaped dimensions. With increasing current density, the vaporization of aluminum foil intensifies progressively.
The growth rate of the \(E_d\) value for aluminum foils with thicknesses of 0.051 mm and 0.076 mm gradually decreases as the energy input increases. Once the energy input exceeds 6 kJ, the vaporization energy of the aluminum foil no longer increases. On the other hand, for aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.127 mm, the vaporization energy increases with the input energy but with diminishing amplitude. It can be observed that when the energy exceeds 12 kJ, the vaporization energy of the aluminum foil reaches a plateau and does not increase further. These results suggest that the value of the energy \(E_d\) for instantaneous vaporization of the aluminum foil primarily depends on its volume at the moment of vaporization, including the shape and thickness of the middle area. If the input energy exceeds the optimal working energy range of the aluminum foil, further increases in energy have no effect on the growth of the instantaneous vaporization energy.
The impact velocity flight curve of the flyer workpiece shows that upon capacitor discharge, the energy driving the acceleration of the aluminum foil can be divided into two components: energy input converted into the energy required for instantaneous vaporization of the small cross-sectional area in the middle of the aluminum foil (\(E_d\) ) and energy for sustaining aluminum foil vaporization in the form of plasma (\(E_p\) ). By analyzing the energy conversion process of aluminum foil, we can determine the appropriate thickness of aluminum foil for different energy input conditions to maximize energy conversion into the impact force that propels the flying board, thus enhancing the energy conversion efficiency and joint performance of the aluminum foil.
\(E_t\) —Energy acting on flyer workpiece accelerate
\(E_d\) —Aluminum foil vaporization energy
\(E_p\) —Aluminum foil continues to discharge energy with plasma conducts after vaporized
\(t_s\) —The time of flyer workpiece impacts with target workpiece
Equation (3) can be utilized to compute the energy \(E_p\) , as illustrated in Table 4.
Figure 6 illustrates the proportion of vaporization energy of aluminum foils with thicknesses of 0.051 mm, 0.076 mm, and 0.127 mm to the total energy of the driven flying board within the energy input range of 2–12 kJ. When the capacitor is discharged and the aluminum foil vaporizes, the resulting plasma propels the flying board and gives it an initial velocity. Through plasma conduction, the aluminum foil continues to vaporize and generate energy to sustain the acceleration of the flying board. This energy component allows for the continuous acceleration of the flying board. As the vaporized area expands from the middle of the aluminum foil to both sides, the energy distribution area also widens, leading to a significant decrease in the acceleration of the flying plate due to the reduced gap between the flyer workpiece and the tooling fixed seat.
The \(E_d\) and \(E_p\) of different thickness foils.
From the velocity curve of the flyer workpiece and the value of \(E_t\) , it can be observed that when the input energy is 8 kJ, there is minimal change in the impact velocity compared to that of 6 kJ, with only a 2% increase. With the same energy input, the instantaneous vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) of the aluminum foil increases as the thickness of the foil increases. The range of vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) of the aluminum foil with the same thickness changes less as the energy input increases. This is due to the fact that the energy required for instantaneous vaporization of aluminum foil is primarily influenced by the volume of the foil (both its shape and thickness). However, as the energy input increases, the current rise rate through the aluminum foil also increases, resulting in a reduction in time and subsequent vaporization of the aluminum foil. This increase in volume causes a slight change in the vaporization energy of aluminum foil with the same thickness as the energy increases. The energy of instant vaporization of aluminum foil is the main factor determining the impact velocity between the flyer workpiece and the target workpiece. At an energy input of 2 kJ, the impact velocity of the 0.051 mm and 0.076 mm aluminum foil-driven flyer workpieces is the same. The instantaneous vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) of the 0.051 mm aluminum foil accounts for approximately 65%, while for the 0.076 mm aluminum foil, it accounts for about 80%. At an energy input of 4 kJ, vaporization occurs in all three thicknesses of aluminum foil. The instantaneous vaporization of the 0.076 mm aluminum foil drives the flyer workpiece to achieve the highest impact velocity among them. The instantaneous vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) accounts for 78% of the total energy. The instantaneous vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) of the 0.127 mm aluminum foil accounts for 90% of the total energy. The energy driving the flyer workpiece increases to a certain level and then ceases to increase, while the energy ratio of the instantaneous vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) of the aluminum foil decreases. A comprehensive analysis of the velocity distribution and energy conversion of aluminum foil-driven flyer workpieces of different thicknesses under various energies reveals that, at an impact angle of 10°, the instantaneous vaporization energy (\(E_d\) ) of the aluminum foil is the primary factor influencing the collision speed of the flying plate. In the VFAW process, under a specific impact angle, it is crucial to select the appropriate thickness of aluminum foil to achieve optimal working energy.
The velocity curve of the flyer workpiece driven by the 0.076 mm thick aluminum foil is displayed in Fig. 7. It can be observed from the results that as the energy input increases, the vaporization time of the aluminum foil decreases, leading to greater acceleration of the flyer workpiece due to the energy released during aluminum foil vaporization. Furthermore, the energy required for vaporization also increases. At an energy input of 2 kJ, the burst time of the aluminum foil exceeds the optimal working time. The flyer workpiece undergoes significant acceleration due to the force of vaporization impact. At approximately 185 m/s, there is a sudden surge in speed, accompanied by a notable decrease in acceleration. The final impact velocity is approximately 320 m/s, which is lower than that of the flyer workpiece propelled by the 0.051 mm thick aluminum foil. The velocity curve clearly demonstrates that the speed curves of the 2 kJ and 4 kJ input energy exhibit fluctuations at certain points, indicating inadequate energy density during the vaporization process of the aluminum foil. By surpassing an energy input of 4 kJ, the final impact velocity of the driven flyer workpiece significantly increases with the rise in energy, along with an amplified acceleration. At an energy input of 10 kJ, the maximum impact velocity remains the same as at 8 kJ, measuring 667 m/s. It can be deduced that within the optimal working energy range of aluminum foil, the impact of aluminum foil thickness on the final impact velocity of the flyer workpiece surpasses the effect of energy input.
Flyer velocity with 0.076 mm thickness foil.
Figure 8 illustrates the impact velocities of aluminum foil with three different thicknesses (0.051 mm, 0.076 mm, and 0.127 mm) under various energy input conditions. It is evident that within a specific range, the impact velocity of the aluminum foil-driven flyer workpiece increases with the energy input for the same thickness of aluminum foil. At an energy input of 6 kJ for aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.051 mm, the velocity reaches a maximum value of approximately 550 m/s and does not further increase with additional energy input. At an energy input of 8 kJ, the velocity of aluminum foil with a thickness of 0.076 mm reaches a maximum value of 632 m/s. The velocity of the aluminum foil-driven flyer workpiece with a thickness of 0.127 mm exhibits a linear increase with the input energy within the usable parameter range of the system. With a maximum energy input of 12 kJ, an impact velocity of 896 m/s can be attained.
Flyer velocity of different energy input with energy input increase.
The results indicate that the change in speed during the flight of the flyer workpiece occurs in three distinct stages. In the initial stage, the primary source of acceleration stems from the electromagnetic force generated by the current in the flying plate interacting with the magnetic field of the aluminum foil. The velocity of the flyer workpiece gradually increases, and the duration of this stage elongates with the augmentation in the thickness of the aluminum foil. In the second stage, the flyer workpiece experiences significant acceleration due to the energy released upon vaporization of the aluminum foil, leading to a sharp rise in velocity driven by the instantaneous gasification of the aluminum foil. As the thickness of the aluminum foil increases, the energy required for vaporization also escalates, resulting in a higher acceleration of the flyer workpiece. The third stage of the flyer workpiece’s flight is driven by plasma conduction that occurs immediately after the aluminum foil is vaporized. The vaporization of the aluminum foil leads to plasma conduction, which causes the vaporization rate to decrease and results in fluctuations in the speed of the flyer workpiece. The deformation of the flyer workpiece and the expansion of the vaporized aluminum foil reduce the concentration of energy in the central area, leading to a gradual decrease in acceleration in this region.
When the impact angle remains constant and the input energy exceeds the optimal working efficiency range for a certain thickness of aluminum foil, the impact velocity of both the flyer workpiece and the target workpiece does not increase with the increase in input energy. By selecting an aluminum foil with an appropriate thickness, it is easier to achieve the required impact velocity under a certain impact angle, considering the welding process parameter window of VFAW.
The thickness of the aluminum foil plays a crucial role in influencing the conversion efficiency at varying energy densities. A comparison of the results presented in Figs. 6 and 8 indicates that for achieving maximum impact velocity, a 0.051 mm aluminum foil is optimal when the energy input is below 3 kJ. For energy inputs ranging from 3 to 6 kJ, a 0.076 mm aluminum foil is most suitable, while a 0.127 mm thick aluminum foil is recommended for energy inputs exceeding 6 kJ.
Under the force generated by the vaporization of the aluminum foil, the flyer workpiece collides with the target workpiece at high speed. This collision generates high temperatures and pressures at the interface, leading to localized melting of both the flyer workpiece and the base metal, resulting in metallurgical bonding. In the VFAW process, the metallurgical process of the welding interface is directly influenced by the temperature field at the interface during high-speed impact, which in turn affects the microstructure and mechanical properties of the joint. By analyzing the temperature at the interface during the impact process, it is possible to understand the characteristics of metallurgical bonding in vaporization impact welding, predict and analyze the microstructure and products of the bonding area, and optimize joint performance by controlling the process parameters of vaporization impact welding.
In the VFAW process, the heat required to form intermetallic compounds at the interface is generated by the high-velocity impact at the interface. This heat source is more complex compared to other metallurgical processes. The rapid formation of the base metal material occurs during the high-velocity impact, and the plastic deformation energy from the collision process, combined with the heat generated by adiabatic shearing, melts the metal at the interface, facilitating metallurgical bonding. The metallurgical process at the interface occurs within a noticeably short period and under high pressure. Due to the characteristics of the collision process, conventional detection methods cannot provide real-time data on the interface temperature. Therefore, this study combines theoretical calculations with analysis of interface products to examine changes in interface temperature.
Only a fraction of the energy produced by the vaporization of the aluminum foil is utilized to propel the acceleration of the flyer workpiece. It is assumed that the heat generated during the vaporization process of the aluminum foil cannot transfer to the collision interface due to the presence of the insulating film. This film can withstand high pressure and temperature. The energy needed to melt the matrix material at the interface is obtained from the plastic deformation energy resulting from the high speed and pressure between the workpieces, as well as from the adiabatic shear energy produced by adiabatic compression.
During the plastic deformation process of metal materials under external energy, the energy is converted into elastic and plastic deformation heat energy of the material. This phenomenon of converting deformation energy into heat energy during plastic deformation is known as the thermal effect. At lower deformation speeds, in addition to heating the material, most of the heat energy generated during the plastic deformation of the material is conducted outward in the form of radiation. In the VFAW process, due to the small impact area and short duration, the process can be approximated as an adiabatic process, where all the heat energy generated by the plastic deformation of the material is used to heat the material.
During the plastic deformation process of metal materials, the generated energy mainly consists of elastic work and plastic work, which can be expressed by Eq. (4).
U—Heat generated during plastic deformation
\(\varepsilon _{ij}^e\) —Elastic strain tensor
\(\varepsilon _{ij}^p\) —Plastic strain tensor.
In the process of Vaporized Foil Actuator Welding (VFAW), where the pressure from the impact is significant and the collision between interfaces can be seen as that of an ideal rigid-plastic body, Eq. (4) can be simplified to Eq. (5).
According to the plastic deformation increment theory:
\(S_{ij}\) —Stress deviator tensor
Equation (5) can be expressed as:
The characteristics of the VFAW process can be analysed with reference to the yield function.
The equivalent plastic strain is:
The viscosity relationship for the deformation speed in the VFAW process can be established by employing the yield function.
\(\tau _0\) —Shear stress intensity under normal conditions
Equation (8) can be rewritten as:
Under the assumption that the deformation process follows plane rigid plasticity, the equivalent strain rate at the stagnation point can be expressed as shown in Eq. (13).
\(t_1\) ,\(t_2\) —Thickness of flyer and target workpiece
Assuming that, under the impact of a flyer workpiece, the energy generated by plastic deformation at the interface is denoted as U, resulting in a temperature rise represented by \(T_\varepsilon\) . By considering the collision process as an adiabatic process, the following formula can be utilised to calculate the temperature rise during the plastic deformation process.
\(\rho\) —Density of flyer workpiece
\(C_v\) —Specific heat capacity of flyer workpiece at constant volume
The plastic deformation energy can be determined by integrating Eq. (12), and substituting it into Eq. (14) allows for the calculation of the temperature rise at the interface resulting from the material’s plastic deformation during the plastic deformation process.
\(t_p\) —Acceleration time of flyer workpiece
By considering a gap of 1.5 mm between the flyer workpiece and the target workpiece, and an energy input of 10 kJ, the resulting impact velocity is 925 m/s, at an impact angle of 6°. The vaporization energy of the aluminum foil acting on the acceleration time is 12.2 \(\upmu\) s. Substituting these values into the calculation reveals that the temperature rise \(T_\varepsilon\) caused by the plastic deformation of the interface during the collision impact is 168 K. Equations (14) and (15) indicate that during the VFAW process, the magnitude of the interface temperature rise increases with higher impact velocity and decreases with greater impact angle.
In the VFAW process, the flyer workpiece impacts the target plate at high speed due to the impact force generated by the vaporization of the aluminum foil. The pressure at the interface in the collision area can reach tens of gigapascals (GPa). The collision at the interface results in an increase in temperature. Assuming that heat diffusion at the interface is negligible and an adiabatic thermodynamic process occurs at the interface, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.
The pressure (P), volume (V), entropy (S), and specific heat capacity (\(C_v\) ) at the interface satisfy the following relationships:
According to Maxwell’s relation:
Then Eq. (19) can be rewritten as:
According to Gruneisen’s equation of state:
It can be rewritten as:
Substituting Eqs. (22) and (24) into Eq. (16). The Eq. (16) can be rewritten as:
The impact process at the VFAW interface is assumed to follow Hugoniot impact:
Equation (26) can be rewritten as follows, based on the Hugoniot curve:
Substituting Eq. (28) into (27), the result as follows:
Solving this differential equation result as follows:
The calculation method for interface pressure in explosive welding can be referenced during the VFAW process at the interface:
\(\rho _1\) ,\(\rho _2\) —Density of flyer and target workpiece
\(c_1\) ,\(c_2\) —Sound speed of the flyer and target workpiece.
Substitute Eq. (31) into 30 to get:
By utilizing the parameters from Eq. (32) and the material parameters of the flyer and target workpieces, with a gap of 1.5 mm between the flyer and the target workpiece, and an energy input of 10 kJ, the impact velocity is 925 m/s, with an impact angle of 6°. The temperature rise (\(T_i\) ) caused by the adiabatic shear process at the interface during the collision is calculated to be 1226 K. Analysis reveals that during the interface impact process, both plastic deformation energy and adiabatic shear energy contribute to the temperature rise of the interface collision point area, resulting in a temperature increase of 1394 K. The primary source of interface temperature rise energy is the adiabatic shear energy, with plastic deformation energy contributing less to the interface temperature rise.
In a small volume range at the interface, the heat conducted in the interface impact area in the three-dimensional coordinate directions, denoted as d\(Q_x\) , d\(Q_y\) , and d\(Q_z\) respectively, can be determined using the principles of energy conservation and Fourier’s formula:
q—Total heat acting on the interface
According to Fourier’s formula:
The total heat acting on the interface can be expressed as follows:
Substitute Eq. (35) into (33) can get as follows:
From Eqs. (33) and (36) can get as follows:
In the VFAW process, certain assumptions can be made regarding heat conduction at the interface:
Due to the rapid nature of the VFAW process, typically completed within 10 \(\upmu\) s, there is no time difference between heat-generating positions at the interface;
Considering the swift transfer of impact velocity at the interface, typically ranging from 600 to 1200 m/s, it is assumed that there is no heat conduction at the interface along the direction of collision, and energy develops solely perpendicular to the impact velocity direction;
Neglecting variations in impact angles at different positions at the interface, the impact velocity remains constant.
Based on the above assumptions, Eq. (40) can be simplified as follows:
Neglecting heat conduction of energy along the circumferential direction of the collision and considering heat dissipation only in the direction perpendicular to the collision velocity, Eq. (41) can be solved as follows:
Q—The total heat generated at the interface under collision
F—The area of the interface intermetallic compound zone along the collision direction
In the VFAW process, the heat generated at the interface is primarily the heat of metal melting:
Previous studies have indicated that the maximum thickness of the intermetallic compound region at the interface is approximately 60 \(\upmu\) m. In a continuous intermetallic compound bonding region, the stainless steel side exhibits a wavy shape, with the intermetallic compound region occupying roughly half of the volume. Therefore, the mass of the melted area at the interface can be determined by the following formula:
Heat conduction propagates perpendicular to the collision speed direction. In VFAW of dissimilar metals such as aluminum alloy and stainless steel, the differing specific heat capacities and thermal diffusion coefficients between the metals can result in an asymmetric temperature distribution on either side of the interface. Increasing the impact velocity can elevate the interface temperature. The heat transfer area is determined by the maximum temperature value (\(T_{max}\) ) at the interface and the average thickness of the intermetallic compound (\(\xi\) ).
The temperature distribution at the interface between 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel, as calculated using Eq. (45), exhibits variations over time and distance perpendicular to the interface, as depicted in Fig. 9. The findings indicate that the temperature distribution near the interface increases with time, while gradually decreasing with distance from the center of the interface. The region exceeding the melting point of 3003 aluminum alloy is narrow, approximately 55 \(\mu\) m in width above 655 K. The primary cause of temperature elevation in the interface area, due to the VFAW process characteristics, is the workpiece formed by adiabatic shear energy generated through mutual collision. Energy density is significantly influenced by strain rate, requiring a sufficiently high strain rate to induce a substantial rise in temperature. The duration for aluminum foil vaporization to propel the flyer workpiece acceleration is only about 10 \(\mu\) s, thereby making the heat conduction process brief. The phase transformation time of intermetallic compound and matrix metal under heat action is extremely short. These characteristics of temperature change determine the microstructure features at the aluminum alloy/stainless steel interface. In conditions of high-speed heating and cooling, the interface forms intermetallic compounds that are prone to non-equilibrium phases.
Effect of time and distance of interface temperature.
In the VFAW process, the impact angle within the vaporization area of the aluminum foil and the target workpiece is smaller compared to the outer area. Equation 32 demonstrates that the smaller the impact angle, the greater the rise in interface temperature, causing the intermetallic compound formed at the interface to fracture under the impact force, as depicted in Fig. 10. The bonding strength of the interface in the middle area is low, resulting in fractures during mechanical property tests. VFAW relies on material collision at the interface for welding. Analysis of the rise in temperature and distribution at the interface reveals that under such conditions, collision speed plays a crucial role. Elevated temperatures at the interface can easily exceed the melting point of the base material, leading to the formation of brittle intermetallic compounds locally. Impact forces can expel few intermetallic compounds along the collision direction through the jet action, resulting in a narrower combined area. The rise in temperature at the interface only surpasses the melting point of the aluminum alloy side and does not reach that of stainless steel. Consequently, the interface between aluminum and stainless steel tends to be smooth on one side and wavy on the other. Under the impact force, some stainless steel materials detach from the matrix. Due to the uneven distribution of impact velocity at the interface, the morphology of stainless steel material involved in the intermetallic compound exhibits significant variation.
Defects morphology in the center of interface.
Through the analysis of the interface morphology between 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel, in conjunction with theoretical calculations of the rise in interface temperature, it is evident that during the VFAW process, the interface undergoes various processes including plastic deformation, dislocation strengthening, diffusion, metal melting, adiabatic shear banding, and others. The metallurgical bonding of the interface is a consequence of these processes. Upon computation of the temperature elevation at the interface between aluminum alloy and stainless steel, it was observed that the interface temperature rise is approximately 1400 K, surpassing the melting point of aluminum alloy while remaining below that of stainless steel. Additionally, the duration of interface action is around 20 \(\upmu\) s, indicating rapid rates of both heating and cooling. With the interface impact pressure surpassing ten GPa, the metallurgical reaction at the interface occurs swiftly under high-pressure conditions, demonstrating a significant imbalance. Figure 11 illustrates a schematic diagram of the interface morphology between 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel. Upon examination of the interface morphology, it was discovered that the interface comprises a discontinuous intermetallic compound bonding area and exhibits a tight bonding method. The intermetallic compound at the interface is intertwined with parts of stainless steel base material of various sizes.
Schematic of aluminum and stainless VFAW bonding interface.
While this study provides valuable insights into the energy transformation at the interface between 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel during the VFAW process, several limitations should be acknowledged, particularly when the flyer and target workpieces exhibit significant differences in properties. The findings primarily consider the energy transformation process at the interface, focusing on materials with substantial differences in hardness (85HB for 3003 aluminum alloy and 217HB for 321 stainless steel). It is crucial to recognize that further increases in collision velocity and reductions in collision angle may affect the reproducibility of these results. Additionally, the study did not investigate the impact of differences in material composition on the formation of interfacial products. The research primarily concentrated on the generation and transfer of interfacial energy, without delving into the underlying mechanisms of interfacial bonding. Future research could examine the influence of specific elements at the interface, such as Ni, Cr, and Ti, on the strength of interfacial bonding. Such studies would offer stronger theoretical support for the industrial application of VFAW, enhancing its practical viability and effectiveness in joining dissimilar materials.
This study combines theoretical analysis and experimental research to investigate the discharge of aluminum foil and the conversion of interface energy during the vaporizing foil actuator welding of 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel. The following conclusions are drawn:
The analysis of the energy conversion process during aluminum foil vaporization indicates that the energy responsible for accelerating the flyer workpiece consists of the vaporization energy \(E_d\) from the aluminum foil and the continuous vaporization energy \(E_p\) generated through plasma conduction. The vaporization energy \(E_d\) serves as the primary driving force, contributing 65–80% of the total energy required for flyer acceleration. To maximize energy conversion efficiency, different aluminum foil thicknesses correspond to specific optimal energy input ranges: 0.051 mm aluminum foil is most effective with an energy input of less than 4 kJ, 0.076 mm aluminum foil performs optimally with 4–6 kJ, and 0.127 mm aluminum foil is suitable for 6–12 kJ;
The rise in interface temperature is predominantly driven by adiabatic shear energy, with plastic deformation energy playing a secondary role. The magnitude of the interface temperature increase is positively correlated with collision speed and negatively correlated with collision angle. Detailed analysis reveals that during the interface impact, both plastic deformation energy and adiabatic shear energy contribute to the temperature rise at the collision point, leading to a total temperature increase of 1394 K. Specifically, adiabatic shear energy accounts for a temperature increase of 1226 K, while plastic deformation energy contributes 168 K when the impact velocity reaches 925 m/s;
The analysis of the heat generation and heat transfer processes at the interface, driven by plastic deformation energy and adiabatic shear energy during the collision, reveals that aluminum undergoes melting, diffusion, and solid-liquid reactions with stainless steel, resulting in the formation of a bonded joint.
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Martinsen, K., Hu, S. J. & Carlson, B. E. Joining of dissimilar materials. Cirp. Ann. 64, 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2015.05.006 (2015).
Küçükömeroğlu, T., Aktarer, S. M., İpekoğlu, G. & Çam, G. Mechanical properties of friction stir welded st 37 and st 44 steel joints. Mater. Testing 60, 1163–1170. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111266 (2018).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
İpekoğlu, G., Küçükömeroğlu, T., Aktarer, S. M., Sekban, D. M. & Çam, G. Investigation of microstructure and mechanical properties of friction stir welded dissimilar st37/st52 joints. Mater. Res. Express 6, 046537. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/aafb9f (2019).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Karim, M. A. & Park, Y.-D. A review on welding of dissimilar metals in car body manufacturing. J. Welding Joining 38, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.5781/JWJ.2020.38.1.1 (2020).
Serindağ, H. T. & Çam, G. Microstructure and mechanical properties of gas metal arc welded aisi 430/aisi 304 dissimilar stainless steels butt joints. in of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1777, 012047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1777/1/012047 (IOP Publishing, 2021).
Heidarzadeh, A. et al. Friction stir welding/processing of metals and alloys: A comprehensive review on microstructural evolution. Progress Mater. Sci. 117, 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100752 (2021).
Li, J., Panton, B., Mao, Y., Vivek, A. & Daehn, G. High-strength micro impact welding of niti wire to brass sheet. Welding World 66, 1799–1809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-022-01336-y (2022).
Francis, J. A. A perspective on welding technology challenges in the nuclear sector. Sci. Technol. Welding Joining 27, 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621718.2022.2047407 (2022).
Ahmed, M. M., Seleman, M.M.E.-S., Fydrych, D. & Gürel, Ç. Review on friction stir welding of dissimilar magnesium and aluminum alloys: Scientometric analysis and strategies for achieving high-quality joints. J. Magnesium Alloys[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2023.09.039 (2023).
Abdul Khaliq, U. et al. A review on friction stir butt welding of aluminum with magnesium: A new insight on joining mechanisms by interfacial enhancement. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 27, 4595–4624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.10.158 (2023).
Çam, G., Javaheri, V. & Heidarzadeh, A. Advances in fsw and fssw of dissimilar al-alloy plates. J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 37, 162–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2022.2028073 (2023).
Serindağ, H. T. & Çam, G. Characterizations of microstructure and properties of dissimilar aisi 316l/9ni low-alloy cryogenic steel joints fabricated by gas tungsten arc welding. J. Mater. Eng. Performance 32, 7039–7049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07601-x (2023).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Çam, G. & Günen, A. Challenges and opportunities in the production of magnesium parts by directed energy deposition processes. J. Magnesium Alloys[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2024.05.004 (2024).
Jazayerli, M. M. et al. Effect of welding speed on micro-friction stir lap welding of ultra-thin aluminium and copper sheets. Welding World.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-024-01761-1 (2024).
Evdokimov, A., Obrosov, A., Ossenbrink, R., Weiß, S. & Michailov, V. Mechanical properties of dissimilar steel-aluminum welds. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 722, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2018.03.019 (2018).
Peng, P. et al. Intermetallic compounds: Formation mechanism and effects on the mechanical properties of friction stir lap welded dissimilar joints of magnesium and aluminum alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 802, 140554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.140554 (2021).
Wallerstein, D. et al. Advanced characterization of intermetallic compounds in dissimilar aluminum-steel joints obtained by laser welding-brazing with alsi filler metals. Mater. Characterization 179, 111345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2021.111345 (2021).
Abhilash, Nunthavarawong, P., Ratanathavorn, W. & Kowitwarangkul, P. Advances in friction stir welding of dissimilar aluminum and steel: A review on challenges, assisted techniques, and future prospects. Mater. Manuf. Process. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2024.2362641.
Yang, Y., Luo, Z., Zhang, Y. & Su, J. Dissimilar welding of aluminium to steel: A review. J. Manuf. Process. 110, 376–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.12.060 (2024).
Suresh, S., Natarajan, E., Mohan, DG, Ang, CK & Sudhagar, S. Depriving friction stir weld defects in dissimilar aluminum lap joints. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part E J. Process Mech. Eng. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1177/0954408924123981.
Haddad , E. , Poggenburg , F. , Häusler , A. & Olowinsky , A. Welding of thin stainless-steel sheets using a qcw green laser source . Sci. Rep. 14, 4105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54305-4 (2024).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Rahman, S. A. A. et al. Study on intermetallic compound (imc) in dissimilar joining of steel and aluminum (fe-al)–A review paper. Welding World.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-024-01784-8 (2024).
Vivek, A., Hansen, S. R., Liu, B. C. & Daehn, G. S. Vaporizing foil actuator: A tool for collision welding. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213, 2304–2311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.07.006 (2013).
Graß, M., Sommer, N. & Böhm, S. Enabling magnetic pulse welding for dissimilar tubular arrester cable joints. Welding World.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-024-01760-2 (2024).
Hahn, M. & Tekkaya, A. E. Experimental and numerical analysis of the influence of burst pressure distribution on rapid free sheet forming by vaporizing foil actuators. Metals.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.3390/met10060845 (2020).
Vivek, A., Taber, G. A., Johnson, J. R., Woodward, S. T. & Daehn, G. S. Electrically driven plasma via vaporization of metallic conductors: A tool for impulse metal working. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213, 1311–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.02.010 (2013).
Wang, H. & Wang, Y. High-velocity impact welding process: A review. Metals 9, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/met9020144 (2019).
Shan, S., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Fan, X. & Jiao, K. Explosion welding research on large-size ultra-thick copper-steel composites: A review. J. Mater. Res. Technol.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.04.087 (2023).
Zhang, J. et al. Increasing joint strength in magnesium-aluminum dissimilar impact welding by surface nanocrystallization of magnesium alloy sheet. Scripta Materialia 251, 116190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2024.116190 (2024).
Abdelmaola, M., Thurston, B., Panton, B., Vivek, A. & Daehn, G. The effects of target thicknesses and backing materials on a ti-cu collision weld interface using laser impact welding. Metals 14, 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14030342 (2024).
Kawano, R., Tanaka, S., Inao, D. & Hokamoto, K. Acceleration of metal plates by hybridization of electrical and chemical energy for potential application in high-velocity impact welding. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 318, 118014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.118014 (2023).
Thurston, B. P., Klenosky, D. R., Misak, H. E., Vivek, A. & Daehn, G. S. Small-scale impact welding of high-strength aluminum alloys: Process and properties. J. Mater. Eng. Performance 32, 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07159-8 (2023).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Gong, M. et al. Water-augmented vaporizing foil actuator welding: Process performance and mechanisms clarifications. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 318, 118040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.118040 (2023).
Chen, S. et al. Interfacial microstructures and mechanical property of vaporizing foil actuator welding of aluminum alloy to steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 659, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.02.040 (2016).
Chen, S. et al. Interfacial characteristics of ti/al joint by vaporizing foil actuator welding. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 263, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.08.004 (2019).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Yu, G. et al. Influence of si addition on microstructure, mechanical properties, and corrosion resistance of al/steel brazing joint using zn-15al-xsi filler metals. J. Mater. Eng. Performance 33, 1874–1884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-023-08106-x (2024).
Barnett, B., Vivek, A. & Daehn, G. Shock effects on the upper limit of the collision weld process window. Adv. Manufact.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-023-00472-y (2024).
Thurston, B., Lewis, T., Li, J., Vivek, A. & Daehn, G. Augmented laser impact welding: A new process demonstration in welding aluminum alloy 2024–t3. J. Mater. Eng. Performance.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-023-08808-2 (2023).
Chu, Q. et al. Microstructure and mechanical properties of Ti/Cu/Fe dissimilar joints. J. Mater. Eng. Performance 32, 4846–4859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07445-5 (2023).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Sari, A. et al. An embedded machine learning strategy for analyzing interfacial characteristics in impact welding of dissimilar alloys. Composite Interfaces.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1080/09276440.2023.2298124 (2023).
Prabu, S. M., Aravindan, S., Ghosh, S. & Palani, I. Solid-state welding of nitinol shape memory alloys: A review. Mater. Today Commun. 35, 105728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.105728 (2023).
Zhang, T. et al. Evolution mechanism of intermetallic compounds and the mechanical properties of dissimilar friction stir welded qp980 steel and 6061 aluminum alloy. Mater. Characterization 202, 113033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2023.113033 (2023).
Walker , L. , Avedissian , N. , Vanderbilt , C. , Paolini , D. & Zhang , W. Effect of fe-al intermetallics on fatigue properties of aluminum to steel dissimilar spot welds . Int. J. Fatigue.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2024.108434 (2024).
Yang, L. et al. Doppler velocimetry of spin propagation in a two-dimensional electron gas. Nat. Phys. 8, 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2157 (2012).
Jensen, B., Holtkamp, D., Rigg, P. & Dolan, D. Accuracy limits and window corrections for photon doppler velocimetry. J. Appl. Phys.[SPACE]https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2407290 (2007).
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (E2021210117 and A2023210026), Scientific Research Foundation for the returned overseas scholars, Hebei Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security (C20200360),Science and Technology Project of Hebei Education Department (QN2020434), S&T Program of Hebei (21567622H) and also funded by Engineering Research Centre of Advanced Manufacturing Technology for Automotive Components, Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology.
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, 050043, China
Shan Su, Wei Duan & Ruichen Wang
Hebei Key Laboratory of Mechanical Power and Transmission Control, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, 050043, China
Shan Su, Wei Duan & Ruichen Wang
Hebei Collaborative Innovation Center of Large Construction Machinery Manufacturing, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, 050043, China
Shan Su, Wei Duan & Ruichen Wang
Shijiazhuang Vocational College of Finance and Economics, Department of Traffic Engineering, Shijiazhuang, 050200, China
Yuanyuan Wu & Fei Shao
Hebei Xindadi Electrical and Mechanical Manufacturing Co., Ltd, Shijiazhuang, 050200, China
Hebei Xinlaiman Construction Technology Co., Ltd, Shijiazhuang, 050200, China
Xiaoya Gu & Xiaoyu Liu
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Conceptualization, S.S. and R.C. W.; Methodology, S. S. and W. D.; Formal analysis, Y.Y. W. and F. S.; Investigation, S. S. and T. S.; Data curation, X.Y. G. and X.Y. L.; Writing - original draft preparation, S.S. and F. S.; Writing - review and editing, S.S. and R.C. W.; Visualization, Y.Y. W. and W. D.; All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Correspondence to Shan Su or Ruichen Wang.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Su, S., Duan, W., Wu, Y. et al. Interfacial energy conversion mechanism between 3003 aluminum alloy and 321 stainless steel in vaporizing foil actuator welding process. Sci Rep 14, 23307 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74077-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74077-1
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Scientific Reports (Sci Rep) ISSN 2045-2322 (online)
3 Inch Round Pipe Price Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.