An Investigation of Interface Bonding Strength of Bimetal Plate Based on the Optimization of Asymmetric Double Cantilever Beam Model
QIN Qin1,2(), LI Cheng2, HE Liu1, YE Chenlong2, ZANG Yong1
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China 2 Shunde Graduate School, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Foshan 520300, China
Cite this article:
QIN Qin, LI Cheng, HE Liu, YE Chenlong, ZANG Yong. An Investigation of Interface Bonding Strength of Bimetal Plate Based on the Optimization of Asymmetric Double Cantilever Beam Model. Acta Metall Sin, 2020, 56(12): 1617-1628.
The bimetal sheet products obtained by the incremental forming are gradually gaining popularity because of their excellent properties. The forming process of the bimetal sheets is more complicated than that of the single metal sheet because it involves a complex interface between the two metal sheets. The bonding strength of the interface is an important parameter for evaluating the bonding properties of a bimetal sheet. However, if the required bonding strength is higher than the strength of the substrate, appropriate strength is difficult to achieve using only experimental methods. An improved analytical method to calculate the interface bonding strength has been proposed based on the widely used interface model of an asymmetric double cantilever beam. This improved analytical method considers the plasticity of the interface. The interface bonding strength of the explosively welded T2/A1050 copper-aluminum bimetal sheet has been assessed using the improved method, and its interface bonding strength has been found to reach 208 MPa. This bonding strength has been used in a finite element model for the forming process of the bimetal sheet. The correctness of the method has been verified by comparing the analytical results with the experimental data. Furthermore, the influence of interface bonding strength on the maximum forming depth has been explored, and it has been found that the maximum forming depth increased by 210% when the interface bonding strength increased by 38%. Moreover, a three-dimensional model including a tool, the Cu-Al bimetal sheet, and a cohesive element between the two metal sheets has been suggested for investigating the bulge defect of the forming part. The bonding strength of the interface obtained above has again been utilized in the finite element analysis. The impacts of different reductions and tool diameters on the bulge defect of the forming part have systematically been discussed. The results show that bulge defect decreased by 57% when the reduction decreased from 2.0 mm to 0.5 mm, and the bulge defect decreased by 38% when the tool diameter increased from 10 mm to 22 mm. Optimized parameters have been suggested to effectively reduce the bulge defect by 53%.
Fund: Basic and Applied Basic Research Fund for Guangdong Province(2019B1515120070);Special Funds for Science and Technology Innovation of Shunde Graduate School of University of Science and Technology Beijing(BK-19BE009)
Fig.1 Bilinear elastoplastic interface constitutive model based on linear hardening assumption in tensile direction (a) and shear direction (b) (σ—stress in the tensile direction of the interface, σs—yield stress in the tensile direction of the interface, Δw0—deformation of the interface under the tensile yield state, Δw—deformation of the interface in the tensile direction, Kz—elastic stiffness coefficient in the tensile direction, K—tangent stiffness coefficient in the tensile direction, τ—stress in the shear direction of the interface, τs—yield stress in the shear direction of the interface, Δu0—deformation of the interface under the shear yield state, Δu—deformation of the interface in the shear direction, Kx—elastic stiffness coefficient in the shear direction, K—tangent stiffness coefficient in the shear direction)
Fig.2 Technical roadmap
Fig.3 Simulation model of double cantilever beam (a—length of initial layer crack, b—length of the connecting part of the model, P—end load of the model)
Fig.4 Bilinear traction-separation response of the cohesive element relation of Fvss (F—interface bonding strength, K—stiffness, G—breaking energy, sc—interface displacement at maximum crack tension, se—interface displacement at material failure, s—displacement of interfacial crack propagation)
Material
ρ / (kg·m-3)
E / GPa
μ
σs / MPa
A1050
2700
70
0.33
98
T2
8940
115
0.35
290
Table 1 Physical property parameters of Cu-Al bimetal plates of A1050 and T2[30]
F / MPa
δ1 / mm
δ2 / mm
185
1.20352
1.10330
190
1.13473
1.02560
195
1.12890
0.91437
200
1.10361
0.86254
205
1.07793
0.84262
210
0.79290
0.74218
215
0.69302
0.70020
Table 2 End displacements of double cantilever beam model at different interface bonding strengths
Fig.5 Comparisons of simulation results of T-peeling model before (a) and after (b) deformation
t
G / (mJ·mm-2)
δ1 / mm
δ2 / mm
H/6.2
79.432~10.292
2.2118
1.5330
H/16.2
18.296~4.7731
1.5062
1.0439
H/30
9.639~3.7086
1.3277
0.9202
Table 3 Partial calculated results of breaking energies (G) vsδ1 and δ2 when stretching in elastic stage and shearing in plastic stage
Fig.6 The simulation of single point incremental forming (A1050—aluminum layer of bimetal plates, interface—interface layer of bimetal plates, T2—copper layer of bimetal plates, tool—tool head of the single point incremental forming)
Fig.7 The damage of the cohesive element (QUADSCRT represents secondary stress criterion)
Fig.8 Simulated result of the bimetal sheet damage
Fig.9 Comparisons between the result of single point incremental forming
Fig.10 Experimental and simulated contour curves of single point incremental forming
Fig.11 Sectional profiles of conical parts under different reductions (a) and the heights of bulge defect under different reductions (b)
Fig.12 Sectional profile curves of forming depth vs displacement of conical parts under different tool diameters (D) (a) and histogram of height of bulge defect vs tool diameter (b)
[1]
Zhang Y X, Yang C H. Recent developments in finite element analysis for laminated composite plates [J]. Compos. Struct., 2009, 88: 147
doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.02.014
[2]
Chen X Z. Review of laminar composite metal material manufacturing technique [J]. Nonferrous Met. Mater. Eng., 2017, 38: 63
Xiong J, Ma L, Pan S, et al. Shear and bending performance of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with pyramidal truss cores [J]. Acta Mater., 2012, 60: 1455
doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.028
[4]
Lü Z Y. Research on interfacial bonding strength of asynchronous rolled copper/aluminum composite plate [J]. J. Plast. Eng., 2019, 26(4): 93
Qiu B, Xing S M, Dong Q. Characterization of interfacial bonding strength of particles reinforced metal matrix composites: Theory model, finite element simulation and experimental test [J]. Mater. Rev., 2019, 33: 862
Muralidharan N, Chockalingam K, Dinaharan I, et al. Microstructure and mechanical behavior of AA2024 aluminum matrix composites reinforced with in situ synthesized ZrB2 particles [J]. J. Alloys Compd., 2018, 735: 2167
[8]
Kim Y K, Hong S I. Influence of interface structure and stress distribution on fracture and mechanical performance of STS439/Al1050/STS304 clad composite [J]. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2019, A749: 35
[9]
Abbasi M, Salehi M T, Taheri A K. An investigation on cold roll welding of copper to aluminum using electrical resistivity [J]. Z. Metallkd., 2001, 92: 423
[10]
Wang T H, Sidhar H, Mishra R S, et al. Evaluation of intermetallic compound layer at aluminum/steel interface joined by friction stir scribe technology [J]. Mater. Des., 2019, 174: 107795
doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107795
[11]
Zhang Z L. Theoretical and experimental study on the Iosipescu shear test method [J]. J. Aeronaut. Mater., 1996, 16(1): 55
You J H, Lutz W, Gerger H, et al. Fiber push-out study of a copper matrix composite with an engineered interface: Experiments and cohesive element simulation [J]. Int. J. Solids Struct., 2009, 46: 4277
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.08.021
[13]
Nishikawa M, Okabe T, Takeda N. Determination of interface properties from experiments on the fragmentation process in single-fiber composites [J]. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2008, A480: 549
[14]
Nishikawa M, Okabe T, Hemmi K, et al. Micromechanical modeling of the microbond test to quantify the interfacial properties of fiber-reinforced composites [J]. Int. J. Solids Struct., 2008, 45: 4098
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.02.021
[15]
Ni L H. Interface and performance analysis of explosively welded Cu-Al bimetallic composite [D]. Zhenjiang: Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, 2015
(倪梁华. 铜铝爆炸复合材料界面及性能分析 [D]. 镇江: 江苏科技大学, 2015)
[16]
Qu H P. Study on semi-analytical solution for thermoelastic composite laminated plate [D]. Tianjin: Civil Aviation University of China, 2018
(屈鹤鹏. 复合材料层合板热弹性问题半解析法研究 [D]. 天津: 中国民航大学, 2018)
[17]
Dvorak G J, Laws N. Analysis of progressive matrix cracking in composite laminates II. First ply failure [J]. J. Compos. Mater., 1987, 21: 309
doi: 10.1177/002199838702100402
[18]
Dvorak G J, Laws N, Hejazi M. Analysis of progressive matrix cracking in composite laminates I. Tthermoelastic properties of a ply with cracks [J]. J. Compos. Mater., 1985, 19: 216
doi: 10.1177/002199838501900302
[19]
Reedy E D, Guess T R. Butt joint tensile strength: Interface corner stress intensity factor prediction [J]. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 1995, 9: 237
doi: 10.1163/156856195X01148
[20]
Adams R. Structural Adhesive Joints in Engineering [M]. Netherlands: Springer, 1984: 1
[21]
Dunn M L, Suwito W, Cunningham S. Fracture initiation at sharp notches: Correlation using critical stress intensities [J]. Int. J. Solids Struct., 1997, 34: 3873
doi: 10.1016/S0020-7683(96)00236-3
[22]
Maimí P, Camanho P P, Mayugo J A, et al. A continuum damage model for composite laminates: Part I—Constitutive model [J]. Mech. Mater., 2007, 39: 897
doi: 10.1016/j.mechmat.2007.03.005
[23]
Maimí P, Camanho P P, Mayugo J A, et al. A continuum damage model for composite laminates: Part II—Computational implementation and validation [J]. Mech. Mater., 2007, 39: 909
doi: 10.1016/j.mechmat.2007.03.006
[24]
Xiao F, Hui C Y, Kramer E J. Analysis of a mixed mode fracture specimen: The asymmetric double cantilever beam [J]. J. Mater. Sci., 1993, 28: 5620
doi: 10.1007/BF00367838
[25]
Bennati S, Fisicaro P, Valvo P S. An enhanced beam-theory model of the mixed-mode bending (MMB) test—Part I: Literature review and mechanical model [J]. Meccanica, 2013, 48: 443
doi: 10.1007/s11012-012-9686-3
[26]
Bennati S, Fisicaro P, Valvo P S. An enhanced beam-theory model of the mixed-mode bending (MMB) test—Part II: Applications and results [J]. Meccanica, 2013, 48: 465
doi: 10.1007/s11012-012-9682-7
[27]
Bennati S, Colleluori M, Corigliano D, et al. An enhanced beam-theory model of the asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) test for composite laminates [J]. Compos. Sci. Technol., 2009, 69: 1735
doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.01.019
[28]
Hua X G, Li H G, Lu Y, et al. Interlaminar fracture toughness of GLARE laminates based on asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) [J]. Composites, 2019, 163B: 175
[29]
Williams J G. Fracture mechanics of anisotropic materials [J]. Compos. Mater. Ser., 1989, 6: 3
[30]
Honarpisheh M, Jobedar M M, Alinaghian I. Multi-response optimization on single-point incremental forming of hyperbolic shape Al-1050/Cu bimetal using response surface methodology [J]. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2018, 96: 3069
doi: 10.1007/s00170-018-1812-5
[31]
Bennati S, Valvo P S. Delamination growth in composite plates under compressive fatigue loads [J]. Compos. Sci. Technol., 2006, 66: 248
doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.04.035
[32]
Li X Q. Diffusion thickness and heat transfer performance of Cu-Al composite pate under service condions [D]. Shenyang: Shenyang University of Technology, 2019
