Next Article in Journal
Novel Method of Bauxite Treatment Using Electroreductive Bayer Process
Previous Article in Journal
Determination of Interaction Parameters between Mn and Al and the Influence of Mn on Al2O3 Inclusions Formation in High Mn and Al Content Fe-Mn-Al-O Melts at 1873 K
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Metals
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/met13091501
metals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preparation Method and Properties of Q235/5083 Composite Plate with 1060 Interlayer by Differential Temperature Rolling with Induction Heating

by
Chao Yu
,
Wenzhe Zhang
,
Runwu Jiang
,
Yuhua Wu
and
Hong Xiao
*
National Engineering Research Center for Equipment and Technology of Cold Strip Rolling, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2023, 13(9), 1501; https://doi.org/10.3390/met13091501
Submission received: 16 July 2023 / Revised: 9 August 2023 / Accepted: 16 August 2023 / Published: 22 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Forming Technologies: Status Quo, Challenges and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to their exceptional all-around performance, steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates have been frequently utilized in many different industries. However, when steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates are prepared by the rolling process, they will scarcely bond with high bonding strength under a lower reduction rate due to the inconsistent deformation the of steel/aluminum-alloy. Therefore, a method of adding a pure-aluminum interlayer by differential temperature rolling with induction heating was proposed to prepare steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates. The results showed that when the induction heating time was 10–18 s, the pure-aluminum interlayer became molten, and the temperature difference between the steel and aluminum alloy reached 350–500 °C. The interface shear strength of the composite plate reached more than 68 MPa under a 31% reduction rate. The shear fracture of the composite plate occurred in the pure-aluminum layer, and the steel/aluminum interface diffusion layer was 0.83–0.99 μm thick. There was no obvious compound formation at the bonding interface, however, the steel and aluminum alloy could not bond without the addition of an interlayer under the same conditions.

1. Introduction

Steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates integrate the advantages of steel and aluminum alloys, such as good plasticity, good welding performance, high strength of steel, excellent thermal conductivity, corrosion resistance, and wear resistance of aluminum alloys [1,2,3]. They have been widely used in fields such as shipbuilding, rail transit, and the petrochemical industry [4,5]. At present, the explosive bonding process [6], solid–liquid bonding process [7], and rolling bonding process [8] are the main preparation processes of steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates.
The explosive bonding process utilizes the energy generated by explosives to make the cladding plate impact the base plate at high speed, which can achieve extensive bonding between heterogeneous metals [9,10,11]. The explosive bonding technology of steel/aluminum alloy has been comparatively mature [12,13]. Tricarico et al. [12] prepared steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates with a greater thickness and an interfacial interface strength of 69.57 MPa through the explosive bonding process. The effect of heat treatment temperature on steel/aluminum bonding was studied, and it was found that the bonding strength of steel/aluminum decreased with the increase in heat treatment temperature. Saravanan et al. [13] added 1100 pure aluminum, copper, and 304 stainless steel as the interlayer between 316 stainless steel and 5052 aluminum alloy for explosive cladding bonding. When the pure aluminum was used as the interlayer, the interfacial shear strength of stainless-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates reached a maximum of 180 MPa. However, explosive bonding will produce an explosive seismic wave, serious noise and toxic gas pollution. Although, many scholars have been working on reducing the pollution [14,15]. Chen et al. [14] proposed an innovative explosive welding method for the fabrication of multiple plates (EWMP) to further improve the energy efficiency of explosive welding explosive charges and reduce the impact on the surrounding environment. The results showed the vibration data of EWMP were reduced and explosive consumption of EWMP was reduced by at least half, compared to the traditional method when obtaining the same amount of welded plates. Yang et al. [15] presented extensive research on secondary hazards and welding quality of a novel explosive welding technique, where colloidal water was used to cover the upper surfaces of the explosives. They found that the use of the colloid water could improve energy efficiency and reduce the pollution of noise and dust. But the pollution of the explosive bonding process still cannot be ignored. And the productivity of explosive bonding is low, thus restricting the production of composite plates.
Compared with the explosive bonding process, the solid–liquid bonding process has less pollution. The bonding of the solid–liquid bonding process interface is carried out by the melting of metals and element diffusion [16,17]; it has been used to prepare steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates [7,18,19]. Chen et al. [7] poured molten aluminum onto a stainless steel plate and produced a stainless steel/aluminum clad sheet successfully by horizontal twin-roll casting and rolling. After bonding, annealing and cold rolling were used to strengthen the composite interface, respectively. Their work proved that the elimination of residual voids and increase of the salient during annealing, and the formation of wavelike interface during cold rolling were the mechanisms of peel strength increment. Grydin et al. [18] prepared steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates with a vertical solid–liquid casting and rolling method, and the interface strength of the composite plate reached 70 MPa and the diffusion layer at the bonding interface was 3 μm thick. However, it is difficult to produce large-thickness aluminum/steel composite plates by the solid–liquid bonding process due to the following reasons: the thicker the composite plates are, the lower the cooling rate of composite plates will be, and defects such as segregation may occur inside the cast aluminum alloy; meanwhile, the decrease in the cooling rate leads to great diffusion of interfacial elements and increases in interfacial compounds. Therefore, the thickness of steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates produced by the cast-rolling bonding process is generally below 3 mm [7,8,18].
The rolling bonding process has a higher production efficiency and lower production costs [20,21] than the above two bonding processes, making it one of the important research directions and methods to prepare different kinds of composite plates [22,23,24,25]. However, high plastic deformation of two metals, aluminum and steel, is necessary to create the bonding [26,27,28]. For example, Movahedi et al. [27] bonded the steel and aluminum alloy following the steps of “surface treatment-rolling-annealing after rolling”. They discovered that the interfacial strength of steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates could be comparable to that of the aluminum matrix at a reduction rate of 50%, while the bonding strength considerably declined when the reduction rate was less than 50%. Nezhad et al. [28] prepared STW22/Al1350 composite plates by the hot rolling process, and found that under a 45% reduction rate, the peel strength of steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates could increase to 16–18 N/mm at a hot rolling temperature of 200 °C, while the peel strength was reduced by half under a 30% reduction rate. Xu et al. [29] created a significant temperature difference between steel and aluminum plates by using induction heating to achieve differential temperature rolling, by which steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates were successfully prepared. The bonding strength reached 85 MPa under a reduction rate of over 45%, while it was only 15 MPa under a reduction rate of below 40%.
It can be concluded that carbon steel and aluminum alloys can be bonded generally under a large reduction rate (>45%) via the rolling method. Such a high reduction rate is available to bond thinner plates, however, for thicker plates, a high reduction rate needs a high rolling force, which imposes strict requirements on the ability of the rolling mill. Decreasing the reduction rate is of great significance for production in reality. This is also the reason why the thickness of steel/aluminum composite plates prepared by the rolling method is generally below 5 mm [26,27,28,29].
In this paper, by induction heating, a high-temperature carbon steel, molten pure aluminum, and low-temperature aluminum alloy billet was formed by induction heating, and the steel/aluminum alloy composite plate with high bonding strength (>68 MPa) was obtained at a low reduction rate (31%). The effects of induction heating time on temperature difference of assembled composite plate, bonding strength and microstructure of interfaces were studied. This study will provide a reference for producing thick steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates.

2. Materials and Methods

In the rolling experiment, Q235 carbon steel ( ) (120 × 40 × 5 mm3) was selected as the base layer, 5083 aluminum alloy (120 × 40 × 5 mm3) as the cladding layer, and 1060 pure aluminum (120 × 40 × 0.5 mm3) as the interlayer. The chemical compositions of Q235B steel, 5083 aluminum alloy, and 1060 pure aluminum are shown in Table 1.
To avoid the influence of impurities on the bonding interface of the composite plate, 80-mesh sandpaper was used to polish the surface of the plate until fresh metal was exposed before rolling; 0.3 mm steel wire brush for the angle grinder was used to polish the surface of carbon steel. The surfaces of the plates were, respectively, scrubbed to clean the dust and oil stains by alcohol and acetone, followed by drying with a cold fan. The cleaned plates were placed in an order of Q235-1060-5083, and 1 mm stainless steel gaskets were added between 1060 and 5083. The head of the assembled composite plate was riveted. The deformation resistance of aluminum alloy is lower than that of steel, the elongation of aluminum will be greater than that of steel during the rolling process. In order to make the aluminum alloy effectively extend freely towards the tail, the tail was not riveted, thus avoiding aluminum-alloy accumulation at the tail of the composite plate. The head of the assembled composite plate was chamfered to facilitate the biting of the plate by the rolling rollers. The schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy plate assembly is shown in Figure 1.
The assembled composite plate was placed in an intermediate frequency induction heating device, and induction heating was used to quickly heat ferromagnetic materials. Carbon steel was quickly and evenly heated until reaching the magnetic transformation point [30]. The melting point of pure aluminum is 630 °C, which is lower than the temperature at the magnetic transformation point of carbon steel. During heating, carbon steel came into contact with pure aluminum, so pure aluminum could be heated to a molten state through heat transfer. There were two stainless steel gaskets with poor thermal conductivity between pure aluminum and aluminum alloy, which could avoid direct-contact heat transfer between pure aluminum and aluminum alloy and ensure that the temperature of the aluminum alloy increased slowly within a short period. The schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plate prepared by induction heating is shown in Figure 2. To prevent oxidation during heating, the induction heating device and the rail were sealed, and protective argon gas was continuously introduced into the induction heating device during the heating process.
The temperature of the assembled composite plate was controlled by adjusting the induction heating time. A K-type thermocouple was used to measure the temperature at the center of carbon steel and aluminum alloy. The temperature change of carbon steel and aluminum alloy under 30 kW intermediate frequency induction heating is shown in Figure 3. The induction heating frequency was 2500 Hz. The heating time was set to 10 s, 15 s, 18 s, 20 s and 25 s by comprehensively considering the aluminum-alloy temperature and pure-aluminum melting time.
The roll diameter was 200 mm, the rolling speed was 50 mm/s, and the single-pass reduction rate was 31%. After induction heating, the push rod was quickly pushed to push the composite plate into the rolling mill through the rail. To explore the influence of pure aluminum interlayer on the strength of carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy composite plates, the induction heating time was set to 15 s, and the carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy composite plate without a pure aluminum interlayer under the same rolling process was taken as the control group.
Wire cutting was used to process the shear specimen along the rolling direction, and the shear specimen is shown in Figure 4. The notch of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates passed through two interfaces. Two composite plates were prepared under each preparation condition, and three shear specimens were prepared for each composite plate. The final results are the average of all results of each condition. The mean shear strength of shear specimens was taken as the shear strength of the composite plate. A tensile testing machine (Inspekt Table 100 kN, force measurement accuracy ± 1%, displacement resolution < 1 μm, Hegewald & Peschke Meß- und Prüftechnik GmbH, Nossen, Sachsen, Germany) was used for shear tests. The polished metallographic specimens were placed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) to analyze their bonding interface morphology and elements distribution.

3. Results

3.1. Shear Strength of Composite Plates

3.1.1. Strength of Carbon-Steel/Pure-Aluminum/Aluminum-Alloy Composite Plates

The rolled carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates under different induction heating times are shown in Figure 5. The composite plates had good bonding under an induction heating time of 10–18 s. There was no phenomenon of separation between carbon steel and aluminum alloy after rolling, as shown in Figure 5a. The plate tail became separated because there were no lateral constraints resulting from the distance limitation of the guide rail when entering the roller and processing error. The elongations of the steel and the aluminum alloy after rolling were the same under the heating time of 10–18 s, so coordinated deformation was achieved through the differential temperature rolling. With the heating time increase to 20–25 s, as the temperature of the aluminum alloy increased, the deformation resistance of the aluminum alloy decreased, making the elongation of the aluminum alloy greater than that of steel. Under the heating time of 10 s, as shown in Figure 5b, the composite plate was relatively straight. With the increase in heating time, the temperature difference between steel and aluminum alloy decreased, and the difference in deformation resistance between the two, as well as the bending degree of the composite plate toward the steel, increased. As shown in Figure 5c, in the rolling process, the pure-aluminum interlayer melted under the heating time of 10 s, so under longer heating times, the pure aluminum also melted. When the heating time reached 25 s, the temperature of aluminum alloy was close to the melting point of aluminum alloy. After rolling, a lot of cracks emerged on the edge of the aluminum alloy, and the aluminum alloy broke itself.
After the rolling process was completed, the wire cutting was used for sampling in the front and middle of the composite plate in the rolling direction, and the shear strength was tested by processing the shear specimen. The interfacial shear strength of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates under different induction heating times is displayed in Figure 6. It can be seen that when the heating time was 10–18 s, the shear strength of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates could reach more than 68 MPa, and the interface shear fracture at this point is shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that the shear fracture occurred on the pure aluminum interlayer, a part of pure aluminum adhered to the carbon steel, and there was an included angle of 10–15° between the pure-aluminum fracture surface and the steel–aluminum bonding surface. The reason is that during the heating process, pure aluminum gradually becomes liquefied; due to the rolling force and high temperature at the interface between carbon steel and pure aluminum, steel and aluminum elements have great diffusion, and the strength of pure aluminum near the interface increases and is already greater than that of pure aluminum, thus the fracture occurs inside the pure aluminum. Therefore, when the induction heating time was 10–18 s, the bonding strength of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates reached the limit, i.e., the lowest strength of pure aluminum. When the heating time reached 20 s, the bonding strength of the composite plate sharply declined to 13.7 MPa. The specific reasons for this phenomenon will be further analyzed through subsequent microstructure characterization. When the heating time reached 25 s, the bonding strength could not be measured for the cracks emerged in the aluminum alloy.

3.1.2. Strength of Carbon-Steel/Pure-Aluminum/Aluminum-Alloy Composite Plate without Interlayer

The steel/aluminum-alloy composite plate without the pure aluminum interlayer after rolling is shown in Figure 8. The head of the composite plate was tightly attached due to the action of the stainless steel rivet, and the aluminum matrix in the middle of the composite plate protruded outward and separated from the steel matrix, in which case the steel/aluminum-alloy composite plate could not be effectively bonded. It is believed that the bonding strength of the steel/aluminum-alloy composite plate in this state is 0 MPa. The primary reason is the direct heat transmission from the steel plate to the aluminum alloy, which causes the rapid rise of temperature of the aluminum alloy in the absence of a pure-aluminum interlayer. In this instance, the deformation resistance of aluminum alloy is far weaker than that of steel, so deformation is seriously inconsistent during rolling. In the rolling area, the forward sliding deformation of aluminum is far greater than that of steel. When the accumulated deformation of aluminum in the front area of rolling reaches a certain level, the shear stress caused by forward sliding will be greater than the interfacial shear strength and thus the bonding interface will be cracked. When the tail area of the plate was rolled, due to the crack in the middle area of the plate, the interfacial shear stress is released, and the interfacial shear stress in the tail area was reduced, so the steel and aluminum alloy at the tail area were bonded together.

3.2. Microscopic Characterization of Bonding Interfaces

To further investigate the bonding state of the carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface at the micro level, a scanning electron microscope and an energy dispersive spectrometer were used to analyze the morphology and elements near the composite plate interface. Molten pure aluminum has strong fluidity and is prone to flow out when pushed into the rolling mill, resulting in direct contact between carbon steel and aluminum alloy and thus affecting the rolling effect. Therefore, it is necessary to determine under a microscope whether pure aluminum flows out. However, the composition of pure aluminum and aluminum alloy is similar, and it is difficult to distinguish them in similar SEM images. In this experiment, 5083 magnalium and 1060 pure aluminum were used. The content of magnesium elements of 5-Series aluminum alloy was higher than that of 10-Series pure aluminum. Therefore, the interface between pure aluminum and aluminum alloy can be judged by the intensity change of magnesium elements.
The bonding interface under an optical microscope is shown in Figure 9. The interfaces between carbon steel, pure aluminum, and aluminum alloy could be clearly distinguished. The thickness of the pure aluminum interlayer decreased with the increase in heating time. The thicknesses of the 1060 layer were 316 μm, 156 μm, and 95 μm at heating times of 10 s, 18 s, and 20 s, respectively. The reason for the changes in thickness is that as the heating time increases, the temperature difference between pure aluminum and aluminum alloy decreases, and the temperature drop of pure aluminum declines during contact, making it more prone to deformation. The SEM images of the bonding interface under different induction heating times are displayed in Figure 10. Under heating times of 10 s and 18 s, there were no obvious rolling defects at the bonding interface, and the interfaces of carbon steel/pure aluminum and pure aluminum/aluminum alloy were both distinct without any obvious compounds, as shown in Figure 10a–d. When the heating time was 20 s, compounds emerged at the interface of carbon steel/pure aluminum, as shown in Figure 10e. In the SEM image of the pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, the pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface was no longer distinguishable, as shown in Figure 10f. The element line-scan images of different bonding interfaces are shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that there was a small peak of magnesium at the pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, where magnesium accumulated and diffused towards the pure-aluminum interlayer. In the line scan of the carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface under a heating time of 15 s, steel/aluminum elements diffused mutually to form a 0.83 μm thick diffusion layer. In the line scan of the carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface under a heating time of 18 s, the thickness of the diffusion layer increased with heating time, ultimately forming a 0.99 μm thick diffusion layer, without compound formation at the interface. When the heating time was 20 s, the mutual diffusion between elements became intense as the heating time increased, and a compound was formed when the concentration of the two elements reached a certain level. In the element line scan of the carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface under a heating time of 20 s, the steel and aluminum elements formed a clear plateau, indicating that a compound layer with a thickness of 2.6 μm was formed here.
An element surface scan was performed on the fracture surface of shear specimens under an induction heating time of 18 s and 20 s. The morphology of the shear fracture and EDS surface scan under different heating times are shown in Figure 12. When the heating time was 18 s, the shear fracture exhibited a ductile fracture, and Al dominated (99%) on both the steel and aluminum sides, while Fe was almost invisible, indicating that the fracture occurred on the pure aluminum interlayer under this heating time. When the heating time was 20 s, as shown in Figure 12g–l, a large number of brittle fractures were observed in the SEM images, as well as much Fe and Al in the EDS surface scan, indicating the generation of a large number of compounds under this temperature. So compared to the bonding strength of the composite plates, which were heated for 10–18 s, the bonding strength of the composite plate heated for 20 s decreased significantly.

4. Conclusions

  • A high-temperature carbon steel, molten pure aluminum, and low-temperature aluminum alloy billet can be formed by induction heating, and then effective bonding can be formed through rolling. However, without the addition of a pure aluminum interlayer, carbon steel and aluminum alloys cannot be bonded under the same process conditions;
  • When the intermediate frequency induction heating power is 30 kW and the heating time is 10–18 s, a good bonding effect can be achieved under a 31% reduction rate. The interfacial shear strength of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum /aluminum-alloy composite plates is more than 68 MPa, and the shear fracture occurs at the pure-aluminum interlayer;
  • When the induction heating time exceeds 20 s, a large number of compounds will be generated at the carbon-steel/pure-aluminum bonding interface, seriously weakening the bonding strength of the composite plate.

Author Contributions

C.Y.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, and Formal analysis; W.Z.: Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, and Visualization; R.J.: Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, and Visualization; Y.W.: Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, and Visualization; and H.X.: Validation, Writing—Review and Editing, Supervision, and Project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52004242; 52075472) and National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFA0707300) for their support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Manesh, H.D.; Taheri, A.K. The effect of annealing treatment on mechanical properties of aluminum clad steel sheet. Mater. Des. 2003, 24, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yang, Y.; Zhang, F.; He, J.; Qin, Y.; Liu, B.; Yang, M.; Yin, F. Microstructure, growth kinetics and mechanical properties of interface layer for roll bonded aluminum-steel clad sheet annealed under argon gas protection. Vacuum 2018, 151, 196–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Deng, Z.; Xiao, H.; Yu, C. Effect of intermetallic compounds distribution on bonding strength of steel–aluminum laminates. Mater. Des. 2022, 222, 111106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wilson Dhileep Kumar, C.; Saravanan, S.; Raghukandan, K. Numerical and experimental investigation on aluminum 6061-V-grooved stainless steel 304 explosive cladding. Def. Technol. 2022, 18, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Deng, Z.; Yu, C.; Xiao, H. Effect of surface treatment on bonding strength of hot rolled steel aluminum clad plate. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1270, 012016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guo, X.; Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Ma, F.; Tao, J. Interface and performance of CLAM steel/aluminum clad tube prepared by explosive bonding method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 82, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, G.; Li, J.; Yu, H.; Su, L.; Xu, G.; Pan, J.; You, T.; Zhang, G.; Sun, K.; He, L. Investigation on bonding strength of steel/aluminum clad sheet processed by horizontal twin-roll casting, annealing and cold rolling. Mater. Des. 2016, 112, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, G.; Xu, G. Interfacial reaction in twin-roll cast AA1100/409L clad sheet during different sequence of cold rolling and annealing. Met. Mater. Int. 2021, 27, 3013–3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, Y.; Wei, C.; Yao, Y.; Chen, X.; Li, W.; Jia, Y.; Chen, Z.; Hu, J. Explosive cladding of Monel alloy tube and copper rod. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2023, 247, 108173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Balasubramanian, V.; Rathinasabapathi, M.; Raghukandan, K. Modelling of process parameters in explosive cladding of mildsteel and aluminium. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 1997, 63, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kovacs-Coskun, T.; Volgy, B.; Sikari-Nagl, I. Investigation of aluminum-steel joint formed by explosion welding. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013, 602, 012026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tricarico, L.; Spina, R.; Sorgente, D.; Brandizzi, M. Effects of heat treatments on mechanical properties of Fe/Al explosion-welded structural transition joints. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 2693–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saravanan, S.; Raghukandan, K. Microstructure, strength and welding window of aluminum-alloy−stainless steel explosive cladding with different interlayers. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2022, 32, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, Z.; Xu, J.; Zhou, H.; Chen, D.; Yang, M.; Ma, H.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, B. Experimental and numerical investigation on fabricating multiple plates by an energy effective explosive welding technique. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 14, 3111–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, M.; Ma, H.; Shen, Z. Study on explosive welding of Ta2 titanium to Q235 steel using colloid water as a covering for explosives. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 5572–5580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, H.; Chen, G. Fabrication of Cu/Al compound materials by solid-liquid bonding method and interface bonding mechanism. Chin. J. Nonferrous Met. 2008, 18, 414–420. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mao, A.; Zhang, J.; Yao, S.; Wang, A.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Qiao, C.; Xie, J.; Jia, Y. The diffusion behaviors at the Cu-Al solid-liquid interface: A molecular dynamics study. Results Phys. 2020, 16, 102998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Grydin, O.; Gerstein, G.; Nürnberger, F.; Schaper, M.; Danchenko, V. Twin-roll casting of aluminum-steel clad strips. J. Manuf. Process. 2013, 15, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cook, R.; Grocock, P.; Thomas, P.; Edmonds, D.; Hunt, J. Development of the twin-roll casting process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 1995, 55, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ren, Z.; Guo, X.; Liu, X.; Ma, X.; Jiang, S.; Bian, L.; Wang, T.; Huang, Q. Effect of pulse current treatment on interface structure and mechanical behavior of TA1/304 clad plates. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022, 850, 143583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zixuan, L.; Shahed, R.; Tao, W.; Han, J.; Shu, X.; Pater, Z.; Huang, Q. Recent advances and trends in roll bonding process and bonding model: A review. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2023, 36, 36–74. [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, J.; Jiang, F.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Chen, C.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, F. Effect of warm-rolling on the strength and ductility of multilayered composite steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022, 841, 143043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nie, J.; Wang, F.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhao, Y. Microstructure and mechanical properties of Al-TiB2/TiC in situ composites improved via hot rolling. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2017, 27, 2548–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rahmatabadi, D.; Tayyebi, M.; Hashemi, R.; Faraji, G. Evaluation of microstructure and mechanical properties of multilayer al5052–cu composite produced by accmulative roll bonding. Powder Metall. Met. Ceram. 2018, 57, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Gou, G.; Gao, W.; Chen, J. Effect of heat input on interfacial characterization of the butter joint of hot-rolling CP-Ti/Q235 bimetallic sheets by Laser +CMT. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Manesh, H.D.; Taheri, A.K. Bond Strength and Formability of an Aluminum-Clad Steel Sheet. J. Alloys Compd. 2003, 361, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Movahedi, M.; Kokabi, A.H.; Reihani, S.M.S. Investigation on the Bond Strength of Al-1100/St-12 Roll Bonded Sheets, Optimization and Characterization. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 3143–3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nezhad, M.S.A.; Ardakani, A.H. A Study of Joint Quality of Aluminum and Low Carbon-steel Strips by Warm Rolling. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 1103–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xiao, H.; Xu, P.; Qi, Z.; Wu, Z.; Zhao, Y. Preparation of steel/aluminum laminated composites by differential temperature rolling with induction heating. Acta Metall. Sin. 2020, 56, 231–239. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sadeghipour, K.; Dopkin, J.A.; Li, K. A computer aided finite element/experimental analysis of induction heating process of steel. Comput. Ind. 1996, 28, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Metals 13 01501 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy assembly: (a) explode views; (b) schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy assembly.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy assembly: (a) explode views; (b) schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy assembly.
Metals 13 01501 g001
Metals 13 01501 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plate prepared by induction heating.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plate prepared by induction heating.
Metals 13 01501 g002
Metals 13 01501 g003
Figure 3. Temperature–time curve of carbon steel/aluminum alloy under 30 kW intermediate frequency induction heating.
Figure 3. Temperature–time curve of carbon steel/aluminum alloy under 30 kW intermediate frequency induction heating.
Metals 13 01501 g003
Metals 13 01501 g004
Figure 4. Shear specimens.
Figure 4. Shear specimens.
Metals 13 01501 g004
Metals 13 01501 g005
Figure 5. Carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates under different induction heating times: (a) steel side of composite plate; (b) side of composite plate; and (c) aluminum side of composite plate.
Figure 5. Carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plates under different induction heating times: (a) steel side of composite plate; (b) side of composite plate; and (c) aluminum side of composite plate.
Metals 13 01501 g005
Metals 13 01501 g006
Figure 6. Shear strength of carbon steel/pure aluminum/aluminum alloy under different induction heating times.
Figure 6. Shear strength of carbon steel/pure aluminum/aluminum alloy under different induction heating times.
Metals 13 01501 g006
Metals 13 01501 g007
Figure 7. Shear fractures of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plate. (a) Heating time of 10 s; (b) heating time of 18 s.
Figure 7. Shear fractures of carbon-steel/pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy composite plate. (a) Heating time of 10 s; (b) heating time of 18 s.
Metals 13 01501 g007
Metals 13 01501 g008
Figure 8. Steel/aluminum-alloy composite plate without pure aluminum interlayer.
Figure 8. Steel/aluminum-alloy composite plate without pure aluminum interlayer.
Metals 13 01501 g008
Metals 13 01501 g009
Figure 9. Bonding interface under an optical microscope: (a) induction heating of 10 s; (b) induction heating of 18 s; and (c) induction heating of 20 s.
Figure 9. Bonding interface under an optical microscope: (a) induction heating of 10 s; (b) induction heating of 18 s; and (c) induction heating of 20 s.
Metals 13 01501 g009
Metals 13 01501 g010
Figure 10. SEM images of bonding interfaces under different induction heating times: (a) steel/pure-aluminum interface, 10 s; (b) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 10 s; (c) steel/pure-aluminum interface, 18 s; (d) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 18 s; (e) steel/pure-aluminum interface, 20 s; and (f) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 20 s.
Figure 10. SEM images of bonding interfaces under different induction heating times: (a) steel/pure-aluminum interface, 10 s; (b) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 10 s; (c) steel/pure-aluminum interface, 18 s; (d) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 18 s; (e) steel/pure-aluminum interface, 20 s; and (f) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 20 s.
Metals 13 01501 g010
Metals 13 01501 g011
Figure 11. Line-scan images of different bonding interfaces under different induction heating times: (a) carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface, 10 s; (b) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 10 s; (c) carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface, 18 s; (d) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 18 s; (e) carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface, 20 s; and (f) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 20 s.
Figure 11. Line-scan images of different bonding interfaces under different induction heating times: (a) carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface, 10 s; (b) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 10 s; (c) carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface, 18 s; (d) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 18 s; (e) carbon-steel/aluminum-alloy interface, 20 s; and (f) pure-aluminum/aluminum-alloy interface, 20 s.
Metals 13 01501 g011
Metals 13 01501 g012
Figure 12. SEM and EDS images of shear fractures under different heating times: (a) aluminum side, 18 s; (b) distribution of Al in (a); (c) distribution of Fe in (a); (d) steel side, 18 s; (e) distribution of Al in (d); (f) distribution of Fe in (d); (g) aluminum side, 20 s; (h) distribution of Al in (g); (i) distribution of Fe in (g); (j) steel side, 20 s; (k) distribution of Al in (j); and (l) distribution of Fe in (j).
Figure 12. SEM and EDS images of shear fractures under different heating times: (a) aluminum side, 18 s; (b) distribution of Al in (a); (c) distribution of Fe in (a); (d) steel side, 18 s; (e) distribution of Al in (d); (f) distribution of Fe in (d); (g) aluminum side, 20 s; (h) distribution of Al in (g); (i) distribution of Fe in (g); (j) steel side, 20 s; (k) distribution of Al in (j); and (l) distribution of Fe in (j).
Metals 13 01501 g012
Table 1. Chemical composition of Q235 steel, 5083 aluminum alloy and 1060 aluminum (wt%).
Table 1. Chemical composition of Q235 steel, 5083 aluminum alloy and 1060 aluminum (wt%).
MaterialsElement
Q235CSPMnSiFe
0.050.010.0150.350.12Bal.
5083SiFeCuMgCrZnAl
0.210.250.060.750.110.12Bal.
6061SiFeTiAl
0.080.260.013Bal.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, C.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, R.; Wu, Y.; Xiao, H. Preparation Method and Properties of Q235/5083 Composite Plate with 1060 Interlayer by Differential Temperature Rolling with Induction Heating. Metals 2023, 13, 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13091501

AMA Style

Yu C, Zhang W, Jiang R, Wu Y, Xiao H. Preparation Method and Properties of Q235/5083 Composite Plate with 1060 Interlayer by Differential Temperature Rolling with Induction Heating. Metals. 2023; 13(9):1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13091501

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Chao, Wenzhe Zhang, Runwu Jiang, Yuhua Wu, and Hong Xiao. 2023. "Preparation Method and Properties of Q235/5083 Composite Plate with 1060 Interlayer by Differential Temperature Rolling with Induction Heating" Metals 13, no. 9: 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13091501

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop