Macroscopic and Microscopic Residual Stresses in Nickel-Aluminum Bronze Matrix Composite Surface Deposits Manufactured via Laser Melt Injection

doi:10.1007/s40195-025-01829-x

Abstract

Abstract:

Wear is a prevalent issue across various industries. Spherical fused tungsten carbide (sFTC) reinforced nickel-aluminum bronze (NAB) matrix composite surface deposits have shown remarkable potential in mitigating wear by approximately 80%. However, the performance of these sFTC/NAB composite surface deposits is determined by their residual stress state, and the precise macroscopic and microscopic residual stresses within these composites have yet to be clearly established. To address this gap, we employed neutron diffraction to measure the residual stresses in the sFTC/NAB composite surface deposits and re-melted NAB samples produced via laser melt injection. Significant residual stresses were determined. The maximum tensile macro residual stress appears approximately 1-1.5 mm below the composite layer. Residual stresses accumulate with an increasing number of laser process tracks. The maximum tensile macro residual stress in the three-track samples reaches about 350 MPa. Preheating the base plate significantly reduces the levels of macroscopic residual stress. The WC phase displayed significant compressive thermal misfit residual stress magnitude, while the Cu matrix exhibited tensile thermal misfit residual stress. Preheating the base plate does not reduce microscopic thermal misfit residual stress levels. In addition, a finite element model was built to investigate temperature and residual stresses in the re-melted NAB samples. The predicted temperature history and residual stress agree with the experimental results.

Key words: Residual stress, Neutron diffraction, Laser melt injection, Nickel-aluminum bronze, Spherical fused tungsten carbide

X. X. Zhang, E. Walz, A. Langebeck, J. Rebelo Kornmeier, A. Kriele, V. Luzin, M. Adveev, A. Bohlen, M. Hofmann. Macroscopic and Microscopic Residual Stresses in Nickel-Aluminum Bronze Matrix Composite Surface Deposits Manufactured via Laser Melt Injection[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2025, 38(4): 570-586.

Figures/Tables 21

Table 1 Chemical composition of CuAl10Ni5Fe4 bronze and sFTC particles (wt%)

CuAl10Ni5Fe4
Cu	Al			Fe	Mn	Pb	Si	Zn
Bal	8.5-11.0			3.0-5.0	1	0-0.05	0-0.2	0-0.4
sFTC
W	C	Fe	Others
Bal	3.9	0.2	< 0.2

Table 2 Physical properties of CuAl10Ni5Fe4 bronze and sFTC particles

Parameter, unit	CuAl10Ni5Fe4	sFTC
Bulk density at 20 °C (g/cm³) Tap density (g/cm³)	7.6	16.5 9.5-10.5
Hardness (HV)	220	2700-3100
Thermal conductivity (W/(m K))	50	110
Absorption for 1080 nm wavelength (%)	66.5 ± 1.2	84.0 ± 0.5
Melting point (°C)	1035-1055	2870

Table 3 Laser process parameters

Process parameter, unit	Value (s)
Laser power (W)	1400
Process velocity (mm/min)	300
Laser spot diameter (mm)	3.0
Powder mass flow per unit length (g/min)	19, none
Carrier gas (Ar) flow rate (L/min)	2
Shielding gas (Ar) flow rate (L/min)	15
Pre-heating temperature (°C)	400, room temperature (RT)
Welding track length (mm)	30
Welding track number	1, 3
Horizontal overlap between tracks (%)	40

Fig. 1 Position of the thermocouple. LD: longitudinal direction; TD: transverse direction; ND: normal direction

Fig. 2 Summary of all samples. RT stands for room temperature. S1 and S2 are single-track samples. S3 and S4 are three-track samples prepared without base-plate pre-heating. S5 and S6 are three-track samples prepared with a base-plate pre-heating temperature of 400 °C

Fig. 3 Experiment setup for the longitudinal measurements at Kowari, ANSTO

Table 4 FEM process parameters

Process parameter, unit	Value(s)
Laser parameters (a, b, c) (mm) Fraction of heat input, ${f}_{\text{f}}$	(1.5, 1.5, 0.27) 1
Absorption efficiency (%) Pre-heating temperature (°C)	22.2 Room temperature (25)
Welding track number	1

Fig. 4 OM microstructures of single-track samples: a re-melted bronze; b sFTC/bronze composite deposit

Fig. 5 OM microstructures of three-track samples without base-plate pre-heating: a re-melted bronze; b sFTC/bronze composite deposit

Fig. 6 OM microstructures of three-track samples with a base-plate pre-heating temperature of 400 ºC: a re-melted bronze; b sFTC/bronze composite deposit

Fig. 7 SEM microstructures of the single-track sFTC/bronze composite deposit in a composite zone, b transition zone, c heat-affected zone, and d parent material zone. The positions of a, b, c, and d along the thickness direction of the deposit are illustrated in the right part of this figure. The white areas in a and b are sFTC particles

Fig. 8 Element maps (color key in wt%) of the parent zone measured via EDX analysis for the single-track sFTC/bronze composite deposit

Fig. 9 Element maps (color key in wt%) of the transition area measured via EDX analysis for the single-track sFTC/bronze composite deposit

Fig. 10 Rietveld refinement of powder diffraction patterns: a sFTC powder sample, b composite layer of S2L

Table 5 Rietveld analysis results of main phases

Sample	Phase	Space group	Lattice parameters		Volume fraction (%)
Sample	Phase	Space group	a (Å)	c (Å)	Volume fraction (%)
sFTC powder	h-WC	P-6m2	2.90273(47)	2.83503(66)	36.2
	ε-W₂C	P-31m	5.18330(84)	4.72633(125)	63.8
S2L	h-WC	P-6m2	2.90227(7)	2.83471(12)	19.7
	ε-W₂C	P-31m	5.18363(14)	4.72777(22)	30.7
	Cu-matrix	Fm-3m	3.65847(8)		39.7

Fig. 11 Revisiting residual strains and stresses in the sFTC/bronze composite deposit in the previous study [7]: a the residual stresses based on measured d0; b the residual stresses based on the assumption of σND = 0; c the measured lattice spacing values along LD, TD, and ND for this sFTC/bronze composite deposit; d the measured d0 and recalculated d0 based on the assumption of σND = 0

Fig. 12 Measured lattice spacing d values along LD, TD, and ND and the recalculated d0 values based on the assumption of σND = 0 for the Cu matrix of the re-melted bronze samples S1, S3, and S5 a, c, e; and the Cu matrix of the sFTC/bronze composite deposit samples S2, S4, and S6 b, d, f

Fig. 13 Residual stresses in the Cu matrix measured via neutron diffraction based on the assumption of σND = 0

Fig. 14 Comparison between the measured and simulated results for S1: a the temperature in the bronze sample during the laser melting process and b the residual stresses

Fig. 15 Simulated LD and TD residual stress maps present after the process. A cross-sectional view of the bronze block, which has been split in half, is used to visualize the distribution of residual stresses at the location of the laser melting process

Fig. 16 Thermal misfit residual stresses in a comb pin samples and b MMC layer samples determined from single peak fitting. The average thermal misfit residual stresses in c MMC layer samples were determined using a Rietveld analysis

References 40

[1]	J.A. Wharton, R.C. Barik, G. Kear, R.J.K. Wood, K.R. Stokes, F.C. Walsh, Corros. Sci. 47, 3336 (2005)
[2]	R. Cottam, V. Luzin, H. Moody, D. Edwards, A. Majumdar, Y.C. Wong, J. Wang, M. Brandt, Wear 317, 56 (2014)
[3]	H.N. Krogstad, R. Johnsen, Corros. Sci. 121, 43 (2017)
[4]	I. Richardson, Guide to Nickel Aluminium Bronze for Engineers, Copper Development Association, 2016.
[5]	Y.L. Feng, X.T. Pang, K. Feng, Y.Q. Feng, Z.G. Li, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 15, 5597 (2021)
[6]	H. Freiße, A. Langebeck, H. Köhler, T. Seefeld, Forming OAJ 2, 001 (2016)
[7]	X.X. Zhang, J.R. Kornmeier, M. Hofmann, A. Langebeck, S. Alameddin, R.P. Alessio, F. Fritzen, J.R. Bunn, S. Cabeza, Strain 59, e12457 12457 (2023)
[8]	S. Teslia, I. Solodkyi, O. Yurkova, O. Bezdorozhev, I. Bogomol, P. Loboda, J. Alloy. Compd. 921, 166042 (2022)
[9]	J.R. Davis, ASM Specialty Handbook: Copper and Copper Alloys, ASM International, 2001.
[10]	DURMAT® WSC Pulver,https://durmat.com/de/produkte/wolframkarbid-und-seine-formen/durmat-wsc/#:-:text=WSC%20(Wolframschmelzkarbid)%20ist%20die%20eutektische,und%2020%20%E2%80%93%2022%20%25%20WC, accessed on 09 May 2024.
[11]	O. Kirstein, V. Luzin, U. Garbe, Neutron News 20, 34 (2009)
[12]	I.O.f. Standardization, Non-destructive testing — Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by Neutron Diffraction, IS. 21432: 2019, 2019.
[13]	J. Saroun, J. Rebelo Kornmeier, M. Hofmann, P. Mikula, M. Vrana, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 46, 628 (2013)
[14]	J. Rebelo Kornmeier, M. Hofmann, V. Luzin, J. Gibmeier, J. Saroun, Mater. Charact. 154, 53 (2019). DOI
[15]	A. Steuwer, S.J. Barnes, J. Altenkirch, R. Johnson, P.J. Withers, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 43, 2356 (2012)
[16]	O. Muransky, M.C. Smith, P.J. Bendeich, T.M. Holden, V. Luzin, R.V. Martins, L. Edwards, Int. J. Solids Struct. 49, 1045 (2012)
[17]	V. Akrivos, R.C. Wimpory, M. Hofmann, B. Stewart, O. Muransky, M.C. Smith, J. Bouchard, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 53, 1181 (2020)
[18]	M. Avdeev, J.R. Hester, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 51, 1597 (2018)
[19]	Y.F. Li, Y.M. Gao, B. Xiao, T. Min, Z.J. Fan, S.Q. Ma, L.L. Xu, J. Alloy. Compd. 502, 28 (2010)
[20]	C. Frontera, J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B 335, 219 (2003)
[21]	T. Gnaupel-Herold, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 45, 573 (2012)
[22]	M. Lee, R.S. Gilmore, J. Mater. Sci. 17, 2657 (1982)
[23]	Y.Z. Liu, Y.H. Jiang, R. Zhou, J. Feng, Ceram. Int. 40, 2891 (2014)
[24]	M.R. Daymond, M.A.M. Bourke, R.B. Von Dreele, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 739 (1999)
[25]	M.R. Daymond, J. Appl. Phys. 96, 4263 (2004)
[26]	J.B. Nelson, D.P. Riley, P. Phys, Soc. Lond. 57, 160 (1945)
[27]	R.P. Elliott, Adv. X-ray Anal. 8, 134 (1964)
[28]	T. Kaneko, S.K. Gong, O. Nittono, T. Jpn I. Met. 28, 95 (1987)
[29]	D.S. Tsai, T.S. Chin, S.E. Hsu, M.P. Hung, Mater. Trans. JIM 30, 474 (1989)
[30]	Smith M. ABAQUS/Standard user’s manual, version 6.9. United States: Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp; 2009.
[31]	K.C. Mills, Recommended Values of Thermophysical Properties for Selected Commercial Alloys, Woodhead Publishing, 2002.
[32]	J. Goldak, A. Chakravarti, M. Bibby, Metall. Trans. B 15, 299 (1984)
[33]	D.M. Lloyd, G.W. Lorimer, N. Ridley, Met. Technol. 7, 114 (2013)
[34]	T. Murray, S. Thomas, Y. Wu, W. Neil, C. Hutchinson, Addit. Manuf. 33, 101122 (2020)
[35]	P.J. Withers, M. Preuss, A. Steuwer, J.W.L. Pang, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 891 (2007)
[36]	M. Hofmann, R.C. Wimpory, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Pip. 86, 122 (2009)
[37]	R.C. Wimpory, C. Ohms, M. Hofmann, R. Schneider, A.G. Youtsos, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Pip. 86, 48 (2009)
[38]	A. Langebeck, A. Bohlen, T. Seefeld, X.X. Zhang, J. Rebelo Kornmeier, M. Hofmann, S. Sharba, F. Fritzen, Schweißen und Schneiden 76, 62 (2024).
[39]	M.E. Fitzpatrick, M.T. Hutchings, P.J. Withers, Acta Mater. 45, 4867 (1997)
[40]	X.X. Zhang, B.L. Xiao, H. Andrä, Z.Y. Ma, Compos. Struct. 137, 18 (2016).