Effects of Surface Roughness on Interface Bonding Performance for 316H Stainless Steel in Hot-Compression Bonding

doi:10.1007/s40195-023-01533-8

Abstract

Abstract:

The metallurgical bonding quality of bonding joints is affected by the substrate surface state in hot-compression bonding (HCB), and the surface roughness is a core indicator of the surface state. However, the effects of surface roughness on interface bonding performance (IBP) in the HCB process are unclear for substrates with refractory oxide scales. This study presents the effects of surface roughness on IBP for 316H stainless steel joints fabricated by HCB. A set of HCB parameters for interface bonding critical state of 316H stainless steel joints was determined. The HCB experiments were carried out under parameters of interface bonding critical state to amplify the effect of surface roughness. The interface morphologies, element distribution, and tensile properties were used to characterize the IBP. As a result, the formation mechanisms of the interface pits were revealed and the variation trend of pit number with the roughness was summarized. Finally, the mapping relation between surface roughness and IBP was established. The results show that the degree of rotational dynamic recrystallization becomes weaker with the decrease in the surface roughness and the interface bonding mechanism is completely transformed into discontinuous dynamic recrystallization when the roughness is lower than 0.020 μm Sa. The number of interfacial pits decreases as the roughness decreases owing to the weakening of oxide scale aggregation and abrasive inclusion mechanism. The elongation of the tensile specimen cannot increase significantly while the roughness is lower than 0.698 μm Sa.

Key words: Surface roughness, Interface bonding performance, Hot-compression bonding, Mapping relation, Critical state

Yong Zhao, Bi-Jun Xie, Jin-Long Zhang, Qin-Qiang Wang, Bin Xu, Jiang Guo, Zhu-Ji Jin, Ren-Ke Kang, Dian-Zhong Li. Effects of Surface Roughness on Interface Bonding Performance for 316H Stainless Steel in Hot-Compression Bonding[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2023, 36(5): 771-788.

Figures/Tables 26

Table 1 Chemical composition of 316H stainless steel (wt%)

C	Mn	Si	Cr	Ni	P	S	Mo	Fe
0.07	1.70	0.35	17.69	11.59	0.04	0.02	2.91	Bal.

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the a surface preparation process, b HCB process, c test specimen preparation process

Table 2 Abrasive elements of different sandpapers

	Main elements	Other elements
36-grit sandpaper	Al, O	Si, Ti, Fe
Other sandpapers	Mg, O, Si	C, Al, Ca

Fig. 2 Cross-sectional images of bonding joints with deformation strain of 20% under a 800 °C, b 900 °C, c 1000 °C, d 1100 °C, e 1200 °C

Fig. 3 3D topographies of the surface to be bonded ground by a 36-grit sandpaper, b 180-grit sandpaper, c 400-grit sandpaper, d 1200-grit sandpaper, or e polished

Fig. 4 Roughness distribution range of each group

Fig. 5 Cross-sectional morphologies of bonding joints compressed by samples with different surface roughness: a 1.364-2.060 μm Sa, b 0.479-0.698 μm Sa, c 0.189-0.264 μm Sa, d, e 0.020-0.023 μm Sa, f 0.001-0.003 μm Sa

Fig. 6 Thickness of the interfacial recrystallization area

Fig. 7 Cross-sectional specimens derived from bonding joints compressed by samples with different roughness: a 1.364-2.060 μm Sa, b 0.479-0.698 μm Sa, c 0.189-0.264 μm Sa, d enlarge view of a, e enlarge view of b, f enlarge view of c, g 0.020-0.023 μm Sa, h 0.001-0.003 μm Sa, i enlarge view of g, j enlarge view of h

Fig. 8 Number of pits on the interface of cross-sectional specimens

Fig. 9 Morphology and element distribution of the oxide particle on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 36-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b element distribution, c O distribution, d Cr distribution, e Mn distribution, f result of point scanning

Fig. 10 Morphology and element distribution of the abrasive on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 36-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b element distribution, c Al distribution, d O distribution

Fig. 11 Morphology and element distribution of the oxide particle on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 180-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b element distribution, c O distribution, d Cr distribution, e Mn distribution, f result of point scanning

Fig. 12 Morphology and element distribution of the abrasive on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 180-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b element distribution, c O distribution, d Si distribution, e Mg distribution

Fig. 13 Morphology and element distribution of the abrasive on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 400-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b element distribution

Fig. 14 Morphology and element of the oxide particle on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 400-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b result of point scanning

Fig. 15 Morphology and element of the oxide particle on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample ground with 1200-grit sandpaper: a SEM image, b result of point scanning

Fig. 16 Morphology and element of the oxide particle on the cross-sectional specimen derived from bonding joints compressed by the sample after polishing: a SEM image, b result of point scanning

Fig. 17 Engineering stress-strain curves of tensile specimens

Table 3 Engineering stress-strain values of tensile specimens

	Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)	Elongation (%)
T1	591.44	37.54
T2	594.01	83.27
T3	592.76	91.76
T4	587.27	78.81
T5	593.75	100.60

Fig. 18 Tensile fracture morphologies of T1, a, c SEM images, b, d results of point scanning

Fig. 19 Tensile specimens of T1 to T5 a and fracture morphologies of T5 b

Table 4 Oxide scale volume of surface processed by different methods

Surface processing methods	Surface area (μm²)	Entire surface area (μm²)
Ground by 36-grit sandpaper	792,321.3	67,347,310.6
Ground by 180-grit sandpaper	764,191.3	64,956,262.2
Ground by 400-grit sandpaper	756,315.4	64,286,804.8
Ground by 1200-grit sandpaper	753,761.1	64,069,695.2
Polished by polishing liquid	753,681.2	64,062,904.6

Fig. 20 Schematic of the influence mechanism of oxide particles

Fig. 21 Schematic of the influence mechanism of abrasives

Fig. 22 Mapping relation between the roughness of the surface to be bonded and IBP

References 31

[1]	M.O. Acar, M.E. Fitzpatrick, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 701, 203 (2017) DOI URL
[2]	M. Sarvghad, S.D. Maher, D. Collard, M. Tassan, G. Will, T.A. Steinberg, Energy Storage Mater. 14, 179 (2018)
[3]	L.L. Zhao, S.T. Wei, D.B. Gao, S.P. Lu, Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. Lett. 34, 986 (2021)
[4]	A.D. Warren, I.J. Griffiths, R.L. Harniman, P.E.J. Flewitt, T.B. Scott, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 635, 59 (2015) DOI URL
[5]	X.L. Li, L.T. Chang, C.P. Liu, B. Leng, X.X. Ye, F.F. Han, X.M. Yang, Corros. Sci. 191, 109784 (2021) DOI URL
[6]	R.C. Kerr, A.W. Woods, M.G. Worster, H.E. Huppert, Nature 340, 357 (1989) DOI
[7]	B. He, L. Cui, D.P. Wang, H.J. Li, C.X. Liu, Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. Lett. 33, 135 (2020)
[8]	P. He, J.H. Zhang, J.C. Feng, Y.Y. Qian, Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. Lett. 13, 162 (2000)
[9]	Y.Q. Lai, S. Chen, X.L. Ren, Y.Y. Qiao, N. Zhao, Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. Lett. 35, 1912 (2022)
[10]	X.J. Zhang, T.S. Wang, Z.C. Zhu, L. Zhu, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 29, 2016 (2022) DOI
[11]	M.Y. Sun, B. Xu, D.Z. Li, Y.Y. Li, U.S. Patent 10,413,964 B2, 17 Sept 2019.
[12]	B.J. Xie, Z.X. Yu, H.Y. Jiang, B. Xu, C.Y. Wang, J.Y. Zhang, M.Y. Sun, D.Z. Li, Y.Y. Li, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 96, 199 (2022) DOI URL
[13]	J.Q. Yu, W.B. Zhou, G.Q. Zhao, J. Manuf. Process. 65, 299 (2021) DOI URL
[14]	D.Z. Xu, L.G. Meng, C.R. Zhang, X. Chen, X.G. Zhang, Mater. Charact. 189, 111997 (2022) DOI URL
[15]	X. Xu, X.W. Ma, S.B. Yu, G.Q. Zhao, Y.X. Wang, X.X. Chen, Mater. Charact. 167, 110486 (2020) DOI URL
[16]	D.S. Qian, W.T. Li, J.D. Deng, F. Wang, M. Wu, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 18, 2140 (2022)
[17]	Y.P. Wang, Y.H. Liu, S.D. Pay, B. Lan, J. Jiang, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 295, 117191 (2021) DOI URL
[18]	W.F. Liu, B.J. Xie, M.Y. Sun, B. Xu, Y.F. Cao, D.Z. Li, Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. Lett. 35, 1837 (2022)
[19]	B.J. Xie, M.Y. Sun, B. Xu, C.Y. Wang, H.Y. Jiang, D.Z. Li, Y.Y. Li, Corros. Sci. 147, 41 (2019) DOI URL
[20]	G.G. Zhang, R.S. Chandel, J. Mater. Sci. 40, 1793 (2005) DOI URL
[21]	G.Q. Wu, Z.F. Li, G.X. Luo, H.Y. Li, Z. Huang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 452-453, 529 (2007) DOI URL
[22]	V.R. Saranam, B. Mullany, A. Tabei, S. Srenevas, C. Evans, B.K. Paul, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 296, 117173 (2021) DOI URL
[23]	C. Zhang, H. Li, M.Q. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci. 371, 407 (2016) DOI URL
[24]	X. Shao, X.L. Guo, Y.F. Han, W.J. Lu, J. Qin, D. Zhang, Mater. Des. 65, 1001 (2015) DOI URL
[25]	C. Zhang, H. Li, M.Q. Li, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 32, 259 (2016) DOI
[26]	C. Zhang, M.Q. Li, H. Li, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34, 1449 (2018) DOI
[27]	D.M. Guo, J. Mech. Eng. 58, 225 (2022)
[28]	D.M. Guo, China Mech. Eng. 29, 757 (2018)
[29]	B.J. Xie, Dissertation, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (2020)
[30]	L.Y. Zhou, Dissertation, University of Science and Technology of China (2019)
[31]	Y. Zhao, Z.J. Jin, B. Xu, Q.Q. Wang, J. Feng, X.R. Li, R.K. Kang, Z.C. Wei, J. Guo, Mater. Des. 210, 110025 (2021) DOI URL