Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T14:06:10.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependence of bonding strength and variations in residual stress on interface wedge angles and bonding temperature conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

Shunsuke Muraoka  and
Masayoshi Tateno
Shunsuke Muraoka*
Affiliation:
Kogakuin University Graduate School, 2665-1 Nakano-machi, Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan.
Masayoshi Tateno
Affiliation:
Kogakuin University Graduate School, 2665-1 Nakano-machi, Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan.
*
*(Email: am18060@ns.kogakuin.ac.jp)
Get access

Abstract

Residual stress can considerably weaken systems with ceramics-to-metal joints. Herein, we investigate the dependence of bonding strength and residual stress variation of a ceramics-to-metal joint system on the interface wedge angle and bonding temperature condition. First, disparity between large-scale displacement models with varying work-hardening parameters was confirmed using thermal elastoplastic Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis. Each interface wedge shape was set to a plane surface to compare FEM results to experimental results related to the effect of the interface wedge angle on the practical bonding strength. The experimental results were specifically for a system consisting of Si3N4-WC/TiC/TaC bonded to Ni plate. The effects of the wedge angle of the metal side on residual stress near the interface edge were numerically predicted using FEM models. The interface wedge angles for this model, φ1 and φ2, were defined using the configuration angle between the interface and free surfaces of both materials. The numerical results showed that the stress σr on the free surface of the ceramic side was concentrated near the interface edge at which discontinuity in the stress state is generated. Dependence of the residual stress variation on both the wedge angle and temperature conditions can be predicted. It was confirmed that the bonding strength improves with decreasing residual stress in geometrical conditions. Therefore, residual stress appears to be a predominant factor affecting bonding strength. The observed fracture pattern showed that the fracture originated near the interface edges, after which small cracks propagated on the ceramic side. The residual stress is presumed to dominate bonding strength as the fracture occurred near the interface edge of the ceramic side. Results showed that the maximum bonding strength appears at the geometrical condition where the fracture pattern changes to φ2 lower than 90° of joint bonded at 980 °C. Therefore, the optimum interface wedge angle depends on a combination of materials and bonding temperature conditions, because the weak point of the bonded joint system will affect the stiffness balance of both materials and the adhesion power of the bonded interface.

Keywords

thermal stressesceramicfracturesimulationinterface
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 5 , Issue 33-34: Mechanical Behavior and Structural Materials , 2020 , pp. 1765 - 1774
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arai, Y. and Kobayashi, H., Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. A, 59, 627-633(1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koguchi, H., Kikuchi, Y., Hino, T. and Yada, T., Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. A, 59, 448-453(1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tateno, M. and Miura, T., ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2014-29021(2014).Google Scholar
Tateno, M., Yokoi, E., ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, PVP2013-97731(2014).Google Scholar
Bogy, D. B, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 38, 377-386(1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogy, D. B, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 35, 460-466(1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, V. L, and Erdogan, F., Int. J. Fract. Mech., 7, 317-330(1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, T., Koguchi, H. and Yada, T., Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. A, 61, 73-79(1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, T. and Koguchi, H., Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. A, 61, 2461-2468(1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, T. and Kubo, S., J. Soc. Mater. Sci., Jpn., 48, 365-375(1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, T. and Koguchi, H., Int. j. Solids Struct., 63, 252-258(1996).Google Scholar
Muraoka, S., Tokumoto, R., Nakayama, Y., Tominaga, T., Tateno, M., Mech. Eng. J., 6, 18-00561(2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tateno, M., Fukuzawa, Y. Ngawasawa, S., Takahashi, H., Sakura, H., Yasutomi, S., Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. A, 60, 1920-1926(1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T, Kobayashi, H. and Arai, Y., Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. A, 57, 2702-2707(1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar