Next Article in Journal
Mechanical and Tribological Behavior of TiAlSiN/AlSiN Coatings Depending on the High-Temperature Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Mechanical Properties and Structural Deformation of [111] Oriented Mg-Li Alloy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Coatings
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/coatings15050541
coatings-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dissimilar Joining of Aluminum to High-Melting-Point Alloys by Hot Dipping

by
Zhaoxian Liu
1,†,
Qingjia Su
2,†,
Pu Wang
1,3,4,
Wenzhen Zhao
1,3,4,
Ao Fu
5,* and
Huan He
1,3,4,*
1
College of Nuclear Equipment and Nuclear Engineering, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China
2
College of Materials and Advanced Manufacturing, Hunan University of Technology, Zhuzhou 412000, China
3
Shandong Key Laboratory of Special Metallic Materials for Nuclear Equipment, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China
4
Yantai Key Laboratory of Advanced Nuclear Energy Materials and Irradiation Technology, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China
5
State Key Laboratory of Powder Metallurgy, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Coatings 2025, 15(5), 541; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050541
Submission received: 23 March 2025 / Revised: 25 April 2025 / Accepted: 30 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, the dissimilar joining of aluminum to high-melting-point alloys, including steel, titanium, and copper, was successfully achieved through hot-dipping. By precisely controlling the dipping temperature at 670 °C and maintaining a dipping time of 5 s, uniform aluminum layers with a thickness of 3–4 mm were successfully formed on the surfaces of high-melting-point alloys. This process enabled effective dissimilar metal joining between Al/steel, Al/Ti, and Al/Cu. Metallurgical bonding at the joining interfaces was achieved through the formation of uniform intermetallic compounds, specifically Fe4Al13, TiAl3, Al2Cu, and Al3Cu4, respectively. The different joints exhibited varying mechanical properties: the Al/Cu joint demonstrated the highest shear strength at 79.1 MPa, while the Fe4Al13-containing joint exhibited the highest hardness, reaching 604.4 HV. Numerical simulations revealed that an obvious decrease in interfacial temperature triggered the solidification and growth of the aluminum layer. Additionally, the specific heat and thermal conductivity of the high-melting-point alloys were found to significantly influence the thickness of the aluminum layer. The hot-dip joining technology is well suited for dissimilar metal bonding involving large contact areas and significant differences in melting points.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

To meet the demand for lightweight manufacturing, bimetallic composite structures, such as Al/steel, Al/Ti, and Al/Cu, are employed in various applications, including automotive, aerospace, superconductor, etc. [1,2,3]. The formation of brittle intermetallic compounds (IMCs), such as Fe2Al5 and Fe4Al13 of the Al/Steel joint, TiAl3 of the Al/Ti, and Al2Cu of the Al/Cu, deteriorates the quality of joints and limits the service life of the composite structures [4,5,6,7]. Especially, compared with the welding of plates, tubular and rod-shaped joints present significantly greater challenges in controlling weld formation, ensuring joint uniformity, and suppressing IMC growth.
Solid-state welding, brazing, and casting methods are extensively employed in the fabrication of aluminum/steel and aluminum/copper tubular and rod-shaped composite structures. Among solid-state welding techniques, magnetic pulse welding [8,9], friction welding [10,11,12,13], and explosive welding [14] have demonstrated effective joining of these dissimilar metal tubes. However, these methods are often constrained by workpiece geometry, dimensional limitations, or the associated equipment and processing costs. Srinivas et al. successfully achieved the joining of aluminum/steel dissimilar metal tubes through vacuum brazing [15]. This method requires joining with threaded connections prior to brazing, and the growth of IMCs cannot be effectively controlled. The casting method for aluminum/steel and aluminum/copper joining is based on solid–liquid composite casting technology. To enhance the joint quality, Sui et al. employed ultrasonic-assisted casting to promote interfacial bonding [16]. Alternatively, the application of intermediate layers with specific thicknesses on steel and copper surfaces has been applied [5,17]. Due to the prolonged interfacial reaction time characteristic of casting processes, further improvements in controlling IMC formation remain necessary.
In the field of Al/Ti dissimilar metal joining, the majority of the research has predominantly been focused on sheet metal welding [18,19,20], while relatively limited attention has been devoted to the fabrication methods for annular and tubular composite structures. Liu et al. proposed an innovative continuous extrusion technique for manufacturing Al/Ti composite rods [21,22]. These rods, with a diameter of 13 mm, primarily consist of a titanium core encased in an aluminum matrix, where the titanium accounts for only 7.7% of the total composite volume. Zhou et al. successfully fabricated Al/Ti tubular composite structures through explosive welding [23]. However, this process is relatively complex, requiring multiple explosive welding operations to achieve complete joining of the tubular materials. To date, despite significant advancements in dissimilar metal joining technologies, the welding of annular structures composed of dissimilar metals with metallurgical incompatibility remains a considerable challenge in the field of welding engineering.
This study employs hot-dip joining technology to achieve dissimilar bonding of tubular and rod-shaped bimetallic structures. By immersing high-melting-point alloys (steel, Ti, and Cu) into molten aluminum under carefully controlled temperature conditions, the process yields uniform, high-quality joints while significantly suppressing the formation of IMCs. Furthermore, a hydrodynamic model of the hot-dipping process was developed to analyze the interfacial solidification mechanisms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Procedure

The experimental materials consisted of 321 stainless steel, T2 pure copper, TC4 titanium alloy (100 × Φ10 mm), and aluminum alloy (AA 1050) rods (150 × Φ50 mm). Table 1 lists the chemical composition of the base metals. Before the experiment, all materials were polished and cleaned. The KAlF4 flux was applied to the surfaces of the high-melting-point alloys (steel, titanium, and copper) to improve the wettability of molten aluminum and prevent oxidation at high temperatures. The experimental process, illustrated in Figure 1, involved three stages: dipping, reaction, and withdrawal. The hot-dipping temperature was set at 670 °C, with a dipping time of 5 s.
Following the hot-dipping experiments, microstructural characterization and elemental analysis were performed using a Tescan Mira 4 (Brno, Czech Republic) scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with an Oxford Instruments X-Max N80 (Abingdon, UK) energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS), operating at an accelerating voltage of 20 kV. All compositional analyses were conducted in triplicate using different samples.
The shear strength of joints was evaluated using a UTM5 105X material testing machine (China), with the specimen dimensions illustrated in Figure 2a. Each joint of dissimilar metals was tested for shear strength at a compression rate of 0.5 mm/min, and the tests were conducted in triplicate using different samples. The interfacial shear strength was determined by the load required to extrude the base materials [24]. The microhardness of the joints was measured using a Huayin microhardness tester (HV-1000A, Laizhou Huayin Test Instrument Co., Ltd., Yantai, China) under a load of 100 g with a dwell time of 15 s. Each sample was subjected to three repeated measurements to ensure data reliability, and the distribution of measuring points is shown in Figure 2b.

2.2. Mathematical Model

The temperature field and process of solidification at the interface were simulated by FLUENT software (2021 R1 version). In the model, the high-melting-point metals were treated as the solid region, while the molten aluminum was modeled as the fluid region. A non-uniform polyhedral mesh was used, which included about 90,000 grid elements (Figure 3a). To ensure calculation accuracy and save calculation time, the grid away from the Al/Steel interface was coarsened properly. In Figure 3b,c, comparative analyses were performed at three locations: at the interface (P1), 3 mm away from the interface (P2), and 6 mm away from the interface (P3). The model simultaneously solves conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy to simulate the hot-dipping process. When the interfacial temperature of dissimilar metals is between the solidus and liquidus of aluminum, the grid is in a solid–liquid mushy region. The enthalpy–porosity method is employed to address the momentum change in the solidification. The initial temperatures of molten aluminum were established at 943 K, and the temperature of high-melting-point alloys was set at 300 K.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Forming of Joints and Macroscopic Morphology of the Cross-Section

Under the hot-dipping parameters of 670 °C for 5 s, the forming of joints and macroscopic morphology of the cross-section between aluminum and dissimilar metals (Steel, Ti, and Cu) are presented in Figure 4. The thickness and uniformity of the solidified aluminum on the three base materials exhibited significant variations. The aluminum layer at the Al/Ti displayed the minimum thickness of approximately 3 mm, while comparable thicknesses of about 4 mm were observed at both Al/steel and Al/Cu. The aluminum layer on the copper exhibited a wavy morphology with non-uniform thickness distribution. The macroscopic morphology of the cross-sections revealed sound metallurgical bonding at the interfaces without visible defects. Notably, a distinct bright white diffusion zone was observed extending outward from the interface in the Al/Cu joint, indicating differential diffusion behavior between the liquid aluminum and various alloy components at the interface.

3.2. Microstructure and Phase Identification of Joints

The interfaces between aluminum and the three metals exhibited distinct IMCs with varying thicknesses and morphologies, as shown in Figure 5. Based on the EDS results presented in Table 2 and corroborated by relevant references, the Al/steel interface formed a single-layer Fe4Al13 with an approximate thickness of 5 μm [25]. The Ti/Al interface produced the TiAl3 measuring 1 μm in thickness [26,27], while the Al/Cu interface revealed the presence of both Al3Cu4 and Al2Cu, with a total thickness exceeding 10 μm [28]. The preferential formation of Fe4Al13 and TiAl3 at their respective interfaces can be attributed to their minimal free energy within each binary system [29,30]. The Al2Cu and Al3Cu4 demonstrate excellent lattice matching with both Al and Cu matrices, which significantly reduces the nucleation activation energy. In contrast, other potential phases (e.g., AlCu or Al4Cu9) require higher nucleation driving forces or more complex diffusion pathways [31,32].
Furthermore, significant morphological differences were observed in the IMCs formed at the hot-dip joining interfaces of the three metals. At the Al/steel interface, the Fe4Al13 maintained a straight boundary with the stainless steel, while exhibiting a flocculent morphology on the aluminum side. The TiAl3 appeared as a uniform thin layer at the Al/Ti interface. The Al/Cu interface can be distinctly divided into three characteristic regions: the IMCs zone including the Al3Cu4 and Al2Cu phases, the α-Al/Al2Cu eutectic phase region, and the α-Al solid solution zone. The Al3Cu4 forms a continuous thin layer adjacent to the copper side, while the Al2Cu phase displays an irregular serrated morphology on the aluminum side, with its thickness being significantly greater than that of Al3Cu4. The α-Al/Al2Cu eutectic region displayed a dendritic morphology.
The elemental distribution across the hot-dipping interfaces between aluminum and the three different metals is presented in Figure 6. The diffusion behavior of metallic atoms into the aluminum layer varied significantly: copper exhibited the highest diffusivity, followed by steel, whereas titanium displayed the most constrained diffusion characteristics. The observed differences in thickness of IMCs and growth mechanisms are intrinsically related to these elemental diffusion [30,33]. Lee et al. investigated the interdiffusion behavior of copper and iron in molten aluminum, revealing that the diffusion rate of iron was 50%–60% slower than that of copper, resulting in a thicker IMC layer for copper compared to steel under identical experimental conditions [34]. The formation of the TiAl3 is governed by aluminum atom diffusion. At an experimental temperature of 1050 °C, the diffusion coefficient of aluminum atoms in titanium was measured to be 1.33   ±   0.15   ×   10 − 13   m 2 s − 1 [35]. In contrast, the diffusion coefficient of aluminum atoms in steel at 700 °C was determined to be 69.28   ×   10 − 12   m 2 s − 1 [25]. Despite the higher processing temperature for titanium, the significantly lower diffusion coefficient of Ti in Al (compared to Fe in Al) results in the observed thinner IMC layer at the Al/Ti interface.

3.3. Mechanical Properties of Joints

The shear test results of the joints are presented in Figure 7. Significant variations were observed in both shear strength and displacement among the three different joints. The Al/Cu joint exhibited the maximum shear strength of 79.12 MPa, followed by a sudden strength reduction after reaching the peak value, indicating a predominantly brittle fracture mode. This fracture behavior suggests that the weakest region of the joint is located at the interfacial IMCs rather than the solidified aluminum layer. The diffusion of substantial copper atoms into the aluminum layer near the interfacial IMCs leads to the formation of solid solutions and strengthening phases. This phenomenon enhances joint strength through two dominant mechanisms: solid solution strengthening, where dissolved Cu atoms in the Al matrix distort the crystal lattice and effectively impede dislocation motion; a precipitation strengthening through the formation of intermetallic phases within the solidified Al layer [36].
The ultimate shear strengths of Al/Steel and Al/Ti joints were 42.9 MPa and 37.2 MPa, respectively. During testing, these joints exhibited relatively large displacements accompanied by significant plastic deformation in the aluminum alloy near the interfaces, indicating a predominantly ductile fracture mode. The weakest region in these joints was identified as the solidified aluminum layer. The limited diffusion of Fe or Ti elements from the interface resulted in insufficient strengthening effects, consequently leading to the relatively low strength of the aluminum layer.
The variations in shear strength were reflected in the fracture behavior of the joints, as shown in Figure 8. The fracture modes of the different joints are described as follows: the Al/steel joint exhibited a mixed-mode fracture, combining both ductile and brittle characteristics. The aluminum layer on the steel side underwent ductile fracture (Figure 8a), while regions of brittle fracture with cleavage step features were also observed (Figure 8d). Similarly, the Al/Ti joint displayed a combination of ductile and brittle fracture modes. The aluminum delaminated from the Ti substrate and experienced brittle fracture (Figure 8e), whereas the aluminum remaining adhered to the Ti underwent ductile fracture. In contrast, the Al/Cu joint exhibited exclusively brittle fracture, characterized by complete separation of the aluminum layer from the copper substrate and a smooth fracture surface (Figure 8f).
The results of the microhardness test for the joints are presented in Figure 9. The hardness values of IMCs were the highest, followed by the base metals, while the aluminum layer showed the lowest hardness. Among the IMCs, the Fe4Al13 displayed the maximum hardness of 604.4 HV, followed by the TiAl3 with a hardness of 262.7 HV. The Al2Cu and Al3Cu4 revealed the lowest hardness values of 147.9 HV and 163.8 HV, respectively. The measured hardness values of Fe4Al13 and TiAl3 were lower than their theoretical values [37,38], which may be attributed to the compound thickness being slightly smaller than the indenter width. The hardness values of the Al/Cu joint showed good agreement with those reported by Kaya et al. for explosively welded joints [39].
Crystallographic characterization indicates distinct structural configurations among the IMCs: Fe4Al13 is a complex monoclinic structure [40], TiAl3 and Al2Cu both crystallize in the tetragonal system [41,42], while Al3Cu4 exhibits an orthorhombic structure [43]. These structural differences directly influence the interatomic bonding forces and deformation resistance, consequently affecting the hardness of the IMCs.

3.4. Numerical Simulation Analysis

The varying curves of temperature and liquid volume fraction at the interfaces are presented in Figure 10. From the Figure 10(a1,b1,c1), upon dipping of stainless steel into molten aluminum, the interfacial temperature at P1 rapidly decreased below the melting point of aluminum (660 °C) within an extremely short duration (0.05 s), accompanied by a sharp decline in liquid volume fraction from 100% to 0%, resulting in immediate solidification of molten aluminum on the steel surface. As the dipping time prolonged, the interfacial temperature gradually rose from 823 K (550 °C) to 931 K (658 °C). Simultaneously, the temperature located 3 mm from the interface (P2) increased from 652 °C to 659 °C during the same period. Throughout this process, the liquid volume fraction at P1 remained at 0%, while it decreased from 100% to 9% at P2. The temperature curves indicate that both the interface and adjacent aluminum regions consistently remained below the aluminum alloy melting point, ensuring continuous progress of solidification.
Figure 10(a2,b2,c2) illustrate the evolution of temperature and liquid volume fraction during the Al/Ti hot-dipping process. At the initial dipping stage, the interfacial temperature at P1 rapidly decreased to 826 K (589 °C), remaining below the melting point of aluminum (660 °C) throughout the process. This temperature corresponded to a complete solidification of molten aluminum on the titanium surface, as evidenced by the liquid volume fraction dropping from 100% to 0%. At P2 (3 mm from the interface), the temperature gradually declined from 943 K (670 °C) to 933 K (660 °C), fluctuating near 660 °C. This temperature variation resulted in a semi-solid state of aluminum with the liquid volume fraction decreasing from 100% to 70%, indicating partial solidification. In contrast, the P3 (6 mm from the interface) maintained a temperature consistently above 660 °C as reflected by a persistent 100% liquid volume fraction.
For the hot-dipping process of Al/Cu (Figure 10(a3,b3,c3)), the temperature of the molten aluminum at the aluminum/copper interface (P1) drops to a minimum of 780 K (507 °C), which is much lower than the temperatures observed with the other two metals. After 2.5 s, the interface temperature rises to 932 K (659 °C) and remains stable until the completion of the hot-dipping process, with the liquid volume fraction consistently maintained at zero. At the P2, the temperature of the molten aluminum is similarly influenced by copper, remaining below 660 °C, and the liquid volume fraction decreases to 20%. Since the temperature of the aluminum liquid at the interface and nearby regions stays below the melting point of aluminum during this process, solidification continues. A comparison between the simulated solidification zone widths (Figure 10(d1–d3)) of the three joints and the actual thickness of the aluminum layer formed in Figure 4 demonstrates excellent agreement. This result confirms the rationality and effectiveness of the finite element model employed in this study [44,45].
Comparative analysis of the interfacial temperature profiles reveals that copper induces the most significant thermal perturbation in molten aluminum during hot-dipping, whereas titanium exhibits the minimal influence among the three metal systems. For the Al/Cu hot-dipping process, the temperatures reach equilibrium and remain below the melting point of aluminum at P1 and P2 after 2.5 s. In contrast, for steel and titanium, the temperatures are above the aluminum melting point, and the interface and temperatures of molten aluminum achieve equilibrium after 5 s. The differences in the thicknesses of the solidified aluminum layer for the three metals are the combined effects of thermal conductivity and specific heat. Reduced thermal conductivity of the high-melting-point metal decreases its heat absorption rate, which simultaneously diminishes heat extraction from molten aluminum and results in the formation of a comparatively thinner solidified Al layer. Furthermore, the elevated specific heat capacity of the high-melting-point metal leads to greater thermal energy absorption during dipping, consequently promoting increased heat extraction from the molten aluminum and yielding a relatively thicker solidified Al layer. The thermal conductivity and specific heat of stainless steel, TC4 titanium, and T2 copper at 700 °C are listed in Table 3. It is evident that although the specific heat of titanium is similar to that of stainless steel, its lower thermal conductivity results in a thinner aluminum layer.

4. Conclusions

This study explores the bonding of high-melting-point metals (steel, copper, and titanium) with aluminum using the hot-dip joining process. It compares the microstructure and mechanical properties of the joints and analyzes the solidification mechanism of molten aluminum on the surfaces of these high-melting-point metals through finite element simulation. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1)
Metallurgical bonding between high-melting-point metals and aluminum is achieved at 670 °C for 5 s. The IMCs exhibit significant variations in morphology, thickness, and phase composition depending on the base materials. Specifically, the Al/Steel interface forms a single 5 μm thick Fe4Al13, while the Al/Ti interface develops a 1 μm thick TiAl3. In contrast, at the Al/Cu interface, the IMCs are composed of Al3Cu4 and Al2Cu, with a thickness exceeding 10 μm.
(2)
The Al/Cu joint demonstrates the highest shear strength (79.1 MPa), exceeding the Al/steel (42.9 MPa) and Al/Ti (37.2 MPa) joints. This strength difference correlates with the solid solution strengthening effect in the aluminum layer, governed by elemental diffusion. The fracture morphology indicates that the joints of Al/steel and Al/Ti exhibit a mixed mode of ductile and brittle fracture, whereas the joint of Al/Cu demonstrates a brittle fracture mode.
(3)
The solidification of molten aluminum on high-melting-point metals and subsequent dissimilar metal bonding relies on heat balance. During the hot-dipping process, heat transfer from the molten aluminum to the solid metals drives solidification. The solidified aluminum layer thickness varies with the thermal properties of the base metals. The higher thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity produce a thicker solidified aluminum layer on the surface of metals.
(4)
This novel approach is particularly well suited for large-scale bimetallic structures, offering excellent interface uniformity, and demonstrating significant potential for future applications.

Author Contributions

Methodology, H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.L. and H.H.; investigation, Z.L., Q.S. and P.W.; software, Z.L., Q.S. and W.Z.; resources, A.F.; writing—review and editing, H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 52205423 and 51605263) and Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Yantai University (grant number HD20B59).

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 conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xia, H.; Yang, B.; Han, Y.; Xu, L.; Tan, C.; Li, L.; Li, H.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, K. Toward Understanding the Fractured Mechanism in Laser Welded–Brazed Al/Steel Interface by in–Situ SEM Tensile Observations. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2024, 325, 118294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lambiase, F.; Di Ilio, A. Joining Aluminum with Titanium Alloy Sheets by Mechanical Clinching. J. Manuf. Process. 2018, 35, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, P.Q.; Chen, D.L.; Ran, Y.; Yan, Y.Q.; She, X.W.; Peng, H.; Jiang, X.Q. Electromagnetic Pulse Welding of Al/Cu Dissimilar Materials: Microstructure and Tensile Properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 792, 139842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. He, H.; Gou, W.; Mendez, P.F.; Lin, S.; Yang, C. GTA Weld Brazing a Joint of Aluminum to Stainless Steel. Weld. J. 2019, 98, 365s–378s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, L.; Hu, H.; Zhu, Z. Microstructure and Properties of Al/Cu Bimetal in Liquid–Solid Compound Casting. Process. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2016, 26, 1555–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Z.; Huang, J.; Fu, J.; Nie, P.; Zhang, S. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Laser Welded-Brazed Titanium/Aluminum Joints Assisted by Titanium Mesh Interlayer. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2022, 302, 117502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lei, Z.; Li, P.; Zhang, X.; Wu, S.; Zhou, H.; Nannan, L. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Welding–Brazing of Ti/Al Butt Joints with Laser Melting Deposition Layer Additive. J. Manuf. Process. 2019, 38, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Raoelison, R.N.; Buiron, N.; Rachik, M.; Haye, D.; Franz, G.; Habak, M. Study of the Elaboration of a Practical Weldability Window in Magnetic Pulse Welding. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013, 213, 1348–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shim, J.-Y.; Kim, I.-S. Selection of Design Parameters of Working Coil for Al/Cu Tubular Magnetic Pulse Welding. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2023, 15, 16878132231219573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Taban, E.; Gould, J.E.; Lippold, J.C. Dissimilar Friction Welding of 6061-T6 Aluminum and AISI 1018 Steel: Properties and Microstructural Characterization. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 2305–2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, X.; Li, W.; Xu, Y.; Wen, Q.; Feng, W.; Wang, Y. Effect of Welding Speed on Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Al/Cu Bimetal Composite Tubes by a Novel Friction-Based Welding Process. Weld. World 2019, 63, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Senthil, S.M.; Bhuvanesh Kumar, M.; Dennison, M.S. A Contemporary Review on Friction Stir Welding of Circular Pipe Joints and the Influence of Fixtures on This Process. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 2022, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wei, Y. Investigation of Interdiffusion and Intermetallic Compounds in Al–Cu Joint Produced by Continuous Drive Friction Welding. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2016, 19, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jiang, L.; Luo, N.; Liang, H.; Zhao, Y. Microstructure and Texture Distribution in the Bonding Interface of Cu/Al Composite Tube Fabricated by Explosive Welding. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2022, 123, 3021–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vajjala, S.; Singh, A.K.; Krishna, V.G.; Reddy, G.R. Vacuum Brazing of Dissimilar Tubular Component of AA2219 and AISI 304 by a Low Melting Al-18Ag-20Cu-5Si-0.2Zn Braze Alloy. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2018, 252, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sui, D.; Han, Q. Ultrasound-Assisted Cast-on Method: Obtaining High-Quality Metallurgical Bonds between a Bare Steel Insert and A354 Aluminum Alloy within a Composite Casting. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2023, 311, 11778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Han, Q. A Modified Cast-on Method for the Reinforcement of Aluminum Castings with Dissimilar Metals. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2016, 47, 3266–3273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Choi, J.-W.; Liu, H.; Fujii, H. Dissimilar Friction Stir Welding of Pure Ti and Pure Al. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 730, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, X.; Lei, Z.; Chen, Y.; Han, Y.; Jiang, M.; Tian, Z.; Bi, J.; Lin, S. Microstructure and Tensile Properties of Ti/Al Dissimilar Joint by Laser Welding-Brazing at Subatmospheric Pressure. J. Manuf. Process. 2020, 56, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pei, Y.; Huang, T.; Chen, F.; Pang, B.; Guo, J.; Xiang, N.; Song, Z.; Zhang, Y. Microstructure and Fracture Mechanism of Ti/Al Layered Composite Fabricated by Explosive Welding. Vacuum 2020, 181, 109596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Cheng, Z.; Liu, Z.; Chen, L.; Zhao, G. Micro-/Nano-Scale Interface Structure and Mechanical Characteristics of the Al/Ti Composite Bar Produced by a Novel Continuously-Extruded Technique. Mater. Des. 2023, 228, 111818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Liu, Z.; Meng, Z.; Yan, J.; Chen, L.; Zhao, G. Novel Interface Characteristics and Strengthening Mechanisms in Extruded Fiber(Ti)-Reinforced Al-Based Composites. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2024, 325, 118304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, H.; Shao, F.; Bai, L.; Yuan, J.; Xu, Q.; Liu, H. Interface Bonding and Mechanical Properties of Large Explosively Welded Titanium/Aluminum Composite Pipes. Intermetallics 2025, 176, 108476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, C.; Zhang, T.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y. Synergistic Solid–Liquid Composite and Rapid Solidification Preparation of Aluminum-Clad Steel Wires. Mater. Des. 2024, 244, 113182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. He, H.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, W. Kinetics of Intermetallic Compound Layers between AISI 321 Stainless Steel and Molten Aluminum. Mater. Charact. 2023, 203, 113062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Niu, S.; Wang, Z.; Lou, M.; Ma, Y.; Lei, H.; Li, Y. Resistance Rivet Welding of Aluminum/Titanium Dissimilar Materials. J. Manuf. Process. 2023, 108, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, H.; Wang, K.; Zheng, W. Microstructure Complexities of Laser Impact Welded Al-Ti Bonding Interface. Scr. Mater. 2022, 211, 11448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cao, F.; Zhang, P.; Zou, J.; Wang, T. The Formation and Growth of Intermetallic Compounds during Interdiffusion of Al/Cu Bimetals. Mater. Res. Express. 2022, 9, 056503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. He, H.; Gou, W.; Wang, S.; Hou, Y.; Ma, C.; Mendez, P.F. Kinetics of Intermetallic Compound Layers during Initial Period of Reaction between Mild Steel and Molten Aluminum. Int. J. Mater. Res. 2019, 110, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Meng, Z.; Zhao, G.; Chen, L. TiAl3 Nucleation Mechanism and Atomic-Scale Interface Features in the Al/Ti Composite Structures. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 226, 109331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, Y.; Liu, G.; Jin, H.; Shi, Z.; Qiao, G. Intermetallic Phase Formation in Diffusion-Bonded Cu/Al Laminates. J. Mater. Sci. 2011, 46, 2467–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, J.; Lai, Y.-S.; Wang, Y.-W.; Kao, C.R. Investigation of Growth Behavior of Al–Cu Intermetallic Compounds in Cu Wire Bonding. Microelectron. Reliab. 2011, 51, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tavassoli, S.; Abbasi, M.; Tahavvori, R. Controlling of IMCs Layers Formation Sequence, Bond Strength and Electrical Resistance in al Cu Bimetal Compound Casting Process. Mater. Des. 2016, 108, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, N.; Cahoon, J. Interdiffusion of Copper and Iron in Liquid Aluminum. J. Phase Equilib. Diffus. 2011, 32, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, S.-Y.; Taguchi, O.; Iijima, Y. Diffusion of Aluminum in Titanium. Mater. Trans. 2010, 51, 1809–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sun, T.; Geng, J.; Bian, Z.; Wu, Y.; Wang, M.; Chen, D.; Ma, N.; Wang, H. Enhanced Thermal Stability and Mechanical Properties of High-Temperature Resistant Al−Cu Alloy with Zr and Mn Micro-Alloying. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2022, 32, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sierra, G.; Peyre, P.; Beaume, F.D.; Stuart, D.; Fras, G. Steel to Aluminium Braze Welding by Laser Process with Al–12Si Filler Wire. Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 2008, 13, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gao, L. Preparation and Toughness Mechanism of In-Situ Ti3AlC2 Enhanced and Toughened TiAl3 Matrix Composites. Intermetallics 2023, 161, 107963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kaya, Y. Investigation of Copper-Aluminium Composite Materials Produced by Explosive Welding. Metals 2018, 8, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Potesser, M. The Characterization of the Intermetallic Fe-Al Layer of Steel-Aluminum Weldings. In Proceedings of the TMS Annual Meeting 2006, Atlanta, GA, USA, 12–17 October 2006; pp. 167–176. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, Y.; Wang, A.; Xie, J.; Guo, Y. Deformation Mechanisms in Al/Al2Cu/Cu Multilayer under Compressive Loading. J. Alloy. Compd. 2021, 885, 160921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhou, S.; Peng, B.; Cao, Y.; Xu, Y.; Quan, G.; Ma, S.; Jiao, Z.; Luo, K. First-Principles Investigations on Stability, Elastic Properties and Electronic Structures of L12-TiAl3 and D022-TiAl3 under Pressure. Phys. B 2019, 571, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gulay, L.D.; Harbrecht, B. The Crystal Structure of ζ1-Al3Cu4. J. Alloys Compd. 2004, 367, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, Y.; Mendez, P.F. Isotherm Penetration Depth under a Moving Gaussian Surface Heat Source on a Thick Substrate. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2022, 172, 107334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Mendez, P.F. Scaling Expressions of Characteristic Values for a Moving Point Heat Source in Steady State on a Semi-Infinite Solid. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 135, 1118–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, D.-H.; Lee, C.-M. Experimental Investigation on Machinability of Titanium Alloy by Laser-Assisted End Milling. Metals 2021, 11, 1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhao, W.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Fu, A.; He, H. Mechanism of Ultrasonic Effects on Thermal-Stress Field in Cu/Al-FSW Process. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2024, 270, 109101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, H.; Qin, G.; Li, C. Effect of Different Friction Coefficient Models on Numerical Simulation of Inertia Friction Welding of 2219 Al Alloy to 304 Stainless Steel. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 27, 6474–6483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coatings 15 00541 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental process.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental process.
Coatings 15 00541 g001
Coatings 15 00541 g002
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of shear test specimens; (b) Test points of microhardness.
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of shear test specimens; (b) Test points of microhardness.
Coatings 15 00541 g002
Coatings 15 00541 g003
Figure 3. (a) Numerical simulation model; (b) cross-sectional grid morphology; (c) longitudinal section grid morphology.
Figure 3. (a) Numerical simulation model; (b) cross-sectional grid morphology; (c) longitudinal section grid morphology.
Coatings 15 00541 g003
Coatings 15 00541 g004
Figure 4. (a) Composite structure of dissimilar metals; (b) Macro-morphology of the cross-section.
Figure 4. (a) Composite structure of dissimilar metals; (b) Macro-morphology of the cross-section.
Coatings 15 00541 g004
Coatings 15 00541 g005
Figure 5. The SEM morphology of the interface with different magnification: (a,d) Al/Steel; (b,e) Al/Ti; (c,f) Al/Cu.
Figure 5. The SEM morphology of the interface with different magnification: (a,d) Al/Steel; (b,e) Al/Ti; (c,f) Al/Cu.
Coatings 15 00541 g005
Coatings 15 00541 g006
Figure 6. EDS mapping of the joints of Al/Steel, Al/Ti, and Al/Cu.
Figure 6. EDS mapping of the joints of Al/Steel, Al/Ti, and Al/Cu.
Coatings 15 00541 g006
Coatings 15 00541 g007
Figure 7. (a) Shear strength of hot-dipping joints; (b–d) Fracture locations and corresponding morphologies.
Figure 7. (a) Shear strength of hot-dipping joints; (b–d) Fracture locations and corresponding morphologies.
Coatings 15 00541 g007
Coatings 15 00541 g008
Figure 8. Fracture behavior of shear specimens: (a,d) fracture morphology of Al/steel; (b,e) fracture morphology of Al/Ti; (c,f) fracture morphology of Al/Cu.
Figure 8. Fracture behavior of shear specimens: (a,d) fracture morphology of Al/steel; (b,e) fracture morphology of Al/Ti; (c,f) fracture morphology of Al/Cu.
Coatings 15 00541 g008
Coatings 15 00541 g009
Figure 9. (a) Microhardness distribution across joint regions; (b) Morphology after the tests.
Figure 9. (a) Microhardness distribution across joint regions; (b) Morphology after the tests.
Coatings 15 00541 g009
Coatings 15 00541 g010
Figure 10. Temperature and liquid volume fraction variation during the hot-dipping process at 670 °C for 5 s: (a1–a3) Temperature variation curve of Steel, Ti, and Cu, respectively; (b1–b3) Liquid volume fraction variation curve of Steel, Ti, and Cu, respectively; (c1–c3) Distribution of liquid volume fraction; (d1–d3) Magnified view of the interfacial region in (c1–c3).
Figure 10. Temperature and liquid volume fraction variation during the hot-dipping process at 670 °C for 5 s: (a1–a3) Temperature variation curve of Steel, Ti, and Cu, respectively; (b1–b3) Liquid volume fraction variation curve of Steel, Ti, and Cu, respectively; (c1–c3) Distribution of liquid volume fraction; (d1–d3) Magnified view of the interfacial region in (c1–c3).
Coatings 15 00541 g010
Table 1. Chemical composition of materials (wt%).
Table 1. Chemical composition of materials (wt%).
MnCAlMgVSiCuZnTiFeNiCr
AISI 32120.12---1--0.2Bal.8–1017–19
TC4-0.16-4---Bal.0.3--
T2------Bal.--0.015--
10500.05-Bal.0.050.050.250.050.050.030.04--
Table 2. Analysis of EDS (at. %).
Table 2. Analysis of EDS (at. %).
FeAlCuTiIMC
P122.5 ± 0.472.3 ± 0.5----Fe4Al13
P2--75.9 ± 0.4--22.1 ± 0.3TiAl3
P3--71.2 ± 0.327.5 ± 0.3--Al2Cu
P4--44.4 ± 0.354.3 ± 0.4--Al3Cu4
Table 3. Thermophysical properties of base metals [46,47,48].
Table 3. Thermophysical properties of base metals [46,47,48].
SteelTiCu
Thermal conductivity (W/m⸳K)24.519.9355
Specific heat (J/kg⸳K)628621446
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

Liu, Z.; Su, Q.; Wang, P.; Zhao, W.; Fu, A.; He, H. Dissimilar Joining of Aluminum to High-Melting-Point Alloys by Hot Dipping. Coatings 2025, 15, 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050541

AMA Style

Liu Z, Su Q, Wang P, Zhao W, Fu A, He H. Dissimilar Joining of Aluminum to High-Melting-Point Alloys by Hot Dipping. Coatings. 2025; 15(5):541. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050541

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Zhaoxian, Qingjia Su, Pu Wang, Wenzhen Zhao, Ao Fu, and Huan He. 2025. "Dissimilar Joining of Aluminum to High-Melting-Point Alloys by Hot Dipping" Coatings 15, no. 5: 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050541

APA Style

Liu, Z., Su, Q., Wang, P., Zhao, W., Fu, A., & He, H. (2025). Dissimilar Joining of Aluminum to High-Melting-Point Alloys by Hot Dipping. Coatings, 15(5), 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050541

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