Microstructural and textural evolutions in multilayered Ti/Cu composites processed by accumulative roll bonding

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2018.12.018

Abstract

Abstract:

Ti/Cu multilayered composites were fabricated via accumulative roll bonding (ARB). During co-deformation of the constituent metals, the hard Ti layers necked preferentially and then fragmented with the development of shear bands. Transmission electron microscopy showed that with increasing ARB cycles, grains in Ti were significantly refined even though dynamic recrystallization has occurred. For Cu the significant grain refinement was only found within the shear banded region when the composite was processed after five ARB cycles. Due to the diffusion of Cu atoms into Ti at the heterophase interfaces, amorphization with a width less than 10 nm was identified even in the composite processed by one cycle. At higher ARB cycles, the width of amorphous region increased and intermetallic compounds CuTi appeared from the region. The lattice defects introduced at the heterophase interfaces under roll bonding was responsible for the formation of the nano-scaled compounds. X-ray diffraction showed that an abnormal {11$\bar{2}$0} fiber texture was developed in Ti layers, while significant brass-type textures were developed in Cu layers. Some orientations along the {11$\bar{2}$0} fiber favored the prismatic < a> slip for Ti. Tensile tests revealed the elevated strength without a substantial sacrifice of ductility in the composites during ARB. The unique mechanical properties were attributed to the significantly refined grains in individual metals, the good bonding between the constituent metals, as well as the development of an abnormal {11$\bar{2}$0} fiber texture in Ti layers.

Key words: Titanium/copper multilayered composite, Accumulative roll bonding, Microstructure, Texture, Mechanical properties

Shuang Jiang, Ru Lin Peng, Nan Jia, Xiang Zhao, Liang Zuo. Microstructural and textural evolutions in multilayered Ti/Cu composites processed by accumulative roll bonding[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2019, 35(6): 1165-1174.

Figures/Tables 11

Table 1 Variation of the number of layers, the nominal thickness of one single layer and the total strain with the increasing ARB cycles.

Number of ARB cycles	Number of layers	Nominal thickness of a single layer, h (μm)	Equivalent true strain, e
1	7	300	1.39
2	14	107	2.58
3	42	31	4.01
4	126	10.3	5.28
5	126	2.6	6.87

Fig. 1. EBSD orientation map showing initial grain morphologies and orientation distributions of the annealed pure metals: (a) Ti and (b) Cu. The orientation maps exhibit grain orientations with respect to ND. ODF sections are shown in (c) for Ti and (d) for Cu. (Color should be used for these figures in print).

Fig. 2. SEM micrographs showing lamellar morphologies in the Ti/Cu composites produced by ARB: (a) 1 cycle, (b) 2 cycles, (c) 3 cycles, (d) 4 cycles, (e) 5 cycles.

Fig. 3. (a) TEM image of the ARB processed Ti/Cu multilayers after the first cycle, (b) HRTEM image of the Ti/Cu interface obtained from (a). Inserted image in HRTEM image is Fourier-transformed image, which is obtained from the white dashed rectangular.

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic diagram showing the positions for TEM characterization. The longitudinal section of the Ti/Cu composite after the fifth ARB cycle is observed. Three dashed rectangular highlight the selected areas I, II and III, respectively. (b) TEM micrographs of area I, (c) TEM micrographs of area II, (d) TEM micrographs of area III. White dashed lines indicate the heterophase interface.

Fig. 5. Nanobeam diffraction patterns, EDS analysis and HRTEM image of the Ti/Cu composite processed after the fifth ARB cycle: (a) nanobeam diffraction (NBD) patterns obtained from the position in Fig. 4(b) (as marked by arrow at the heterophase interface), (b) positions of EDS analysis, (c) HRTEM image obtained from the position in (b) as marked by white dashed rectangular, (d) Fourier-transformed image obtained from the white dashed rectangular in (c), (e) NBD patterns obtained from the position in (b) as marked by arrow.

Table 2 EDS analysis of the Ti/Cu composite processed after the fifth ARB cycle.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Ti (at.%)	48.0	47.9	51.3	46.6	57.3	59.7	28.7	16.3	4.9	5.0
Cu (at.%)	52.0	52.1	48.7	63.4	42.7	40.3	71.3	83.7	95.1	95.0
Phase	CuTi	CuTi	CuTi	CuTi	CuTi	CuTi	amo.	amo.	amo.	amo.

Fig. 6. ODF sections with constant φ2 in Ti (on the left) and Cu (on the right) processed after different ARB cycles: (a) prior to ARB processing, (b) after the first cycle, (c) after the second cycle, (d) after the third cycle, (e) after the fourth cycle, (f) after the fifth cycle.

Table 3 The maximum Schmid factors of the Prismatic < a> slip and Basal < a> slip systems for Ti under uniaxial tension.

Orientation	m
Orientation	Prismatic < a>	Basal < a>
(0°, 32°, 0°)	0.43	0
(0°, 32°, 30°)	0.43	0
(0°, 90°, 0°)	0.43	0
(45°, 90°, 0°)	0.22	0.43
(90°, 90°, 0°)	0	0

Fig. 7. Tensile stress-strain curves for the Ti/Cu composites processed by different ARB cycles: (a) engineering stress-strain curves, (b) true stress-strain curves.

Fig. 8. Variation in the micro-hardness of individual layers and Ti/Cu interface regions processed by different ARB cycles.

References

[1]	M. Hosseini, N. Pardis, H. Danesh Manesh, M. Abbasi, D.I. Kim, Mater. Des. 113 (2017) 128-136.
[2]	H.L. Yu, A.K. Tieu, C. Lu, X. Liu, A. Godbole, H.J. Li, C. Kong, Q.H. Qin, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014) 5017.
[3]	B.L. Hansen, J.S. Carpenter, S.D. Sintay, C.A. Bronkhorst, R.J. McCabe, J.R. Mayeur, H.M. Mourad, I.J. Beyerlein, N.A. Mara, S.R. Chen, G.T. Gray, Int. J. Plast. 49 (2013) 71-84.
[4]	S.J. Hao, L.S. Cui, D.Q. Jiang, X.D. Han, Y. Ren, J. Jiang, Y.N. Liu, Z.Y. Liu, S.C. Mao, Y.D. Wang, Y. Li, X.B. Ren, X.D. Ding, S. Wang, C. Yu, X.B. Shi, M.S. Du, F. Yang, Y.J. Zheng, Z. Zhang, X.D. Li, D.E. Brown, J. Li, Science 339 (2013) 1191-1194.
[5]	S.J. Zheng, I.J. Beyerlein, J.S. Carpenter, K. Kang, J. Wang, W.Z. Han, N.A. Mara, Nat. Commun. 4 (2013) p. 1696.
[6]	J.S. Carpenter, T. Nizolek, R.J. McCabe, M.Knezevic, S.J. Zheng, B.P. Eftink, J.E. Scott, S.C. Vogel, T.M. Pollock, N.A. Mara, I.J. Beyerlein, Acta Mater. 92 (2015) 97-108.
[7]	Q.M. Wei, N. Li, N. Mara, M. Nastasi, A. Misra, Acta Mater. 59 (2011) 6331-6340.
[8]	N. Li, M. Nastasi, A. Misra, Int. J. Plast.,32-33 (2012) 1-16.
[9]	Y. Saito, H. Utsunomiya, N. Tsuji, T. Sakai, Acta Mater. 47 (1999) 579-583.
[10]	S. Ohsaki, S. Kato, N. Tsuji, T. Ohkubo, K. Hono, Acta Mater. 55 (2007) 2885-2895.
[11]	Y.P. Li, G.P. Zhang, Acta Mater. 58 (2010) 3877-3887.
[12]	L.F. Zeng, R. Gao, Q.F. Fang, X.P. Wang, Z.M. Xie, S. Miao, T. Hao, T. Zhang, Acta Mater. 110 (2016) 341-351.
[13]	K. Tirsatine, H. Azzeddine, T. Baudin, A.L. Helbert, F. Brisset, B. Alili, A.L. Helbert, F. Brisset, T. Baudin, D. Bradai, J. Alloys Compd. 610 (2014) 352-360.
[14]	D.K. Yang, P. Cizek, P. Hodgson, C. Wen, Scr. Mater. 62 (2010) 321-324.
[15]	M. Hosseini, H. Danesh Manesh, M. Eizadjou, J. Alloys Compd. 701 (2017) 127-130.
[16]	M. Ardeljan, M. Knezevic, T. Nizolek, I.J. Beyerlein, N.A. Mara, T.M. Pollock, Int. J. Plast. 74 (2015) 35-57.
[17]	N.A. Mara, I.J. Beyerlein, J. Mater. Sci. 49 (2014) 6497-6516.
[18]	J.L. Murray, Bull. Alloy Phase Diagrams 4 (1983) 81-95.
[19]	R. Hielscher, H. Schaeben, J. Appl. Cryst. 41 (2008) 1024-1037.
[20]	N. Jia, P. Eisenlohr, F. Roters, D. Raabe, X. Zhao, Acta Mater. 60 (2012) 3415-3434.
[21]	ö. Yazar, T. Ediz, T. öztürk, Acta Mater. 53 (2005) 375-381.
[22]	A. Mozaffari, H. Danesh Manesh, K. Janghorban, J. Alloys Compd. 489 (2010) 103-109.
[23]	N. Jia, F. Roters, P. Eisenlohr, D. Raabe, X. Zhao, Acta Mater. 61 (2013) 4591-4606.
[24]	D. Terada, S. Inoue, N. Tsuji, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (2007) 1673-1681.
[25]	Y.B. Xu, Y.L. Bai, M.A. Meyers, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 22 (2006) 737-746.
[26]	L. Jiang, M.T. Perez-Prado, P.A. Gruber, E. Arzt, O.A. Ruano, M.E. Kassner, Acta Mater. 56 (2008) 1228-1242.
[27]	Z.Z. Li, B.F. Wang, S.T. Zhao, R.Z. Valiev, K.S. Vecchio, M.A. Meyers, Acta Mater. 125 (2017) 210-218.
[28]	M. Konieczny, Mater. Lett. 62 (2008) 2600-2602.
[29]	S. Jiang, N. Jia, X.H. Zhou, H. Zhang, T. He, X. Zhao, Mater. Trans. 58 (2017) 259-265.
[30]	E.I. Teitel’, L.S. Metlov, D.V. Gunderov, A.V. Korznikov, Phys. Met. Metallogr. 113 (2012) 1162-1168.
[31]	O. Taguchi, Y. Iijima, Philos. Mag. A72 (1995) 1649-1655.
[32]	M. Atzmon, K.M. Unruh, W.L. Johnson, J. Appl. Phys. 58 (1985) 3865-3870.
[33]	A. Bachmaier, J. Schmauch, H. Aboulfadl, A. Verch, C. Motz, Acta Mater. 115 (2016) 333-346.
[34]	J. Hirsch, K. Lücke, Acta Metall. 36 (1988) 2863-2882.
[35]	I.J. Beyerlein, N.A. Mara, D. Bhattacharyya, D.J. Alexander, C.T. Necker, Int. J. Plast. 27 (2011) 121-146.
[36]	W.K. Wang, W.Z. Chen, W.C. Zhang, G.R. Cui, E.D. Wang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 712 (2018) 608-615.
[37]	J. Kuang, T.S.E. Low, S.R. Niezgoda, X.H. Li, Y.B. Geng, A.A. Luo, G.Y. Tang, Int. J. Plast. 87 (2016) 86-99.
[38]	Y. Ren, X.Y. Zhang, T. Xia, Q. Sun, Q. Liu, Mater. Des. 126 (2017) 123-134.
[39]	J.Y. Zhang, J. Li, X.Q. Liang, G. Liu, J. Sun, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014) p. 4205.
[40]	N. Jia, F. Roters, P. Eisenlohr, C. Kords, D. Raabe, Acta Mater. 60 (2012) 1099-1115.
[41]	M. Arul Kumar, I.J. Beyerlein, C.N. Tomé, Acta Mater. 116 (2016) 143-154.
[42]	N. Munroe, X.L. Tan, H.C. Gu, Scr. Mater. 36 (1997) 1383-1386.
[43]	L. Ghalandari, M.M. Mahdavian, M. Reihanian, M. Mahmoudiniya, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 661 (2016) 179-186.
[44]	K. Wu, H. Chang, E. Maawad, W.M. Gan, H.G. Brokmeier, M.Y. Zheng, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (2010) 3073-3078.
[45]	M.M. Mahdavian, L. Ghalandari, M. Reihanian, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 579 (2013) 99-107.
[46]	A. Fattah-alhosseini, A. Reza Ansari, Y. Mazaheri, M. Karimi, M. Haghshenas, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 688 (2017) 218-224.
[47]	Y. Miyajima, M. Uchiyama, H. Adachi, T. Fujii, S. Onaka, M. Kato, Mater. Trans. 57 (2016) 1411-1417.