4.6 Article

Characterization of microstructure and mechanical properties of dissimilar TLP bonding between IN718/IN600 with BNi-2 interlayer

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 447-457

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2017.09.010

关键词

Transient liquid phase bonding; Inconel 718; Inconel 600; Isothermal solidification; BNi-2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of bonding parameters on microstructure and mechanical properties of transient liquid phase joints of Inconel 600/BNi-2/Inconel 718 systems were investigated. Joining processes were carried out at 1050 degrees C and 1100 degrees C for 5-45 min to achieve a joint free of intermetallic compounds. The results revealed that the a-thermally solidification zone was wider for short bonding times and lower temperature. B-Ni, B-Cr, B-Ni-Si, and Ni3Si phases were formed in the a-thermally solidification zone. The composition and morphology of compounds were different in diffusion affected zone of Inconel 718 and Inconel 600 superalloys. Carbo-boride phases were observed in the diffusion affected zone of Inconel 718 superalloy due to reducing the carbon solubility in the nickel alloy by diffusion of boron. Beside an intermetallic-free joint centerline was achieved at 1050 degrees C and 1100 degrees C for 45 min and 30 min, respectively. After homogenizing treatment at 1180 degrees C for 180 min, the intermetallic phases were eliminated completely. Highest hardness value achieved in the a-thermally solidification zone (similar to 486 HV) and diffusion affected zone (similar to 671 HV) of Inconel 718 due to existence of the intermetallic compounds. In addition, the maximum bonding shear strength was obtained about 568 MPa for the homogenized sample. The fracture analysis showed the eutectic compounds in the diffusion affected zone were the main factor of the failure in the bonded sample for short bonding time. (C) 2017 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据