Advances in fusion bonding techniques for

joining thermoplastic matrix composites: a

review

Abstract
Joining composite materials is an issue because traditional joining technologies
are not directly transferable to composite structures. Fusion bonding and the
use of thermoplastic ®lms as hot melt adhesives offer an alternative to
mechanical fastening and thermosetting adhesive bonding. Fusion bonding
technology which originated from the thermoplastic polymer industry has gain
a new interest with the introduction of thermoplastic matrix composites (TPC)
which are currently regarded as candidates for primary structures. The
improvement of thermoplastic polymer matrices, with the introduction of
recent chemistries such as PEEK, PEI and PEKEKK. exhibiting increased
mechanical performance, service temperature and solvent resistance (for the
semi-crystalline systems) also supported the growth of interest for fusion
bonding. This review looks at the state of the art offusion bonding technology
and focuses particularly on the three most promising fusion bonding
techniques: ultrasonic welding, induction welding and resistance welding.
Physical mechanisms involved in the fusion bonding process for modelling
purposes are discussed including heat transfer, consolidation and crystallinity
aspects. Finally, the application of fusion bonding to joining dissimilar
materials, namely thermosetting composites (TSC)/TPC and metal/TPC joints, is
reviewed. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
An ideal structure would be designed without joints, since joints are potentially
sources of weakness and additional weight. In practice however, upper limit to
component size is generally determined by the manufacturing processes.
Further requirements for inspection, accessibility, repair and transportation or
assembly mean that loadbearing joints will be part of an engineering structure
[1]. This is particularly so in the manufacturing of thermoplastic composites
(TPC) for which high melt resin viscosity and constraints imposed by the
continuous reinforcement limit the production to relatively simple geometry
components which must be joined together to produce large, complex
structures [2]. The extensive experience available from the thermoplastic
polymer (TP) industry showed that to make large or complex parts, the most
cost-effective method often involves moulding two or more parts and joining
them together [3]. Well-established joining technologies for metallic struc

tures [4,5] are not directly applicable to composites [6,7]. For example, typical
problems encountered when using mechanical fasteners in composite
structures include:

² Stress concentrations created by the presence of holes and cut-outs which is

worsened by the lack of plasticity limiting stress redistribution [6]. ²
Delamination originating from the localised wear occurring during drilling [8]. ²
Differential thermal expansion of fasteners relative to composite. ² Water
intrusion between fasteners and composite and fuel seal integrity offastening
system (where applicable). ² Electrical continuity in composite (required for
energy dissipation in case of a lightning strike on an airframe for instance) and
arcing between fasteners. ² Possible galvanic corrosion at fastened joints. ²
Additional weight of fastening system [7]. ² Extensive time and labour
requirements of hole drilling.

Thermosetting (TS) adhesive bonding is inherently preferable to mechanical

fastening because of the continuous connection avoiding large stress
concentrations induced at

Composites: Part A 32 (2001) 839±857

1359-835X/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved. PII: S1359-835X(00)00166-4

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 161-2-9351-4798; fax: 161-2-9351-7060. E-mail

address: ye@mech.eng.usyd.edu.au (L. Ye).
each discrete fastener hole [5]. However, there are a wide range of
contaminants present on substrate surfaces, including silicon from release
agents and bagging materials, ¯uorocarbon release sprays and ®lms, machining
oils, ®ngerprints and components of the composite itself which have migrated
to the surface (calcium stearate, water and plasticizers etc.) [9]. These need to
be eliminated prior to bonding by using a surface preparation treatment which
may also serve to improve wetting of low energy surfaces, chemically modify
the surface (introduction of polar groups or coupling agents) and increase the
surface roughness (improving mechanical interlocking and increasing bonding
surface area). Extensive surface preparation and long curing times make
adhesive bonding labour intensive [10,11]. Typical surface treatments used for
adhesive bonding (Table 1) are generally hard to control in an industrial
environment [8] and affect directly the strength (Table 2) and durability of
bonded joints [12,13]. Sensitivity to storage

is another restrictive aspect of surface treatments [14]. In addition, current

recycling requirements [15] incite more and more manufacturers to choose
adhesive systems which are recyclable, including most hot melt TP adhesives
while excluding most TS adhesives [16]. In recent years it has become evident
that the design process consisting of making a structure with the historically
acceptable materials will gradually disappear. Rather, materials offering the
best combination of properties need to be associated in a process involving
joining [17,18]. One of the key components of this design trend is the
development of a reliable, cost-ef®cient, automation-ready joining technology
for composites and dissimilar materials [19]. Other researchers have proposed
interesting overviews of joining technologies for TPs [3] or for polymer
composites [7,20,21]. In the present overview, recent advances in joining TPCs
using fusion bonding or TP ®lms as hot melt adhesives are examined with
speci®c focus on the most promising techniques of ultrasonic welding,
induction welding and resistance welding. Interpretations of the physical
mechanisms involved in fusion bonding are reviewed to give an insight of
modelling techniques. Finally, fusion bonding of TPCs together with dissimilar
materials, i.e. TSCs and metals, is considered.
5. Summary and future development
It is important to note that not one joining technology can be applicable to all
situations [8]. All joining methods present advantages and drawbacks, and they
may be moreor less suitable to a particular application depending on its
speci®c requirements. It was shown that fusion bonding methods present a
huge potential for volume intensive applications in which short processing
cycles are necessary. Fusion bonding processes offer additional advantages
including reduced surface preparation requirements, reprocessing,
recyclability, and improved integrity/durability. Among the various techniques,
the most mature ones appear to be ultrasonic welding, induction welding and
resistance welding. Process modelling has become a key to the development of
new manufacturing methods. Mechanistic models (based on driving
mechanisms) have proved to facilitate the development of processing windows
by assisting the investigation of the processing parameters. Experimental
testing is however still required, at least to verify model simulations, but is
kept to a minimum. Limited data are available in the literature on fatigue
behaviour of fusion bonded TPC joints and fusion bonded dissimilar joints. LSS
provides only information on the short term, static behaviour of a joint, which
is normally not the predominant failure scenario in practical conditions.
Therefore, fatigue, creep and environmental testing should be performed to
validate novel joining technologies. Process integration is another critical
aspect of joining technology. Particular requirements of each joining
techniques should be collated in designs codes in order to integrate these
requirements at the very early stage of the design process.
Abstract

The morphologies of primary silicon were studied in detail with different

cooling rates and melt overheating temperatures. According to the present
results, the morphologies of primary silicon are a strong function of the
solidification conditions such as cooling rate and melt overheating
temperature.Withtheelevationofmeltoverheatingtemperature,themorphologie
sofprimarysiliconwillchangefromstar-likeandotherirregular
primarysilicontooctahedralprimarysiliconandthesizeofprimarysiliconwillgradual
lydecrease.Ontheotherhand,itcanbesafetodeducethat the Si–Si cluster of larger
size should be beneficial for the formation of the nucleus of star-like and other
irregular primary silicon and the Si–Si cluster of smaller size should be
beneficial for the formation of the nuclei of octahedral primary silicon. With
increasing cooling rate, the size of primary silicon will gradually decrease. If the
cooling rate is lower than a certain (or critical) cooling rate, the cooling rate
will have hardly effect on the morphologies of primary silicon in the solid state.
If the cooling rate is higher than a certain (or critical) cooling rate, the cooling
rate will play an important role in determining the morphologies of primary
silicon in the solid state.

1. Introduction
An increasing number of research programs have been devoted to
hypereutectic Al–Si alloys, the potential application of which includes
aeronautical and missile technology [1–5]. Under normal cast condition,
primary silicon in hypereutectic Al–Si alloys exhibit a variety of morphologies
such as polygonal, star-like, coarser platelet, etc. Generally, the machinability
of hypereutectic Al–Si alloys is worse due to the presence of
coarserprimarysilicon[6].Therefore,thesizeandmorphology of primary silicon in
hypereutectic Al–Si alloys determine the influence on the mechanical
properties of the alloys. The production of finer primary silicon is desirable in
most castings of hypereutecticAl–Sialloysasthefinerprimarysilicongenerally
results in improved mechanical properties, such as toughness and ductility
[7].Inordertoincrease the industrialapplicability of hypereutectic Al–Si alloys,
various methods have been used for the refinement of primary silicon, such as
rapid cooling,

overheating treatment and various alloying additions. Recently, rapid cooling

[7–9] and overheating treatment [10] have been considered as methods to
change the size of primary silicon.
Themicrostructureinthesolidstateisinfluencedbytheliquid
structurebeforesolidification[7,11].Someexperimentalresults on the structure
of the liquid Al–Si alloys were achieved [7,11],
whichisusefultounderstandtheeffectoftheliquidstructureon primary silicon in
the solid state. However, some experiments [10] only focus on the effects of
cooling rate and overheating
treatmentonthesizeofprimarysilicon,andlittleworkhasbeen
madeontheeffectsofcoolingrateandoverheatingtreatmenton the morphologies
of primary silicon (three-dimensional observation). In this paper, the
morphologies of primary silicon in hypereutectic Al–20wt.%Si alloy with
different cooling rates and melt overheating temperatures have been
investigated.

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 2 shows the effect of melt overheating temperature on primary silicon in
hypereutectic Al–20wt.%Si alloy. It is very clear to observe that the size of
primary silicon (approximately 50m) with a pouring temperature of 1050◦C is
smaller than that (approximately 100m) with a pouring temperature of 850◦C.
In addition, it is also clear to observe that melt overheating temperature has
significant effect on the morphologies ofprimarysiliconinhypereutecticAl–20wt.
%Sialloy.Primary silicon with a pouring temperature of 850◦C exhibit a variety
of morphologies such as coarser polygonal, star-like and other irregular as
shown in Fig. 2(a). However, primary silicon with a pouring temperature of
1050◦C exhibit finer blocky and other regular morphologies as shown in Fig.
2(b). Fig. 3 shows a schematic illustrating the polygonal outline of octahedral
primary silicon in a section of a sample [12]. According to Fig. 3, it is reasonable
to deduce that the majority of primary silicon with a pouring temperature of
1050◦C should be octahedral

primary silicon as shown in Fig. 2(c) [13]. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the elevation of melt overheating temperature is advantageous to obtain finer
octahedral primary silicon. Some researchers [3,4,7,8,11] have suggested that
there are silicon atom clusters and silicon tetrahedra in the melt of Al–Si alloys,
and such liquid structure should be beneficial for the formation and growth of
the nuclei of primary silicon. With increasing melt overheating temperature,
some Si–Si bonds in theSi–SiclustersaredestroyedandSiatomsdiffusefromSi–Si
cluster into the Al bulk melt. Therefore, the higher the melt overheating
temperature, the smaller the size of Si–Si cluster

due to the destruction of Si–Si bonds. Therefore, the average size of Si–Si
cluster in the liquid melt at 1050◦C should be smaller than that at 850◦C. On
the other hand, it is widely accepted that the higher the melt overheating
temperature, the fasterthecoolingrate(undersameexperimentalconditionssuch
as same mould and circumstances) and the faster cooling rate generally lead to
the higher undercooling during solidification. According to above discussion,
therefore, it is easer to
understandthatthesizeofprimarysiliconwithapouringtemperature of 1050◦C is
smaller than that with a pouring temperature of
850◦C.KobayashiandHogan[4]haveproposedthatthenucleation of irregular
primary silicon occurs by the aggregation of silicon tetrahedra. Some
researchers [2,4] suggested that the nucleationofstar-
likeprimarysilicongeneratebytheformation of tetrahedral groups of silicon
atoms in the liquid melt. Generally,theSi–
Siclusteroflargersizeshouldgeneratemoresilicon tetrahedra than that of smaller
size. Therefore, in the present investigation, it can be safe to deduce that the
Si–Si cluster of larger size should be beneficial for the formation of the nucleus
of star-like and other irregular primary silicon and the Si–Si cluster of smaller
size should be beneficial for the formation of the nuclei of octahedral primary
silicon. Fig. 4 shows the effect of cooling rate on primary silicon in
hypereutectic Al–20wt.%Si alloy. With increasing cooling rate (90, 293 and
375◦C/s, respectively), primary silicon size is significantly decreased as shown
in Fig. 4(a)–(c). Primary silicon sizes are approximately 150, 100 and 70m with
90, 293 and 375◦C/s, respectively. Generally, primary silicon grows by

attachment of Si atoms to the surfaces of primary silicon

particles.Therefore,thediffusionofSiatomswillplayanimportant role during the
growth of primary silicon. The diffusion of Si atoms will become much difficult
with increasing cooling rate, which suppress the growth of primary silicon to a
great extent. Therefore, the primary silicon size is significantly decreased with
increasing cooling rate. However, from the present results,
withincreasingcoolingrate(90,293and375◦C/s,respectively), no change in
morphologies of primary silicon is observed as shown in Fig. 4 (a)–(c). The
majority of primary silicon still exhibit star-like and other irregular
morphologies. It is believed that the morphologies of primary silicon in the
solid state are relatedtothenucleusofprimarysiliconintheliquidmelt.During
solidification,despitethedifferenceofcoolingrates(90,293and 375◦C/s,
respectively), the same liquid structure at 850◦C will result in the nucleus of
primary silicon in the liquid melt of the samples (φ20×150mm3, φ10×150mm3
and φ6×150mm3, respectively) to be almost same. Therefore, it can indicate
that differentcoolingratesbelow375◦C/shavehardlyeffectsonthe nucleation of
star-like and other irregular primary silicon from
theliquidmelt.Inotherwords,ifthecoolingrateislowerthana
certain(orcritical)coolingrate(forexample375◦C/s),thecooling rate will have
hardly effect on the morphologies of primary silicon in the solid state. Fig. 5
shows the effect of cooling rate on primary silicon in hypereutectic Al–20wt.
%Si alloy. At the cooling rate of 1.11×106◦C/s, primary silicon (approximately
3m) at the free surface of the ribbon have significant change and exhibit very
finer blocky and star-like morphologies shown in Fig. 5. It is clear to observe
that the majority of primary silicon particles aggregate or attach to form as
“clusters” and these primary silicon particles within the “clusters” are bonded
together [14]. The aggregated or attached primary silicon particles reflect the
liquid structure of the melt that there are Si–Si clusters or short range order in
the melt of Al–Si alloys [8]. According to the present results, we can find that
the surface of primary silicon exhibit a rounded outline shown in Fig. 5(b). In
addition, there are some hillocks on the surfaces of primary silicon shown in
Fig. 5(b), which may be explained that primary silicon grows by attachment of
not only Si atoms but also some Si–Si clusters to the surfaces due to the high
cooling rate. Therefore, if the

cooling rate is higher than a certain (or critical) cooling rate, the cooling rate
will play an important role in determining the morphologies of primary silicon
in the solid state.

4. Conclusion
1. Accordingtothepresentresults,themorphologiesofprimary silicon are a strong
function of the solidification conditions such as melt overheating temperature.
With the elevation of melt overheating temperature, the morphologies of
primary siliconwillchangefromstar-likeandotherirregularprimary silicon to
octahedral primary silicon. 2. It can be safe to deduce that the Si–Si cluster of
larger size should be beneficial for the formation of the nucleus of starlike and
other irregular primary silicon and the Si–Si cluster of smaller size should be
beneficial for the formation of the nuclei of octahedral primary silicon. 3. The
size of primary silicon will gradually decrease with increasing cooling rate. If
the cooling rate is lower than a certain (or critical) cooling rate, the cooling rate
will have hardly effect on the morphologies of primary silicon in the
solidstate.Ifthecoolingrateishigherthanacertain(orcritical)coolingrate,thecoolin
gratewillplayanimportantrole in determining the morphologies of primary
silicon in the solid state.
An Overview of the Development of Al-Si-Alloy
Based Material for EngineApplications

1. Introduction
Due to economic and environmental requirements, it is becoming increasingly
important to reduce vehicle weight. For such an objective, Al-Si alloys such as
Al 356.0 (Al-7Si0.3Mg) and Al 390.0 (Al-17.0Si-4.5Cu-0.6Mg)[1] have been

commercially used to produce an engine block due to their high strength over
weight ratio. The engine block works under mechanical and thermal cyclic
stresses in relative motion with other engine parts. High fatigue strength and
good wear resistance are critical properties to engine block life. Under cyclic
stresses, microcracks can initiate at some stress concentration sites and then
propagate until the final failure of a material. The whole fatigue process largely
depends on the microcrack initiation and propagation as the final failure of the
material happens quite quickly. In high cycle fatigue, as the cyclic stress is
comparatively low, a large fraction of the fatigue life is used in microcrack
initiation. Wear is another major failure of engine block material. This process
is attributed to a couple of factors. First, the presence of hard particles and
chemicals in cooling and lubrication fluid results in abrasive and corrosive
wear. Second, erosive wear is also significant from the impact of hot air and
gases. Third, friction between the block wall and piston ring can produce
adhesion even in oil lubrication. Finally, fatigue also contributes to the wear of
engine block. In addition to high fatigue strength and wear resistance, engine
block material is also supposed to possess good castability and machinability.
This is because engine block has a very complex structure. It is initially cast and
thereafter subject to mechanical machining.
5. Summary
ThefatigueandwearpropertiesofAl-Sialloyarediscussed. The silicon phase is
important to both of these properties. Coarse silicon usually reduces fatigue
life due to microcrack initiation. Higher silicon content usually increases the
wear resistance of Al-Si alloy as it increases the alloy’s hardness. Intermetallic
precipitates and casting defects also influence fatigue and wear performance.
Fine precipitates can usually strengthen the alloy while sharp and coarse
precipitates degrade these two properties. Casting defects such as porosity
and inclusion usually reduce the alloy’s fatigue and wear resistance due to
microcrack initiation. Alloying elements can form fine precipitates, refine grain
size, modify silicon phase morphology, and reduce the effects of defects and
thus can usually increase both fatigue and wear resistance. Composite is
another way to improve Al-Si alloy’s properties. Both hard and soft phases are
used to reinforce Al-Si alloy and enhance its fatigue and wear resistance. New
processing techniques such as semi-solid processing, squeeze casting, and
Cosworth process are being developed to remove casting defect and improve
Al-Si alloy’s microstructure and increase its properties.