Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

288 (2021) 116874

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Microstructure, mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of A356 T

aluminum/AZ91D magnesium bimetal prepared by a compound casting
combined with a novel Ni-Cu composite interlayer
Guangyu Li, Wenming Jiang*, Feng Guan, Junwen Zhu, Zheng Zhang, Zitian Fan
State Key Lab of Materials Processing and Die & Mould Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Associate Editor: A Luo In the present work, a novel Ni-Cu composite interlayer was prepared on the surface of A356 aluminum alloy
Keywords: solid insert using the chemical nickel-plating and electro-coppering technology, in order to restrain the gen-
A356/AZ91D bimetal eration of brittle phases and enhance the shear strength of A356 aluminum/AZ91D magnesium bimetal man-
Ni-Cu composite interlayer ufactured using a compound casting. The effect of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer on the microstructure, me-
Compound casting chanical properties and corrosion resistance of the bimetal was studied. The results show that the Ni-Cu
Microstructure composite interlayer effectively restrained the generation of the brittle and hard Al-Mg intermetallic compounds
Mechanical properties (IMCs). The interface layer of the A356/AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer was composed of
Corrosion resistance
Al3Mg2, Al12Mg17, δ-Mg and Mg2Si phases, while the interfacial reactants of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-
Cu composite interlayer were mainly Al3Ni, Ni (Cu), Cu (Ni), Mg2Cu and Al7Cu3Mg6 phases. With the application
of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer, the thickness of the interface of the A356/AZ91D bimetal remarkably de-
creased from 1400 μm of the sample without Ni-Cu composite interlayer to 40 μm. The shear strength of the
A356/AZ91D bimetal using Ni-Cu composite interlayer increased by 20.3 % compared with that of the bimetal
without Ni-Cu composite interlayer. The fractures of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu com-
posite interlayers belonged to a brittle rupture mode. The breakage of the bimetal with Ni-Cu composite in-
terlayer mainly took place between the Ni-Cu layer and AZ91D matrix, while the rupture of the A356/AZ91D
bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer was located in the interface layer. The Cu(Ni) and Ni(Cu) layers had
a lower nano-hardness than the Al-Mg IMCs, and the elasticity modulus for the Cu(Ni), Ni(Cu) and Al3Ni phases
were higher compared to those of the Al-Mg IMCs. The results of corrosion test exhibited that the Ni-Cu com-
posite interlayer had little influence on the corrosion resistance of the A356/AZ91D bimetal.

1. Introduction manufacture the Al/Mg bimetal for satisfying multiple performance

Magnesium alloys and aluminum alloys as the light metals for en-
gineering are extensively applied in aerospace, automotive and elec-
tronic fields, as reported by Jiang et al. (2018), and Xu et al. (2014) also
pointed out that the wide applications and great application potential of
the magnesium and aluminum alloys. Luo (2013) indicated that the
magnesium alloys possess many attractive advantages, such as high
specific strength, light weight, good electromagnetic shielding effect,
excellent die-casting performance and good damping property. And, the
aluminum alloys have some merits including high strength, good cor-
rosion resistance and easy processing. However, in many cases, a single
magnesium alloy or aluminum alloy does not meet the comprehensive
performance requirements. Therefore, it is necessary to combine the
advantageous properties of the magnesium and aluminum alloys to
requirements.
At present, the preparation methods of the Al/Mg bimetals include
extrusion joint, rolling joint, diffusion welding, friction stir welding,
laser welding, explosion welding, spot welding, direct hot pressing,
sand casting, lost foam compound casting, and permanent mold casting,
etc. The Al/Mg composite rods were prepared using a co-extrusion
method, as reported by Feng et al. (2016). Kim et al. (2015) used a
rolling method assisted with annealing to produce 3004 Al/AZ31 Mg
clad sheets. A diffusion welding method was adopted to obtain
AA6061/AZ31B joints, as reviewed by Fernandus et al. (2012). Gao
et al. (2018) fabricated Al/Mg bimetals with a friction stir welding
method. A laser welding approach was employed to prepare AA6016
aluminum/AZ31 magnesium alloy composites by Windmann et al.
(2017). Yan et al. (2010) manufactured an AZ31B/7075 composite

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wmjiang@hust.edu.cn, jwenming@163.com (W. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.116874
Received 28 April 2020; Received in revised form 31 July 2020; Accepted 4 August 2020
Available online 09 August 2020
0924-0136/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G. Li, et al.
Table 1
Preparation parameters of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer.
Process Parameters
Acetone degreasing Acetone and ultrasonic cleaning at room temperature for 10min
Alkali washing 20 g/L NaOH+5 g/L ZnO, room temperature, 20s
Acid pickling 50 % HNO3, 48 % HF, 2 % water at room temperature for 10s
Electroless nickel plating 30 g/L NiSO4, 30 g/L NaH2PO2·H2O, 8 g/L Na3C6H5O7·5H2O, 10 g/L C4H6O4, 15 g/L CH3COONa.3H2O, pH = 5.0, at 80℃ for 60min
Electroplating copper 90 g/L CuSO4·5H2O, 200 g/L H2SO4, 70 mg/L NaCl, room temperature, pH = 5 electric current density = 3A/dm2, for 30min
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the lost foam compound casting process.
plate by use of an explosively weld method. Penner et al. (2014) de-
veloped a spot welding method to bond aluminum and magnesium. Zhu
et al. (2011) obtained Mg/Al composites through a hot pressing
method. The bonding of Al 413 and pure Mg was achieved with a
compound casting method, as reviewed by Hajjari et al. (2012). He
et al. (2016) studied interfacial microstructure and shear strength of Al/
Mg bimetallic castings via a permanent mold casting. Li et al. (2019a)
utilized a lost foam compound casting method to fabricate Al/Mg bi-
metallic castings. Emami et al. (2013) discovered that the fabrication of
the Al/Mg bimetal using the lost foam compound casting process has
some unique advantages. First of all, the solid insert does not need an
additional fixation on account of the existence of the foam pattern, as
noted by Jiang et al. (2016). Secondly, Shayegh et al. (2010) presented
that the decomposition products from the foam pattern are protective
gas, which can reduce the oxidation of the insert surface. Additionally,
the shape and size of the bimetals are not limited. Hence, the lost foam
compound casting method is a potential method for producing the Al/
Mg bimetal.
A major problem of the preparation of the Al/Mg bimetal is that
many intermetallic compounds (IMCs) such as Al3Mg2 and Al12Mg17
phases are easily generated at the bonding interface resulting from the
mutual diffusion of Al element and Mg element. Wang and Prangnell
(2017) proposed that these IMCs have high hardness and high brittle-
ness, sharply weakening the mechanical properties of the bimetal.
Therefore, it is of importance to reduce or eliminate these brittle and
hard Al-Mg IMCs, in order to improve the performance of the Al/Mg
bimetal. Generally, adding an intermediate layer between the Al base
and Mg base is a popular method to decrease or prevent the generation
of the Al-Mg IMCs during the welding process, and these intermediate
layers include Zn, Sn, Sn-9Zn, Zn–29.5Al–0.5Ti, Al, Ni, Cu, Fe, Ti, Ag,
Ag-Cu-Zn, SiC and Ce. Xu et al. (2019) controlled the formation of the
Al-Mg IMCs by use of the change of the Zn content in Sn-based solders.
Xu et al. (2018) used Sn-based filler metals in the dissimilar Al/Mg to
prevent the generation of the Al3Mg2 and Al12Mg17. Min (2019)
achieved the joint of the aluminum and magnesium alloys with a Sn-
9Zn solder. Liu et al. (2014) studied the characterization of Al/Mg
joints produced using a gas tungsten arc welding combined with a
Zn–29.5Al–0.5Ti filler metal. Zhang et al. (2013) improved the joint
strength Al/Mg composites prepared by a diffusion bonding method by
virtue of an Al thin film and Ni foil interlayer. Khodabakhshi et al.
(2019) enhanced the mechanical property of Al/Mg joints by a laser
welding through adding a Ni interlayer. Shang et al. (2012) chose pure
copper as a filler metal to contact the 6061 aluminum alloy and AZ31B
2
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the push-out test for the shear strength testing.
magnesium alloy. The shear strength of AZ31B/6061 bimetals was
improved using the addition of Fe interlayer, as reported by Qi and Liu
(2012). The formation of the Al-Mg IMCs in laser-welded Al/Mg bi-
metals was avoided with a Ti interlayer by Gao et al. (2012). An Ag
interlayer was used in diffusion-bonded Al/Mg joints to reinforce the
joint strength (Wang et al., 2012). Yang et al. (2017) found that the
tensile strength of AZ31/3003 bimetals prepared by a contact-reaction
brazing was improved using an Ag-Cu-Zn interlayer. The mechanical
property of the 6061/AZ31 composites was enhanced through putting
silicon carbide (SiC) nano-powders inside the groove of magnesium
sheet, as pointed out by Abdollahzadeh et al. (2019). Liu et al. (2006)
noted that the addition of a Ce interlayer clearly improved the inter-
facial microstructure of Al/Mg joints by a laser-TIG hybrid welding
method.
However, only few investigations on the application of the inter-
mediate layers in the compound casting field of the Al/Mg bimetal are
reported. Zhang et al. (2016) investigated the effect of the Ni interlayer
on the magnesium/aluminium bimetallic castings, and Liu et al. (2018)
discovered that the joint strength of the Al/Mg was increased with the
Ni interlayer during the compound casting. Zhang et al. (2018) used Zn
as an interlayer to bond the aluminum and magnesium alloys, and Mola
et al. (2019) found that the addition of the Zn interlayer significantly
increased the joint strength of AZ31/6060 joint. In addition, the
knowledge about the effect mechanism of the interlayers on the mi-
crostructure, mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of the Al/
Mg bimetal are still incomplete. Therefore, developing new interlayers
and deepening the research on the influence of the interlayers on the
Al/Mg bimetal are a promising approach for improving the perfor-
mances of the Al/Mg bimetal.
In this paper, a novel Ni-Cu composite intermediate layer was de-
veloped to produce the A356 aluminum/AZ91D magnesium bimetal, in
order to restrain the generation of the brittle phases in the interface and
G. Li, et al.
Fig. 3. Microstructures and EDS results of the Ni-Cu composite interlayers: (a) Microstructure of cross-section for the solid insert with the Ni-Cu composite interlayer;
(b) High magnification SEM image of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer; (c, d) EDS results of regions 1 and 2 corresponding to Fig. 3a, respectively.
improve the shear strength of the A356/AZ91D bimetal produced using
the lost foam compound casting method. The effect of the Ni-Cu com-
posite interlayer on the microstructure, mechanical properties and
corrosion resistance of the A356/AZ91D bimetal was investigated, and
the generation process of the interface of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with
the Ni-Cu composite interlayer was also analyzed.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
A356 aluminum alloy that had a chemical composition of Al-6.81Si-
0.44Mg-0.21Fe (wt.%) was chosen as the solid insert. AZ91D magne-
sium alloy was selected as a melt material, which had a chemical
composition of Mg-9.08Al-0.62Zn-0.23 Mn (wt.%). Foam patterns were
made using expandable polystyrene (EPS) material with a density of
20 kg/m3.
2.2. Preparation of Ni-Cu composite interlayer
A Ni-Cu composite interlayer was prepared on the surface of the
A356 aluminum alloy solid insert using an electroless nickel plating and
an electroplating copper, and its preparation process is stated as fol-
lows: the surface of the insert with a dimeter of 10 mm was first po-
lished to 2000 mesh with SiC sandpaper, and then the electroless nickel
3
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874
plating and electroplating copper processes were performed in se-
quence. The preparation process of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer is
shown in Table 1, and the electroless nickel plating process has been
reported by our previous study (Li et al., 2020). Meanwhile, an A356
aluminum insert without Ni-Cu composite interlayer was chosen as a
comparison group.
Li et al. (2020) noted the mechanism of the electroless nickel
plating, and the mechanism of the electroplating copper are summar-
ized as follows:
(1) Anodic reaction: Cu → Cu2++2e−
(2) Cathodic reaction: Cu2++2e− → Cu
2.3. Compound casting
Fig. 1 illustrates a schematic of the lost foam compound casting
process, as reported by Li et al. (2019a). First, the A356 solid insert that
had a dimeter of 10 mm and a height of 110 mm was embedded into the
foam pattern (35 mm × 35 mm × 100 mm), which was called as a
composite model. The surface of the composite model was coated using
a special coating for the LFC and dried at 50 ℃ in an oven. Then, the
composite model was put into a sand flask, followed by sand filling,
vibration compacting and vacuum supply in turn. The magnesium alloy
melt was poured into the composite model from the sprue cup, and the
EPS foam was decomposed under a high temperature, and its position
G. Li, et al.
Fig. 4. SEM images and EDS analysis results of the A356/AZ91D bimetal produced by the lost foam compound casting without Ni-Cu composite interlayer: (a) SEM
image in the joint zone; (b) EDS result corresponding to Fig. 4a; (c-f) SEM images of regions A-D corresponding to Fig. 4a, respectively.
was then occupied by the AZ91D melt. An A356/AZ91D bimetal was
finally obtained after the AZ91D melt solidified. In this work, the va-
cuum degree was 0.03 MPa, and the pouring temperature of the AZ91D
melt was 730 ℃. According to previous experimental results, the ap-
proximate solidification time of the whole bimetal was 225.2 s, and the
solidification time around the interface zone of the bimetal was about
38.1 s (Li et al., 2019b; and Fan et al., 2017).
2.4. Microstructure and mechanical properties testing
The metallographic samples were first obtained from the middle
positions of the as-cast A356/AZ91D bimetal. Subsequently, they were
ground and polished with a 0.5 μm Al2O3 polishing solution, and were
etched with a 5 % HF solution for the A356 side and a 4 % nital for the
AZ91D side. The interface morphologies of the A356/AZ91D bimetals
with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers were observed with a
Quanta 200 scanning electron microscope (SEM, FEI company,
Netherlands), and the chemical compositions of the interfaces of the
4
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874
A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers
were analyzed with an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS)
equipped on the Quanta 200 SEM. The side views of the fractured
A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers
were observed using a metallographic microscope. An XRD-7000 X-ray
diffractometer (XRD, Shimazu, Japan) was employed to identify the
phase compositions at the fractured surface of the A356/AZ91D bi-
metal.
Jiang et al. (2018) pointed out that the shear strength of the bi-
metals can be tested with a push-out test, and Xu et al. (2017) also
adopted the push-out test to determine the shear strength of the 3A21/
5A03 bimetal. In the present experiment, the shear strength of the
A356/AZ91D bimetal was measured by a ZwickZ100 universal testing
machine at a compression rate of 0.5 mm/min, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
The thickness of the shear specimen was 10 mm, and three specimens
were tested for the A356/AZ91D bimetals under different conditions to
obtain more accurate results. The hardness and Young’s moduli of
different phases in the interface zone were tested by a TI750
G. Li, et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874

Fig. 5. Microstructures and EDS analysis results of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite interlayer: (a) Low magnification SEM image; (b) SEM image of
region A corresponding to Fig. 5a; (c) EDS line scanning result corresponding to Fig. 5b; (d-i) EDS map scanning results corresponding to Fig. 5b.

5
G. Li, et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874

Table 2 tested by a CS350H electrochemical workstation (CorrTest, China) with

Results of EDS analysis at different positions of the interface corresponding to a three-electrode system, which consists of the working electrode, the
Fig. 5b. auxiliary electrode of a platinum film and the reference electrode of a
Point Element (at. %) Possible Phase saturated calomel electrode (SCE). The corrosion samples were cut into
a 10 mm × 10 mm × 20 mm cuboid, which had a 100 mm2 area in-
Al Mg Cu Ni P Si cluding the interface zone exposed in the air. The etchant solution was
3.5 wt.% NaCl solution at room temperature, and the range of the po-
1 – – 86.45 10.31 3.24 – Cu (Ni)
2 – – 4.69 92.11 3.20 – Ni (Cu) tential was -250 mV∼250 mV. The corrosion potential relative to the
3 69.77 2.79 – 24.78 2.66 – Al3Ni SCE against the current density was recorded using a scan rate of 1 mV/
4 85.12 – 14.88 – – Al + Al3Ni s.
5 81.49 2.89 – 15.62 – – Al + Al3Ni
6 30.65 36.9 32.45 – – – Al7Cu3Mg6
7 26 42.66 31.34 – – – Al7Cu3Mg6
8 14.09 59.31 26.59 – – – Mg2Cu 3. Results
9 28.59 71.41 – – – – Mg (Al)
10 6.12 – – – – 93.88 Si (Al) 3.1. Microstructure and compositions of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer

Fig. 3 exhibits microstructures and EDS results of the Ni-Cu com-

Triboindenter (Hysitron, America), and the constant load and dwell
time were respectively 6000 μN and 5 s. The morphologies of the in-
dentations were also observed by an atomic force microscope (AFM)
equipped on the nanoindenter.
2.5. Corrosion testing
The corrosion properties of the AZ91D base, A356 base, and A356/
AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers were
posite interlayers. As can be seen from Fig. 3, a dense coating is ob-
tained on the surface of the A356 solid insert using the electroless nickel
plating and electroplating copper, and the coating consists of a Ni(P)
layer with a thickness of 8 μm near the A356 base and an outermost Cu
layer of 11.5 μm. There are no cracks or pores defects in the coating,
indicating that the plating layer has a good bonding with the A356
base, as exhibited from the high magnification SEM image of the Ni-Cu
composite interlayer (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 6. (a) Cu-Ni binary phase diagram; (b) Al-Ni binary phase diagram; (c) Al-Mg-Cu ternary phase diagram.

6
G. Li, et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874

Fig. 7. Comparison of the shear strengths of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers.

Fig. 8. SEM images of the fracture morphologies on the A356 and AZ91D sides of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers: (a, b)
A356 and AZ91D sides with Ni-Cu composite interlayer, respectively; (c, d) A356 and AZ91D sides without Ni-Cu composite interlayer, respectively.

3.2. Microstructure and compositions of the A356/AZ91D bimetals
Fig. 4 shows SEM images and EDS results of the A356/AZ91D bi-
metal produced by the lost foam compound casting without Ni-Cu
composite interlayer. It is found that the interface layer of the A356/
AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer exhibits a homo-
geneous and no-defect morphology, and its average thickness is about
1400 μm, as shown in Fig. 4a. Our previous study (Li et al., 2019b)
discovered that the phase compositions of the interface layer are mainly
the Al3Mg2+Mg2Si adjacent to the A356 matrix, the Al12Mg17+δ-Mg
eutectic near to the AZ91D matrix and the Al12Mg17+Mg2Si in the
middle of the two reaction layers. These phases are brittle and hard Al-
Mg IMCs, as shown in Fig. 4c-f. The EDS line scanning result also shows
an evident change of the atomic ratios for different elements in the joint
zone (Fig. 4b).
The microstructure and corresponding EDS analysis of the A356/
AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite interlayer are displayed in Fig. 5.
By comparison, with the application of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer,
a uniform and dense interface layer is also formed. And the thickness of
the interface layer greatly decreases compared to that of the interface
layer of the A356/AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer,
which is only about 40 μm, as shown in Fig. 5a. Meanwhile, the mi-
crostructure of the interface layer is different from that of the A356/
AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer. Fig. 5b displays a
high magnification SEM image corresponding to Fig. 5a, and the EDS
analysis results at different positions of the interface layer are listed in
Table 2. It is found that point 1 is composed of 86.45 at. % Cu element
and 10.31 at. % Ni element, and the elementary composition of point 2
is 95.31 at. % Ni and 4.69 at. % Cu, which suggests that the two re-
action layers are respectively a solid solution of Cu (Ni) and Ni (Cu)
solid solution in light of the Cu-Ni binary phase diagram, as noted by
Marković et al. (2010), as shown in Fig. 6a. The composition of point 3
is mainly 69.77 at. % Al and 24.78 at. % Ni, which may be the Al3Ni
phase inferred through the Al-Ni binary phase diagram, as indicated by
Miettinen (2005) (Fig. 6b). It can be found that the chemical compo-
sitions of points 4 and 5 are 85.12 at. % Al + 14.88 at. % Ni and 81.49
at. % Al + 15.62 at. % Ni, respectively, which is Al + Al3Ni eutectic
structure in light of the Al-Ni binary phase diagram. There are some
dispersive light gray phases in the AZ91D magnesium matrix, and it
may be Al7Cu3Mg6 on basis of the EDS results of points 6 (30.65 at. %

7
G. Li, et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874

Fig. 9. Optical images of the cross sections of the fractured surfaces of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers: (a, b) AZ91D and
A356 sides without Ni-Cu composite interlayer, respectively; (c, d) AZ91D and A356 sides with Ni-Cu composite interlayer, respectively.

Fig. 10. XRD patterns of the fractured surface of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with
Ni-Cu composite interlayer: (a) A356 side; (b) AZ91D side.
compositions of the interface layer are complex, and the Mg, Al, Cu, and
Ni elements greatly fluctuate in the interface. The map scanning results
also demonstrate that the interface layer consists of different reaction
layers, as exhibited in Fig. 5d-i. The Si element is detected around the
Al3Ni phase on basis of the EDS results, and the EDS result of the point
10 suggests that it is a solid solution of the Si. Meanwhile, the P element
is present in the interface; but it has no evident influence on the com-
pound process of the bimetal according to the present results. Conse-
quently, the Ni-Cu composite interlayer has a great effect on the mi-
crostructure and compositions of the A356/AZ91D bimetal.
3.3. Mechanical properties of the A356/AZ91D bimetals

Al, 36.9 at. % Cu and 32.45 at. % Ni) and 7 (26 at. % Al,42.66 at. % Cu
and 31.34 at. % Ni), in terms of the Al-Mg-Cu ternary phase diagram, as
proposed by Buhler et al. (1998), as shown in Fig. 6c. A thin reaction
layer is present on the left side of Cu (Ni) solid solution, according to
the EDS result of point 8 (14.09 at. % Al, 59.31 at. % Mg and 26.59 at.
% Cu) and the Al-Mg-Cu ternary phase diagram, it suggests that this
reaction layer is constituted by Mg2Cu phase. Point 9 is the primary
Al12Mg17 that exists in the AZ91D matrix in accordance with the ele-
ment content of 28.59 at. % Al and 71.41 at. % Mg.
It can be also seen from the results of the EDS line scan that the
The shear test results of the A356/AZ91D bimetals processed by the
lost foam compound casting with and without Ni-Cu composite inter-
layers are presented in Fig. 7. As can be seen, the shear strength of the
A356/AZ91D bimetal with the Ni-Cu composite interlayer is 20.3 %
higher compared to that of the A356/AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu
composite interlayer, indicating that the Ni-Cu composite interlayer
plays a significant role in improving the shear strength of the A356/
AZ91D bimetal. Additionally, the shear strength of the A356/AZ91D
bimetal with the Ni-Cu composite interlayer is also higher than that of
the bimetal with a single Ni interlayer prepared by electroless nickel
plating (Li et al., 2020), indicating that the Ni-Cu composite interlayer

Fig. 11. Nano-hardness and elasticity modulus of different IMCs.

8
G. Li, et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874

Fig. 12. AFM images of the nanoindentations for different IMCs.

Fig. 13. Polarization curves of the A356, AZ91D, A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers.

Table 3 A356 side and AZ91D side of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and
Corrosion current densities and corrosion potentials of different materials. without Ni-Cu composite interlayers. It is evident that the fracture
Material ba/mV bc/mV Icorr/(A cm−2) Ecorr/V
morphologies of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu
composite interlayers present a brittle fracture mode. The EDS results
A356 24,144 159.28 9.87E-06 −1.21 note that the breakage of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu com-
AZ91D 77.9 161.3 9.17E-05 −1.52 posite interlayer mainly takes place between the Ni-Cu layer and
Without Ni-Cu composite interlayer 74.7 195.76 7.41E-05 −1.44
AZ91D matrix, but the reaction layer that is composed of the Al3Mg2,
With Ni-Cu composite interlayer 390.9 2256.6 7.61E-05 −1.45
Al12Mg17 and Al12Mg17+δ-Mg is the main fracture region for the A356/
AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer. Moreover, the
is superior to the Ni coating using the electroless nickel plating for the optical micrographs of the cross sections of the fractured samples with
lost foam compound casting process. and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers also prove that the fracture
Fig. 8 displays SEM images of the fracture morphologies on the passes through the Al12Mg17+Mg2Si layer and the Al12Mg17+δ-Mg

9
G. Li, et al.
Fig. 14. Gibbs energies of different IMCs.
layer for the A356/AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer.
For a comparison, the rupture of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu
composite interlayer initiates from the joint of the Mg2Cu layer and
AZ91D matrix, as displayed in Fig. 9. What is more, the Al3Ni, Mg2Cu,
Al7Cu3Mg6 and Al12Mg17 phases are also detected through the XRD
patterns, as shown in Fig. 10.
The nano-indentation technology was used to investigate the
hardness and Young’s modulus of the IMCs of the A356/AZ91D bime-
tals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers. At the same time,
the reduced elasticity modulus Er can be also calculated by the load-
displacement curve, which has a good match with the real elastic
property of the material, as proved by Zhang et al. (2010). The nano-
hardness and elasticity modulus of different phases are exhibited in
Fig. 11.
As can be seen from Fig. 11, the nano-hardnesses of the Al and Mg
are respectively 1.16 GPa and 1.08 GPa, which is in good agreement
with the results of Venkateswaran et al. (2009), and Zhang et al. (2010)
also obtained same results. As for the IMCs generated in the interface of
the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite interlayer, such as β
(Al3Mg2), γ (Al12Mg17), γ’ (Al12Mg17 dendrite) and γ + δ (Al12Mg17+δ-
Mg eutectic structure), their nano-hardnesses are much higher in
comparison with that of Al and Mg matrixes. Another interesting phe-
nomenon is that although the γ (3.79 GPa) and γ’ (3.76 GPa) phases
have different growth patterns and morphologies, their nano-hard-
nesses are similar. In addition to this, the γ + δ eutectic structure
(2.85 GPa) has a lower nano-hardness than that of the γ and γ’ phases.
Generally, the β phase has a higher nano-hardness than that of the γ
Fig. 15. Generation process of the A356/AZ91D bimetallic interface using the lost foam compound casting with Ni-Cu composite interlayer.
10
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874
phase, as discovered by Yang et al. (2017), and Kim et al. (2015) also
found the same rule. But, the nano-hardness of the β phase (3.33 GPa) is
slightly lower than that of the γ phase in our studies, which may be due
to the special formation mechanism of the interfacial phases in the lost
foam compound casting process. During the lost foam compound
casting process, the ε (Al30Mg23, 3.39 GPa) phase was first formed ac-
cording to Al-Mg phase diagram, then the metastable ε phase trans-
forms into the β phase as the temperature decreases, as proposed by Yin
and Philip (2017). For the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite
interlayer, the Cu(Ni), Ni(Cu) and Al3Ni are main IMCs. The nano-
hardnesses of the Cu(Ni) phase (1.69 GPa) and Ni(Cu) phase (2.82 GPa)
are lower compared with those of the Al-Mg IMCs, and the nano-
hardness of the Al3Ni phase (7.42 GPa) is almost double the γ phase.
Whereas, the thickness of the Al3Ni layer (7 μm) only occupied a small
part of the whole interface layer (40 μm), which has little effect on the
shear strength of the bimetal.
Moreover, the AFM images of the indentations for the Al, Mg and
IMCs also verify the difference of the nano-hardnesses, as shown in
Fig. 12. On the other hand, the elasticity modulus for the Cu(Ni) phase
(105.87 GPa), Ni(Cu) phase (156.73 GPa) and Al3Ni phase (148.53 GPa)
are higher than that of the Al-Mg IMCs (64.60–80.06 GPa). As is well-
known, a high elasticity modulus means a stronger bonding in the IMCs.
Thus, these IMCs with low hardness and high elasticity modulus in the
interface zone of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite in-
terlayer can improve the bonding performance of the bimetal.
3.4. Corrosion resistances of the A356/AZ91D bimetals
The corrosion resistances of different materials were tested by po-
tentiodynamic scan, and the polarization curves of the A356, AZ91D,
A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers
were obtained, as exhibited in Fig. 13. The corrosion current densities
and corrosion potentials for different materials by Tafel matching can
be calculated based on the polarization curves, as listed in Table 3. The
corrosion potentials of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and without Ni-
Cu composite interlayers are respectively -1.44 V and -1.45 V, which are
higher than that of AZ91D (-1.52 V) and lower than that of A356
(-1.21 V). However, the corrosion current densities are inverse. The
A356 has the lowest corrosion current density (9.87E-6 A cm−2), and
the corrosion current density of the AZ91D (9.17E-05 A cm−2) is the
highest. Beyond that, the corrosion current density of the A356/AZ91D
bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer (7.41E-05 A cm−2) is lower
compared to that of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite
interlayer (7.61E-05 A cm−2).
It is well known that the higher the corrosion potential is and the
lower the corrosion current density is, the stronger the corrosion re-
sistance is. Hence, the corrosion resistances of the A356/AZ91D
G. Li, et al.
bimetals with and without Ni-Cu composite interlayers are better than
that of single AZ91D magnesium alloy. Furthermore, the existence of
the Ni-Cu composite interlayer slightly reduces the corrosion resistance
of the A356/AZ91D bimetal, indicating that the Ni-Cu composite in-
terlayer has little effect on the corrosion resistance of the A356/AZ91D
bimetal while improving the shear strength.
4. Discussion
The forming process of the IMCs in the interface with Ni-Cu com-
posite interlayer is discussed by the thermodynamics analysis in the
present work. It is found from above results that three IMCs (Al3Ni,
Mg2Cu and Al7Cu3Mg6) form after the Cu (Ni) solid solution and Ni (Cu)
solid solution generate during solidification, and their forming se-
quence can be calculated according to the Gibbs energies of the for-
mation (ΔG), as noted by Ansara et al. (1997), and Chen et al. (1997)
also obtained the relationship between the ΔG and temperature for
different IMCs, as shown in Fig. 14. At first, the ΔG is a negative value
for all the IMCs in the range of 200−1200 K, which indicates that three
IMCs can be generated during the solidification process. Furthermore, it
is well known that the reaction with the lowest ΔG tends to occur first
in the whole system. Therefore, the Al7Cu3Mg6 phase formed preferred
to the Mg2Cu phase at the interface.
Li et al. (2019b) found that the interface formation mechanism of
the A356/AZ91D bimetal without the interlayer by the lost foam
compound casting process are attributed to the melting of the solid
insert and the diffusions of the Mg, Al and Si elements. However, the
interface formation mechanism of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu
composite interlayer are different. Fig. 15 illustrates a schematic dia-
gram of the interface generation of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-
Cu composite interlayer. When the foam model contacts with the
AZ91D melt, the foam decomposes and discharges through the coating
layer, and the magnesium alloy melt first contacts with the Cu layer
(Fig. 15b). Li et al. (2019b) also noted that the temperature at which the
magnesium alloy is in contact with the insert is about 586 °C with a
pouring temperature is 730 °C. Because the melting points of the Cu and
Ni are respectively about 1083 °C and 1455 °C, and the solidus and li-
quidus of the A356 aluminum alloy are about 559 °C and 616 °C, re-
spectively. In this case, the Cu layer and the Ni layer do not melt at this
temperature, while the A356 matrix may be partially melted. With the
solidification of the AZ91D melt along with the transfer of heat, the Cu,
Ni, Al and Mg atoms begin to diffuse on account of the concentration
gradient, as shown in Fig. 15c. In light of the Ni-Cu binary phase dia-
gram, only the solid solution can be formed between the Cu and Ni,
therefore, the Cu layer and Ni layer transform into the Cu (Ni) solid
solution and Ni (Cu) solid solution partly because of the interdiffusion
between the Cu atom and Ni atom. Then, with the continuous diffusion
of the Ni atoms towards to the Al base, an Al3Ni layer is formed close to
the Ni (Cu) solid solution. When the Ni atoms further diffuse to the Al
base, the Al + Al3Ni eutectic structure is formed by an eutectic reac-
tion: L→Al + Al3Ni, which also indicates that the Al base may occur a
zone melting at the position near the Ni layer. In the Mg side, a Mg2Cu
layer near to the Cu (Ni) solid solution and an Al7Cu3Mg6 ternary phase
are generated because of the interdiffusion of the Cu atoms and Mg
atoms, as well as the Al7Cu3Mg6 ternary phase is formed preferred to
the Mg2Cu phase. An interesting phenomenon is that the Al7Cu3Mg6
dispersedly distributed in the AZ91D matrix and its morphology is si-
milar to the Al12Mg17 existed in the original AZ91D matrix, demon-
strating that the Al7Cu3Mg6 may be generated by the reaction between
the Cu atom and Al12Mg17. Finally, the A356/AZ91D bimetal that has a
good metallurgical bonding is achieved after the AZ91D melt fully so-
lidified, as shown in Fig. 15d.
In a word, the presence of the Ni-Cu composite interlayer is a good
hindrance to the formation of the Al-Mg IMCs. On the one hand, the
presence of the Ni layer prevents the generation of the Al-Cu IMCs. On
the other hand, the presence of the Cu layer restrains the generation of
11
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874
the Mg-Ni IMCs. Most of the IMCs formed with the Ni-Cu composite
interlayer have a low hardness and a high elasticity modulus compared
to the Al-Mg IMCs. As a consequence, the Ni-Cu composite interlayer
improves the shear strength of the A356/AZ91D bimetal.
5. Conclusions
(1) The Ni-Cu composite interlayer effectively restrained the genera-
tion of the brittle-hard Al-Mg IMCs. The thickness of the interface
layer of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite interlayer
remarkably decreased from 1400 μm of the sample without Ni-Cu
composite interlayer to 40 μm. The compositions of the interface
layer consisting of the Al3Mg2, Al12Mg17, δ-Mg and Mg2Si for the
A356/AZ91D bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer trans-
formed to the Al3Ni, Ni (Cu), Cu (Ni), Mg2Cu and Al7Cu3Mg6.
(2) The shear strength of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu com-
posite interlayer increased by 20.3 % in comparison with that of the
bimetal without Ni-Cu composite interlayer. Both of their fracture
morphologies presented a brittle fracture mode, and the breakage of
the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu composite interlayer took
place between the Ni-Cu layer and AZ91D matrix, but the interface
layer was the main fracture region for the sample without Ni-Cu
composite interlayer. The Cu(Ni) and Ni(Cu) layers had a lower
nano-hardness compared to the Al-Mg IMCs, and the elasticity
modulus for Cu(Ni), Ni(Cu) and Al3Ni phases were higher than
those of the Al-Mg IMCs.
(3) The corrosion resistances of the A356/AZ91D bimetals with and
without Ni-Cu composite interlayers were better than that of single
AZ91D magnesium alloy, and the Ni-Cu composite interlayer has
little influence on the corrosion resistance of the A356/AZ91D bi-
metal.
(4) The interface formation mechanism of the A356/AZ91D bimetal
without Ni-Cu composite interlayer were owe to the melting of the
Al matrix and the diffusion of the Mg, Al and Si elements, while the
interface formation process of the A356/AZ91D bimetal with Ni-Cu
composite interlayer was mainly attributed to the diffusion of the
Al, Mg, Ni and Cu elements.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Guangyu Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing - original draft. Wenming Jiang: Methodology, Writing -re-
view & editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision. Feng Guan:
Investigation, Validation. Junwen Zhu: Data curation, Software.
Zheng Zhang: Investigation. Zitian Fan: Conceptualization, Funding
acquisition, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 51775204) and the State Key Laboratory of High
Performance Complex Manufacturing in CSU (No. Kfkt2019-01). The
authors also thanked the support from the Analytical and Testing
Center, HUST.
References
Abdollahzadeh, A., Shokuhfar, A., Cabrera, J.M., Zhilyaev, A.P., Omidvar, H., 2019. In-
situ nanocomposite in friction stir welding of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy to AZ31
magnesium alloy. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 263, 296–307.
G. Li, et al.
Ansara, I., Dupin, N., Lukas, H.L., Sundman, B., 1997. Thermodynamic assessment of the
Al-Ni system. J. Alloys. Compd. 247, 20–30.
Buhler, T., Fries, S.G., Spencer, P.J., Lukas, H.L., 1998. A thermodynamic assessment of
the Al-Cu-Mg ternary system. J. Phase Equilib. 19, 317–333.
Chen, S.L., Zuo, Y., Liang, H.Y., Chang, Y.A., 1997. A thermodynamic description for the
ternary Al-Mg-Cu system. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 28, 435–446.
Emami, S.M., Divandari, M., Hajjari, E., Arabi, H., 2013. Comparison between conven-
tional and lost foam compound casting of Al/Mg light metals. Int. J. Cast Metal. Res.
26, 43–50.
Fan, S., Jiang, W.M., Li, G.Y., Mo, J.H., Fan, Z.T., 2017. Fabrication and microstructure
evolution of Al/Mg bimetal using a near-net forming process. Mater. Manuf. Process.
32, 1391–1397.
Feng, B., Xin, Y., Guo, F., Yu, H., Wu, Y., Liu, Q., 2016. Compressive mechanical behavior
of Al/Mg composite rods with different types of Al sleeve. Acta. Mater. 120, 379–390.
Fernandus, M.J., Senthilkumar, T., Balasubramanian, V., Rajakumar, S., 2012. Optimising
diffusion bonding parameters to maximize the strength of AA6061 aluminium and
AZ31B magnesium alloy joints. Mate. Des. 33, 31–41.
Gao, M., Mei, S., Li, X., Zeng, X., 2012. Characterization and formation mechanism of
laser-welded Mg and Al alloys using Ti interlayer. Scr. Mater. 67, 193–196.
Gao, Y., Morisada, Y., Fujii, H., Liao, J., 2018. Dissimilar friction stir lap welding of
magnesium to aluminum using plasma electrolytic oxidation interlayer. Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 711, 109–118.
Hajjari, E., Divandari, M., Razavi, S.H., Homma, T., Kamado, S., 2012. Microstructure
characteristics and mechanical properties of Al 413/Mg joint in compound casting
process. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 43, 4667–4677.
He, K., Zhao, J., Li, P., He, J., Tang, Q., 2016. Investigation on microstructures and
properties of arc-sprayed-Al/AZ91D bimetallic material by solid–liquid compound
casting. Mater. Des. 112, 553–564.
Jiang, W.M., Li, G.Y., Fan, Z.T., Wang, L., Liu, F.C., 2016. Investigation on the interface
characteristics of Al/Mg bimetallic castings processed by lost foam casting. Metall.
Mater. Trans. A 47, 2462–2470.
Jiang, W.M., Li, G.Y., Wu, Y., Liu, X.W., Fan, Z.T., 2018a. Effect of heat treatment on
bonding strength of aluminum/steel bimetal produced by a compound casting. J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 258, 239–250.
Jiang, Z., Fan, Z., Jiang, W., Li, G., Wu, Y., Guan, F., Jiang, H., 2018b. Interfacial mi-
crostructures and mechanical properties of Mg/Al bimetal produced by a novel li-
quid-liquid compound casting process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 261, 149–158.
Khodabakhshi, F., Shah, L.H., Gerlich, A.P., 2019. Dissimilar laser welding of an AA6022-
AZ31 lap-joint by using Ni-interlayer: novel beam-wobbling technique, processing
parameters, and metallurgical characterization. Opt. Laser Technol. 112, 349–362.
Kim, J.S., Lee, K.S., Kwon, Y.N., Lee, B.J., Chang, Y.W., Lee, S., 2015. Improvement of
interfacial bonding strength in roll-bonded Mg/Al clad sheets through annealing and
secondary rolling process. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 628, 1–10.
Li, G.Y., Yang, W.C., Jiang, W.M., Guan, F., Jiang, H.X., Wu, Y., Fan, Z.T., 2019a. The role
of vacuum degree in the bonding of Al/Mg bimetal prepared by a compound casting
process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 265, 112–121.
Li, G.Y., Jiang, W.M., Yang, W.C., Jiang, Z.L., Guan, F., Jiang, H.X., Fan, Z.T., 2019b. New
insights into the characterization and formation of the interface of A356/AZ91d bi-
metallic composites fabricated by compound casting. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 50,
1076–1090.
Li, G.Y., Jiang, W.M., Guan, F., Zhu, J.W., Yu, Y., Fan, Z.T., 2020. Effect of different Ni
interlayers on interfacial microstructure and bonding properties of Al/Mg bimetal
using a novel compound casting. J. Manuf. Process. 50, 614–628.
Liu, L., Liu, X., Liu, S., 2006. Microstructure of laser-TIG hybrid welds o dissimilar Mg
alloy and Al alloy with Ce as interlayer. Scr. Mater. 55, 383–386.
Liu, F., Wang, H., Liu, L., 2014. Characterization of Mg/Al butt joints welded by gas
tungsten arc filling with Zn–29.5 Al–0.5 Ti filler metal. Mater. Charact. 90, 1–6.
Liu, N., Liu, C., Liang, C., Zhang, Y., 2018. Influence of Ni interlayer on microstructure
and mechanical properties of Mg/Al bimetallic castings. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 49,
3556–3564.
Luo, A.A., 2013. Magnesium casting technology for structural applications. J. Magnesium
Alloys 1, 2–22.
Marković, B., Živković, D., Vřešt’ál, J., Manasijević, D., Minić, D., Talijan, N., Stajić-
Trošić, J., Todorović, R., 2010. Experimental study and thermodynamic remodeling
12
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 288 (2021) 116874
of the Bi–Cu–Ni system. Calphad 34, 294–300.
Miettinen, J., 2005. Thermodynamic description of the Cu–Al–Ni system at the Cu–Ni
side. Calphad 29, 40–48.
Min, D., 2019. Ultrasonic semi-solid soldering 6061 aluminum alloys joint with Sn-9Zn
solder reinforced with nano/nano+ micron Al2O3 particles. Ultrason. Sonochem. 52,
150–156.
Mola, R., Bucki, T., Gwoździk, M., 2019. The effect of a zinc interlayer on the micro-
structure and mechanical properties of a magnesium alloy (AZ31)–aluminum alloy
(6060) joint produced by liquid–solid compound casting. JOM 71, 2078–2086.
Penner, P., Liu, L., Gerlich, A., Zhou, Y., 2014. Dissimilar resistance spot welding of
aluminum to magnesium with Zn-coated steel interlayers. Weld. J. 93, 225S–231S.
Qi, X., Liu, L., 2012. Fusion welding of Fe-added lap joints between AZ31B magnesium
alloy and 6061 aluminum alloy by hybrid laser–tungsten inert gas welding technique.
Mater. Des. 33, 436–443.
Shang, J., Wang, K., Zhou, Q., Zhang, D., Huang, J., Li, G., 2012. Microstructure char-
acteristics and mechanical properties of cold metal transfer welding Mg/Al dissimilar
metals. Mater. Des. 34, 559–565.
Shayegh, J., Hossainpour, S., Rezaei, M., Charchi, A., 2010. Developing a new 2D model
for heat transfer and foam degradation in EPS lost foam casting (LFC) process. Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 37, 1396–1402.
Venkateswaran, P., Xu, Z.H., Li, X., Reynolds, A.P., 2009. Determination of mechanical
properties of Al–Mg alloys dissimilar friction stir welded interface by indentation
methods. J. Mater. Sci. 44, 4140–4147.
Wang, Y., Prangnell, P.B., 2017. The significance of intermetallic compounds formed
during interdiffusion in aluminum and magnesium dissimilar welds. Mater. Charact.
134, 84–95.
Wang, Y., Luo, G., Zhang, J., Shen, Q., Zhang, L., 2012. Effect of silver interlayer on
microstructure and mechanical properties of diffusion-bonded Mg–Al joints. J. Alloys.
Compd. 541, 458–461.
Windmann, M., Röttger, A., Kügler, H., Theisen, W., 2017. Microstructure and mechanical
properties of the heat-affected zone in laser-welded/brazed steel 22MnB5–AA6016
aluminum/AZ31 magnesium alloy. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 247, 11–18.
Xu, G.C., Luo, A.A., Chen, Y.Q., Sachdev, A.K., 2014. Interfacial phenomena in magne-
sium/aluminum bi-metallic castings. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 595, 154–158.
Xu, W.C., Zhang, Z.P., Huang, K., Shan, D.B., 2017. Effect of heat treatment and initial
thickness ratio on spin bonding of 3A21/5A03 composite tube. J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 247, 143–157.
Xu, Z., Li, Z., Li, J., Ma, Z., Yan, J., 2018. Control Al/Mg intermetallic compound for-
mation during ultrasonic-assisted soldering Mg to Al. Ultrason. Sonochem. 46, 79–88.
Xu, Z., Li, Z., Zhao, D., Liu, X., Yan, J., 2019. Effects of Zn on intermetallic compounds
and strength of Al/Mg joints ultrasonically soldered in air. J. Mater. Process. Technol.
271, 384–393.
Yan, Y.B., Zhang, Z.W., Shen, W., Wang, J.H., Zhang, L.K., Chin, B.A., 2010.
Microstructure and properties of magnesium AZ31B–aluminum 7075 explosively
welded composite plate. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527, 2241–2245.
Yang, T., Wang, K., Zhang, D., Huang, J., 2017. Contact-reaction brazing of an AZ31
magnesium/3003 aluminum alloy using a silver-copper-zinc interlayer. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 249, 531–537.
Yin, W., Philip, B.P., 2017. The significance of intermetallic compounds formed during
interdiffusion in aluminum and magnesium dissimilar welds. Mater. Des. 137, 84–95.
Zhang, M.X., Huang, H., Spencer, K., Shi, Y.N., 2010. Nanomechanics of Mg–Al inter-
metallic compounds. Surf. Coat. Technol. 204, 2118–2122.
Zhang, J., Luo, G., Wang, Y., Xiao, Y., Shen, Q., Zhang, L., 2013. Effect of Al thin film and
Ni foil interlayer on diffusion bonded Mg–Al dissimilar joints. J. Alloys. Compd. 556,
139–142.
Zhang, H., Li, L., Chen, Y., Luo, A.A., Liu, L., 2016. Interface formation in magnesium/
aluminium bimetallic castings with a nickel interlayer. Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 29,
338–343.
Zhang, H., Chen, Y., Luo, A.A., 2018. Removing the oxide layer on the A380 substrate of
AM60/A380 bimetallic castings by the zincate process followed with galvanizing.
Vacuum 148, 127–130.
Zhu, B., Liang, W., Li, X., 2011. Interfacial microstructure, bonding strength and fracture
of magnesium–aluminum laminated composite plates fabricated by direct hot
pressing. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528, 6584–6588.