Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036

Effect of Si on the interfacial bonding strength of AlPb alloy strips

and hot-dip aluminized steel sheets by hot rolling
J. An*, Y.B. Liu, M.Z. Zhang, B. Yang
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun 130025, PR China
Received 29 January 2000

Abstract

Bonding of AlPb alloy strips and hot-dipped Al or Al2% Si steel sheets were carried out using hot rolling. The effects of addition of
2% Si to the bath, the dipping time, the thickness of the intermetallic layers and the fraction of the blank interfaces on the bonding strength
are investigated. In all case, two different kinds of interfaces are produced, hot-dip aluminized steel sheets and AlPb alloy strips are
bonded through the mechanism of blank and block interface bonding. The total bonding strength depends mainly on that of blank interface
and the fraction of the blank interfaces. The bonding strength of blank interfaces is four or five times as high as that of block interfaces.
There is a linear relationship between the bonding strength and the fraction of the blank interfaces. An EPMA linescan across the blank
interface reveals that higher concentration of aluminum in the transition layer of Fe and Al formed in the blank interface region for a dipped
specimen of Al2% Si than that for a dipped specimen of Al. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Intermetallic compound; Bonding strength; Block interface; Blank interface

1. Introduction bearing alloy is bonded to the coated steel backing. How-

Aluminum alloys have found considerable applications in
sliding bearings in recent years due to their outstanding
advantages over other bearing materials. Among these
alloys, AlPb alloys have attracted lot of attention as a
feasible alternative to the widely used AlSn bearing alloys,
since the former not only provides a better leaded film of
lubricant but is also much cheaper than the latter [1].
However, the fabrication of AlPb alloys present proble-
matic segregation attributed to the great difference in density
between aluminum and lead, and immiscibility for lead
contents greater than 1.5% at temperatures above 931.5 K
[2]. Unconventional attempts such as stir casting have been
made to disperse the lead uniformly in aluminum alloys
[3,4], and the friction characteristics of stir cast AlPb alloys
have been reported [47]. Bimetallic bearings of aluminum-
base bearing alloys and a steel backing are commonly
produced by cold rolling. Because of the low bonding
strength between bearing alloy such as AlSn alloy and a
steel backing, a transit layer, usually a pure aluminum layer,
is firstly bonded to the steel backing, then an aluminum-base
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andongi@cc.cngb.com (J. An).
ever, existing techniques of producing bimetallic sheet of
aluminum and steel by solid phase cold rolling present
problems of low primary bonding strength, an extraordina-
rily high reduction (about 70%) being required to ensure
good bonding [8], sometimes exceeding the load capacity of
conventional mills, and high work-hardening of the bimetal,
which restricts further deformation. If the technique of hot
roll bonding is employed in an environment without a
protective gas, the occurrence of oxidation on the surface
of steel sheets results in failure to bond them tightly because
of the fragile oxidation layer on the steel sheets. Hot roll
bonding can be accomplished smoothly by using hot-dip
aluminized steel sheet as the material of the steel backing,
owing to the sufficient oxidation resistance of the aluminum
or the AlSi alloy top-coat layer on the surface of the steel
backing at elevated temperatures, low deformation resis-
tance is encountered by employing hot rolling. Therefore,
high initial bonding strength and light work-hardening of
composite plates can be achieved. In hot-dip aluminizing,
the base metals are coated by immersion in a molten metal
bath. When low carbon steel and liquid aluminum are in
contact with each other, a process of reaction diffusion takes
place, resulting in the formation of an intermetallic com-
pound adjacent to the steel substrate, which is known as the
alloy layer. On withdrawing the specimen from the melt

0924-0136/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 1 0 1 - 3
 J. An et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036
some liquid metal sticks to the solid and solidifies according
to the cooling conditions. For an initially pure aluminum
melt, the alloy layer consists mainly of the intermetallic Z-
phase, Fe2Al5 [9]. It has been well known that silicon as an
addition to the aluminum melt reduces the thickness of the
alloy layer [10,11]. Silicon-containing aluminum melts are
often used in commercial hot-dip aluminizing.
At present, there is no published systematic investigation
on the mechanism of interface bonding and the influence of
silicon addition to the aluminum bath on the bonding
strength of aluminum alloy strips and hot-dip aluminized
steel sheets by hot rolling. For these reasons, the purpose of
this paper is to make a systematic analysis of the effect of the
coating layer in a bath containing 2 wt.% silicon on the
bonding strength of AlPb alloy strips and hot-dip alumi-
nized steel sheets by hot rolling.
2. Experimental details
2.1. Preparing hot-dip aluminized steel sheets
The steel sheets with composition (wt.%) of Fe0.09%
C0.40% Mn0.0220% P0.0014% S were cut into dimen-
sion of 75 mm
20 mm
1:5 mm. Prior to hot-dip alumi-
nizing, the steel sheets were pre-treated by processes such as
degreasing, rinsing, rust removing, rinsing, fluxing and
drying [12]. To obtain top-coat layers with different com-
position and various thicknesses of intermetallic layers
during hot-dipping in pure aluminum and 2% Si melt baths
at 700 8C, the dipping time was chosen to be 0.5, 1, 2 and
4 min. The thickness of the intermetallic layers was mea-
sured using a Nikon optical microscope.
2.2. Stir casting and strip fabrication of AlPb alloy
About 2.5 kg of base alloy with the composition of Al4%
Si1% Cu0.5% Mg0.4% Mn1% Sn was charged into a
crucible kept in a resistance-heated vertical muffle furnace.
When the molten melt reached 973 K, the furnace was
switched off and pre-heated baffles were pushed into the
crucible. At the same time, 10 wt.% of lead shot was added
to the base alloy melt at a proper velocity, and the melt was
agitated at 40 rev s1 with a nine-bladed flat stirrer. After
stirring for 5 min, the crucible was taken out of the furnace
and the turbulent melt poured into a steel mould. The
elaborate procedure and casting unit have been discussed
elsewhere [3,4]. Thus, a cylinder ingot was obtained, which
was then extruded into strips of 75 mm width and 1.2 mm
thickness at 400 8C.
2.3. The hot-roll bonding of AlPb alloy strips and
hot-dip aluminized steel sheets
The AlPb alloy strips were cut into to dimension of
75 mm
20 mm
1:1 mm. The surfaces of the AlPb alloy
31
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a bonded specimen.
strips and hot-dip aluminized steel sheets were polished with
emery paper. The Al or AlSi alloy top-coat layers on the
surface of the steel sheets are partly removed, leaving a
thickness of about 30 mm. Prior to hot rolling, a small part of
the surface from one end of an aluminized steel sheet facing
AlPb alloy strip was smeared with graphite. Thus, the
interface with graphite between AlPb alloy and aluminized
steel sheets cannot be hot rolled together tightly. One of the
AlPb alloy strips was located between steel sheets and
heated in a furnace at 400 8C for 30 min. Then immediately
rolled together with a reduction of 38% to make a tri-
metallic plate. After hot rolling, two u-shape-like grooves
of 1.5 mm width and 0.7 mm depth were machined across
both flank surfaces 20 mm away from the other end of the
tri-metallic plate. The part under the grooves was pressed
tightly between a pair of steel jaws and the interface with
graphite then torn to the place where the u-shape-like
grooves were tearing could not reach beyond them because
of the state of pressing under the grooves. Finally, two torn
parts were bent outwards around an angle of nearly 908, the
specimen taking the shape as sketched in Fig. 1. To measure
the bonding strength, one end of the specimen was hold
tightly while the other end was loaded. The weights were
added step by step, the minimum step value of the weights
being 4.9 N, until unsteady fracture occurred along the
bonded interface. The fracture value was then used as the
bonding strength of the interface. Similarly, aluminum strips
of the same dimension as the AlPb strips were hot rolled
together with hot-dip aluminized steel sheets.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Morphology of the hot-dip aluminized layer
After hot-dip aluminizing at 700 8C for 0.5, 1, 2 and
4 min, the hot-dip aluminized layers were observed as
shown in Fig. 2. The cross-section of the aluminized steel
sheets reveals the presence of an intermetallic layer covered
with an aluminum or AlSi top-coat layer, both formed on
the steel substrate. The outer layer is composed of pure
32 J. An et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036
Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of aluminized layers treated at 700 8C (for 2 min): (a) pure aluminum; (b) Al2% Si.
aluminum or AlSi alloy, respectively, whilst below it is the
intermetallic compound layer adjacent to steel substrate. In
the case of a pure aluminum bath, the tongue-like layer of
Fig. 2 is mainly composed of Z-phase (Fe2Al5). In the case
of a melt containing 2% Si, the silicon renders the inner face
of the intermetallic layer smoother, the intermetallic com-
pound being mainly composed of Z-phase (Fe2(AlSi)5)
from the ternary FeAlSi system as given by Rivlin and
Raynor [13], in which silicon atoms occupy the structural
vacancies of the Fe2Al5 phase, affording good diffusion
possibilities for aluminum atoms in the pure (binary) state,
resulting in a slower solid state growth, as previously
reported [14].
It is observed clearly that the thickness of the intermetallic
layers decreases with the increase in Si content. The thick-
ness of the intermetallic layers is measured using a Nikon
optical microscope, a parabolic relationship between thick-
ness and dipping time as shown in Fig. 3 being obtained as
previously reported by others [12,15]. The thickness of the
intermetallic layers increases with dipping time.
Fig. 3. The variation of the thickness of the intermetallic layer with
dipping time.
3.2. The bonding strength
The variation in bonding strength with dipping time for
AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al steel, Alhot-dipped Al steel and
AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al2% Si steel, is shown in Fig. 4.
It is noted that the bonding strength for specimens dipped in
Al2% Si is much higher than that for those dipped in
aluminum, the bonding strength for all the hot-dipped Al and
AlSi alloy increasing with dipping time up to 2 min, but
decreasing beyond 2 min. However, the dipping time has no
effect on the intermetallic structure and composition but
only affects its thickness in these experimental situations.
Thus, the relationship between bonding strength and inter-
metallic thickness is more direct than that between bonding
strength and dipping time. Therefore, the variation in bond-
ing strength with the intermetallic thickness is plotted in
Fig. 5. It is observed that the bonding strength for both hot-
dipped Al and AlSi alloys varies in the same pattern of
increase with increasing thickness of the intermetallic initi-
ally until a certain thickness of the intermetallic layer is
Fig. 4. The variation of the bonding strength with dipping time.
 J. An et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036
Fig. 5. The variation of the bonding strength with the thickness of the
intermetallic layer.
approached. In the case of hot-dipping aluminum, the
intermetallic thickness is 73 mm, whilst in the case of hot-
dipping Al2% Si, the intermetallic thickness is 15 mm, then
decreasing beyond this thickness.
3.3. Bonding mechanism
Fig. 6(a) and (b) are longitudinal section photomicro-
graphs of bonded specimens of AlPb alloyhot-dipped
Fig. 6. Microstructures of bonded interfaces: (a) longitudinal section photograph of AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al2% Si steel (OM); (b) longitudinal section
photograph of AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al steel (OM); (c) fractured interface on the hot-dipped Al steel side (SEM); (d) parallel blanks across the fractured
interface on the hot-dipped Al steel side (SEM).
33
aluminum steel sheet and AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al2%
Si steel sheet. In each case, it is seen clearly that in the
direction of rolling, the intermetallic compound breaks into
similarly sized blocks, and blanks formed between them.
Fig. 6(c) and (d) are photographs (SEM) of the fractured
interface on the steel side. The wider blanks in the direction
of rolling are parallel to each other across the surface of the
steel substrate, but there are also narrower blanks perpendi-
cular to the direction of rolling. The formation of these
blanks is attributed to the fact that during rolling, the steel
substrate elongates in the direction of rolling. The inter-
metallic layer cannot elongate with the steel substrate due to
its brittleness, and breaks into small blocks and the blanks
form where the broken blocks move apart from each other
under the action of the elongation of the steel substrate. The
same behavior also occurs for those blanks perpendicular to
the rolling direction. In these experimental situations, the
length of blanks in the direction of rolling is much greater
than that perpendicular to the direction of rolling as shown in
Fig. 6(c) and (d). Therefore, in the rolling process, the AlPb
alloy strips or Al strips as well as the Al or AlSi top-coat
layer adjacent to the steel substrate elongate in the direction
of rolling and are squeezed into the blanks and fill them.
Thus, part of AlPb alloy or Al strip is bonded with
aluminum or AlSi layer above the intermetallic blocks,
and the rest is bonded with the squeezed aluminum or AlSi
layer filling the blanks between the broken intermetallic
34 J. An et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036

blocks. At the same time, part of the Al or AlSi top-coat

layer is bonded with intermetallic blocks and the rest bonded
with steel substrate at the bottom of the blanks. Therefore,
two different kinds of bonded interfaces are produced, i.e. an
AlPb alloy (or pure Al)/Al (or AlSi) top-coat layer inter-
face and an Al (or AlSi) top-coat layer/compound blocks
and steel substrate interface. The EPMA analysis of lead
mapping reveals that there is no trace of lead on the fractured
interface on the steel side, indicating that the interface
fractures between the steel substrate and the Al (or Al Fig. 7. Schematic diagram showing the position of the AlPb/Al top-coat
Si) layer in the blank interface region, and on the top of layer interface and the Al top-coat layer/intermetallic block and steel
substrate interface, after hot rolling.
broken blocks between the intermetallic blocks and the Al
(or AlSi) layer in the block interface region. Therefore, the
interfacial bonding strength of the former is greater than that X
n

of the latter. The fracture occurs along the weaker interface, lc lci (7)
i1
i.e. Al (or AlSi) layer/compound blocks and steel substrate
interface. Thus the fractured interface is composed of block where i is the individual intermetallic block or blank
interfaces between the Al (or AlSi) and compound blocks between the intermetallic blocks as shown in Fig. 7, and
and blank interfaces between the Al (or AlSi) and the steel n the total number of intermetallic blocks or blanks included
substrate. Based on the present observations, the position of
these interfaces mentioned above are as sketched in Fig. 7.
Obviously the total bonding strength depends on that of
these two different parts of the fractured interfaces, i.e. the
blank interfacial bonding strength and the block interfacial
strength. The stronger one will affect the total strength
considerably. The total bonding strength can be represented
with two different kinds of interface strength as the follow-
ing equation:
F Fb Kb Fc Kc (1)

where F is the total bonding strength, Fb the bonding

strength of the blank interfaces, between the intermetallic
blocks, Fc the bonding strength of block interfaces on the top
of the intermetallic blocks, Kb the fraction of the blank
interfaces between the intermetallic blocks, and Kc the
fraction of block interfaces on the top of the intermetallic.
Fig. 8. The variation in the fraction of the blank interface with the
In order to determine Kb and Kc, the blanks perpendicular
thickness of the intermetallic layer.
to the direction of rolling are omitted due to their being
considerably narrow compared with those in the direction of
rolling, so the following relationships are used:
lb
Kb (2)
llc
Kc (3)
l
Kb Kc 1 (4)
where l is the total length of the interface in the direction of
rolling, lb the length of blank interfaces in the direction of
rolling, and lc the length of block interfaces on the top of the
intermetallic in the direction of rolling. In order to measure l,
lb and lc, the following equations are used:
l lb lc (5)
X
n
lb lbi (6) Fig. 9. The linear relationship between the bonding strength and the
i1 fraction of blank interface.
 J. An et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036
Fig. 10. Microprobe traces of Al and Fe across the blank interface: (a) AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al2% Si steel; (b) AlPb alloyhot-dipped Al steel.
in the length of l. In this experimental situation, considering
the feasibility and precision of the experimental data of lb
and lc, n is selected as 20.
Fig. 8 shows that for hot-dipped aluminum and hot-dipped
Al2% Si specimens, the fraction of blank interfaces
increases with the intermetallic layer thickness up to 73
and 15 mm, respectively, but decreases beyond 73 and
15 mm, respectively. The total bonding strength can also
be represented as the following equation:
F Fb  Fc Kb Fc (8)
There should be a linear relationship between F and Kb, and
F should increase with an increase of Kb. The variation in
bonding strength with the fraction of blank interfaces for
both AlPb alloy and Alhot-dipped aluminum steel sheets,
and AlPb alloyhot-dipped AlSi steel sheets, is shown in
Fig. 9. The data points are a perfect linear fit. The values of
Fb and Fc can be obtained from the ordinate in Fig. 6, as the
values of Kb are 0 and 1; the values of Kb being 0 or 1 means
that the bonded interface consists entirely of block interfaces
or blank interfaces. Fb and Fc are found to be 876.93 and
201.04 N for hot-dipped aluminum steel sheets, and 1492.29
and 258.85 N for hot-dipped Al2% Si steel sheets, respec-
tively, indicating that the bonding strength of the blank
interfaces is four or five times as high as that of the block
interfaces on the top of the intermetallic. The bonding
strength of the blank interfaces for hot-dipped Al2% Si
steel sheets is significantly higher than for hot-dipped
35
aluminum steel sheets. Thus the total bonding strength owes
a lot to the bonding strength of the blank interfaces and the
fraction of the blank interfaces.
Electron microscopy and microprobe analyses in Fig. 10
reveal that there is not an evident transition layer of Fe and
Al in the blank interface region for bonded specimens
dipped in pure aluminum, while a 5 mm transition layer
of Fe and Al forms in the blank interface region for those
dipped in Al2% Si alloy, and along with a higher concen-
tration of aluminum. This may be the reason why the
interfacial bonding strength increases; the presence of Si
increases the diffusion coefficient and the rate of Al diffu-
sion into the steel substrate during annealing at 400 8C.
4. Conclusions
1. Under a given reduction, the bonding strength for both
specimens dipped in aluminum and in Al2% Si melt
baths increases with the thickness of intermetallic
compound layer up to 73 and 15 mm respectively,
beyond which it decreases.
2. The bonding of AlPb bearing alloy strips and hot-dip
aluminized steel sheets by hot rolling is through a
mechanism, where during rolling the intermetallic
compound breaks into blocks, and between them form
blanks. Thus AlPb alloy strips are bonded with an Al or
AlSi top-coat layer, and part of Al or AlSi top-coat
36 J. An et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 3036
layer is bonded with compound blocks in the block
interface region, the rest being bonded with steel
substrate in the blank interface region.
3. The total bonding strength depends mainly on the blank
interface bonding strength and the fraction of blank
interfaces, bonding strength of the blank interfaces is
four or five times as high as that of the interfaces on the
top of the intermetallic blocks. The bonding strength at
the blank interface between the AlSi top-coat layer and
the steel substrate is much greater than that between the
aluminum top-coat layer and the steel substrate.
4. In the current rolling operation, the fraction of blank
interfaces for both specimens dipped in aluminum and
in Al2% Si melt baths increases with increasing
intermetallic layer thickness up to 73 and 15 mm,
respectively, beyond which it decreases.
5. There is a linear relationship between the total bonding
strength and the fraction of blank interfaces in the
present experimental situation.
References
[1] Yu.S. Avraamov, V.P. Filonenko, A.P. Gruzdov, A.D. Shlyapin,
Mater. Sci. Heat Treat. 26 (1985) 543.
[2] L.F. Mondolfo, Aluminum Alloys, Structure and Properties, 1st
Edition, Butterworths, London, 1976, p. 352.
[3] S. Mohan, V. Agarwala, S. Ray, Z. Metallkde, 80 (1989) 904.
[4] S. Mohan, V. Agarwala, S. Ray, Wear 140 (1990) 83.
[5] J. Pathak, S.N. Tiwari, S.L. Malhotra, Wear 112 (1986) 341.
[6] S. Mohan, V. Agarwala, S. Ray, Wear 157 (1992) 9.
[7] A. Sharma, T.V. Rajan, Wear 197 (1996) 105.
[8] D. Pan, K. Gao, J. Yu, Mater. Sci. Technol. 5 (1989) 934.
[9] G. Eggeler, W. Auer, H. Kaesche, Z. Metallkde, 77 (1986)
239.
[10] G. Eggeler, W. Auer, H. Kaesche, J. Mater. Sci. 21 (1986) 3348.
[11] D.O. Gittings, D.H. Rowland, J.O. Mack, Trans. ASM 43 (1951)
587.
[12] S.G. Denner, R.D. Jones, Met. Technol. 4 (1977) 161.
[13] V.G. Rivlin, G.V. Raynor, Int. Met. Rev. 26 (1981) 133.
[14] D.I. Lainer, A.K. Kurakin, Fiz. Met. Metallov. 18 (1964) 145.
[15] N.A. EI-Mahallawy, M.A. Shady, A.R. EI-Sissi, Mater. Sci. Technol.
13 (1997) 832.