Finite element analysis and simulation study of CFRP/Ti stacks using ultrasonic additive manufacturing

  • Sagil JamesEmail author
  • Lenny De La Luz


The hybrid laminar composite stack of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and titanium (Ti) are widely used in several critical engineering applications, including aerospace and automobile sectors. The joining of CFRP and Ti through conventional methods has several limitations such as weight additional, material damage, and lower fatigue life. Ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) is a solid-state manufacturing process capable of joining layers of dissimilar materials. Experimental studies have successfully demonstrated the welding of CFRP and Ti through UAM process. However, there is a lack of understanding of the exact bonding process and influence of process parameter on weld quality during UAM. The present study investigates the bonding process and the effects of critical parameters in the UAM process of CFRP and Ti layers using finite element analysis and simulation technique. The simulation study reveals that the CFRP/titanium stacks encounter interfacial cyclic shear stresses and shear strains. The study found that the vibrational amplitude and surface roughness of the substrates play a critical role in achieving a proper weld. The simulation results are validated using experimentation. The finding of this study can help advance the commercialization of UAM process for welding dissimilar materials and composites.


CFRP Ultrasonic additive manufacturing Titanium 


Funding information

The authors received financial support from the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the California State University Fullerton.


  1. 1.
    Zhang L, Liu Z, Tian W, Liao W (2015) Experimental studies on the performance of different structure tools in drilling CFRP/Al alloy stacks. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81(1-4):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lv J et al (2016) Study on process and mechanism of laser drilling in water and air. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1–9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sonate A, Vepuri D, James S (2017) Study of micro ultrasonic machining of CFRP/Ti stacks. in ASME 2017 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsao C (2008) Thrust force and delamination of core-saw drill during drilling of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 37(1):23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    James S et al (2018) Experimental and simulation study of ultrasonic additive manufacturing of CFRP/Ti Stacks. in ASME 2018 13th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James S, Sonate A (2017) Experimental study on micromachining of CFRP/Ti stacks using micro ultrasonic machining process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1–9Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolcott PJ, Dapino MJ (2017) Ultrasonic additive manufacturing. In: Additive Manufacturing Handbook: Product Development for the Defense Industry. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James S, Rajanna P (2018) Molecular dynamics simulation study of ultrasonic powder consolidation process. in ASME 2018 13th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dehoff R, Babu S (2010) Characterization of interfacial microstructures in 3003 aluminum alloy blocks fabricated by ultrasonic additive manufacturing. Acta Mater 58(13):4305–4315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schick D et al (2010) Microstructural characterization of bonding interfaces in aluminum 3003 blocks fabricated by ultrasonic additive manufacturing-methods were examined to link microstructure and linear weld density to the mechanical properties of ultrasonic additive manufacturing. Weld J 89(5):105SGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friel RJ, Harris RA (2013) Ultrasonic additive manufacturing–a hybrid production process for novel functional products. Procedia CIRP 6:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sridharan N, Norfolk M, Babu SS (2016) Characterization of steel-Ta dissimilar metal builds made using very high power ultrasonic additive manufacturing (VHP-UAM). Metall Mater Trans A 47(5):2517–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fujii HT, Sriraman M, Babu S (2011) Quantitative evaluation of bulk and interface microstructures in Al-3003 alloy builds made by very high power ultrasonic additive manufacturing. Metall Mater Trans A 42(13):4045–4055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parmar M, James S (2018) Experimental and Modeling study of liquid-assisted—laser beam micromachining of smart ceramic materials. J Manuf Mater Process 2(2):28Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doumanidis C, Gao Y (2004) Mechanical modeling of ultrasonic welding. Weld J-N Y 83(4):140-SGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang CS, Li L (2010) Effect of substrate dimensions on dynamics of ultrasonic consolidation. Ultrasonics 50(8):811–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abubakar AA, Khan SM, Mekid S (2017) On the modeling of fibers embedding in aluminum using ultrasonic consolidation. J Eng Mater Technol 139(3):031003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sun K et al (2018) Adaptive fuzzy control for non-triangular structural stochastic switched nonlinear systems with full state constraints. IEEE Trans Fuzzy SystGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Qiu J, Sun K, Wang T, Gao H (2019) Observer-based fuzzy adaptive event-triggered control for pure-feedback nonlinear systems with prescribed performance. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst:1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringCalifornia State University FullertonFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations