Mechanical properties
The hardness values of CuO and Cu2O are between 2050–2490 and 2010–2030 MPa [33], respectively, while the yield strength value of compact UFG Cu with a grain size around 200 nm is ~450 MPa [34, 35]. This results in an estimated hardness for UFG Cu of 1350 MPa (H = 3 σ
f). Thus, the difference in hardness between copper and copper oxide is significant. The increase of Young’s modulus cannot only be explained by the values of CuO and Cu2O, which are 80 and 30 GPa [36, 37], respectively, because during the oxidation of Cu to copper oxide (mainly Cu2O), the relative density of the foam increases due to an increase in volume of the oxide. This is because of the uptake of oxygen from the atmosphere. The volume of the foam would increase by 40–45 % if the copper completely converts to copper oxide. Thus, the relative density would be ~95 %. In Fig. 5a a local cross-section of a residual impression in the non-oxidized state and in Fig. 5b in the oxidized state after high temperature experiments for 6 h at 100 and 200 °C, respectively, are shown. The increase of relative density up to 95 % close to the surface can be clearly seen when comparing Fig. 5a, b. Furthermore, the roughness has increased dramatically, resulting in a relatively high standard deviation of hardness and Young’s modulus values (see Fig. 2). This is related to an inhomogeneous oxidation process of the surface (see Fig. 5b) and to an increased drift influence at elevated temperatures. The local cross-section also shows that the first 1–2 μm of the surface are completely oxidized and seemingly dense, even after low temperature oxidation of the UFP Cu at 100 °C for 6 h and 200 °C for 6 h. The zone below the oxidized layer, however, is not visually affected by the oxidation. Another possible explanation of deviating values is that there is a hard oxide layer on the soft UFP Cu, which can cause a sink-in and therefore, an underestimation of the measured values. But this cannot be proved due to an ongoing oxidation process during the measurements.
The flow stress of the foam can be compared to values predicted by scaling laws. The flow stress of the UFP Cu was assessed from the indentation experiments (for low density foams: H = σ
*f
[27]). According to this, the flow stress of the UFP Cu investigated in the present study is 220 MPa at 22 °C. The yield strength for bulk copper with an average grain size of 200 nm is 450 MPa [34, 35]. Classically, the yield strength σ
*ys
of the foam can be obtained from the scaling law [27]:
$$ \sigma_{\text{ys}}^{*} = C_{ 1} \cdot \sigma_{\text{ys}} \cdot \left( {\rho^{ *} /\rho_{\text{s}} } \right)^{n}, $$
(5)
where σ
ys, ρ
s, and ρ
*are the yield strength of the cell wall material, the density of the solid, and the density of the foam, respectively (C
1 = 0.3 and n = 1.5 [27]). For the present case, the flow stress and the yield strength of the foam are compared for a good estimation. The experimentally determined value of flow stress is nearly five times larger than the value predicted by Eq. (5), 220 MPa instead of 52 MPa. This deviation gives rise to the question whether the scaling laws deduced from macroscopic low density foams [27] can still be applied to nanoporous or UFP materials [7]. In addition, further possible explanations for this difference are:
-
The existence of additional strengthening from supersaturated Fe in the Cu ligaments [23].
-
The Gibson and Ashby equation is predominantly valid for homogenous foam structures and lower relative densities [27].
-
The assumed near zero Poisson’s ratio is not fully valid for relative densities >35 % such as in the present UFP Cu [27].
-
The used yield strength for bulk Cu with ~ 200 nm grain size is just an estimation, the structure size in the UFP Cu varies from ~ 100–300 nm.
-
Even a thin oxide layer can cause a pileup of dislocations and, therefore, strongly influence the material properties.
For a further discussion, we assume that the Ashby and Gibson Eq. (5) describes the mechanical properties of the UFP Cu well [27]. Then, the experimentally determined value of 220 MPa for the yield strength of the UFP Cu would require that the yield strength of the foam ligaments is in the order of 1.9 GPa. This interpretation suggests that the yield strength of the ligaments in the UFP Cu approaches the theoretical strength of Cu (>6 GPa [38]), as it was already achieved for nanoporous Au foams by Biener et al. [5].
The Young’s modulus of the UFP Cu was determined as 17 GPa at 22 °C. Assuming that the UFP Cu sample exhibits a relative density of 53 % and using the following equation from Ashby and Gibson [27]:
$$ E^{ *} = C_{2} \cdot E_{\text{s}} \cdot (\rho^{ *} /\rho_{\text{s}} )^{n} , $$
(6)
the scaling law would predict a Young’s modulus of 28–36 GPa. Whereby in Eq. (6), E
s
(for Cu E = 100–130 GPa), ρ
s, and ρ
* are the Young’s modulus, the density of the solid material, and the density of the foam, respectively (C
2 = 1 and n = 2 [27]). The difference of 10–20 GPa between model and experiment can be explained by the layered-structure of the UFP Cu from the HPT shear deformation process, which is shown in Fig. 5a, b. The ligaments in the direction of indentation do not exist in the same density as the ligaments perpendicular to them, which is related to the shear deformation process. The outcome of this is a lower Young’s modulus in loading direction.
In order to understand the changes of hardness and Young’s modulus, a model is proposed to predict the hardness for different oxidized samples at 22 °C. During oxidation of the UFP Cu, an increase in volume of ~ 45 % occurred. Therefore, the assumption of a dense oxide layer, which is growing from the top of the UFP Cu, can be used for developing a model as shown in Fig. 6a. This composite model will allow a prediction of the hardness and stiffness characteristics of the oxidized UFP Cu. The following expression describes the ratio of oxide to foam in the area of the plastic zone and allows estimating the hardness:
$$ H_{\text{C}} = H^{ *} \cdot v^{ *} + H_{\text{O}} \cdot v_{\text{O}} .$$
(7)
Here, H
c is the hardness of the composite, H
* the hardness of the foam, ν
* the fraction of the foam, and H
0 and ν
0
are the corresponding values for the oxide. A similar approach was previously suggested by Hosemann et al. to account for the presence of a hardened surface layer due to irradiation [39]. For the approximation of the modulus of the composite, the following equation from the composite theory is used [40]:
$$ E_{\text{C}} = \frac{{E^{ *} \cdot E_{\text{O}} }}{{E_{\text{O}} v^{ *} + E^{ *} v_{\text{O}} }}. $$
(8)
Here, E
C is the Young’s modulus of the composite, E
*of the UFP Cu and E
0 of the oxide, while ν
* and ν
0 are the particular fractions of the UFP Cu and oxide. This equation is derived from the composite theory for the Young’s modulus according to fiber-reinforced composites, whereby the load direction is perpendicular to the fiber direction [41].
This allows an estimation of the hardness values, but for estimating the Young’s modulus a detailed knowledge of the oxide composition after different oxidation times and temperatures is necessary. Literature reviews exist regarding the oxidation temperature and time, and the resulting ratios of different copper oxides [42–46]. Not only the thickness of the grown oxide is crucial, but also the type of oxide after different oxidation temperatures plays a major role.
Figure 6b shows the results of the model for obtaining hardness and Young’s modulus values depending on the relative amount of oxide in the plastic zone. The prediction for the hardness is quite accurate due to the nearly identical hardness of the oxides. A precise estimation of the Young’s modulus is not possible, since the ratio of different oxides is unknown. A change in the ratio of the oxides between 10 and 50 % as used here was also reported by Lenglet et al. [47].
Strain rate sensitivity
The examination of the strain rate sensitivity m and the activation volume A is necessary in order to understand the deformation behavior of the material. All obtained m values from DC and CL measurements for Stage a and Stage b at RT are around 0.03–0.04 in the non-oxidized state (Fig. 7). Thus, m is similar to that of bulk UFP Cu with a grain size around 150–200 nm (0.03 as summarized by Chen et al. [21]), as shown in Fig. 7. Besides the stress relaxation tests, strain rate jump tests were performed on the UFP Cu at RT in order to double check the obtained results [13]. The strain rate jumps were performed at an indentation depth of 1000 and 1500 nm from 0.05 to 0.001 s−1 (Fig. 7). These tests revealed a similar strain rate sensitivity of 0.026–0.029 for the NPC. The high value of m, compared to CG materials, is related to the increased amount of grain boundaries, which influence the dislocation mobility of the material [35]. Therefore, the behavior of the UFP Cu and bulk UFG Cu concerning the strain rate sensitivity are similar, even at elevated temperatures. After oxidation of the UFP Cu, m is still in the same order at RT (~ 0.03–0.04) for Stage a tests (Fig. 3b). Thus, during stress relaxation tests the rate-controlling phase has to be the copper and not the copper oxides. This is because of a quasi-elastic behavior of the rather dense oxide on top of the foam and a plastic behavior of the underlying copper ligaments. Copper oxide (Cu2O) polycrystals are reported to have a very limited dislocation mobility [37, 48], thus resulting in a brittle behavior up to 300 °C.
The increasing strain rate sensitivity over temperature from 0.03 to 0.1–0.2, shown in Fig. 7, can be explained by thermally activated climb-controlled annihilation of lattice dislocations in the Cu ligaments, which favorably takes place at high angle grain boundaries [49, 50]. The large fraction of high angle grain boundaries is a consequence of the HPT process. The high misorientation and amount of high angle grain boundaries enhances climbing controlled processes, even at low temperatures. At elevated temperature (100–300 °C) a similar behavior was found for equal channel angular pressing (ECAP) UFG Al by Vevecka-Priftaj et al. [50] and for ECAP UFG Cu by Bach et al. [51] (Fig. 7).
Activation volume
The obtained activation volume for the UFP Cu at 22 °C does not correlate with the values of bulk UFG Cu with the same structure size. The activation volume for non-oxidized UFP Cu is in the order of 250–850 b
3 when taking the upper and lower boundary for the hardness to yield strength conversion into account. This activation volume indicates a dominant deformation behavior governed by interaction between lattice and forest dislocations, which is typical for CG Cu (~ 1000 b
3). Lower values of ~ 100 b
3 were observed for UFG Cu [18] and UFG Al [14]. The obtained activation volume for the oxidized sample is within the same order of magnitude, namely 50–150 b
3 (Fig. 4). Hereby, giving the activation volume in units of b
3 of Cu is feasible due to the nearly same Burgers vector for the 1/2·(110) dislocation in Cu (b = 0.255 nm [32]) and the 1/2·(100) dislocation in Cu2O (b = 0.213 nm [52]). In general, after oxidation the density of the UFP Cu increases and an oxide layer grows, while the measured activation volume significantly drops from 250–850 to 20–100 b
3 (Fig. 4). Polycrystalline copper oxides do not extensively plastically deform in a temperature range from 22 °C up to 300 °C at atmospheric pressure [52, 53]. Thus, the reason for the drop in activation volume is that the oxide layer on top of the Cu ligaments traps dislocations inside the Cu ligaments and thereby strongly reduces the activation volume of the foam, as schematically shown in Fig. 6c. Dislocations are not able to glide from the Cu phase into the ceramic phase due to differences of the crystal structure, and the free path for dislocations to move inside the plastic zone is thus reduced. Additionally, stress is induced close to the Cu–CuO interface in the copper phase by the effect of epitaxial strains due to relatively high difference in the Pilling–Bedworth ratio (oxide–metal volume ratio), which hinders dislocation movement close to the interface. Contrarily in the case of the non-oxidized Cu ligaments shown in Fig. 6c, the dislocation mobility is not influenced by surface oxides and the dislocations can exit to the surface. Both, the CL and DC measurements show a sudden decrease of A immediately after first oxidation occurred (Fig. 4). After this first drop the activation volume up to 300 °C approximately remains on the same level of 50–150 b
3, comparable to UFG bulk Cu where grain boundaries hinder the dislocation movement.