Advertisement

Connecting Oxide Bifilms’ Properties from Atomistic Simulations with Virtual Casting of Aluminum

  • Jialin LiuEmail author
  • Qigui Wang
  • Yue Qi
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

Aluminum oxide bifilms, formed during melt turbulence flow, can have a significant detrimental effect on material properties after they are entrapped in the final cast products. Recently, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were used to simulate the formation and fracture mechanisms of bifilms at the nano-scale, which are hard to obtain experimentally. The results showed that the fracture occurred at the Al/oxide interface instead of the oxide/oxide interface for both amorphous oxide and crystalline α-Al2O3, which represent the “young” and “old” oxides referred in aluminum casting. The fracture energy is higher for the α-Al2O3 bifilm. However, if OH-termination contamination occurs due to residue hydrogen gas and water trapped in the aluminum oxide bifilm interface, the OH-termination oxide bifilm fractured at the oxide/oxide interface and with a much-reduced fracture energy. This is consistent with the general picture that oxide bifilms will initiate cracks, especially fatigue cracks in cast aluminum products. For macroscopic models, crack initiation and propagation can be modeled by cohesive zone method. Therefore, we propose a simple size bridging relationship to connect the MD-predicted oxide bifilms fracture energy and fracture strength with future finite element modeling.

Keywords

Oxide bifilms Molecular dynamics Interfaces Aluminum alloys Castings 

References

  1. 1.
    Campbell J (2003) Castings, 2nd edn. Elsevier Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lovatt AM, Bassetti D, Shercliff HR, Bréchet Y (2000) Process and alloy selection for aluminium casting. Int J Cast Met Res 12:211–225.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13640461.2000.11819358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee A, Lu Y, Roche A, Pan TY (2016) Influence of nano-structured silanols on the microstructure and mechanical properties of A4047 and A359 aluminum casting alloys. Int J Met 10:322–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-016-0044-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sigworth GK (2008) The modification of Al–Si casting alloys: important practical and theoretical aspects. Int J Met 2:19–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03355425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao X, Campbell J (2005) Oxide inclusion defects in Al–Si–Mg cast alloys. Can Metall Q 44:435–448.  https://doi.org/10.1179/cmq.2005.44.4.435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell J (2017) Melting, remelting, and casting for clean steel. Steel Res Int 88:1600093.  https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201600093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell J (2016) The consolidation of metals: the origin of bifilms. J Mater Sci 51:96–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-015-9399-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang QG, Davidson CJ, Griffiths JR, Crepeau PN (2006) Oxide films, pores and the fatigue lives of cast aluminum alloys. Metall Mater Trans B 37:887–895.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02735010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell J (2017) Melting, remelting, and casting for clean steel. Steel Res Int 88:1600093.  https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201600093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang QG, Apelian D, Lados DA (2001) Fatigue behavior of A356-T6 aluminum cast alloys. Part I. Effect of casting defects. J Light Met 1:73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-5317(00)00008-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitrasinovic A, Robles Hernández FC, Djurdjevic M, Sokolowski JH (2006) On-line prediction of the melt hydrogen and casting porosity level in 319 aluminum alloy using thermal analysis. Mater Sci Eng A 428:41–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.04.084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Digne M, Sautet P, Raybaud P et al (2002) Hydroxyl groups on gamma-alumina surfaces: a DFT study. J Catal 211:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9517(02)93741-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharma PK, Jilavi MH, Burgard D et al (1998) Hydrothermal synthesis of nanosize alpha-Al2O3 from seeded aluminum hydroxide. J Am Ceram Soc 81:2732–2734.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1998.tb02687.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvié E, Réthoré J, Joly-Pottuz L et al (2014) Mechanical behavior law of ceramic nanoparticles from transmission electron microscopy in situ nano-compression tests. Mater Lett 119:107–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2014.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calvié E, Joly-Pottuz L, Esnouf C et al (2012) Real time TEM observation of alumina ceramic nano-particles during compression. J Eur Ceram Soc 32:2067–2071.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2012.02.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang Y, Kushima A, Han W et al (2018) Liquid-like, self-healing aluminum oxide during deformation at room temperature. Nano Lett 18:2492–2497.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b00068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sen FG, Alpas AT, Van Duin ACT, Qi Y (2014) Oxidation-assisted ductility of aluminium nanowires. Nat Commun 5:3959.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sen FG, Qi Y, Van Duin ACT, Alpas AT (2013) Oxidation induced softening in Al nanowires. Appl Phys Lett 102:051912.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4790181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Duin ACT, Dasgupta S, Lorant F, Goddard WA (2001) ReaxFF: a reactive force field for hydrocarbons. J Phys Chem A 105:9396–9409.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp004368uCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chenoweth K, van Duin ACT, Goddard WA (2008) ReaxFF reactive force field for molecular dynamics simulations of hydrocarbon oxidation. J Phys Chem A 112:1040–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp709896wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aktulga HM, Fogarty JC, Pandit SA, Grama AY (2012) Parallel reactive molecular dynamics: numerical methods and algorithmic techniques. Parallel Comput 38:245–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2011.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Plimpton S (1995) Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. J Comput Phys 117:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1995.1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang XG, Smith JR, Evans A (2002) Fundamental influence of C on adhesion of the Al2O3/Al interface. Phys Rev Lett 89:286102.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.286102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Needleman A (1987) A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J Appl Mech 54:525.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3173064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu J, Huang Z, Pan Z et al (2017) Atomistic origin of deformation twinning in biomineral aragonite. Phys Rev Lett 118:105501.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.105501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xia S, Qi Y, Perry T, Kim KS (2009) Strength characterization of Al/Si interfaces: a hybrid method of nanoindentation and finite element analysis. Acta Mater 57:695–707.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2008.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang QG, Jones PE (2007) Prediction of fatigue performance in aluminum shape castings containing defects. Metall Mater Trans B 38:615–621.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-007-9051-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu J, Wang Q, Qi Y (2018) Atomistic simulation of the formation and fracture of oxide bifilms in cast aluminum. Acta Mater 164:673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2018.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.General Motors Corporation, Global Propulsion SystemsPontiacUSA

Personalised recommendations