See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268514766

Vaporizing foil actuator: A tool for collision

welding

Article in Journal of Materials Processing Technology December 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 807

1 author:

Anupam Vivek
The Ohio State University
45 PUBLICATIONS 183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fatigue testing of impact spot welds created by vaporizing foil actuator welding (VFAW) View project

Magnetic pulse welding and forming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anupam Vivek on 21 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Vaporizing Foil Actuator: A Tool for Collision Welding
A. Vivek, S. R. Hansen, B. C. Liu, Glenn S. Daehn
Dept. of Mat. Sci. and Eng., The Ohio State University, 2041, College Road, Columbus, OH,
43201, USA
Corresponding author: A. Vivek, email: vivek.4@osu.edu, 608-332-4892

ABSTRACT
A method for implementing collision welding at moderate to small length scales has been
developed. The flyer, instead of being driven by chemical explosives (explosive welding) or
magnetic forces (magnetic pulse welding), is launched toward the target by the pressure
created from the electrically driven rapid vaporization of a thin metallic conductor. Mechanical
impulse is developed from 0.0762 mm thick aluminum foils, which are vaporized using capacitor
bank discharge with nominal charging voltage of 5.5 kV and peak current on the order of 100 kA
delivered with rise times of about 12 s. Welding couples of copper-titanium, copper-steel,
aluminum-copper, aluminum-magnesium and titanium-steel have been successfully created
with the same input parameters such as foil geometry, input energy and standoff distance.
Instrumented peel tests, lap shear tests and optical and scanning electron microscopy reveal a
wide spectrum of both strengths and interface structures. Copper-titanium and copper-steel
welds are strong and have characteristic wavy interfaces with little intermetallics or void
formation. The other combinations are seen to have brittle interfaces with intermetallics and
defects, with the collision welding parameters used presently. For the titanium-steel system, a
thin nickel interlayer is introduced and all the layers are welded in a single experiment. Peel
strength of the weld was observed to be quadrupled. Peak velocities of up to 560 m/s were
obtained for titanium flyer sheets.

KEYWORDS
Collision welding; pulsed power; aluminum; steel; copper; titanium; magnesium; Photonic
Doppler Velocimeter (PDV); wavy interface; bridgewire; vaporizing foil actuator welding (VFAW)
1. Introduction
When a piece of metal collides with another at an appropriate speed and angle, a weld can be
created. Successful collision welds are generally obtained when the impact velocity is in the
range of 150 m/s to 1500 m/s and the impact angle is between 5 and 20 (Zhang, 2010).
Typically, one of the members (target) is kept stationary while the other (flyer) is launched
toward the stationary target by means of an explosive discharge (as in explosive welding or
EXW) or a magnetic pulse (as in magnetic pulse welding or MPW).
This is a solid state process that allows the joining of dissimilar metals with little to no heat-
affected zone, as discussed by Kore (2007) who studied MPW of flat sheets. The lack of
continuous intermetallic phases is one of the main advantages of collision welding over
traditional fusion welding process. From the cross-section transmission electron microscopy of
the interface of a EXW between AA1100 and Cu 102, Zhang et al. (2011) found extensive
regions of clear solid-state metallic bonding between the two parent materials with very narrow
(~20 nm) regions that resemble mechanically alloyed material.
Kacar and Acarer (2004) reported that over 260 similar and dissimilar metal combinations have
been successfully welded using this technique. Bahrani et al. (1967) provided an empirically
derived mechanism for wave formation at the interface of an explosion weld. Similar waves are
observed in the interfaces of magnetic pulse welded specimens. These waves are thought to be
a result of the mechanism that entails formation of a jet between the colliding members of the
weld. This jet removes the surface oxides and enables direct contact between uncontaminated
metallic surfaces, leading to metallurgical bonding. In a more recent work, Wronka (2010)
provide a numerical model for plastic deformation, oxide removal and acoustic wave interaction
during joint formation. This model takes into consideration the times required for reaching
materials shear strength, chemical bonding and reflection of acoustic waves from free surfaces
of the target and workpiece. Therefore, this encompasses the main events which occur during
EXW and provides a more holistic picture of the process.
EXW and MPW are the most common techniques for collision welding. EXW is applied for large
scale operations, when weld lengths are on the order of meters. In a review of recent work in
explosive welding, Findik (2011), in a comprehensive review on EXW, reports that explosive
thicknesses of over 100 mm are needed to create welds between 6 mm thick plates of various
materials. Scaling the process down is difficult because detonation of small amounts of
explosive charge is not very efficient or repeatable because of the phenomenon of critical
volume that is detailed by Cooper (1997). Therefore, for implementing EXW, large and isolated
spaces are required which adds to the overall cost. MPW is more suitable for smaller scale
operations with weld lengths on the order of centimeters. According to Goebel et al. (2012),
even with lower collision velocities as compared to those during EXW, MPW is possible
because a metastable wave initiation mechanism can take effect. Watanabe (2006) and
Okagawa (2004) showed how low input energies can be used for welding of thin aluminum
sheets with nickel, iron and copper. Lee et al. (2007) observed from MPW of low carbon steel
(SPCC) and AA 6111 that there is an interfacial layer with highly refined grains of diameter less
than 100 nm. One of the well-known issue with MPW is longevity of the actuator, which
becomes a concern at high driving pressures. Additionally, the efficiency of this process goes
down with increasing resistivity of the flyer plate material. Conductive drivers can be used to
propel less conductive metals, but that method leads to high costs and low efficiencies. Zhang
et al. (2011) gave a detailed account of collision welding at different length scales: EXW for
meter, MPW for centimeter and Laser Impact Welding for millimeter length scales. Laser impact
welding is a novel method for collision welding, developed by Daehn et al. (2012), which uses a
laser pulse to ablate an absorptive layer to create an impulse to drive thin flyer sheets to high
speeds.
In this work a novel method for welding driven by rapid metal vaporization is presented. Thin
foils and wires, when vaporized by passage of a high current driven by a capacitor bank, can
create a region of high pressure around them. This phenomenon has been studied in detail in
the past as evidenced by several conferences on exploding wire which started in 1959 (Chace
and Moore, 1959). Its application for metalworking has recently been investigated by Vivek et al.
(2013) who implemented processes such as springback calibration of and high speed shearing
of high strength steels. In this work it will be shown how it can be used for driving flyer plates for
collision welding with stationary target plates. Welding of varied combinations of dissimilar
metals was attempted, all of which have been welded before by EXW (copper-steel (Durgutlu et
al., 2005), titanium-steel (Satrangi and Mousavi, 2008), magnesium-aluminum (Yan et al.,
2010), aluminum-copper (Ashani and Bagheri, 2009), copper-titanium (Kahraman and Gulenc,
2005)). Preliminary characterization of the welds has also been performed: instrumented peel
tests and lap shear tests were conducted, and micrography of the interfaces provided a
correlation between strength of the welds and microstructural characteristics of the weld
interface. The goal of this research is to use vaporizing conductor technique to create welds
similar to those made by EXW, but at much smaller length scales. This tool can also help with
quick optimization study of impact welding of various material combinations before going for
large scale production with EXW. Unlike MPW, there is no issue of coil longevity, and even low
conductivity materials can be launched without the use of a driver sheet.

2. Experimental Procedure
The flyer sheet was placed directly against an insulated aluminum foil, the ends of which were
connected to the terminals of a capacitor bank, the characteristics of which are tabulated in
Table 1. As the capacitor bank was discharged, and a high current, on the order of 100 kAmps,
flowed through the foil and vaporized it in tens of microseconds. The foil was insulated by an
adhesive polymer tape and backed by a heavy steel block. Therefore, when the foil vaporized,
the reaction forces were directed toward the sheet metal, accelerating it to a high speed toward
the target sheet, which was at a standoff distance, away from the flyer. The standoff distance
here was 1.6 mm and the lateral spacing between sacrificial G10 plates was 25.4 mm. 0.0762
mm thick aluminum foils were used as drivers. The active area of the foils was 50.8 mm long
and 12.7 mm wide. A schematic of this apparatus as well as the actual implementation is shown
in Figure 1. Welding of varied combinations of dissimilar metals was attempted. The input
energy from the capacitor bank was 7.2 kJ for all experiments and other capacitor bank
characteristics are shown in Table 1. Flyers and targets were 76.2 mm wide and 101.6 mm
long. All the flyers and targets were 0.508 mm thick except 1018 steel targets, which had a
thickness of 6.35 mm.
Table 1: Capacitor bank characteristics

Capacitance Inductance Resistance Maximum Maximum Short circuit

charging charging current rise
voltage energy time
426 F 100 nH 10 m 8.66 kV 16 kJ 12 s

Voltage was measured using a 1000:1 probe connected across the terminals of the capacitor
bank while current was measured by a 100 kAmps:1 volt Rogowski coil
(www.homepage.ntlworld.com/rocoil/).

2.1 Strength Testing: Strength was tested both in lap-shear and in peel testing. For peel
testing, samples were cut into 25.4 mm wide strips using an abrasive water jet, and the flyer
plates were bent to 90 with respect to the weld interface. The target plate was clamped by a
combination of a flat and an angled aluminum piece as shown in Figure 2. Peel tests were
conducted with a MTS 831.10 load frame. The vertically aligned flyer plate and angled
aluminum piece were clamped and pulled apart at a velocity of 0.1 mm/s. The initial distance
between the clamping area of the flyer plate and the interface was kept constant at 25.4 mm for
all tests. Force-displacement curves were obtained for all the samples. The integrated area
under the force-displacement curve, taken as a measure of interface toughness, was also
computed. This energy was used to fail a sample 25.4 mm wide and the entire length of the
weld region. The weld zone has a variable bonded area and there is always an unbounded
region along the center of the weldment, where the flyer and target contact with normal
incidence. Force per unit sample width of weld was taken as the peel strength of the welds as
considered by Zhang (2010) and Kendall (1973), who developed formal interface fracture
toughness values from similar measurements.
The material pairs which had low peel strengths were then subjected to lap-shear testing. For
this, the welded samples were cut out with gage dimensions of 50 mm (length) x 10 mm (width).
The main purpose of the lap shear tests was to investigate whether the weld interface is
stronger than the base materials when loaded in shear.
Transverse sections of the weld interface were also taken from the same and prepared for
conventional metallography and examined both with optical and scanning electron microscopes.

2.2 Velocity measurement: A second set of experiments were performed to measure the flyer
velocities using the Photonic Doppler Velocimetry (PDV) method. The implementation at Ohio
State University is described elsewhere (Johnson et al., 2009). Proceedings of the annual user
workshop provide great background on the method. A hole was drilled in the backing plates to
allow the laser focusing probe to view the flyer sheet directly. No target sheets were used during
these experiments. Additionally, the standoff was increased to 3.2 mm in order to capture a
fuller range of the acceleration profile of the flyer sheet. The velocity at any distance within this
range can then be estimated by integration of the resulting velocity-time curve. In particular,
since the previous experiments were done at a 1.6-mm standoff distance, the impact velocity
can be estimated in this way. The same input energy of 7.2 kJ was in these experiments as in
all collision welding trials.

Figure 1: (A) Schematic of vaporizing foil welding apparatus, (B) schematic of the welding
process showing jetting, wave formation along the interface and the unwelded region in the
region of flat impact, (C) sketch of the aluminum foil driver used, (D) actual implementation of
the apparatus.

Figure 2: (A) Peel-testing set up, (B) Peel-testing in progress, showing direction of forces during
the peel of the second weld line.
Table 2: Results of peel tests done on various collision weld couples created by the vaporizing
foil welding technique.
Sl. No Flyer, thickness Target, thickness First peak Second Overall
(mm) (mm) force/weld peak energy for
length force/weld weld fracture
(N/mm) length (J)
(N/mm)
1 AA 6061 T6, 0.762 Cu 110, 0.635 7.7 1.7 0.16
5 CP Ti, 0.504 Cu 110, 0.635 14.8 32.8 8.1
6 CP Ti, 0.504 Cu 110, 0.635 12.6 13.2 5.51
8 AA 6061 T6, 0.762 AZ31B, 0.762 2.9 1.1 0.03
9 AA 6061 T6, 0.762 AZ31B, 0.762 2.6 - 0.01
10 CP Ti, 0.504 1018 Steel, 4.76 7.6 7.0 0.08
11 CP Ti, 0.504 1018 Steel, 4.76 3.9 - 0.11
13 Cu 110, 0.635 1018 Steel, 4.76 41.4 64.5 7.43
14 Cu 110, 0.635 1018 Steel, 4.76 - 83.0 3.94
15 Cu 110, 0.635 1018 Steel, 4.76 25.9 85.2 9.65

3. Results and discussion

PDV data in Figure 3 shows that the titanium flyer sheet reached the peak velocity of 565 m/s in
the first 1.6 mm of travel, whereas the copper and aluminum flyer sheet were continuing to
accelerate at the time they collided with the target. The estimated impact velocity of the copper
and aluminum flyers for a 1.6-mm standoff distance were 340 m/s and 416 m/s respectively.
The 0.0762-mm-thick aluminum driver foils were found to be nearly optimal for developing high
speed within short acceleration distances. The thinner foils vaporized too quickly and did not
accelerate the flyer plate to desired velocities. On the other hand, thicker foils heated up,
expanded and pushed the flyer to low velocities before bursting. This resulted in relatively low
impact velocities, hence no welding occurred. The effect of foil thickness on process efficiency
during impulse metal working operations has been discussed by Vivek et al. (2013).
When the welds were sectioned perpendicular to the axis of the foil, it was noticed that welding
predominantly occurred along the perimeter of the foil. A cross-section of a weld between CP
Titanium and 1018 Steel is shown in Figure 4. The figure also shows the fracture surface of the
steel plate after the titanium sheet is peeled off from it. It clearly depicts the weld region around
the periphery of the active area of the foil. No welding takes place directly above the middle of
the active foil area. When the flyer hits the target in the center, the impact angle is zero, and jet
formation is impeded, resulting in no welding in that region. As the rest of the flyer sheet
collapses onto the target, where the angle and velocity of impact falls within an appropriate
range, welding takes place. Figure 5 depicts the peeled surfaces of the Ti and the Fe sides of
the weld. The waves are clearly visible. In addition, the surface EDS map gives clear evidence
of material transfer between the two base materials at the crests and troughs of the waves. The
fracture is clearly flatter than the waves themselves and passes between the crests and troughs
of the waves.

Figure 3: PDV data from 0.508 mm thick flyer sheets accelerated using the vaporizing foil
method with 7.2 kJ of electrical energy input into a 0.0762 mm thick aluminum foil. The vertical
dashed lines indicate the distances traversed by the flyers until that time.
Figure 4: Photographs of the transverse section of a titanium-steel weld and top view of the
peeled surface. To be noted is the absence of welding in the center which is directly above the
former position of the vaporized foil.

Figure 5: Surface EDS map of the peeled interface of a Ti-Fe weld showing material transfer;
Red=Titanium, Green=Iron
The same conditions of standoff distance, input energy and foil geometry resulted in successful
welds in all the material combinations attempted. These conditions need to be optimized for
each combination; however, even with these not-yet-optimized conditions, all the welds
demonstrated measureable strength and toughness. Most of the tougher welds showed two
peaks in the force-displacement curves and the second peak was generally higher. The two
peaks correspond with the two weld lines around the perimeter of the driver foil. The second
peak was higher because only perpendicular force was necessary to break the first weld line;
whereas, by the time the crack reached the second weld, the flyer sheet was at an angle and
the force had to counter the combined peel and shear strengths of the weld. This is shown in
Figure 2(B). In the cases where there were two peaks, the first peak was taken for calculation of
peel strength because it corresponds with the weld region under mode 1 fracture loading. A
more intensive analysis of peel test data is presented in the work of Wei and Zhao (2008) where
they consider the elastic as well as plastic energy released during the process of peeling. In the
present work, more emphasis was on side-by-side comparison of the overall weld strengths
obtained with same input parameters but different material pairs. Mousavi et al (2008) describe
the implementation of ASTM A265-92 shear test on explosively bonded Ti/304 stainless steel
couples. They also devised peel tests and notched shear tests for characterizing weld strengths.
However, the welded samples created in the present work did not lend well to any of the tests
described by them because of geometric constraints. Additionally, the low strength of the welds
would not allow for machining which was required in the previous work. Once creation of strong
welds using this process becomes a norm, commonly practiced tests are intended to be
performed.
As summarized in Table 2, some of the welds were strong and tough while some were very
weak and brittle. SEM images of the interfaces were obtained and will be discussed here. These
images aid in developing a preliminary understanding of the variations in weld toughness.
Figure 6 shows micrographs of the weld interfaces of the relatively weaker couples. It can be
seen that there is a nearly continuous layer of intermetallics along the interface. This causes the
brittle fracture as observed in the peel tests. Welding of AZ31B and AA6061 T6 also resulted in
a relatively weak interface. The figure depicts a slightly wavy interface; however, the waves do
not interlock anywhere. The magnesium alloy used here is somewhat brittle and intermetallic
formation at the interface may be responsible for a further loss in toughness. The weld between
commercially pure Grade 2 titanium and 1018 steel had multiple voids which could have acted
as stress concentrators and led to easier crack initiation and fracture of the interface. It has
been shown in the work of Kahraman et al. (2005) that titanium and steel can be explosion
bonded to result in a weld which is stronger than both the parent materials. They also reported
that increasing the explosive loading, and thus the collision velocity, can lead to formation of
weld interfaces which are wavy in nature and devoid of any defects such as melting voids and
intermetallics. Therefore, even though some of the welds created in this work were weak, there
is a large scope for optimization of parameters.
Although many of these weld pairs were weak and brittle in peel testing, they demonstrated
much higher strengths in lap-shear testing, the results of which are represented in Figure 7. Al-
Cu failed along the weld interface which sustained a 13.4 MPa shear stress, based on the peak
force and area of the welded patch. Ti-Fe weld failed partially along the interface which had an
estimated strength of 34 MPa. There was obvious material transfer between the parent sheets
in both the cases. The sample with Al-Mg weld failed outside the welded region, and if the area
of the welded patch is assumed to be the same as that for other combinations, the minimum
sustained shear stress can be estimate to be 15.5 MPa. These shear strength values are much
lower than those reported by Mousavi et al. (2008). Besides non-optimal welding parameters
resulting in low overall weld strengths, this result can be attributed to the possibility of the actual
weld area being much smaller than evidenced by material transfer.
On the other end of the fracture-toughness spectrum are the Cu 110-1018 steel welds and Cu-
110-CP-Ti welds, which were extremely tough. The micrographs shown in Figure 8 give an
indication as to why these welds might be so strong. The wavy interfaces in both cases show
interlocking between the two materials, which potentially increases their peel strength.
Intermittent regions of intermetallics could be seen in the Cu-Ti system while voids can be found
in the Fe-Cu system though not nearly to the extent seen in the brittle welds.

Figure 6: SEM images of the interface of relatively weak welds showing (A) continuous region of
intermetallics along the interface of AA 6061 T6 (flyer)-Cu 110 weld, (B) voids and microcracks
in the CP Ti (flyer)-1018 steel weld, (C) intermetallics in AA6061 T6 (flyer)-AZ31B weld
Figure 7: Lap shear testing of Al-Cu, Al-Mg, Ti-Fe welds. Tested samples showing failure along
the interface for the Al-Cu weld, in the parent Mg sheet for the Al-Mg weld and combined failure
in the parent Ti sheet and along the interface for the Ti-Fe weld.

Figure 8: SEM images of stronger weld interfaces of (A) titanium (flyer) and copper, and (B)
copper (flyer) and steel. Despite intermittent presence of voids along its interface, the copper-
steel weld was very strong.

As shown in the work of Oeberg et al. (1985), the chemical interaction energy for iron and
titanium is highly negative whereas that for iron and copper is positive. This results in the
formation of intermetallics in the Fe-Ti welds, while they are absent in Fe-Cu welds. Binary
phase diagrams of these systems also show Fe and Ti will form intermetallic compounds. A
triple-layer bond between 1018 steel and CP titanium, with nickel as the interlayer, was
attempted. The initial standoff between each of the layers was 0.8 mm and the input energy was
8 kJ, and both the Cu-Ti and Cu-Fe interfaces were created in a single operation. This material
combination resulted in quite a strong bond, as revealed by peel testing (Figure 9 (A)). It took
780 N to break the 25.4-mm-wide weld assembly and the failure occurred in the titanium sheet
rather than along the weld interface. The optical micrograph of the interface shown in Figure 9
(B) indicates that the interfaces were much cleaner with few intermetallics. Under lower
magnifications, some regions were found to be unwelded. Even then, the overall strength of the
bond was still higher than that of the parent titanium. Presumably with a more carefully designed
and optimized set of collision welding parameters, the welds could be better yet.
While further work is required to optimize this process, it offers a way to create dissimilar-metal
welds between numerous metal pairs in a laboratory environment. Unlike EXW, vaporizing foil
actuator welding does not require large isolated spaces and can be implemented at much
smaller length scales. Longevity of the actuator is not a concern, unlike MPW, since the foil is a
consumable of every cycle.

Figure 9: Triple layer welding (A) Peel test done on Ti-Ni-Fe weld created by vaporizing foil
welding technique with 8 kJ input energy, (B) Weld interfaces.

4. Conclusions
Vaporizing foil actuator welding (VFAW) was found to be a robust collision welding
technique, able to successfully weld various dissimilar metal pairs, with one geometric
configuration and set of launch conditions. Subjective optimization of parameters for a
given combination is intended as future work.
 Peel testing revealed a wide range of bond toughnesses, with the 1018 steel-Cu 110
and Cu 110-CP Ti welds being the toughest. Cu 110-Al 6061, CP Ti-1018 steel and Mg
AZ31B-Al 6061 were much weaker in peel. Lap shear testing of the weld couples weak
in peel resulted in failure in a parent sheet in CP Ti-1018 steel and Mg AZ31B-Al 6061
pairs.
Presence of presumed molten regions, intermetallics and voids coincided with the welds
which were observed to have low toughness. The high-toughness welds had very few, if
any, continuous regions of intermetallics or extensive molten regions, and interlocking
waves were observed along the interfaces.
Three-body welds were easily implemented in a single shot and it was found that Ti-Ni-
Fe welds are much stronger than Ti-Fe welds. Peel test resulted in a failure in titanium
sheet. The interface was wavy and joining induced defects were rare.

Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by Department of Energy under Award Number DE-
PI0000012. The authors would also like to thank the ALCOA foundation, which supported the
work through the Advancing Sustainability Research Initiative, the Industry & University
Cooperative Research Program (I/UCRC), and the Pratt & Whitney Corporation.

References
Ashani, J. Z. and Bagheri, S. M., 2009, Explosive scarf welding of aluminum to copper plates
and their interface properties, Materialwiss. Werkstofftech., vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 690698.
Bahrani, A., Black, T., and Crossland, B., 1967, Mechanics of wave formation in explosive
welding, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A - Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, vol. 296, no. 1445, p. 123.
Chace, W. and Moore, H., 1959, Exploding Wires, 4 vols. Plenum Press.
Cooper, P., 1997, Real effects in explosives, Explosives Engineering, Wiley-VCH, pp. 290
293.
Daehn, G. S., Lippold, J. C., Liu, D., and Wang, H., 2012, Laser impact welding, presented at
the 5th International Conference on High Speed Forming, Dortmund, Germany.
Durgutlu, A., Glen, B., and Findik, F., 2005, Examination of copper/stainless steel joints
formed by explosive welding, Materials & Design, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 497507.
Findik, F., 2011, Recent developments in explosive welding, Materials & Design, vol. 32, no. 3,
pp. 10811093.
Goebel, G., Kaspar, J., Berndt, B., and Eckhard, B., 2012, Dissimilar metal joining: Macro- and
microscopic effects of MPW, presented at the International Conference on High Speed
Forming, Dortmund, Germany.
Johnson, J. R., Taber, G., Vivek, A., Zhang, Y., Golowin, S., Banik, K., Fenton, G. K., and
Daehn, G. S., 2009, Coupling experiment and simulation in electromagnetic forming using
photon Doppler velocimetry, Steel Res. Int., vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 359365.
Kacar, R., and Acarer, M., 2004, An investigation on the explosive cladding of 316L stainless
steel-din-P355GH steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 91
96, Oct.
Kahraman, N. and Glenc, B., 2005, Microstructural and mechanical properties of Cu-Ti plates
bonded through explosive welding process, J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 169, no. 1, pp.
6771.
Kahraman, N., Glen, B., and Findik, F., Joining of titanium/stainless steel by explosive
welding and effect on interface, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 169, no. 2,
pp. 127133, Nov. 2005.
Kendall, K., 1973, Shrinkage and peel strength of adhesive joints, Journal of Physics D -
Applied Physics, vol. 6, no. 15, pp. 17821787.
Kore, S. D., 2007, Electromagnetic welding of flat sheets, University of Stuttgart, Indian
Institute of Technology: Bombay.
Lee, K.-J., Kumai, S., Arai, T., and Aizawa, T., 2007, Interfacial microstructure and strength of
steel/aluminum alloy lap joint fabricated by magnetic pressure seam welding, Materials Science
and Engineering: A, vol. 471, no. 12, pp. 95101.
Mousavi, S. A. A. A., Al-Hassani, S. T. S., and Atkins, A. G., Bond strength of explosively
welded specimens, Materials & Design, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 13341352, 2008.
Oberg, A., Martensson, N., And Schweitz, J., 1985, Fundamental aspects of formation and
stability of explosive welds, Metallurgical Transactions A - Physical Metallurgy and Materials
Science, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 841852.
Okagawa, K. and Aizawa, T., 2004, Impact seam welding with magnetic pressure for aluminum
sheets, Explosion, Shock Wave and Hypervelocity Phenomena in Materials, vol. 465466,
Zurich-Uetikon: Trans Tech Publications Ltd, pp. 231236.
Sartangi, P. F. and Mousavi, S. A. A. A., Experimental investigations on explosive cladding of
cp-titanium/AISI 304 stainless steel, Advanced Welding and Micro Joining / Packaging for the
21st Century, vol. 580582, Stafa-Zurich: Trans Tech Publications Ltd., 2008, pp. 629632.

Vivek, A., Taber, G. A., Johnson, J. R., Woodward, S. T., and Daehn, G. S., 2013, Electrically
driven plasma via vaporization of metallic conductors: A tool for impulse metal working, Journal
of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 213, pp 1211-1326.
Watanabe, M., Kumai, S., and Aizawa, T., 2006, Interfacial microstructure of magnetic pressure
seam welded Al-Fe, Al-Ni and Al-Cu lap joints, Aluminium Alloys, Pts 1 and 2: Research
Through Innovation and Technology, vol. 519521, Zurich-Uetikon: Trans Tech Publications
Ltd, 2006, pp. 11451150.
 Wei, Y. and Zhao, H., 2008, Peeling experiments of ductile thin films along ceramic substrates
Critical assessment of analytical models, International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol.
45, no. 13, pp. 37793792.
Wronka, B., "Testing of explosive welding and welded joints: Joint mechanism and properties of
explosive welded joints", J. of Mater. Sci., 45 (15): 4078-4083 AUG 2010.
Yan, Y. B., Zhang, Z. W., Shen, W., Wang, J. H., Zhang, L. K., and Chin, B. A., 2010,
Microstructure and properties of magnesium AZ31B-aluminum 7075 explosively welded
composite plate, Mater. Sci. Eng. A - Struct. Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process., vol. 527, no. 9,
pp. 22412245.
Zhang, Y., Babu, S. S., Prothe, C., Blakely, M., Kwasegroch, J., LaHa, M., and Daehn, G. S.,
2011, Application of high velocity impact welding at varied different length scales, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, vol. 211, no. 5, pp. 944952.

View publication stats