Diffusion bonding

I. Initial contact of two surfaces

II. Plastic deformation at the surface tips (contacting points deform until the elastic stresses
reach the bonding pressure and form voids in-between the points)
III. Voids form a bondline, once the stresses are balanced a variety of diffusive mechanisms
close the voids.
I. Diffusion along the void surface
II. Diffusion from the grain boundary that is created at the bondline
III. Power law creep of the material surrounding the void
IV. Diffusion in the bulk of the material (negligible)
V. Gaseous diffusion occurs at very high temperatures due to vaporizing the surface of
the void and redepositing that material in a location with lower energy (negligible)

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 63
Diffusion bonding

 …model the process used theory derived from pressure sintering models or reverse
formulations of models calculating voids formed during high temperature plastic
deformation, typically include
 Formulations for initial plastic collapse
 Diffusive mechanisms of surface diffusion coupled with volume diffusion along the
surface of the void
 Boundary diffusion coupled with volume diffusion along the bondline between the
voids
 Complex processes away from the voids are assumed to act as power law creep
 Vapor diffusion within the void
 Grain boundary diffusion from boundaries along the void surface
 How each model treated the void geometry?
 What assumptions were made to get the void geometry from the surface topography?
 What conclusions were made on how the surface could affect the bonding results?

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 64
Diffusion bonding

 Hamilton [1] published the first model for titanium using uniform prismatic pyramidal
shaped voids that were independent of any surface characteristics
 Garmong [2] used geometry similar to Hamilton’s pyramidal model for an initial
bonding stage that transitioned into an array of spherical microvoids for final
closure. Pyramids were based on the large wavelength and height of the surfaces while
the microvoids were based on the superimposed short wavelength and height. He
concluded that the large geometry of the initial stage had no effect on bonding time but
the short wavelength details that formed the microvoids did
 Derby [3-5] used Hamilton’s pyramid void shape that transitioned to a cylindrical
void during bonding. The pyramids are also non-uniform and based on the average
roughness and wavelength of the measured surface. He concluded that bonding is a
function of roughness and wavelength but only up to a point after which there was no
influence.
 Hill [6] used elliptical voids with the minor and major ellipse axis based on the root mean
squared surface roughness or average surface roughness, depending on machining type,
and the average wavelength respectively. He did not show any trends for surface effects
but noted that his model was nearly independent of wavelength but highly dependent on
roughness.

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 65
Diffusion bonding

 Pilling et al. created several models specifically for Ti-6Al-4 V using both prismatic
cylinders on the diffusion bonding plane as voids [7] and cylinders oriented
perpendicular to the diffusion bonding plane as voids [8]. Cylinder geometry was based
on the surface roughness and wavelength (in the latter model). His models had a
significant dependence on the roughness parameters with larger voids leading to longer
bonding times [9].
 Orhan [10] uses a sine wave for the void geometry and found that increasing surface
roughness increased the bonding time.
 Ma [11] created a bonding model using an ellipse and used Rz for the void height and
root mean squared wavelength for the width. His model was implemented by Li [12]
who found that there was negligible influence on the surface roughness during bonding.
 Complete models using lenticular voids were created by Guo [13] and by Takahashi [14]
with void widths and heights being based on roughness and wavelength but the
dependencies were not discussed.
 Stochastic models created based on the Pilling model by Li [15] and Kulkarni [16]. Kulkarni
treated the surface uniquely and interacted two surface profiles to develop a statistical
distribution of void widths and heights for input into the model. A strong trend for the
void width and a weak trend for the void height was found.

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 66
Diffusion bonding

 Overall, most of these models have covered different void geometry and implemented
the bonding mechanics in different ways. This causes the conclusions about the
effects of surface topography on bonding performance to range from not included
to no effect at all to a complex trend to a strong dramatic trend. There is no
consensus on how the surface effects bonding but, aside from Hamilton, it is universally
included as important and in most models a rougher surface leads to a longer bonding
time.
Pris m atic Py ram idal Cy lindrical Norm al to Bondline

Pris m atic Elliptical Pris m atic Lenticular Pris m atic Cy lindrical

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 67
Vergleich der verschiedenen Modelle
Hamilton Garmong Derby, Wallach Hill, Wallach
[1] [2] [3-5] [6]
Dreieck,
Hohlraumgeometrie Dreieck Dreieck Ellipse
runde Ecken
Stufen 2 2 3 1
Oberflächenrauheit - • • •
Transportpfade:
Plastische Deformation • • • •
Oberflächendiffusion - - • •
Volumendiffusion,
- • • •
Quelle: Oberfläche
Verdampfung,
- - • •
Kondensation
Korngrenzendiffusion - - • •
Volumendiffusion,
- - • •
Quelle: Grenzfläche
Kriechen • • • •
Material Ti-6Al-4V Ti-6Al-4V Kupfer Kupfer, Eisen

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 68
Quelle

1. HAMILTON, C.: Pressure requirements for diffusion bonding titanium. In: Titanium Science and Technology 1 (1973), S. 625–648
2. GARMONG, G.; PATON, N.; ARGON, A.: Attainment of full interfacial contact during diffusion bonding. In: Metallurgical and Materials
Transactions A 6 (1975), Nr. 6, S. 1269–1279
3. DERBY, B.; WALLACH, E. R.: Theoretical model for diffusion bonding. In: Metal Science 16 (1982), S. 49–56
4. DERBY, B.; WALLACH, E. R.: Diffusion bonding: development of theoretical model. In: Metal Science 18 (1984), S. 427–431
5. Derby B,Wallach ER (1984) Diffusion bonds in copper. JMater Sci 19(10):3140–3148
6. HILL, A.; WALLACH, E. R.: Modelling solid-state diffusion bonding. In: Acta Metallurgica 37 (1989), Nr. 9, S. 2425–2437
7. Pilling J, Livesey DW, Hawkyard JB, Ridley N (1984) Solid state bonding in superplastic Ti-6Al-4V. Metal Science 18(3):117–122
8. Pilling J (1988) The kinetics of isostatic diffusion bonding in superplastic materials. Mater Sci Eng 100:137–144
9. Salehi MT, Pilling J, Ridley N, Hamilton DL (1992) Isostatic diffusion bonding of superplastic Ti-6Al-4V. Mater Sci Eng A 150(1):1–6
10. Orhan N, Aksoy M, Eroglu M (1999) A new model for diffusion bonding and its application to duplex alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 271(1-2):458–468
11. Ma R, Li M, Li H, Yu W (2012) Modeling of void closure in diffusion bonding process based on dynamic conditions. Sci China Technol Sci
55(9):2420–2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-012-4927-1
12. Li H, Li MQ, Kang PJ (2016) Void shrinking process and mechanisms of the diffusion bonded Ti–6Al–4V alloy with different surface roughness.
Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 122(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-015-9546-9
13. Guo ZX, Ridley N (1987) Modelling of diffusion bonding of metals. Mater Sci Technol 3(11):945–953
14. Takahashi Y, Inoue K (1992) Recent void shrinkage models and their applicability to diffusion bonding. Mater Sci Technol 8(11): 953–964
15. Li S-X, Tu S-T, Xuan F-Z (2005) A probabilistic model for prediction of bonding time in diffusion bonding. Mater Sci Eng A 407(1- 2):250–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2005.07.003
16. Kulkarni N, Ramulu M, Sanders DG (2016) Modeling of diffusion bonding time in dissimilar titanium alloys: preliminary results. J Manuf Sci Eng
138(12):121010

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 69
Design of Experiments
Central Composite Design (CCD) Experimental Plan
Nr. A B C Nr. Temperature Pressure Bonding time
1 1 1 1 in °C in MPa in min
2 0 0 1,682 1 240 15 5
3 -1 1 1
2 280 15 5
4 -1 -1 1
5 1,682 0 0 3 240 25 5
6 1 -1 -1 4 280 25 5
7 -1 -1 -1 5 240 15 15
8 -1,682 0 0 6 280 15 15
9 1 -1 1
7 240 25 15
10 -1 1 -1
11 0 0 -1,682 8 280 25 15
12 0 1,682 0 9 226 20 10
13 0 -1,682 0 10 294 20 10
14 1 1 -1 11 260 11,6 10
15 0 0 0
12 260 28,4 10
16 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 13 260 20 1,6
14 260 20 18,4
DoE Factors 15 260 20 10
Factor -α -1 0 +1 +α 16 260 20 10
Temperature (X1) 226 240 260 280 294 17 260 20 10
Pressure (X2) 11,6 15 20 25 28,4
Bonding time (X3) 1,6 5 10 15 18,4
Response: Shear Strength

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 70
Response Surface and Contour Plots
AlSi1/Cr/Ni/Ag

 Optimum temperature/bonding pressure/time : 256 °C/ 24 MPa/ 18 min

Zechun Yu
DEVICES AND RELIABILITY © Fraunhofer IISB
Slide 71