Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Effect of the steel sheet surface hardening state on interfacial bonding

strength of embedded aluminum–steel composite sheet produced
by cold roll bonding process
Chunyang Wang a, Yanbin Jiang a,b, Jianxin Xie a,b,n, Dejing Zhou c, Xiaojun Zhang c
a
Key Laboratory for Advanced Materials Processing of Ministry of Education, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
b
Beijing Laboratory of Metallic Materials and Processing for Modern Transportation, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
c
Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Clad Materials, Yin Bang Clad Material Company, Limited, Wuxi 214145, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Three kinds of surface hardening states of the steel sheet were obtained by different mechanical surface
Received 30 July 2015 preparation methods with flap disc and steel circumferential brushes before cold roll bonding of em-
Received in revised form bedded 1060 aluminum-08Al steel composite sheets, and the influence of steel sheet surface hardening
12 November 2015
state on the interfacial bonding strength of the composite sheet and the related mechanism were stu-
Accepted 13 November 2015
died. The results showed that numerous cracks formed between the broken work-hardened surface layer
Available online 28 November 2015
and its steel matrix during cold roll bonding, resulting in a large number of fragments at the interface,
Keywords: which was the main reason for the reduction of the bonding strength. It is an effective method for
Aluminum–steel composite sheets reducing the work-hardened surface layer hardness to improve the bonding strength of the composite
Cold roll bonding
sheet. The nano-hardness of the steel surface treated by flap disc was 4.5 GPa which was close to that
Surface preparation
(4.4 GPa) of the steel matrix, while the nano-hardnesses of the steel surfaces treated by the steel brushes
Work-hardened surface layer
Peel strength made of Ф 0.3 mm wires and Ф 0.1 mm wires were 8.6 GPa and 5.7 GPa, respectively. For the thickness
reduction of 25%, the peel strengths of the composite sheets whose original steel sheet surface were
treated by the steel brush made of Ф 0.3 mm wires and Ф 0.1 mm wires were 0.9 N/mm and 2.9 N/mm,
respectively, while the peel strength of the composite sheet whose steel sheet surface was treated by flap
disc significantly rose to 14.9 N/mm.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction composite sheet leads to aluminum–steel separation and low yield

Embedded aluminum–steel composite sheet combines high
strength of steel and good thermal conductivity, corrosion re-
sistance of aluminum, and works as a key material to manufacture
aluminum–steel composite finned tube used in large air-cooling
system of the thermal power plant. Embedded aluminum–steel
composite sheet has characteristics of thin aluminum layer, great
thickness difference between aluminum layer and steel layer. In
order to conveniently weld the composite sheet into the compo-
site tube, in which the thin aluminum layer is covered outside the
tube for being soldered with aluminum fins, symmetric no alu-
minum layer on each side of the composite sheet is also needed.
Cold roll bonding (CRB) process is an effective method for large-
scale production of the embedded aluminum–steel composite
sheet, however, the poor interfacial bonding strength of the
n
Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory for Advanced Materials Processing of
Ministry of Education, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing
100083, China.
E-mail address: jxxie@mater.ustb.edu.cn (J. Xie).
of the products.
Surface preparation before CRB is an effective method to improve
the bonding strength of bimetal composite sheet produced by CRB [1–
3]. Proper surface preparation can not only decrease the threshold
reduction but also increase the bonding strength of the composite
sheet [2,3]. Surface preparation is mainly classified as chemical
cleaning [4–6] and mechanical cleaning [7–9]. Mechanical cleaning is
widely used for producing the composite sheets by CRB due to simple
process, low cost and continuous production. Scratch brushing is most
commonly utilized in the surface mechanical preparation. In general,
scratch brushing not only cleans the metal surface but also forms a
work-hardened surface layer [3,10–12]. During CRB, the hardened
surface layer fractures and different virgin metals exposed near the
interface are extruded from the cracks to be contacted and bonded
together [13,14]. However, due to the difference of mechanical prop-
erties and plastic deformation behaviors between the work-hardened
surface layer and its matrix, cracks may form between them during
CRB, even resulting in the separation of them, which may reduce the
bonding strength. Therefore, suitable surface mechanical preparation
should be adopted to obtain proper surface hardness for preventing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.11.039
0921-5093/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
52 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58
the occurrence of crack and separation between the work-hardened
surface layer and its matrix, which is of great importance to improve
the interfacial bonding strength of the composite sheet.
In the present work, taking the embedded 1060aluminum-08Al
steel composite sheets produced by CRB as object, the effects of
steel sheet surface hardening state by surface preparations of flap
disc and steel circumferential brushes on the interfacial bonding
strength of the composite sheet and the related mechanism were
studied, which may provide a guidance of selecting proper surface
preparation method for enhancing the bonding strength of the
embedded aluminum–steel composite sheet.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials
Annealed commercial purity aluminum sheets (1060) and an-
nealed steel sheets (08Al) were used in this study. The aluminum
sheets were 500 mm in length, 75 mm in width, 1 mm in thick-
ness, and the steel sheet was 500 mm in length, 95 mm in width,
3.75 mm in thickness. The mechanical properties and chemical
compositions of the aluminum strip and the steel sheet were listed
in Table 1.
2.2. Surface preparation
The steel sheets were first pickled by 5 wt% hydrochloric acid
solution to remove the grease and oxide. Our previous research
showed that the hardness of scratch brushed surface decreased by
reducing the wire diameter of steel brush, and the hardness of flap
disc brushed surface was much lower than that of scratch brushed
surface. In order to investigate the effect of steel surface hardening
state on the bonding strength, three kinds of steel surface hard-
ening states were obtained by the different surface mechanical
preparation methods. The acid pickled steel sheets were respec-
tively treated by rotating flap disc and steel circumferential bru-
shes 90 mm in diameter with Ф 0.3 mm wires and Ф 0.1 mm
wires until fresh metal was exposed throughout the entire surface.
The rotational speed was fixed at 11000 r/min by referring to in-
dustrial processing in order to avoid the effect of rotational speed
on the bonding strength. The aluminum sheets were just de-
gressed by acetone to remove the dust particles and greases
without any surface mechanical preparation which would destroy
the flatness of the soft and thin aluminum sheets and was bad for
the CRB.
2.3. Cold roll bonding process
The heads of the aluminum sheet and the steel sheet were
riveted after surface preparation to ensure symmetrical non-alu-
minum region width (10 mm) on both sides of the composite sheet.
The sheets were then cold roll bonded at the thickness reduction of
20–55% without lubrication, using a four-high laboratory rolling
mill with a loading capacity of 2000 kN. Diameters of the backup
roll and the work roll were 350 mm and 170 mm, respectively, and
Table 1
Mechanical properties and chemical compositions of the aluminum strip and steel sheet.
Materials Temper Yield strength, MPa
Al O 33
Steel O 268
the roll width was 500 mm. The rolling speed was 3 m/min.
2.4. Peeling test
Peeling tests were carried out to evaluate the bonding strength
of the composite sheets in this paper. Samples with a length of
150 mm and a width of 5 mm were cut from the cold roll bonded
sheets parallel to the rolling direction. According to ASTM-D3167-
10, the peeling tests were performed using a WDW-1 tensile
testing machine. As shown in Fig. 1(a), the peeling speed v was
25 mm/min, the peeling force F was shown in Fig. 1(b), and the
average peel strength was determined using the following Eq. (1):
Average peeling force (N)
Average peel strength =
Sample width (mm) (1)
2.5. Surface and interface morphology observation and nano-hard-
ness test
Roughness of the steel sheet surface was measured by tektak
150 surface profile instrument. Nano-indentation tester was em-
ployed to detect the nano-hardness of the samples. The steel
surface and the composite interface morphologies were observed
by Zeiss Auriga scanning electron microscope (SEM). The mor-
phology of the aluminum layer of the samples after peeling were
examined by Leica S440i scanning electron microscope (SEM) and
the chemical composition was detected by energy dispersive
spectrometer (EDS).
3. Results
3.1. The interfacial bonding of the CRBed aluminum–steel composite
sheet under surface preparation by scratch brushing
Fig. 2 displayed the interface morphologies of the cold roll-
bonded aluminum–steel composite sheets under the condition of
steel surface treated by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires (com-
monly used in industry) with different thickness reductions. A few
cracks were observed on the scratch brushed surface of the steel
sheet, as shown in Fig. 2(a). After CRB, a large number of steel
fragments formed at the aluminum–steel interface. With increas-
ing the reduction, the size of the fragments decreased and the
interspace between them increased (Fig. 2(b)–(d)). In addition, the
rolling pressure increased with an increase of reduction, which
was favor to the combination of fresh aluminum and steel metals
and improved the peel strength.
Fig. 3 showed the back scattered electron (BSD) images and
chemical composition distribution (detected by EDS) of the alu-
minum layer with different CRB reductions after peeling, where
the gray part was steel and the dark gray part was aluminum in
Fig. 3(a)–(c). There were a large number of residual steel fragments
on the aluminum layer after peeling. With the increase of the
thickness reduction, the fragment size reduced and the interspace
between them increased, which was in a good agreement with the
results of Fig. 2. It is indicated that the steel fragments embedded
Tensile strength, MPa Elongation, % Chemical composition, wt%
68 25 99.810Al, 0.020Si, 0.120Fe,
0.003Mn, 0.005Zn, 0.042others
327 44 99.681Fe, 0.004C, 0.209Mn,
0.014Si, 0.005S, 0.019P, 0.068others
 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58
F Composite
sheet
Aluminium
layer
Steel
layer
Fig. 1. Schematic graph of peeling test device (a) and peeling force curve (b).
on the aluminum layer was the broken steel surface layer which
was ruptured from the steel matrix during the CRB.
The nano-hardnesses of the aluminum matrix, steel fragment
and steel matrix near the interface at the reduction of 45% were
shown in Fig. 4. The nano-hardness of the steel fragment was
12.1 GPa, which was significantly higher than that (6.1 GPa) of the
steel matrix, indicating that the steel fragments were the broken
hardened surface layers which were separated from the steel
matrix. Before CRB, the work-hardened surface layer formed dur-
ing the scratch brushing. In the CRB process, the work-hardened
surface layer was broken, and the virgin aluminum and steel were
contacted and bonded together under the rolling pressure. On the
other hand, due to the low plasticity of the work-hardened surface
layer and the large difference of the deformation behavior be-
tween the hardened surface layer and the soft steel matrix, the
hardened surface layer was liable to crack with the steel matrix
during the CRB, even completely separated from the matrix, which
remarkably reduced the bonding strength of the composite sheets.
Therefore, in order to improve the bonding strength of the em-
bedded aluminum–steel composite sheets, surface preparation
Fe Al
Crack
Steel
fragments
10μm
Fig. 2. The interface morphologies with different thickness reductions under the condition of steel surface treated by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires (a) before CRB
(b) reduction 35%; (c) reduction 45%; (d) reduction 55%.
53
which can reduce the surface hardening extent of the steel sheet
should be used for reducing the number of cracks between har-
dened surface layer and steel matrix during the cold roll bonding.
3.2. The effect of surface hardening state of the steel sheet on the
bonding strength of the composite sheet
In order to study the influence of surface hardening state on the
bonding strength of the embedded aluminum–steel composite
sheets, three kinds of surface hardening states of the steel sheet
were obtained by surface mechanical preparations with flap disc
and steel brushes with Ф 0.3 mm wires and Ф 0.1 mm wires,
respectively.
Fig. 5 showed the surface morphologies of the steel sheet after
various surface preparation methods. It is obvious that the surface
deformation state varied after different surface preparation
methods. Compared with the acid pickled surface (Fig. 5(a)), many
plastic deformation layers formed on the steel surface treated by
steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires, where the deformation layer
thickness of the convex part was about 10 μm with some
Fe Al Fe Al Fe
Crack
10μm 10μm 10μm
54 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58

Al
Fe

100μm 100μm

100μm 50μm
Fig. 3. Back scattered electron images of the peeled aluminum layer with different thickness reductions under the condition of steel surface treated by steel brush with Ф
0.3 mm. (a) reduction 35%; (b) reduction 45%; (c) reduction 55%; (d) chemical composition distribution corresponding to the box in (c) obtained by EDS, the red areas for
iron, green areas for aluminum.

microvoids inside and the thickness of the flat part was about
5 μm, as shown in Fig. 5(b). When the steel surface was treated by
steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires, the number of the plastic de-
formation layer on the surface significantly reduced, and the de-
formation layer thickness of the convex part was about 5 μm with
no obvious deformation layer observed in the other regions, as
shown in Fig. 5(c). When the steel surface was treated by flap disc,
no obvious deformation layer was observed on the whole surface
(Fig. 5(d)).
In order to further analyze the surface hardening state obtained
by different surface preparation methods, nano-hardness dis-
tribution near the surface layer was detected, as shown in Fig. 6.
The nano-hardness of the acid pickled surface was basically the
same, about 4.4 GPa. The nano-hardness of the steel surface
treated by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires was remarkably in-
creased to 8.6 GPa with a thick work-hardened surface layer. With
an increase of the distance to the surface, the nano-hardness de-
creased to that of the matrix. Furthermore, the large nano-hard-
ness fluctuation indicated inhomogeneous deformation of the
scratch brushed steel surface. When the steel surface was treated
by steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires, the nano-hardness of the
steel surface was 5.6 GPa and the thickness of the work-hardened
surface layer was about 5 μm. The nano-hardness of the steel
surface treated by flap disc was 4.5 GPa, which was almost the
same to that of the acid pickled surface.
Table 2 showed the EDS analysis result of the oxygen content of

Interface
2
Aluminium
layer

Aluminium Steel

layer layer
1
Steel layer

2μm

Fig. 4. The interface morphology and nano-hardness of the composite sheet by CRB with a reduction of 45% under the condition of steel surface treated by steel brush with Ф
0.3 mm wires.
 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58 55

20μm

Deformation layer 20μm

Deformation layer
20μm

Fig. 7. The peel strength versus thickness reduction curves of the composite sheets
by the different surface preparation methods.
20μm

Fig. 5. Surface morphologies of the steel sheets after different surface preparation
content of the three different mechanical surface preparation
methods (a) acid pickled (b) treated by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires; (c) treated methods were significantly reduced to the same level, indicating
by steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires; (d) treated by flap disc. that there were still many oxides on the acid pickled surface.
From the above results, the steel surface treated by steel brush
with Ф 0.3 mm wires had the highest hardness and thickest work-
hardened surface layer, the steel surface treated by flap dic had the
lowest hardness, while the hardness of the steel surface treated by
steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires fell in between the former two
surface preparation methods.
Fig. 7 illustrated the curves of the peel strength varying with
thickness reduction of the aluminum–steel composite sheet under
different surface preparations of the steel sheet. With an increase of
the thickness reduction, the peel strength of the composite sheet
increased obviously under the same surface preparation. At the
same reduction, the bonding strength of the composite sheet with
the three different mechanical surface preparation methods from
high to low was surface preparations by flap disc, steel brush with
Ф 0.1 mm wires and steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires. From Figs. 6
and 7, after the steel sheet surface prepared by the three different
mechanical surface preparation methods, for the same reduction,
the smaller the hardness of the steel surface was, the higher the
bonding strength was. For example, for the thickness reduction of
25%, the bonding strength of the composite with surface prepara-
tion by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires was 0.9 N/mm due to high
Fig. 6. Nano-hardness distribution near the surface of the steel sheet treated by surface hardening extent, while the bonding strength of the com-
different surface preparation methods. posite sheet with surface preparation by flap disc was the max-
imum of 14.9 N/mm due to low surface hardening extent. It is
Table 2 worth to point out that when the reduction was increased to 35%,
Oxygen content (detected by EDS) of the steel surface under various surface pre- the bonding strength of the composite sheet with surface pre-
paration conditions. paration by flap disc was high enough to initially induce fracture to
the aluminum layer, instead of separating aluminum layer from
Surface preparation method Oxygen content, Ferrum content,
wt% wt%
steel layer. In addition, the steel sheets without any mechanical
surface treatment had the lowest hardness, however, the peel
Acid pickled 6.1 93.9 strength was the lowest because there were some oxides on the
Treated by steel brush with Ф 1.4 98.6 acid pickled surface which can prevent the metal from bonding.
0.3 mm wires
Therefore, surface preparation is needed before the CRB.
Treated by steel brush with Ф 1.6 98.4
0.1 mm wires The interface morphologies and the peeled aluminum surface
Treated by flap disc 1.3 98.7 morphologies of the composite sheet produced by CRB with a
reduction of 25% under different surface preparation methods
were shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. For the surface pre-
the steel surface obtained by different surface treating methods. paration by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires, the surface hard-
From Table 2, even though the steel sheets were acid pickled, the ening extent was high and many work-hardened surface layer
surface still had the highest oxygen content while the oxygen fragments formed at the aluminum–steel interface, in which the
56 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58

Crack

Al Fe

Crack

Mechanical
locking

Fragment 10μm 10μm 10μm

Fig. 8. The interface morphologies of the composite sheet by CRB with a reduction of 25% under different surface preparation methods (a) treated by steel brush with Ф
0.3 mm wires; (b) treated by steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires; (c) treated by flap disc.

fragments were totally separated from the steel matrix, as shown
in Fig. 8(a), therefore, a large number of steel fragments were
observed on the surface of the peeled aluminum layer, as shown in
Fig. 9(a). After the surface preparation by flap disc, the hardening
extent of the steel surface was low and serrated interface formed
in the composite sheet without any surface layer fragment in Fig. 8
(c). In addition, some ditches were observed on the aluminum
layer with a few steel fragments, as shown in Fig. 9(c). For the
surface preparation by steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires, the
hardening extent of the steel surface fell in between the former
two surfaces, and some cracks formed at the interface, in which
some microcracks formed between the hardening layer and the
steel matrix (Fig. 8(b)). The number of hardening layer fragments
on the peeled aluminum layer also fell in the number between in
Fig. 9(a) and (c), as shown in Fig. 9(b).
4. Disscusion
In this paper, three kinds of the steel sheet surface hardening
states of were obtained by different mechanical surface prepara-
tion methods with flap disc and steel circumferential brushes. The
results indicated that the bonding strength of the embedded
aluminum–steel composite sheet was effectively enhanced by re-
ducing the surface hardening extent of the steel sheet.
Several bonding mechanisms for CRB, including film theory,
energy barrier theory, diffusion bonding theory and recrystalliza-
tion theory, were proposed. Due to the low rolling temperature,
film theory is commonly accepted. According to the film theory,
increasing the hardness of metal surface layer facilitates to break
the hardened surface layer during CRB, which is beneficial to the
contacting and bonding of the virgin metals. In this work, how-
ever, it is interesting that increasing the hardness of the steel
surface layer reduced the bond strength of the aluminum–steel
composite sheet, indicating that some other mechanisms may be
responsible for bonding strength of the aluminum–steel compo-
site sheet. The hardened surface layer was liable to crack with the
steel matrix during the CRB, resulting in formation of fragments
separated from the matrix, which reduced the bonding strength of
the composite sheets.
Fig. 10 gave the schematic diagram for the CRB of the em-
bedded aluminum–steel composite sheet. During CRB, the har-
dened steel surface layer generated by surface mechanical pre-
paration was broken into pieces and separated from the steel
matrix, even inducing cracks with the matrix (Fig. 2). Meanwhile,
the soft aluminum layer was squeezed into the gap between the

Ditch

100μm 100μm 100μm

Fig. 9. BSD images of the peeled aluminum surface of the composite sheet by CRB with a reduction of 25% under different surface preparation methods (a) treated by steel
brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires; (b) treated by steel brushing with Ф 0.1 mm wires; (c) treated by flap disc.
 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58 57

Table 3
Aluminium layer Area ratio of work-hardened surface layer separated from steel matrix and initial
area ratio of brittle work-hardened surface layer of the steel sheets under various
surface preparation conditions.

Surface prepara- Thickness Area ratio of har- Initial area ratio

tion method reduction dened surface layer of brittle har-
work-hardened surface layer separated from dened surface
Steel layer steel matrix layer

r w w0
Extruded aluminium Aluminium layer
Treated by steel 20% 29% 36%
brush with Ф 25% 27% 37%
0.3 mm wires 35% 24% 37%
Crack Mechanical lock 45% 20% 36%
Crack Steel layer 55% 17% 37%
Treated by steel 20% 18% 22%
brush with Ф 25% 17% 22%
Bonds Aluminium layer 0.1 mm wires 35% 12% 20%
45% 11% 20%
55% 9.0% 20%
Treated by flap disc 20% 2.7% 3.8%
Crack Crack Mechanical lock 25% 3.1% 4.1%
Steel layer 35% 2.8% 4.3%

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of CRB of the aluminum–steel composite sheet.

cracks, contacted and bonded with the virgin steel, which gave rise
to the aluminum–steel interface, as shown in Fig. 10(c).
In order to further analyze the effect of surface hardening state
on the bonding strength of the composite sheet, the quantitative
analysis of the brittle hardened surface layer (the work-hardened
surface layer that cracked with the steel matrix during rolling)
ratio of the steel sheet was conducted in this work.
It was assumed that brittle fracture mainly occurred in the
hardened steel surface layer without any elastic deformation
during the CRB, thus the brittle hardened surface layer area was
almost the same before and after CRB, as shown in the following
Eq. (2).
S0 w0 = Sw
where S0 is the initial surface area of the steel sheet, w0 is the
initial area ratio of the brittle hardened surface layer, S is the total
interface area of the composite sheet, w is the area ratio of har-
dened surface layer separated from the steel matrix after CRB,
which can be determined by measuring the area ratio of steel
fragment left on the aluminum layer after peeling test. According
to the law of volume constancy, Eq. (3) can be obtained as follow.
S0
S=
1−r
where r is the thickness reduction ratio. Combining Eqs. (2) and
(3), initial ratio of the brittle hardened surface layer can be de-
termined by the following Eq. (4)
w
w0 =
(1 − r )
hardened surface layer separated from the steel matrix, which can
improve the bonding strength of the composite sheet effectively.
Apart from surface hardening state, surface morphology also
has an influence on the bonding strength of the composite sheet.
Fig. 11 displayed the various surface morphologies of the steel
surface treated by the different surface preparation methods. A
few lamellar bulges formed on the scratch brushed surface of the
steel sheet, while a lot of stripes were generated on the flap disc
brushed surface of the steel sheet. Fig. 12 showed the surface
profile and roughness of the steel surface treated by the different
surface preparation methods. The profile and roughness of the
steel surface treated by steel brushes with different wire diameters
were basically the same, Ra ¼1.9–2.0 μm, while the roughness of
(2) the steel surface treated by flap disc was 2.7 μm, with higher
surface undulation density.
Although the surface profile and roughness of the steel surface
treated by steel brushes with Ф 0.3 mm wires and Ф 0.1 mm wires
were basically the same, the surface hardening extent of the for-
mer was higher than that of the latter, and more cracks between
the hardened layer and the steel matrix formed during CRB, which
resulted in the low bonding strength. It is indicated that the sur-
face hardening state is one of the major factors for affecting the
bonding strength. The surface preparation by flap disc maintained
the low hardness of the steel surface as well as high density of
(3)
surface undulation, and thus increased the mechanical lock effect
between steel layer and aluminum layer, which facilitated to im-
prove the bonding strength of the composite sheet.
5. Conclusion
(4)

The calculated initial area ratio w0 of the brittle hardened

surface layer and the measured area ratio w of hardened surface
layer separated from the steel matrix under different surface
preparation methods were listed in Table 3. From Table 3, with an
increase of reduction, the w decreased while the w0 was basically
the same. When the steel surfaces were mechanically treated by
steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires, steel brush with Ф 0.1 mm wires
and flap disc, initial area ratios w0 of the brittle hardened surface
layer were 37%, 21% and 4%, respectively. From the above results, it
is indicated that increasing reduction or selecting a suitable sur-
face preparation method to decrease the initial area ratio of the
brittle hardened surface layer, can reduce the area ratio of
1. The nano-hardnesses of the steel surface treated by steel brushes
with Ф 0.3 mm wires and Ф 0.1 mm wires were 8.6 GPa and
5.7 GPa, respectively, which were higher than that (4.4 GPa) of
the steel matrix. The nano-hardness of the steel surface treated
by flap disc was close to that of the steel matrix, about 4.5 GPa.
2. For the surface preparation by steel brush, numerous cracks
formed at the interface between the work-hardened steel sur-
face layer and its matrix during CRB, resulting in a large number
of fragments, which was the main reason for the reduction of
the bond strength of the composite sheet. The surface hard-
ening extent of the steel sheet treated by flap disc was low and
58 C. Wang et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 652 (2016) 51–58

50μm 50μm

50μm 50μm
Fig. 11. Morphologies of the steel surface treated by different surface preparation methods (a) Acid pickled (b) Treated by steel brush with Ф 0.3 mm wires; (c) Treated by
steel brushing with Ф 0.1 mm wires; (d) Treated by flap disc.

improve the interfacial bonding strength of the embedded alu-

minum–steel composite sheet.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank the support from the National

High Technology Research and Development Program (“863”
Program) of China (No. 2013AA031301, No. 2013AA032402), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51104016) and
the fund of the State Key Laboratory of Advanced Technologies for
Comprehensive Utilization of Platinum Metals (No. SKL-SPM-
201204).

References

[1] R. Jamaati, M.R. Toroghinejad, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (2010) 2320–2326.
[2] R. Jamaati, M.R. Toroghinejad, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 20 (2011) 191–197.
Fig. 12. Profile and roughness of steel surface treated by different surface pre-
[3] N. Bay, Met. Constr. 18 (1986) 625–629.
paration methods.
[4] A. Shabani, M.R. Toroghinejad, A. Shafyei, Mater. Des. 40 (2012) 212–220.
[5] H.R. Le, M.P.F. Sutcliffe, P.Z. Wang, Acta Mater. 52 (2004) 911–920.
the number of cracks formed between the work-hardened sur- [6] V.Y. Mehr, M.R. Toroghinejad, A. Rezaeian, Mater. Des. 53 (2014) 174–181.
face layer and its matrix reduced, resulting in few fragments at [7] S.A. Hosseini, M. Hosseini, H.D. Manesh, Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 76–81.
[8] M. Eizadjou, H.D. Manesh, Mater. Des. 30 (2009) 4156–4161.
the interface and the higher bond strength of the composite. [9] M. Abbasi, M.R. Toroghinejad, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2010) 560–563.
3. Proper surface mechanical preparation method, which decreases [10] W. Zhang, N. Bay, Weld. J. 76 (1997) 326–330.
the surface hardening extent of the steel sheet and reduces the [11] H.D. Manesh, A.K. Taheri, Mater. Sci. Tech. Lond. 20 (2004) 1064–1068.
[12] L. Li, K. Nagai, F.X. Yin, Sci. Technol. Adv .Mat. 9 (2008) 1–11.
number of cracks between hardened surface layer and steel [13] M. Eizadjou, H.D. Manesh, K. Janghorban, Mater. Des. 29 (2008) 909–913.
matrix during the CRB, can work as an effective method to [14] H.R. Madaah-Hosseini, A.H. Kokabi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 335 (2002) 186–190.