Experimental Study on Underwater Explosive Weld Interface and Mechanical Properties of Carbon Steel–Stainless Steel

Abstract

ABSTRACT

To investigate the influence of the thickness of the intermediate water layer and the thickness of the explosive on the quality of underwater explosive welding of Q235R carbon steel 304 stainless steel, underwater explosive welding experiments were designed under different process conditions. The bonding speed and bonding pressure of the base composite plate during the welding process were tested, and the waveform and mechanical properties of the bonding interface of the composite plate were tested. The experimental results show that its tensile strength is between 444.2750 and 464.7724 MPa, with an average tensile strength of 454.5337 MPa, which is 7%–13% higher than the composite plate prepared by the hot rolling process. When the thickness of the explosive layer and the intermediate water layer is 10 mm and the bonding pressure is 865 MPa, the welding is successful. When the thickness of the explosive layer is 20 mm, as the thickness of the intermediate water layer increases from 10 to 30 mm, the bonding pressure decreases from 8668 to 3245 MPa, and the welding is successful. However, when the thickness of the intermediate layer was further increased to 40 mm, the welding failed and the bonding pressure dropped to 1084 MPa. Due to the fixed thickness of the intermediate water layer, increasing the thickness of the explosive layer will weaken the mechanical strength of the composite plate. Our research provides theoretical support for the preparation of composite metals by explosive welding, which is of great significance for promoting the development of explosive welding technology.

Introduction

Explosive welding utilizes the explosion energy as the power to push two metals into high-speed collision, thereby combining them together [1]. It can weld metals of different properties, such as copper–aluminum, aluminum–titanium, and so on [2]. The weldability window was calculated to verify the weldability of Zr-based BMG/Al, and the effects of varied-thickness explosives on the welded interface were discussed based on the kinetic energy loss theories, and thus have been widely used in various industries [3]. A prediction model addressing the expansion velocity of the inner pipe during underwater explosive welding was proposed, in which the detonation properties of the explosive charge and the mechanical properties of metal pipes were considered simultaneously. [4]. The microstructural characteristics of the explosive-welded (EXWed) niobium–steel interface were systematically investigated by various characterizations and a two-step numerical simulation [5]. Currently, underwater explosive welding is one of the most popular welding processes [6]. The welding devices are placed underwater to achieve welding and compositing using water instead of air as the detonation propagation medium [7]. There are three types of underwater explosive welding layouts: underwater immersion with inclination angles proposed by the Kumamoto University in Japan [8], the upper opening nonimmersion layout reported by the Dalian University of Technology, China [9], and the colloidal coating layout of University of Science and Technology of China [10]. At the same time, some authors have also conducted much research on the changes in the performance and structure of explosive welding. Gao et al. observed the fracture patterns exhibited by the samples before and after IRW heat treatment [11]. The main fracture mode observed in the study was brittle fracture without heat treatment, and ductile fracture became the main fracture mode after heat treatment. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China. Yang revealed the diversity of grain structures near the Ta/Fe interface by EBSD analysis, such as the formation of curved and elongated grains in the Ta matrix, and the formation of small equiaxed and columnar grains in the Fe matrix [19]. Jandaghi's [12] analysis of the SS321/AA1050 interface revealed that an increase in the PWHT temperature results in diffusion toward the reaction layer, transforming the unevenly Al-rich and Fe-rich phases into a uniform Al85(Fe, Cr, Ni)15 solid solution. The increase in the fraction of this phase made the reaction layer more brittle. At the AA1050/AA5083 interface, PWHT at higher temperatures caused a significant hardness decline extending further from the interface in samples with higher SD. Khalaj [13] introduced the microstructure evolution and mechanical properties of the EXWed steel–bronze bilayer composite sheets before and after rolling are presented. Dissimilar welding was performed at two stand-off distances with various charge thicknesses. The welded bilayer sheets were rolled at ambient temperature and 300°C with a 33.3% thickness reduction.

The faster shock wave propagation, the higher peak pressure in the water medium, and the presence of water can avoid the ablation problems caused by the direction action of high-temperature products on the surface of the thin plate [14], which make it possible to achieve thin metal clads [15]. Underwater explosion welding can also reduce noise and environmental impact. As shown in Figure 1, the noise from blasting under the water surface is much smaller than those on and above the water surface (Figure 1).

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

The advantage of underwater explosion welding lies in using water as a medium for transmitting explosion energy so that thin composite plates can also be uniformly accelerated. At the same time, due to the incompressibility of water relative to air, the explosion energy does not significantly increase the water temperature but is mostly used to drive the movement of water. Therefore, the composite plate can achieve high speed in a short acceleration zone, welding can be achieved, and the metal sheet will not be eroded by the high temperature generated by the explosion [6]. The water layer plays a role in both transferring energy and protecting metal materials during underwater explosion welding. The thickness of the water layer is particularly important for underwater explosion welding. If the thickness of the water layer is too large, it will result in insufficient energy transfer and affect the welding quality. If the thickness of the water layer is too thin, it does not provide sufficient protection for the metal material and affects the surface quality of the material. However, there are few reports on the influence of water layer thickness on the quality of underwater explosion welding. Therefore, we will investigate the influence of the thickness of the intermediate water layer and the thickness of the explosive on the quality of underwater explosive welding of Q235R carbon steel 304 stainless steel. We have designed underwater explosive welding test plans under different process conditions, tested the transient bonding speed and bonding pressure of the base composite plate during the welding process, and tested the bonding interface and mechanical properties of the successfully welded composite plate.

Based on the above analyses, an experimental device was designed to explore underwater explosive welding [16]. The interface at different positions was analyzed, and the mechanical properties of the obtained composite plates were characterized [17]. Finally, the thicknesses of the water layer and explosive layer were optimized to improve the quality of the obtained composite material and the effect of explosive welding [18].

Experimental Designs

At present, there are two main underwater explosive welding arrangements, the inclined immersion arrangement for high-detonation velocity explosives reported by Kumamoto University, Japan, and the horizontal open arrangement for low-detonation velocity explosives proposed by the Dalian University of Technology in China. Herein, we designed an experimental device showing the advantages of both of them to realize explosive immersion reflection. Specifically, the explosive was packed in a vacuum bag, attached to the steel plate, and completely immersed below the water surface to fully utilize the energy of the explosion in the water.

Experimental Device

Figure 2 shows the experiment device, which includes an adjustable holder made with transparent organic glass and screw rods, the explosive component containing a detonator and the emulsified explosive enclosed in a waterproof bag, the combination component composed of the flyer plate, the base plate, and the support between them, and turret component consisting of a chopping board, a Teflon plate on the chopping board, and the sand on the bottom. The explosive component is fixed on the bottom surface of the upper plate of the bracket, the bottom of the water tank is paved with sand, and the adjustable bracket is placed on the sand. The chopping board with the Teflon plate facing up is placed horizontally on the upper surface of the lower plate of the bracket. The combination component is located on the Teflon plate.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Multiple parameters of the device are adjustable. The explosive layer thickness is controlled by adjusting the amount and shape of the explosive. The water layer thickness is adjusted by adjusting the position of the upper plate using the screw nuts on the adjustable holder. Plate spacing is adjusted by adjusting the thickness of the supports between the plates. Water depth is controlled by the amount of water added into the tank.

In addition, a transient bonding pressure measurement system was installed between the base plate and the flyer plate in the arrangement in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 3, a 0.2 mm thick PVDF piezoelectric sensor with a piezoelectric constant of 33 PC/N and a frequency range of 1 × 10^-3− 1 × 10⁹Hz was placed on the surface of the base plate and connected to a resistor R with a fixed resistance and an oscilloscope with cables. Figure 4 shows the experimental process of underwater explosion welding.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Materials and Experimental Designs

The substrate material for the underwater explosion welding test is Q235R carbon steel, with dimensions of 500 × 100 × 5 mm. The composite material is 304 stainless steel, with dimensions of 500 × 100 1 mm. The tensile and physical parameters of the substrate and composite materials are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1 Material tensile parameter.

Material	Rp0.2/MPa	RM/MPa	Mass fraction A/%
304 Stainless Steel	215	511	43.1
Q235R Carbon Steel	440	598	24.3

Table 2 Material physical parameter.

Material	Densities/(Kg·m−3)	Specific heat/(J·kg−1·K−1)	Thermal conductivity/(W·m−1·K−1)	Speed of sound/(m·s−1)	Melting point/K	Vickers hardness/Mpa	Thermal diffusivity/(m2·s−1)
304 Stainless Steel	7900	481	16	5920	1420	1765	4.13 × 10−5
Q235R Carbon Steel	7850	480	48	4600	1450	1500	1.27 × 10−5

Q235R carbon steel and 304 stainless steel were used as the base plate and flyer plate, respectively, for the underwater explosive welding experiments. The emulsion explosive used for the third category coal mines for the explosion and the detonation velocity was measured to be 5100 m/s. No. 8 instantaneous electric detonator was used to detonate the charge. The components were assembled as shown in Figure 2. The water layer between the explosive and the flyer plate was 30 mm thick, the spacing between the flyer plate and the base plate was 1 mm, the thickness of the water layer on the top of the explosive was 300 mm, and the thickness of the yellow sand laid on the bottom of the water tank was 20 mm. After all components were assembled, the explosive welding experiment was initiated. Based on the experiment results, the transient bonding pressure measurement method was set.

All the energy for explosive welding comes from the energy of the explosive. With a fixed area, the thickness of the explosive layer determines the total energy. For underwater explosive welding, the energy generated by the explosive blasting needs to be transferred to the flyer plate through the middle water layer. Therefore, the thickness of the middle water layer determines the remaining energy as the total energy is transferred to the surface of the flyer plate. Therefore, using the thickness of the explosive layer and the thickness of the middle water layer as the variables, six sets of experiments were designed as shown in Table 3, and the transient bonding pressures for each design were measured to study their impacts on the quality of explosive welding of Q235R carbon steel-304 stainless steel.

Table 3 Experimental designs of underwater explosive welding.

No.	Thickness of explosive (mm)	Spacing (mm)	Middle water layer (mm)	Top water layer (mm)
1	10	2	10	25
2	20	2	10	25
3	20	2	20	25
4	20	2	30	25
5	20	2	40	25
6	30	2	40	25

Experiment Results and Analysis

Appearance Characteristics of Welded Material

After explosive welding, the bonding degree was examined first from the appearance of the composite material. Figure 5 shows the photos of a welded plate from the top view and side views. The photos from side views suggest that the plate is well bonded overall, except for small unbounded parts at the detonation site and the surrounding support points. In the vertical direction to the detonation direction on the stainless steel surface, two obvious indentations appear at 60–65 mm (1# indentation) and 75–80 mm (2# indentation) from the detonation side.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Bonding Characteristics of Weld Interface

In general, a successful explosive welding results in an interface with a regular wavy appearance, and these waves are also called interface waves. There are three interfacial bonding types in explosive welding: continuous molten layer bonding (failure bonding), wavy bonding, and flat bonding. Continuous molten layer bonding refers to the phenomenon of a large area of metal melting on the interface. The composite metals obtained by this type of bonding cannot be used in practical applications. Wavy bonding includes large wave bonding, small wave bonding, and microwave bonding. Large wave bonding results in a wide transition area with a continuous and regular wavy appearance on the weld interface. The composite materials formed by this bonding method usually contain many voids on the edge and some gap defects (not fully bonded) at the bonding interface, showing poor mechanical strength. Yet the composite materials can still meet the standards for engineering applications. The wave amplitude and length of the small wave bonding interface are smaller than those of the large wave bonding interface, and there are fewer voids and gap defects at the weld interface, which makes the bonding between the base plate and the flyer plate stronger. The obtained composite materials can meet the engineering application standards very well. The microwave bonding interface shows the smallest wave amplitude and length. The base plate is in direct contact with the flyer plate, and they are bonded without a transition area formed. The bonding strength of the interface is the strongest. Therefore, microwave bonding is the most optimal bonding method. In general, an explosive bonding interface is a combination of large wave bonding, small wave bonding, microwave bonding, and wave bonding with front and rear vortices.

Four specimens, #5, #6, #7, and #8, were taken from a composite plate sample with the size of 25 × 6 × 8 mm, at positions as shown in Figure 6. The surfaces of all specimens were sanded parallel to the detonation direction sequentially with 400#, 600#, 800#, 1000#, 1200#, 1500#, and 2000# water-grinding abrasive papers. When scratches appeared in the same direction as the sanding direction, the specimen was washed with water and sanded with the next sandpaper in the direction perpendicular to the scratches. Water was continuously added to the surface of the abrasive paper during sanding. The scratches on the surface gradually became lighter until the 2000# sandpaper was used, and the scratches were eventually parallel to the sanding direction. The specimens were then subjected to polishing on a PG-2C polishing machine using abrasive pastes with particle sizes of 3.5, 1.5, and 0.5 until the surfaces became bright and the scratches disappeared. The sectional surfaces were then examined under an ultra-depth microscope.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

The observation of the appearance of specimen #5 (Figure 7) reveals that there is an unbonded part of 4–5 mm at the detonation point, and the remaining is well bonded with no delamination or defects. There is no breakage under the two indentations, and thus the overall corrosion resistance will not be affected. The base plate under the indentations is deformed. The large interface waves are observed near the two indentations, and the rest of the interface is dominated by microwave and flat bonding. Further microscopic examination shows that the plates are well combined in this specimen except for a part of 4–5 mm from the detonation side. The microwave-shaped interface quickly appears and gradually transits to a flat interface. Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz. Except for the unbonded part, the bonding interface is clear and free of impurity accumulations, bubbles, and delamination. The combination failure at the detonation side is mainly caused by unstable detonation and insufficient shock wave pressure in the early stage of blasting. The bonding is not only affected by the flying speed under the shock wave impact but also by the stretching effect on the flyer plate. The combined action leads to poor bonding in the initial part of the composite plate. It can be solved by appropriately increasing the length of the explosive layer to ensure that the shock wave is already in a stable state before reaching the flyer plate. Appropriately increasing the length of the flyer to move the detonation site out of the base plate can ensure the shock wave hits, deforms, and stretches the flyer plate first, which provides stable impact at the jointing position with the base plate.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

The microscopic examination of specimen #6 suggests that the bonding interface is smooth and stable with microwave or flat bonding and the plates are well combined in this area.

The microscopic analysis of specimen #7 reveals that both flyer and base plates are deformed under the indentation with local large interface waves on both sides, as well as a stoma with a diameter of ~150 μm. A stoma of such size usually has little effect on the strength of the material. Since we aimed at combining thin plates, the stoma problem should be eliminated as much as possible. This kind of stoma usually appears with large interface waves because the significant deformation of the interface prevents the smooth discharge of air. It can be solved by similar measures as described above. The detonation velocity of the emulsion explosive is measured to be 5100 m/s, which is relatively high. The explosives with lower detonation velocities may be more suitable for the process.

In general, excessive uneven impacts cause the formation of large interface waves. The dent of the base plate under the indentation indicates that the surface stretch is not only caused by tensile deformation but also by the extrusions of both the base plate and flyer plate under strong shock waves. Such deformations are probably attributed to the extremely large amount of explosives. To ensure the stability of blasting, the thickness of the explosive layer was set to 25 mm. In addition to the stable area, extremely strong impact forces deform the flyer plate in the force-concentrated area, which further dents the base plate. Another problem is that the spacing between the explosive layer and the flyer plate becomes smaller. The spacing during the test was set to 30 mm. Since the impact force is affected by the thickness of the middle water layer, increasing the thickness of the water layer can effectively reduce the impact force. A thicker water layer can also reduce the concentration of impact force during the detonation process, and the detonation force will act more uniformly on the flyer plate, which further prevents deep indentations and large interface waves.

The examination of specimen #8 under the microscope reveals local large interface waves on both sides of the indentation, and local good combinations at the rear side.

Based on the microscopic examination of the bonding interface, the following conclusions can be drawn. Overall, the steels are well bonded, and the bonding interface is mainly in the microwave and flat forms, showing excellent bonding characteristics. No defects, such as impurity aggregations and delamination, are found at the interface, except for a stoma with a diameter of ~150 μm that does not affect the overall material performance. Poor bonding is observed locally at the detonation site and rear side, which is a common phenomenon in explosive welding and can be removed during production. The flyer and base plates are squeezed and deformed under the indentations, which needs to be improved in subsequent tests.

Tensile Strength of Welded Piece

The obtained 304/Q235R composite steel plate was tested for mechanical properties to evaluate if it meets the related national standards upon strength, toughness, and bending resistance. The tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation can be obtained from the tensile stress–strain curve of the test piece drawn with the experimental data. Tensile strength is one of the most critical parameters for the quality evaluation of a material. If the measured tensile strength is larger than the calculated value, the composite material is considered in compliance with the standard, and vice versa.

The tensile testing was conducted following “Clad steel plates. Mechanical and technological test” (GB/T6396-2008) and “Metallic Materials—Tensile Testing—Part 1 Method of Test at Room Temperature” (GB/T228.1-2010). The composite plate was subjected to shear tensile testing along the detonation direction using a wire electrical discharge machine. To ensure the accuracy of test results, two specimens were tested. Due to the limited area of the composite plate, it is impossible to prepare the specimens with standard sizes. Nonstandard test pieces were then prepared with the cross-sectional sizes of 4 × 6 mm and 14.5 × 6 mm, respectively, as shown in Figure 8.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

The widths of the two specimens were 4 and 14.5 mm, and their tensile strengths are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The measured tensile strengths were 444.2750 and 464.7724 MPa. The average tensile strength is determined to be 454.5337 MPa, higher than those of the materials (Q235R base plate with tensile strength of 434 MPa) of the same specifications supplied in the market. Comparing the tensile strength of the initial Q235R base plate (434 MPa), the average tensile strength of the 304/Q235R composite plate reached 454.5337 MPa, which is an improvement of about 4.73% (Figure 9).

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

In Table 4, Lo is the original sample length refers to the length of the sample before it is subjected to tension; ao is the sample width refers to the width of the central tensile part of the sample; bo is the sample thickness refers to the thickness of the sample before applying the test force; Rm is the stress obtained by dividing Fm by the original cross-sectional area (So) of the specimen is called the tensile strength (Rm). The maximum ability of metal materials to resist damage under tension; Fm is the maximum force that the specimen can withstand when it is pulled apart (Table 5).

Table 4 Tensile strengths of test pieces.

No.	Original gauge length Lo (mm)	Specimen width bo (mm)	Specimen thickness ao (mm)	Tensile strength Rm (MPa)	Maximum force Fm (N)
1	160	4	6	444.2750	10,662.5996
2	160	14.5	6	464.7724	40,435.1992

Table 5 Comparison of the tensile strengths of test pieces.

No.	1	2
Test parameter	4 × 6 mm	14.5 × 6 mm	Average
Tensile strength (MPa)	444.2750	464.7724	454.5337

Transient Bonding Pressure

To improve the explosive welding effect, a transient detection system was installed in the original underwater explosive welding device to measure the bonding pressure at the moment of explosion. The explosive welding with experimental designs 1–4 all successfully bonded the steels, while experiment designs 5 and 6 failed. The composite plates obtained from designs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are denoted as 1^#, 2^#, 3^#, and 4^# composite plates, respectively, and their interface waves and mechanical properties are investigated.

Bonding Interface

The composite plates were sectioned, sanded, polished, and examined for their interface waves using a metallographic microscope. Figure 10 shows the interface waves and Figure 11 presents the wavelengths and amplitudes.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

As can be seen, the bonding interface waves of the four composite plates are all sinusoidal. The interfaces of 1^#, 2^#, and 3^# plates are microwave bonding, and that of 4^# clad plate belongs to small wave bonding. The comparison of the interfaces of 1^# and 2^# plates suggests that, as the thickness of the middle water layer is fixed at 10 mm, increasing the thickness of the explosive layer barely affects the waveform of the bonding interface. The comparison of the interfaces of 2^#, 3^#, and 4^# plates reveals that, with the explosive layer thickness fixed at 20 mm, the interface wavelength and amplitude gradually increase with the increase of the thickness of the middle water layer and the bonding quality becomes poorer.

Mechanical Properties

The tensile strength of the base plate, Q235R carbon steel, is 370–460 MPa. As can be seen from Figure 12, the tensile strengths of all four composite plates are better than that of the base plate and meet the requirements for engineering applications. The comparison of tensile strengths of 1^# and 2^# composite plates indicates that increasing the thickness of the explosive layer weakens the tensile strength of the composite, as the thickness of the middle water layer is fixed at 10 mm. It is possibly because excessive explosive energies can severely melt the bonding interface, leading to poor bonding. It can be concluded by comparing the mechanical properties of 2^#, 3^#, and 4^# composite plates that, at the explosive layer thickness of 20 mm, the tensile strength gradually becomes weaker with the increase of the thickness of the middle water layer.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Interfacial Bonding Pressure

Figure 13 shows the measured bonding pressures for experimental designs 1–6. As can be seen, when the thicknesses of the explosive layer and middle water layer are both 10 mm, bonding can be achieved with the bonding pressure of 865 MPa (design 1). As the explosive layer thickness of 20 mm, the bonding pressure decreased from 8668 to 3245 MPa as the middle water layer thickness increased from 10 to 30 mm, and the welding was still successful (designs 2–4). Yet the welding failed as the middle water layer thickness further increased to 40 mm, at which the bonding pressure dropped to 1084 MPa (design 5). At this time, even if the thickness of the explosive layer was increased to achieve the bonding pressure of 3484 MPa (higher than that of design 4), the welding still failed (design 6). These results indicate that underwater explosive welding must not only meet impact pressure requirements but also impact speed and temperature requirements. Extremely thick middle water layers slow the impact and lower the temperature, resulting in welding failures.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Conclusions

• 1.

  Carbon steel–stainless steel composite plates were prepared by underwater explosion welding. Their tensile strength is between 444.2750 and 464.7724 MPa, with an average tensile strength of 454.5337 MPa, which is 7%–13% higher than that of the composite plates prepared by the hot rolling process.

• 2.

  At a thickness of 10 mm for both the explosive layer and the intermediate water layer, the bonding pressure was 865 MPa and the weld was successful. When the thickness of the explosive layer was 20 mm, the bonding pressure decreased from 8668 to 3245 MPa as the thickness of the intermediate water layer increased from 10 to 30 mm, and the weld was successful. However, when the thickness of the interlayer was further increased to 40 mm, the weld failed and the bonding pressure decreased to 1084 MPa.

• 3.

  As the thickness of the middle water layer is fixed, increasing the thickness of the explosive layer weakens the mechanical strength of the composite plate because excessive explosive energies melt the bonding interface and reduce the bonding strength. In all, the underwater explosive welding experimental device and experimental design can combine Q235R carbon steel and 304 stainless steel together well under optimal conditions.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Anhui Key Research and Development Plan Project (Grant 2022a05020021).

References

Z. Zhang, P. Zhu, and S. Zhou, “Research and Development of Laminated Metal Composite and Electrode Material[J],” Hot Working Technology 43, no. 18 (2014): 21–25.

S. Zhou, T. Wang, and L. Sun, “Research Status of Metal Laminar Composite[J],” Hot Working Technology. 45, no. 10 (2016): 15–20.

R. Chen, “The Research Progress of Explosive Composite[J],” Coal Mine Blasting, 112, no. 4 (2015): 684–693.

M. Lin, J. Liao, B. Xue, D. Xiao, J. Li, and J. Ling, “Expansion Velocity of Metal Pipe in Underwater Explosive Welding,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 319 (2023): [eLocator: 118071].

J. Xu, H. Ma, M. Yang, et al., “Experimental and Numerical Investigations on the Microstructural Features and Mechanical Properties of Explosive Welded Niobium‐Steel Interface,” Materials Design 218 (2022): [eLocator: 110716].

M. Lin, J. Li, J. Zhou, D. Xiao, J. Wu, and B. Xue, “Study on Welding Parameters and Interface of Aluminum/Steel Composite Pipe Using Underwater Explosive Welding,” Welding in the World 68 (2024): 3019–3032.

K. Pradeep, K. Shota, and I. Kazuhiro, “Cladding of a Crack‐Free W Plate on Cu Plates Using Explosive Welding at Higher Collision Velocity With Lower Collision Angle[J],” Results in Materials 5 (2020): 1–7.

Satyanarayan, A. Mori, M. Nishi, and K. Hokamoto, “Underwater Shock Wave Weldability Window for Sn‐Cu Plates,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 267 (2019): 152–158.

H. M Ahasan, K. Hiroki, and U. Ryota, “Cladding of Titanium and Magnesium Alloy Plates Using Energy‐Controlled Underwater Three Layer Explosive Welding [J],” Materials Processing Technology 217 (2015): 310–316.

I. A. Bataev, D. V. Lazurenko, S. Tanaka, et al., “High Cooling Rates and Metastable Phases at the Interfaces of Explosively Welded Materials,” Acta Materialia 135 (2017): 277–289.

K. Gao, Y. Liu, J. Gong, et al., “Effect of Post‐Weld Heat Treatment on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Induction Roll Welded Joint for A283GRC Steel and 5052 Aluminum Alloy,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 212 (2024): [eLocator: 105337].

M. R. Jandaghi, H. Pouraliakbar, J. Moverare, V. Fallah, and G. Khalaj, “Design of Explosively Welded Fe–Al Multilayer Laminated Composite Pipes: A Critical Microscopy Analysis of Stand‐Off Distance and Post‐Weld Heat Treatment Effects on Interface Properties,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology 33 (2024): 2645–2660.

G. Khalaj, M. Moradi, and E. Asadian, “Exploring the Impact of Rolling Temperature on Interface Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steel–Bronze Explosive Welded Bilayer Composite Sheets,” Welding in the World 67, no. 6 (2023): 1411–1425.

W. Sun, Z. Jia, Z. Wang, P. Qiao, and X. Li, “Effect of Materials Hardness on Interfacial Feature of Underwater Explosive Welded Joint[J],” Transactions of the China Welding Institution 37, no. 11 (2016a): 63–66.

W. Sun, X. Li, and H. Yan, “Underwater Explosive Welding of Tool Steel[J],” Explosion and Shock Waves 36, no. 1 (2016b): 107–112.

W. Sun, X. Li, H. Yan, and K. Liu, “An Underwater Explosive Welding of Niti Alloy/Copper Foil[J],” Transactions of the China Welding Institution, 33, no. 10 (2012): 63–66.

W. Sun, X. Li, H. Yan, and X. Wang, “An Alternative Thin‐Plate Welding Technology Using Underwater Shock Wave[J],” Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 26 (2012b): 1733–1743.

M. Yang, H. Ma, Z. Shen, Z. Huang, Q. Tian, and J. Tian, “Dissiilar Material Welding of Tantalum Foil and Q235 Steel Plate Using Improved Explosive Welding Technique [J],” Materials and Design, Materials and Design 186 (2020): 1–12.

M. Yang and J. Wang, “Microstructure and Mechanical Property of Bonding Zones Between Ta Foil and Steel Plate Fabricated by Explosive Welding,” Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 33 (2023): 2417–2427.