Processing math: 83%
Research article

Research of joining the SiC and Cu combination by use of SnTi solder filled with SiC nanoparticles and with active ultrasound assistance

  • Received: 22 August 2024 Revised: 08 October 2024 Accepted: 11 October 2024 Published: 28 October 2024
  • The aim of this study was to characterize a Sn-Ti solder alloy containing 6 wt.% SiC nanoparticles and evaluate its use for direct soldering of SiC ceramics to a copper (Cu) substrate. Soldering was performed with direct ultrasound activation. The average tensile strength of the solder alloy was 17.1 MPa. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) analysis revealed an apparent transition at 234 ℃, corresponding to a eutectic reaction within the Sn-Ti binary system, indicating structural changes in the solder. The solder matrix consisted primarily of pure tin, while titanium combined with SiC nanoparticles to form a TiC phase. The existence of this phase was confirmed by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the solder. The bond at the interface between the SiC ceramic substrate and the solder was formed through diffusion and chemical reactions. The XRD analysis of the fractured surface from the SiC side confirmed the formation of phases such as TiC, Ti2Sn, CTi2, CuSn, SiC, and Cu6Sn5; the TiC and CTi2 phases resulted from the interaction of active Ti in the solder with the SiC ceramic surface. The bond at the Cu substrate interface formed due to the high solubility of tin in the solder and the formation of probable CuSnTi and CuSnTi35 phases, along with a mixture of Sn + η Cu6Sn5 solid solution. The average shear strength of the SiC/Cu joint, fabricated using SnTi3 solder with 6 wt.% SiC nanoparticles, was 21.5 MPa.

    Citation: Tomas Melus, Roman Kolenak, Jaromir Drapala, Mikulas Sloboda, Peter Gogola, Matej Pasak. Research of joining the SiC and Cu combination by use of SnTi solder filled with SiC nanoparticles and with active ultrasound assistance[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(5): 1013-1034. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024048

    Related Papers:

    [1] Meng Zhao . The longtime behavior of the model with nonlocal diffusion and free boundaries in online social networks. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(3): 1143-1160. doi: 10.3934/era.2020063
    [2] Xiuli Xu, Lian Yang . Global well-posedness of the 3D nonlinearly damped Boussinesq magneto-micropolar system without heat diffusion. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(4): 2285-2294. doi: 10.3934/era.2025100
    [3] Wei-Xi Li, Rui Xu . Well-posedness in Sobolev spaces of the two-dimensional MHD boundary layer equations without viscosity. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 4243-4255. doi: 10.3934/era.2021082
    [4] Shan Jiang, Li Liang, Meiling Sun, Fang Su . Uniform high-order convergence of multiscale finite element computation on a graded recursion for singular perturbation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 935-949. doi: 10.3934/era.2020049
    [5] Ting-Ying Chang, Yihong Du . Long-time dynamics of an epidemic model with nonlocal diffusion and free boundaries. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 289-313. doi: 10.3934/era.2022016
    [6] Long Fan, Cheng-Jie Liu, Lizhi Ruan . Local well-posedness of solutions to the boundary layer equations for compressible two-fluid flow. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 4009-4050. doi: 10.3934/era.2021070
    [7] Yaojun Ye, Qianqian Zhu . Existence and nonexistence of global solutions for logarithmic hyperbolic equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(3): 1035-1051. doi: 10.3934/era.2022054
    [8] Xiaolei Dong . Well-posedness of the MHD boundary layer equations with small initial data in Sobolev space. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(12): 6618-6640. doi: 10.3934/era.2024309
    [9] Yijun Chen, Yaning Xie . A kernel-free boundary integral method for reaction-diffusion equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 556-581. doi: 10.3934/era.2025026
    [10] Léo Girardin, Danielle Hilhorst . Spatial segregation limit of traveling wave solutions for a fully nonlinear strongly coupled competitive system. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(5): 1748-1773. doi: 10.3934/era.2022088
  • The aim of this study was to characterize a Sn-Ti solder alloy containing 6 wt.% SiC nanoparticles and evaluate its use for direct soldering of SiC ceramics to a copper (Cu) substrate. Soldering was performed with direct ultrasound activation. The average tensile strength of the solder alloy was 17.1 MPa. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) analysis revealed an apparent transition at 234 ℃, corresponding to a eutectic reaction within the Sn-Ti binary system, indicating structural changes in the solder. The solder matrix consisted primarily of pure tin, while titanium combined with SiC nanoparticles to form a TiC phase. The existence of this phase was confirmed by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the solder. The bond at the interface between the SiC ceramic substrate and the solder was formed through diffusion and chemical reactions. The XRD analysis of the fractured surface from the SiC side confirmed the formation of phases such as TiC, Ti2Sn, CTi2, CuSn, SiC, and Cu6Sn5; the TiC and CTi2 phases resulted from the interaction of active Ti in the solder with the SiC ceramic surface. The bond at the Cu substrate interface formed due to the high solubility of tin in the solder and the formation of probable CuSnTi and CuSnTi35 phases, along with a mixture of Sn + η Cu6Sn5 solid solution. The average shear strength of the SiC/Cu joint, fabricated using SnTi3 solder with 6 wt.% SiC nanoparticles, was 21.5 MPa.



    We consider the following nonlinear parabolic system with damping and diffusion:

    {ψt=(σα)ψσθx+αψxx,θt=(1β)θ+νψx+2ψθx+βθxx,(x,t)QT, (1.1)

    with the following initial and boundary conditions:

    {(ψ,θ)(x,0)=(ψ0,θ0)(x),0x1,ψ(1,t)=ψ(0,t)=ξ(t),(θ,θx)(1,t)=(θ,θx)(0,t),0tT. (1.2)

    Here σ,α,β and ν are constants with α>0, β>0, T>0, and QT=(0,1)×(0,T). The function ξ(t) is measurable in (0,T). System (1.1) was originally proposed by Hsieh in [1] as a substitution for the Rayleigh–Benard equation for the purpose of studying chaos, and we refer the reader to [1,2,3] for the physical background. It is worthy to point out that with a truncation similar to the mode truncation from the Rayleigh–Benard equations used by Lorenz in [4], system (1.1) also leads to the Lorenz system. In spite of it being a much simpler system, it is still as rich as the Lorenz system, and some different routes to chaos, including the break of the time-periodic solution and the break of the switching solution, have been discovered via numerical simulations [5].

    Neglecting the damping and diffusion terms, system (1.1) is simplified as

    (ψθ)t=(0σν2ψ)(ψθ)x.

    It has two characteristic values: λ1=ψ+ψ2σν and λ2=ψψ2σν. Obviously, the system is elliptic if ψ2σν<0, and it is hyperbolic if ψ2σν>0. In particular, it is always strictly hyperbolic if σν<0.

    The mathematical theory of system (1.1) has been extensively investigated in a great number of papers; see [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] and the references therein. However, there is currently no global result with large initial data because it is very difficult to treat the nonlinear term of system (1.1) in analysis. Motivated by this fact, we will first study the well-posedness of global large solutions of the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) for the case in which σν<0, and then we will discuss the limit problem as α0+, as well as the problem on the estimation of the boundary layer thickness. For the case in which σν>0, we leave the investigation in the future.

    The problem of a vanishing viscosity limit is an interesting and challenging problem in many settings, such as in the boundary layer theory (cf.[17]). Indeed, the presence of a boundary layer that accompanies the vanishing viscosity has been fundamental in fluid dynamics since the seminal work by Prandtl in 1904. In this direction, there have been extensive studies with a large number of references that we will not mention here. As important work on the mathematical basis for the laminar boundary layer theory, which is related to the problem considered in this paper, Frid and Shelukhin [18] studied the boundary layer effect of the compressible or incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with cylindrical symmetry and constant coefficients as the shear viscosity μ goes to zero; they proved the existence of a boundary layer of thickness O(μq) with any q(0,1/2). It should be pointed out that, for the incompressible case, the equations are reduced to

    vt=μ(vx+vx)x,wt=μ(wxx+wxx),0<a<x<b,t>0, (1.3)

    where μ is the shear viscosity coefficient and v and w represent the angular velocity and axial velocity, respectively. Recently, this result was investigated in more general settings; see for instance, [19,20,21] and the references therein. In the present paper, we will prove a similar result to that obtained in [18]. Note that every equation in (1.3) is linear. However, equation (1.1)2, with a nonconservative term 2ψθx, is nonlinear. It is the term that leads to new difficulties in analysis, causing all previous results on system (1.1) to be limited to small-sized initial data.

    The boundary layer problem also arises in the theory of hyperbolic systems when parabolic equations with low viscosity are applied as perturbations (see [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]).

    Formally, setting α=0, we obtain the following system:

    {¯ψt=σ¯ψσ¯θx,¯θt=(1β)¯θ+ν¯ψx+2¯ψ¯θx+β¯θxx,(x,t)QT, (1.4)

    with the following initial and boundary conditions:

    {(¯ψ,¯θ)(x,0)=(ψ0,θ0)(x),0x1,(¯θ,¯θx)(1,t)=(¯θ,¯θx)(0,t),0tT. (1.5)

    Before stating our main result, we first list some notations.

    Notations: For 1p,s, kN, and Ω=(0,1), we denote by Lp=Lp(Ω) the usual Lebesgue space on Ω with the norm Lp, and Hk=Wk,2(Ω) and H10=W1,20(Ω) as the usual Sobolev spaces on Ω with the norms Hk and H1, respectively. Ck(Ω) is the space consisting of all continuous derivatives up to order k on Ω, C(¯QT) is the set of all continuous functions on ¯QT, where QT=(0,1)×(0,T) with T>0, and Lp(0,T;B) is the space of all measurable functions from (0,T) to B with the norm Lp(0,T;B), where B=Ls or Hk. We also use the notations (f1,f2,)2B=f2B+g2B+ for functions f1,f2, belonging to the function space B equipped with a norm B, and for L2(QT)=L2(0,T;L2).

    The first result of this paper can be stated as follows.

    Theorem 1.1. Let α,β,σ and ν be constants with α>0,β(0,1) and σν<0. Assume that (ψ0,θ0)H1([0,1]) and ξC1([0,T]), and that they are compatible with the boundary conditions. Then, the following holds:

    (i) For any given α>0, there exists a unique global solution (ψ,θ) for the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) in the following sense:

    (ψ,θ)C(¯QT)L(0,T;H1),(ψt,θt,ψxx,θxx)L2(QT).

    Moreover, for some constant C>0 independent of α(0,α0] with α0>0,

    {(ψ,θ)L(QT)C,(|ψx|,α1/4ψx,ω1/2ψx,θx)L(0,T;L2)C,(ψt,θt,α3/4ψxx,α1/4θxx,ω1/2θxx)L2(QT)C, (1.6)

    where the function ω(x):[0,1][0,1] is defined by

    ω(x)={x,0x<1/2,1x,1/2x1. (1.7)

    (ii) There exists a unique global solution (¯ψ,¯θ) for the problem given by (1.4) and (1.5) in the following sense:

    {¯ψL(QT)BV(QT),(¯ψx,ω¯ψ2x)L(0,T;L1),¯ψtL2(QT),¯θC(¯QT)L(0,T;H1),¯θtL2(QT),¯θ(1,t)=¯θ(0,t),t[0,T], (1.8)

    and

    {Qt(¯ψζtσ¯ψζν¯θxζ)dxdτ=10ψ(x,t)ζ(x,t)dx10ψ0(x)ζ(x,0)dx,QtL[¯ψ,¯θ;φ]dxdτ=10¯θ(x,t)φ(x,t)dx10θ0(x)φ(x,0)dx,a.e.t(0,T),whereL[¯ψ,¯θ;φ]=¯θφt(1β)¯θφν¯ψφx+2¯ψ¯θxφβ¯θxφx (1.9)

    for any functions ζ,φC1(¯QT) with φ(1,t)=φ(0,t) for all t[0,T] such that, as α0+,

    {ψ¯ψstronglyinLp(QT)foranyp2,ψ¯ψweaklyinM(QT),ψt¯ψtweaklyinL2(QT),αψ2x0stronglyinL2(QT), (1.10)

    where M(QT) is the set of the Radon measures on QT, and

    {θ¯θstronglyinC(¯QT),θxθ0xweaklyinL(0,T;L2),θt¯θtweaklyinL2(QT). (1.11)

    (iii) For some constant C>0 independent of α(0,1),

    (ψ¯ψ,θ¯θ)L(0,T;L2)+θx¯θxL2(QT)Cα1/4. (1.12)

    Remark 1.1. The L2 convergence rate for ψ is optimal whenever a boundary layer occurs as α0+. The reason why this is optimal will be shown by an example in Section 3.3.

    We next study the boundary layer effect of the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2). Before stating the main result, we first recall the concept of BL–thickness, defined as in [18].

    Definition 1.2. A nonnegative function δ(α) is called the BL–thickness for the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) with a vanishing α if δ(α)0 as α0, and if

    {limα0+(ψ¯ψ,θ¯θ)L(0,T;L(δ(α),1δ(α))=0,liminfα0+(ψ¯ψ,θ¯θ)L(0,T;L(0,1))>0,

    where (ψ,θ) and (¯ψ,¯θ) are the solutions for the problems given by (1.1), (1.2) and (1.4), (1.5), respectively.

    The second result of this paper is stated as follows.

    Theorem 1.3. Under the conditions of Theorem 1.1, any function δ(α) satisfying the condition that δ(α)0 and α/δ(α)0 as α0 is a BL–thickness whenever (¯ψ(1,t),¯ψ(0,t))(ξ(t),ξ(t)) in (0,T).

    Remark 1.2. Here, the function θ satisfies the spatially periodic boundary condition that has been considered in some papers, e.g., [3,29,30]. One can see from the analysis that Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 are still valid when the boundary condition of θ is the homogeneous Neumann boundary condition or homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition.

    The proofs of the above theorems are based on the uniform estimates given by (1.6). First, based on a key observation of the structure of system (1.1), we find two identities (see Lemma 2.1). In this step, an idea is to transform (1.1)2 into an equation with a conservative term (see (2.4)). And then, from the two identities, we deduce some basic energy-type estimates (see Lemma 2.2). The condition σν<0 plays an important role here. With the uniform estimates in hand, we derive the required uniform bound of (α1/4ψxL(0,t;L2)+α3/4ψxxL2(QT)) for the study of the boundary layer effect via standard analysis (see [18,19]). See Lemma 2.3 with proof. The uniform bound of (ψ,θ)L(QT) is derived by a more delicate analysis (see Lemma 2.4). Finally, the boundary estimate ω1/2ψxL(0,T;L2)C is established (see Lemma 2.6), through which we complete the proof for the estimation of the boundary layer thickness.

    Before ending the section, let us introduce some of the previous works on system (1.1). It should be noted that most of those works focus on the case when σν>0. In this direction, Tang and Zhao [6] considered the Cauchy problem for the following system:

    {ψt=(1α)ψθx+αψxx,θt=(1α)θ+νψx+2ψθx+αθxx, (1.13)

    with the following initial condition: (ψ,θ)(x,0)=(ψ0,θ0)(x)(0,0)asx±, where 0<α<1 and 0<ν<4α(1α). They established the global existence, nonlinear stability and optimal decay rate of solutions with small-sized initial data. Their result was extended in [7,8] to the case of the initial data with different end states, i.e.,

    (ψ,θ)(x,0)=(ψ0,θ0)(x)(ψ±,θ±)asx±, (1.14)

    where ψ±,θ± are constant states with (ψ+ψ,θ+θ)(0,0). For the initial-boundary value problem on quadrants, Duan et al. [9] obtained the global existence and the Lp decay rates of solutions for the problem given by (1.13) and (1.14) with small-sized initial data. For the Dirichlet boundary value problem, Ruan and Zhu [10] proved the global existence of system (1.1) with small-sized initial data and justified the limit as β0+ under the following condition: ν=μβ for some constant μ>0. In addition, they established the existence of a boundary layer of thickness O(βδ) with any 0<δ<1/2. Following [10], some similar results on the Dirichlet–Neumann boundary value problem were obtained in [11]. For the case when σν<0, however, there are few results on system (1.1). Chen and Zhu [12] studied the problem given by (1.13) and (1.14) with 0<α<1; they proved global existence with small-sized initial data and justified the limit as α0+. In their argument, the condition σν<0 plays a key role. Ruan and Yin [13] discussed two cases of system (1.1): α=β and αβ, and they obtained some further results that include the C convergence rate as β0+.

    We also mention that one can obtain a slightly modified system by replacing the nonlinear term 2ψθx in (1.1) with (ψθ)x. Jian and Chen [31] first obtained the global existence results for the Cauchy problem. Hsiao and Jian [29] proved the unique solvability of global smooth solutions for the spatially periodic Cauchy problem by applying the Leary–Schauder fixed-point theorem. Wang [32] discussed long time asymptotic behavior of solutions for the Cauchy problem. Some other results on this system is available in [33,34,35] and the references therein.

    The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we will derive the uniform a priori estimates given by (1.6). The proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.3 will be given in Section 3 and Section 4, respectively.

    In the section, we will derive the uniform a priori estimates by (1.6), and we suppose that the solution (ψ,θ) is smooth enough on ¯QT. From now on, we denote by C a positive generic constant that is independent of α(0,α0] for α0>0.

    First of all, we observe that (˜ψ,˜θ):=(2ψ,2θ/ν) solves the following system:

    {˜ψt=(σα)˜ψσν˜θx+α˜ψxx,˜θt=(1β)˜θ+˜ψx+˜ψ˜θx+β˜θxx, (2.1)

    with the following initial and boundary conditions:

    {(˜ψ,˜θ)(x,0)=(2ψ0,2θ0/ν)(x),0x1,˜ψ(1,t)=˜ψ(0,t)=2ξ(t),(˜θ,˜θx)(1,t)=(˜θ,˜θx)(0,t),0tT.

    From the system, we obtain the following crucial identities for our analysis.

    Lemma 2.1. (˜ψ,˜θ) satisfies the following for all t[0,T]:

    ddt10(12˜ψ2+σν˜θ)dx+10[α˜ψ2x+σν(1β)˜θ]dx=(ασ)10˜ψ2dx+α[(˜ψ˜ψx)(1,t)(˜ψ˜ψx)(0,t)] (2.2)

    and

    ddt10e˜θdx+β10e˜θ˜θ2xdx+(1β)10˜θe˜θdx=0. (2.3)

    Proof. Multiplying (2.1)1 and (2.1)2 by ˜ψ and σν, respectively, adding the equations and then integrating by parts over (0,1) with respect to x, we obtain (2.2) immediately.

    We now multiply (2.1)2 by e˜θ to obtain

    (e˜θ)t=(1β)˜θe˜θ+(˜ψe˜θ)x+βe˜θ˜θxx. (2.4)

    Integrating it over (0,1) with respect to x, we get (2.3) and complete the proof.

    Lemma 2.2. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then, we have the following for any t[0,T]:

    10ψ2dx+αQtψ2xdxdτC (2.5)

    and

    |10θdx|C. (2.6)

    Proof. Integrating (2.2) and (2.3) over (0,t), respectively, we obtain

    1210˜ψ2dx+Qt[α˜ψ2x+(σα)˜ψ2]dxdτ=10(2ψ20+2σθ0)dx+αt0ξ(t)˜ψx|x=1x=0dτσν(10˜θdx+(1β)Qt˜θdxdτ), (2.7)

    and

    10e˜θdx+βQte˜θ˜θ2xdxdτ=10e2θ0νdx(1β)Qt˜θe˜θdxdτ. (2.8)

    From the inequalities ex1+x and xex1 for all xR, and given β(0,1), we derive from (2.8) that

    10˜θdxC,

    so that

    10˜θdx+(1β)Qt˜θdxdτC. (2.9)

    We now treat the second term on the right-hand side of (2.7). Integrating (2.1)1 over (0,1) with respect to x, multiplying it by ξ(t) and then integrating over (0,t), we obtain

    |αt0ξ(τ)˜ψx|x=1x=0dτ|=|ξ(t)10˜ψdx2ξ(0)10ψ0dxt0ξt(τ)10˜ψdxdτ+(σα)t0ξ(τ)10˜ψdxdτ|C+1410˜ψ2dx+CQt˜ψ2dxdτ. (2.10)

    Combining (2.9) and (2.10) with (2.7), and noticing that σν<0, we obtain (2.5) by using the Gronwall inequality.

    Combining (2.5) and (2.10) with (2.7) yields

    |10˜θdx+(1β)Qt˜θdxdτ|C. (2.11)

    Let φ=Qt˜θdxdτ. Then, (2.11) is equivalent to

    |(e(1β)tφ)t|Ce(1β)t,

    which implies that |φ|C. This, together with (2.11), gives (2.6) and completes the proof.

    Lemma 2.3. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then, for any t[0,T],

    10θ2dx+Qt(θ2x+ψ2t)dxdτC (2.12)

    and

    α10ψ2xdx+α2Qtψ2xxdxdτC. (2.13)

    Proof. Multiplying (1.1)2 by θ, integrating over (0,1), and using (2.5) and Young's inequality, we have

    12ddt10θ2dx+β10θ2xdx=(β1)10θ2dx+10(2ψθνψ)θxdxC+β410θ2xdx+Cθ2L. (2.14)

    From the embedding theorem, W1,1L, and Young's inequality, we have

    θ2LC10θ2dx+C10|θθx|dxCε10θ2dx+ε10θ2xdx,ε(0,1). (2.15)

    Plugging it into (2.14), taking ε sufficiently small and using the Gronwall inequality, we obtain

    10θ2dx+Qtθ2xdxdτC. (2.16)

    Rewrite (1.1)1 as

    ψt+αψxx=(σα)ψ+σθx.

    Taking the square on the two sides, integrating over (0,1) and using (2.5), we obtain

    αddt10ψ2xdx+10(ψ2t+α2ψ2xx)dx=10[(σα)ψ+σθx]2dx+αξtψx|x=1x=0C+C10θ2xdx+CαψxL. (2.17)

    From the embedding theorem, W1,1L, and the Hölder inequality, we have

    ψxLC10|ψx|dx+C10|ψxx|dx;

    hence, by Young's inequality,

    αψxLCε+Cα10ψ2xdx+εα210ψ2xxdx.

    Plugging it into (2.17), taking ε sufficiently small and using (2.16), we obtain the following by applying the Gronwall inequality:

    α10ψ2xdx+Qt(ψ2t+α2ψ2xx)dxdτC.

    This completes the proof of the lemma.

    For η>0, let

    Iη(s)=s0hη(τ)dτ,wherehη(s)={1,sη,sη,|s|<η,1,s<η.

    Obviously, hηC(R),IηC1(R) and

    hη(s)0a.e.sR;|hη(s)|1,limη0+Iη(s)=|s|,sR. (2.18)

    With the help of (2.18), we obtain the following estimates, which are crucial for the study of the boundary layer effect.

    Lemma 2.4. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then, for any t[0,T],

    10(|ψx|+θ2x)dx+Qtθ2tdxdτC. (2.19)

    In particular, (ψ,θ)L(QT)C.

    Proof. Let W=ψx. Differentiating (1.1)1 with respect to x, we obtain

    Wt=(σα)Wσθxx+αWxx.

    Multiplying it by hη(W) and integrating over Qt, we get

    10Iη(W)dx=10Iη(ψ0x)dxQt[(σα)W+σθxx]hη(W)dxdταQthη(W)W2xdxdτ+αt0(Wxhη(W))|x=1x=0dτ=:10Iη(ψ0x)dx+3i=1Ii. (2.20)

    By applying |hη(s)|1, we have

    I1C+CQt(|W|+|θxx|)dxdτ. (2.21)

    By using hη(s)0 for sR, we have

    I20. (2.22)

    We now estimate I3. Since θ(1,t)=θ(0,t), it follows from the mean value theorem that, for any t[0,T], there exists some xt(0,1) such that θx(xt,t)=0; hence,

    |θx(y,t)|=|yxtθxx(x,t)dx|10|θxx|dx,y[0,1].

    It follows from (1.1)1 that

    αt0|Wx(a,t)|dτC+Ct0|θx(a,τ)|dτC+CQt|θxx|dxdτ,wherea=0,1.

    Consequently, thanks to |hη(s)|1,

    I3Cαt0[|Wx(1,τ)|+|Wx(0,τ)|]dτC+CQt|θxx|dxdτ. (2.23)

    Plugging (2.21)–(2.23) into (2.20), and letting η0+, we deduce the following by noticing that limη0+Iη(s)=|s|:

    10|ψx|dxC+CQt|ψx|dxdτ+CQt|θxx|dxdτ. (2.24)

    Plugging (1.1)2 into the final term of the right-hand side on (2.24), and by using (2.5) and (2.16), we obtain the following by using the Gronwall inequality:

    10|ψx|dxC+CQt|θt|dxdτ. (2.25)

    By using the embedding theorem, (2.5) and (2.25), we have

    ψ2L(10|ψ|dx+10|ψx|dx)2C[1+P(t)], (2.26)

    where P(t)=Qtθ2tdxdτ.

    Multiplying (1.1)2 by θt and integrating over Qt, we have

    P(t)+10(β2θ2x+1β2θ2)dxC+Qt(νψx+2ψθx)θtdxdτ. (2.27)

    By applying (2.5), (2.12), (2.16), (2.26) and Young's inequality, we deduce the following:

    νQtψxθtdxdτ=νQtψ(θx)tdxdτ=ν10ψθxdx+ν10ψ0θ0xdx+νQtψtθxdxdτC+β410θ2xdx (2.28)

    and

    2Qtψθxθtdxdτ12P(t)+Ct0(10θ2x(x,τ)dx)ψ2LdτC+12P(t)+Ct0(10θ2x(x,τ)dx)P(τ)dτ. (2.29)

    Substituting (2.28) and (2.29) into (2.27), and noticing that QTθ2xdxdtC, we obtain the following by using the Gronwall inequality:

    10θ2xdx+Qtθ2tdxdτC.

    This, together with (2.25), gives

    10|ψx|dxC.

    And, the proof of the lemma is completed.

    Lemma 2.5. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then, for any t[0,T],

    α1/210ψ2xdx+α3/2Qtψ2xxdxdτC. (2.30)

    Proof. Multiplying (1.1)2 by θxx, integrating over (0,1) and using Lemmas 2.2–2.4, we have

    12ddt10θ2xdx+β10θ2xxdx=10[(1β)θνψx2ψθx]θxxdxC+C10ψ2xdx+β410θ2xxdx+Cθx2LC+C10ψ2xdx+β210θ2xxdx, (2.31)

    where we use the estimate with ε sufficiently small based on a proof similar to (2.15):

    θx2LCε10θ2xdx+ε10θ2xxdx,ε(0,1).

    It follows from (2.31) that

    10θ2xdx+Qtθ2xxdxdτC+CQtψ2xdxdτ. (2.32)

    Similarly, multiplying (1.1)1 by αψxx, and integrating over (0,1), we have

    α2ddt10ψ2xdx+α210ψ2xxdx+α(σα)10ψ2xdx=σα10ψxθxxdx+[(σα)ξ+ξt][α˜ψx]|x=1x=0+σα(θxψx)|x=1x=0Cα10ψ2xdx+Cα10θ2xxdx+Cα[1+|θx(1,t)|+|θx(0,t)|]ψxL. (2.33)

    Then, by integrating over (0,t) and using (2.32) and the Hölder inequality, we obtain

    α10ψ2xdx+α2Qtψ2xxdxdτCα+CαQtψ2xdxdτ+CαA(t)(t0ψx2Ldτ)1/2, (2.34)

    where

    A(t):=(t0[1+|θx(1,τ)|2+|θx(0,τ)|2]dτ)1/2.

    To estimate A(t), we first integrate (1.1)2 over (x,1) for x[0,1], and then we integrate the resulting equation over (0,1) to obtain

    θx(1,t)=1β101y[θt+(1β)θ2ψθx]dxdyνξ(t)+ν10ψ(x,t)dx.

    By applying Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we obtain

    T0θ2x(1,t)dtC. (2.35)

    Similarly, we have

    T0θ2x(0,t)dtC. (2.36)

    Therefore,

    A(t)C. (2.37)

    From the embedding theorem, W1,1L, and the Hölder inequality, we have

    ψx2LC10ψ2xdx+C10|ψxψxx|dxC10ψ2xdx+C(10ψ2xdx)1/2(10ψ2xxdx)1/2;

    therefore, by the Hölder inequality and Young's inequality, we obtain the following for any ε(0,1):

    α(t0ψx2Ldτ)1/2Cαε+CαQtψ2xdxdτ+εα2Qtψ2xxdxdτ. (2.38)

    Combining (2.37) and (2.38) with (2.34), and taking ε sufficiently small, we obtain (2.30) by using the Gronwall inequality. The proof of the lemma is completed.

    As a consequence of Lemma 2.5 and (2.32), we have that α1/2QTθ2xxdxdtC.

    Lemma 2.6. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then, for any t[0,T],

    10ψ2xω(x)dx+Qt(θ2xx+αψ2xx)ω(x)dxdτC,

    where ω is the same as that in (1.7).

    Proof. Multiplying (1.1)1 by ψxxω(x) and integrating over Qt, we have

    1210ψ2xω(x)dx+αQtψ2xxω(x)dxdτC+CQtψ2xω(x)dxdτ+3i=1Ii, (2.39)

    where

    {I1=(ασ)Qtψψxω(x)dxdτ,I2=σQtψxθxxω(x)dxdτ,I3=σQtψxθxω(x)dxdτ.

    By applying Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we have

    I1CQt|ψ||ψx|xdτC, (2.40)

    and, by substituting (1.1)2 into I2, we get

    I2=σβQtψxω(x)[θt+(1β)θνψx2ψθx]dxdτC+CQtψ2xω(x)dxdτ. (2.41)

    To estimate I3, we first multiply (1.1)2 by θxω(x), and then we integrate over Qt to obtain

    νQtψxθxω(x)dxdτ=Eβ2t0[2θ2x(1/2,τ)θ2x(1,τ)θ2x(0,τ)]dτ,

    where

    E=Qtθxω(x)[θt+(1β)θ2ψθx]dxdτ.

    Note that |E|C by Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4. Then, given σν<0, we have

    I3=σνE+σνβ2t0[2θ2x(1/2,t)θ2x(1,t)θ2x(0,t)]dtC+Ct0[θ2x(1,τ)+θ2x(0,τ)]dτ. (2.42)

    Combining (2.35) and (2.36) with (2.42), we obtain

    I3C. (2.43)

    Substituting (2.40), (2.41) and (2.43) into (2.39), we complete the proof of the lemma by applying the Gronwall inequality.

    In summary, all uniform a priori estimates given by (1.6) have been obtained.

    For any fixed α>0, the global existence of strong solutions for the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) can be shown by a routine argument (see [29,36]). First, by a smooth approximation of the initial data satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1.1, we obtain a sequence of global smooth approximate solutions by combining the a priori estimates given by (1.6) with the Leray–Schauder fixed-point theorem (see [36, Theorem 3.1]). See [29] for details. And then, a global strong solution satisfying (1.6) is constructed by means of a standard compactness argument.

    The uniqueness of solutions can be proved as follows. Let (ψ2,θ2) and (ψ1,θ1) be two strong solutions, and denote (Ψ,Θ)=(ψ2ψ1,θ2θ1). Then, (Ψ,Θ) satisfies

    {Ψt=(σα)ΨσΘx+αΨxx,Θt=(1β)Θ+νΨx+2ψ2Θx+2θ1xΨ+βΘxx, (3.1)

    with the following initial and boundary conditions:

    {(Ψ,Θ)|t=0=(0,0),0x1,(Ψ,Θ,Θx)|x=0,1=(0,0,0),0tT.

    Multiplying (3.1)1 and (3.1)2 by Ψ and Θ, respectively, integrating them over [0,1] and using Young's inequality, we obtain

    12ddt10Ψ2dx+α10Ψ2xdxβ410Θ2xdx+C10Ψ2dx (3.2)

    and

    12ddt10Θ2dx+β10Θ2xdx=10[(β1)Θ2νΘxΨ+2ψ2ΘxΘ+2θ1xΨΘ]dxβ410Θ2xdx+C10(Ψ2+Θ2)dx, (3.3)

    where we use ψ2L(QT)+θ1xL(0,T;L2)C and

    Qtθ21xΘ2dxdτCt0Θ2LdτQtΘ2dxdτ+β16QtΘ2xdxdτ.

    First, by adding (3.2) and (3.3), and then using the Gronwall inequality, we obtain that 10(Ψ2+Θ2)dx=0on[0,T] so that (Ψ,Θ)=0 on ¯QT. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1(ⅰ).

    The aim of this part is to prove (1.10) and (1.11). Given the uniform estimates given by (1.6) and Aubin–Lions lemma (see [37]), there exists a sequence {αn}n=1, tending to zero, and a pair of functions (¯ψ,¯θ) satisfying (1.8) such that, as αn0+, the unique global solution of the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) with α=αn, still denoted by (ψ,θ), converges to (¯ψ,¯θ) in the following sense:

    {ψ¯ψstronglyinLp(QT)foranyp2,ψ¯ψweaklyinM(QT),θ¯θstronglyinC(¯QT),θxθ0xweaklyinL(0,T;L2),(ψt,θt)(¯ψt,¯θt)weaklyinL2(QT), (3.4)

    where M(QT) is the set of Radon measures on QT. From (3.4), one can directly check that (¯ψ,¯θ) is a global solution for the problem given by (1.4) and (1.5) in the sense of (1.8) and (1.9).

    We now return to the proof of the uniqueness. Let (¯ψ2,¯θ2) and (¯ψ1,¯θ1) be two solutions, and denote (M,N)=(¯ψ2¯ψ1,¯θ2¯θ1). It follows from (1.9) that

    1210M2dx+σQtM2dxdτ=νQtMNxdxdτ, (3.5)

    and

    1210N2dx+Qt[βN2x+(1β)N2]dxdτ=Qt(νMNx+2ψ2NxN+2MNθ1x)dxdτ. (3.6)

    By using Young's inequality, we immediately obtain

    1210M2dxCQtM2dxdτ+β4QtN2xdxdτ,1210N2dx+βQtN2xdxdτCQt(M2+N2)dxdτ+β4QtN2xdxdτ,

    where we use ψ2L(QT),θ1xL(0,T;L2), and the estimate with ε sufficiently small:

    QtN2θ21xdxdτT0N2L10θ21xdxdτCεQtN2dxdτ+εQtN2xdxdτ,ε(0,1).

    Then, the Gronwall inequality gives (M, N) = (0, 0) a.e. in Q_T . Hence, the uniqueness follows.

    Thanks to the uniqueness, the convergence results of (3.4) hold for \alpha\rightarrow 0^+ .

    Finally, by using Lemma 2.3, we immediately obtain

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \alpha^2\iint_{Q_t}\psi_x^4dxd\tau\leq C\sqrt{\alpha}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    So, \alpha\psi_x^2\rightarrow 0 strongly in L^2(Q_T) as \alpha\rightarrow 0^+ . Thus, the proof of Theorem 1.1(ⅱ) is completed.

    In addition, the following local convergence results follows from (1.6) and (3.4):

    \begin{equation*} \label{convergence4} \left\{\begin{split} &\psi\rightarrow \overline\psi\, \, \, strongly \, \, in\, \, C([\epsilon, 1-\epsilon]\times[0, T]), \\ &\psi_{x}\rightharpoonup\psi_{x}^0\, \, \, weakly-*\, \, in\, \, L^{\infty}(0, T;L^2(\epsilon, 1-\epsilon)), \\ & \theta_{xx} \rightharpoonup \overline\theta_{xx} \, \, \, weakly\, \, in\, \, L^{2}((\epsilon, 1-\epsilon)\times(0, T)) \end{split}\right. \end{equation*}

    for any \epsilon\in (0, 1/4) . Consequently, the equations comprising (1.1) hold a.e in Q_T .

    This purpose of this part is to prove (1.12). Let (\psi_i, \theta_i) be the solution of the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) with \alpha = \alpha_i \in (0, 1) for i = 1, 2 . Denote U = \psi_2-\psi_1 and V = \theta_2-\theta_1 . Then it satisfies

    \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{aligned} &U_t = - \sigma U+\alpha_2\psi_2-\alpha_1\psi_1-\sigma V_x+\alpha_2\psi_{2xx}-\alpha_1\psi_{1xx}, \\ &V_t = -(1-\beta)V+\nu U_x+2\psi_2 V_x+2U \theta_{1x}+\beta V_{xx}. \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation} (3.7)

    Multiplying (3.7) _1 and (3.7) _2 by U and V , respectively, integrating them over Q_t and using Lemmas 2.3–2.5, we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \frac12\int_0^1 U^2dx \leq C(\sqrt{\alpha_2}+\sqrt{\alpha_1})+ C \iint_{Q_t}U^2dxd\tau+\frac{\beta}{4}\iint_{Q_t}V_x^2dxd\tau \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    and

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \frac12\int_0^1 V^2dx +\beta\iint_{Q_t}V_x^2dxd\tau \leq& C\iint_{Q_t}(U^2+V^2)dxd\tau +\frac{\beta}{4}\iint_{Q_t}V_x^2dxd\tau, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    where we use \|\psi_2\|_{L^\infty(Q_T)}+\|\theta_{1x}\|_{L^\infty(0, T; L^2)}\leq C and the estimate with \varepsilon sufficiently small:

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \iint_{Q_t}V^2( \theta_{1x})^2dxd\tau\leq& C\int_0^t\|V^2\|_{L^\infty}d\tau\\ \leq& \frac{C}{\varepsilon}\iint_{Q_t}V^2dxd\tau+\varepsilon\iint_{Q_t}V_x^2dxd\tau, \quad\forall \varepsilon\in(0, 1). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    Then, the Gronwall inequality gives

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \int_0^1 (U^2+V^2)dx+\iint_{Q_t}V_x^2dxd\tau \leq C(\sqrt{\alpha_2}+\sqrt{\alpha_1}). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    We now fix \alpha = \alpha_2 , and then we let \alpha_1\rightarrow 0^+ to obtain the desired result by using (1.10) and (1.11).

    In summary, we have completed the proof of Theorem 1.1.

    We next show the optimality of the L^2 convergence rate O(\alpha^{1/4}) for \psi , as stated in Remark 1.1. For this purpose, we consider the following example:

    \begin{equation*} \label{example} \begin{aligned} (\psi_0, \theta_0)\equiv (0, 1)\; \; \mbox{on}\; \; [0, 1]\; \; and\; \; \xi(t)\equiv t^3\; \; \mbox{in}\; \; [0, T]. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    It is easy to check that (\overline\psi, \overline\theta) = (0, e^{(\beta-1)t}) is the unique solution of the problem given by (1.4) and (1.5). According to Theorem 1.3 of Section 4, a boundary layer exists as \alpha\rightarrow 0^+ . To achieve our aim, it suffices to prove the following:

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathop{\lim\inf}_{\alpha\rightarrow 0^+}\left(\alpha^{-1/4}\|\psi\|_{L^\infty(0, T;L^2)}\right) > 0. \end{split} \end{equation} (3.8)

    Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists a subsequence \{\alpha_n\} satisfying \alpha_n\rightarrow 0^+ such that the solution of the problem given by (1.1) and (1.2) with \alpha = \alpha_n , still denoted by (\psi, \theta) , satisfies

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} \sup\limits_{0 < t < T}\int_0^1 \psi^2 dx = o(1)\alpha^{1/2}_n, \end{split} \end{equation} (3.9)

    where o(1) indicates a quantity that uniformly approaches to zero as \alpha_n\rightarrow 0^+ . Then, by using the embedding theorem, we obtain

    \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \|\psi\|_{L^\infty}^2&\leq C\int_0^1 \psi^2 dx +C\int_0^1 |\psi||\psi_x| dx\\ &\leq C\alpha_n^{1/2}+C\left(\int_0^1 \psi^2 dx \int_0^1 \psi_x^2 dx\right)^{1/2}. \end{split} \end{equation*}

    Hence, we get that \|\psi\|_{L^\infty(0, T; L^\infty)}\rightarrow 0\; \; \hbox{as}\; \; \alpha_n\rightarrow 0^+ by using (3.9) and \alpha_n^{1/2}\|\psi_x\|_{L^2}^2 \leq C . On the other hand, it is obvious that \|\theta-\overline\theta\|_{L^\infty(0, T; L^\infty)}\rightarrow 0\; \; \hbox{as}\; \; \alpha_n\rightarrow 0^+ by using (1.11). This shows that a boundary layer does not occur as \alpha_n\rightarrow 0^+ , and this leads to a contradiction. Thus, (3.8) follows. This proof is complete.

    Thanks to \sup_{0 < t < T}\int_0^1(\psi_x^2+\overline\psi_x^2) \omega(x)dx\leq C , we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \sup\limits_{0 < t < T}\int_{\delta}^{1-\delta}\psi_x^2 dx\leq \frac{C}{\delta}, \quad\forall \delta \in (0, 1/4). \end{split} \end{equation*}

    By the embedding theorem, and from Theorem 1.1(ⅲ), we obtain the following for any \delta \in (0, 1/4) :

    \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \|\psi-\overline \psi\|_{L^\infty(\delta, 1-\delta)}^2&\leq C\int_0^1(\psi-\overline \psi)^2 dx +C\int_{\delta}^{1-\delta} \big|(\psi-\overline \psi)(\psi_x-\overline \psi_x)\big|dx\\ &\leq C\sqrt{\alpha}+C\left(\int_{\delta}^{1-\delta} (\psi-\overline \psi)^2 dx \int_{\delta}^{1-\delta} (\psi_x-\overline \psi_x)^2 dx\right)^{1/2}\\ &\leq C\sqrt{\alpha}+C\left(\frac{\sqrt{\alpha}}{\delta}\right)^{1/2}. \end{split} \end{equation*}

    Hence, for any function \delta(\alpha) satisfying that \delta(\alpha)\downarrow 0 and \sqrt{\alpha}/\delta(\alpha)\rightarrow 0 as \alpha\downarrow 0 , it holds that

    \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \|\psi-\overline \psi\|_{L^\infty(0, T;L^\infty(\delta(\alpha), 1-\delta(\alpha)))} \rightarrow 0\quad \hbox{as}\; \; \alpha\rightarrow 0^+. \end{split} \end{equation*}

    On the other hand, it follows from (1.11) that \|\theta-\overline\theta\|_{L^\infty(0, T; L^\infty)}\rightarrow 0\; \; \hbox{as}\; \; \alpha \rightarrow 0^+ . Consequently, for any function \delta(\alpha) satisfying that \delta(\alpha)\downarrow 0 and \sqrt{\alpha}/\delta(\alpha)\rightarrow 0 as \alpha\downarrow 0 , we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \|(\psi-\overline \psi, \theta-\overline\theta)\|_{L^\infty(0, T;L^\infty(\delta(\alpha), 1-\delta(\alpha)))} \rightarrow 0\quad \hbox{as}\; \; \alpha\rightarrow 0^+. \end{split} \end{equation*}

    Finally, we observe that

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \mathop{\lim\inf}\limits_{\alpha\rightarrow 0^+}\|\psi-\overline \psi\|_{L^\infty(0, T;L^\infty)} > 0 \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    whenever (\overline\psi(1, t), \overline\psi(0, t)) \not\equiv(\xi(t), \xi(t)) on [0, T] . This ends the proof of Theorem 1.3.

    The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    We would like to express deep thanks to the referees for their important comments. The research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 12071058, 11971496) and the research project of the Liaoning Education Department (grant 2020jy002).

    The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] Sonawane PD, Raja VKB, Palanikumar K, et al. (2021) Effects of gallium, phosphorus and nickel addition in lead-free solders: A review. Mater Today Proc 46: 3578–3581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.335 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.335
    [2] Li CJ, Yan YF, Gao TT, et al. (2021) The influence of Ag on the microstructure, thermal properties and mechanical behavior of Sn-25Sb-xAg high temperature lead-free solder. Vacuum 185: 110015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2020.110015 doi: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2020.110015
    [3] Vafaeenezhad H, Seyedein SH, Aboutalebi MR, et al. (2019) Creep life prediction for Sn-5Sb lead-free solder alloy: Model and experiment. Microelectron Eng 207: 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2019.01.006 doi: 10.1016/j.mee.2019.01.006
    [4] Chang S, Lin S, Hsieh K (2007) Phase reaction in Sn-9Zn solder with Ni/Au surface finish bond-pad at 175 ℃ ageing. J Alloys Compd 428: 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2006.01.106 doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2006.01.106
    [5] Kim D, Jung S (2005) Interfacial reactions and growth kinetics for intermetallic compound layer between In-48Sn solder and bare Cu substrate. J Alloys Compd 386: 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2004.05.055 doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2004.05.055
    [6] Jayesh S, Elias J (2020) Investigations on the properties of new lead free alloy composition—Sn-0.5Cu-3.5Bi. Mater Today Proc 21: 329–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.05.455
    [7] Yang L, Ma S, Mu G (2021) Improvements of microstructure and hardness of lead-free solders doped with Mo nanoparticles. Mater Lett 304: 130654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2021.130654 doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2021.130654
    [8] Shen Y, Chen S, Chen H, et al. (2021) Extremely thin interlayer of multielement intermetallic compound between Sn-based solders and FeCoNiMn high-entropy alloy. Appl Surf Sci Adv 558: 149945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.149945 doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.149945
    [9] Kanlayasiri K, Ariga T (2015) Physical properties of Sn58Bi-xNi lead-free solder and its interfacial reaction with copper substrate. Mater Design 86: 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.108 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.108
    [10] Khodabakhshi F, Zareghomsheh M, Khatibi G (2020) Nanoidentation creep properties of lead-free nanocomposite solders reinforced by modified carbon nanotubes. Mater Sci Eng A 797: 140203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.140203 doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2020.140203
    [11] Jung D, Sharma A, Jung J (2018) Influence of dual ceramic nanomaterials on the solderability and interfacial reactions between lead-free Sn-AgCu and a Cu conductor. J Alloys Compd 743: 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.02.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.02.017
    [12] Zhang L, Tu K (2014) Structure and properties of lead-free solders bearing micro and nano particles. Mater Sci Eng R 82: 1–32.
    [13] Pal M, Gergely G, Koncz-Horváth D, et al. (2021) Investigation of microstructure and wetting behavior of Sn-3.0Ag-0.5Cu (SAC305) lead-free solder with additions of 1.0 wt% SiC on copper substrate. Intermetallics 128: 106991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intermet.2020.106991
    [14] Koleňák R, Kostolný I, Drapala J, et al. (2021) Characterization of Sn–Sb–Ti solder alloy and the study of its use for the ultrasonic soldering process of SiC ceramics with a Cu–SiC metal–ceramic composite. Materials 14: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216369 doi: 10.3390/ma14216369
    [15] Chen S, Zhang L, Liu J, et al. (2010) A reliability study of nanoparticles reinforced composite lead-free solder. Mater Trans 51: 1720–1726. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.MJ201002 doi: 10.2320/matertrans.MJ201002
    [16] Hu X, Xu H, Chen W, et al. (2021) Effects of ultrasonic treatment on mechanical properties and microstructure evolution of the Cu/SAC305 solder joints. J Manuf Process 64: 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.01.045 doi: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.01.045
    [17] Shin YS, Lee S, Yoo S, et al. (2009) Mechanical and microstructural properties of SiC-mixed Sn-Bi composite solder bumps by electroplating. European Microelectronics and Packaging Conference, Rimini, Italy, 1–4.
    [18] Jiang N, Zhang L, Liu ZQ, et al. (2019) Influences of doping Ti nanoparticles on microstructure and properties of Sn58Bi solder. J Mater Sci Mater Electron 30: 17583–17590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-019-02107-0 doi: 10.1007/s10854-019-02107-0
    [19] Wang HZ, Hu XW, Jiang XX (2020) Effects of Ni modified MWCNTs on the microstructural evolution and shear strength of Sn-3.0Ag-0.5Cu composite solder joints. Mater Charact 163: 110287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2020.110287
    [20] Lee A, Subramanian KN, Lee JG (2005) Development of nanocomposite lead-free electronic solders. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Advanced Packaging Materials: Processes, Properties and Interfaces, Irvine, CA, USA, 2005,276–281. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISAPM.2005.1432089
    [21] He QQ, Zhang YB, Duan N, et al. (2020) Wetting behaviours and interfacial characteristics of Co-binder sintered polycrystalline diamond by SnTi active solder. Powder Technol 376: 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2020.08.079 doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2020.08.079
    [22] Zhou GJ, Zhou Y, Luo Y (2017) Phase equilibria of the Cu-Sn-Ti ternary system at 823K. AIP Adv 7: 025118. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4975220 doi: 10.1063/1.4975220
    [23] Hsieh Y, Lin S (2008) Microstructural development of Cu–Sn–Ti alloys on graphite. J Alloys Compd 466: 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.11.038 doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.11.038
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(812) PDF downloads(40) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(16)  /  Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog