| Literature DB >> 35268959 |
Kouki Hasegawa1, Shigeru Tanaka2, Ivan Bataev3, Daisuke Inao4, Matatoshi Nishi5, Akihisa Kubota1, Kazuyuki Hokamoto2.
Abstract
In the last decade, a new technique has been developed for the nanoimprinting of thin-metal foils using laser-induced shock waves. Recent studies have proposed replacing metal or silicone molds with inexpensive polymer molds for nanoimprinting. In addition, explosive-derived shock waves provide deeper imprinting than molds, greatly simplifying the application of this technology for mass production. In this study, we focused on explosive-derived shock waves, which persist longer than laser-induced shock waves. A numerical analysis and a set of simplified molding experiments were conducted to identify the cause of the deep imprint. Our numerical analysis has accurately simulated the pressure history and deformation behavior of the workpiece and the mold. Whereas a high pressure immediately deforms the polymer mold, a sustained pressure gradually increases the molding depth of the workpiece. Therefore, the duration of the pressure can be one of the conditions to control the impact imprint phenomenon.Entities:
Keywords: Autodyn; high strain rate; laser shock imprinting; nanoimprinting; polycarbonate
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268959 PMCID: PMC8911162 DOI: 10.3390/ma15051727
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Imprint experiment: an Al foil was compressed into a DVD mold by an underwater shock wave derived from an explosive, yielding a deeper imprinting shape than the DVD mold.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the shock-imprinting and pressure measurement experiments using a PC mold. (a) The layout of an explosive and sample in water. (b) Details of the placement of the PC mold and Al workpiece. (c) Details of the PVDF gauge placement.
Figure 3Numerical-simulation model using 2D Lagrangian and Eulerian solvers. (a) Dimensions and shapes of the PC mold, Al workpiece, and water. (b) Setting of the initial conditions. (c) Underwater shock-wave model consisting of the explosive and water.
Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL) equation of state (EOS) parameters for the SEP explosive [16].
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Reference density (g/cm3) | 1.31 |
| 3.65 × 108 | |
| 2.31 × 106 | |
|
| 4.3 |
|
| 1.0 |
| Ω | 0.28 |
| C-J energy/unit volume | 3.761 × 106 |
| C-J detonation velocity (m/s) | 6.97 × 103 |
| C-J Pressure | 1.59 × 107 |
Mie–Gruneisen EOS parameters for A1100 [17], PC [18] and water [19].
| A1100 | PC | Water | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference density (kg/m3) | 2.707 | 1.197 | 1.00 |
| Gruneisen gamma | 1.970 | 0.61 | 0.28 |
| 5386 | 1933 | 1483 | |
|
| 1.339 | 2.6050 | 1.75 |
| Reference temperature (K) | 293 | 300 | - |
| Specific heat (J/kg·K) | 884 | - | - |
Johnson–Cook strength and failure models parameters for A1100 [8,22] and PC [8].
| A1100 | PC | |
|---|---|---|
| 140 | 75.8 | |
| 157 | 68.9 | |
|
| 0.016 | 0.052 |
|
| 0.167 | 1 |
|
| 1.7 | 1.85 |
|
| 0.071 | - |
|
| 1.248 | - |
|
| −1.142 | - |
|
| 0.0097 | - |
|
| 0.0 | - |
Figure 4Final shape of an Al workpiece under varying pressure conditions. (a) Surface of the Al workpiece at pressure-loading side. (b) Cross-section of the workpiece.
Figure 5Comparison of the pressure histories received from experimental and numerical simulations. (a) Comparison of the peak pressure values and shapes at different values of H. (b) Comparison of the pressure rise process for H = 20 mm.
Figure 6Deformation of the workpiece and mold due to the underwater shock wave.
Figure 7High strain-rate regions during imprinting.