Wetting and coalescence of the liquid metal on the metal substrate ^*

Abstract

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are performed to investigate the wettability of liquid metal on the metal substrate. Results show that there exists different wettability on the different metal substrates, which is mainly determined by the interaction between the liquid and the substrate. The liquid metal is more likely to wet the same kind of metal substrate, which attracts the liquid metal to one side on the hybrid substrate. Exchanging the liquid metal and substrate metal has no effect on the wettability between these two metals. Moreover, the study of metal drop coalescing indicates that the metal substrate can significantly affect the coalescence behavior, in which the changeable wettability of liquid metal plays a predominant role. These studies demonstrate that the wetting behavior of liquid metal can be controlled by choosing the suitable metal substrate.

Nonwetting Behavior of Al–Co Quasicrystalline Approximants Owing to Their Unique Electronic Structures

“…The accuracies achieved on interfacial energies, leading to the determination of contact angles in good agreement with the experimental measurements, are due to the consideration of electronic effects on wetting. For Pb(111)/Al(111) with the model of hexagonal layers, we determine a contact angle equal to 35°, in good agreement with the experimental value (28 ± 7°), while molecular dynamics calculations based on empirical potentials led to a higher value (46.4°) . Besides electronic effects, the consideration of surface energies in our model is essential.…”

“…For Pb(111)/Al(111) with the model of hexagonal layers, we determine a contact angle equal to 35°, in good agreement with the experimental value (28 ± 7°), while molecular dynamics calculations based on empirical potentials led to a higher value (46.4°). 30 Besides electronic effects, the consideration of surface energies in our model is essential. Methods based on adsorption energies only, 48,60,61 although they appear well adapted for the determination of water-wetting properties, seems not to be adequate for the determination of wetting properties using a metal as a probe.…”

“…Such approaches have been widely used to determine contact angles and interfacial energies of a large variety of systems. − However, in most cases, the simulations largely rely on classical potentials. This may lead to interfacial energies (γ) and contact angles (θ) significantly different from the ones determined experimentally, even for simple systems such as Pb(111)/Al(111)γ Pb/Al(111) calc = 28.3 meV/Å 2 (γ Pb(111)/Al(111) exp = 13.5 ± 2 meV/Å 2 ) , and θ Pb/Al calc = 46.4° (θ Pb/Al(111) exp = 27.3 ± 0.8°) , which questions the possibility of assessing accurate values of contact angles from classical potentials which do not explicitly consider electronic effects.…”

“…25−27 However, in most cases, the simulations largely rely on classical potentials. This may lead to interfacial energies (γ) and contact angles (θ) significantly different from the ones determined experimentally, even for simple systems such as Pb(111)/ Al(111) 28,30 which questions the possibility of assessing accurate values of contact angles from classical potentials which do not explicitly consider electronic effects.…”

Effect of In and Pr on the Microstructure and Properties of Low-Silver Filler Metal

“…In general, the wettability is characterized by the spreading area of liquid brazing filler metals on the substrate, the greater the spreading area, the better the wettability [23]. Figure 2 shows the spreading areas of 12AgCuZnSn-xIn-yPr brazing filler metals on copper and 304 stainless steel substrates at the temperature of 850 • C with FB102 flux.…”