Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:34:07.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interface And Near-Interface Microstructure Of Discontinuous Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

James P. Lucas ,
Nancy Y. C. Yang  and
John J. Stephens
James P. Lucas
Affiliation:
A304 Engineering Bldg., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824
Nancy Y. C. Yang
Affiliation:
P. O. Box 969, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore. CA, 94551
John J. Stephens
Affiliation:
P. O. Box 5800, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 87185
Get access

Abstract

Interfacial microstructure can have a significant influence on the microfracture processes of discontinuous reinforced metal matrix composites (DMMCs). The fracture properties, however, are largely influenced by the microfracture and deformation mechanisms associated with the matrix microstructure and with the interface microstructure. Also, it is known that the paniculate morphology and distribution can modify the deformation process by influencing the stress state that develops in the matrix materials near the reinforcement. Along with the matrix microstructure, characterizing the role of the interfacial and the near-interfacial microstructure is essential for a broader understanding of fracture behavior in DMMCs. To characterize the microstructure of cast DMMCs, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron microprobe (EMP) examinations were conducted at the interface and in regions near the particulate/matrix interface. Materials studied consisted of cast Al-4.5Cu and Al-7Si matrix alloy systems with B4C and SiC reinforcement. In general, the interfacial and matrix microstructure of Al-4.5Cu/SiC and Al-4.5 CuB4C composites exhibited little variance, i.e. the reinforcement type had no apparent effect on the resultant microstructures. For the Al-7Si system, however, significant microstructural variance was observed both in the matrix and interfacial regions. In the Al-7Si/B4C composite, an extensive reaction zone was found at the B4C interface. Interfacial compounds observed in Al-7SiC/B4C were Ti(O,B), Si, and MgB6 precipitates. In the near-interface region compounds such as Alx(B, C, 0)y, AlxMg(1−x)B2, and Al4C3 were found. In sharp contrast to Al-7SiC/B4C, an extensive interfacial reaction zone was not revealed for Al-7Si/SiC MMC. Only isolated, extremely fine second phase precipitates were observed on SiC paniculate interfaces. Fracture surface evidence suggested that both the matrix and the interface microstructure influenced deformation and microfracture mechanisms in DMMCs.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 238: Symposium Cb – Structure and Properties of Interfaces in Materials , 1991 , 877
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Stephens, J. J., Lucas, J. P., and Hosking, F. M., Scripta Met. 22 1307 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Fiom, Y. and Arsenault, R. J., Acta. Metali. 37–9, 2413 (1989).Google Scholar
3. Lucas, J. P., Liaw, P. K., Stephens, J. J. and Nunes, J., M. E. Fine Symposium ed. Liaw, P. K., Wertman, J. R., Marcus, H. L. and Sanier, J. S., TMS, Detroit MI, (1990) p. 171.Google Scholar
4 Hosking, F. M., Portillo, F. F., Wunderlin, R. and Mehrabian, R., J. Mat. Sci. 17, 477 (1982).Google Scholar
5. Bhansali, K. J. and Mehrabian, R., J. of Metals, 34–9, 30 (1982).Google Scholar
6. Harrigan, W. C., Gaebler, G., Davis, E. G. and Levin, E. J., Mechanical Behavior of Metal-Matrix Composites ed. Hack, J. E. and Amateau, M. F., Pub. TMS/AIME (1983) p. 169.Google Scholar
7. McDanels, D. L., Met. Trans. 16A; 1105 (1985).Google Scholar
8. Gungor, M. N., Liaw, P. K., Wells, J. M., Nunes, J., Gegel, H. L. and Morgan, J. T., Westinghouse Research and Development Center, R&D Paper 88-IM2-MMCOM-Pl (1988).Google Scholar
9. Lewandowski, J. W. and Liu, C., Powder Metallurgy Composites. TMS-AIME, Denver, ed. Kumar, P., Ritter, and Vedulz, K. (1987).Google Scholar
10. Klimowicz, T. F. and Vecchio, K. S., Fundamental Relationships Between Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Metal Matrix Composites, ed., Liaw, P. K. and Gungor, M. N., TMS (1990) p. 255.Google Scholar
11. Crowe, C. R., Gray, R.A. and Hasson, D. F., ICCM5 (1985) p. 843.Google Scholar
12. Lucas, J. P., Stephens, J. J. and Greulich, F., Mat. Sci. and Engng. A131, 231 (1991).Google Scholar
13. Iseki, T., Kemeda, T. and Maruyama, T., J. of Mat. Sci. 12. 1692 (1984).Google Scholar
14. Lloyd, D. J., Lagace, H., McLeod, A. and Morris, P. L., Mat. Sci. and Eng., A107. 73 (1989).Google Scholar
15. Chernyshova, T. A. and Rebrov, A. V., J. of Less Common Metals, 117, 203(1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Handbook of Binary Phase Diagrams, Volume I, Genium Pub. Corp., (1985)Google Scholar
17. Nutt, S. R., Interface in MMCs ed. Dhingra, A. K. and Fishman, S. G., TMS New Orleans (1986) p. 187 Google Scholar
18. Liaw, P. K., Greggi, J. G. and Logsdon, W. A., J. Mat. Sci. 22, 1613 (1987).Google Scholar
19. Kim, W. H., Koczak, M. J. and Lawley, A., International Conference on Composite Materials (1978) p. 487.Google Scholar
20. Lucas, J. P. Stephen, J. J. and Yang, N., Sandia Report, Sand90–8436 May 1990.Google Scholar
21. Nutt, S. R. and Duva, J. M., Scripta. Met. 20 1055 (1986).Google Scholar
22. Christman, T., Needleman, A. and Suresh, S., Acta Met. 37–11. 3029 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar