Tensile and Fracture Properties of 15 vol% SiCp/2009Al Composites Fabricated by Hot Isostatic Pressing and Hot Extrusion Processes

doi:10.1007/s40195-014-0127-2

Abstract

Abstract:

15 vol% silicon carbide particle (SiC_p)-reinforced 2009Al matrix (15 vol% SiC_p/2009Al) composites were fabricated by hot isostatic pressing (HIP) and hot extrusion processes. The tensile and fracture properties of 15 vol% SiC_p/2009Al were studied. The results showed that hot extrusion increased the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), yield strength (YS), elongation (EL), reduction in area (RA), and fracture toughness of the composites. The heat treatment resulted in the increase in UTS, YS, and fracture toughness, but a decrease in EL and RA. Both hot extrusion and heat treatment had negligible effects on elastic modulus (E). With the increase of SiC_p size, the UTS, YS, and E decreased, but the EL and RA increased. The fracture toughness increased first and then decreased with increasing SiC_p size, and when the SiC_p size was about 7 μm, the composites obtained the maximum fracture toughness value of 31.74 MPa m^1/2.

Key words: Aluminum matrix composites, Silicon carbide, Tensile properties, Facture toughness, Particle size

Nie Junhui, Fan Jianzhong, Zhang Shaoming, Wei Shaohua, Zuo Tao, Ma Zili, Xiang Zhaobing. Tensile and Fracture Properties of 15 vol% SiC_p/2009Al Composites Fabricated by Hot Isostatic Pressing and Hot Extrusion Processes[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2014, 27(5): 875-884.

Figures/Tables 15

Fig. 1 The optical micrographs showing the SiCp distribution in HIPed composites a, as-extruded composites (transverse direction) b

Fig. 2 TEM images of particle/matrix interfaces in HIPed composites a, b, as-extruded composites c, d

Fig. 3 Microstructure morphologies and energy spectra of 2009Al/SiCp(5 μm): a as-extruded composites showing lots of white phases; b energy spectrum of the white phase in the as-extruded composites; c extruded and T4-treated composites showing only a few coarse white phases; d energy spectrum of the white phases in extruded and T4-treated composites

Fig. 4 XRD patterns of 2009Al matrix and 2009Al/SiCp(5 µm)

Table 1 Density and relative density of 2009Al/SiCp(5 μm) composites

Materials status	Measured density (g/cm³)	Theoretical density (g/cm³)	Relative density (%)
HIPed	2.83	2.83	100
As-extruded	2.83	2.83	100
Extruded and T4-treated	2.83	2.83	100

Table 2 Mechanical properties of 2009Al matrix and 2009Al/SiCp(5 μm) composites

Materials	UTS (MPa)	YS (MPa)	E (GPa)	EL (%)	RA (%)
HIPed 2009Al/SiC_{p(5 μm)}	312.5	190.0	99.5	4.5	5.5
As-extruded 2009Al/SiC_{p(5 μm)}	341.0	192.0	100.0	8.5	15.5
Extruded and T4-treated 2009Al/SiC_{p(5 μm)}	566.0	379.5	100.5	8.0	12.0
HIPed 2009Al matrix	271.0	118.0	69.8	18.0	25.0
As-extruded 2009Al matrix	327.0	185.0	70.1	26.0	46.0
Extruded and T4-treated 2009Al matrix	439.0	307.0	70.0	24.0	32.0

Fig. 5 TEM image of dislocations within Al matrix near the interface region of extruded and T4-treated composites

Fig. 6 K1C values of 2009Al matrix and 2009Al/SiCp(5μm) at three different conditions

Table 3 Comparison of tensile properties among this work and other reported values

Materials	UTS (MPa)	YS (MPa)	E (GPa)	EL (%)	RA (%)
2009Al/SiC_p	566.0	379.5	100.5	8.0	12.0
2009Al/SiC_p [20]	520.0	365.0	-	8.4	-
2009Al/SiC_p [23]	537.0	367.0	100.0	9.3	9.2

Fig. 7 The engineering stress versus engineering strain curves of the five 2009/SiCp composites reinforced with different SiCp sizes

Fig. 8 The UTS, YS, and E variations with SiCp sizes in extruded and T4-treated composites

Fig. 9 SEM morphologies of the tensile fracture surfaces: a 2009Al/SiCp(3.5μm); b 2009Al/SiCp(7μm); c 2009Al/SiCp(13μm); d high-magnification observation of Fig. 9c showing particle cracking

Table 4 Densities of composites reinforced with different-sized SiCp (in g/cm3)

2009Al/SiC_{p(3.5 μm)}	2009Al/SiC_{p(5 μm)}	2009Al/SiC_{p(7 μm)}	2009Al/SiC_{p(11 μm)}	2009Al/SiC_{p(13 μm)}
2.83	2.83	2.828	2.827	2.826

Fig. 10 The EL and RA variations with SiCp sizes in extruded and T4-treated composites

Fig. 11 The relationship between fracture toughness and SiCp size

References 26

[1]	Q. Wang, L.C. Bian, H.J. Li,Compos. Struct. 94, 2218(2012)
[2]	M.N. Yuan, Y.Q. Yang, C. Li, P.Y. Heng, L.Z. Li,Mater. Des. 38, 1(2012)
[3]	D. Veazie, J.L. Jordan, J.E. Spowart, B.W. White, N.N. Thadhani,Exp. Mech. 53, 1213(2013)
[4]	Y.S. Su, Q.B. Ouyang, W.L. Zhang, Z.Q. Li, Q. Guo, G.L. Fan, D. Zhang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 597, 359 (2014)
[5]	Q. Liu, F. Ye, Y. Gao, S.C. Liu, H.X. Yang, Z.Q. Zhou, J. Alloys Compd. 585, 146(2014)
[6]	C. Xue, J.K. Yu,Mater. Des. 53, 74(2014)
[7]	O. El-Kady, A. Fathy,Mater. Des. 54, 384(2014)
[8]	S. Bathula, R.C. Anandani, A. Dhar, A.K. Srivastava, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 30, 97 (2012)
[9]	E.A. Diler, R. Ipek, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 548, 43 (2012)
[10]	D. Mandal, S. Viswanathan,Mater. Charact. 85, 73(2013)
[11]	D. Mandal, S. Viswanathan,Mater. Charact. 86, 21(2013)
[12]	R. Bhushan, S. Kumar, S. Das,Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 65, 611(2013)
[13]	D.J. Lloyd,Int. Mater. Rev. 39, 1(1994)
[14]	N. Chawla, U. Habel, Y.L. Shen, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 31, 531 (2000)
[15]	M.T. Milan, P. Bowen, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 13, 775(2004)
[16]	M. Song, Y.H. He,Mater. Des. 31, 9859(2010)
[17]	H.K. Jung, Y.M. Cheong, H.J. Ryu, S.H. Hong,Scr. Mater. 41, 1261(1999)
[18]	P. Rodrigo, P. Poza, V. Utrilla, A. Ure˜na, J. Alloys Compd. 479, 451(2009)
[19]	J. Zhou, J. Duszczyk, J. Mater. Sci. 34, 545(1999)
[20]	P. Jin, B.L. Xiao, Q.Z. Wang, Z.Y. Ma, Y. Liu, S. Li, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 27, 518(2011)
[21]	Z. Zhao, Z. Song, Y. Xu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 132, 83 (1991)
[22]	N. Han, G. Pollard, R. Stevens,Mater. Sci. Technol. 8, 184(1992)
[23]	T.S. Srivatsan, M. Al-Hajri, C. Smith, M. Petraroli, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 346, 91 (2003)
[24]	J.C. Lee, K.N. Subramanian, J. Mater. Sci. 29, 49015(1994)
[25]	Y. Flom, R.J. Arsenault,Acta Mater. 37, 2413(1989)
[26]	M. Manoharan, J.J. Lewandowski,Acta Mater. 38, 489(1990)