Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
Overview
INTRODUCTION
In-situ composites are multiphase materials where the
reinforcing phase is synthesized within the matrix during
composite fabrication. This contrasts with ex-situ composites
where the reinforcing phase is synthesized separately and then
inserted into the matrix during a secondary process such as
infiltration or powder processing. In-situ processes can create a
variety of reinforcement morphologies, ranging from
discontinuous to continuous, and the reinforcement may be
either ductile or ceramic phases.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
STRENGTHENING
MECHANISMS
Continuum Models
Dislocation Density Effects
Single Dislocation-Particle
Interaction Model: Orowan
Strengthening
Multiple Dislocation-Particle
Interaction Models
STRENGTHENING
Aluminum Matrix Systems
MoSi2 Matrix Systems
TiAl and Other Aluminides
HIGH-TEMPERATURE
STRENGTH AND STABILITY
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
FATIGUE
CREEP
CONCLUSION
References
2 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
processes include internal oxidization,10 displacement reactions,11 reactive milling, mechanical alloying, and
cryomilling.12 There are also traditional eutectoid reactions that can be considered solid-state in-situ reactions
if an alloy of ferrite and cementite is considered a composite.
Generally, the reinforcements in discontinuously reinforced metallic- or intermetallic-matrix in-situ
composites are on the order of 0.5-5 m, and volume fractions range from 0-50 vol.%. The potential
advantages of in-situ composites as compared to discontinuous metal-ceramic composites produced by
ex-situ methods include:
Smaller reinforcement particle size with higher strength (a contribution from composite-strengthening
mechanisms) and improved fatigue resistance and creep
Small, single-crystal reinforcements (lower propensity for particle fracture)
Clean, unoxidized particle-matrix interfaces with higher interfacial strength (higher ductility and
toughness) and improved wettability
Thermodynamically stable particles that are weldable and castable, do not dissolve at high
temperatures (vis--vis age-hardened alloys), and do not have a reaction layer (higher interfacial
strength, improved corrosion, and long-term stability)
Better particle-size distribution (improved mechanical properties)
More conventional processing with the potential for lower cost and production with conventional
equipment
STRENGTHENING MECHANISMS
Several possible explanations for increases in yield strength of discontinuously
reinforced composites with equiaxed particles in the range 0.5-5 m in diameter have
been proposed in recent reviews.13,14
Continuum Models
Continuum-mechanics models of composite behavior assume that load is transferred
from the matrix to a nonplastically deforming reinforcement. One such model,
shear-lag theory, assumes that load transfer occurs between a high-aspect-ratio
reinforcement and the matrix by means of shear stresses at the particle-matrix
interface.15 According to a modified shear-lag theory, which also accounts for load
transfer at the particle ends,16,17 the yield stress of the composite y is
(A)
y = ymf
+ ym (1-f)
where ym is the yield stress of the unreinforced matrix, L is the length of the particle
perpendicular to the applied stress, t is the length of the particle parallel to the applied
stress, A is the particle-aspect ratio, and f is the particle-volume fraction. For the
equiaxed particles present in most in-situ composites, Equation A reduces to
(B)
y = ym
It is important to note that this form of the equation is linear, with a very modest
increase in y with increasing volume fraction, and there is no dependence of yield
stress on particle size or microstructural scale. Finite-element solutions to the elasticplastic continuum model for the problem of regularly spaced spheres have been
3/31/2016 17:33
3 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
obtained for two dimensions18 and three dimensions.19 These models yield similar
results to the shear-lag theory at low volume fractions, but the elastic-plastic models
predict a greater increase in strength above about 20 vol.%.
STRENGTHENING
Aluminum Matrix
Systems
A great deal of work has been performed on aluminum alloys reinforced ex-situ by SiC
particles, plates, and whiskers. In many of these composites, dislocations are generated
in the alloy matrix upon cooling or quenching from the processing or solutionizing
temperature, due to a mismatch of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between
the matrix and SiC reinforcement.20,21 The higher dislocation density increases the
strength of the alloy.22,23 The amount of dislocation generation is affected by CTE,
particle size, particle-volume fraction, and matrix strength. 24
3/31/2016 17:33
4 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
The applicability of the various characteristic slip-length models can be examined by plotting the yield stress
against the various microstructural dimensions. The grain size for these alloys had been experimentally
measured and is larger than the interparticle spacing by a factor of 3-5, depending on the alloy. In Figure 3,
the yield stress is plotted against the inverse square root of the measured interparticle spacing, -1/2, with a
least-square fit of the data.
The slope obtained from a similar fit against -1 yields a slope that differs from the Orowan slope predicted
by Equation C in the sidebar by several orders of magnitude; thus, the observed dependence on particle
spacing is not due to Orowan strengthening. Since particles of different size produce different amounts of
strengthening, continuum models can be eliminated since they can not account for the observed particle-size
effect. Further, transmission electron microscopy examination showed similar dislocation densities for
reinforced and unreinforced alloys; therefore, differences in dislocation density are not responsible for the
observed strengthening. Shear-lag theory for these equiaxed particles (Equation B) predicts an increase in the
yield stress that is significantly smaller than what is observed. Hence, the data suggest that the strength
increase in these composites is due to dislocation pile-ups through an interphase barrier-strengthening
3/31/2016 17:33
5 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
mechanism.
Figure 1, which shows these same Al-4Cu-1.5Mg/TiB2 composites
with the matrix in the T6 temper, reveals several important trends.
The rapid drop in yield stress regardless of particle loading at about
200C indicates that the mechanisms of strengthening in the
reinforced alloys can be defeated by thermally activated processes.
This is consistent with the mechanism of interphase-barrier
strengthening. At high temperatures, dislocations could cross-slip,
and the strength increase observed at low temperatures due to
a
dislocation pile-up would be defeated. It is also possible that the grain
boundaries and particle interfaces act as sinks for dislocations at high
temperatures, further reducing the dislocation pile-ups. The
annihilation of dislocation at grain and interphase boundaries would
account for the apparent cross-over in strength as a function of
loading that was observed at 350C.
Sahoo and Koczak examined a series of Al-4.5Cu alloys reinforced
with 0-11 vol.% TiC produced by reactive gas injection.32 They
found increases in tensile yield and ultimate tensile strength on the
order of 200 MPa, significantly greater than what would be predicted
by the observed reduction in grain size. These results are consistent
with the interphase-barrier strengthening.
Although the operative strengthening mechanisms have not been
identified, other discontinuously reinforced aluminum-matrix in-situ
composites for which strength and tensile data have been published
include Al-5Mg and Al-5Cu reinforced with 5 vol.% or 10 vol.%
TiC,33 aluminum reinforced with 20 vol.% TiB2, 34 aluminum
b
Figure 1. (a) Tensile yield stress and (b)
elongation to fracture versus test
temperature for composites produced by the
XDTM process with various volume
fractions of TiB2 with a Al-4Cu-1.5Mg
matrix and 1.3 m average particle size.
Alloys are in peak-aged (T6) temper
following exposure to an elevated
temperature for 30 minutes and tested at a
strain rate of 1.3 X 10-3s-1.
simultaneously reinforced with Al2O3 and TiB2,35 Al-5.8Cu0.2Mg-0.2Mn (2519) reinforced with 4.4 vol.% or 6.4 vol.% TiC,36
and Al-6.4Cu-1.4Li-0.3Ag-0.4Mg-0.15Zr (2195) reinforced with 4
vol.% TiB2.37 The compressive and flexural properties of aluminum
reinforced with 30 vol.% TiB2, TiC, or a mixture of TiB2 and TiC
have also been examined.38
6 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
3/31/2016 17:33
7 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
b
Figure 5. The elevated
temperature compressive
yield stress as a function of
the inverse square root of the
interparticle separation for
MoSi2 composites produced
by the XDTM process at (a)
1,000C and (b) 1,200C.
Composites include a variety
of particle types with
reinforcement loadings of 15
vol.%, 30 vol.%, or 45
vol.%.
3/31/2016 17:33
8 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
times up to 100 hours. These temperatures are in far excess of any likely use temperature. The
room-temperature yield stress of this material as a function of time at temperature is shown in Figure 8. At
the highest aging temperatures, there is a drop in the yield strength during the initial few hours, but after that
the strength (and, by inference, the microstructure) remain relatively unchanged. The elongation to failure of
these same materials showed relatively little change for the 650C heat treatment and a modest increase from
2% up to 3% for the material heat treated at 980C.
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
Tan, Aikin, and Briber examined the fracture
toughness of the same Al-4Cu-1.5Mg composite
reinforced with 0-15 vol.% TiB2 (average diameter
0.3 m and 1.3 m).51 Compared with the
unreinforced alloy, reinforcement lowered the
toughness of the peak-aged material from 70 MPa
to 25 MPa . The particle size apparently had
no effect on toughness, but the smaller particle
material had a very nonuniform distribution of
particles (due to particle pushing during
Figure 6. The stress-strain curves for XDTM MoSi2 composites at
solidification), which may have masked any effect. elevated temperature in a four-point bend test. Samples were tested
For the 1.3 m materials, the results obtained
in air at a strain rate of 2 X 10-5 s-1.
followed the prediction of Rice and Johnson52 in
the manner of Han and Rosenfield53
KIC = k
(1)
where E is the Young's modulus, y is the yield stress, the interparticle spacing, and k depends on the nature
of void initiation. Assuming a ductile void growth model, k is equal to the particle diameter divided by the
interparticle spacing.
Kumar, Mannan, and Viswanadham examined the influence of TiB2 on the toughness of NiAl.54 They found
that the addition of TiB2 particles to stoichiometric NiAl did not significantly affect fracture toughness, while
the addition of TiB2 to nickel-rich NiAl degraded toughness. Another in-situ composite examined is MoSi 2
with SiC.11
FATIGUE
Vyletel, Van Aken, and Allison examined the high-cycle fatigue
behavior of Al-6Cu-0.3Mn (2219) reinforced by 15 vol.% TiC
produced by the XDTM process.55 Alloys were tested with either an
underaged matrix (containing shearable GP zones) or in a peak-aged
condition (containing nonsheareable ' precipitates). Although the
morphology of the precipitates in the aluminum matrix was observed
to significantly influence the cyclic response of the composites, it
generally had no influence on the fatigue life under either plasticstrain-controlled or stress-controlled fatigue testing. The influence of
3/31/2016 17:33
9 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
CREEP
CONCLUSION
In general, the mechanical properties of in-situ composites are similar to other materials with strong
incoherent particles. What differs is the large volume fraction of the reinforcement when compared to the
other, more traditional, materials and the small size of the reinforcement when compared to ex-situ
composites.
References
1. S.G. Fishman, In-Situ Composites: Science and Technology, ed. M. Singh and D. Lewis (Warrendale, PA:
TMS, 1994), p. 1.
2. J.M. Brupbacher, L. Christodoulou, and D.C. Nagle, U.S. patent 4,710,348 (1987).
3. L. Christodoulou, D.C. Nagle, and J.M. Brupbacher, U.S. patent 4,774,052 (1988).
3/31/2016 17:33
10 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
4. D.C. Nagle, J.M. Brupbacher, and L. Christodoulou, U.S. patent 4,916,029 (1990).
5. N.P. Suh, U.S. patent 4,278,622 (1981).
6. M.J. Koczak and K.S. Kumar, U.S. patent 4,808,372 (1989).
7. V. Shtessel, S. Sampath, and M. Koczak, In-Situ Composites: Science and Technology, ed. M. Singh and D.
Lewis (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1994), p. 37.
8. S.D. Dunmead et al., U.S. patent 4,909,842 (1990).
9. P.R. Taylor and M. Manrique, Processing and Fabrication of Advanced Materials IV, ed. T.S. Srivatsan and
J.J. Moore (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1996), p. 827.
10. C.R. Cupp, Progress in Metal Physics, 4 (1953), p. 151.
11. C.H. Henager, Jr., J.L. Brimhall, and L.N. Brush, Mater. Sci. Eng., A195 (1995), p. 65.
12. M.J. Luton et al., Multicomponent Ultrafine Microstructures, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 132, ed. L.E.
McCandis et al. (Pittsburg, PA: MRS, 1989), p. 79.
13. R.M. Aikin, Jr., and L. Christodoulou, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 9.
14. M. Taya, Mater. Trans. JIM, 32 (1991), p. 1.
15. A. Kelly, Strong Solids (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 123.
16. V.C. Nardone and K.M. Prewo, Scripta Metall., 20 (1986), p. 43.
17. V.C. Nardone, Scripta Metall., 21 (1987), p. 1313.
18. G. Bao, J.W. Hutchinson, and R.M. McMeeking, Acta Metall. Mater., 39 (1991), p. 1871.
19. C.L. Hom and R.M. McMeeking, Int. J. Plasticity, 7 (1991), p. 255.
20. R.J. Arsenault and R.M. Fisher, Scripta Metall., 17(1983), p. 67.
21. Y. Flom and R.J. Arsenault, Mater. Sci. Eng., 75 (1985), p. 151.
22. R.J. Arsenault and N. Shi, Mater. Sci. Eng, 81 (1986), p. 175.
23. M. Volgelsang, R.J. Arsenault, and R.M. Fisher, Metall. Trans. A, 17 (1986), p. 379.
24. C.T. Kim, J.K. Lee, and M.R. Plichta, Metall. Trans. A, 21 (1990), p. 673.
25. P.M. Kelly, Int. Metall. Rev., 18 (1973), p. 31.
26. M.E. Kassner and X. Li, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 2833.
27. L. Anand and J. Gurland, Metall. Trans. A, 7 (1976), p. 191.
28. G. Wassermann, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on the Strength of Metals and Alloys (Metals Park, OH: ASM,
1970), p. 1188.
29. P.D. Funkenbusch and T.H. Courtney, Scripta Metall., 15 (1981), p. 1349.
30. W.A. Spitzig, A.R. Pelton, and F.C. Laabs, Acta Metall., 35 (1987), p. 2427.
31. S.V. Kamat, J.P. Hirth, and R. Mehrabian, Acta Metall., 37 (1989), p. 2395.
32. P. Sahoo and M.J. Koczak, Mater. Sci. Eng., A131 (1991), p. 69.
33. H. Nakata, T. Choh, and N. Kanetake, J. Mater. Sci., 30 (1995), p. 1719.
34. A.K. Kuruvilla et al., Sripta Metall., 24 (1990), p. 873.
35. Z.Y. Ma et al., Scripta Metall., 31 (1994), p. 635.
36. M.K. Premkumar and M.G. Chu, Mater. Sci. Eng., A202 (1995), p. 172.
37. T.J. Langan and J.R. Pickens, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 1587.
38. I. Gotman, M.J. Koczak, and E. Shtessel, Mater. Sci. Eng., A187 (1994), p. 189.
39. R.M. Aikin, Jr., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., 12 (1991), p. 1643.
40. R.M. Aikin, Jr., Mater. Sci. Eng., A155 (1992), p. 121.
41. R.M. Aikin, Jr., Scripta Metall., 26 (1992), p. 1025.
42. S.A. Maloy et al., Acta Metall. Mater., 40 (1992), p. 3159.
43. S.A. Maloy, T.E. Mitchell, and A.H. Heuer, Acta Metall. Mater., 43 (1995), p. 657.
44. R.M. Aikin, Jr., International Symp. on Structural Intermetallics, ed. R. Darolia et al. (Warrendale, PA:
TMS, 1993), p. 791.
45. C.H. Henager, Jr., J.L. Brimhall, and J.P. Hirth, Mater. Sci. Eng., A155 (1992), p. 109.
46. S.L. Kampe et al., Metall. Trans. A, 25 (1994), p. 2181.
3/31/2016 17:33
11 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
47. S.L. Kampe et al., Intermetallic Matrix Composites III, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Poc., 350, ed. J.A. Graves,
R.R. Bowman, and J.J. Lewandowski (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1994), p. 159.
48. M.L. VanMeter, S.L. Kampe, and L. Christodoulou, Scripta Met., 34 (1996), p. 1251.
49. Z.P. Xing et al., Metall. Trans. A, 28 (1997), p. 1079.
50. R.M. Aikin, Jr., P.E. McCubbin, and L. Christodoulou, Intermetallic Matrix Composites, MRS Symp.
Proc., 194, ed. D.L. Anton et al. (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1990), p. 307.
51. N.C. Beck Tan, R.M. Aikin, Jr., and R.M. Briber, Metall. Trans. A, 25 (1994), p. 2461.
52. J.R. Rice and M.A. Johnson, Inelastic Behavior of Solids, ed. M.F. Kannine et al. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1980), p. 641.
53. G.T. Hahn and A.R. Rosenfield, Metall. Trans. A, 6 (1975), p. 653.
54. K.S. Kumar, S.K. Mannan, and R.K. Viswanadham, Acta Metall., 40 (1992), p. 1201.
55. G.M. Vyletel, D.C. Van Aken, and J.E. Allison, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 2405.
56. P.E. Krajewski, J.W. Jones, and J.E. Allison, Metall. Trans. A, 26 (1995), p. 3107.
57. P.E. Krajewski, J.E. Allison, and J.W. Jones, Metall. Trans. A, 24 (1993), p. 2731.
58. S.L. Kampe, J.K. Bryant, and L. Christodoulou, Metall. Trans. A, 22 (1991), p. 447.
59. P.L. Martin et al., Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. On Creep and Fracture of Engineering Materials and
Structures (London: IOM, 1990), p. 265.
60. K. Sadananda et al., International Symp. on Structural Intermetallics, ed. R. Darolia et al. (Warrendale,
PA: TMS, 1993), p. 809.
61. J.D. Whittenberger et al., J. Mater. Sci., 25 (1990), p. 35.
62. J.D. Whittenberger, E. Arzt, and M.J. Luton, J. Mater. Res., 5 (1990), p. 2819.
63. J.D. Whittenberger, E. Arzt, and M.J. Luton, Scripta Metall., 26 (1992), p. 1925.
64. T.R. Bieler, J.D. Whittenberger, and M.J. Luton, High-Temperature Ordered Intermetallic Alloys V, Mat.
Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 288 (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1993), p. 1149.
65. M. Suzuki, S.R. Nutt, and R.M. Aikin, Jr., Intermetallic Matrix Composites II, MRS Symp. Proc., 273, ed.
D.B. Miracle, D.L. Anton, and J.A. Graves (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1992), p. 267.
66. M. Suzuki, S.R. Nutt, and R.M. Aikin, Jr., Mater. Sci. Eng., 162 (1993), p. 73.
Search TMS Document Center Subscriptions Other Hypertext Articles JOM TMS OnLine
3/31/2016 17:33