Composites

Science and Technology

53 (1995) 307-315

Printed ELSEVIER 0266-3538(95)00057-7

0 1995 Elsevier Science Limited in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved 0266-3538/95/$09.50

THE QUASI-STATIC FRACTURE BEHAVIOR OF AN ALUMINUM ALLOY METAL-MATRIX COMPOSITE

T. S. Srivatsan & A. Prakash

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio 44325-3903, USA

(Received

9 March

1994; revised

version

rece ived 1 April

1995; accepted

6 April

1995)

Abstract A study has been made to understand the microstructure, tensile deformation and fracture characteristics of an aluminum alloy 2080, discontinuouslyreinforced with varying amounts of silicon carbide particles. Results reveal the elastic modulus and strength of the metal-matrix composite increase with an increase in reinforcement content in the metal matrix. The increased strength of the Al/SiC,, composite is ascribed to the competing and synergistic influences of residual stresses generated as a result of intrinsic differences in thermal expansion coeficients between the composite constituents and strengthening from constrained plastic flow and triaxiality in the ductile matrix which is due to the presence of hard and elastically deforming reinforcements. Fracture on a microscopic scale comprised cracking of the individual and clusters of particules present in the microstructure. Particle cracking increased with reinforcement content in the aluminum alloy matrix. Final fracture of the composite resulted from crack propagation through the matrix between particulate clusters. The intrinsic mechanisms and micromechanisms contributing to strength and governing the tensile fracture process are discussed. Keywords: fracture behavior, aluminum alloy, matrix composite, silicon carbide reinforcement metal-

1 INTRODUCTION Discontinuously-reinforced aluminum (DRA) alloy metal-matrix composites (MMCs) based on particulate, whisker or short-fiber reinforcements in a 2XxX-, 6XxXor 7XxX-series aluminum alloy matrix have, in recent years, emerged as attractive and viable commercial materials for the automotive, aerospace and other high-performance markets. These composites are preferred because they offer a number of advantages such as a 1.540% increase in strength and a 30-100% increase in stiffness compared
307

to the unreinforced alloy,SO while generally maintaining receptiveness to processing and characterization techniques used for their conventional unreinforced counterparts. From a design perspective the attractiveness of choosing MMCs stems from an improvement in specific modulus, i.e. densitycompensated increase in elastic modulus. The moduli obtained are greater than those of typical titanium alloys and only marginally less than those of most steels. Associated with an improvement in modulus are concurrent increases in yield and tensile strengths of up to 60%.- Furthermore, the DRA MMCs based on particulate reinforcements are attractive because they can be made with properties that are near isotropic in three orthogonal directions or in a plane. Also, essentially conventional fabrication methods can be used to produce a wide range of product forms, making them relatively inexpensive compared to the composites that are reinforced with continuous fibers or filaments. The whisker-reinforced composites offer the potential for enhanced properties but suffer from whisker damage and breakage during secondary fabrication.4, The incorporation of discontinuous particulate reinforcement in aluminum alloy matrices has been shown in some cases to provide noteworthy attributes such as high abrasion resistance,lh increased elevatedtemperature strength, improved creep-rupture properties,* good micro-creep performance, corrosion resistance2 and enhanced fatigue-crack initiation resistance compared to the unreinforced matrix alloy.2 Furthermore, the DRA alloy-based MMCs can be synthesized by using standard ingot metallurgy (IM), powder metallurgy (PM) and mechanical alloying (MA) processing techniques. Each of these methods results in a composite having different properties. The PM processing route is generally preferred since it offers a number of product advantages. Most importantly, execution of the process in the solid state minimizes the deleterious reactions between the metal matrix and the ceramic reinforcement, and enhances the range of potential

308

T. S. Srivatsan, A. Prakash alloy powder was screened to 32.5 mesh and then combined with F-600 particulate silicon carbide using proprietory dry blending techniques. Blending was accomplished to facilitate a homogeneous distribution of the Sic,, both at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, in the X2080 aluminum alloy powder. The homogeneous blend was cold-isostatically compacted to provide a body with 75-80% of the theoretical density, degassed and vacuum hot pressed to produce a fully dense billet. The degassing step assists in removing adsorbed moisture from the carbide particle surfaces. The billet was then extruded at 441C (825F). Precise details of the primary and secondary processing treatments can be found elsewhere.ls,y Heat treatment of the X208O/SiC, composites consisted of solution heat treating the extrusions at 499C (930F) for 4 h and cold water quenching. Subsequently, the composites were artificially aged at 177C (350F) for 24 h to get the peak-aged (T6) matrix condition. The X208O/SiC, MMCs were provided by ALCOA Technical Center in the T6 condition.

matrix reinforcement combinations. However, the primary disadvantage with these materials is that they frequently suffer from low tensile ductility (elongation or strain-to-failure), inadequate fracture toughness and inferior fracture resistance compared to the unreinforced matrix alloy.22~27 The objective of the present experimental study was to evaluate the tensile deformation and fracture behavior of ceramic particle-reinforced aluminum alloy metal-matrix composites. The tensile properties and fracture behavior were evaluated for two different volume fractions of the discontinuous ceramic particle-reinforcement phase in an aluminum alloy matrix. Emphasis was given to the procurement of the material with controlled synthesis (same matrix alloy composition, aging condition, precipitation characteristics and hardness) and reinforcement particle characteristics (type, size distribution and shape), while varying only the volume fraction of the discontinuous particulate reinforcements in order to rationalize its influence on tensile properties and fracture behavior. 2 MATERIALS The DRA MMC materials selected for investigation in this study were based on a powder metallurgy processed Al-Cu-Mg-Zr matrix alloy, designated as X2080. This matrix alloy system was chosen since it provides excellent combinations of strength and damage tolerance. The nominal chemical composition of the matrix alloy is given in Table 1. The reinforcement was an F-600 grade silicon carbide particulate (referred to as SIC,), the particles having a nominal size of 16 pm. The material was produced and made available by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). Two different volume fractions of Sic, (0.5 and 0.20) were chosen. The iron and silicon elements in the alloy are impurities and are kept to a low level to minimize the formation of coarse intermetallic phases. Zirconium is a grain refiner, combining with aluminum to form the Al,Zr phase which precipitates during ingot preheat and homogenization treatment. The zirconium-containing particles (Al,Zr) aid in retarding subgrain boundary migration and coalescence, controlling grain growth and stabilizing a fine substructure.x Copper and magnesium are the primary strengthening agents. Prealloyed X2080 alloy powder was produced by a gas atomization process. The prealloyed atomized
Table 1. Chemical composition of matrix AI-Cu-

3 EXPERIMENTAL 3.1 Specimen preparation and mechanical testing Blanks of size 150 mm X 20 mm X 20 mm were cut from the as-received composite plates using a diamond-coated saw blade. Tensile test specimens were precision machined from the blanks using a diamond-tipped cutting tool. The specimens were machined with the stress axis parallel to the extrusion direction of the as-received X2080/SiC,-T6 composite plates. Thus, the gross fracture plane was perpendicular to the extrusion direction in each case. The cylindrical tensile specimens conformed to standards specified in ASTM E-8, with threaded ends and a gage section which measured 6.25 mm in diameter and 25 mm in length. To minimize the effects of surface irregularities and finish, final surface preparation was achieved by mechanically polishing the gage section of the test specimens with progressively finer grades of silicon carbide impregnated emery paper to remove all machining circumferential scratches and surface marks. tests were performed on a Uniaxial tensile fully-automated. 22 kip closed-loop servohydraulic structural test machine (Instron) equipped with a 10000 kg (98 kN) load cell. The tests were conducted in a room temperature environment (300 K, 55% relative humidity). The composite specimens were deformed at a constant strain rate of 0.0001 s-. An axial 12.5 mm gage-length clip-on extensometer was attached to the test specimen with rubber bands. The stress and strain parallel to the load line were recorded on an X-Y recorder equipped with a pen plotter.

Mg Alloy X2080
Element Cu 3x Mg 1.X Sr 0.2 Al Balance

Wt%

The quasi-static fracture behavior of an aluminum alloy 3.2 Microstructural evaluation and fracture analysis The initial microstructure of the as-received X208O/SiC, composites was characterized by optical microscopy after standard metallographic preparation techniques. Fracture surfaces of the fractured tensile specimens were examined in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine the predominant fracture mode and to characterize the fine-scale topography of the fatigue fracture surface. Samples for SEM observation were obtained from the deformed tensile specimens by sectioning parallel to the fracture surface. 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

309

4.1 Microstructure The triplanar optical micrographs illustrating the microstructure of the X208O/SiC,/xxp composites are shown in Figs 1 and 2. The Sic, reinforcement phase, in the aluminum alloy metal matrix, were of near-uniform size. However, very few of the particles were found to be irregularly shaped and these were dispersed randomly through the matrix. Seldom was an agglomeration of the Sic,, of varying size, observed. An agglomerated site consisted of a few larger SIC particles intermingled with smaller, uniform and more regularly shaped particles. The degree of agglomeration or clustering of the Sic, was found to

Short transverse direction (ST)

Extrusion direction (LT)

Fig. 2. Triplanar optical micrograph ture of the X208O/SiC/20,

illustrating composite.

microstruc-

be largely unaffected by an increase in the particle reinforcement phase in the X2080 metal matrix (Fig. 2). No attempt was made in this study to determine the particle size distributions for the two MMC materials. The matrix consisted of very fine grains which could not be clearly resolved in an optical microscope at low magnifications ( < X 1000). 4.2 Tensile behavior The ambient temperature tensile properties of the X208O/SiC, MMC for the two different volume fractions of ceramic particle-reinforcement phase are summarized in Table 2. The results are the mean based on duplicate tests. 4.2.1 Elastic modulus Test results reveal only a marginal increase in elastic modulus with an increase in Sic, content in the aluminum alloy metal matrix. The value of elastic modulus, of the X208O/SiC, composites, was provided as a print-out, as an output of the tensile stress program, by the computer control console of the Instron servohydraulic materials test machine. This value was cross-checked for both accuracy and consistency by measuring the slope of the initial region of the stress/strain curve, below the elastic limit. The elastic modulus of the X2080/SiC/20,-T6

Short transverse direction (ST)

Extrusion direction (LT)

Fig. 1. Triplanar optical micrograph ture of the X208O/SiC/15,

illustrating
composite.

microstruc-

310
Table 2. Monotonic

T. S. Srivatsan, A. Prakash
properties of X208O/SiC, metal-matrix composite

SIC, content.

Youngs modulus, E (GPa)

Yield stress. uY (MPa)

Ultimate tensile strength, rrljTS (MPa)

Fracture stress, ul (MPa)

RA

Tn(A,,IA,)

f (vol.%)
0

Ei(%Y EEi (%)

1%)

1.5 20

72 99

iz

401 -

105

(15)

430

I::;

520 -

501
532

539

6.91 4.80

7.84 5.52

8.2 5.1

0 Values in parentheses are in units of ksi. Tangency measurements based on extensometer Elongation to failure. Reduction in area. Tensile ductility. composite (i) is 105 GPa which is:

trace.

macroscopic represented

yield the stress/strain curve is well by a simple power law. It is expressed as

u = K(E,)

(ii)

50% more than the elastic modulus of the matrix alloy with no Sic, reinforcement (70 GPa), i.e the unreinforced matrix; and only 6% more than the elastic modulus of the X2080/SiC/15,-T6 composite (99 GPa).

4.2.2 Strength The increase in yield strength (which is defined as the stress required at a plastic strain of 0.2%) due to increased addition of Sic, reinforcements was only marginal for the X208O/SiC, MMCs. The matrix alloy with 20 vol.% Sic, had a 7% higher yield strength (430 MPa) than the composite with 15 vol.% Sic, (401 MPa). The ultimate tensile strength of the composite is only marginally higher than the yield strength indicating that the work hardening rate past yielding is low. The spread in the strength of the composite material is quite typical of that observed for precipitation-hardened aluminum alloys. The ultimate tensile strength followed the same trend as the yield strength of the X208O/SiC, composite. The improvement in ultimate tensile strength due to increased Sic, reinforcement in the X2080 metal matrix was only 4%. Whereas the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of the X208O/SiC, composites show only a marginal increase with an increase in Sic, reinforcement in the ductile aluminum alloy matrix, the ductility of the X208O/SiC, composites, as measured by tensile elongation over 12.7 mm gage length and reduction in area, decreases. The decrease in tensile elongation with an increase in Sic, content from 15 to 20 vol.% is as high as 30%. An increase in the discontinuous Sic, reinforcement phase decreased the reduction in area of the composite microstructure by 30%. This observation is consistent with an increase in the volume fraction of the hard and brittle ceramic particle (SIC,) reinforcement phase in the soft and ductile X2080 matrix. The manner in which particle size and volume fraction affects the ultimate tensile strength can be best described in terms of work hardening. Beyond

where K is the monotonic strength coefficient (intercept at plastic strain E,, = 1) and n is the work hardening or strain hardening exponent slope. The monotonic stress/strain curves for the two composites are shown in Fig. 3. Increase in Sic, reinforcement content in the X2080 aluminum alloy matrix is observed to have no influence on the monotonic strain hardening or work hardening exponent. n, of the X208O/SiC, composites. In X208O/SiC/xxp-T6 composites, with large CTE mismatch strain, the plastic deformation of the ductile aluminum alloy matrix, in the presence of the discontinuous Sic, reinforcements, is nonuniform primarily due to the elastically deforming particles resisting plastic flow of the metal matrix. The plastic deformation induced dislocations or slip dislocations would become dominant when the plastic strain exceeds the thermal mismatch strain and the two effects would then act in synergism so that they can be combined. The increased strengthening, Au, of the matrix of this Sic,-reinforced aluminum alloy MMC due to dislocation generation, and assuming these dislocations are uniformly dispersed in the matrix, can be estimated using the relationship: AuY = yGb(p) (2)

(1)

0 15% SiCp l 20% SiCp 100

0.01 I 0.1 I 1.0 1

.O the

Fig.

3. The

Strain (%)

monotonic stress/strain X20XO/SiC, composites.

curves

for

The quasi-static fracture behavior of an aluminum alloy

311

where Au? is the increase in yield strength of the composite over that of the unreinforced matrix alloy, G is the shear modulus (GPa) of the metal matrix, b is the Burgers vector, p is the increase in dislocation density of the composite matrix over that of the unreinforced matrix density, and (Yis a constant and is equal to 1.25 for aluminum.30 Generation of dislocations due to CTE mismatch, in discontinuous whisker-reinforced and aligned continuous fiberreinforced metal matrices, has been found and documented by other investigators.- Taya and Morix4 and more recently Mochida et al. have shown that the punching of dislocations generated by CTE mismatch strain in a particle-reinforced MMC is sufficiently extensive to cover most of the matrix domain. The dislocations generated by the CTE mismatch strain can at best be considered as an example of geometrically necessary dislocations.36 The geometrically necessary dislocations occur in order to permit compatible deformation in a system having geometrical constraints such as hard Sic particles which deform elastically while the surrounding X2080 aluminum alloy matrix is ductile and undergoes plastic deformation. The geometrically necessary dislocations become essential when deformation occurs without the formation of voids around the brittle ceramic particles. The dislocations resulting from slip are a function of intrinsic material properties of the system and are not dependent on microstructural constraints. The geometrically necessary dislocations contribute to the dislocation density in the composite matrix. The increase in flow stress of the discontinuous matrix over the unreinforced particle-reinforced matrix alloy is proportional to the CTE mismatch strain if the dislocations generated by the CTE mismatch strain are dominant. The mismatch strain, E,, induced in the particle is given by:2 E, = ((Y, - cu,)AT (3)

ing treatment. Consequently, they become trapped at the Sic particles resulting in local regions of high dislocation density, i.e. the density is highest near the reinforcing particle or the reinforcement matrix interfaces. (b) Strengthening due to large differences in thermal coefficients of expansion between constituents of the composite, i.e. aluminum alloy and Sic, resulting in misfit strains due to differential thermal contraction at the Al/SIC, interfaces. The misfit strain and concomitant misfit stresses generate dislocations. The increased dislocation density generated to accommodate the misfit strains provides a positive contribution to strengthening of the composite matrix. Cc) Strengthening arising from constrained plastic flow and triaxiality in the ductile aluminum alloy matrix due to the presence of the discontinuous particle (SIC,) reinforcements*32.37-3Y As a result of the elastic particles resisting the plastically deforming metal matrix, an average internal stress or back stress, a,,, is generated. arising from competing in(4 Contributions fluences of back stress in the plastically deforming composite matrix4 and due to plastic relaxation by the formation of prismatic dislocation loops around the hard and brittle reinforcing particles.. (4 A small contribution from dispersion strengthening caused by the presence of reinforcing Sic particles in the X2080 aluminum alloy metal matrix and thus the additional stress required for the slip dislocations to by-pass a particle. (f) Intrinsic differences in texture between the X208O/SiC, composite matrix and the unreinforced matrix material.j2

where (Y,, and IZY~are the coefficients of thermal expansion of the ceramic particle and the matrix, respectively (both the matrix and the particle are assumed to be isotropic in stiffness and CTE), and AT is the net temperature change (TO - Tambirnt) when the particle-reinforced metal matrix is quenched from an elevated temperature (TO). Based on the results obtained in this study, the contributions to strengthening of the Sic,-reinforced X2080 MMC arises from the concurrent and mutually competitive influences of several of the following mechanisms: (a) The dislocations which are introduced during processing are not completely removed by the solution heat treatment during the T6 process-

4.3 Tensile fracture behavior The monotonic fracture surfaces are helpful in elucidating microstructural effects on the ductility and fracture properties of the X2080/SiC,-T6 composites. It is fairly well established that the fracture of unreinforced alloys is associated with events of void nucleation and growth, with the nucleation occurring at coarse constituent particles present in the microstructure.42143 An essential requirement for void nucleation is the development of a critical normal stress across the particle or the particle/matrix interface.44 In the metal matrix with no reinforcement, the nucleation of cavities and voids occurs by concurrent and synergistic influences of: (a) decohesion at interfaces between the brittle particle and the ductile matrix; and

312 (b) cracking of the hard deform elastically. and brittle

T. S. Srivatsan, A. Prakash inclusions that

The X208O/SiC, composites examined exhibited limited ductility, on a macroscopic scale, with fracture essentially normal to the tensile stress axis. However, microscopic examination of the fracture surface at high magnification revealed features reminiscent of both locally ductile and brittle mechanisms. Representative fractographs of the tensile fracture surface are shown in Figs 4-7. On a macroscopic scale the fracture surfaces of this composite were flat, but relatively rough when viewed on a microscopic scale (Fig. 4(a)). The fracture surfaces revealed fractured particles surrounded by ductile regions described as tear ridges. Few tear ridges were evident on the fracture surface (Fig. 4(b)). The matrix of the X2080/SiC,-T6 composite was covered with microvoids of varying size. The voids were intermingled with isolated regions of dimpled rupture (Fig. 4(a)). The constraints in deformation caused by the hard, brittle and elastically deforming SIC particles in the adjoining soft and ductile aluminum alloy matrix and the resultant development of a triaxial stress state in the matrix, aids in limiting the flow stress of the composite matrix and favors void initiation and growth. As a direct consequence of the deformation constraints induced by the SIC particulate reinforcements, a higher applied stress is required to initiate plastic deformation in the matrix. This translates to a higher elastic constant and yield
strength the of the X2080/SiC/xxp-T6 of a far-field tensile composites. Under influence

Fig. 5. Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile surface of the 20 vol.% Sic, composite.

fracture

appeared to have undergone ing a possible contribution

load the voids limited growth confirmfrom particle constraint-

induced triaxiality on failure of the composite matrix. Particle failure is governed by the conjoint influence of local plastic constraints, particle size and agglomeration. The local plastic constraints are particularly important for the larger-sized particles and particle clusters during composite fracture.44.4 Examination of the tensile fracture surfaces revealed damage associated with fracture to be highly localized at the discontinuous Sic, reinforcement with little evidence of void formation away from the fractured SIC particle. Fracture of the Sic, was greater in regions of particle clustering due to enhanced local stresses resulting from restriction of plastic deformation. The intrinsic brittleness of the reinforcing Sic, and the propensity for it to fracture due to localized deformation results in particle cracking being the dominant damage mode. The higher yield strength

Fig. 4. Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile surface of the IS vol.% Sic, composite.

fracture

Fig. 6. Scanning electron micrographs surface showing fine microvoids dimples.

of the tensile and isolated

fracture shallow

The quasi-static fracture behavior of an aluminum alloy

313

PI

Silicon carbide

of fine tear ridges between the Sic particles. With an increase in Sic, reinforcement content, fracture was found to be dominated by cracking of the SIC particles on account of their intrinsic brittleness (Fig. 7(a)). With an increase in strain, the larger-sized particles fracture first, followed by fracture of the smaller-sized clustering or of particle In regions particles. agglomeration, the short interparticle distance facilitates linkage between neighboring voids and cracks as a direct result of decreased propagation distances between the cracked particles. Based on an observation of the fracture surface, it is seen that the fracture plane of cracked particles is perpendicular to the loading axis, suggesting the importance of the tensile stress in inducing particle fracture (Fig. 7(b)). The early cracking of the SIC particles is largely responsible for the lower tensile ductility of the X2080/SiC/xxp-T6 composites. The overall damage resulting from uniaxial straining of the X2080/SiC,-T6 MMC is due to the conjoint action of two mechanisms:

(4 damage associated with the discontinuous Sic,

Fig. 7. (a)

Scanning electron micrograph of the tensile fracture surface showing cracked SIC particles. (b) of the fracture mode for Schematic representation Sic-reinforced X2080 aluminum alloy matrix.

@)

reinforcement, such as particle cracking and decohesion at the particle/matrix interfaces; and lattice damage such as dislocations and point defects, coupled with residual stress effects associated with the presence of discontinuous Sic particles.45

concurrent damage to the composite microstructure from the conjoint influence of particle cracking and decohesion results in a decrease in that assuming the Furthermore, ductility. interfaces are strong the triaxial matrix/particle stresses generated during far-field tensile loading favors limited growth of the microvoids in the matrix of the composite. The limited growth of voids during far-field tensile loading and lack of their coalescence as a dominant fracture mode for the X208O/SiC/xxpT6 composites clearly indicates that the deformation of the X2080 aluminum alloy are properties significantly altered by the presence of SIC,. Also, the presence of the Sic, raises the hydrostatic component of stress and, hence, their distribution is an important factor governing fracture of the composite.4h47 Fracture of the brittle Sic particles and concurrent failure of the surrounding matrix results in the formation of voids. Very few of the fine microvoids coalesce and the halves of these voids are the shallow dimples observed on the fracture surface (Fig. 6). The lack of formation of ductile dimples as a dominant fracture mode is attributed to the constraints on plastic flow in the composite matrix caused by the presence of the discontinuous Sic, reinforcement and not to the limited *ductility of the aluminum alloy per se. The constraints in plastic flow favor the formation
coupled with

associated with particle fracture or Damage cracking is well reflected by changes in elastic modulus. Changes in residual stress levels during straining also result in a concomitant change in modulus. The degree of damage, D, can be expressed as:4x D = [l - (EinstantlEinitiai)] (4) where Einitial is the initial modulus and Einstant is the modulus at any instantaneous value of strain. The contribution of cracked particles to the Youngs modulus of a particle-reinforced MMC can be analyzed by considering the cracked particles as penny-shaped cracks and the shattered particles as complete voids.3 For the Sic particles to fracture completely. they must be loaded to their fracture stress. This is achieved globally by the tensile stress and locally by shear loading through the interface. The extent of particle loading by the shear mechanism is dependent on the aspect ratio of the reinforcing Sic,. For the case of symmetrically packed particles in a metal matrix, the aspect ratio, S,, for maximum loading is:4 S, =
USC/ Ti (5)

where uslc is the strength of the particle and ri is the interfacial shear strength. The strength of monolithic SIC is about 2000 MPa and assuming that r, = a,/2,

314

T. S. Srivatsan. A. Prakash the SIC particle clusters, and is in the form of cracked particles, tear ridges and voids which have formed around the cracked particles. The fracture initiates by particle cracking coupled with decohesion of the matrix surrounding and between the particles. Final fracture is achieved by fracture through the matrix between the particle clusters (Fig. 7(b)). Few voids generated by particle cracking did not grow extensively in the tensile stress direction, which is generally the case in ductile fracture of unreinforced aluminum alloys (Fig. 8).50~s2 The lack of extensive void growth in this Sic particle-reinforced X2080 metal matrix also suggests that the fracture strain is critically controlled by both the void nucleation strain and linkage strain.

where (TM is the maximum stress achieved in the aluminum alloy matrix (about 500 MPa). the critical aspect ratio is 8. The shear mechanism approach ignores any end-loading effects which would exert additional stress on the SIC particles. A careful observation of the tensile fracture surface revealed less than 50% of the Sic particles had fractured. This indicates that not all of the SIC particles were loaded to their fracture stress suggesting the near-uniform distribution of the SIC particles in the metal matrix. This situation is further complicated by:

(a>

(b)

The mismatch strain and concomitant internal stress in the composite matrix due to differences in thermal expansion coefficient (6:l) between the Sic particles and the aluminum alloy. Assuming spherical particles, the mismatch strain, E,,, that will be induced in the particles will be given by eqn (3). For particle fracture to occur, the applied far-field tensile stress will have to overcome any internal stress present in the particle. Loading the particles through the misfit strain generated during plastic flow as a result of the difference in elastic modulus between the hard and brittle SIC particles and the soft and ductile X2080 matrix. (T,, at the interface of an elastic in a plastic matrix was found to and is given by:44%y

5 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this investigation on effect of Sic particle-reinforcement content on tensile behavior of X2080 aluminum alloy composite, the following conclusions can be drawn: The as-received microstructure of the X208O/SiC, MMC revealed a near-uniform distribution of the SIC particles in the three orthogonal directions of the extruded composite plate. Seldom was an agglomeration of the SIC particles observed. Increase in the amount of discontinuous Sic, reinforcement in the X2080 matrix increased the elastic modulus and the strength of the composite and degraded ductility. The increased strength of the discontinuouslyreinforced X208O/SiC, composites is rationalized in terms of mechanisms based on an increase in dislocation density in the matrix due to the presence of the discontinuous SIC particle-reinforcement phase misfit strains and resultant misfit stresses due to differential thermal contraction at the Al/SIC, interfaces, and constrained plastic flow due to the presence of the discontinuous SIC particle reinforcements in the aluminum alloy metal matrix. 4. The presence of the hard and brittle Sic particles in the soft and ductile metal matrix caused fine microcracks to initiate at low values of applied stress. Fractography revealed limited ductility on a macroscopic scale, but microscopically features were reminiscent of locally ductile and brittle mechanisms. 5. Fracture of the matrix between particle clusters. _ coupled with particle cracking and decohesion of the matrix surrounding the particles allows the microcracks to grow rapidly and link by fracture through the ductile metal matrix resulting in macroscopic failure and resultant low tensile ductility.

The radial stress, inclusion embedded be tensile in nature,

where v(E~) is the matrix yield stress at the plastic strain adjacent to the SIC particle, and a=, is the tensile hydrostatic stress developed in the immediate vicinity of the reinforcing particle. When the radial stress generated at the particle/matrix interface exceeds the strength of the SIC particle, cracking is promoted. For this SIC particle-reinforced X2080 aluminum alloy matrix the majority of damage is associated with

Fig. 8. Scanning

electron micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of an unreinforced Al-Cu-Mg alloy.

The quasi-static fracture behavior VJ -r uri --- uiumirium -I-.------.---auvy -I--.

313

94.r

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Ohio Aerospace Institute (Contract No. OAl:CCRP-92-1-011) and Rockwell International Corporation, Rocketdyne Division (Program Manager: Mr K. Janowski). Sincere thanks and appreciation are also extended to Dr W. H. Hunt Jr of ALCOA Technical Center for providing the material used in this study and for his sustained encouragement and helpful comments REFERENCES
1. Hasson, D. F. & Crowe, C. R., Strength of Metals and Alloys, ICSMA 7. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1985, pp. 1515-20. 2. Fishman, S. G., Role of Interfaces in Material Damping.

ASM, Materials Park, OH, 1985, pp. 33-41.

3. Liaw, P. K., Greggi, H. G. & Logsdon, W. A., J. Muter. Sci. Lett., 22(5) (1987) 1613-17. 4. Mandell, J. F., Hong, K. C. & Grande, D. H., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., 8(78) (1987) 937-40. 5. Grade, D. H., Mandell, J. F. & Hong, K. C. C., J. Mater. Sci., 23 (1988) 31 l-28. 6. Niskanen, P. & Mohn, W. R., Advanced Mater. Process., 133(3) (1988) 394 1. 7. Zedalis, M. S., Bryant, J. D., Gilman, P. S. & Das, S. K., J. Metals, (1991) 29-341. 8. East, W. R., Materials Engineering, March (1988) 33-6. 9. Demeis, R., Aerospace America, March (1989) 26-8. 10. Willis, T. C., Metals and Materials, August (1988) 485-8. 11. Nair, S. V., Tien, J. K. & Bates, R. C., Int. Metats Rev., 30(6) (1985) 285-96. 12. McDanels, D. L., Met&. Trans., 16A (1985) 1105-15. S., Metals and Materials, 2 (1986) 144-7. 13. Dermarkar, 14. Hunt, W. H., Cook, C. R. & Sawtell, R. R., Cost Effective High Performance Powder Metallurgy Aluminum Matrix Composites for Automotive Applications. SAE Technical Paper Series 910834, February 1991, Warrendale, PA. 15. Hunt, Jr, W. H., Cost Effective High Performance Aerospace Matrix Composites AEuminum for Applications, presented at the International Conference on PM Aerospace Materials, November 1991, Lausanne, Switzerland. S., Sasada, T. & Okabe, M., 28th Japan 16. Norose, Congress on Materials Research, 1985, pp. 231-41. 17. Phillips, W. L., Proc. Conf on Composite Materials, ed. B. Noton. Metallurgical Society of AIME, New York, 1978, pp. 567-77. 18, Nieh, T. G., Metall. Trans., 15A (1984) 139-50. 19, Gould, G., Proc. 3rd Inc. Conf. on Isostatic Pressing, 1 (1986). 20. Hasson, D. F., Crowe, C. R., Ahearn, J. S. & Cooke, D. S., Failure Mechanisms in High Performance Materials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1985, pp. 147-56.

21. Sugimura, Y. & Suresh, S., Metall. Trans., 23A (1992) 2231-42. 22. Liaw, P. K. & Logsdon, W. A., Eng. Fract. Mech., 24 (1986) 737-45. 23. Shang. J. K. & Ritchie, R. O., Metall. Trans., 20A (1989) 897-908. 24. Shang, J. K. & Ritchie, R. O., Actu Met&. , 37 (1989) 2267-78. 25. Davidson, D. L., J. Muter. Sci., 24 (1989) 681-7. 26. Manoharan, M. & Lewandowski, J. J., Acta Metall,, 38(3) (1990) 489-96. 27. Manoharan, M. & Lewandowski, J. J., Scripta Metall., 23 (1989) 301-K 28. Galbraith, J. M., Tosten, M. H. & Howell, P. R., J. Mater. Sci., 22 (1987) 27-35. 29. Osman, T. M., Lewandowski, J. J. & Hunt, Jr, W. H., Proc. Int. Conf. on Fabrication of Particulate Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites. ASM International, Metals Park, OH, 1990, pp. 209-16. 30. Hansen, N., Acta MetalE, 25 (1977) 9863-70. 31. Vogelsang, M., Arsenault, R. J. & Fisher, R. M., Metall. Trans., 17A (1986) 379-88. 32. Arsenault, R. J., Metal Matrix Composites: Mechanisms and Properties, ed. R. K. Everett & R. J. Arsenasult. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991, pp. 79-87. 33. Chawla, K, K. & Metzger, M., J. Muter. Sci., 17 (1972) 3443. 34. Taya, M. & Mori, T., Acta Metall., 35 (1987) 1.55-63. 35. Mochida, T., Taya, M. & Lloyd, D. J., Mater. Trans., 32 (1991) 931-40. 36. Ashby, M. F., Phil. Mug., 8 (1970) 399-408. 37. Drucker, D. C., High Strength Materials, ed. V. F. Zackey. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1965. 38. Butler, T. W. & Drucker, D. C., J. Appl. Mech., 40 (1973) 780-8. 39 Christman, T., Needleman, A., Nutt, S. R. & Suresh, S., Mater. Sci. Eng., 107A (1989) 49-59. 40 Tanaka, K. & Mori, T., Actu Metufl., 18 (1970) 931-40. 41. Taya, M., Lulay, K. E. & Lloyd, D. J., Acta Metall. Mater., 39 (1991) 73-80. F. A., Ductility. ASM, Metals Park, OH, 42. McClintock, 1968, pp. 256-61. 43. Van Stone, R. H,, Cox, T. B., Low, Jr, J. R. & Psioda, J. A., Inc. Metals Rev., 30 (1995) 157-71. 44. Argon, A. S., Im, J. & Safoglu, R., Metall. Trans., 6A (1975) 825-31. 45. Lloyd, D. J., Actu Met&., 39(l) (1991) 59-71. 46. Christman, T., Needleman, A. & Suresh, S., Actu Metall., 37 (1989) 3029-50. 47. Srivatsan, T. S. & Mattingly, J., 1. Muter. Sk., 28 (1993)

611-20.
48. Lemaitre, J. & Choboche, J. L., J. Appl. Mech., 2 (1978) 317-21. 49. Orr, J. & Brown, D. K., Eng. Fract. Mech., 6 (1974) 261-7. 50. Le Roy, G., Embury, J. D., Edwards, G. & Ashby, M. F., Acta Metal!., 29 (1981) 1509-16. 51. Srivatsan, T. S. & Place, T. A., J. Mater. Sci., 14 (1989) 1543-51. 52. Srivatsan, T. S., Lanning, D. & Soni, K., J. Mater. Sci., 28 (1993) 3205-13.