Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 35, No. 6 Paper ID JTE100677 Available online at: www.astm.

org

W. M. Khairaldien,1 A. A. Khalil,2 and M. R. Bayoumi2

Production of Aluminum-Silicon Carbide Composites Using Powder Metallurgy at Sintering Temperatures Above the Aluminum Melting Point

ABSTRACT: The extensive utilization of aluminum reinforced with silicon carbide in different structural applications has motivated the need to nd a cost effective technological production method for these composites. Homogeneity, machinability, and interfacial reaction of the constituents represent the signicant problems pertaining to these composites. Production of a homogenous, high strength, and net-shape structural components made from aluminum-silicon carbide composites can be achieved using powder metallurgy (PM) technology. In the present work the problem of low strength of the aluminum-silicon carbide produced by powder metallurgy is solved by raising the sintering temperature of the composite above the melting temperature of the aluminum. This method produces a local fusing and welding of the aluminum particles. Using aluminum powder with a thick oxide layer surrounding the particles prevents the total melting of the composite. Green compacted specimens containing 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 wt % silicon carbide were prepared. Samples from each composition were sintered at 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, and 900C separately, while other specimens were left without sintering for comparison. Microstructure examination, a microhardness test, and a compression test were carried out for each of the 49 combinations of SiC contents and sintering temperatures to study the effect of sintering temperature and SiC contents on the composite properties and to detect the optimum sintering temperature for each SiC weight percent. Generally the results show the tendency for both strength and ductility to increase upon increase in the sintering temperature. These specic sintering temperature levels are found to be 650C for the aluminum with no silicon carbide content, 700C for composites containing both 5 and 10 wt % SiC, 750C for composites containing 15 wt % SiC, 800C for composites containing 20 wt % SiC, 850C for composites containing 25 wt % SiC, and 900C for composites containing 30 wt % SiC. KEYWORDS: aluminum silicon carbide composites; powder metallurgy; mechanical properties; sintering temperature

Introduction
Aluminum is used widely as a structural material, especially in the aerospace industry, because of its light weight. However, the low strength and the low melting point of aluminum have always been a problem. An inexpensive method for solving these problems was to use a reinforced element such as SiC particles and whiskers [1]. The ceramic particle additions make it possible to increase the specic elastic modulus of aluminum as well as improve its thermal properties [2,3]. Using the powder metallurgy (PM) method to produce aluminum composites reinforced with SiC particulates produces a homogenous distribution of reinforcements in the matrix. Other methods of production like casting and thixoforming have problems of reinforcement segregation and clustering, interfacial chemical reactions, high localized residual porosity, and poor interfacial bonding. Yet other production methods such as spray deposition are very expensive [4]. Powder metallurgy also has the advantage of producing net-shape components, thus reducing the amount of machining needed to produce the nal product. Final machining is a great problem in the case of aluminum reinforced silicon carbide particles SiCp composite due to high tool wear caused by the inherent abrasiveness of the hard SiC particles. Machining also causes cracking of SiC particles and produces debonding between
Manuscript received June 3, 2006; accepted for publication May 29, 2007; published online August 2007. 1 Lecturer, Mechanical Engineering Department, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 2 Professor of Mechanical Design and Professor of Production Engineering and Mechanical Design, respectively, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, e-mail: mrb@acc.anu.edu.eg

the matrix and reinforcement interfaces underneath the machined surface [5]. However, the aluminum-silicon carbide composites produced by PM have low relative strength. This low strength is due to the presence of the oxide layer surrounding the aluminum particle that prevents welding of the particles during the sintering process. The oxide lm also prevents grain growth and movement of dislocations at or through the boundary and produces a high strength, brittle, and high temperature resistant material. As a method of overcoming this drawback the composite can be extruded after sintering to break the oxide layer and produce welding between the aluminum particles. However, this method eliminates the advantage of net-shape products. The composite after extrusion also exhibits a nonuniform distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix [6]. In this work the problem of poor sintering of an aluminum composite was solved by increasing the sintering temperature above the melting temperature of aluminum 660 C. The high temperature sintering process causes the aluminum particulate surrounded by the oxide layer to expand in volume and rupture the oxide envelope. Then, contact with melted aluminum from nearby particles causes welding to take place. The oxide layer breaks into small shell fragments scattered within the aluminum matrix, restricting the movement of dislocation and increasing the composites strength. The aluminum powder used has a high percentage of aluminum oxide Al2O3 in the form of a thick layer surrounding the particles. No canning or degassing processes were used before mixing the powder to reduce cost. Seven different compositions were prepared and tested containing 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 weight percent silicon carbide. Compression, microhardness, and microstructure samples were prepared and examined at the green state as well as those sintered at temperatures of 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, and 900 C.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Copyright 2007 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

2 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 1Powder mixtures used for production of aluminum silicon carbide composites. Mixture Al powder weight percentage SiC powder weight percentage Al powder volume percentage SiC powder volume percentage Apparent density in Kg/ m3 Tapped density in Kg/ m3 1 100 0 100 0 1083.7 1207.07 2 95 5 95.75 4.25 1126.79 1228.21 3 90 10 91.43 8.57 1146.48 1275.77 4 85 15 87.04 12.96 1163.47 1302.72 5 80 20 82.58 17.42 1227.94 1308.53 6 75 25 78.05 21.95 1228.42 1314.56 7 70 30 73.44 26.56 1230.33 1343.8

Material Preparation
Powder metallurgy methods were used for producing the composites with seven different mixtures of aluminum and silicon carbide powders to study the effect of silicon carbide weight percent on the mechanical properties of the composite. The weight percent, volume percent, apparent density, and tapped density of the mixtures used are listed in Table 1. The mixtures were weighted and blended without any preprocessing operation to decrease the cost of production. The used aluminum powder was a ake-type having a relatively large amount of aluminum oxide surrounding it. The asreceived aluminum and silicon carbide commercial powder particles used in the operation are shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen in the gure that the aluminum particles have irregular shapes while the silicon carbide particles have sharp edges and at surfaces. Chemical analysis of the aluminum powder using both atomic absorption and XRF methods is given in Table 2 along with the oxides distribution in the sample. The aluminum powder and the SiC powder used in the production have almost the same size distribution that makes it easy to get a homogenous distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix. The sieve analyses of the two powders are listed in Table 3. These mixtures were weighted and blended in a mechanical blender for 15 min to reach a homogenous distribution of the reinforcement in the mixture. Mixtures were then placed in a oating type compaction die. This die type (the upper and lower punches move separately while the die oats on springs in between) was selected to enhance the composite density distribution. The mixtures were then cold compressed under a pressure of 458 MPa to produce the maximum possible compact green density for all mixtures. The pressure was applied using a 500-ton high ca-

pacity compression testing machine. Changes of compaction displacement versus compaction pressure for the seven compositions are shown in Fig. 2. As shown, as the silicon carbide percentage increases more pressure is needed to achieve maximum density. Samples from each of the seven mixtures were sintered at six different temperatures, namely 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, and 900 C, for 1 h in an air atmosphere and left to cool in the furnace. Using an inert gas or vacuum atmosphere furnace was not necessary because the aluminum powder used already contained large amounts of Al2O3, and as such, this will decrease the chance of aluminum oxidization during the sintering process using an air atmosphere furnace. The samples were then solution heat treated at 515 C for 1 h and then quenched in ice water. In order to prevent the initiation of natural aging after this quench, all samples were articially aged immediately after the solution heat treatment. All samples were aged at 200 C and the time at this temperature depended on the weight percent of the silicon carbide. A 2-h aging was applied to the 30 wt % SiCp composite with an additional 2 h of aging time for each decrease of 5 wt % SiCp. This variation of aging time was employed in order to approach the T6 peak aged condition for all
TABLE 2The elementary analysis of aluminum powder and oxide distribution in it. Composition Analysis of Pure Aluminum in Weight Percent 10.8 O2 Mg 0.18 Al 88.6 Si 0.2 Fe 0.2 Zn 0.015 Ti 0.006 Oxygen Distribution Between Phases in Aluminum Powder Al2O3 99.5 MgO 0.2 0.18 SiO2 Fe2O3 0.09

TABLE 3Particle size distribution % retained on sieve analysis. Property Aluminum Powder Apparent Density 1083.7 Kg/ m3 Particle size distribution 180 microns 0 % retained on sieve 150 microns 16.67 analysis 90 microns 40.04 75 microns 21.1 45 microns 11.43 Fines 10.76 max Black SiC Powder 1305.1 Kg/ m3 180 microns 0.063 125 microns 0.063 90 microns 0.2 63 microns 5.053 45 microns 36.52 Fines 58.1 max

FIG. 1The as-received aluminum and silicon carbide powder under the optical microscope.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

KHAIRALDIEN ET AL. ON ALUMINUM-SILICON CARBIDE COMPOSITES

20 wt % SiCp composites show similar behavior only at high sintering temperatures. The 25 and 30 wt % SiCp composites show a different behavior as there density ratio drops slightly beneath other combinations and rises a slight amount at 900 C. The greatest density ratio was reached with the 15 and 20 wt % SiCp combinations.

Microstructure Examination
Samples for microstructure examination from all of the 49 combinations of SiC weight percent and sintering temperatures were prepared to investigate grain size, morphology, distribution of the silicon carbide particles in the composite, and interfacial integrity between the matrix and reinforcement. The samples were polished using silicon carbide paper (320, 400, 800, 1000, and 1500 grit) and nally using a short-nap cloth with ne alumina powder as the slurry. Kerosene was used as a coolant during polishing to prevent embedding of the abrasive particles in the sample. The samples were then etched using the modied Kellers reagent [2 mL HF (48 %), 3 mL HCL (concentrated), 20 mL HNO3 (concentrated), 175 mL water] [7] for 140 s. The long etch time was due to the high oxide content of the aluminum powder. Figure 4 shows the optical microscope photographs for composite samples containing seven different weight percent of SiCp. The gure shows that the silicon carbide particles are homogenously distributed in the aluminum matrix although some SiCp clusters rise in the matrix for combinations containing more than 15 wt % SiCp and the clustering increases as the SiCp weight percent increases. Aluminum particles at the green state were found to be held together by mechanical interlocking due to the deformation that takes place during the compaction process. Some of the oxide lm surrounding the particle had been broken and the silicon carbide particles trapped between the aluminum particles as shown in Fig. 5. However, the oxide layer damage from breaking during the compaction process was not enough to facilitate the adhesion of alumi-

FIG. 2The changes of compaction displacement versus compaction pressure for the seven compositions.

weight percent combinations by taking account of the accelerated aging experienced by the matrix phase caused by the presence of the SiC [3]. The change in density relative to the theoretical density of the composites calculated using rule of mixtures versus compaction pressure during compaction is shown in Fig. 3(a). Compact green density increases as the weight percent of SiCp increases. The relatively high density is due to the presence of a large amount of aluminum oxide in the composite that prevents the accurate calculation of the porosity in the composite. Figure 3(b) shows the variation of density with sintering temperature for the seven types of composites. It can be seen that the compact with no silicon carbide reaches maximum density at 750 C and the density decreases slightly as the sintering temperature increases. The 5, 10, 15, and

FIG. 3The change in relative density versus (a) compaction pressure, and (b) sintering temperature for the seven types of composites.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

4 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 4Optical microscope photographs for the seven combinations show the distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

KHAIRALDIEN ET AL. ON ALUMINUM-SILICON CARBIDE COMPOSITES

FIG. 5Scanning electronic micrographs showing the aluminum and silicon carbide particles for the green state.

num particles during the sintering process. Scanning electron micrographs showing the aluminum grain for the 15 wt % SiCp composite are shown in Fig. 6. The gure shows an increase in the efciency of the sintering process as the sintering temperature increases. Poor adhesion between aluminum particles was found at the sintering temperature of 650 C. The adhesion between aluminum particles increases and the number of voids decreases as the sintering temperature increases; however, voids reappear for composites sintered at 900 C.

Microhardness Test
Vickers microhardness tests were preformed using a MICROMET tester diamond indenter and 200 g indenting force. Microhardness tests are nondestructive and the measurements can be correlated to material ultimate strength [8,9]. These reasons make microhardness testing quite suitable for studying mechanical behavior of aluminum reinforced with SiCp. The 49 composite combinations of SiCp weight percents and sintering temperatures were tested to determine the effect of these two parameters. From four to six inden-

tations were made for each sample according to the repeatability of the readings and an average of these reading was then calculated. The position of indentation in the sample surface was chosen randomly due to the presence of two distinct materials in the composite. The results in Fig. 7 illustrate that pure aluminum samples show little increase in hardness with an increasing sintering temperature from the green samples as well as samples that were sintered at 700 C and then the hardness decreased for samples sintered at the greater temperature. For composites containing 5 wt % SiCp the hardness value increased slightly from the green state to those sintered at 700 C. Then the hardness increased abruptly for those sintered at 750 C and decreased for samples sintered at the higher temperature. The 10 wt % SiCp composite samples show a similar behavior to the 5 wt % SiCp composite except for the abrupt increase in hardness for samples sintered at 800 C and the hardness decreasing for the rest of the sample as the sintering temperature increases. Composites containing 15 and 20 wt % SiCp show increased hardness compared with the green state for samples that

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

6 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 6Scanning electronic micrographs showing the aluminum particle at different sintering temperatures.

were sintered at 800 C then reach a maximum value at 850 C. The hardness then decreases for samples sintered at 900 C. The same occurred for composites containing 25 and 30 wt % SiCp as hardness increases with increased sintering temperature with a maxi-

mum value for samples sintered at 900 C The microhardness results were slightly greater than those obtained for composites with the 1050 (99.5 wt aluminum) alloy matrix produced by stir casting [8], but somewhat less than those for composites with a matrix

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

KHAIRALDIEN ET AL. ON ALUMINUM-SILICON CARBIDE COMPOSITES

Compression Test
Despite the fact that microhardness measurements have provided good and representative results, a conrmation is still necessary because the composite contains more than one constituent. This can cause the microhardness test result to be inaccurate and misleading. For example, silicon carbide or aluminum particles may be greater in size than the indenter, or the indenter may land on a hidden void or a cluster of silicon carbide particles. These drawbacks were circumvented by taking many readings for the same sample and an average of the readings was taken to be the measured and reported hardness value. Compression testing was thought to be the best choice for conformation since only a small specimen is needed with very little machining. A at-bottomed, lipped-recess geometry specimen with dimensions shown in Fig. 8(a) was used to eliminate the end effect [11]. PTFE sheets were attached to the ends of the specimen using a grease to ll in the end recess. A computerized tension testing machine was used for these tests. However, because the specimens were quite small, a special xture was made to measure the force displacement curve during the test. The arrangement is shown in Fig. 8(b) and consists of a force transducer equipped with a strain gauge bridge and two steel plate cantilevers welded on both sides of the arrangement with strain gauges attached to each of them to work as a displacement transducer. The displacement was taken as the average of two displacements measured from the dis-

FIG. 7The variations of microhardness average values with sintering temperature for the 49 combinations of Al SiCp composites.

containing 5 % Cu produced by the vacuum inltration process [10] as well as composites with 6061 aluminum alloy matrix produced by the compocasting technique.

FIG. 8The compression specimen and arrangement used in the test.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

8 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 9The stress-strain curves for the pure aluminum samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

FIG. 11The stress-strain curves for the aluminum with 10 wt % silicon carbide samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

placement transducer. The force transducer and the displacement transducer output signals were attached to an amplier. The output of the amplier was connected to an oscilloscope with a digital memory to acquire and store the signals. The data are taken from the oscilloscope onto a disk in the form of spreadsheet les to be subsequently processed to obtain the stress-strain curve. From three to four compression specimens were tested for each of the 49 combinations. While some of the samples (those with zero or low silicon carbide content) withstood a great amount of stress without cracking and showed completely ductile behavior, others (those with high silicon carbide content) shattered in a brittle manner essentially at the beginning of loading. The stress-strain curves and photographs for some of the compression samples illustrating the failure type are shown in Figs. 915. Figure 9 shows the stress-strain curve for the aluminum specimens with no silicon carbide content at different sintering temperatures. It can be seen from the gure, except for the case of the green sample, the specimens show a clear ductile behavior at all sintering temperatures. However, the composite specimen sintered at 650 C did show some brittle cracking after compression. These cracking phenomena decreased in the composite compression samples sintered at 700 C and totally disappeared for rest of the samples. The composites samples that were sintered at 900 C were partially melted during sintering and therefore no stress-strain curve is shown in the gure. The strengthened effect of the SiCp for composite containing 5 wt % SiCp is shown in Fig. 10. From the gure it can be seen that even composite samples sintered at 650 C show

a ductile behavior to some extent. However, it nally cracked in a manner similar to the green sample with vertical cracks on its outer surface. This indicates the sintering process was not complete as shown in the photos attached to this gure. Samples sintered at 800 and 900 C attained a relatively large strain before cracking took place. The 10 wt % SiCp composite samples show an increase in strength compared to the 5 wt % SiCp composite as shown in Fig. 11. The composite sample that was sintered at 650 C shows ductile behavior and fails by longitudional cracking as shown in the photo. Composite samples that were sintered at a higher temperature also cracked. However, they attained a greater strain and cracked mainly in the recess at the end of the specimen in a circular manner. This circumferential cracking may be due to the at-bottomed, lipped-

FIG. 12The stress-strain curves for the aluminum with 15 wt % silicon carbide samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

FIG. 10The stress-strain curves for the aluminum with 5 wt % silicon carbide samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

FIG. 13The stress-strain curves for the aluminum with 20 wt % silicon carbide samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

KHAIRALDIEN ET AL. ON ALUMINUM-SILICON CARBIDE COMPOSITES

ever, they nally failed in a brittle manner with small longitudinal cracks on their outer surface as shown in Fig. 15. The strength of the 30 wt % SiCp specimens were below that of the 25 wt % SiCp specimens sintered at the low temperature shattered right after exposure to a small stress indicating the sintering process was not completed successfully.

Discussion
Producing aluminum reinforced with SiCp composites with high strength, light weight, free from defects, and inexpensively is the dream of engineers. However, poor machinability, inhomogeneous distribution of the reinforcement, oxide layer surrounding the aluminum powders, and interactive reactions between matrix and reinforcement are problems that need to be solved to make this dream come true. Powder metallurgy was thought by many researchers to be the solution as it provides the capability of producing net-shape products with homogenous distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix. However, the thick oxide layer surrounding the aluminum particle obliges the usage of aluminum powder with minimal oxide content and special sintering furnaces with vacuum or inert gas atmosphere. Extrusion, forging, rolling, or hot compaction were also used to eliminate the effect of oxide layers by breaking them and increasing the possibility of aluminum particles welding [6]. However, nonuniform dislocation density distribution, inhomogeneous distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix, and decrease in strength resulting from microcracking occurs during these postprocessing operations [12]. Also, the advantage of making net-shape products is eliminated when using these processes subsequent to powder metallurgy. Another procedure that employs liquid phase sintering (LPS) to overcome the oxide layer problem uses additions of an alloying element (usually copper) to the matrix. This addition forms a low melting point transient eutectic phase during sintering and penetrates the oxide layer surrounding the particles and eventually causes them to break down. Another procedure is to coat SiCp particles with another metal to enhance wetting and cohesion between the matrix and reinforcements. Copper has proven to be a good choice for coating SiC particles because it forms an Al-Cu liquid eutectic at temperatures below the sintering temperature of aluminum powder. The eutectic ows into the porous area and the boundary between aluminum particles and SiC particles provides a strong, ductile bond between the matrix and the reinforcement [13,14]. However, the low melting eutectic phase affects the properties of the composite at a high temperature which is one of the major disadvantages of this type of composite. The basic idea of our work is to use the liquid phase sintering process, but instead of adding alloying elements to the aluminum matrix, the sintering temperature was raised above the melting point of pure aluminum. The aluminum matrix melts and breaks the oxide layer to mix with aluminum leaking from other particles to produce good adhesion. The alumina layer shatters into small fragments thereby impeding the deformation of the aluminum matrix and increasing its strength as well as improving its high temperature properties. So, instead of aluminum reinforced with an SiCp composite, the process produces an inexpensive composite reinforced with both SiCp and Al2O3 without the need for any preprocessing or postprocessing operation. Microstructural examination, microhardness test, and compression test results showed that good sintering was achieved for an unreinforced matrix even at 650 C sintering temperature and the sintering efciency increased as the sintering temperature in-

FIG. 14The stress-strain curves for the aluminum with 25 wt % silicon carbide samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

recess geometry, sharp internal corners of the recess acting as stress concentration regions. The 15 wt % SiCp composite samples showed increased strength compared to the composite containing the lower weight percent SiCp. Composites samples that were sintered at 650 and 700 C failed in a brittle manner by longitudinal cracking after only a small strain as shown in Fig. 12. Composite samples that were sintered at higher temperatures showed more ductility and experienced greater strains before they failed. The 20 wt % SiCp composite shows brittle behavior for specimens that were sintered below 750 C where they cracked in a longitudinal manner in more than one position. This illustrates that the sintering process was not successfully completed as shown in Fig. 13. The samples that were sintered at higher temperatures behaved in a more ductile manner indicating good sintering. Ductility increases as the composite sample sintering temperature increases. However, the maximum strength that these composites reached before cracking was below that of the 15 wt % SiCp composite. The specimens show ever increasing brittle behavior as the weight percent of silicon carbide increases as shown in Fig. 14 for 25 wt % SiCp. It is obvious from the gure that most specimens fail in a brittle manner except for composite samples that were sintered at 900 and 850 C. The cracks were severe and deep indicating there was little adhesion between the particles. Even for composite specimens that were sintered at 900 and 850 C, longitudinal cracks on the exterior surface appeared after a moderate amount of strain. The 30 wt % SiCp composite shows a clearly brittle behavior for specimens sintered at temperatures from 650to 850 C. Composite specimens that were sintered at 900 C show some ductility. How-

FIG. 15The stress-strain curves for the aluminum with 30 wt % silicon carbide samples sintered at seven different temperatures.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

10 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 16Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns for aluminum composite: (a) containing 10 wt % SiCp sintered at 650 C, and (b) containing 5 wt % SiCp sintered at 650 C.

creased. The aluminum particles expand more and more as the temperature increases until the temperature reaches the aluminum melting point causing the aluminum inside the alumina layer to melt. As the temperature increases above the aluminum melting point the liquid aluminum pressure inside the alumina increases until it nally becomes great enough to burst the alumina envelope. The leaking liquid aluminum from the broken alumina mixes with the melted aluminum leaking from neighboring particles, closing the voids between them and connecting the particles. A higher temperature is needed for aluminum particles with thicker oxide layers as more liquid pressure is needed to burst these thick layers. However, for the sintering temperature above 700 C this process accelerates and the aluminum leak rate from the particles becomes so great that voids begin to form inside the particles that eliminates the benet of this process. This can be seen from the microstructure examination shown in Fig. 6 that shows the voids decreasing as the sintering temperature of the composite increases from 650 to 750 C. The voids nearly disappear for composites sintered at 800 and 850 C, then reappear for composites sintered at 900 C. Microhardness values also increase for composites sintered at 700 C and decrease afterward, mainly due to the presence of voids. In the 5 and 10 wt % SiCp composites, the SiCp becomes a hindrance for the ow of melted aluminum leaking from aluminum particles and increases the sintering temperature required to bypass these obstacles. The 10 wt % SiCp composite also shows higher strength and microhardness values than the 5 wt % SiCp composite mainly because it contains double the content of SiCp. The presence of the SiCp also increases the composite strength as they carry part of the force applied to the material and hinder dislocation movement in the matrix, thereby constraining the matrix plastic ow. However, the increase in strength is very small compared with the one that can be calculated using the simple rule of mixtures. Internal stress also rises in the composite due to the difference in thermal contractions at the Al/ SiCp interfaces during the cooling of the composite after sintering that produces mist strains and resultant mist stresses. The mechanism of sintering in the presence of 5 and

10 wt % SiCp reinforcement is similar to that of pure aluminum, only a higher temperature is needed to produce good sintering due to the presence of the SiCp. The amount of SiCp in the 5 and 10 wt % SiCp composites is relatively minimal to produce particle clusters. The interaction in aluminum reinforced with SiCp is either aluminum with aluminum particles that adhere properly, or aluminum with SiCp. Interfacial bonds between the aluminum matrix and reinforcement at an elevated temperature is critically important as SiC is thermodynamically unstable at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum 660 C and reacts with the liquid aluminum to form aluminum carbide and silicon [1517] according to the following reactions: 4Alliquid + 3SiCsolid Al4C3solid + 3Siliquid (1)

Aluminum carbide is a deleterious phase and can act as a damage nucleation site in the material. The possibility of aluminum carbide formation is greater for composites containing 10 wt % SiCp because they have a greater amount of silicon carbide than 5 wt % SiCp composites, thereby increasing the possibility of silicon carbide/silicon carbide particle contacts [18]. X-ray diffraction patterns for two samples of 10 and 5 wt % SiCp composites sintered at 650 C are shown in Fig. 16. From the gure the presence of Al, SiC, Al2O3, and Al4C3 phases can be identied in the XRD patterns, thereby conrming the formation of aluminum carbide. However, using the as-received SiC powder hinders this reaction because the as-received SiC particles have a thin layer of silicon oxide (silica). This layer serves as a barrier to block the SiC particles from being attacked by molten aluminum and decreases the chance of producing aluminum carbide [1922] according to the following reaction: 3SiO2solid + 4Alliquid 2Al2O3solid + 3Siliquid (2)

Also, the introduction of free Si as a result of the second reaction of molten aluminum leaking from the particles also decreases the possibility of producing aluminum carbide. This can be understood from the Al-Si-C phase diagram [15,22] shown in Fig. 17.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

KHAIRALDIEN ET AL. ON ALUMINUM-SILICON CARBIDE COMPOSITES

11

FIG. 17The calculated isothermal section of the Al-Si-C phase diagram at 677 C with -SiC [8].

These reactions decrease the amount of aluminum carbide that forms during the manufacturing of the composite, especially when the SiCp weight percent is minimal, as in the case of composites

containing 5 and 10 wt %, and even for composites containing as much as 15 wt % SiCp. However, as the silicon carbide content increases, conditions become more suitable for the formation of aluminum carbide. Other factors that must be taken into consideration when studying aluminum reinforced with SiCp composites are particles size and distribution. Selecting a suitable SiCp reinforcement particle size is very important because using large particle sizes produces composites with low strength that fail by initiation and breakage of the SiC reinforcement particles. Smaller particle sizes produce composites with high yield and ultimate tensile strength [3]. The main reason for this is that the large SiC particles are often lled with stacking faults and cracks that can easily initiate composite cracking upon initial loading. However, using very small SiCp particle sizes increases the surface area of contact between the aluminum matrix and SiCp reinforcement. This increases the chance of formation of aluminum carbide and interfacial failure of the SiC / Al interface becomes the main source of composite failure initiation [23]. Particle size distribution is also of great importance. Using a wide range of SiC particle sizes produces inhomegenity and increases the possibility of SiC particles clustering [24]. Because of

FIG. 18Scanning electronic micrograph showing two defects that may take place in the composite.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

12 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

this the particle size used to produce the composites in this work was selected to be in a narrow range as shown in Table 3. The increase of silicon carbide content in the 15 wt % SiCp composite also increases the strength and hardness. However, the compression specimens failure tends to be more brittle. The temperature needed to achieve good sintering increases to 750 C due to the increase in SiCp content. This tends to hinder more and more the aluminum particles adhesion. Compression results obtained indicate this composite has lower strength but greater ductility than that produced by powder metallurgy followed by the extrusion process for a composite with a matrix containing 5 % Cu [3]. However, as the silicon carbide content increases the chance of formation of defects, also increases such as with reinforcement clustering. This mechanism can also trap voids between the clustered particles and work as damage nucleation sites thereby weakening the composite and decreasing its strength as shown in Fig. 18(a). Cracked or fractured particles produce a microdefect in the composite that can not be healed in the subsequent sintering process as shown in Fig. 18(b). This becomes clearer in the 20 wt % SiCp where the strength drops below that of the 15 wt % SiCp. In the 20 wt % SiCp composite the SiCp content becomes great enough for defects to affect the strength of the composite that is less than that of the 15 wt % SiCp composite. Also, the possibility of formation of aluminum carbide at particle interfaces increases with increasing the SiCp content as discussed previously. However, the 20 wt % SiCp microhardness value is still greater than that of the 15 wt % SiCp because there is an increased chance that the indenter of the hardness tester may land on a silicon carbide particle. The temperature required to produce good sintering also increases to 800 C. But the relative density is less than that of the 15 wt % SiCp because increasing the SiCp contents in the aluminum matrix prevents melted aluminum leaking from the particles from lling the voids between particles. The 25 wt % SiCp exhibits brittle behavior in which the strength is less than that of the 20 wt % SiCp and sintering temperatures up to 850 C were needed to achieve good sintering. The compression specimen sintered at lower temperatures cracked and even shattered at relatively low stresses compared with the composite with less SiCp content. The hardness was still greater than that of the composites with less silicon carbide content. The 30 wt % SiC exhibited a brittle behavior for all cases in specimens sintered up to 900 C. The interfacial reaction between SiC and aluminum was minimized by using SiCp with a silicon oxide layer. Sintering temperature of 650 C was great enough to produce a successful sintering for the unreinforced aluminum compacts while a slight increase in the sintering temperature was needed to produce good sintering for the composite containing 5 wt % SiCp. The composite containing 10 wt % SiCp required a sintering temperature of 700 C to produce good sintering. The 15 wt % composite required a temperature above 750 C to produce good sintering while the 20 wt % composite showed good sintering at temperatures above 800 C. The 25 wt % SiC composite needed a temperature of 850 C to exhibit some sign of good sintering, while the 30 wt % SiC composite produced good sintering at a temperature of 900 C.

References
[1] Taya, M., and Arsenault, R. J., Metal Matrix Composites, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1989. [2] Karnezis, P. A., Durrant, G., and Cantor, B., Characteristics of Reinforcement Distribution in Cast Al-Alloy/SiCp Composites, Mater. Charact., Vol. 40, 1998, p. 97. [3] Lu, Y. X., Meng, X. M., Lee, C. S., Li, R. K. Y., Huang, C. G., and Lai, J. K. L., Microstructure and Mechanical Behavior of a SiC Particles Reinforced Al-5Cu Composite Under Dynamic Loading, J. Mater. Process. Technol., Vol. 94, 1999, p. 175. [4] ODonnell, G., and Looney, L., Production of Aluminum Matrix Composite Components Using Conventional PM Technology, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. 303, 2001, p. 292. [5] Hung, N. P., Boey, F. Y. C., Khor, K. A., OH, C. A., and Lee, H. F., Machinability of Cast and Powder-Formed Aluminum Alloys Reinforced with SiC Particles, J. Mater. Process. Technol., Vol. 48, 1995, p. 291. [6] Cocen, U., and Onel, K., Ductility and Strength of Extruded SiCp/Aluminum-Alloy Composites, Compos. Sci. Technol., Vol. 62, 2002, p. 275. [7] ASM Handbook Committee, Metals Handbook Vol. 7 Powder Metallurgy, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, 1984. [8] Gupta, M. and Srivatsan, T. S., Interrelationship Between Matrix Microhardness and Ultimate Tensile Strength of Discontinuous Particle-Reinforced Aluminum Alloy Composites, J. Mater. Sci. Lett., Vol. 51, 2001, p. 255. [9] Bekheet, N. E., Gadelrab, R. M., Salah, M. F., and Abd ElAzim, A. N., The Effect of Aging on the Hardness and Fatigue Behavior of 2024 Al Alloy/SiC Composites, Mater. Des., Vol. 23, 2004, p. 153. [10] Sahin, Y., and Acilar, M., Production and Properties of SiCp-Reinforced Aluminum Alloy Composites, Composites, Part A, Vol. 34, 2003, p. 709. [11] Lovato, M. L., and Stout, M. G., Compression Testing Technique to Determine the Stress/Strain Behavior of Metal Subject to Finite Deformation, Metall. Trans. A, Vol. 23A, 1992, p. 937. [12] Kanetake, N., Ozaki, M., and Choh, T., Effects of Particle Characters on Flow Stress of Particle Reinforced Aluminum Matrix Composites, J. Jpn. Soc. Technol. Plast., Vol. 34, 1993, p. 1332.

Conclusions
The problem of aluminum-silicon carbide composites poor machinability can be solved by producing net-shape products using the powder metallurgy method that produces homogenous distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix. The low strength of the composite produced by PM can be solved by increasing the sintering temperature of the composite above the melting temperature of the aluminum powder, thereby producing a local fusion and welding of the aluminum particles. The temperature required to achieve a successful sintering process increases as the silicon carbide content increases. Microstructural examination illustrated that the composite has a homogenous distribution of the reinforcement particles and the bond between the constituents is enhanced as the sintering temperature increases up to a certain limit depending on the silicon carbide content. The microhardness test results and the compression test results conrmed this observation.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

KHAIRALDIEN ET AL. ON ALUMINUM-SILICON CARBIDE COMPOSITES

13

[13] Davidson, A. M., and Regener, D., A Comparison of the Aluminum-Based Metal-Matrix Composites Reinforced with Coated and Uncoated Particulate Silicon Carbide, Compos. Sci. Technol., Vol. 60, 2000, p. 865. [14] Ogol, B., and Guhuz, R., Microstructure and Tensile Properties of Hot Pressed Al-SiC Composites Prepared from Pure Al and Cu Powders, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. 301, 2001, p. 213. [15] Yaghmaee, M. S., and Kapta, G., On the Stability Range of SiC in Ternary Liquid Al-Si-Mg Alloy, Materials Worlds, Proceedings of Hungarian Materials Science Society, II, Year 3, No. ISSN 1586-0140, 2001. [16] Shorowordi, K. M., Laoui, T., Haseeb, A. S. M. A., Celis, J. P., and Froyen, L., Microstructure and Interface Characteristics of B4C, SiC and Al2O3 Reinforced Al Matrix Composites: A Comparative Study, J. Mater. Process. Technol., Vol. 142, 2003, p. 738. [17] Zhao, Z., Zhijian, S., and Yingkum, X., Effect of Microstructure on the Mechanical Properties of an Al Alloy 6061-SiC Particle Composite, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. 132, 1991, p. 83. [18] Tham, L. M., Gupta, M., and Cheng, L., Predicting the Failure Strains of Al/SiC Composites with Reacted Matrix/ Reinforcement Interfaces, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. 354,

2003, p. 369. [19] Davidson, A. M., and Regener, D., A Comparison of the Aluminum-Based Metal-Matrix Composites Reinforced with Coated and Uncoated Particulate Silicon Carbide, Compos. Sci. Technol., Vol. 60, 2000, p. 865. [20] Salvo, L., LEsperance, G., Suery, M., and Legoux, J. G., Interfacial Reactions and Age Hardening in Al-Mg-Si Metal Matrix Composites Reinforced with SiC Particles, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. A177, 1994, p. 173. [21] Gu, M., Jin, Y., Mei, Z., Wu, Z., and Wu, R., Effects of Reinforcement Oxidation on the Mechanical Properties of SiC Particulate Reinforced Aluminum Composites, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. 252, 1998, p. 188. [22] Miserez, A., Mller, R., Rossoll, A., Weber, L., and Mortensen, A., Particle Reinforced Metals of High Ceramic Content, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, Vol. 387, 2004, pp. 822831. [23] Varma, V. K., Kamat, S. V., and Kutumbarao, V. V., Tensile Behavior of Powder Metallurgy Processed (Al-Cu-Mg)/SiCp Composites, Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, 2001. [24] Srivatsan, T. S., and Al-Hajri, M., The Fatigue and Final Fracture of SiC Particle Reinforced 7034 Aluminum Matrix Composites, Composites, Part B, Vol. 33, 2002, p. 391.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Feb 22 14:26:58 EST 2014 Downloaded/printed by Yildiz Teknik Universitesi pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.