Accepted Manuscript

Experimental study on mechanical and ballistic behaviours of silicon carbide

reinforced functionally graded aluminum foam composites

Görkem Kırmızı, Halil Arık, Hanifi Çinici

PII: S1359-8368(18)32275-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.11.076
Reference: JCOMB 6261

To appear in: Composites Part B

Received Date: 21 July 2018

Revised Date: 20 October 2018
Accepted Date: 15 November 2018

Please cite this article as: Kırmızı Gö, Arık H, Çinici H, Experimental study on mechanical and ballistic
behaviours of silicon carbide reinforced functionally graded aluminum foam composites, Composites
Part B (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.11.076.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Experimental study on mechanical and ballistic behaviours of silicon carbide reinforced
functionally graded aluminum foam composites

Görkem Kırmızı1*, Halil Arık1, Hanifi Çinici1

1
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Eng., Gazi University, 06500 Ankara, Turkey

PT
* Corresponding author: Tel: +90 312 202 87 50 ; Fax: +90 312 202 89 47

RI
E-mail address: gorkemkirmizi@gazi.edu.tr

SC
Abstract
In this study, mechanical and ballistic properties of the aluminium 7075-based silicon carbide
(SiC)-reinforced functionally graded composite materials were investigated. Al7075 and SiC

U
powders were compressed at different temperatures using a number of different pressure
AN
parameters as part of the powder metallurgy method, and four layers of functionally graded
materials (FGMs) containing SiC at ratios of 5 wt.%, 10 wt.%, 15 wt.%, and 20 wt.% were
M

produced, respectively, at each layer. Subsequently, FGM consisting of Al7075 / SiC and
AA7075 series materials of Al foam were produced in combination to obtain 5-layer ready-to-
D

foam functionally graded foam materials (FGFM). The powder metal block samples
fabricated were then subjected to foaming at 750°C. The resulting matrix-reinforcement
TE

interface of the FGM was examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Transverse rupture strength (TRS) and hardness tests were carried out to elucidate the
EP

mechanical properties of FGM. Ballistic tests were performed in order to determine the V50
ballistic performance of FGM. The results showed that SiC particles were uniformly
distributed in the matrix having with good interface bonding and that the hardness and TRS
C

values were increased as the volume fraction of reinforcement increased. The highest
AC

hardness, fracture toughness and ballistic resistance were obtained the production parameters
of 500oC and 400 MPa. It was observed that the FGFMs absorbed the kinetic energy of the
projectile with a lowest depth of penetration.
Keywords: Functionally graded foam material, hot pressing, ballistic, armour material

1. Introduction

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
With the advancements in the technology, the industry now expects the MMCs to be used in
high-tech systems to offer customized material properties. Promising results were obtained
from the recent studies which focused on the production of new structures with superior
properties using materials with different properties in combination [1]. Thus, functionally
graded materials (FGMs) were introduced. Manufactured based on powder metallurgy, FGMs
commonly produced using varying particle ratios. Offering a uniform microscopic

PT
distribution, FGMs are recognized for their high performance [2]. One of the most important
differences between FGMs and composites is the uniform interface which produces smooth

RI
transition between the components [3]. FGMs have attracted the interest of armour industry as
the studies showed that these materials are ideal for light armour plates offering superior

SC
mechanical properties [4]. Moreover, an important property of armour materials is their
ability to absorb energy. This is a critical property as any projectile would create a very high
level of energy upon contact. Better ability to absorb energy minimized the crack formation

U
which in turn offers high levels of ballistic performance. Therefore, one of the prerequisites of
AN
improved ballistic strength is the ability of the armour material to absorb the kinetic energy
created by an armour-piercing shell traveling at a certain velocity, in order to eliminate any
M

damage to the individual wearing such armour [5, 6]. These concerns make it very important
for armour material to have the ductility and energy absorption capacity required by the
D

intended use. Metal foams offer properties such as high energy absorption capacity and low
density. The reason behind the higher energy absorption properties these structures offer is
TE

that they transform the impact energy into deformation energy [7-10]. FGMs and metal
foams, when considered separately, can be defined as materials with significant mechanical
EP

and physical behaviours. FGFMs were created when the researchers explored the combination
of these two structures with superior properties. The threat of a ballistic attack is created
depending on the variety of calibres, core toughness and the high velocity of the projectile.
C

Thus, it is of utmost importance to define the ballistic resistance of the armour material
AC

against projectiles or projectiles. The use of a hard outer layer and a hard inner layer in a
FGM may offer effective protection against ballistic threats. The outer layer is intended to
obliterate the projectile while the inner layer is intended to absorb the energy created by the
impact [11,12]. Given these properties, it is important to consider FGFMs as armour
materials. FGFMs can be produced using a number of production methods. Furthermore,
powder metallurgy stands out as the most commonly used manufacturing method in this field.
[13-15]. There is a limited amount of studies on the ballistic behaviour of FGMs [12,16].
Pettersson et al. explored the ballistic response of Ti-TiB2-reinforced FGM against tungsten

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
based 7.62 mm projectile. The authors found that FGM offers superior performance when
compared to monolithic TiB2 [16]. A recent study explored the ballistic behaviour of B4C-
AA7075 FGM against 7.62 mm armour-piercing (AP) projectile. It was reported that this
material offers ballistic protection up to 25 mm thickness [12]. Übeyli et al. produced two
types of Al7075/SiC composites using the powder metallurgy technique and investigated their
ballistic performance. The ballistic test results, obtained using an armour-piercing projectile

PT
with 7.62 mm core, showed that the desired ballistic performance cannot be obtained with this
material [17]. Carvalho et al. conducted a study on the improvement of functionally graded

RI
material manufacturing method using a distributed approach to reinforcement learning. The
authors conducted this study on 410L/SiC material. They found that FGMs offer different

SC
mechanical properties, higher tensile strength and wear behaviours [18].
There are some basic properties required of any material which is to be used in the defense
industry. High ballistic performance, ease of forming, good corrosion resistance, high

U
hardness and good weldability are among the most important requirements. As they offer
AN
good values for these basic properties, Al 7075 and Al 5083 alloys are commonly used in
defense industry. Al 6061, another alloy, also offers very good values for these basic
M

properties. However, Al 6061 is not commonly used in defense industry as it has a poor
ballistic performance. The aimed of this study was to produce FGMs and FGFMs using Al
D

7075/SiC and to improve their ballistic and mechanical properties. For this purpose, FGMs
and FGFM samples with 15 wt.%, 30 wt.%, 45 wt.%, and 60 wt.% SiC-reinforced layers were
TE

created. These samples were then tested for their ballistic performance, having defined their
microstructural and mechanical properties.
EP

2. Experimental procedure
C

2.1. Production of composite materials

AC

Three different material groups, namely, FGM, foam structure and FGFM, were produced in
this study. The matrix of these materials was Al7075 and the reinforcement used was SiC.
The average particles size of the powder, for Al 7075, was 100 µm, with it was 32 µm for
SiC. Table 1 shows the chemical composition (%) of Al7075 dust. First, we produced the
FGM. Mixture powders with varying SiC content were weighed using Sartorius balance
operating with up to 0.1 mg precision. Matrix and the filler powders were mixed for 60
minutes in 3D Turbola device in order to obtain a homogeneous mix. The process of the

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
powder mixing was performed using a step-by-step procedure. Al7075 alloy FGM was mixed
with 15 wt.%, 30 wt.%, 45 wt.%, and 60 wt.% SiC at each layer using different temperature
and pressure parameters.

The powder mixes used for FGM production were compressed using the pressures of 200,
300, 400 MPa at 300, 400, 500oC. The FGMs produced were of 2 mm thick and 30 × 50 × 8

PT
mm in size. The next step was the production of functionally graded foam material (FGFM).
This foam structure was used in two types of samples, one with silicon and one without

RI
silicon. Silicon-foam structure consisted of 1% TiH2, 7% Si and 92% Al7075. Four samples
were produced for each production parameter with the same 30 × 30 × 3 mm size and
production parameters used for FGM. These foam samples were treated in a furnace at 750oC

SC
for foam formation. In the third and the last phase, 5-layer FGFMs were produced at 500oC
and under 400 MPa pressure with the prefoamed layer thickness of 4 mm and all the other

U
layers with a thickness of 3 mm (Figure 1). The reason behind this thickness difference
AN
between the layers of FGFM and FGM was to obtain the total plate thickness of 25.4 mm in
accordance with the relevant standards. Table 2 shows the production parameters of FGM and
M

FGFM.
D

2.2 Analysis of microstructure and mechanical properties

TE

Microstructural analyses were performed using an optical microscope (Leica DM4000) in

order to identify the particle distribution and the status of the transition at interfacial transition
EP

zones and in the layers of FGMs. A scanning electron microscope (JEOL JSM-6060LV) was
used to observe the matrix-reinforcement interface. Hardness and TRS tests were performed
in order to identify the changes in hardness and TRS values at the layers and interfacial
C

transition zones (ITZs) depending on the changing reinforcement ratios and production
AC

parameters. The densities of the specimens were determined using a Sartorius balance with a
precision of 0.1 mg according to the Archimedes principle and compared with the theoretical
densities of Al 7071 (2.81 g/cm3) and SiC particles (3.10 g/cm3). Theoretical densities of the
composite specimens, , were computed using the eq. (1):

= ∗ + ∗ (1)

Where, is the density of the composites, and are the volumetric ratios of
aluminum and SiC in matrix. Hardness tests were conducted using Brinell Hardness Tester

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(EMCO-TEST DuraVision 200) in accordance with the ASTM E10-84 standard in order to
identify the hardness of each layer and ITZs. A total load of 31.25 kg was used during the
tests. The averages of five hardness measurements taken from each layer and interface were
used. 3 samples were prepared for each production parameter to find the TRS values of FGMs
in accordance with the ASTM B 528-99 standard. TRS tests were conducted using Instron
model 3369 universal test device at a velocity of 1 mm/s. Fig. 2 shows the TRS test setup.

PT
The following are the bending strength equations (2-3-4):

= × (2)

RI
= ⁄2 (3)

SC
= × /12 (4)

U
Where, stress, S, bending moment, M, moment of inertia, I, Width of sample, w, thickness of
AN
sample, t, and distance between axis, y. The mid-sample stress was taken as the max. bending
surface strain. Ballistic tests were conducted using the best production parameters for both
FGMs and FGFMs based on the results of microstructural characterisation and mechanical
M

tests. Fig. 2.a schematically illustrates the shooting range used for the ballistic tests.
D

The standard numbered MIL-DTL-46063 suggests the use of 30 degrees shooting angle for
samples of 0.5 ınch thickness using 7.62-51 mm AP M2 core. In this context, the FGMs used
TE

in ballistic tests were of 0.5 inch thickness.

EP

2.3. Ballistic tests

C

Targets were shot using armour-piercing projectiles with 7.62 mm core in accordance with the
MIL-DTL-46063H standard in order to define the ballistic performance and V50 ballistic limit.
AC

During the tests, FGMs and FGFMs of 60 mm × 60 mm in size were secured to the target
holder. Fig. 2.a shows the distance between the target and the gun. 7.62 mm × 51 mm M80
projectiles were used in the tests. During the ballistic tests, FGMs of 12.7 mm thickness
prepared using Al7075/SiC were fired at first. This was followed by shots fired at FGFMs of
25.4 mm thickness in order to define the V50 ballistic limits of the material. The best results
were obtained from the FGMs prepared using the production parameters of 500oC – 400 MPa.
Thus, the ballistic tests were performed on the FGMs and FGFMs prepared using these

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
parameters (Figures 2.b.1 and 2.b.2). Given that each sample was shot only once, a total
number of 8 shots were fired at FGMs and FGFMs. In order to define the energy absorption
patterns of the armour materials, impact speed of the projectiles were measured and their
specific ballistic energies were calculated. In these calculations, ballistic limit speed and areal
density data available for the materials were used. Macro characterisation was performed in
order to define the ballistic performance of FGMs and FGFMs and to explore the effects of

PT
foam structure on FGFMs.

RI
3. Experiment results and discussion
3.1. Analysis of microstructure and mechanical properties

SC
Four-Layer FGM was produced with Al7075/SiC using hot compression of powder
metallurgy. The selection of hot compression aimed at eliminating the wettability problem

U
between the aluminium alloy and SiC ensuring a uniform particle distribution. Density and
AN
strength are important criteria for the material selection and for engineering applications in
general and these properties are mostly correlated. Furthermore, we make use of density and
M

strength of materials when comparing materials in terms of their lightness and energy
properties [19]. For this purpose, density, microstructure, hardness, transverse rupture
D

strength, and ballistic performance of FGMs were measured. Analysis of the density results
showed that the lowest density values were obtained from the lowest production parameters
TE

(300oC – 200 MPa). The highest density values were found for the samples produced using
the parameters of 500oC – 400 MPa. The reason behind the differences found between these
EP

two samples, as noted by the earlier studies, is the increased porosity of the samples based on
the SiC reinforcement ratio [20]. It was found that hot compression has a statistically
significant impact on the change in density. The compression temperature, when increased,
C

also increases the density. This finding can be explained with the decreased porosity at higher
AC

temperatures where particles are stacked closer to each other. Figures 13 and 14 show the
optical microscope images showing the SiC distribution in FGMs which are produced in
layers. Thanks to the mixing of the powder in a 3D mixer and hot compression process
followed, a uniform distribution was achieved in the composite structure. Microstructure
images were produced in order to define the homogeneity of the particle distribution, to
analyse the morphology of the pores created and to identify the diffusion mechanism expected
to form between the matrix and the particle. A closer look at the microstructure of the FGMs
obtained using three different temperatures and compression pressures showed that interfacial

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
transition zones became indistinct due to the increased porosity as the SiC content was
increased. Nevertheless, it is believed that Al7075 powder will have some minor aglomeration
due to increased hardness and the pressure along with the increased SiC content and that this
will lead to an increase in the porosity of the structure [21, 22]. Fig. 3 shows the
microstructures of FGMs produced under 200 MPa compression pressure at 300oC. The
interfacial transition zone (ITZ) of the sample produced under 200 MPa compression pressure

PT
at 300oC is clearly visible in the images. The top and bottom parts of the 1st ITZ represent the
layers containing 15% and 30% SiC, respectively. There is sufficient evidence to believe that

RI
the first and second layers which contain 15 wt.% and 30 wt.% SiC, respectively, were
exposed to sufficient amount of temperature and pressure. On the other hand, a closer look

SC
into the ITZs between the layers containing 45% and 60% SiC showed linear gaps and
incompatibilities between the layers. Such linear gaps were clearly visible in the 2nd and 3rd
ITZs of the samples produced using the parameters of 300oC - 200 MPa. Moreover, it was

U
also found that the porosity and the size of such zones were increased. This finding can be
AN
accounted for with the decreased compressibility of Al7075 powder due to the insufficient
production parameters in the face of increased particle ratio. When the microstructure of this
M

sample with the lowest production parameters is analysed, it was found that the particles were
uniformly distributed, however, increasing temperatures led to increases in porosity and pore
D

dimensions. Such formation was detected both in the layers and in the interfacial transition
zones, and the porosity of the 4th ITZ with 60% SiC content was higher when compared to
TE

the 1st ITZ with 15% SiC content. This finding can be explained with the fact that 60% SiC
reinforcement’s behaviour as a matrix instead of a particle and the resulting decrease in the
EP

compressibility which does not allow for a compact structure meeting the requirements. A
closer look into the regions defined as the 3rd ITZ between the layers with 45% and 60% SiC
content shows that the consistency between the layers is very poor and the porosity is high
C

which results in poor diffusion of the layers. The reason behind this shortcoming may be
AC

related to the wettability problem. Briefly, porosity was higher when the reinforcement ratio
was high as the surface area of the SiC reinforcement particles increase.

Fig. 4 shows the microstructures of FGMs produced under 400 MPa and at 500°C. No linear
gaps were found in the interfacial transition zones of the samples produced at 500oC. The
gaps and incompatibilities detected in the samples with increased SiC content produced at
200oC were not observed in the samples produced at 500oC. The compaction and
compatibility of the transition zones of the FGMs produced at 500oC and high pressure

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
gradients were at a good level. Linear gaps in ITZs were not observed in these samples. It is
believed that this finding was a result of the good diffusion between the layers. It was further
found that the compatibility of the ITZs in FGMs increased with the increasing temperature
and pressure. Microstructural analysis of these samples showed that the porosity was reduced.
The main reason behind this is better sintering with the effect of higher temperature the
resulting better diffusion of the particles in the matrix. Nevertheless, increased plastic

PT
deformation capability increases the compressibility and it results in a compact structure. And
the reason behind this is, as shown in Fig. 6, the better interfacial bonding and higher

RI
wettability between the matrix and SiC.

SC
The comparison of the microstructure images of these two materials led to the conclusion that
FGMs may show different mechanical behaviour throughout the material due to the
homogeneous distribution of the materials. However, it was found that porosity increases due

U
to increased reinforcement content as it was the case for the samples produced using lower
AN
production parameters in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 4, this issue was eliminated with increased
production parameters which decrease the porosity. Moreover, it was found that each one of
M

the ITZs had a regular structure. Uniform interfacial transition zones are of utmost importance
for the structural integrity of FGFMs during the ballistic tests. However, the partial pore
D

formation throughout the ITZs had a negative impact on the overall performance.
Notwithstanding, there were no mechanical breaking or displacement were observed in ITZs.
TE

The compression temperature used, pressure, and the amount of SiC in the matrix may lead to
the formation of microstructurally different portions in transition zones. Therefore, SEM
EP

images were used to analyse the distribution of the reinforcement in the matrix and interface
bonding between the matrix and reinforcement. Generally speaking, it was observed that the
SiC particles had a uniform distribution and that they offered an acceptable bonding in the Al
C

7075 matrix.
AC

The SEM image given in Fig. 5 is the image taken from the 4th layer of the sample with the
lowest production parameters (i.e., 200 MPa-300oC). SEM analysis was performed at three
zooming levels: x100, x750, and x2000. A closer look at the particle-reinforcement
compatibility of the samples showed that particles were not able to diffuse into the matrix at a
desired level. Therefore, linear gaps have formed around the particles as shown in Fig. 5.c.
This image is a representation of the matrix-reinforcement incompatibility. One of the main

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
reasons behind this formation is the interfacial gaps formed around the SiC particles due to
the wettability problem (Fig. 5.c).

Fig. 5.a shows a surface image where compressibility is poor which in turn creates an uneven
surface. Fig. 5.b, on the other hand, shows increased porosity in the matrix. Fig. 5.c is an
image of particle-matrix interface. A closer look into this image shows the formation of micro

PT
gaps in the particle-matrix interface, i.e. there is insufficient particle-matrix compatibility.

Fig. 6 shows the SEM images of the 4th layer of the sample produced using the highest

RI
production parameters (400 MPa-500 oC). A closer look at these images showed that the
micro gap problem and the increased porosity, as it was the case in Fig. 5, were minimized

SC
with the improved production parameters. Images of both samples at x100 zoom make it clear
that the structure available in Fig. 5 leads to layer separation which in turn results in an

U
uneven surface. The image in Fig. 6.a does not have such formation and it is clearly observed
that the particles have a uniform distribution. It was further observed that the porosity
AN
increases with the increase in the SiC content without regards to the pressure and temperature
levels used. When the zoomed images, x750 (Fig. 6.b.) and x2000 (Fig. 6.c.), compared, it
M

was concluded that the findings were the same for both samples and it was observed that the
reinforcement particles were successfully embedded in the structure as shown in the Figures
D

6.b and 6.c. This is a behaviour expected from the matrix-reinforcement compatibility. The
TE

hardness values of each layer of FGMs were defined separately in order to see the effects of
compression pressure and the temperature on the hardness of the material. The hardness
measurements taken from the layers and the interfaces were assessed independently. A change
EP

in the hardness values was observed when the production parameters were increased. Fig. 7.a
shows the hardness values found for each layer of the material, and the lowest value was
C

found for the 4th layer of the FGM with the lowest production parameters (200 MPa - 300°C),
AC

to be 29.16 HB. The highest hardness values, on the other hand, were found for the 4th layer
of the FGM with the highest production parameters (400 MPa - 500°C). A comparison of
these two samples led to different results from the same layer. Fig. 7 shows that the increase
in the particle ratio leads to an increase in the hardness level of the FGMs produced under 400
MPa at 500oC. While the hardness level decreases with the increased particle ratio in FGMs
produced under 200 MPa at 300oC, the hardness of the FGMs produced at 500oC increased
with the increasing particle ratio. The reason behind the finding of the highest and the lowest
hardness results in the same layer with the highest reinforcement ratio (60% SiC) is the

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
difference in the production parameters. Production parameters of the sample which gave the
lowest hardness value were not sufficient for the 60% SiC-reinforced 4th layer, not allowing
for the bonding and diffusion at a desired level. As a result, the porosity of the sample was
significantly higher. When the production parameters are improved, the highest hardness
value was obtained once again from the 4th layer, the layer with the highest reinforcement
level. This finding was the case as the production parameters of 400 MPa - 500°C provided

PT
the expected effect in the material behaviour in the packing of the powder, achieving the
desired density, ensuring a good wettability, and decreasing the porosity. The diffusion

RI
mechanism worked perfectly and a compact sample was obtained. The hardness of the layers
of the FGMs produced varied in the range between 69.5 and 193.3 HB. The literature reports

SC
Al7075 hardness values around 60 HB. In the light of this finding, we can say that even the
lowest reinforcement ratio (15% SiC) would have a positive impact on hardness [23]. It was
observed that the hardness values obtained from any layer of the FGMs produced at 500oC

U
never went below 89.9 HB. It was possible to improve the hardness of aluminium alloy from
AN
60 HB up to 193.3 HB. It is known that the type of reinforcement used and the increased
amount used in Al matrix composites produced using hot compression method increases the
M

hardness. Depending on the ratio of SiC added to the Al alloys, certain increases in the
hardness were reported [24]. Accordingly, if each layer of the FGMs produced is evaluated as
D

an independent composite structure, the ratio of SiC added to each layer would affect the
hardness of FGM. Therefore, it is expected to have varying levels of hardness from the layers
TE

and interfacial transition zones of FGMs.

EP

A closer look at the graph given in Fig. 7.b shows similar patterns in the way hardness
changes both in ITZs and the layers. It was found that the highest and lowest hardness results
were obtained from the 4th layer of FGMs. The hardness values obtained from ITZs, on the
C

other hand, show that the lowest and the highest results were obtained from the 3rd ITZ which
AC

is connected to the 4th layer. The highest hardness value from an ITZ was obtained from the
3rd ITZ of the sample treated under 400 MPa and at 500°C; the lowest, on the other hand, was
obtained from the 3rd ITZ of the sample treated under 200 MPa and at 300°C. A comparison
of the hardness values of the ITZs which is significant for the bonding of the layers showed an
increase in the hardness with the increase in production parameters. The reason behind this is
the increase in plastic deformation of the matrix powders under higher production parameters
and the homogeneous distribution of the SiC particles in the ITZ. The result of the increased
sintering temperature is better diffusion of the matrix and reinforcement material in the ITZ

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
which in turn minimizes the porosity. Therefore, the hardness of FGMs was significantly
increased as SiC particles led to strain in the matrix and hot compression led to work
hardening.
Considering each layer of FGMs as a separate composite structure, it would be expected to
obtain different hardness results from the interfacial transition zones. It is known that the
distribution of reinforcement particles added to a composite with metallic matrix affects the

PT
mechanical properties of that composite [23]. It can be said that SiC particles available both in
ITZs and layers of FGM account for the variations in hardness. Moreover, an increase in the

RI
hardness was observed around the reinforcement particles with the increased strain energy in
the matrix. Increase in the compression temperature, on the other hand, increases the hardness

SC
of both the interfacial transition zones and the layers. The reason behind this finding is that
increased compression temperatures result in increased compressibility and density. Porosity
of the structure decreases with increased sintering temperature and compression pressure and

U
it can be observed in the microstructure images. Such a decrease in porosity leads to an
AN
increase in the density of FGMs. The distance between the reinforcement and the matrix
decreases with the increased sintering temperature and pressure, thus, a denser and compact
M

structure was possible. The change in the density, as shown in Fig. 7.d, is a direct result of this
mechanism.
D

TRS test is one of the mechanical tests performed in order to identify the deformability and
TE

breaking behaviour of FGMs. Fig. 7.c shows the effect of the SiC ratio and production
process on the three-point bending of the samples. Tests were conducted on 3 samples for
EP

each production parameter with 3 repeats. A total number of 27 samples were subjected to
TRS test. It was found that the material produced under 400 MPa at 500oC was deformed
under gradually increasing load with increments between 0.05 mm and 1 mm. The
C

deformation percentage of the material produced under 400 MPa at 500oC was 6%. This
AC

material showed a brittle breaking under 13000 N load after increments of approx. 1 mm in
the test. Under this load, the material’s TRS value was measured to be 704.58137 MPa and it
was the highest TRS value of all the other production parameters (200-300-400 MPa, 300-
400-500oC). Given that the TRS value of the non-reinforced Al7075 alloy was in the range of
250-280 MPa, the increase in the TRS from 250-280 MPa to approx. 704 MPa using this
production parameter was a significant one. Such increase in the TRS results of FGMs can be
accounted for the transfer of the load onto SiC reinforcement particles. Increased compression
temperature along with increased compressive pressure resulted in increased matrix material

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and particle compressibility. Increased compressibility, on the other hand, was found to
reduce the porosity and the number of pores available in the matrix structure. As a result,
porosity of FGM was reduced, and therefore TRS values were increased. The increase in
sintering temperature allowed the matrix and reinforcement particles to better diffuse into
each other. It is further believed that the powder which makes up the matrix forms as a result
of mechanical bonding under low temperature and high pressure. Such mechanical bonding

PT
increases density while decreasing porosity, and it is believed to be the reason behind low
readings of TRS values. Thus, TRS values obtained from the samples produced at 200, 300,

RI
and 400 MPa pressure and 300oC temperature tended to be lower. Furthermore, TRS values
obtained from the samples produced at 400oC and 500oC were increased and the difference in

SC
the increase between these two readings was approximately 20%. However, TRS value
increases at an expected level with the increased reinforcement ratio without regards to
occasional agglomeration as observed in the microstructure (Fig. 7.c). Göde reported better

U
particle distribution for the particle size of 7.1 mm in an Al203-reinforced composite sample.
AN
On the other hand, the author found that the particle distribution for the particle size of 3.4
mm of SiC and B4C was not uniform enough. It was observed that some of the unevenly
M

distributed particles are agglomerated and agglomeration was a problem here [25]. Fig. 8
shows the image of FGM after TRS test.
D

The lowest TRS value, i.e. 44 MPa, was found from the sample prepared under 200 MPa at
TE

300oC. The reason behind the decrease in the TRS value of this material could be the gaps
formed between the matrix and the SiC particles as suggested by a previous study [26]. This
EP

material was subjected to deformation tests with increments between approx. 0.15 mm and
0.45 mm. This was a shorter deformation interval. Thus, the deformation ratio was limited to
the level of 3%. After an approx. increment of 0.45 mm, the sample showed brittle failure
C

under 1100 N load. It can be said that the production parameters used for this sample were
AC

insufficient looking at the TRS value of 44 MPa. The reason behind this finding is the
mechanical defects, agglomeration, small gaps in the matrix and the insufficient bonding
between matrix and particle interface. Doel and Bowen reported similar results for the SiC-
reinforced Al7975 alloy [27]. Macro structural observation of the test samples showed that
the failure behaviour was directly correlated with the load applied. As shown in Figures 8.a
and 8.b, there was no disintegration between the layers based on the interfacial transition zone
observations. After the tests, there was no micro or macro ruptures in other zones of the

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
samples except the micro ruptures found in the buffer zones as seen in Figures 8.a and 8.b.
This result is a proof that the interlayer bonding was successful.

3.2. Determination of V50 Ballistic Limit & Macro damage analysis

Ballistic performance of the armour materials produced using hot compression method was

PT
analysed and their deformation behaviours and failure mechanism were characterised under
ballistic impact. Two types of materials, FGMs and FGFMs, were used in the tests. The

RI
effects of the layered structure and the ductile foam added into this structure on their ballistic
resistance were explored. Test samples were fired at, having placed on an aluminium plate, in

SC
these ballistic tests. The assessment was based on the observation of core piercing the Al plate
or not. If the Al plate was left with a mark after the test, then it was marked as CP, if it wasn’t
left with a mark, then it was marked as PP. Every sample was fired at only once in order to be

U
able to better analyse the damage mechanism and the results. An observation the damage
AN
mechanism shown in Fig. 9 revealed spalling and surface crack formations. In Fig. 9, the core
contacting the FGMs led to spalling effect and piercing of the plat, while it was not able to
M

pierce the Al plate and therefore it was marked as PP. Thus, the shooting tests were completed
successfully. Moreover, there were outward ruptures around the hole opened by the projectile.
D

Also, there was surface spalling at the 60% SiC-reinforced 4th layer of the sample which is
the first layer to contact with the core. For this reason, there were no projectile holes created.
TE

It could be possible to observe bullet holes if the 15% SiC-reinforced surface was the first
layer to contact with the core. This is believed to be resulting from the increased brittleness of
EP

the FGMs due to the increased ratio of SiC used.

When the shots, CP1 and CP2, are analysed, the damage mechanism can be defined as
C

spalling. The core enters on the breech face and leaves the plate from the posterior face.
AC

Spalling effect is observed upon the contact of the core on the material. The shots, CP1 and
CP2, were fired at a higher velocity when compared to the shots, PP1 and PP2. Fractures due to
the spalling effect were observed as cracks formed outwards the first impact surface. In other
words, the cracks extended outwards starting from the bullet hole. Moreover, crumbling was
observed at the projectile entry point due to the spalling effect. It is believed that this finding
is a result of the brittleness of the surface the projectile gets in contact the first. Depending on
the SiC content (15% SiC), petal formation was observed at the exit point of the projectile
(Fig. 10.b.2.). The petal formation was observed at the 60% SiC-layer which is the entry point

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of the projectile. On the other hand, detachment effect was observed at the back of the FGM
armour material (Fig. 10.a.2). Also on the back of the FGMs were macrocracks, edge cracks
and surface cracks. These cracks formed outwards from the bullet hole. Spalling failure
formations were observed at the projectile entry point as the reinforcement ratio was high.
Nevertheless, a closer look at the spalling effect, in Figures 9 and 10, shows that this effect
was more obvious in PPs when compared to CPs. In PP samples, the back plate was not

PT
pierced. Thus, the spalling effect was more obvious than CP samples as the kinetic energy
created resulted in more material removal at the contact.

RI
When it comes to the shots fired at FGFMs, 2 shots were marked PP and 2 shots were marked

SC
CP. Fig. 11.a. shows the shot marked PP1 and Fig. 11.b. shows the shot marked PP2. A closer
look into PP1 shows that the core enters from the frontal surface, but never makes it out of the
plate. Here, the damage formed on the back surface resembles microcrack formation.

U
Lamination was observed at the point of impact. Moreover, it was observed that the
AN
penetration channels had different yaw impact angles at the point of impact (Fig. 11.b.1). A
closer look at the foam surface of the FGFM revealed surface microcracks due to the
M

deformation caused by the core. When compared to PP1, PP2 had a higher number of cracks.
Furthermore, it was determined that the number of cracks formed at the back of the material
D

was also increased. It is believed that this finding can be accounted for the increased core
velocity. The amount of deformation was increased with the increased velocity. In Fig. 11.a.1,
TE

it can be observed that the copper jacket of the core was stripped and it remained in the hole
in FGFMs. Accordingly, it would be safe to conclude that FGFMs offer improved resistance
EP

when compared to FGMs.

When the FGFMs marked as CP after a shot fired at a higher velocity, as shown in Fig. 12,
C

are explored, the damage mechanism was defined as spalling. It was observed that the core
AC

enters and exits the plate in CP1 and CP2 shots. However, the angle between the entry and exit
points showed a different behaviour depending on the SiC reinforcement ratio. This yaw
impact angle can be accounted for with the fact that the material was 60% SiC-reinforced at
the entry point and 15% SiC-reinforced at the exit point. Surface cracks were observed in the
CP1 shot at the core contact surface. Nevertheless, material removal was observed around the
entry point as a result of the spalling effect. Macrocracks were formed at the back of the plate
where the core exited. A recent study reported that FGMs produced using powder metallurgy
were not able to absorb the strain waves during the ballistic tests which results in failed

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
testing. Here, the significance of the ability of the metallic foam added to the FGMs to absorb
energy becomes even more obvious. It was found that the FGFMs produced with the addition
of a foam structure to the FGMs gave better results in ballistics tests when compared to the
FGMs produced by Übeyli et al. [12,28]. Additionally, it should be noted that no separation
was observed at the interfacial transition zones of the samples. All these findings indicate a
good metallurgical bond between layers and a good sintering process. As a result, FGFMs

PT
improved the ballistic performance of the armour absorbing the kinetic energy produced
thanks to their high energy absorption capacity. Thus, it is preferable to use high ratios of SiC

RI
at the contact surface of the armour. Ballistic test results showed that the armour material
offered improved ballistic resistance as it consisted of a foam structure and a graded design,

SC
which all together prevents a number of possible failures. Produced at a thickness of 25.4 mm,
FGFMs were able to absorb all the kinetic energy of a projectile and to stop the projectile with
minimal penetration and deformation depth. Thanks to the first layer with high SiC content, it

U
was possible to deform the projectile and the following foamy structure absorbed the high
AN
kinetic energy of the projectile. Using a foamy structure with ductile properties on the
posterior side of the FGFM as an armour material increased the ballistic performance of the
M

material and reduced any failures such as cracks.

D

The FGMs and FGFMs were fired at using two different methods. The provisions of the
standard numbered MIL-DTL-46063 suggest that at least four projectiles must be shot at a
TE

sample in order to determine the V50 ballistic limit. V50 ballistic limits were measured
accordingly based on 4 different velocities for CP and PP shots. The following formula is
EP

used to calculate V50 ballistic limit equation 5.

! !
C

50 = (5)
"
AC

V50 ballistic limits differed at 30-degree shooting angle. Table 3 shows the ballistic test results
for FGFMs and FGMs. Comparison of these results with the standard in question showed an
increase in the V50 ballistic limits. While the V50 ballistic limit was 437 m/s in the standard, it
was increased up to 449.6 m/s with the use of FGFMs. Also important to note here is that the
V50 ballistic limits change depending on the shooting angles.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.3 Specific Ballistic Energy of the Materials

Ballistic limits and specific ballistic energy of the SiC-reinforced Al 7075 alloy armour
material was determined in order to define its ballistic performance. Ballistic limit is the
minimum velocity that the core penetrates into the armour material. Ballistic limit is
calculated using the arithmetic average of the highest partial perforation and the lowest full

PT
perforation values (Eq. 5) It is possible to determine the specific ballistic energy of a
projectile if we know the ballistic limit (BL). Ballistic limit energy (EBL) is the kinetic energy

RI
of the projectile and it is represented with the following 6 equations.
!
#$% = ! & $% (6)

SC
where m, mass of the projectile (kg). Using the equation 7, ballistic limit energy of the
projectile was divided by areal density ( ) in order to find the specific ballistic energy of the

U
armour material [29]. AN
89:
*+,-.-, /011-2 -, +3+45 (6&! 75) = (7)
;<
M

Areal densities of the material are shown in Table 3. Fig. 13 shows the specific ballistic
energy obtained using these equations. Specific ballistic energy was calculated separately for
D

Al Foam, FGM and FGFM. FGFMs of 25.4 mm thickness performed better than FGMs of
TE

12.7 mm due to the foamy structure and the material thickness. The ballistic limit energy of
foam and FGM was found to be 25.32 6&! ⁄75, 46.03 6&! ⁄75 while it was 57.9 6&! ⁄75 for
EP

FGFM respectively.

4. Conclusions
C
AC

FGMs and FGFMs consisting of Al 7075 and SiC were produced using powder metallurgy in
this study. Density, microstructure, hardness, TRS and tensile strength of the samples were
investigated. The effect of SiC reinforcement in Al 7075 matrix on the ballistic performance
and mechanical properties was analysed as a function of the production process. The
following are the major findings of the experiments conducted to study the production and
mechanical properties of FGMs and FGFMs produced with Al7xxx/SiC using hot
compression method.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
• A closer look at the density of the FGMs produced using different parameters showed
that increasing the compression temperature reduces the porosity that in turn increases the
density.
• The Si powder addition improves the foaming behaviour of Al7075 and the pore
morphology of Al7075+7% Si samples was more homogeneous than Al7075 samples.
• Regardless of the temperature and pressure parameter used, the identification of the

PT
interfacial transition zones of the FGMs became harder with the increasing SiC content.
• The sample with the highest particle distribution homogeneity and the best diffusion was

RI
the one produced under 400 MPa at 500oC for both the FGMs and FGFMs among the
pressure and temperature parameters of 200, 300, 400 MPa and 300, 400, 500oC,

SC
respectively.
• Optical and SEM analyses showed that the best results were obtained from the samples
treated under 400 MPa at 500oC, having investigated the interfacial transition zones and
matrix-reinforcement compatibility.
U
AN
• Hardness of the layers and interfacial transition zones was analysed separately. Hardness
increased with the increased reinforcement of the layers and interfacial transition zones. It
M

was found that the highest hardness value was 193.66 HB in the layers and it was 185 HB
in the interfacial transition zones, while the best production parameters were 500°C and
D

400 MPa.
• A closer look into the hardness values obtained from the layers and interfacial transition
TE

zones of FGMs showed that hardness increases with the temperature and pressure
gradients and that the highest hardness level, 193.66 HB, was obtained from the sample
EP

treated under 400 MPa at 500oC.

• Following the standard of three repeated experiments, TRS test results were obtained and
C

it was found that increased process temperatures improve the TRS results. The highest
AC

TRS value, i.e. 704.58137 MPa, was found from the sample prepared under 400 MPa at
500oC.
• The thickness of FGMs was 12.7 mm. Radial cracks were observed on the material
pierced during the tests. The ballistic tests resulted in a damage mechanism, which
involved material removal.
• FGFMs of 25.4 mm thickness were able to absorb the kinetic energy of the projectile
with a significant penetration depth. The first layers of the material were penetrated,
however, the ductile foam material was able to stop the projectile. The best ballistic

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
resistance was observed in these materials. In the ballistic tests where the samples were
fired at from a 30o angle, V50 ballistic limit was found approximately 3% higher than that
specified in the MIL-DTL-46063H standard.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the 2210-D National Master’s Degree Scholarship Program for

PT
Industrial Studies, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK-
application number 1649B021507270), and the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Gazi

RI
University for their support in this dissertation study.

References

SC
[1] Umanath K, Palanikumar K, Selvamani ST. Analysis of dry sliding wear behaviour of
Al6061/SiC/Al2O3 hybrid metal matrix composites. Compos Part B Eng 2013;53:159-68.

U
[2] Avci U, Temiz Ş. A New Approach To The Production of Partially Graded and Laminated
AN
Composite Material Composed of SiC-Reinforced 7039 Al Alloy Plates at Different Rates.
Compos Part B Eng 2017;76-81.
[3] Put S, Vleugels J, Anne G, Biest VD. Functionally Graded Ceramic And Ceramic-Metal
M

Composites Shaped By Electrophoretic Deposition. Colloids and Surfaces A Physicochemical

and Engineering Aspects 2003; 222:223–32.
D

[4] Yumak, N., Pekbey, Y. and Aslantaş, K. A study on the deformation characteristics of the
TE

composite materials used in armour design. Electronic Journal of Machine Technologies

2013;10(4):1-21.
EP

[5] Alonso L, Navarro C, García CSK. Analytical models for the perforation of thick and thin
thickness woven-laminates subjected to high-velocity impact Compos Part B Eng
2018;143:292-300.
C

[6] Yılmaz H. Ballistic Analysis of 3-Phase Fibre-reinforced Mixed Composites. Master’s

AC

Thesis, Science Institute of Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta 2012.

[7] Seitzberger M, Rammerstorger FG, Degischer HP. Crushing Of Axially Compressed Steel
Tubes Filled With Aluminium Foam. Acta Mechanica 1997;125:95-103.
[8] Zhang C, Feng Y. Zhang X. Mechanical Properties and Energy Absorption Properties Of
Aluminum Foam-Filled Square Tubes. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society, China
2010;20:1380-86.
[9] Kathryn AD, James L. High Strain Rate Compression Of Closed-Cell Aluminium Foams.
Materials Science and Engineering A 2000;157−64.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[10] Liu Y, Gong X. Compressive Behavior and Energy Absorption Of Metal Porous Polymer
Composite With İnterpenetrating Network Structure. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals
Society of China 2006;439−43.
[11] Chin ESC. Army Focused Research Team On Functionally Graded Armor Composites.
Mat Sci Eng A 1999;259:155–61.
[12] Balcı E, Sarıkan B, Ubeyli M, Camuscu N, Yıldırım RO. On the ballistic performance of

PT
the AA7075 based functionally graded material with boron carbide reinforcement. Kovove
Mater 2013;51(4):257–62.

RI
[13] Mahamood MR, Esther T, Member A, Iaeng S, Mukul PS. Functionally graded material:
An Overview. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2012;Vol III WCE.

SC
[14] Zhu J, Lai Z, Yin Z, Jeon J, Lee S. Fabrication of ZrO2–NiCr functionally graded
material by powder metallurgy. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2001;68:130-35.
[15] Nemat-Alla MM, Ata MH, Bayoumi MR, Khair-Eldeen W. Powder metallurgical

U
fabrication and microstructural investigations of aluminium/steel functionally graded material.
AN
Materials Sciences and Applications 2011;2:1708-18.
[16] Pettersson A, Magnusson P, Lundberg P, Nygren M. Titanium–titanium diboride
M

composites as part of a gradient material. Int J Impact Eng 2005;32:389–99.

[17] Übeyli M, Balcı E, Sarıkan B, Öztaş K, Camuşçu N, Yıldırım O, Keleş Ö. The ballistic
D

performance of SiC-AA7075 functionally graded composite produced by powder metallurgy.

Materials and Design 2013;56:31-36.
TE

[18] Carvalho O, Buciumeanu M, Miranda G, Madeira S, Silva FS. Development of a method

to produce FGMs by controlling the reinforcement distribution. Materials and Design 2015;
EP

92:233–39.
[19] Groover MP. Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials processes, and systems.
Edition, 5. John Wiley & Sons 2007.
C

[20] Canakci A. Microstructure and abrasive wear behaviour of B4C particle reinforced 2014
AC

Al matrix composites. J Mater Sci 2011;46:2805–13.

[21] Wang Z, Song M, Sun C, He Y. Effect of particle size and distribution on the mechanical
properties of SiC reinforced Al-Cu alloy composites. Materials Science and Engineering
2011; A528:1131-37.
[22] Sahin Y. Preparation and some properties of SiC particle reinforced aluminium alloy
composites. Materials and Design 2003;24:671-679.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[23] Iacob G, Ghica VG, Buzatu M, Buzatu T, Petrescu MI. Studies on wear rate and micro-
hardness of the Al/Al2O3/Gr hybrid composites produced via powder metallurgy. Composites
Part B: Engineering 2015;69:603-611.
[24] Gökmen U. Production and Characterization of Hot Extruded Al 2024 Matrix
B4C/Al2O3-reinforced Hybrid Composites. Journal of Polytechnic 2016;19(4):445-53.
[25] Gode C. Mechanical properties of hot pressed SiCp and B4Cp/Alumix 123 composites

PT
alloyed with minor Zr. Compos Part B Eng 2013;54:34e40.
[26] Karabulut Ş, Karakoç H, Çıtak R. Influence of B4C particle reinforcement on mechanical

RI
and machining properties of Al6061/ B4C composites. Compos Part B Eng 2016;101:87–98.
[27] Karabulut S. Optimization of surface roughness and cutting force during A7039/Al2O3

SC
metal matrix composites milling using neural networks and Taguchi method. Measurement
2015;66:139e49.
[28] Ubeyli M, Balci E, Sarikan B, Oztas MK, Camuscu N, Yildirim OR, Keles O. The

U
ballistic performance of SiC–AA7075 functionally graded composite produced by powder
AN
metallurgy. Materials and Design 2014;56:31–36.
[29] Karabulut S¸ Karakoç H, Çıtak R. Study on mechanical and ballistic performances of
M

boron carbide reinforced Al 6061 aluminum alloy produced by powder metallurgy. Compos.
Part B Eng 2018;148:68-80.
D

TABLES
TE

Table 1. Chemical composition of Al7075 (%)

EP

Zn Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn Si Ti Al
5.1 0.18 1.2 0.5 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Balance
C
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2. Production parameters of FGM and FGFM

Preload Sintering Load Sintering

Steps Powder Mix (MPa) Temp. Applied Time
(oC) (MPa) (min. .)
Layer 1 (2mm) 15% SiC+Al

Layer 2 (2mm) 30% SiC+Al

300 200

PT
Layer 3 (2mm) 45% SiC+Al 15 400 300 60
FGM 500 400
Layer 4 (2mm) 60% SiC+Al

RI
Layer 1 (4mm) Foam

SC
Layer 2 (3mm) 15% SiC+Al

Layer 3 (3mm) 30% SiC+Al

U
15 500 400 60
Layer 4 (3mm) 45% SiC+Al
AN
FGFM

Layer 5 (3mm) 60% SiC+Al

M
D
TE
C EP
AC

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3. Ballistic test data for FGFM and FGM (with 30 degrees shooting angle)

Material Areal First Impact

Density Shot Velocit Velocity Conclus V50
Material thickness contact
(kg/m2) no y (m/s) ion (m/s)
(mm) surface
(m/s)

PT
1 459 461 CP

RI
2 445 446.8 CP
FGFM 25.4 45.46 60% SiC
3 442.2 446.5 PP1 449.6

SC
4 437.3 444.1 PP2

U
1 453.2 455.3 CP
AN
75.69 2 454.4 456.6 CP
FGM 12.7 60% SiC 429.3
3 439.2 441.1 PP1
M

4 436.7 438.6 PP2

D
TE
C EP
AC

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

FIGURES

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Fig. 1. Production flow chart of FGM and FGFM

C EP
AC

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
(a) (b.1) (b.2)

RI
U SC
AN
M

(c)
D
TE

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic representation of the shooting range used for ballistic tests (distance,
mm); (b.1) contact of the projectile to 60 % SiC-reinforced FGM; (b.2) contact of the
projectile to 60 % SiC-reinforced FGFM; (c) TRS test setup (h: sample thickness)
C EP
AC

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig. 3. Microstructure image of the layer and transition zone of the FGMs produced under 200
D

MPa and at 300°C.

TE
C EP
AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig. 4. Microstructure image of the layer and transition zone of the FGMs produced with the
parameters of 500°C - 400 MPa.
D
TE
C EP
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D

Fig. 5. SEM image of the 4th layer of FGM produced at 300 oC - 200 MPa
TE
C EP
AC

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 6. SEM image of the 4th layer of FGM produced at 500 oC - 400 MPa
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

200

200 193,66 180 200MPa - 300°C 185

200MPa - 300°C 400MPa - 500°C
180 400MPa - 500°C 160
160 153,33
140

Hardness (HB)
Hardness (HB)

140 132,3
120
120 112,33
100
100 89,9 98,6
80 69,5 80
60,8 63,06
60 60

PT
47,8 51,36
40 37,23
(a) 29,16 40 (b)
20
Transition Zone 1 Transition Zone 2 Transition Zone 2
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4
(%15 SiC) (%30 SiC) (%45 SiC) (%60 SiC)

RI
3,0
750 2,94
704,5

SC
2,92
700 2,89 2,92
2,9
650 621,8 604.6 2,91
600 2,83
2,8 2,8
550 511,2
500 512.1 Density (g/cm )
3
2,7
TRS (MPa)

450

U
400 300°C 2,66
387.6 2,6
350 400°C
300 500°C
2,5
AN
250
200
150 2,4 300°C
100 400°C
112,8
50 (c) 94,49 2,3 (d) 2,32 500°C
0 44,2
200 300 400 200 300 400
M

Pressing Pressure (MPa) Pressing Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 7. (a) Hardness values obtained from the layers of FGMs, (b) hardness values obtained
D

from the interfacial transition zones of FGMs, (c) TRS test results and (d) densities
TE
EP

10 mm 10 mm
(a) (b)
C

Fig. 8. The image of FGM after TRS test (a) 500oC - 400 MPa, (b) 300 oC - 200 MPa
AC

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Fig. 9. The frontal and posterior macro images of the unpierced FGM samples (a)
PP1 and (b) PP2
C EP
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 10. The frontal and posterior macro images of the unpierced FGM samples (a) CP1 and
(b) CP2
C
AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 11. The frontal and posterior macro images of the unpierced FGFM samples (a)
PP1 and (b) PP2
C
AC

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 12. The frontal and posterior macro images of the pierced FGFM samples (a) CP1 and (b)
CP2
C
AC

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 13. Specific Ballistic Energy of the Materials
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

34