Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284–294 L

Microstructure and mechanical properties of hypo / hyper-eutectic Al–Si

alloys synthesized using a near-net shape forming technique
M. Gupta*, S. Ling
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore
Received 30 May 1998; received in revised form 30 January 1999

Abstract

In the present study, three aluminum–silicon alloys containing 7, 10 and 19 wt % silicon were synthesized using a novel technique
commonly known as disintegrated melt deposition technique. The results following processing revealed that a yield of at least 80% can be
achieved after defacing the shrinkage cavity from the as-processed ingots. Microstructural characterization studies conducted on the
as-processed samples revealed an increase in the volume fraction of porosity with an increase in silicon content. Porosity levels of 1.07,
1.51 and 2.65% attained in the case of Al–7Si, Al–10Si, and Al–19Si alloys indicates the near-net shape forming capability of the
disintegrated melt deposition technique. The results of aging studies conducted on the aluminum–silicon alloys revealed similar aging
kinetics irrespective of different silicon content. Results of ambient temperature mechanical tests demonstrate an increase in matrix
microhardness and 0.2% yield stress and decrease in ductility with an increase in silicon content in aluminum. Furthermore, the results of
an attempt to investigate the effect of extrusion on Al–19Si alloy revealed that the extrusion process significantly assists in reducing
porosity and improving microstructural uniformity, 0.2% yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and ductility when compared to the
as-processed Al–19Si alloy. The results of microstructural characterization and mechanical properties of aluminum–silicon alloys were
finally correlated with the amount of silicon in aluminum and secondary processing technique.  1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Disintegrated melt deposition; Microstructure; Mechanical behavior; Aluminum–silicon alloys

1. Introduction depends on the level of microstructurally governed end

The ability of silicon to reduce the density and coeffi-
cient of thermal expansion and to improve the hardness,
ambient temperature mechanical properties such as
modulus and strength, thermal stability and wear resistance
of aluminum had been catalytic in engendering consider-
able interest in the materials science community to explore
the Al–Si family of alloys for possible applications in
automotive, electrical and aerospace industries [1–4]. The
addition of silicon is made in both the hypoeutectic and
hypereutectic range depending primarily on the end appli-
cation [1–6].
The existing literature survey indicates that the synthesis
of Al–Si alloys is carried out principally by liquid phase
[7], liquid–solid phase [2–4], solid phase [1], and rapid
solidification [8,9] techniques. The selection of processing
technique for a given constitutional formulation, however,
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 165-874-6358; fax: 165-779-1459.
E-mail address: mpegm@nus.edu.sg (M. Gupta)
properties, cost effectiveness, industrial adaptability and
reproducibility in terms of microstructure and properties
(such as physical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical etc.)
[10]. For example, liquid phase processes such as conven-
tional casting are cost effective but can not be used to
make components for critical applications since the prop-
erties level that can be obtained are inferior as a result of
coarser microstructural features commonly associated with
conventionally cast materials. The solid phase processes,
such as powder based techniques, helps in realizing
superior properties but have limitations related to the
dimensions of the component and in addition involves high
cost. Two phase processes, on the other hand, are techni-
cally innovative and hold the promise to synthesize bulk
materials with superior properties, however, very limited
information is available regarding the processing, micro-
structure and properties of materials synthesized using
them. In order to circumvent the disadvantages associated
with these techniques, a relatively new technique common-
ly known as disintegrated melt deposition (DMD) is used

0925-8388 / 99 / $ – see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S0925-8388( 99 )00062-6
 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294
in the present study to synthesize Al–Si alloys in both
hypo- and hypereutectic composition range. This tech-
nique, in the past, has been successfully utilized to
synthesize monolithic and reinforced materials [11,12] and
involves, in principal, the disintegration of superheated
molten metal slurry using inert gas jets followed by its
subsequent deposition on the metallic substrate. The
dynamic disintegration and deposition steps enables this
technique to synthesize bulk materials with improved
microstructural homogeneity when compared to conven-
tional casting techniques [11,12].
Accordingly, the objective of the present study was to
investigate the microstructure and mechanical properties of
the disintegrated melt deposited Al–Si alloys (both in
hypo- and hypereutectic composition range) in order to
assess the feasibility of the disintegrated melt deposition
technique to synthesize the Al–Si family of alloys. Par-
ticular emphasis was placed, in addition, to study the effect
of secondary processing on the microstructure and me-
chanical properties of the hypereutectic (Al–19Si) alloy
synthesized in the present study.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials
In this study, an aluminum alloy AA1050 ($99.5 wt %
Al) was used as the base alloy and silicon ($98.5 wt % Si)
was used as an addition element to synthesize hypo- and
hypereutectic Al–Si alloys.
2.2. Processing
In the present study, synthesis of hypo- and hypereutec-
tic Al–Si alloys with starting weight percentages of 7, 10
and 20 wt % of Si was carried out using the DMD
technique. The synthesizing procedure involved: super-
heating of properly cleaned elemental materials to a
temperature of 9506108C in graphite crucible, impeller
assisted stirring to ensure complete mixing of elemental
materials followed by argon gas-assisted melt disinte-
gration at 0.18 m from the melt pouring point and
subsequent deposition in a metallic mould (55 mm
diameter375 mm long) located at 0.25 m from the gas
disintegration point. The experiment was carried out under
controlled atmospheric conditions. The Al–Si alloy ingots
obtained following processing were weighed in order to
determine the deposited yield of the starting raw materials.
2.3. Secondary processing
Al–Si alloy ingot with starting weight percentage of
20% silicon was machined to a diameter of 35 mm and
then hot extruded at 3508C employing a reduction ratio of
13:1 on a 150 ton hydraulic press using colloidal graphite
285
as the lubricant. Extrusion was conducted in order to study
the effect of secondary processing on the microstructural
and mechanical properties variation of as-processed Al–Si
alloy.
2.4. Quantitative assessment of silicon
Quantitative assessment of Si in the as-processed and
extruded Al–Si samples was carried out using standardized
energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) method.
2.5. Density measurement
The densities of the as-processed and extruded Al–Si
samples were measured by Archimedes’ principle to
quantify the volume fraction of porosity [6,11,12]. The
density measurements involved weighing polished cubes of
the extruded samples in air and when immersed in distilled
water. The densities, derived from the recorded weights,
were then compared to the theoretical densities from which
the volume fractions of porosity were calculated. The
samples were weighed using an A&D ER-182A electronic
balance to an accuracy of 60.0001 g.
2.6. Aging studies
Aging studies were carried out in order to obtain the
peak hardness time for the as-processed and extruded
Al–Si samples. Specimens (10 mm diameter37 mm
height) were solutionized for 1 h at 5298C, quenched in
cold water and aged at 1608C for various intervals of time.
Rockwell superficial hardness measurements were made
using a 1.58 mm diameter steel ball indenter with a 15 kg
load using a GNEHM HORGEN digital hardness tester
following ASTM standard E18-92. A minimum of three
hardness readings were taken for each specimen.
2.7. Microstructural characterization
Microstructural characterization studies were conducted
on the as-processed and extruded Al–Si samples in the
peak aged condition to investigate the grain morphology,
presence of porosity, morphological characteristics and
distribution of the secondary phases, and Si–Al interfacial
characteristics.
Microstructural characterization studies were primarily
accomplished using an optical microscope and a JEOL
scanning electron microscope equipped with EDS. The
samples were metallographically polished prior to exami-
nation. Microstructural characterization of the samples was
conducted in both etched and unetched conditions. Etching
was accomplished using Keller’s reagent [0.5 HF–1.5
HCl–2.5 HNO 3 –95.5 H 2 0].
286 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294

2.8. Mechanical behavior Table 1

Results of the density and porosity determination

Vickers microhardness of the matrix of as-processed and Alloy Processing Wt % Si Density Porosity
extruded Al–Si samples was determined on a Matsuzawa designation condition (g cm 23 ) (vol %)
MXT50 Automatic Digital microhardness tester using an Al–7Si As-processed 7 2.6460.01 1.07
indentation load of 100 g. Vickers microhardness measure- Al–10Si As-processed 10 2.6260.02 1.51
Al–19Si As-processed 19 2.5560.01 2.65
ments were made in order to provide insight into the
Al–19Si(Ext) Extruded 19 2.6060.06 0.65
ability of secondary phases to strengthen the metallic
matrix.
Smooth bar tensile properties were determined on the 3.3. Quantitative assessment of silicon
as-processed and extruded samples in the peak aged
condition following ASTM standard E8M-91. Tensile tests The results of standardized EDS chemical analysis
were conducted using an automated servohydraulic Instron conducted for Si element determination in the as-processed
8501 testing machine on 4 mm diameter specimens using a Al–Si alloys with starting silicon weight percentages of 7,
crosshead speed of 0.254 mm per minute. 10 and 20 and extruded Al–Si alloy (with starting silicon
weight percentages of 20) revealed that approximately 7,
2.9. Fracture behavior 10, 19 and 19 wt % Si was retained, respectively, follow-
ing DMD processing (see Table 1). Accordingly, these
Fracture surface characterization studies were carried materials will now be referred as Al–7Si, Al–10Si, Al–
out on the tensile fractured samples in order to provide 19Si, and Al–19Si(Ext) in the forthcoming sections.
insight into the various fracture mechanisms operative
during tensile loading of the peak aged samples. Fracture 3.4. Density measurement
surface characterization studies were primarily accom-
plished using a JEOL scanning electron microscope The results of density measurements conducted on the
equipped with EDS. Al–7Si, Al–10Si, Al–19Si, and Al–19Si(Ext) samples and
the volume percent of the porosity computed using the
experimentally determined density values are shown in
Table 1.
3. Results
3.5. Aging studies
3.1. Processing
The results of aging studies conducted on the as-pro-
The deposited yield of the Al–Si alloys with starting cessed and extruded samples are shown in Fig. 1. The
weight percentages of 7, 10, and 20 wt % of silicon was results exhibit the presence of a hardness peak at 9 h for all
found out to be 89, 88 and 86%, respectively. The the samples. Both the as-solutionized and peak hardness
preforms in all the three cases were associated with a small values were found to increase with an increase in the
shrinkage cavity on the top. After defacing the ingots so as silicon content in aluminum and from the as-processed to
to remove the shrinkage cavity, the final yield was extruded condition in the case of hypereutectic Al–19Si
determined to be 85, 84 and 80%, respectively. The overall alloy. The results also reveal an increase in the magnitude
dimensions of the disintegrated melt deposited preforms of age hardening with an increase in the weight percentage
following defacing were approximately 35 mm in height of silicon in the case of as-processed samples. The
and 55 mm in diameter. The preform of the Al–Si alloy
with starting weight percentage of 20 wt % Si was
subsequently machined to a diameter of 35 mm so as to fit
in the extrusion container. The specimens for heat treat-
ment, microstructural analysis and mechanical properties
characterization were removed randomly from the as-pro-
cessed and extruded rods.

3.2. Macrostructure

Macrostructural characterization conducted on the ma-

chined and polished surfaces of as-DMD processed sam-
ples did not reveal the presence of either macropores or the
macrosegregation of silicon across the vertical and
horizontal sections. Fig. 1. Aging curves of as-processed and extruded Al–Si samples.
 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294 287

percentage increase in hardness of the peak aged samples

when compared to that in the as-solutionized condition, for
example, was found to be 8.74, 19.91 and 29.91 for
Al–7Si, Al–10Si and Al–19Si samples, respectively. The
magnitude of age hardening, however, was found to be
minimum (5.65%) in the case of Al–19Si(Ext) samples
(see Table 2).

3.6. Microstructural characterization

The results of optical and scanning electron microscopy

revealed the presence of a-Al dendrites and eutectic silicon
phase in the case of Al–7Si and Al–10Si samples. The
presence of dendritic structure precluded the determination
of matrix grain size. Figs. 2 and 3 show the representative Fig. 2. Optical micrograph showing the salient microstructural features
optical micrographs showing the salient microstructural exhibited by DMD processed Al–7Si samples.
features exhibited by Al–7Si and Al–10Si samples, re-
spectively. In the case of hypereutectic as-processed Al–
19Si alloy, the results of microstructural characterization
(see Fig. 4) revealed the presence of primary silicon (Si)
and eutectic silicon phases. The primary Si exhibited the
blocky morphology while the eutectic silicon exhibited
needle shape morphology. The size of the eutectic Si was,
however, found to be comparatively larger when compared
to the hypoeutectic (Al–7Si and Al–10Si) alloys (see
Table 3). For the extruded Al–19Si samples, the results of
microstructural characterization studies revealed an in-
crease in the volume fraction of the primary and eutectic
silicon phases and a reduction in their size when compared
to the as-processed Al–19Si samples (see Fig. 5 and Table
3). Microstructural characterization studies, in addition,
also revealed the presence of nearly equiaxed, randomly
distributed, non-connected micron size porosity in all the
samples investigated in the present study. The interfacial
integrity between primary Si and the aluminum matrix was Fig. 3. Optical micrograph showing the salient microstructural features
found to be good and only in some instances interfacially exhibited by DMD processed Al–10Si samples.
located voids were observed. The results of EDS point
analyses conducted in the near-vicinity of primary Si
particles in the case of as-processed Al–19Si samples and 3.7. Mechanical behavior
extruded Al–19Si samples revealed the presence of segre-
gation of silicon. One such representative variation in the The results of ambient temperature microhardness and
amount of silicon with increasing distance from primary tensile testing on the as-processed Al–Si samples, aged to
Si–Al interface observed in the case of Al–19Si(Ext) peak hardness, are summarized in Table 4. The results in
samples is shown in Fig. 6. Table 4 reveal an increase in microhardness and 0.2%

Table 2
Results of the aging studies
Alloy As-solutionized Peak hardness Peak aging Magnitude of age
hardness (HR15T) (HR15T) time (h) hardening (HR15T)
Al–7Si 41.261.2 44.860.9 9 3.6
Al–10Si 43.761.5 52.461.4 9 8.7
Al–19Si 44.861.3 58.261.8 9 13.4
Al–19Si(Ext) 56.660.3 59.860.8 9 3.2
288 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294

Fig. 4. Optical micrograph showing the presence of primary silicon and Fig. 5. Optical micrograph showing the salient microstructural features
eutectic silicon in the case of DMD processed Al–19Si samples. exhibited by DMD processed Al–19Si(Ext) samples.

yield stress (0.2% YS) and decrease in ductility with an

increase in the amount of silicon in the aluminum matrix.
The ultimate tensile strength (UTS), however, increased
with an increase in silicon content from 7 to 10 wt % and
was found to be minimum in the case of as-processed
Al–19Si samples. Following extrusion, Al–19Si samples
exhibited the highest 0.2% YS, UTS, ductility and mi-
crohardness when compared to all the as-processed Al–Si
samples investigated in the present study (see Table 4).

3.8. Fracture behavior

Fig. 6. Graphical representation of variation in silicon weight percent in
The tensile fracture surfaces of the as-processed and
the Si–Al interfacial region in the case of Al–19Si(Ext) samples.
extruded samples are shown in Figs. 7–10. The fractured
surfaces of the as-processed Al–Si samples revealed an
increase in the degree of brittleness with an increase in the Table 4
Results of tensile properties measurements made on peak aged samples
silicon content in the matrix (see Figs. 7–9). In the case of
as-processed Al–19Si samples (see Fig. 9), fracture surface Material 0.2% YS UTS Ductility Microhardness
revealed the presence of cracked primary Si particles and (MPa) (MPa) (%) (HV)
minimal evidence of matrix undergoing plastic deforma- Al–7Si 55.362.1 141.762.1 12.260.5 38.561.2
tion. For the Al–19Si(Ext) samples, the fracture surface Al–10Si 75.461.6 154.763.4 10.360.8 39.260.4
Al–19Si 80.863.2 129.668.7 2.361.9 43.462.1
revealed the presence of broken primary Si particles
Al–19Si(Ext) 82.763.1 189.0612.1 21.468.8 59.260.5
similar to that observed in as-processed Al–19Si samples

Table 3
Results of microstructural characterization
Material Microstructural feature Vf a Parameter Roundness
Eq. size (mm) l (mm)b
Al–7Si Eutectic silicon 0.065 2.6 10.2 N.D
Al–10Si Eutectic silicon 0.162 2.7 6.7 N.D
Al–19Si Primary silicon 0.093 77.5 254.0 7.34
Eutectic silicon 0.074 7.5 27.5 3.21
Al–19Si(Ext) Primary silicon 0.131 65.5 181.0 5.13
Eutectic silicon 0.125 3.7 10.5 2.64
a
Computed using image analysis.
b
Computed using the formula suggested by Nardone and Prewo [22]: l 5(lt /Vf )1 / 2 where l is the interparticle spacing and t, l and Vf are the thickness,
length and volume fraction of the secondary phases, respectively.
 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294
Fig. 7. SEM fractograph showing the fracture surface features in the case
of Al–7Si samples.
and the evidence of significant matrix plastic deformation,
in contrast to the predominantly brittle behavior exhibited
by the as-processed Al–19Si samples (see Figs. 9 and 10).
4. Discussion
4.1. Processing
The results of the disintegrated melt deposition process-
ing revealed three salient features in the as-processed
condition:
• high yield of the hypo- and hypereutectic alloys
• low volume fraction of porosity
• complete retention of elemental silicon in aluminum in
the case of hypoeutectic formulations and 95% re-
Fig. 8. SEM fractograph showing the fracture surface features in the case
of Al–10Si samples.
289
Fig. 9. SEM fractographs showing: (a) general fracture surface features
and (b) presence of cracked primary silicon particles in the case of
Al–19Si samples.
tention by weight in the case of hypereutectic formula-
tion
In the present study, DMD processed Al–Si alloys
revealed high values of yield in both the as-processed
($86%) and finally machined ($80%) conditions irre-
spective of the lower volume of starting elemental materi-
als. In the as-processed condition, high yield of alloys can
be attributed to the low gas flow rate associated dis-
integration of molten stream of alloy resulting in the
complete absence of overspray powders which are normal-
ly associated with conventional spray processing tech-
niques adopted by other investigators [13–15]. In ma-
chined condition, high yield of Al–Si alloys can be
attributed to the formation of a shallow shrinkage cavity as
a result of enhanced solidification of the molten alloy on
290 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294
Fig. 10. SEM fractograph showing fracture surface features in the case of
Al–19Si(Ext) samples.
the deposition surface. The enhanced solidification can be
attributed to the convectional heat transfer associated with
the disintegration step of the DMD processing when
compared to the conventional casting techniques. The
results also revealed that the yield of the alloys in both the
as-processed and finally machined conditions decreases
with an increase in the silicon content.
Another characteristic feature associated with the DMD
processed Al–Si alloys was the presence of low ($2.65%)
volume fraction of porosity (see Table 1) indicating the
near-net shape forming capabilities of the DMD technique.
The presence of lower volume fraction of porosity in the
as-processed condition ensures the realization of near-
optimum properties from the material precluding the
necessity to employ secondary processing techniques at
least for conventional engineering applications [16]. It may
further be noted that the volume fractions of porosity
revealed by Al–Si alloys synthesized in the present study
are similar to the porosity levels reported in cases of other
near-net shape forming techniques [13].
Finally, the complete retention of silicon in the case of
hypoeutectic alloys and 95% by weight in the case of
Al–19Si alloy can be attributed to the coupled effects of
the ability of aluminum to dissolve silicon completely at
9508C [17] and the kinetics of dissolution accomplished by
stirring conditions used in the present study. The stirring
procedure that involved stirring at 596 rpm for a time not
exceeding 10 min also helped to ensure uniform dis-
tribution of silicon in the ingot following solidification.
4.2. Microstructure
The results of microstructural characterization conducted
on hypoeutectic Al–7Si and Al–10Si alloys revealed, in
common, the presence of a-Al dendrites and eutectic
silicon (see Figs. 2 and 3). The presence of these phases
are in accordance with the equilibrium microstructural
phases predicted by binary Al–Si phase diagram [17]. The
eutectic phase exhibited divorced morphology as a result
of high interfacial energy between the two component
phases and is consistent with the similar observations
reported elsewhere [18].
In the case of hypereutectic Al–19Si alloy, microstruc-
ture characterization results revealed the presence of
primary silicon and acicular eutectic silicon phases in both
the as-processed and extruded conditions. The presence of
these phases along with the microstructural characteristics
exhibited by hypoeutectic alloys establishes the existence
of predominantly equilibrium solidification conditions
during disintegrated melt deposition processing of materi-
als.
The results of quantitative microstructural characteriza-
tion conducted on hypoeutectic Al–Si alloys revealed an
increase in the volume fraction of eutectic silicon phase
and a marginal increase in its size with an increase in
silicon content (see Table 3). The increase in volume
fraction of eutectic silicon phase with an increase in silicon
content is in accordance with the Lever’s rule [19] while a
marginal increase in the size of eutectic silicon can be
attributed to an increase in the probability of silicon atoms
to attach themselves on the growing eutectic silicon phase.
The higher probability of silicon atoms to attach them-
selves to the growing eutectic silicon phase can be
attributed to their higher number and shorter travel dis-
tances as a result of higher weight percentage of silicon in
the aluminum melt [18]. This is further supported by the
fact that the room temperature solid solubility of silicon in
aluminum will be the same in the case of both the Al–7Si
and Al–10Si alloys due to the same processing parameters
and the near-equilibrium nature of the DMD processing
technique.
Regarding the hypereutectic Al–19Si alloy in the as-
processed and extruded condition, the results of quantita-
tive microstructural characterization revealed that the
extrusion process leads to an increase in microstructural
uniformity by decreasing the average size, interparticle
spacing and roundness of the primary and eutectic silicon
phases (see Table 3). The decrease in average size and
roundness of the primary and eutectic silicon phases can be
attributed to the partial dissolution of these phases during
hot extrusion and subsequent reprecipitation following
extrusion. It may further be noted that the dissolution of
silicon at the sharp tips and edges can be attributed to the
high solute concentration gradients in these regions in
accordance with the Freundlich–Thomson equation [20,21]
leading to the reduction in roundness. The decrease in
interparticle spacing of primary and eutectic silicon phases
can primarily be attributed to the decrease in their average
size in accordance with the formula, l 5 (lt /Vf )1 / 2 , pro-
posed by Nardone and Prewo [22]. Finally, the increase in
the volume fraction of primary and eutectic silicon phases
(studied at magnification levels of up to 20003; see Table
3) following extrusion may be attributed to the coalescence
 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294
of finer distribution of these phases at the extrusion
temperature leading to their increased presence at magnifi-
cations up to 20003. It may be noted that the coalescence
of finer phases assists in reducing the particle / matrix
interfacial area and the relaxation of misfit strains in the
matrix [23]. Further work is continuing to establish the
variation in distribution pattern of these phases (especially
in the finer size range) as a function of extrusion step using
high magnification metallography techniques.
Another interesting feature observed in the case of
hypereutectic Al–19Si samples was the presence of silicon
segregation in the immediate vicinity of primary Si
particles (see Fig. 6). This can be attributed to the localized
presence of point defects and line defects in the interfacial
region of primary Si particles during solid state quenching
as a result of a difference in the coefficient of thermal
expansion between the aluminum matrix and Si particles
(CTE (Al) / CTE (Si) : 3.1 [24]). The presence of an
increased number of defects assists in promoting the
diffusion of alloying elements from the adjacent region
leading to the segregation in the interfacial region. These
results are also consistent with the similar studies con-
ducted on the conventionally cast A390 alloy [4].
4.3. Aging studies
The results of aging studies conducted on as-processed
Al–Si alloys revealed three salient features:
• an increase in as-solutionized and peak hardness with
an increase in the weight percent of silicon,
• an increase in the magnitude of age hardening with an
increase in the weight percent of silicon, and
• an aging kinetics independent of weight percent of
silicon
The increase in the as-solutionized and peak hardness of
Al–Si alloys with an increase in the weight percent of
silicon can be attributed to an increase in the volume
fraction of harder silicon based phases in the aluminum
matrix (see Table 3). The silicon based phases refer to
eutectic silicon in the case of hypoeutectic Al–Si alloys
and primary and eutectic silicon in the case of hypereutec-
tic Al–Si alloys. It may be noted that the hardness of
silicon (10 9 kg m 22 ) [25] is significantly higher when
compared to that of aluminum (19310 6 kg m 22 for 99.6%
Al) [26].
The increase in the magnitude of age hardening with
silicon content may be attributed to the capability of
increasing volume fraction of silicon based phases to
generate increasing volume fraction of the defect structure
in the matrix (see Table 3). The formation of defect
structure can be attributed to a significant difference in
coefficients of thermal expansion of aluminum and silicon
phases (CTE (Al) / CTE (Si) : 3.1 [24]). Such a correlation
has been convincingly established by the researchers
291
elsewhere [27]. It may further be noted that the increased
precipitation of the secondary phases and hence the
increase in magnitude of age hardening may be attributed
to the ability of the defect structure to serve as a heteroge-
neous nucleation site during aging treatment. In related
studies, for example, investigators have shown using
transmission electron microscopy the precipitation of
strengthening phases on the lattice defects such as disloca-
tions [28]. The progressive increase in the peak hardness
when compared to as-solutionized hardness with an in-
crease in weight percentage of silicon also indicates that
much superior mechanical properties can be realized
following aging heat treatment. This is also consistent with
the work reported elsewhere [16] which suggest a clear
correlation between hardness and strength. The results are
also consistent with the similar findings made on an
Al–7Si based alloy supplied by Duralcan, USA [6].
Regarding the influence of silicon content on the aging
kinetic, the results of the aging studies suggest that the
variation in silicon content in the range of 7–19 wt % was
not sufficient to bring the microstructural changes capable
of altering the aging kinetics of the aluminum matrix. This
is consistent with the work of other investigators who
suggested that the aging kinetics of the metallic matrix
containing the secondary phases with different CTE can
only be influenced if the variation in microstructure as a
result of their presence is significant [29].
Regarding the effect of extrusion, the results show that
the hot extrusion step used in the present study increases
the as-solutionized hardness significantly while maintain-
ing the peak hardness similar to that observed in the case
of as-processed Al–19Si samples (see Fig. 1). The increase
in as-solutionized hardness of the extruded samples may be
attributed to the reduction in the volume fraction of
porosity as a result of the extrusion (see Table 1) and a
minimal amount of age hardening suggests that the hot
extrusion step assists in establishing a uniform distribution
pattern of silicon based phases as a result of high tempera-
ture exposure (3508C) during extrusion and subsequent
cooling to room temperature resulting into partial dissolu-
tion and reprecipitation of silicon based phases in the
matrix. As a result of this, the effect of age hardening are
minimized as reflected in only a 5.65% increase in
hardness of the Al–19Si(Ext) samples when compared to
29.9% in the case of the as-processed Al–19Si samples in
the peak aged condition.
4.4. Mechanical behavior
The results of the mechanical properties characterization
revealed an increase in the matrix microhardness with an
increase in the weight percentage of silicon in the as-
processed Al–Si alloys (see Table 4). This is consistent
with the increase in the cumulative volume fraction of the
harder silicon based phases (see Table 3). It may be noted
that an increase in the volume fraction of the harder silicon
292 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294
based phases and the associated defect structure will lead
to higher constraint in the localized deformation of softer
matrix under the application of indentational load. In the
case of Al–19Si(Ext) samples, however, a significant
increase in microhardness when compared to the Al–19Si
samples can be attributed to the significant microstructural
refinement and enhanced microstructural uniformity com-
monly achieved following extrusion process [30].
The results of tensile properties characterization re-
vealed an increase in 0.2% YS and a decrease in ductility
with an increase in silicon content. An increase in 0.2%
YS with an increase in the amount of silicon can be
attributed to the relatively higher constraint exerted by an
increasing volume fraction of the silicon based phases in
the aluminum matrix for the onset of the slip process. It
may be noted that an increase in the dislocation pinning
sites (such as silicon based phases and the associated
defect structure) delays the onset of plastic deformation
which is reflected in the values of the 0.2% YS obtained in
this study for Al–Si alloys [31]. In a related work [26], for
example, it has been shown that general yield stress (so )
can be expressed as:
so 5 ss 1 si (1)
where ss is the stress to operate the dislocation sources and
si is the friction stress representing the combined effect of
all the obstacles to the motion of dislocations arising from
the sources. In the present study, based on microstructural
characterization results (see Table 3), it is evident that an
increase in the amount of silicon leads to an increase in the
si as a result of an increase in the volume fraction of
silicon based phases. This is also consistent with the
similar 0.2% YS values obtained in the case of Al–19Si
and Al–19Si(Ext) samples (see Table 4). The same
amount of silicon in these two different category of
samples is indicative of the similar volume fraction of
silicon based phases [17] and hence the similar values of
0.2% YS (within each other’s standard deviation) arising
from similar si .
The decrease in ductility with the increasing amount of
silicon may be attributed to the increasing volume fraction
of plastically incompatible silicon based phases in the soft
and ductile aluminum matrix. It has been, for example,
established that the increasing volume fraction of plastical-
ly incompatible phases decreases the cavitation resistance
of the matrix leading to early microcracking and hence the
reduced ductility under the application of tensile loads
[31–33].
The inferior ultimate tensile strength exhibited by Al–
19Si samples when compared to Al–7Si and Al–10Si
samples may be primarily attributed to the coupled effects
of the presence of primary Si and an increase in the
porosity and volume fraction of plastically incompatible
silicon based phases. The porosity associated reduction in
strength has been previously established by other inves-
tigators for steels, copper and aluminum based alloys
[16,34]. Bocchini [16] and Payne et al. [34], for example,
asserted that the presence of pores lead to weakening of a
material by reducing the amount of stress bearing area and
therefore lowers the amount of stress the material is able to
withstand. Similarly, the presence of plastically incompat-
ible phases lead to the stress accumulation at the interface
with the ductile matrix and under conventional tensile
loading microcracks / microvoids may appear either at the
pole or equator locations depending on the mechanical
properties of the strengthening phase [35], thus preventing
the optimum realization of UTS by the material.
The results of the tensile properties characterization
conducted on Al–19Si(Ext) samples revealing an increase
in ultimate tensile strength and ductility when compared to
the as-processed Al–19Si samples are consistent with the
dependence of these properties on the morphology of
plastically incompatible phases and the volume fraction of
porosity. Since the constitution of Al–19Si and Al–
19Si(Ext) samples is the same, the volume fraction of
silicon based phases will also be the same since the
identical near-equilibrium primary processing technique is
used to synthesize them [17]. The only difference may be
in the shift in the distribution pattern of the silicon based
phases towards the coarser side due to the hot extrusion
step used in the case of Al–19Si(Ext) samples. This is
consistent with the results of the microstructural characteri-
zation studies (Table 3) which show an increase in the
volume fraction of micron-size silicon based phases and
more interestingly show the lower roundness (indicating
increasing equiaxed nature) values. The decrease in the
roundness value of the silicon based phases will be
instrumental in increasing the resistance of the aluminum
matrix to microcracking as a result of the decrease in the
stress concentration at the sharp edges, thus leading to
superior values of UTS and ductility. Similarly, a reduction
in porosity from 2.65 to 0.65% (see Table 1) may also be
attributed to an increase in UTS and ductility values of
Al–19Si(Ext) samples when compared to Al–19Si sam-
ples. This is consistent with the work of other investigators
[25] who reported an increase in the value of UTS by
about 51 MPa as a result of reduction in porosity by about
2% in the case of Al–5Si samples heat treated to T6
condition. It may be noted that in the present study an
increase in UTS by about 51 MPa was realized as a result
of a reduction in porosity by about 2% in the case of T6
heat treated Al–19Si samples. The tensile testing results
thus obtained are consistent with the microstructural
characterization results obtained in the present study and
the work of other investigators [25].
4.5. Fracture behavior
The results of fractographic studies conducted on the
hypoeutectic Al–7Si and Al–10Si samples revealed similar
fracture surface features exhibiting ample evidence of
matrix plastic deformation (see Figs. 7 and 8). The fracture
 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294
surfaces, in common, also showed the presence of rela-
tively flat and featureless zones which may be indicative of
crack propagation along the embrittled boundaries of a-Al
dendrites / grains. This may be attributed to the presence of
the hard and brittle eutectic silicon phase as shown in Figs.
2 and 3. The fracture surface of Al–19Si samples was
significantly different when compared to Al–7Si and Al–
10Si samples and exhibited a high degree of brittleness and
cracked primary silicon particles (see Fig. 9). This may be
attributed to the reduced ability of metallic matrix to
deform due to the increased number of crack nucleation
sites such as increased volume fraction of hard and brittle
silicon based phases and porosity. On the contrary, the
fracture surface of Al–19Si(Ext) samples revealed evi-
dence of significant matrix plastic deformation (see Fig.
10) and the presence of cracked and / or partially debonded
primary silicon particles. The plastic deformation ability
exhibited by Al–19Si(Ext) samples may be attributed to
the significant refinement in the microstructure that follows
as a result of extrusion [30], lower volume fraction of
porosity [16,34] and smaller size [9] and reduced round-
ness of secondary phases (see Tables 1 and 3). It may be
noted that all these factors, in common, enhances the
plastic deformability of the material by increasing the
cavitation resistance of the material and thus minimizing
the premature failure. Finally, the presence of cracked
primary silicon particles on the fracture surface indicates
and confirms the good interfacial bonding between primary
silicon particles and the aluminum matrix as a result of the
extrusion process.
5. Conclusions
The primary conclusions that may be derived from this
work are as follows:
1. Disintegrated melt deposition processing can be suc-
cessfully utilized to synthesize hypo- and hypereutectic
Al–Si alloys.
2. The results of porosity measurements and microstruc-
tural characterization revealed that disintegrated melt
deposition processing is a near-equilibrium processing
technique capable of forming near-net shapes.
3. The results of aging studies indicate that an increase in
the amount of silicon in aluminum increases the as-
solutionized and peak hardness of Al–Si samples and
does not affect the aging kinetics.
4. The results of mechanical properties characterization
indicate that an increase in the amount of silicon leads
to an increase in 0.2% YS and a reduction in ductility
of the as-processed Al–Si samples from hypo- to
hypereutectic range. The extrusion step in the case of
Al–19Si samples leads to a significant enhancement in
ultimate tensile strength and ductility values.
5. The results of fractographic analyses revealed a signifi-
293
cant increase in the degree of brittleness in the hy-
pereutectic samples when compared to the hypoeutectic
samples. The results also revealed that the fracture
mode can be changed from predominantly brittle to
predominantly ductile following extrusion.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Tham Leung Mun
and Mr. Tung Siew Kong (National University of Singa-
pore, Singapore) for their valuable experimental assistance
and for many useful discussions and to Ms Neerja Gupta
for improving the readability of this manuscript.
References
[1] J. Zhou, J. Duszczyk, B.M. Korevaar, J. Mater. Sci. 26 (1991) 3041.
[2] S. Anand, T.S. Srivatsan, Y. Wu, E.J. Lavemia, J. Mater. Sci. 32
(1997) 2835.
[3] J. Valer Goni, J.M. Rodrguez-Ibabe, J.J. Urcola, Key Eng. Mats.
127–131 (1997) 911.
[4] M. Gupta, E.J. Lavernia, J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 54 (1–4) (1995) 261.
[5] J.J. Stephens, J.P. Lucas, F.M. Hoskings, Scripta Metall. 22 (1988)
1307.
[6] M. Gupta, C. Lane, E.J. Lavemia, Scripta Metall. Mater. 26 (1992)
825.
[7] C.H. Caceres, B.I. Selling, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 220 (1996) 109.
[8] I. Yamauchi, I. Ohnaka, S. Kawamoto, T. Fukusako, Trans. Jpn. Inst.
Metals 27 (3) (1986) 195.
[9] J. Zhou, J. Duszczyk, J. Mater. Sci. 25 (1990) 4541.
[10] L.H. Van Vlack (Ed.), Elements of Materials Science and Engineer-
ing, 6th ed, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, USA, 1989, pp.
xx–xxi.
[11] M. Gupta, M.O. Lai, C.Y. Soo, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 210 (1–2) (1996)
114.
[12] M. Gupta, M.O. Lai, S.C. Lim, J. Alloys Comp. 260 (1997) 250.
[13] P.S. Grant, Progr. Mater. Sci. 39 (1995) 497.
[14] A. Lawley, D. Apelian, Powder Metallurgy 37 (2) (1994) 123.
[15] M. Gupta, Y. Li, Y. Wu, E.J. Lavemia, J. Thermal Analysis 44 (1995)
1321.
[16] G.F. Bocchini, Int. J. Powder Metallurgy 22 (3) (1986) 185.
[17] M. Hansen, K. Anderko (Eds.), Constitution of Binary Alloys,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1958, pp. 132–134.
[18] P.G. Shewmon (Ed.), Transformation in Metals, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, 1969, pp. 156–208.
[19] W.D. CallisterJr. (Ed.), Materials Science and Engineering: An
Introduction, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, 1994, pp.
243–245.
[20] B.K. Prasad, T.K. Dan, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 10 (1991) 1412.
[21] J.W. Christian (Ed.), The Theory of Transformation in Metals and
Alloys, Part 1: Equilibrium and General Kinetics Theory, 2nd ed.,
Pergamon Press, New York, 1981, p. 169.
[22] V.C. Nardone, K.W. Prewo, Scripta Metall. 20 (1986) 43–48.
[23] M. Van Rooyen, E.J. Mittemeijer, Metall. Trans. A 20A (1989)
1207.
[24] E.A. Brandes (Ed.), Smithells Metals Reference Book, 6th ed,
Butterworths, UK, 1983, p. 14-1.
[25] Metals Handbook, Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and
Special-Purpose Materials, ASM International, Metals Park, OH,
USA, Vol. 2, 1992, pp. 123–136; p. 1155.
294 M. Gupta, S. Ling / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 287 (1999) 284 – 294

[26] Metals Handbook, Desk Edition, ASM, Metals Park, OH, USA,
1985, p. 6.33.
[27] M. Taya, K. Lulay, D. Lloyd, Acta Metall. 39 (1991) 73.
[28] T.S. Srivatsan, M. Gupta, F.A. Mohamed, E.J. Lavemia, Aluminum
68 (1992) 494.
[29] M. Gupta, M.O. Lai, M.S. Boon, N.S. Herng, Mater. Res. Bull. 33
(2) (1998) 199.
[30] C.H.J. Davies, Key Eng. Mats. 104–107 (1995) 447.
[31] G.E. Dieter (Ed.), Mechanical Metallurgy, McGraw-Hill Book
company, Singapore, 1988, pp. 184–240.
[32] A.L. Geiger, J.A. Walker, J. Metals 43 (1991) 8.
[33] M. Gupta, M.K. Surappa, S. Qin, L.M. Tham, Indian J. Eng. Mater.
Sci. 5 (1998) 1.
[34] R.D. Payne, A.L. Moran, R.C. Cammarata, Scripta Metall. Mater. 29
(1993) 907.
[35] S. Qin, M. Gupta, J. Mater. Sci. 30 (1995) 5223.