Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

Investigation of impact behaviour of aluminium based SiC

particle reinforced metal–matrix composites
Sedat Ozden *, Recep Ekici, Fehmi Nair
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Erciyes University, 38039 Talas, Kayseri, Turkey

Received 22 March 2005; received in revised form 20 February 2006; accepted 25 February 2006

Abstract

In this paper, the impact behaviour of aluminium and silicon carbide (SiC) particle reinforced aluminium matrix composites under
different temperature conditions was determined. Charpy impact tests were performed on as extruded and heat treated specimen at tem-
peratures varying from 176 to 300 °C. Composite specimens based on aluminium alloys of 2124, 5083 and 6063 and reinforced by SiC
particles were manufactured. Two different SiC sizes of 157 lm and 511 lm and two different extrusion ratios of 13.63:1 and 19.63:1 were
used. The results of instrumented impact tests were compared with the microstructural and fractographic observations. The failure mech-
anisms and deformation behaviour of unreinforced alloys and composites were assessed. The impact behaviour of composites was
affected by clustering of particles, particle cracking and weak matrix-reinforcement bonding. Agglomeration of particles reduced the
impact strength of Al 2124 and 6063 based composites. Alumınum 6063 alloys and composites showed a better impact strength. The
impact strength of 6063 composites increased with particle size and extrusion ratio. The effects of the test temperature on the impact
behaviour of all materials were not very significant.
Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: A. Metal–matrix composites (MMCs); B. Impact behaviour; D. Mechanical testing; E. Extrusion; A. Particle-reinforcement

1. Introduction The literature survey indicates that although other

Particle reinforced aluminium matrix composites can be
manufactured by using conventional material manufactur-
ing methods with improved mechanical and physical prop-
erties. These properties include improved strength, high
elastic modulus, creep strength, fatigue strength, hardness
and wear resistance, resistance to corrosion and low ther-
mal expansion [1–10]. Furthermore, good mechanical
properties at high temperatures are also a key-point for
these composites. Because of these advantages, cost-effec-
tive alternatives and potential in large scale applications
(such as automotive, aerospace and airframe applications),
particle reinforced aluminium matrix composite (MMC)
remains as a favorite choice of the researchers [1–3,9].
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 352 4374901/32151; fax: +90 352
4375784.
E-mail address: ozden@erciyes.edu.tr (S. Ozden).
mechanical properties of particle reinforced aluminium
matrix composites have been examined deeply and known
well, there is less information relatively about toughness
and impact behaviour of these materials. Although, the
toughness and impact strength at room temperature of
these composites have been investigated and reviewed at
several works using different materials and processing
variables [10–14], the works related to high and low temper-
ature behaviour of Al2O3(SiC) particle reinforced compos-
ites are limited [15,16]. As the SiC reinforced aluminium
matrix composites have important applications in many
fields of industry, the impact behaviour of SiC particle
reinforced Al matrix composites in a temperature interval
ranging from 176 °C to 300 °C was studied. The
effects of test temperature, particle size and extrusion
ratio as well as the matrix characteristics on the impact
strength was investigated and the results were correlated
with the clustering of particles, particles cracking and

1359-835X/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.02.026
 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494
interfacial failure associated with weak matrix-reinforce-
ment bonding.
2. Materials and methods
Three different aluminium alloys, 2124, 5083 and 6063
grades, were used as matrix materials. These alloys are
extensively used in many areas especially related to impact
such as ballistic applications due to their super plastic
potential, corrosion resistance and relatively good strength
[10–16]. The chemical compositions of alloys were shown
in Table 1. The material was supplied by Seydisehir Alum-
inim Factory in Turkey. The percentage SiC particles was
10 wt.% in weight. For all three aluminium grades an aver-
age SiC particle size of 167 lm was used. Furthermore, in
order to asses the effects of particle size on the impact
behaviour of MMCs, SiC particles of 511 lm average size
were used in 6063 alloys with the same weight ratio. The
choice of the size of SiC particles in this study was affected
by a previous study [17], where it is shown that the use of
particles with a size range 250–500 lm in the ballistic appli-
cations had an important effect in reducing the penetration
depth of the missile. Additionally, by deliberately choosing
a bigger particle size for comparison (511 lm), it was also
aimed to demonstrate the effects of the particle size in
impact behaviour.
The unreinforced aluminium alloys and SiC reinforced
aluminium MMCs were manufactured by stir casting. Alu-
minium alloys were melted approximately at 800 °C and
then casted into cylindrical billets. For the production of
composites, the aluminium alloys again were melted
approximately at 800 °C then the melt is mixed with SiC
particles by a stirrer (with a angular velocity of 750 rpm)
under argon gas atmosphere. SiC particles were added into
molten Al with a mass of flow 20 gr/sn. Then, the mixture
of liquid Al alloys and SiC particles and were casted into an
ingot to be formed cylindrical billets. Finally, these billets
were hot extruded at 400 °C to form square rods of
10 mm2 cross-sectional area. The extrusion ratio was
19.63:1. Finally, 6063 alloys reinforced by 511 lm SiC par-
ticle were extruded into a section of 12 mm2 at the extru-
sion ratio of 13.63.
The V-notched impact specimens were cut and machined
in the extrusion directions from these extruded rods in
a CNC milling machine according to ASTM E23. The
cross-sectional area of the specimen was 10 mm2 and the
notch angle was 45°.
Unreinforced alloys and Al 2124 and Al 6063 based
MMCs were artificially aged. For aging T6 heat treatment
Table 1
The chemical composition of the aluminium matrix materials
Materials % Cr % Cu % Fe
2124 0.1 3.8–4.9 0.3
5083 0.05–0.25 0.1 0.4
6063 0.1 0.1 0.35
485
condition was selected. Specimens were heat treated at
515 °C for 2 h then water quenched to room temperature.
Afterwards they were precipitation hardened by ageing at
175 °C for 11 h followed cooling in air.
Impact tests were carried out according to ASTM E23
method [18], in a standard instrumented impact testing unit
at the temperatures of 176 °C, 21 °C, 100 °C, 200 °C and
300 °C. In the sub-zero temperature tests, specimens were
kept in liquid nitrogen for at least 15 min prior to the tests
and the time lapse between the removal of specimens from
the liquid nitrogen to the tests was at least 5 s in accordance
with ASTM E23 standard. In the higher temperature (100,
200, 300 °C) tests, specimens were heated in a MASÒ fur-
nace and then tested in 5 s. For each test temperature,
impact tests were carried out on at least three specimens
and the average values were used.
Fractographic examinations were also carried out on the
fracture surfaces of the broken specimens by means of Leo
440Ò scanning electron microscope (SEM) and macro-
scopic observations by photography.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Impact test results
The results of the instrumented impact tests of all
MMCs and unreinforced Al alloys at different tempera-
tures were collected in Table 2, in terms of impact energy.
The results of the instrumented impact tests of as extruded
and artificially aged unreinforced Al 2124 and 2124 + SiC
(167 lm) MMCs for different temperatures are presented
in Fig. 1. The results showed that the impact behaviour
of aluminium was significantly reduced by the presence of
SiC particles. On the other hand, the reduction in impact
strength due to aging was insignificant. It is interesting that
the impact behaviour of all test specimens were similar for
different temperatures. The impact strength increased with
temperature up to room temperature and then decreased to
a minimum at 100 °C. This decrease was more significant
for unreinforced alloys. Then, it increased again until
200 °C and finally dropped at higher temperatures. At
higher temperatures, approximately 300 °C, the reason of
decreasing in the impact strength can be attributed to over-
aging explained by coarsening in the grain structure of the
matrix material or softening of the matrix. Thus, the failure
was took place in the matrix or near the particle–matrix
interface as debonding at between 200 and 300 °C temper-
atures. This argument also in agreement with the reference
[19].
% Mg % Mn % Si % Ti % Zn
1.2–1.8 0.3–0.9 0.2 0.15 0.25
4–4.9 0.4–1 0.4–0.7 0.15 0.25
0.45–0.9 0.1 0.2–0.6 0.1 0.1
486 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494

Table 2
Results of the instrumented impact tests of MMCs and unreinforced Al alloys at different temperatures (E = extruded, T6 = heat treated, artificially aged)
Materials Extrusion ratio (R) Testing temperature (°C) Impact energy (J) Mean value of impact energy (J)
1 2 3
Al 2124 [E] 19.63:1 176 22.56 19.61 24.52 22.23
21 33.34 31.38 31.38 32.03
100 19.61 25.50 27.46 24.19
200 35.30 31.38 26.50 31.06
300 21.57 20.59 21.57 21.24
Al 2124 [E, T6] 19.63:1 176 23.54 24.52 23.54 23.87
21 27.46 27.46 29.42 28.11
100 23.54 17.65 31.38 24.19
200 23.54 25.50 27.46 25.50
300 17.65 15.69 23.54 18.96
Al 2124 MMC [E] 19.63:1 176 5.88 6.86 4.90 5.88
21 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85
100 5.88 5.88 3.93 5.23
200 8.83 8.83 8.83 8.83
300 3.93 2.94 2.94 3.27
Al 2124 MMC [E, T6] 19.63:1 176 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88
21 3.93 7.85 7.85 6.54
100 3.93 3.93 7.85 5.24
200 7.85 4.90 7.85 6.87
300 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93
Al 5083 [E] 19.63:1 176 56.88 49.00 41.19 49.02
21 53.94 61.78 54.92 56.88
100 42.17 61.78 57.86 53.94
200 47.07 59.82 60.80 55.90
300 49.03 51.00 61.78 53.94
Al 5083 MMC [E] 19.63:1 176 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96
21 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96
100 2.94 1.96 1.96 2.29
200 2.94 1.96 1.96 2.29
300 5.88 1.96 1.96 3.27
Al 6063 [E] 19.63:1 176 80.42 80.42 80.42 80.42
21 92.19 90.22 94.14 92.19
100 100.03 101.01 100.03 100.36
200 74.53 96.11 83.36 84.67
300 97.10 98.07 98.07 97.75
Al 6063 [E, T6] 19.63:1 176 86.30 68.65 78.46 77.80
21 69.63 67.67 71.59 69.63
100 78.46 79.44 78.46 78.79
200 55.90 86.30 69.63 70.61
300 90.22 68.65 79.44 79.44
Al 6063 MMC [E] 19.63:1 176 21.57 23.54 21.57 22.22
21 15.69 21.57 19.61 18.96
100 27.46 14.71 21.57 21.25
200 15.69 31.38 23.54 23.54
300 29.42 15.69 21.57 22.23
Al 6063 MMC [E, T6] 19.63:1 176 9.81 19.61 14.71 14.71
21 17.65 9.81 11.77 13.08
100 25.50 9.81 16.67 17.33
200 8.82 11.77 9.81 10.13
300 15.69 12.75 14.71 14.38

The increase of impact strength with temperature is an
expected result as the ductility increases with temperature.
The decrease in impact strength at higher temperatures is
also acceptable. It seems that at much higher temperatures
the material started to yield easily and loosen its capacity to
carry loads. On the other hand a drop in impact strength at
around 100 °C needs explanation and needs further study.
The lower impact strength of Al 2124 + SiC MMCs can
be attributed to the presence of brittle SiC particles which
may act as stress concentration areas. Furthermore the
 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494 487

30
Impact Energy (J)

20

10

0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 1. Impact energy versus test temperature for: (j) Al 2124, (h) Al
2124 [T6], (m) Al 2124 + SiC, (n) Al 2124 + SiC [T6].

heterogeneous dispersion of SiC particles in the matrix

resulted in the formation of clusters which also decreased
the matrix-reinforcement bonding and reduced the impact
strength of composites. The clustered particles were easily
separated under the impact loading. This argument is sup-
ported by the SEM examinations of fractured surfaces of
heat treated Al 2124 + SiC [T6] composites tested at
21 °C (see Fig. 2a–c). The void nucleation around the par-
ticles in Fig. 2a is related to the interfacial debonding and
the failure phenomena indicates weak particle–matrix
interface probably caused during the manufacturing pro-
cess. It has been observed that both clusters of particles
and weak particle–matrix bonding have caused preferential
directions for crack growth mechanism. This failure mech-
anism can be explained that in regions of clustering or
agglomeration and decohesion of interface, the short inter-
particle distance facilitates linkage between neighboring
voids and microscopic cracks as a direct result of decreased
propagation distances between cracked SiC particles.
Indeed, Fig. 2c shows the crack propagation along the par-
ticles. These failure mechanisms had a significant effect on
decreasing the impact strength of composites.
Fig. 3 shows the macroscopic photographs of Al
2124 + SiC MMC and unreinforced alloy Al 2124 frac-
tured at 21 °C. Here, brittle fracture of Al 2124 + SiC
MMC can be very clearly seen (see Fig. 3a) as there is no
lateral expansion and fibrous appearance on the fracture
surface. On the other hand and Fig. 3b indicates to the
ductile behaviour of unreinforced Al 2124-E. The lateral
deformation is an indicator of ductile fracture in the mac-
roscopic scale. Fig. 2. SEM photographs of fracture surfaces of Al 2124 + SiC [T6]
composites fractured at 21 °C.
The lower impact strength of as extruded and artificially
aged unreinforced Al 2124 and Al 2124 + SiC composites
were attributed to the formation of brittle precipitates in unreinforced alloys were more significant. While the impact
the matrix microstructure with ageing. This argument is energy absorbed at 176 °C is 49 J, it is 57 J at room tem-
in agreement with the literature elsewhere [10,13,15,16]. perature. This 16% increase in absorbed energy is still smal-
The impact test results of unreinforced alloys Al 5083 ler than the difference observed for Al 2124 + SiC which is
and Al 5083 + SiC (167 lm) MMCs at different tempera- about 45% (see Fig. 1).
tures are given in Fig. 4. It is clear that composites have The impact energy values of Al 5083 + SiC-E MMCs
exhibited fairly constant impact strength in the whole tem- for all temperatures are much lower than those of the Al
perature range, regardless of increase in temperature. On 5083-E unreinforced alloys. This is similar to the observa-
the other hand, the changes in the impact strength of tion made on samples of Al 2124 and Al 2124 + SiC.
488 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494

Fig. 3. Macroscopic photographs of fracture surfaces of (a) Al 2124 + SiC

and (b) Al 2124-E fractured at 21 °C.

60
Impact Energy (J)

40

20

0
-200 -100 0 100 200
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 4. Impact energy versus test temperature for: (j) Al 5083, (h)
5083 + SiC.
Al 5083 unreinforced alloys indicated a considerably duc-
tile fracture mode. Fig. 5 shows the photograph of frac-
tured surfaces of Al 5083 alloys fractured at 21 and
100 °C. The lateral expansion and fibrous appearance,
and plastic deformation clearly reveal the ductile fracture
mode. SEM micrograph of fracture surface of unreinforced
Fig. 5. Macroscopic photographs of fracture surfaces of Al 5083 fractured
300
at (a) 21 °C and (b) 100 °C (see also Fig. 8). SEM photographs of fracture
surfaces of Al 5083 fractured at 21 °C (the ductile dimples are prominent).
Al 5083 fractured at 21 °C also can be seen at Fig. 5c. This
is another evidence of ductile deformation of matrix mate-
rial consisting of large dimpled morphology.
The optical micrograph of transverse section illustrating
the microstructure of the Al 5083 + SiC composite is
shown in Fig. 6. The distribution of SiC particles appear
to be reasonably homogeneous without clustering or
agglomeration. The fracture surface of a 5083 MMC
 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494 489

Fig. 6. Transverse section of the Al 5083 + SiC which illustrates the

microstructure.

fractured at 21 °C is given in Fig. 7. There is no void for-

mation or debonding between matrix and particle
reinforcements interface which indicates a better matrix–
reinforcement interfacial bonding. Although there is no
debonding, the particle cracking is clearly seen. Therefore
the failure mode is dominated by the particle cracking. This
result is in confirmation with the literature where it is
reported that the fracture of particles takes place when
the interface is stronger than the particles themselves [20].
So, the failure appears to occur by the accumulation of
internal damage caused by particle fracture and the defor-
mation of matrix material. This failure mechanism intro-
duces voids which grow and lead to reduced ductility
which has played an effective role in the decrease of impact
strength of Al 5083 MMCs.
Fig. 8 also shows the macroscopic photographs of Al
5083 + SiC MMCs fractured at 21 °C, 200 °C and
300 °C. Here the brittle fracture of Al 5083 + SiC MMCs
is obvious. In contrast to unreinforced Al 5083 (see
Fig. 5a and b) there are no lateral expansion and fibrous
appearance and no plastic deformation at the fracture sur-
face which are indicators of ductile fracture in the macro-
scopic scale.
The results of the instrumented impact tests of as-
extruded and heat treated unreinforced Al 6063 and Al
6063 + SiC (167 lm) MMCs alloys at different tempera-
tures are shown in Fig. 9. The shape of the test results
are similar to the results obtained for the other aluminium Fig. 7. SEM photographs of fracture surfaces of Al 5083 + SiC fractured
grades (2124 and 5083). As before, the impact strength of at 21 °C.
as extruded and heat treated composites are much lower
than the impact strength of unreinforced alloys for all tem-
peratures. While the impact strength of the composites was propagation. Fig. 10 shows the SEM photographs of frac-
not affected by the temperature, the impact strength of ture surfaces of Al 6063 + SiC MMC fractured at 21 °C.
unreinforced alloy increased from 80 J at 176 °C to The particle clusters (Fig. 10a and b) and a propagated
100 J at about 100 °C. In contrast to the other grades, crack (Fig. 10c) are clearly visible. Furthermore, debonding
the impact strength continued to increase with temperature in the particle–matrix interface (Fig. 10a, d and e) particle
and reached a maximum at 100 °C. The heterogeneous dis- cracking (Fig. 10b– d) and interface cracking (Fig. 10c) can
tribution of SiC particles leading to clustering or agglomer- be seen. Therefore, it can be concluded that the fracture of
ation made preferential sites for cracking nucleation and the matrix between the clusters of reinforcing particles,
490 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494
Fig. 8. Macroscopic photographs of fracture surfaces of Al 5083 + SiC
fractured at (a) 21 °C and (b) 100 °C and (c) 300 °C.
coupled with particle failure by cracking and decohesion at
the particle interfaces allows the microscopic cracks to
grow rapidly and results in the decreased impact strength.
The fracture surfaces of the impact tested specimens
showed a ductile dimpled morphology in the matrix which
is in contrast to Al 5083 + SiC and Al 2124 + SiC MMCs.
The macroscopic photographs of fractured surfaces of Al
6063 + SiC MMCs tested at 21 °C and 100 °C are shown
100
Impact Energy (J)
80
60
40
20
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 9. Impact energy versus test temperature for: (j) Al 6063, (h) Al
6063 [T6], (m) Al 6063 + SiC, (n) Al 6063 + SiC [T6].
in Fig. 11a and b. The photographs indicate a ductile
failure with lateral expansions. The macroscopic fracture
photographs of unreinforced Al 6063 and Al 6063 [T6]
tested at 100 °C shows a higher degree of ductile failure
compared to reinforced composites (see Fig. 12a and b).
Figs. 1 and 9 show that the heat treated unreinforced
and particle reinforced Al 2124 and Al 6063 have a lower
impact strength than that of as-extruded ones. Probably,
the precipitation hardening made the materials brittle and
reduced the impact strength. It is well known that harden-
ing precipitates formed in the matrix with the heat treat-
ment decreases the ductility [10,13,15,16].
3.2. The effects of particle size and extrusion ratio on
impact strength
The effects of particle size on the impact behaviour of as-
extruded and heat treated Al 6063 + SiC MMCs are given
in Fig. 13 and all test results also listed in Table 3. The tests
were conducted at 21 °C and two particle sizes (167 lm and
511 lm) were compared. For both as-extruded and heat
treated composites the impact strengths increased with
SiC particle size. This result can be attributed to decreased
number of particles per unit area of aluminium. When par-
ticle size decreases, the number of particles per unit area
increases and becomes more difficult to obtain a homoge-
neous particle distribution which may result in the forma-
tion of clustering making preferential sites for crack
formation and propagation. When this failure combines
with the failures of debonding in the particle–matrix inter-
face, particle cracking and interface cracking, the impact
strength of composites decreases significantly. Indeed, this
has been observed for Al 6063 + SiC (167 lm) MMCs
above in Fig. 10. On the other hand, it may be possible
to obtain a more homogenous particle distribution inside
the matrix with an increased particle size for the same
weight ratio (10% in our case). The typical microstructure
of Al 6063 + SiC MMC with a particle size 511 lm is
shown in Fig. 14. It is clear that the particle distribution is
 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494 491

Fig. 10. SEM photographs of fracture surfaces of Al 6063 + SiC fractured at 21 °C.

much more homogenous compared to particle distribution
in the case of samples containing 167 lm SiC particles. In
addition to this, the amount of more ductile and tougher
metallic matrix in the interparticle regions slightly increases
and it may also enhance the impact toughness. But, one
problem about increasing particle size is the higher proba-
bility of particle cracking. For instance, voids formed by
broken particles and remainders of particles at the bottom
of voids can be seen from fracture surface of a heat treated
Al 6063 + SiC (511 lm) MMC in Fig. 15. As the toughness
of the matrix material has a significant effect on the impact
behaviour of composites [21], it is clear that the good duc-
tility of Al 6063 matrix has contributed to higher impact
toughness of Al 6063 + SiC (511 lm) MMCs.
The impact test results of as-extruded and heat treated
Al 6063 + SiC (511 lm) MMCs, extruded at two different
extrusion ratios of 13.63:1 and 19.63:1 are presented in
Fig. 16 and all test results also listed in Table 4. The
492 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494

Fig. 11. Macroscopic photographs of fracture surfaces of Al 6063 + SiC Fig. 12. Macroscopic photographs of fracture surfaces of (a) Al 6063 and
fractured at (a) 21 °C and (b) 100 °C. (b) Al 6063 [T6] fractured at 100 °C.

results were taken from the tests conducted at 21 °C. It

E
can be seen that the impact toughness of Al 6063 + SiC
(511 lm) MMCs extruded at the ratio of 19.63:1 is higher 20 E+T6
E
Impact Energy [J]

than that of extruded at the ratio of 13.63:1. The load

applied to composite billets during the extrusion process
increased with the extrusion ratio. Thus, it can be con- E+T6
cluded that the increase in the extrusion ratio can contrib-
uted to the toughness of composite by providing a better 10
interfacial bonding between matrix and particle reinforce-
ment. This phenomenon was reported in reference [22].
The processes after casting or infiltration, such as hot
extrusion or hot rolling, can improve the mechanical
0
properties of particle reinforced MMCs and extent of 167 511
improvement increases with increasing ratio of extrusion Particle Size [µm]
or rolling [23,24].
Fig. 13. Impact energy versus particle size tested at 21 °C for [E] as
Ozden and Ozarslan [25] extruded the above MMCs at extruded and [E + T6] heat treated and extruded Al 6063 + SiC.
the extrusion ratios of 12, 25 and 50 and tensile tested.
They showed that the breaking and yielding strength of
6063 + SiC (167 lm) increased with the extrusion ratio a higher extrusion ratio improved increased its tensile
(from 12 to 25) and then decreased. On the other hand behaviour as it is the case with impact behaviour. The
breaking and yielding strength of 6063 + SiC (511 lm) research on this field is continuing.
showed a steady increase with the extrusion ration it is The effect of artificial ageing [T6] on the impact tough-
concluded that a better mixing with bigger particles and ness of materials were presented in Figs. 13 and 16
 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494 493

Table 3
The impact test results of Al 6063 + SiC (167 lm) and Al 6063 + SiC [E]
(511 lm) MMCs at 21 °C [E+T6]
20
Materials Particle Extrusion Impact energy (J) Mean value

Impact Energy (J)

size ratio of impact [E]
1 2 3
(lm) (R) energy (J) [E+T6]
Al 6063 167 19.63:1 15.69 21.57 19.61 18.96
MMC [E]
10
Al 6063 167 19.63:1 17.65 9.81 11.77 13.08
MMC [E, T6]
Al 6063 511 19.63:1 23.54 23.54 18.63 21.9
MMC [E]
Al 6063 511 19.63:1 17.65 17.65 22.56 19.29
MMC [E, T6] 0
13.63 19.63
Extrusion Ratio (R)
Fig. 16. Impact energy versus extrusion ratio tested at 21 °C for [E] as
extruded and [E + T6] heat treated and extruded Al 6063 + SiC.

Table 4
The impact test results at 21 °C of Al 6063 + SiC (511 lm) MMCs
extruded at two different extrusion ratios
Materials Particle Extrusion Impact energy (J) Mean value
size ratio of impact
1 2 3
(lm) (R) energy (J)
Al 6063 511 19.63:1 23.54 23.54 18.63 21.9
MMC [E]
Al 6063 511 19.63:1 17.65 17.65 22.56 19.29
MMC [E, T6]
Al 6063 511 13.63:1 17.65 17.65 11.77 15.69
MMC [E]
Al 6063 511 13.63:1 11.77 13.73 15.69 13.73
Fig. 14. Typical microstructure of Al 6063 + SiC with a particle size of MMC [E, T6]
511 lm.

4. Conclusions

The following results could be drawn from his study.

1. The presence of hard SiC particles as reinforcements in a

Fig. 15. Fracture surface of Al 6063 + SiC [T6] with a particle size of
511 lm.
showing, respectively, impact energy versus particle size
and impact energy versus extrusion ratio plots of Al
6063 + SiC MMCs. The impact toughness has decreased
with artificial ageing in both cases and composites have
became more brittle. As expressed above, it is considered
that this is mainly because of precipitates.
ductile matrix of aluminium alloys (grades of 2124,
5083, 6063) decreased the impact toughness of metal–
matrix composites. However, Al 6063 unreinforced
alloys and its composites have had the highest impact
toughness for of the testing temperatures.
2. The defects in the composite microstructure such as
clustering or agglomeration of particles observed espe-
cially in Al 2124 and Al 6063 MMCs have played a sig-
nificant effect in reducing the impact toughness. These
defects have constituted preferential sites for crack
nucleation and propagation. This nucleation coupled
with particle failure by cracking and decohesion at the
particle interfaces allowed the microscopic cracks to
grow rapidly and the impact strength of composites.
3. Although the test temperature seems not to play an
important role on the failure mechanisms, there was a
decrease in the impact energy of unreinforced alloys of
Al 2124 and Al 6063 at around 100 °C and 200 °C,
respectively. The impact strength of the composites
based on Al 2124 and Al 6063 alloys also shown a
494 S. Ozden et al. / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 484–494
decrease at around and 100 °C. On the other hand the
impact behaviour of unreinforced Al 5083 and Al
5083 + SiC were not affected by the test temperature.
However, all materials used in this study have presented
relatively a good impact toughness at 176 °C. In addi-
tion to this, Overaging effects causing a deterioration of
the impact strength at 300 °C was more significant for
Al 2124.
4. The impact toughness of the composites slightly
improved with increased particle size and the hot extru-
sion ratio. Artificial ageing decreased the impact tough-
ness of all unreinforced alloys and the composites.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank The Scientific Research Projects Unit
at Erciyes University which supported this project.
References
[1] Chawla KK. Composite materials-science and engineering. 2nd
ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1998. p. 165–211.
[2] McDanels DL. Analysis of stress–strain, fracture, and ductility
behavior of aluminium matrix composites containing discontinuous
silicon carbide reinforcement. Metall Trans A 1985;16A:1105–15.
[3] Lloyd DJ. Particle reinforced aluminium and magnesium matrix
composites. Int Mater Rev 1994;39(1):1–21.
[4] Doel TJA, Loretto MH, Bowen P. Mechanical properties of
aluminium-based particulate metal–matrix composites. Composites
1993;24(3):270–5.
[5] Doel TJA, Bowen P. Tensile properties of particulate metal–matrix
composites. Composites Part A 1996;27 A:655–65.
[6] Chawla N, Shen YL. Mechanical behavior of particle reinforced
metal matrix composites. Adv Eng Mater 2001;3(6):357–70.
[7] Nam HW, Aggag GA, Takahashi K, Han KS. The dynamic behavior
of metal matrix composites under low-velocity impact. Compos Sci
Technol 2000;60:817–23.
[8] Srivatsan TS, Al-Hajri M, Smith C, Petraroli M. The tensile response
and fracture behavior of 2009 aluminium alloy metal matrix
composite. Mater Sci Eng A 2003;346:91–100.
[9] Tan M, Xin Q, Li Z, Zong BY. Influence of SiC and Al2O3
particulate reinforcements and heat treatments on mechanical prop-
erties and damage evolution of Al-2618 metal matrix composites. J
Mater Sci 2001;36:2045–53.
[10] Hasson DF, Hoover SM, Crowe CR. Effect of thermal treatment
on the mechanical and toughness properties of extruded SiCw/
aluminium 6061 metal matrix composite. J Mater Sci 1985;20:
4147–54.
[11] Friend CM. Toughness in metal matrix composites. Mater Sci
Technol 1989;5:1–7.
[12] Nardone VC, Strife JR, Prewo KM. Microstructurally toughened
particulate-reinforced aluminum matrix composites. Metall Trans A
1991;22A:171–82.
[13] Unsworth JP, Bandyopadhyay S. Effect of thermal ageing on
_
hardness, tensile and Impact properties of an alumina microsphere-
reinforced aluminium metal–matrix composite. J Mater Sci 1994;29:
4645–50.
[14] Ahlatci H, Candan E, Çimenoğlu H. Effect of particle size on the
mechanical properties of 60 vol.% SiCp reinforced Al matrix com-
posites. Z Metallkd 2002;93(4):330–3.
[15] Bonollo F, Ceschini L, Garagnani GL. Mechanical and Impact _
behaviour of (Al2O3)p/2014 and (Al2O3)p/6061 Al metal matrix
composites in the 25–200 °C range. Appl Compos Mater 1997;4:
173–85.
[16] Surappa MK, Sivakumar P. Fracture toughness evaluation of 2024-
_
Al/Al2O3 particulate composites by Instrumented _
Impact. Compos
Sci Technol 1993;46:287–92.
[17] Karamis MB, Tasdemirci A, Nair F. Failure and tribological
behaviour of the AA5083 and AA6063 composites reinforced by
SiC particles under ballistic impact. Composites: Part A 2003;34:
217–26.
[18] ASTM E 23-93a. Standard test methods for notched bar Impact _
testing of metallic materials. 1993 Annual book of ASTM Standards,
p. 206–26.
[19] Poza P, Llorca J. Fracture toughness and fracture mechanisms of Al–
Al2O3 composites at cryogenic and elevated temperatures. Sci Eng A
1996;206:183–93.
[20] Lu YX, Meng XM, Lee CS, Lı RKY, Huang CG. Failure
mechanisms of a SiC particles/2024 Al composite under dynamic
loading. Phys Status Solidi (a) 1998;169:49–55.
[21] Kamat SV, Hirth JP, Mehrabian R. Mechanical properties of
particulate-reinforced aluminum matrix composites. Acta Metall
1989;37(9):2395–402.
[22] Qin S, Zhang G. Analysis on fracture characteristics of SiCp-6061 Al/
6061 Al composites extruded by different ratios. J Mater Sci
2002;37:879–83.
[23] Massardier V, Maire E, Merle P. Experimental study of the effect of
the anisotropy of orientation of the reinforcing particles on the tensile
properties of aluminium matrix composites reinforced with a-alumina
platelets. Mater Sci Eng A 1995;203:105–16.
[24] Lee JC, Subramanian KN. The tensile properties of hot-rolled
(Al2O3)p–Al composites. Mater Sci Eng A 1995;196:71–8.
[25] Ozarslan BS. Alüminyum Esaslı Sic Partikül Takviyeli Metal Matrisli
_
Kompozitlerin Mekanik Özelliklerinin Incelenmesi (Investigation of
Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Matrix Composites Reinforced
with SiC Particles). MSc Thesis, Dept of Mech Eng, Erciyes
University, 2004.