COMPOSITES

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342
www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Tensile and fatigue properties of the AA6061/20 vol.% Al2O3p

and AA7005/10 vol.% Al2O3p composites
a,*
L. Ceschini , G. Minak b, A. Morri a

a
Institute of Metallurgy, University of Bologna, V.le Risorgimento 4, I-40136 Bologna, Italy
b
DIEM, University of Bologna, V.le Risorgimento 2, I-40136 Bologna, Italy

Received 7 March 2005; accepted 12 April 2005

Available online 22 June 2005

Abstract

In this paper, the tensile properties and the low-cycle fatigue behavior of the 7005 aluminum alloy reinforced with 10 vol% of
Al2O3 particles (W7A10A composite) and 6061 aluminum alloy reinforced with 20 vol% of Al2O3 particles (W6A20A composite)
were studied. The microstructural analyses showed clustering of Al2O3 particles, irregularly shaped and with a non-uniform size.
A significant increase of the elastic modulus and tensile strength in the MMCs, respect to the unreinforced alloys, was evidenced
by the tensile tests, while the elongation to fracture decreased. The temperature effect on the tensile properties was not relevant
up to 150
C, while strength significantly decreased at 250
C, mainly in the composite with the lower content of the ceramic rein-
forcement. The low-cycle fatigue tests showed no evidence of isotropic hardening or softening for the W7A10A, and a slight cyclic
softening for the W6A20A. SEM analyses of the fracture surfaces showed that both the tensile and fatigue fracture was controlled
by interfacial decohesion (expecially for the W7A10A composite), fracture of reinforcing particles (mainly for the W6A20A com-
posite), void nucleation and growth. Also the presence of the MgAl2O4 spinel, probably, played a significant role in the mechanisms
of failure in the W6A20A composite, by promoting void nucleation at the particles–matrix interfaces, interfacial decohesion, and
also failure of the particles. These effects can be responsible of the slight softening observed in the W6A20A, under the low-cycle
fatigue conditions.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Metal matrix composites; Tensile tests; Low-cycle fatigue; AA7005; AA6061; Al2O3; Particles; High temperature; Clustering; MgAl2O4
spinel

1. Introduction tance [1–7]. Another important driving factor is the

The continuous increase in the performance require-
ments of materials for aerospace and automotive appli-
cations have led to the development of several
structural composite materials. Among these, metal
matrix composites (MMCs) have emerged because of
their high specific modulus, strength-to-weight ratio,
fatigue strength, temperature stability and wear resis-
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ceschini@bomet.fci.unibo.it (L. Ceschini).
ability to tailor the mechanical and physical properties
(such as the coefficient of thermal expansion) by select-
ing the reinforcement type and volume fraction, along
with the matrix alloy. Moreover, discontinuously rein-
forced composites (referred to as DRA–MMCs), such
as those reinforced by particles, offer the advantages
of essentially isotropic properties and lower costs, with
respect to those continuously reinforced. The lower
cost is related to the more simple production tech-
niques and also to the possibility of using conventional
metal working processes, such as extrusion, forging,
rolling and even superplastic forming [8].

0266-3538/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.04.044
334 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342

With the development of metal matrix composites Table 1

and their engineering applications in aerospace, aircraft
and automotive industries, their mechanical properties,
mainly the tensile and fatigue behavior, are becoming
very important. The improvements in properties, with
respect to the unreinforced alloys, strongly depends on
the intrinsic properties of both matrix and reinforcement
(size, volume fraction and distribution), as well as on the
mutual interaction between the constituents at the inter-
faces, but a correlation between microstructural features
and mechanical behavior is not easy. A major potential
problem of particle-reinforced composites is a non-
uniform microstructure, often resulting from the manu-
facturing process, which can lead to the presence of
clusters of particles, or regions without reinforcement
[9–11]. This intrinsic material inhomogeneity can give
a wide scatter in strength and ductility [12], wear
resistance [6,13], fracture toughness [14] and also in
the fatigue behavior [15].
Many practical applications for DRA–MMCs in-
volve cycling loading and, therefore, the fatigue proper-
ties and resultant fracture characteristics are of need and
interest. Although the tensile properties of MMCs have
been widely investigated, mainly at room temperature,
the fatigue database for this kind of materials is some-
what limited. Moreover, while several studies have been
focused on high-cycle fatigue strength and fatigue
growth resistance [16–21], investigation on their low-cy-
cle fatigue behavior is still limited [22–24].
The aim of this work was to investigate the tensile (at
room and high temperature) and the low-cycle fatigue
behavior of two particle-reinforced aluminum based
composites, consisting of aluminum alloy matrix,
AA6061 and AA7005, reinforced with Al2O3 particles.
Since the tensile and cyclic behavior of MMCs are highly
sensitive to microstructure, optical and scanning electron
microscopy were used to characterize the initial micro-
structure and its influence on the mechanisms of fracture.
While several studies are available on the mechanical
behavior of composite based non the 6061 aluminum al-
loy [25–29], few literature data are reported about the
second composite with the AA7005 matrix [30].
2. Experimental procedure
The composites selected for investigation were based
on the 7005 aluminum alloy reinforced with 10 vol% of
Chemical compositions (in wt%) of the matrix alloys
MMC Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Zn Ti Cr Zr
W7A10A 0.25 0.24 0.08 0.43 1.33 4.59 0.03 0.13 0.13
W6A10A 0.65 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.97 0.009 0.02 0.19 –
Al2O3 particles (W7A10A) and 6061 aluminum alloy
reinforced with 20 vol% of Al2O3 particles (W6A20A).
The nominal chemical compositions (in wt%) of the
matrix alloys are given in Table 1. These composites
were produced by DURALCAN (USA), using a pro-
prietary molten metal process, based on the Compocast-
ing method [31]. The materials were then extruded and
heat-treated to the T6 condition (Table 2). The hardness
of the heat-treated composites, together with the litera-
ture data for the unreinforced aluminum alloys matrix
[32], is reported in Table 2. We performed the standard
Rockwell B-scale test because is widely used in particle-
reinforced metal matrix composites [33,34].
The microstructural characterization of the compos-
ites was carried out by means of optical (OM) and scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped with an
energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The metallo-
graphic samples were mechanically ground and coarse
polished using a grinding disc, then polished with 9
and 1 lm diamond paste, finally etched with KellerÕs re-
agent (2 mL HF(48%), 3 mL HCl(conc.), 20 mL nitric
acid(conc.), 190 mL distilled water).
The tensile and low-cycle fatigue tests were carried
out on a servo-hydraulic test machine (INSTRON
8032), equipped with a 100 KN load cell. Strain was
measured with a clip-on extensometer, attached directly
to the gauge length, at room temperature and with a
high-temperature extensometer, equipped with alumina
rods, at elevated temperatures.
Flat specimens, machined with diamond cutting
tools, with the tensile axis perpendicular to the extrusion
direction, were used for the tests.
The tensile tests were carried out, both at room and
high temperature (100, 150 and 250
C), according to
ISO/TTA2 1997 [35] at a strain rate of 10 4 s 1. The
tensile specimens had a gauge length of 25 mm, a gauge
width of 6 mm and a thickness of 3 mm. Three tests were
carried out for each testing condition.
Strain controlled low-cycle fatigue tests where per-
formed at room temperature, according to ASTM
E606 [36], using specimens of 12.5 mm gauge length,

Table 2
T6 heat treatment conditions and measured hardness values, HRB, for the tested composites, and the literature data for the aluminum alloys matrix [32]
Material Solution treatment Quenching Aging Hardness
W6A20A 560
C – 2h H2O at 25
C 177
C – 10 h 66 ± 0.5
AA 6061 560
C – 2h H2O at 25
C 177
C – 10 h 60
W7A10A 480
C – 1h H2O at 25
C 125
C – 24 h 60 ± 0.5
AA 7005 480
C – 1h H2O at 25
C 125
C – 24 h 59
 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342 335

4 mm gauge width and 4 mm in thickness. A triangular
waveform was used, the strain amplitude range was
from 0.6% to 2%. The tests were carried out at constant
cyclic frequency of 0.1 Hz and the load ratio was
R = 1. It is important to note that the testing condi-
tions were chosen on the basis of literature data
[22–27,37], since specific guidelines for fatigue tests on
particle-reinforced metal matrix composites are not
available.
SEM analyses were carried out on the fracture sur-
faces of the tensile and fatigue specimens, in order to
investigate the mechanisms of failure.
due to the presence of the MgAl2O4 spinel, formed dur-
ing composite fabrication, by reaction between the alu-
mina particles and the magnesium present in the
AA6061 matrix [38,39].
3.2. Tensile tests
The experimental results of the tensile tests carried
out in the two composites, at room and high tempera-
ture, are listed in Table 3, together with the literature
data [32] for the corresponding unreinforced alloys.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Microstructure

The microstructural characterization, carried out by

optical microscopy, showed a different particle size in
the two tested composites, as can be seen in the repre-
sentative micrographs in Fig. 1(a) and (b). The maxi-
mum axis dimension of the particles follows a Weibull
distribution, with shape parameter b = 2.80 and scale
parameter g = 24.70, with a mean value of 11 lm, for
the W7A10A and b = 2.63 and g = 12.40, with a mean
value of 22 lm, for the W6A20A.
In both composites, the Al2O3 particles were of non-
uniform size, irregularly shaped and randomly dispersed
in the alloy matrix. Agglomeration or clustering of the
particles was also observed, resulting in particle-rich
and particle-depleted regions. This material inhomoge-
neity is generally higher in DRA–MMCs manufactured
by molten metal processes, respect to those produced by
powder metallurgy [4]. Intermetallic compounds dis-
persed in the matrix and near the interfaces were also
observed by SEM. They were mainly Mg2Si in the
W6A20A and MgZn2 in the W7A10A. SEM (Fig.
2(a)) and EDS analysis (Fig. 2(b)) of the W6A20A com-
posite also indicated that the interfacial region was en- Fig. 1. Optical micrographs of the W6A20A (a) and W7A10A
riched in oxygen and magnesium; this can be probably (b) composites.

Fig. 2. SEM micrograph (a) and EDS analysis (b) for the W6A20A composite.
336 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342

Both composites displayed an increase of the elastic
modulus with respect to the matrix alloys, equal to
about 39% for the W6A20A and 17% for the
W7A10A at room temperature. This difference between
the two MMCs was probably related to the higher vol-
ume fraction of the particle reinforcement in the
W6A20A.
The effect of temperature on the elastic modulus was
not significant up 100
C, while a slight decrease oc-
curred at 150
C; the measure at 250
C was not possible
because of the characteristics (high temperature resis-
tance) of the extensometer.
The incorporation of the ceramic reinforcement also
led, on both MMCs, to an increase of the proof strength
and ultimate tensile strength, higher in the W6A20A with
(Fig. 3). The anomalous behavior of the elongation to
failure for the W7A10A at 100 and 150
C (Table 3)
can be explained on the basis on the wide dispersion
of the experimental data. An important concern in the
tensile tests of MMCs is, in fact, the reproducibility of
the experimental data, mainly of the elongation to fail-
ure. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the tensile curves of spec-
imens of same material (W7A10A), tested under the
same conditions, are substantially overlapped, except
500
375

UTS, MPa
respect to the W7A10A due to the superior reinforce-
250
ment content. The different ceramic volume fraction W6A20A
and size led to high differences also in the elongation to
125
failure. At room temperature, the difference between W7A10A

elongation to failure of MMCs and of matrix alloys

was proportional to the reinforcement content. 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
The temperature increase does not led to significant
variation of the tensile strength and ductility up to Temperature, ˚C
100
C, while at higher temperature, mainly at 250
C, Fig. 3. Effect of test temperature on the ultimate tensile strength of the
ductility increased and strength significantly decreased tested MMCs.

Table 3
Results of the tensile tests at room and high temperature for the MMCs and the literature data for the corresponding unreinforced aluminum alloys
[32]
Material and test temperature Elastic modulus GPa 0.2% Proof strength (MPa) Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) Elongation (%)
AA7005 – RT 72 290 350 13
W7A10A – RT 85 331 375 4.3
83 325 366 3.2
84 323 369 5.1
W7A10A – 100
C 84 312 343 5.8
92 305 334 7.0
86 315 346 6.5
W7A10A – 150
C 74 277 295 5.3
80 284 303 9.1
80 287 304 6.4
W7A10A – 250
C – – 111 12.4
– – 117 12.0
– – 110 12.8

AA6061 RT 69 275 310 12

W6A20A – RT 94 342 369 1.8
96 335 357 1.5
97 344 366 1.7
W6A20A – 100
C 97 328 351 2.7
99 323 345 1.3
101 329 354 1.8
W6A20A – 150
C 91 295 314 4.6
91 304 323 3.4
85 299 319 1.7
W6A20A – 250
C – – 183 7.6
– – 175 5.3
– – 179 6.6
 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342
450
400
350
Stress (MPa)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0,000 0,010 0,020 0,030 0,040
Strain
Test 1 Test 2
Fig. 4. Room temperature tensile curves for the W7A10A composite.
than for the strain to fracture values. These results, also
obtained in the W6A20A and often reported in litera-
ture for particle-reinforced composites, are generally re-
lated to the intrinsic microstructural inhomogeneity of
these materials, as regard to both particle size and distri-
bution [14,40]. The presence of particle clusters or large
particles can lead to enhanced local stresses, from
restriction of plastic deformation, with consequent void
nucleation or particles fracture, both under static and
cyclic loading conditions. Moreover, in region of parti-
cle clustering, the short interparticle distances facilitate
interlinkage between neighboring voids and cracks.
Both factors can contribute to the reduced ductility
and scatter of the experimental data, often observed in
particle-reinforced metal matrix composites [12,41–43].
As regard to the temperature effect, it is interesting to
note that the degradation in the ultimate tensile strength
with temperature increase (Fig. 3), was about 19% for
the W7A10A and 12% for the W6A20A at 150
C; while
a significant strength decrease occurred at the highest
test temperature of 250
C, equal to about 69% for the
W7A10A and 50% for the W6A20A. These results con-
firm the positive effect of the ceramic reinforcement in
improving the high temperature properties, in fact, in
the composite with the higher particle volume fraction
the strength degradation with temperature was signifi-
cantly lower.
3.3. Low-cycle fatigue tests
The experimental results and the interpolation of the
data according to the classical Manson–Coffin model
[44] are reported in Fig. 5. The experimental data
showed a high dispersion, which can be also interpreted
on the basis of the material inhomogeneity. The determi-
nation coefficient for the interpolation is R2 = 0.89 for
the W7A10A and R2 = 0.86 for the W6A20A.
The cyclic stress responses curves at different plastic
strain amplitudes showed no evidence of isotropic hard-
337
0.1
2
0.01
0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000
2N Cycles
. W6A20A . W7A10A
0,050 0,060
Fig. 5. Room temperature life-strain curves for the W7A10A and
Test 3
W6A20A composites.
ening or softening for the W7A10A composite (Fig.
6(a)) and a slight cyclic softening for the W6A20A
(Fig. 6(b)), in agreement with the results of [45–47].
Fatigue fracture of the specimens always occurred by
unstable propagation of the crack between the exten-
someter blades.
3.4. Fracture surfaces
Fracture in metal matrix composite is controlled by
three main mechanisms: interfacial decohesion, fracture
of reinforcing particles, void nucleation and growth.
The interfacial decohesion is often due to the pres-
ence of undesired interfacial reaction products, such
as, for example, the MgAl2O4 spinel for Mg-rich alu-
minium alloy matrix reinforced with Al2O3 particles,
or the Al4C3 for aluminium based composites, rein-
forced with SiC [38,39].
Fracture of the reinforcing particles depends on the
local stress acting on the particle. The large mismatch
in the elastic modulus between the reinforcing particles
and the metal matrix generates a constrained deforma-
tion in the matrix and a consequent concentration of
stresses near the reinforcing particles. These stresses
can determine cracking of the particles, fracture of the
matrix and/or interfacial decohesion. Fracture of the
particle is greater in region with large particles and clus-
ters, where there is a concentration of stresses and where
the short interparticle distance facilitates linkage be-
tween voids and/or cracks in the particle [25,37,40–
46,49]. The larger particles, which also have a higher
probability of containing critical flaw, generate high
load transfer from the plastically deforming aluminium
matrix and the elastically deforming particle, which
can cause their crack. On the other hand, the smaller
Al2O3 usually do not crack, but because of the strain dif-
ferences between matrix and particle the matrix can fail
by decohesion.
The classic mechanism of void nucleation and growth
is associated with ductile failure of the matrix alloy
between the particles, where the local stress is not high
338 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342

W7A10A
380

0.4
0.5
(a)
360 0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
340
∆σ /2 (MPa)

320

300

280

260
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N Cycles

W6A20A
380

0.4
0.5
(b)
360 0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
340
∆σ /2 (MPa)

320

300

280

260
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N cycles

Fig. 6. Cyclic stress response curves at different plastic strain amplitudes (%) for the W7A10A (a) and W6A20A (b) composites.

enough to crack the particles or generate decohesion
[25,37,40–46,49].
The above discussed mechanisms of fracture are evi-
dent in the tensile fractures surfaces of Fig. 7, where
fractured particles, surrounded by ductile regions with
fine near-featureless non-circular dimples, called ‘‘tear
ridges’’, and decohesion at matrix–particles interfaces
are present. Fracture of Al2O3 occurred in large particle
or in regions with clusters, mainly in the W6A20A com-
posite, while in the W7A10A the interfacial decohesion
is more evident. Large voids and dimples are caused
by fracture and decohesion of particles in both the mate-
rials, while the small ductile dimples can be attributed to
the constraints in plastic flow of the aluminium matrix,
or to the reduction of strains induced by the particle
cracking which lead to the formation of tear ridges.
The higher presence of cracked particles and tear ridges
in the W6A20A composite, can be explained with the
 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342 339

Fig. 7. SEM micrographs of the tensile fracture surfaces of the W6A20A (a) and W7A10A (b) tested at room temperature.

Fig. 8. SEM micrographs of the tensile fracture surfaces of the W6A20A (a) and W7A10A (b) tested at 250
C.

high local plastic constraints induced by the larger-sized micromechanisms. While for the W7A10A composite
particles and by the clusters. the low-cycle fatigue tests showed no evidence of cyclic
At high temperatures the local stresses are not large hardening or softening, a slight cyclic softening was ob-
enough to crack the particles, since matrix flow stress served in the W6A20A (Fig. 6(b)). This softening is
decreases; however, the normal stress can promote inter-
facial decohesion and voids nucleation [43,50,51]. Voids
nucleation was concentrated at the interface with the
particles, where there is a high matrix strain, and at
the clusters where high local triaxial stresses are present.
As shown in Fig. 8, the fracture surfaces exhibited many
minute dimples in the matrix regions around the parti-
cles and in the voids formed due to the particle
decohesion.
In the W6A20A, both at room and high temperature,
the MgAl2O4 spinel probably plays a relevant role
on the fracture process, promoting voids nucleation, at
the particles interface, interfacial decohesion and also
failure of the particles [38,39]. These effects are probably
associated with the jagged interfaces generated by the
spinel formation [39], evidenced in the high magnifica-
tion SEM micrograph in Fig. 9. Fig. 9. SEM micrograph of the fracture surface of the W6A20A, tested
The fracture surfaces of the materials tested in fatigue at 250
C, showing a jagged particle–matrix interface, probably due to
(Fig. 10) and in tension were similar and so the fracture the MgAl2O4 spinel.
340 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342
Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of the fracture surfaces of the low-cycle fatigue specimens tested at room temperature of W6A20A (a and b) and
W7A10A (c and d) composites.
probably due to the mutual action of interfacial decohe-
sion and mainly particles cracking (Fig. 10(a) and (b))
[41,47,48,51].
4. Conclusions
In the present investigation, the tensile properties (at
room and high temperature), and the low-cycle fatigue
behavior of two particles-reinforced composites,
W6A20A (AA6061 reinforced with 20 vol% of Al2O3
particles) and W7A10A (AA7005 reinforced with
10 vol% of Al2O3 particles), were studied.
• In both composites, agglomeration or clustering of
the Al2O3 particles, irregularly shaped and with a
non-uniform size, are present; in the W6A20A com-
posite larger particles size was observed.
• The tensile tests showed an increase of the elastic
modulus and tensile strength, and a decrease of the
elongation to failure in the MMCs, respect to the
unreinforced alloys. The tensile ductility was strongly
affected by the material inhomogeneity, mainly
related to the particles size and distribution.
• No significant variation of the tensile strength and
ductility with temperature was observed up to
150
C, while at 250
C strength significantly
decreased, and ductility increased.
• The low-cycle fatigue tests showed no evidence of iso-
tropic hardening or softening for the W7A10A, and a
slight cyclic softening for the W6A20A, probably due
to the mutual action of interfacial decohesion and
mainly particles cracking.
• SEM analyses of the fractures surfaces showed frac-
tured particles, surrounded by ductile regions and
decohesion at the matrix–particles interfaces. Frac-
ture of the particles mainly occurred in the
W6A20A composite, while interfacial decohesion
was predominant in the W7A10A. The higher pres-
ence of cracked particles and tear ridges in the
W6A20A composite can be explained with the high
local plastic constraints induced by the larger-sized
particles and by the clusters. At high temperatures
voids nucleation was mainly concentrated at the
matrix–particles interfaces. In the W6A20A compos-
ite, the MgAl2O4 spinel probably promoted void
nucleation, at the particles interface, interfacial deco-
hesion, and also failure of the particles.
 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Dr. Volpone (Fincantieri
SpA, Italy) and J.F. Dos Santos (GKSS, Germany)
for providing the material.
References
[1] Clyne TW, Withers PJ. An introduction to metal matrix
composites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
[2] Ashby MF. Materials and processes selection. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Press; 1993.
[3] Taya M, Arsenault RJ. Metal matrix composites – thermome-
chanical behavior. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1989.
[4] Lloyd DJ. Particle reinforced aluminium and magnesium metal
matrix composites. Int Mater Rev 1994;39(1):1–45.
[5] Torralba JM, da Costa CE, Velasco F. P/M aluminum matrix
composites: an overview. J Mater Process Technol 2003;133(1–2):
203–6.
[6] Deuis RL, Subramanian C, Yellup JM. Dry sliding wear of
aluminium composites – a review. Compos Sci Technol
1997;57(4):415–43.
[7] Bonollo F, Ceschini L, Garagnani GL, Palombarini G, Zambon
A. Discontinuously reinforced aluminium composites sliding
against steel: study on wear behaviour. Mater Sci Technol
1994;10(6):481–6.
[8] Subramanian KN, Bieler TR, Lucas JP. Mechanical shaping of
metal matrix composites. Key Eng Mater 1995;104–107:175–214.
[9] Hashim J, Looney L, Hashmi MSJ. Particle distribution in cast
metal matrix composites – Part I. J Mater Process Technol
2002;123(2):251–7.
[10] Prangnell PB, Barnes SJ, Withers PJ, Roberts SM. The effect of
particle distribution on damage formation in particulate rein-
forced metal matrix composites deformed in compression. Mater
Sci Eng A 1996;220(1–2):41–56.
[11] Yotte S, Breysse D, Riss J, Ghosh S. Cluster characterisation in a
metal matrix composite. Mater Charact 2001;46(2–3):211–9.
[12] Doel TJA, Bowen P. Tensile properties of particulate reinforced
metal matrix composites. Composites Part A 1996;27 A:655–65.
[13] Bindumadhavan PN, Chia TK, Chandrasekaran M, Wah Heng
Keng, Lam Loh Nee, Prabhakar O. Effect of particle-porosity
clusters on tribological behavior of cast aluminum alloy A356-
SiCp metal matrix composites. Mater Sci Eng A 2001;315(1–2):
217–26.
[14] Hong SJ, Kim HM, Huh D, Suryanarayana C, Chun BS. Effect of
clustering on the mechanical properties of SiC particulate-
reinforced aluminium alloy 2024 metal matrix composites. Mater
Sci Eng 2003;A347:198–204.
[15] Llorca J. Fatigue of particle- and whisker-reinforced metal-matrix
composites. Progr Mater Sci 2002;47(3):283–353.
[16] Manoharan M, Lewandowski JJ. Crack initiation and growth
toughness of an aluminum metal-matrix composite. Acta Metall
et Mat 1990;38(3):489–96.
[17] Vasudevan AK, Sandananda K. Fatigue crack growth in metal
matrix composites. Int J Fatigue 1994;16(3):227–332.
[18] Mason JJ, Ritchie RO. Fatigue crack growth resistance in SiC
particulate and whisker reinforced P/M 2124 aluminum matrix
composites. Mater Sci Eng A 1997;231(1–2):170–82.
[19] Vaidya AR, Lewandowski JJ. Effects of SiCp size and Vol.
fraction on the high cycle fatigue behavior of AZ91D magnesium
alloy composites. Mater Sci Eng A 1996;220(1–2):85–92.
[20] Lewandowski John J, Larose Joël. Effects of processing condi-
tions and test temperature on fatigue crack growth and fracture
toughness of Be–Al metal matrix composites. Mater Sci Eng A
2003;344(1–2):215–28.
341
[21] ZhaoFloyd Dan, Tuler R. Effect of particle size on fracture
toughness in metal matrix composites. Eng Fracture Mech
1994;47(2):303–8.
[22] Han NL, Wang ZG, Lizhi San. Effect of reinforcement size on low
cycle fatigue behavior of SiC particle reinforced aluminum matrix
composites. Scr Metall et Mater 1995;33(5):781–7.
[23] Han NL, Wang ZG, Zhang GD. Effect of reinforcement size on
the elevated-temperature tensile properties and low-cycle fatigue
behavior of particulate sic/Al composites. Compos Sci Technol
1997;57(11):1491–9.
[24] Ding H-Z, Biermann H, Hartmann O. Low cycle fatigue crack
growth and life prediction of short-fibre reinforced aluminium
matrix composites. Int J Fatigue 2003;25(3):209–20.
[25] Srivatsan TS, Meslet Al-Hajri, Petraroli M, Hotton B, Lam PC.
Influence of silicon carbide particulate reinforcement on quasi
static and cyclic fatigue fracture behavior of 6061 aluminum alloy
composites. Mater Sci Eng A 2002;325(1–2):202–14.
[26] Shuyi Qin, Changrong Chen, Guoding Zhang, Wenlong Wang,
Zhongguang Wang. The effect of particle shape on ductility of
SiCp reinforced 6061 Al matrix composites. Mater Sci Eng A
1999;272(2):363–70.
[27] Xia Z, Ellyin F, Meijer G. Mechanical behavior of Al2O3-particle-
reinforced 6061 aluminum alloy under uniaxial and multiaxial
cyclic loading. Compos Sci Technol 1997;57(2):237–48.
[28] Papakyriacou M, Mayer HR, Stanzl-Tschegg SE, Gröschl M.
Fatigue properties of Al2O3-particle-reinforced 6061 aluminium
alloy in the high-cycle regime. Int J Fatigue 1996;18(7):475–81.
[29] Kapoor R, Vecchio KS. Deformation behavior and failure
mechanisms in particulate reinforced 6061 Al metal-matrix
composites. Mater Sci Eng A 1995;202(1–2):63–75.
[30] Yong Li, Langdon TG. Creep behavior of a reinforced Al-7005
alloy: implications for the creep processes in metal matrix
composites. Acta Mater 1998;46(4):1143–55.
[31] Huda MD, Hasmi MSJ, El-Baradie MA. MMCs: materials,
manufacturing and mechanical properties. Key Eng Mat
1995;104–107:37–64.
[32] Available from: <http://www.matweb.com>.
[33] Cáceres CH, Poole WJ. Hardness and flow strength in particulate
metal matrix composites. Mater Sci Eng A 2002;332(1–2):311–7.
[34] Shen Y-L, Chawla N. On the correlation between hardness and
tensile strength in particle reinforced metal matrix composites.
Mater Sci Eng A 2001;297(1–2):44–7.
[35] ISO/TTA 2, Tensile tests for discontinuously reinforced metal
matrix composites at ambient temperatures; 1997
[36] ASTM E 606, Standard practice for strain controlled fatigue
testing; 1998.
[37] Srivatsan TS, Al-Hajri M. The fatigue and final fracture behavior
of SiC particle reinforced 7034 aluminum matrix composites.
Composites Part B 2002;33(5):391–404.
[38] Forn A, Baile MT, Ruperez E. Spinel effect on the mechanical
properties of metal matrix composite AA6061/ (Al2O3)p. J Mater
Process Technol 2003;143–144:58–61.
[39] Vedani M, Gariboldi E. Damage and ductility of particulate and
short-fibre Al–Al2O3 composites. Acta Mater 1996;44(8):
3077–88.
[40] Srivatsan TS, Prakash A. The quasi-static fracture behavior of an
aluminum alloy metal-matrix composite. Compos Sci Technol
1995;54(3):307–15.
[41] Srivatsan TS. Cyclic strain resistance and fracture behaviour of
Al2O3-particulate-reinforced 2014 aluminium alloy metal-matrix
composites. Int J Fatigue 1995;17(3):183–99.
[42] Wang ZG, Li S, Sun L. Fatigue and fracture behaviors of
discontinuously reinforced aluminium matrix composites. Key
Eng Mater 1995;104–107:729–48.
[43] Zhao D, Tuler FR, Lloyd DJ. Fracture at elevated temperatures
in a particle reinforced composite. Acta Metall et Mater
1994;42(7):2525–33.
342 L. Ceschini et al. / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 333–342
[44] Fuchs HO, Stephens RI. Metal fatigue in engineering. New
York: Wiley; 1980.
[45] Vyletel GM, Allison JE, Van Aken DC. The influence of
matrix microstructure and TiC reinforcement on the cyclic
response and fatigue behavior of 2219 Al. Metall Trans A
1993;24:2545–57.
[46] Vyletel GM, Allison JE, Van Aken DC. The effect of matrix
microstructure on cyclic response and fatigue behavior of particle
reinforced 2219 aluminum: Part 1, room temperature behavior.
Metall Mater Trans A 1995;26:3143–54.
[47] Poza P, LLorca J. Mechanical behavior and failure micromech-
anism of Al/Al2O3 composites under cyclic deformation. Metall
Mater Trans A 1995;26:3131–41.
[48] Ding HZ, Biermann H, Hartmann O. Low cycle fatigue crack
growth and life prediction of short-fibre reinforced aluminium
matrix composite. Int J Fatigue 2003;25:209–20.
[49] Soon-Jik Hong, Kim Hong-Mole, Huh Dae, Suryanarayana C,
Chun ByongSun. Effect of clustering on the mechanical properties
of SiC particulate-reinforced aluminum alloy 2024 matrix com-
posites. Mater Sci Eng 2003;A347:198–204.
[50] Llorca J. High temperature fatigue of discontinuously reinforced
metal-matrix composites. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:233–40.
[51] Han NL, Wang ZG, Zhang GD. Effect of reinforcement size on
the elevaed-temperature tensile properties and low-cycle fatigue
behaviour of particulate SiC/Al composites. Compos Sci Technol
1997;57:1491–9.