The Mechanical Properties of In-Situ Composites

The Mechanical Properties of In-Situ Composites
1 of 11
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9708/Aikin-9708.html
The following article appears in the journal JOM,

49 (8) (1997), pp. 35-39.
JOM is a publication of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
Overview

R.M. Aikin, Jr.
Because in-situ composites offer such a wide selection of
reinforcement types, size, and volume fractions, understanding
the mechanisms controlling mechanical properties will allow
more intelligent decisions to be made when tailoring a
composite system for a specific application. This article
provides an overview of the mechanical properties of
discontinuously reinforced metal-ceramic and intermetallicceramic composites produced by in-situ techniques. Systems for
which the mechanisms controlling mechanical properties are
known are emphasized.
INTRODUCTION
In-situ composites are multiphase materials where the
reinforcing phase is synthesized within the matrix during
composite fabrication. This contrasts with ex-situ composites
where the reinforcing phase is synthesized separately and then
inserted into the matrix during a secondary process such as
infiltration or powder processing. In-situ processes can create a
variety of reinforcement morphologies, ranging from
discontinuous to continuous, and the reinforcement may be
either ductile or ceramic phases.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
STRENGTHENING
MECHANISMS
Continuum Models
Dislocation Density Effects
Single Dislocation-Particle
Interaction Model: Orowan
Strengthening
Multiple Dislocation-Particle
Interaction Models
STRENGTHENING
Aluminum Matrix Systems
MoSi2 Matrix Systems
TiAl and Other Aluminides
HIGH-TEMPERATURE
STRENGTH AND STABILITY
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
FATIGUE
CREEP
CONCLUSION
References
There are a number of processes and classes of in-situ

composites, including processes where the precipitation of
reinforcements occurs in the liquid state and processes where
precipitation occurs in the solid state.1 Processes in which
precipitation occurs in the liquid state include those occurring with low undercoolings, such as traditional and
directionally solidified eutectics; rapid solidification in which a supersaturation is created by rapidly cooling
a liquid with the reinforcement constituents already in solution; and processes in which a large
supersaturation is created by rapidly bringing the constituents of the reinforcement together to react. These
latter processes include the XDTM,2,4 Mixalloy,5 reactive-gas injection (Drexal process),6,7 reactive
sintering,8 reactive hot isostatic pressing (HIPing), and plasma conversion9 processes. Solid-state in-situ
3/31/2016 17:33
2 of 11
processes include internal oxidization,10 displacement reactions,11 reactive milling, mechanical alloying, and
cryomilling.12 There are also traditional eutectoid reactions that can be considered solid-state in-situ reactions
if an alloy of ferrite and cementite is considered a composite.
Generally, the reinforcements in discontinuously reinforced metallic- or intermetallic-matrix in-situ
composites are on the order of 0.5-5 m, and volume fractions range from 0-50 vol.%. The potential
advantages of in-situ composites as compared to discontinuous metal-ceramic composites produced by
ex-situ methods include:
Smaller reinforcement particle size with higher strength (a contribution from composite-strengthening
mechanisms) and improved fatigue resistance and creep
Small, single-crystal reinforcements (lower propensity for particle fracture)
Clean, unoxidized particle-matrix interfaces with higher interfacial strength (higher ductility and
toughness) and improved wettability
Thermodynamically stable particles that are weldable and castable, do not dissolve at high
temperatures (vis--vis age-hardened alloys), and do not have a reaction layer (higher interfacial
strength, improved corrosion, and long-term stability)
Better particle-size distribution (improved mechanical properties)
More conventional processing with the potential for lower cost and production with conventional
equipment
STRENGTHENING MECHANISMS
Several possible explanations for increases in yield strength of discontinuously
reinforced composites with equiaxed particles in the range 0.5-5 m in diameter have
been proposed in recent reviews.13,14
Continuum Models
Continuum-mechanics models of composite behavior assume that load is transferred
from the matrix to a nonplastically deforming reinforcement. One such model,
shear-lag theory, assumes that load transfer occurs between a high-aspect-ratio
reinforcement and the matrix by means of shear stresses at the particle-matrix
interface.15 According to a modified shear-lag theory, which also accounts for load
transfer at the particle ends,16,17 the yield stress of the composite y is
(A)
y = ymf
+ ym (1-f)
where ym is the yield stress of the unreinforced matrix, L is the length of the particle
perpendicular to the applied stress, t is the length of the particle parallel to the applied
stress, A is the particle-aspect ratio, and f is the particle-volume fraction. For the
equiaxed particles present in most in-situ composites, Equation A reduces to
(B)
y = ym
It is important to note that this form of the equation is linear, with a very modest
increase in y with increasing volume fraction, and there is no dependence of yield
stress on particle size or microstructural scale. Finite-element solutions to the elasticplastic continuum model for the problem of regularly spaced spheres have been
These benefits may not be realized

for all systems, but tend to be very
system and property specific.
In-situ composites also have
disadvantages. The synthesis of an
in-situ reinforcement is typically
by a precipitation process, and, as
such, the choice of in-situ
reinforcements is limited to
particles that are
thermodynamically stable within a
particular matrix. The size and
shape of particles are controlled by
nucleation and growth processes,
so although significant flexibility
may be available during
processing and synthesis, the size
and shape are ultimately
determined by the kinetics of the
system instead of the ex-situ
synthesis and processing of the
reinforcements. Although particle
distribution may be more uniform,
the potential also exists for the
pushing of fine particles during
solidification.
3/31/2016 17:33
3 of 11
obtained for two dimensions18 and three dimensions.19 These models yield similar
results to the shear-lag theory at low volume fractions, but the elastic-plastic models
predict a greater increase in strength above about 20 vol.%.
Dislocation Density Effects
STRENGTHENING
Aluminum Matrix
Systems
A great deal of work has been performed on aluminum alloys reinforced ex-situ by SiC
particles, plates, and whiskers. In many of these composites, dislocations are generated
in the alloy matrix upon cooling or quenching from the processing or solutionizing
temperature, due to a mismatch of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between
the matrix and SiC reinforcement.20,21 The higher dislocation density increases the
strength of the alloy.22,23 The amount of dislocation generation is affected by CTE,
particle size, particle-volume fraction, and matrix strength. 24
Consider the typical tensile

behavior of a discontinuously
reinforced in-situ composite. The
0.2% offset yield stress and
elongation to fracture are shown in
Figure 1 as a function of
temperature and TiB2 volume
Single Dislocation-Particle Interaction Model: Orowan
Strengthening
fraction for composites with a
Al-4Cu-1.5Mg matrix (similar to
Gliding dislocation can bow between small impenetrable particles and bypass them,
2024) produced using the XDTM
leaving behind an Orowan loop. The effect of this process on the yield stress of the
process. The composites contained
material is described by the Orowan relationship. For polycrystalline materials, this is
TiB2 particles with an average
(C) diameter of 1.3 m and were
y=
tested in the peak-aged (T6)
condition. With increasing
where M is the Taylor factor, is the shear modulus, b is the Burgers vector, v is the
temperature, the yield stress falls
Poisson's ratio, r is the effective radius of the particles, r o is the cut-off radius, and is
off gradually at first and then
the mean interparticle separation on the slip plane.25
rapidly at temperatures above
200C ( 0.5 of the matrix solidus
Multiple Dislocation-Particle Interaction Models
temperature). The yield stress
Dislocation Pile-Up Models
versus temperature curves are
displaced to higher stresses with
The yield stress of single-phase polycrystalline materials is phenomenologically
increasing particle-volume
observed to be proportional to d-1/2, where d is the grain diameter. This leads to the
fraction, although at relatively
relation
high temperatures (300C), the
(D) yield stress of all the materials
y= o+
falls to a similar value. The
elongation to fracture is constant
known as the Hall-Petch relationship, which arose from experimental observations.
with increasing temperature, with
Typically o is rationalized as either a frictional stress resisting the motion of gliding
a rapid increase in elongation at
dislocations or as an internal back stress. k y is the Hall-Petch slope, which is
higher temperatures. The increase
considered to be a measure of the resistance of the grain boundary to slip transfer.
in elongation at high temperatures
Typical values of ky at room temperature are on the order of 0.05-0.1 MPa
for
face-centered cubic (f.c.c.) metals and 0.3-1.8 MPa
for body-centered cubic (b.c.c.) is more pronounced as the volume
metals. Although most studies have been carried out at ambient temperature, results
fraction of TiB2 increases. Thus,
indicate that the Hall-Petch relationship can also be used at elevated temperatures 26
elongation decreases with
where ky decreases with increasing temperature.
increasing particle loading at low
temperatures, and increases with
The same d-1/2 dependence of the yield stress has been observed in two-phase alloys
where d is the characteristic microstructural dimension (i.e., the dimension that governs increasing particle loading at high
slip distance). Examples include drawn ferrite, where d is the dislocation cell size;
temperatures.
drawn pearlite, where d is the interlamellar spacing of carbide; and polygonized
aluminum, where d is the cell size. A very informative example is that of the
The proportional limit and 0.2%
3/31/2016 17:33
4 of 11
offset yield stress of

Al-4Cu-1.5Mg composites
containing 0, 2, 5, 10, and 15
vol.% TiB2 at two average particle
diameters are shown in Figure 2
for tensile tests conducted at room
If the grain boundaries or subgrain boundaries are obstacles to dislocation motion, then temperature. These alloys were
the grain or subgrain size is the characteristic microstructural dimension. However, if
extruded, solutionized at 493C,
particles are obstacles to dislocation motion, then the interparticle separation is the
water quenched, and then allowed
characteristic microstructural dimension. In either case, when dislocation pile-up is the
to naturally age at room
operative strengthening mechanism, an inverse square root dependence on the
temperature. This heat treatment
characteristic microstructural dimension will be observed. When grain size and
interparticle spacing have similar dimensions, dislocation pile-ups at both particleproduces a dispersion of very fine
matrix interfaces and grain boundaries may contribute. In these situations, the ease of
Guinier-Preston (GP) zones that
dislocation annihilation or generation at a particular interface is at issue. Thus, the
are sheared by the movement of
behavior of the interphase barrier may be as important as the spacing of these
dislocations such that the matrix
interfaces.
deforms by planar slip. The yield
Forest Hardening Models
stress increases with increasing
particle-volume fraction. At any
Another effect that dislocations may have is their role on work-hardening behavior at
given particle-volume fraction, the
small strains. Kamat et al.31 have examined the tensile properties of 2024 and 2014
composites with the small particles
aluminum alloys reinforced with equiaxed alumina particles and suggest that
exhibit higher strength than the
dislocation tangles form around particles at small strains because of plastic
incompatibility. These geometrically necessary dislocations link up to form dislocation composites with larger particles.
cells with a diameter proportional to the interparticle spacing . They suggest that this
Note that the yield stress and the
should lead to a flow stress
proportional limit increase at a
(E) similar rate with increasing
=
volume fraction of TiB2. Thus, the
observed increase in strength is
where is a proportionality constant. Thus, it is possible in some composites that the
due to an increase in the initial
reinforcement of the matrix does not significantly alter the onset of plastic
resistance to the movement of
deformation. Instead, the observed increase in the 0.2% offset yield stress is due to an
increase in the work-hardening rate at small strains. 13 In these alloys, a -1 dependence dislocations and not a difference in
the initial strain-hardening rate.
of the 0.2% offset yield stress should be observed.
competitive effects of cementite particles, grain boundaries, and subgrain boundaries
on the behavior of spheroidized cementite in a ferrite matrix as analyzed by Anand and
Gurland.27 Another example is the strengthening of deformation-processed composites
such as drawn or rolled Cu-Nb, where the strength increase has been attributed to direct
blocking of the dislocation motion by the interphase boundaries leading to a -1/2
relationship, where is the interphase separation.28-30
The applicability of the various characteristic slip-length models can be examined by plotting the yield stress
against the various microstructural dimensions. The grain size for these alloys had been experimentally
measured and is larger than the interparticle spacing by a factor of 3-5, depending on the alloy. In Figure 3,
the yield stress is plotted against the inverse square root of the measured interparticle spacing, -1/2, with a
least-square fit of the data.
The slope obtained from a similar fit against -1 yields a slope that differs from the Orowan slope predicted
by Equation C in the sidebar by several orders of magnitude; thus, the observed dependence on particle
spacing is not due to Orowan strengthening. Since particles of different size produce different amounts of
strengthening, continuum models can be eliminated since they can not account for the observed particle-size
effect. Further, transmission electron microscopy examination showed similar dislocation densities for
reinforced and unreinforced alloys; therefore, differences in dislocation density are not responsible for the
observed strengthening. Shear-lag theory for these equiaxed particles (Equation B) predicts an increase in the
yield stress that is significantly smaller than what is observed. Hence, the data suggest that the strength
increase in these composites is due to dislocation pile-ups through an interphase barrier-strengthening
3/31/2016 17:33
5 of 11
mechanism.
Figure 1, which shows these same Al-4Cu-1.5Mg/TiB2 composites
with the matrix in the T6 temper, reveals several important trends.
The rapid drop in yield stress regardless of particle loading at about
200C indicates that the mechanisms of strengthening in the
reinforced alloys can be defeated by thermally activated processes.
This is consistent with the mechanism of interphase-barrier
strengthening. At high temperatures, dislocations could cross-slip,
and the strength increase observed at low temperatures due to
a
dislocation pile-up would be defeated. It is also possible that the grain
boundaries and particle interfaces act as sinks for dislocations at high
temperatures, further reducing the dislocation pile-ups. The
annihilation of dislocation at grain and interphase boundaries would
account for the apparent cross-over in strength as a function of
loading that was observed at 350C.
Sahoo and Koczak examined a series of Al-4.5Cu alloys reinforced
with 0-11 vol.% TiC produced by reactive gas injection.32 They
found increases in tensile yield and ultimate tensile strength on the
order of 200 MPa, significantly greater than what would be predicted
by the observed reduction in grain size. These results are consistent
with the interphase-barrier strengthening.
Although the operative strengthening mechanisms have not been
identified, other discontinuously reinforced aluminum-matrix in-situ
composites for which strength and tensile data have been published
include Al-5Mg and Al-5Cu reinforced with 5 vol.% or 10 vol.%
TiC,33 aluminum reinforced with 20 vol.% TiB2, 34 aluminum
b
Figure 1. (a) Tensile yield stress and (b)
elongation to fracture versus test
temperature for composites produced by the
XDTM process with various volume
fractions of TiB2 with a Al-4Cu-1.5Mg
matrix and 1.3 m average particle size.
Alloys are in peak-aged (T6) temper
following exposure to an elevated
temperature for 30 minutes and tested at a
strain rate of 1.3 X 10-3s-1.
simultaneously reinforced with Al2O3 and TiB2,35 Al-5.8Cu0.2Mg-0.2Mn (2519) reinforced with 4.4 vol.% or 6.4 vol.% TiC,36
and Al-6.4Cu-1.4Li-0.3Ag-0.4Mg-0.15Zr (2195) reinforced with 4
vol.% TiB2.37 The compressive and flexural properties of aluminum
reinforced with 30 vol.% TiB2, TiC, or a mixture of TiB2 and TiC
have also been examined.38
MoSi2 Matrix Systems
Figure 2. A variation of tensile yield stress

and proportional limit with volume percent
for Al-4Cu-1.5Mg composites reinforced
with TiB2 with either 0.3 m or 1.3 m
average diameter. The matrix is in the
naturally aged (T4) condition.
Composites with a MoSi2 matrix have been reinforced in-situ with

TiB2, ZrB2, HfB2, and SiC by the XDTM process.39,40 In the cases of
TiB2 and SiC, the particles are equiaxed, and the ZrB2 and HfB2
particles are plate shaped with their broad faces along (0001). For all
of the reinforcement types, the grain size of the composites is much
smaller than those in the unreinforced (base) alloy, but larger than the
interparticle spacing. The compressive yield stress of several of these
MoSi2 composites is plotted as a function of temperature in Figure 4.
3/31/2016 17:33
6 of 11
The various reinforcements increase the strength by varying amounts,

Figure 3. Tensile yield stress as a function
and the improvements in strength are maintained to high temperature. of the inverse square root of the interparticle
In Figure 5, the compressive yield stresses of the 13 composites
containing 15, 30, or 45 vol.% of the indicated particles are plotted
versus the inverse square root of the measured planar interparticle
spacing for test temperatures of 1,000C and 1,200C. For the
unreinforced alloy, the grain size is taken as the effective slip distance
and is used instead of in these plots. Values of ky ranged from 2.8
MPa at 800 to 1.4 MPa at 1,200C. These values are somewhat
higher than the ky values of 0.05-1.3 MPa determined for
conventional metals at room temperature, but are consistent with
particles acting as strong obstacles and with the difficulty of
renucleating slip on the other side of a nondeforming particle. Such a
high ky value would also be expected in materials with a limited slip
number of systems such as MoSi2. Values of so decreased from 280
MPa at 800C to 50 MPa at 1,400C. Although a dislocationstrengthening model is applied to MoSi2 below its ductile-to-brittle
separation for the Al-4Cu-1.5Mg

composites shown in Figure 2.
Figure 4. Compressive yield stress versus

test temperature for MoSi2 composites
produced by the XDTM process with 30
vol.% of various reinforcement types.
Specimens were tested in air at a strain rate
of 7 X 10-5 s-1.
transition temperature of approximately 1,300C,41 a dislocation-based strengthening argument is not

inconsistent, as there is ample evidence of dislocation activity below 1,300C.42,43
The fact that the ZrB2 and HfB2 particles are plate shaped while the TiB2 and SiC are nearly equiaxed
particles is accounted for through the use of the experimentally measured . It should be noted that as the
aspect ratio of the reinforcements becomes very large, load transfer would be expected to become a
significant strengthening mechanism. The contribution of strengthening due to load transfer would
overwhelm the role of dislocation slip in the matrix only when the aspect ratio becomes extremely large.
Flexural stress-strain curves for MoSi2 reinforced with 30 vol.% SiC, 30 vol.% TiB2, or 30 vol.% HfB2 and
an unreinforced MoSi2 sample are shown in Figure 6.44 The origins of neighboring curves have been
displaced for clarity. Although not shown, the behavior of the alloys at 1,000C is nearly identical to the
behavior exhibited at 1,200C. At 1,200C, the stress-strain behavior is linearly elastic with fracture prior to
yield. At 1,300C, the TiB2 and HfB2 alloys undergo approximately 0.2% outer-fiber plastic strains prior to
fracture, while the SiC-reinforced alloy exhibits about 1.0% outer-fiber plastic strains. The unreinforced alloy
fractures prior to any plasticity at 1,300C. At 1,400C, all four alloys exhibit significant ductility and do not
fracture prior to termination of the test. The apparent ductile-to-brittle transition temperature for the
reinforced and unreinforced samples was approximately 1,300C. To a first approximation, this transition
temperature appears to be independent of particle type but is dependent on the MoSi2 matrix grain size.
These tests not only illustrate the effect of reinforcements on strength, but also their effect on the
work-hardening rate of the composite.
The flexural strength of in-situ MoSi2 composites reinforced with SiC produced by a solid-state displacement
reaction have also been examined.11,45 For composites with between 30-67 vol.% SiC, larger SiC particles
resulted in higher strength at elevated temperature, while a higher SiC volume fraction resulted in reduced
strength. These trends were attributed to the SiC phase becoming continuous in these composites at large
volume-particle sizes and high volume fractions.
3/31/2016 17:33
7 of 11
TiAl and Other Aluminides
Kampe et al. have examined a series of near- Ti-Al alloys containing 0, 7, or 12

vol.% of TiB2 particulates produced by the XDTM process.46,47 They found that
the strength of the composites was a sum of three different components: the
strength of the unreinforced alloy, a direct strength increment due to the presence
of the reinforcement, and an indirect strength increment (or decrement) due to the
effect the reinforcement on the microstructure of the matrix (including grain size,
solid-solution strengthening, and changes in the relative proportions of 2 and in
the matrix). The direct strengthening due to the reinforcements was found to be
proportional to the inverse square root of the interparticle spacing, implying an
interphase-barrier strengthening mechanism.
Near- Ti-Al alloys were also in-situ-reinforced with 40 vol.% and 50 vol.%
TiB2.48 The strength of these alloys, with corrections to account for alloy
chemistry, were found to lie on the same strength versus inverse square root of the
interparticle spacing curve as the 7% and 12% alloys.
b
Figure 5. The elevated
temperature compressive
yield stress as a function of
the inverse square root of the
interparticle separation for
MoSi2 composites produced
by the XDTM process at (a)
1,000C and (b) 1,200C.
Composites include a variety
of particle types with
reinforcement loadings of 15
vol.%, 30 vol.%, or 45
vol.%.
Other discontinuously reinforced intermetallic-matrix in-situ composites for

which strength data have been published include Ni-Al reinforced with 20 vol.%
TiC49 and Nb-26Ti-48Al (at.%) reinforced with borides and carbides.50
HIGH-TEMPERATURE STRENGTH AND

STABILITY
For many high-temperature structural applications, the upper-use temperature of

the alloy is dictated by coarsening or resolutionizing of the strengthening
precipitates. For matrices where a precipitate with sufficient coarsening resistance
or solubility is not available, ceramics may make attractive strengthening
particles. In general, such ceramic reinforcements are stable to the matrix melting
point and typically have a very low coarsening rate in the solid metal. If
discontinuous ceramic reinforcements are to be relied upon for strength, small particle size and a high volume
fraction is essential; these are two attributes for which in-situ composites are well suited. The MoSi 2
composites are one such system. Another example of a well-suited system is high-strength, high-conductivity
copper alloys.
In-situ copper-matrix composites reinforced with group IV borides and carbides have been produced by the
XDTM process. The tensile yield stress of copper reinforced in-situ with between 7.5 vol.% and 20 vol.%
ZrB2 is shown in Figure 7. These results are very similar to those shown for the Al-4Cu-1.5Mg/TiB2
composites shown in Figure 1; in creases in reinforcement volume fraction provide increased strength. The
elongation to fracture at room temperature of these composites range from 12% for the 7.5 vol.% composite
down to 2% for the 20 vol.% composite, demonstrating the excellent thermal stability of this material.
Fracture occurs by void nucleation at the particle/matrix interface, which is then followed by void growth and
coalescence.
Samples of Cu-15ZrB2 (vol.%) were heat treated in vacuum at temperatures 68-93% of the melting point for
3/31/2016 17:33
8 of 11
times up to 100 hours. These temperatures are in far excess of any likely use temperature. The
room-temperature yield stress of this material as a function of time at temperature is shown in Figure 8. At
the highest aging temperatures, there is a drop in the yield strength during the initial few hours, but after that
the strength (and, by inference, the microstructure) remain relatively unchanged. The elongation to failure of
these same materials showed relatively little change for the 650C heat treatment and a modest increase from
2% up to 3% for the material heat treated at 980C.
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
Tan, Aikin, and Briber examined the fracture
toughness of the same Al-4Cu-1.5Mg composite
reinforced with 0-15 vol.% TiB2 (average diameter
0.3 m and 1.3 m).51 Compared with the
unreinforced alloy, reinforcement lowered the
toughness of the peak-aged material from 70 MPa
to 25 MPa . The particle size apparently had
no effect on toughness, but the smaller particle
material had a very nonuniform distribution of
particles (due to particle pushing during
Figure 6. The stress-strain curves for XDTM MoSi2 composites at
solidification), which may have masked any effect. elevated temperature in a four-point bend test. Samples were tested
For the 1.3 m materials, the results obtained
in air at a strain rate of 2 X 10-5 s-1.
followed the prediction of Rice and Johnson52 in
the manner of Han and Rosenfield53
KIC = k
(1)
where E is the Young's modulus, y is the yield stress, the interparticle spacing, and k depends on the nature
of void initiation. Assuming a ductile void growth model, k is equal to the particle diameter divided by the
interparticle spacing.
Kumar, Mannan, and Viswanadham examined the influence of TiB2 on the toughness of NiAl.54 They found
that the addition of TiB2 particles to stoichiometric NiAl did not significantly affect fracture toughness, while
the addition of TiB2 to nickel-rich NiAl degraded toughness. Another in-situ composite examined is MoSi 2
with SiC.11
FATIGUE
Vyletel, Van Aken, and Allison examined the high-cycle fatigue
behavior of Al-6Cu-0.3Mn (2219) reinforced by 15 vol.% TiC
produced by the XDTM process.55 Alloys were tested with either an
underaged matrix (containing shearable GP zones) or in a peak-aged
condition (containing nonsheareable ' precipitates). Although the
morphology of the precipitates in the aluminum matrix was observed
to significantly influence the cyclic response of the composites, it
generally had no influence on the fatigue life under either plasticstrain-controlled or stress-controlled fatigue testing. The influence of
3/31/2016 17:33
9 of 11
Figure 7. Tensile yield stress versus test

temperature for copper composites produced
by the XDTM process with various volume
fractions of ZrB2.
matrix microstructure on the cyclic response of the composite was

similar to the behavior of unreinforced alloys.
CREEP
The creep of several in-situ reinforced aluminum alloys was studied

by Krajewski, Allison, and Jones. Alloys were reinforced with 3.5
m diameter TiC, including both single-phase matrices of aluminum
and Al-1.5Mg with 15 vol.% TiC56 and a precipitation-strengthened
matrix Al-6Cu-0.3Mn (2219) with 15 vol.% TiC.57 The grain size of
the aluminum matrix was significantly larger than the interparticle
spacing for these composites. The presence of the reinforcing
Figure 8. Room-temperature tensile yield
stress of Cu-15ZrB2 (vol.%) composites heat particles affected creep in two ways: through stress transfer from the
treated at various temperatures as a function matrix to the particle and by altering the matrix-precipitate spacing or
of time at temperature. The material shows
structure. In the 2219 matrix material, reinforcement improved creep
very good thermal stability and a low
behavior at 150C, while at 250C both reinforced and unreinforced
coarsening rate of ZrB2.
materials exhibited similar behavior. The absence of reinforcement
creep strengthening at 250C was attributed to diffusional relaxation at the particle-matrix interface.
Reinforcements improved the creep strength in materials with single-phase matrices. For the aluminum
material with 15 vol.% TiC, improvements of 400 to 40,000 were observed in the steady-state creep rates.
There have been a number of studies that have examined the creep behavior of in-situ-reinforced
intermetallic-matrix composites. These include near- Ti-Al reinforced with TiB258-60 or a mix of TiB2 and
Ti2AlN,59 NiAl with TiB2,61 NiAl with AlN,62-64 and MoSi2 with SiC.65,66 In general, reducing the grain
size of the matrix contributes to higher creep rates, while increasing the volume fraction of the reinforcement
contributes to lower creep rates. For most of these intermetallic-matrix composites, the presence of the
reinforcing particles results in small grain sizes (on the order of the interparticle spacing), and creep is
degraded when compared to an unreinforced material. Creep was improved by the presence of the particles in
the aluminum composites that Krajewski et. al examined, which had a relatively large grain size. Thus, the
key to good creep behavior for these intermetallic-matrix composites would appear to not only be to provide
reinforcing phases, but to also process in order to obtain large grain sizes (something with which the
reinforcing particles will interfere).
CONCLUSION
In general, the mechanical properties of in-situ composites are similar to other materials with strong
incoherent particles. What differs is the large volume fraction of the reinforcement when compared to the
other, more traditional, materials and the small size of the reinforcement when compared to ex-situ
composites.
References
1. S.G. Fishman, In-Situ Composites: Science and Technology, ed. M. Singh and D. Lewis (Warrendale, PA:
TMS, 1994), p. 1.
2. J.M. Brupbacher, L. Christodoulou, and D.C. Nagle, U.S. patent 4,710,348 (1987).
3. L. Christodoulou, D.C. Nagle, and J.M. Brupbacher, U.S. patent 4,774,052 (1988).
3/31/2016 17:33
10 of 11
4. D.C. Nagle, J.M. Brupbacher, and L. Christodoulou, U.S. patent 4,916,029 (1990).
5. N.P. Suh, U.S. patent 4,278,622 (1981).
6. M.J. Koczak and K.S. Kumar, U.S. patent 4,808,372 (1989).
7. V. Shtessel, S. Sampath, and M. Koczak, In-Situ Composites: Science and Technology, ed. M. Singh and D.
Lewis (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1994), p. 37.
8. S.D. Dunmead et al., U.S. patent 4,909,842 (1990).
9. P.R. Taylor and M. Manrique, Processing and Fabrication of Advanced Materials IV, ed. T.S. Srivatsan and
J.J. Moore (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1996), p. 827.
10. C.R. Cupp, Progress in Metal Physics, 4 (1953), p. 151.
11. C.H. Henager, Jr., J.L. Brimhall, and L.N. Brush, Mater. Sci. Eng., A195 (1995), p. 65.
12. M.J. Luton et al., Multicomponent Ultrafine Microstructures, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 132, ed. L.E.
McCandis et al. (Pittsburg, PA: MRS, 1989), p. 79.
13. R.M. Aikin, Jr., and L. Christodoulou, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 9.
14. M. Taya, Mater. Trans. JIM, 32 (1991), p. 1.
15. A. Kelly, Strong Solids (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 123.
16. V.C. Nardone and K.M. Prewo, Scripta Metall., 20 (1986), p. 43.
17. V.C. Nardone, Scripta Metall., 21 (1987), p. 1313.
18. G. Bao, J.W. Hutchinson, and R.M. McMeeking, Acta Metall. Mater., 39 (1991), p. 1871.
19. C.L. Hom and R.M. McMeeking, Int. J. Plasticity, 7 (1991), p. 255.
20. R.J. Arsenault and R.M. Fisher, Scripta Metall., 17(1983), p. 67.
21. Y. Flom and R.J. Arsenault, Mater. Sci. Eng., 75 (1985), p. 151.
22. R.J. Arsenault and N. Shi, Mater. Sci. Eng, 81 (1986), p. 175.
23. M. Volgelsang, R.J. Arsenault, and R.M. Fisher, Metall. Trans. A, 17 (1986), p. 379.
24. C.T. Kim, J.K. Lee, and M.R. Plichta, Metall. Trans. A, 21 (1990), p. 673.
25. P.M. Kelly, Int. Metall. Rev., 18 (1973), p. 31.
26. M.E. Kassner and X. Li, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 2833.
27. L. Anand and J. Gurland, Metall. Trans. A, 7 (1976), p. 191.
28. G. Wassermann, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on the Strength of Metals and Alloys (Metals Park, OH: ASM,
1970), p. 1188.
29. P.D. Funkenbusch and T.H. Courtney, Scripta Metall., 15 (1981), p. 1349.
30. W.A. Spitzig, A.R. Pelton, and F.C. Laabs, Acta Metall., 35 (1987), p. 2427.
31. S.V. Kamat, J.P. Hirth, and R. Mehrabian, Acta Metall., 37 (1989), p. 2395.
32. P. Sahoo and M.J. Koczak, Mater. Sci. Eng., A131 (1991), p. 69.
33. H. Nakata, T. Choh, and N. Kanetake, J. Mater. Sci., 30 (1995), p. 1719.
34. A.K. Kuruvilla et al., Sripta Metall., 24 (1990), p. 873.
35. Z.Y. Ma et al., Scripta Metall., 31 (1994), p. 635.
36. M.K. Premkumar and M.G. Chu, Mater. Sci. Eng., A202 (1995), p. 172.
37. T.J. Langan and J.R. Pickens, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 1587.
38. I. Gotman, M.J. Koczak, and E. Shtessel, Mater. Sci. Eng., A187 (1994), p. 189.
39. R.M. Aikin, Jr., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., 12 (1991), p. 1643.
40. R.M. Aikin, Jr., Mater. Sci. Eng., A155 (1992), p. 121.
41. R.M. Aikin, Jr., Scripta Metall., 26 (1992), p. 1025.
42. S.A. Maloy et al., Acta Metall. Mater., 40 (1992), p. 3159.
43. S.A. Maloy, T.E. Mitchell, and A.H. Heuer, Acta Metall. Mater., 43 (1995), p. 657.
44. R.M. Aikin, Jr., International Symp. on Structural Intermetallics, ed. R. Darolia et al. (Warrendale, PA:
TMS, 1993), p. 791.
45. C.H. Henager, Jr., J.L. Brimhall, and J.P. Hirth, Mater. Sci. Eng., A155 (1992), p. 109.
46. S.L. Kampe et al., Metall. Trans. A, 25 (1994), p. 2181.
3/31/2016 17:33
11 of 11
47. S.L. Kampe et al., Intermetallic Matrix Composites III, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Poc., 350, ed. J.A. Graves,
R.R. Bowman, and J.J. Lewandowski (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1994), p. 159.
48. M.L. VanMeter, S.L. Kampe, and L. Christodoulou, Scripta Met., 34 (1996), p. 1251.
49. Z.P. Xing et al., Metall. Trans. A, 28 (1997), p. 1079.
50. R.M. Aikin, Jr., P.E. McCubbin, and L. Christodoulou, Intermetallic Matrix Composites, MRS Symp.
Proc., 194, ed. D.L. Anton et al. (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1990), p. 307.
51. N.C. Beck Tan, R.M. Aikin, Jr., and R.M. Briber, Metall. Trans. A, 25 (1994), p. 2461.
52. J.R. Rice and M.A. Johnson, Inelastic Behavior of Solids, ed. M.F. Kannine et al. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1980), p. 641.
53. G.T. Hahn and A.R. Rosenfield, Metall. Trans. A, 6 (1975), p. 653.
54. K.S. Kumar, S.K. Mannan, and R.K. Viswanadham, Acta Metall., 40 (1992), p. 1201.
55. G.M. Vyletel, D.C. Van Aken, and J.E. Allison, Scripta Metall., 25 (1991), p. 2405.
56. P.E. Krajewski, J.W. Jones, and J.E. Allison, Metall. Trans. A, 26 (1995), p. 3107.
57. P.E. Krajewski, J.E. Allison, and J.W. Jones, Metall. Trans. A, 24 (1993), p. 2731.
58. S.L. Kampe, J.K. Bryant, and L. Christodoulou, Metall. Trans. A, 22 (1991), p. 447.
59. P.L. Martin et al., Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. On Creep and Fracture of Engineering Materials and
Structures (London: IOM, 1990), p. 265.
60. K. Sadananda et al., International Symp. on Structural Intermetallics, ed. R. Darolia et al. (Warrendale,
PA: TMS, 1993), p. 809.
61. J.D. Whittenberger et al., J. Mater. Sci., 25 (1990), p. 35.
62. J.D. Whittenberger, E. Arzt, and M.J. Luton, J. Mater. Res., 5 (1990), p. 2819.
63. J.D. Whittenberger, E. Arzt, and M.J. Luton, Scripta Metall., 26 (1992), p. 1925.
64. T.R. Bieler, J.D. Whittenberger, and M.J. Luton, High-Temperature Ordered Intermetallic Alloys V, Mat.
Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 288 (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1993), p. 1149.
65. M. Suzuki, S.R. Nutt, and R.M. Aikin, Jr., Intermetallic Matrix Composites II, MRS Symp. Proc., 273, ed.
D.B. Miracle, D.L. Anton, and J.A. Graves (Pittsburgh, PA: MRS, 1992), p. 267.
66. M. Suzuki, S.R. Nutt, and R.M. Aikin, Jr., Mater. Sci. Eng., 162 (1993), p. 73.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert M. Aikin, Jr., earned his Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering at Michigan Technological University in
1987. He is currently an associate professor at Case Western Reserve University. Dr. Aikin is also a member
of TMS.
For more information, contact R.M. Aikin, Jr., Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106; telephone (216)
368-4221; fax (216) 368-3209; e-mail: rxa19@po.cwru.edu.
Copyright held by The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1997
Direct questions about this or any other JOM page to jom@tms.org.
Search TMS Document Center Subscriptions Other Hypertext Articles JOM TMS OnLine
3/31/2016 17:33

The Mechanical Properties of In-Situ Composites

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mechanical Properties of In-Situ Composites

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mechanical Properties of In-Situ Composites

The following article appears in the journal JOM,