See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306373026

TiC Particle Reinforced Aluminium Matrix Composites-A Review

Working Paper · December 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16874.72641

CITATIONS READS

0 1,038

2 authors, including:

Harsh Khandelwal
Pennsylvania State University
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Particle reinforced Aluminium matrix composites View project

Friction stir welding of dissimilar metals View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harsh Khandelwal on 22 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TiC Particle Reinforced Aluminium Matrix Composites- A
Review

By

HARSH KHANDELWAL

Under Guidance of
Dr. Pradeep K. Jha

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Roorkee-247667
Abstract
During the past two decade, research in metal matrix composites(MMCs) has taken giant leaps.
Aluminium Matrix Composites(AMCs) refer to the class of MMC which are high performance,
light weight and have aluminium centric material systems. The wear resistance, yield strength,
flow stress, coefficient of thermal expansion, electrical performance of pure Aluminium can
be varied drastically by altering size, shape, distribution, orientation and concentration of the
reinforcement. The properties can also be manipulated by alloying Aluminium with another
metal. If copper is used as principal alloying element, the it’s formability, workability, me-
chanical strength, thermal and electrical conductivity increase. This paper deals with change in
mechanical characteristics and microstructure of metal matrix composites induced due to
change in aluminium copper percentage.

1. Introduction
Metal matrix composites (MMCs) refer to a category of material in which rigid ceramic rein-
forcements are embedded in a ductile metal or alloy matrix [1]. MMCs combine ceramic char-
acteristics (high strength and modulus) with metallic properties (ductility and toughness), lead-
ing to higher service temperature capabilities and to greater strength in shear and compression
[2]. The attractive physical and mechanical properties that can be obtained with MMCs, such
as high specific modulus, strength, and thermal stability, have been documented extensively
[1-7]. Interest in MMCs for use in the aerospace and automotive industries, and other structural
applications, has increased over the past 20 years as a result of the availability of relatively
inexpensive reinforcements and the development of various processing routes which result in
reproducible microstructure and properties [8].
When copper is primary alloying element then alloy is of 2xxx series aluminium. Whiskers,
monofilaments, short filaments, continuous fibres, particulates can be used as reinforcements
in 2xxx aluminium. Whiskers have perceived health hazard which has caused reduction I its
practical applications. And continuous fibres and monofilaments offer superior mechanical
properties but they have very high cost, resulting into limited applications in aerospace. Due to
these reasons, major current research concentrates on particulate reinforcements. When particle
reinforcements(PAMCs) are present in volume fraction less than 30% than it is used for struc-
tural and wear resistance applications. However, in electronic packaging applications rein-
forcement volume fraction could be as high as 70% [10]. They cause isotropic behaviour of
properties, the cost of manufacturing can be reduced by using them and can be subjected to a
variety of secondary forming operations including extrusion, rolling and forging. Unfortu-
nately, high strength fibers and their processing methods are extremely expensive, and this
limits their wide industrial application. Moreover, continuous fiber reinforced composites do
not usually allow secondary forming process, which is used in the original shape in which they
were manufactured. As a result of these limitations, over the last few years, new efforts on the
research of non-continuously reinforced composites have been applied [11-16].

1.1 Matrix Phase

Most research performed recently concentrates on Aluminium as matrix phase. Two reasons
justify this, the first being the matrix should have density as less as possible. This is result of
weight sensitive applications of MMCs which are aerospace and ground transportation. The
second reason is the cost effectiveness of Al as compared to other light metals like Mg and Ti.

Major reasons for alloying aluminium with copper while making PAMC (Particle reinforced
Aluminium matrix Composites) are discussed over here. The first one is that although pure
Aluminium is not age hardenable, Al-Cu shows age hardenability, so after age hardening, the
mechanical properties similar to or sometimes exceeding those of low carbon steels can be
observed. The composites having Al-Cu matrix phase maintain their mechanical properties
upto 150·C. These aluminium composites have limited weldability, but 2024 alloy in this series
have superior machinability. This enhances the applications of these composites in structural
aerospace applications. For example, F-16 illustrating the ventral fins on the bottom of the
fuselage Aft of the wings. These wings are made using Al-Cu/TiC PAMC, the purpose of the
ventral fins is to stabilize the aircraft during high angle ascents and other manoeuvres.
Particulate aluminium matrix composites have become new structural materials in the aviation,
aerospace and automobile industry due to their excellent properties, such as low density, high
specific strength, high specific stiffness, good thermal stability, high-temperature creep ability,
etc. [21,22].

1.2 Reinforcements

Currently, both Aluminium and Aluminium alloys are used extensively in automotive and aer-
ospace components due to high specific strength, ductility and malleability. However, they
have poor wear resistance, which increases maintenance costs manifold. On the other hand, Al
alloy MMCs offer much better wear resistance as well as bulk properties. TiC was not investi-
gated enough as a ceramic reinforcement to Al alloy matrix nanocomposites, however it has
been receiving much attention lately for its high melting temperature (3160·C), low thermal
coefficient of expansion, extraordinary hardness, excellent wear and abrasion resistance
[46,47].

Although traditional aluminium alloys have relatively high strength at room temperature, the
mechanical properties will be reduced more than 50% when the temperature is higher than
473K, which limits their application at high temperature. A possible way to solve the problem
is to introduce TiC particles into the matrix [23-25]. It is indicated by Elevated temperature
tensile testing that Aluminium Matrix Composites reinforced with TiC reinforcements retain
their room temperature strength up to 250·C [40]. TiC ceramics exhibits high melting point,
high hardness and high creep resistance. Hence, the introduction of TiC should significantly
improve the high-temperature properties of the alloy, especially the high-temperature creep
resistance. In the past, SiC, rather than TiC, was most widely selected as the particles to rein-
force the aluminium alloys. Thus, the high-temperature creep property of the SiC reinforced
aluminium composites has been widely studied [21-37]. Calculation results of the apparent
activation energy for the creep deformation of SiC reinforced aluminium-6092 and aluminium-
2124 alloys confirmed the reinforcement effects of the SiC particles [27-29]. It was discovered
that the particles with smaller sizes had a better reinforcement and higher creep resistance [30].
On the contrary, it was found that under a special applied stress level the creep resistance of
the composites was increased when larger particles were used [31]. A better high temperature
creep resistance can be expressed by a higher stress exponent and higher apparent activation
energy [21-34]. To analyse the creep ability, the concept of threshold stress was introduced,
the origin of which was difficult to be explained [21-37].

Here Al-Cu matrix reinforced with particulate TiC is studied. Change in properties by varying
TiC and copper amount is discussed.

2. Fabrication Technique
Aluminium matrix composites with particle reinforcements can be fabricated by multiple tech-
niques which are widely classified as Liquid state techniques and Solid state techniques on the
bases of physical state of matrix phase. More interaction between matrix phase and reinforce-
ments is observed in liquid state process as compared to solid state.

Production tech-
niques to make
PAMCs

Liquid state tech- Solid State

niques Techniques

Stir In-situ Spray Dep- Infiltration Physical Vapour Powder

Casting Processing osition Process Deposition Metallurgy

Gas Injec- Activated

Graphite IM+RS
tion Charcoal

Table I Classification of Production Techniques to make PAMCs

Out of all these procedures, gas injection, activated charcoal in situ, Ingot Metallurgy+ Rapid
Solidification, stir casting, powder metallurgy and flux assisted casting method possess better
scope in future due to combination of lower cost of manufacturing, better microstructures and
superior mechanical properties observed in them. Due to these reasons, most of the current
research is based on these routes and thus they will be discussed further.
 2.1 Gas Injection Method

Gas injection technique is a novel technique utilized to produce in situ particulate titanium
carbide reinforced aluminium matrix composites. Samples of AMC produced by this technique
show a homogeneous distribution of fine TiC platelets in a fine-grained recrystallized Al-Cu
matrix. Aluminium Matrix Composites fabricated by this technique retain room temperature
strengths up to 250·C. The specifics of the process are discussed below.

Aim of this gas-liquid-solid reaction was to achieve Al-4.5wt%Cu TiC composite with varying
volume fraction of TiC. Here Y2O3 coated Al2O3 crucible was used to melt alloy in vacuum and
then the chamber was subsequently filled with pure argon gas which had the purpose of stabi-
lizing the highly exothermic reaction between carbon and titanium. Upon reaching the appro-
priate processing temperature, the carbon-carrying gas (methane), was introduced into the melt
via a gas diffuser system. The processing time and temperature will depend upon the gas partial
pressure and alloy chemistry. Temperature was in range 1473 to 1573 K respectively depending
upon the matrix chemistry as well as the melt quantity and volume fraction desired [17]. con-
stant temperature for a suitable length of time was maintained to carry out the reaction, so that
complete conversion of titanium to TiC can be ensured. After completion, melt was allowed to
solidify.

The as cast billet of both control alloy and reinforced alloy was extruded at 400°C and area
was reduced by 97%. specimens were subjected to solution (520 °C for 2 h) and aging (177 °C
for 24 h) treatment [17]. The samples before testing had reduced diameter of 4 mm and a total
gauge length of 19 mm.

Gas Injection

Crucible
Graphite
Suseptors

Alloy Melt
Carbonaceous
Bubble

Gas Bubbler
 Figure 1 Gas Injection in situ type method [12]

2.2 in situ stir casting

In situ stir casting is a liquid state process used for fabrication of particulate reinforced Metal
Matrix Composites. In situ by casting route is one of the most economical and optimizable
fabrication route for large scale production. In situ stir casting offers many advantages over
conventional stir casting like clean interface, fine particle size and good wettability of TiC
reinforcement [50].

Aluminium Matrix Composite was synthesized by using Al–4.5%Cu matrix and 5, 7 and 10
wt.% of TiC particulate reinforcements using in situ method. Here, discontinuous particulate
titanium with 99.98% purity was added to the melt a 950·C and the melt was held 60 min for
complete diffusion of Titanium into the matrix [43]. At the place of carrier gas used in previous
process, here fine activated charcoal was used with grain size <50 μm for in situ reaction with
Ti to form TiC. Constant gentle stirring was performed during hold time to ensure uniform
distribution. Appropriate measure of titanium and activated charcoal were included in the ma-
trix melt to accomplish the required weight percentage of TiC. Finally, the melt was casted into
a mould having 300 mm length and 45 mm diameter.

2.3 Flux assisted casting method

The third procedure was employed to fabricate Al–4 wt.% Cu matrix composites reinforced
with particulate TiC. Here, AMC with TiC volume fraction (Vf) 5, 10, 15 and 20% were pro-
duced using K-Al-F flux assisted casting method [16]. It is an ex situ approach, here TiC pow-
der possessing 99.5% purity with an average particle size of 2.9 μm was used. Al ingots with
99.8% purity and copper wire with 99.5% purity were melted in graphite crucible were heated
to 800·C using a lab-scale induction furnace. TiC powder and K–Al–F-based flux were mixed
using a ratio of 1:2 for 3 min in a turbula mixer and the resultant powder mixture was gently
placed on the surface of molten alloy. The mixing ratio between K–Al–F flux and TiC particles
was chosen from a patent [18] to avoid the issue of penetrating an oxide layer and to minimize
possible reactions between molten Al and TiC particles. The particulate mixture was kept with-
out stirring on the melt surface for 2 min. This flux comprises a mixture of KAlF4 and K3AlF6
corresponding to the 45 mol% AlF3 eutectic composition in the KF–AlF3 system [19]. After
removing the slag from the top of melt, stirring was performed using graphite rod. After this,
casting was performed.

2.4 Hybrid Approach

This production route is an in situ approach using both solid state and liquid state production
route. In this approach, Al alloy, titanium and carbon powders are mixed in a fixed stoichio-
metric ratio and then compacted into cylinders. These cylinders are then introduced into Al
alloy melt and then after stirring, casting is performed.

In this production route, commercial graphite powders (≤5 μm in size), 2618 aluminium alloy
powders (≤29 μm in size) and titanium powders (≤29 μm in size) were used as raw materials.
Three kinds of powders were mixed with the ratio of Al:C:Ti = 50:25:25 in a roller mixer for
24 hour, and the mixture was compacted into cylinders with 20mm in length and 40mm in
diameter by a hydraulic universal test machine. Then the cylinder was submerged in 2618 alu-
minium-copper alloy melt at 1123K temperature. Because of the high temperature, intensive
chemical reactions among Al, Ti and C happened in the system and TiC particles were formed
in the melt as a result. The melt, after vigorous agitation reaction, was cast into a metallic mold
with 50mm in diameter and 100mm in length. For comparison, 2618 aluminium alloy ingot
was prepared by the same way. The ingots were then hot extruded with a ratio of 16:1 into rods
with 12mm in diameter by a universal hydraulic presser. All the rods were subjected to a heat
treatment at a heating rate of 1 K/min to 803K and held for 1.5 h, then quenched into water,
and at last aged at 453K for 8 h [20].

2.5 Ingot Metallurgy and rapid Solidification

This fabrication technique is a novel in situ liquid state approach utilizing traditional ingot
metallurgy (IM) and rapid solidification (RS) techniques to produce Aluminium Matrix Com-
posites. This production technique offers advantages like enhanced dispersion hardening of
reinforcing phases and refined microstructures. The IM AMCs show superior strength and duc-
tility to the relevant aluminium based composites. The RS AMCs exhibit high Young’s moduli
and substantial improvements in room and elevated temperature tensile properties compared to
those of conventional composites [38].

In this fabrication technique, the synthesis of the composites was carried out first by ingot
metallurgy and then by rapid solidification. Master material ingots were prepared from a mix-
ture of Al (99.9%), Ti (99.7%), and graphite powder of 40 to 50 mm average particle size in a
graphite-lined induction furnace, with a blanket of argon gas over the melt [38]. Initially, the
mixture was melted, and then, upon reaching the processing temperature of 1373 to 1473 K in
1 hour, the temperature was increased to 1573 to 1623 K, held at this temperature for 10
minutes, and subsequently direct chill cast into ingot bars with a diameter of 12 mm [38]. After
this, Rapid Solidification was performed by remelting and finally cooling at rates up to
1000000 Kelvin/s.

2.6 Conventional Powder Metallurgy

Usually, mixing of reinforcements and matrix phase, followed by compacting and sintering is
involved in Powder Metallurgy. This procedure uses lower temperatures than other production
routes. As this production route is solid state technique, both phases are in solid state, hence
less interaction is observed between reinforcements and matrix phase. Homogeneous distribu-
tion of all particles is vital over here as it directly affects isotropic behaviour and induces good
microstructure. When particles with higher aspect ratios are used as reinforcement, smaller
particles for the matrix alloys are required for the improvement of the packing effect and to
obtain a good dispersion of the fibres in the matrix. All the properties of the MMCs obtained
by P/M can be improved through liquid phase sintering with or without extra pressing, and
usually through final steps such as extrusion, forging or rolling [44].

POWDER PARTICLES OR
(METAL OR WISKERS
METAL ALLOY)

BLENDING

COLD HOT
PRESSING PRESSING

SINTERING

BILLET, SLAB
Consolidation

Secondary
Manufacturing
Operation

MMC
Flow chart of composite fabrication via Powder Metallurgy
2.7 P/M using high energy attributor ball mill

This technique is an ex situ solid state approach to make Aluminium Matrix Composites with
particulate TiC reinforcements. Here blend–press–sinter methodology is used. Composites fab-
ricated by this technique depict reasonably uniform distribution of TiC particulates and pres-
ence of minimum porosity. Being an ex situ process, it offers superior control on particle dis-
tribution.

Here, pre-alloyed powder having stoichiometry of Al-4.5 wt.% Cu and particle size ranging
10-20 μm was used which was produced by mechanical alloying in an attrition ball mill of Pure
Al and Cu elemental powders with mean particle size of 150 and 40 μm respectively. Milling
was performed for 70 h at 270 rpm rotational speed with 12:1 ball to powder weight ratio
(BPR). 1.5 wt.% stearic acid was used as the milling process control agent (PCA), milling was
performed using stainless steel vial (AISI 316) and hardened chromium steel balls (6 and 10
mm diameter with the ratio of 1:2) [49]. The powder was protected in vial with pure argon gas
and the milling tank was continuously cooled with cold water. Samples were collected at in-
terval of 10 h [48]. After preparing alloy matrix powder, TiC particulates were added to it
blending was performed for 2 h in a planetary ball mill at room temperature with 400 rpm
rotation speed, with 12:1 ball to powder weight ratio. Hardened chromium steel balls were in
four distinct sizes (20, 15, 10, 6 mm diameter) and applying 1.5 wt.% stearic acid as the milling
PCA under Argon atmosphere. [49]. Consolidation was performed by uniaxial pressing at 650
MPa. Sintering procedure was done for 90 min at 400·C.
3 Experimental Investigations
3.1 Gas Injection Method
Microstructural Inferences
Figure 3 depicts the TiC particle distribution after extrusion. Homogeneous distribution of fine
TiC particles is displayed over here in the transverse section. TiC particles with size 0.1-3 μm
are observed in the figure. Tendency of the particles to orient themselves in the direction of
extrusion is shown in the longitudinal section. Figure 4 demonstrates that hot extrusion leads
to a recrystallized grain structure with finer grain size. substantially elongated grains are not
exhibited by The longitudinal section. After extrusion, grain size reduces by approximately a
factor of five to ten. The TiC particle/AI-Cu matrix interface is of reaction product, e.g. A14C3,
and does not exhibit any interfacial by-products [40].

Fig. 2. Microstructure of the extruded and heat-treated

A1-4.5wt.%Cu metal matrix composite containing 10 vol.%
TiC [40].

Fig. 3. (a) Grain structure of the extruded and heat-treated

composite containing 10 vol.% TiC (Keller's reagent) and (b)
as-cast microstructure [40].

Mechanical Inferences

It is indicated by Elevated temperature tensile testing that Aluminium Matrix Composites re-
inforced with TiC reinforcements fabricated by this technique retain their room temperature
strength up to 250·C. Addition of particulate TiC reinforcement results into yield strength and
tensile strength increasing of 130% and 65% respectively.

400
350
Yield Srength (MPa)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Volume % TiC

395
Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa)

375

355

335

315

295

275
0 2 4 6 8 10
Volume % TiC

Fig. 4. (a) Yield strength and (b) ultimate tensile strength as a function of vol.% TiC
reinforcement and comparison with control at 0 vol.% TiC [17].
 400
Yield Strength (MPa) 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11

Volume % TiC

500
400
Ultimate Tensile
Strength (MPa)

300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Volume % TiC

Fig. 5. (a) Yield strength and (b) ultimate tensile strength at 250 °C of the AI-4.5wt.%Cu
+TiC composite as a function of vol.% reinforcement and comparison with control samples
containing no reinforcement [17].

As shown in Figure 7, yield strength of extruded and heat-treated AI-4.5wt.%Cu control sample
at room temperature is represented by 0% TiC. For AMCs, linear relation is observed between
the yield strength and the volume percentage of TiC. However, the difference between the
control alloy and the composite alloy is significant, even at low volume fractions of TiC. The
ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of AMC shows a significant enhancement as compared to con-
trol alloy and is a function of volume fraction of TiC. UTS shows a linear dependence with
volume fraction of TiC which is depicted in graph.

Figure 8 shows the yield strength and tensile strength response of AI-4.5wt.%Cu + TiC com-
posite alloy at 250 °C as a function of volume fraction of TIC reinforcement. The aging tem-
perature for this process was 177 °C and so this temperature is much above that. The graph
depicts that at 250 °C the volume percentage when is in the range of 8 to 11 vol.% then strength
does not show appreciable effect although strength remains much more than unreinforced ma-
trix phase. The reason behind limited elevated temperature strength is that transfer of load from
weak matrix to reinforcement. Important variables in transferring load to the reinforcement are
the aspect ratio of the reinforcement and the shear strength of the matrix and/or the interface
[51].

3.2 In Situ Stir Casting

Microstructural Inferences
SEM micrograph shows that here TiC has short fibre shape. On increasing the reinforcement
percentage, the number of fibres increase. Due to These longer reinforcements as compared to
particulates, angularity increase which results into decrease of strength as it supports crack
propagation. Extrusion or heat treatment can be performed to break these reinforcements into
particles.

Fig. 1. SEM micrograph of (a) Al–4.5%Cu/5%TiC MMC [43]

Mechanical Inferences
From different positions of the cast ingot, the tensile specimens were machined in the cylindri-
cal shape of 25 mm gauge length and 5.0 mm diameter. The tensile tests of the specimens were
conducted at room temperature using a TINIUS OLSEN H75 KS tensile testing machine at a
strain rate of 0.01 s-1 [43]. The results are shown in figure 6. Results show that Ultimate Tensile
Strength increases constantly with increase in volume percentage of reinforcement but the yield
strength initially increase with less gradient and the steepness increase after 7% TiC.
 In Situ Stir Casting
200
180
160
140
120 Series1
100 Series2
80
Series3
60
40
20
0
Al–4.5%Cu/5% TiC Al–4.5%Cu/7% TiC Al–4.5%Cu/10% TiC

Figure 6. Blue series represent yield strength in MPa, orange series represent UTS in MPa and Grey series repre-
sents % elongation.

3.3 Flux Assisted Casting Approach

Microstructural Inferences
SEM micrographs taken from the Al4Cu/5 vol.% TiC and Al4Cu/15 vol.% TiC composites
revealing that TiC particles are dispersed reasonably well in the Al matrix. However, a detailed
examination shows a small-scale clustering of TiC particles in some local areas of the matrix.
It has been reported that particle clustering occurred when the fine particle size and large vol-
ume fractions of reinforcement were introduced into matrix [57]. The clustering phenomena in
Al MMCs containing 10 vol.% of TiC (5 μm) was also reported [58].
Figure 7 SEM microstructures of cast: (a) Al4Cu matrix alloy,
and (b) Al4Cu/5 vol.% TiC [16].
3.4 Hybrid Approach
Microstructural Inferences

Fig. 8. Microstructures of the in situ TiCP/2618 aluminum

composites with (a) 15 vol.%TiCP and (b) 20 vol.%TiCp. [20]

Fine and globular TiC particles can be observed in Fig. 1 which shows the microstructures of
the in situ TiCP/2618 aluminium composites with 15 and 20 vol.%TiC particles, respectively.
Here TiC particles are observed to be distributed homogeneously throughout the matrix. The
size of the TiC particles was estimated to be 0.5–1.5 μm.

3.5 Ingot Metallurgy+ Rapid Solidification

Microstructural Inferences
The increase of the Ti solute content i.e. Al-7Ti-0.65C ingot (C: Ti = 0.36) at the place of Al-
4Ti-0.65C ingot resulted in changes in the microstructure. In the ingot castings, the number of
needlelike Al3Ti particles increase, although the distribution of the TiC particles is the same as
that in the Al-4Ti-0.65C ingot. Meanwhile, the rapidly solidified microstructure is composed
of microgranulars, with grain boundaries decorated with fine, spheroidal intermetallic phase
particles, while a few of these particles remained in the α- Al grains.
 Mechanical Inferences

IM

The IM in situ AMC possess a superior combination of tensile strength and ductility to the
relevant aluminium- based composites [53-55]. This is especially true for the Al-5Ti-1.0C
composite. The fracture surface of a tensile sample of the IM Al-TiC composites show presence
of dimples indicating a ductile mode of fracture. The values of yield strength, UTS, elongation
and young’s modulus of IM samples is given in Table II.
RS
The Young’s moduli for the RS in situ composites Al-5%Ti-1.0%C, at room temperature, were
tested as 81GPa. Representative engineering stress-strain curves obtained for the Al-5%Ti-
1.0%C composite at various temperatures from 298 to 673 K (Figure 7) all exhibit well-defined
yielding. Values of yield strength and the corresponding ultimate strength and ductility data of
the Al-5%Ti-1.0%C composites as a function of temperature are summarized in Table [2]. The
tensile properties tend to decrease normally with an increasing test temperature. The room and
elevated-temperature properties of the Al-5%Ti-1.0%C composite compare favourably to those
of the materials shown in Reference [56]. Tensile fracture occurs in AMCs fabricated by
IM+RS. The fractographs reveal a typical ductile fracture surface for 298 and 573 K and a grain
crack on fracture surface for 623 and 673 K.

Sr. No. Material Temp. Process Young’s Yield UTS % Refer-

·
C Modu- Strength (MPa) Elonga- ence
lus (MPa) tion
(GPa)
1 Al-4.5%Cu 20 -- 71 107 182 17 [39]
2 Al-4.5%Cu 250 -- 57 64 77 37 [39]
3 Al-4.5%Cu 20 Gas -- 300 335 -- [40]
4% Vf TiC
 Injec-
tion
4 Al-4.5%Cu 20 Gas -- 355 362 -- [40]
8% Vf TiC Injec-
tion
5 Al-4.5%Cu 250 Gas -- 330 350 -- [40]
8% Vf TiC Injec-
tion
6 Al-4%Ti- 25 IM -- 144 206 21.7 [41]
0.65%C
7 Al-7%Ti- 25 IM -- 141 211 23.3 [41]
0.65%C
8 Al-5%Ti- 25 IM 81 169 242 20.0 [41]
1.0%C
9 Al-5%Ti- 25 IM+ RS 81 296.3 336.1 14.9 [41]
1.0%C
10 Al-5%Ti- 300 IM+ RS 81 191.5 198.6 14.4 [41]
1.0%C
11 Al-5%Ti- 350 IM+ RS 81 152.3 162.0 9.5 [41]
1.0%C
12 Al-5%Ti- 400 IM+ RS 81 111.6 121.23 8.9 [41]
1.0%C
13 Al-10% Vf cast 87 -- 109 24 [42]
TiC
14 Al-10% Vf Cast+ 90 -- 123 30 [42]
TiC Extru-
sion
15 Al 10% Vf PM 88 -- 120 25 [42]
TiC
16 Al 10% Vf PM+ 89 -- 129 32 [42]
TiC Extru-
sion
17 Al– In situ 83.4 95.7 134 3.25 [43]
4.5%Cu/5% with
TiC activate
char-
coal
18 Al– In situ 91.8 103.4 156 2.35 [43]
4.5%Cu/7% with
TiC activate
char-
coal
19 Al– In situ 98.7 117.3 179 1.5 [43]
4.5%Cu/10% with
TiC activate
char-
coal
Table II represents various aluminium matrix composites and their mechanical properties.
Sr. Routes Mechanical Properties Ease of Fabrication Possibility of Cost
No. mass
production

1 In situ via Gas In- 5 5 4 5

jection

2 In Situ via acti- 3 4 4 4

vated charcoal

3 Flux Assisted 3 3 3 3
casting

4 Hybrid Ap- 4 2 3 3
proach

5 Ingot Metallurgy+ 4 4 5 4
Rapid Solidifica-
tion

6 Conventional 4 3 2 2
Powder Met-
allurgy Technique
P/M using high
7 5 2 1 1
energy attributor
ball mill

Table III, ratings are given on the scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best
4 Conclusions
After inclusive analysis of presented work on developments in various fabrication techniques
of TiC reinforced Aluminium Matrix Composites, the major conclusions can be drawn as be-
low.
1) Aluminium matrix Composites (AMCs) offer relatively cheap high
strength alternatives to the conventional alloys.
2) Composites possessing presence of copper in matrix phase offer higher
strength and age hardenability.
3) Liquid state processes i.e. IM+RS, stir casting and in situ fabrication routes
offer higher possibility of mass production as compared to solid state pro-
cedures.
4) Al-Cu metal matrix composite with particulate reinforcements fabricated
by liquid state processes possess huge application in ground transporta-
tions, infrastructure and recreational activities due sufficiently high stiff-
ness at lower costs.

References
1. Y. Flom, R.J. Arsenault, Mater. Sci. Eng. 77 (1986) 191
2. Y. Flom, R.J. Arsenault, J. Met. 38 (1986) 31
3. S.G. Fishman, J. Met. 38 (1986) 26.
4. A. Mortensen, M.N. Gugor, J.A. Cornie, M.C. Flemings, J. Met. 38 (1986) 30.
5. A.H.M. Howes, J. Met. 38 (1986) 28.
6. V.C. Nardone, K.W. Prewo, Scripta Metall. 20 (1986) 43

7. A. Mortensen, J.A. Cornie, M.C. Flemings, J. Met. 40 (1988) 12

8. T.W. Chow, A. Kelly, A. Okura, Composites 16 (1986) 187
9. S.C. Tjong, Z.Y. Ma Materials Science and Engineering, 29 (2000) 49
10. M K Surappa Sadhana Vol. 28, Parts 1 & 2, February/April 2003, pp. 319–334
11. V.K. Lindroos, M.J. Talvitie, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 53 (1995) 273–
284.
12. A. Feest, Metal Powder Report, October 1992, p. 4045.
13. D.L. Erich, Prog. Powder Metall. 46 (1986) 45–65.
14. H.E. Deve, C. McCullough, J. Mater. (JOM) (July 1995) 33–37.
15. T. Zhang, J.R.G. Evans, M.J. Bevis, The Int. J. Powder Metall. 32 (4) (1996) 331–339
16. Hulya Kaftelen, Necip Unlu, Gultekin Goller, M. Lutfi Ovecog lu , Hani Henein Else-
vier Composites: Part A 42 (2011) 812–824
17. Purush Sahoo Michael J. Koczak Materials Science and Engineering, A144 (1991) 37-
44
18. Ellis JD, Kelie JLF, Karantzalis A, Kennedy AR, Wood JV. Metal matrix composites.
Patent no: WO 98/06880; 1998.
19. Kennedy AR, Karantzalis AE, Material Science Engineering 1999; A264:122–9.
20. F. Ji, M.Z. Ma, A.J. Song, W.G. Zhang, H.T. Zong, S.X. Liang, Y. Osamu, R.P. Liu,
Materials Science and Engineering A 506 (2009) 58–62
21. Z.G. Lin, Y. Li, Farghalli, F.A. Mohamed, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 332 (2002) 330–342.
22. F.M. Xu, L.C.-M.Wu, G.W. Han, Y. Tan, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 20 (2007) 115–119.
23. X.W. Zeng, W.G. Zhang, N. Wei, R.P. Liu, M.Z. Ma, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 443 (2007)
224–228.
24. M.Z. Ma, D.Y. Cai, T.H.Wei, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 19 (5) (2003) 447–449.
25. M.Z. Ma, R.P. Liu, H.L. Zhao, Y.F. Yu, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 21 (5) (2005) 652–
656.
26. M.H. Huang, H.W.Wang, X.F. Li, Acta Mater. Compos. Sin. 22 (2005) 36–40.
27. Y. Li, T.G. Langdon, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 29 (1998) 2523–2531.
28. Y. Li, F.A. Mohamed, Acta Mater. 45 (11) (1997) 4775–4785.
29. J. Cadek, M. Pahutova, V. Sustek, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 246 (1998) 252–264.
30. A.B. Pandey, R.S. Mishra, Y.R. Mahajan, Acta Met. Mater. 40 (8) (1992) 2045–2052.
31. S.C. Tjong, Z.Y. Ma, Z.G.Wang, Mater. Sci. Technol. 15 (1999) 666–678.
32. K.T. Park, F.A. Mohamed, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 26 (12) (1995) 3119–3129.
33. S.C. Tjong, Z.Y. Ma, Compos. Sci. Technol. 59 (7) (1999) 1117–1125.
34. K.T. Park, E.J. Lavernia, F.A. Mohamed, Acta Metall. Mater. 38 (11) (1990) 2149–
2159.
35. J. Cadek, H. Oikawa, V. Sustek, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 190 (1995) 9–23.
36. Z.Y. Ma, S.C. Tjong, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 278 (1999) 5–15.
37. B.Y. Zong, B. Derby, Acta Mater. 45 (1997) 4–49.
38. X.C. Tong and H.S. Fang, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions a volume 29a,
march 1998
39. P. Rohtagi, Advance Materials and processes, 2, 39(1990)
40. P. Sahoo and M. J. Koczak, Materials Science and Engineering, A131 (1991) 69-76
41. X. C. Tong, A. K. Ghosh, Journal of Materials Science 36 (2001) 4059 – 4069
42. A.R. Kennedy, S.M. Wyatt, Composites Science and Technology 60 (2000) 307-314
43. Anand Kumar, M.M. Mahapatra, P.K. Jha, Measurement 48 (2014) 325–332
44. T. Nukami, M.C. Flemings, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 26A (1995) 1877–1884.
45. J.M. Torralba, C.E. da Costa, F. Velasco, Journal of Materials Processing Technology
133 (2003) 203–206
46. Wang Y, Rainforth WM, Jones H, Lieblich M. Dry wear behaviour and its relation to
microstructure of novel 6092 aluminium alloy–Ni3Al powder metallurgy composite. J
Wear 2001; 251: 1421–32.
47. Salem H, El-Eskandarany SH, Kandil A, Abdul Fattah H. Bulk behavior of ball milled
AA2124 nanostructured powders reinforced with TiC. J Nanomater.Hindawi Publish-
ing Corporation; 2009. 12 p. [Article ID 479185].
48. N. Nemati, R. Khosroshahi, M. Emamy, A. Zolriasatein, Materials and Design 32
(2011) 3718–3729
49. Nemati N, Zolriasatein A, Emamy M, Khosroshahi RA, The 2nd national nano mate-
rials and nano technology conference, Isfahan, Iran; 2010.
50. S.L. Pramod, Srinivasa R. Bakshi, and B.S. Murty, Aluminum-Based Cast in Situ
Composites: A Review, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume
24(6) June 2015—2185
51. W. M. Pollock and E E. Wawner, Proc. Am. Soc. Composites, Dayton, OH, 1989, p.
61.
52. V. Moisy-Maurice, N. Lorenzelli, C.H. De Novion, and P. Convert: Acta Metall., 1982,
vol. 30, pp. 769-79.
53. Z. Wang and R.J. Zhang: Metall. Trans. A, 1991, vol. 22A, pp. 1585-93.
54. F.J. Humphreys, A. Basu, and M.R. Djazeb: in Metal Matrix Composites, N. Hansen,
D. Juul Jensen, T. Leffers, H. Lilholt, T. Lorentzen, A.S. Pederson, O.B. Pederson, B.
Ralph, eds., RISØ National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 1991, pp. 51-66.
 55. R. Mitra, M.E. Fine, and J.R. Weertman: J. Mater. Res., 1993, vol. 8, pp. 2370-79.
56. M. Gupta, J. Juarez-Islas, W.E. Frazier, F.A. Mohamed, and E.J. Lavernia: Metall.
Trans. B, 1992, vol. 23B, pp. 719-36.
57. Asthana R. Processing effects on the engineering properties of cast metal matrix com-
posites. Adv. Perform Mater 1998; 5:213–55.
58. Kennedy AR, Karantzalis AE, Wyatt SM. The microstructure and mechanical proper-
ties of TiC and TiB2-reinforced cast metal matrix composites. J Mater Sci 1999;
34:933–40.

View publication stats