4.7 Article

Effects of solid solution treatment on microstructure and mechanical properties of SiCp/2024 Al composite: A comparison with 2024 Al alloy

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2021.141413

关键词

SiCp; 2024 Al matrix composite; Powder thixoforming; Solution treatment; Microstructure; Mechanical properties; Strengthening mechanism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The solid solution treatment process of SiCp/2024 Al matrix composite has a hysteresis effect due to the SiCp particles, and the morphological changes of interface reaction layers during the treatment significantly affect the mechanical properties of the composite.
The effects of solid solution treatment on microstructure and mechanical properties of SiCp/2024 Al matrix composite fabricated via powder thixoforming were investigated, as well as those of 2024 matrix alloy for comparison. The results indicate that the solution progress of the composite is more hysteretic than that of the alloy due to the obstacle role of SiCp to eutectic dissolution and grain coarsening. Interestingly, interface reactions of SiCp/2024Al, similar to those during fabrication, continuously occur during the solution treatment. Simultaneously, two constituents of the interface reaction layer, Al2Cu and MgAl2O4 phases, change from the original agglomerated distribution to uniform distribution and finally to segregated form again accompanied by coarsening and phase transformation of Al2Cu into Al2CuMg. Such changes of the reaction layer significantly affect the interface debonding of SiCp/matrix or SiCp cracking during tensile test, and thus, the fracture regime and mechanical properties of the composite. The achieved modified shear-lag strengthening model by considering the strengthening effect of eutectic compounds can well interpret the strengthening mechanisms of these two materials, especially the variations of each strengthening mechanism contribution with solution time and the corresponding differences between these two materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据