Applicability of metallic reinforcements for mechanical performance enhancement in metal matrix composites: a review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) micrographs of fracture surfaces of Mo/6082Al AMCs containing Mo particles: (a) 0 vol.%; (b) 6 vol.%; (c) 12 vol.%; and (d) 18 vol.%. Blue circle: fractured particles; red circle: pull out particles; yellow circle: pull out particle pits. Source: adapted from Selvakumar et al. (2017), with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 2. Representative tensile behaviour of as-received Al, SFSPed Al and SFSPed AMCs: (a) tensile curves; (b) comparison of the yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and elongation. Inset shows a tensile test specimen. Source: adapted from Huang et al. (2018), with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 3. (a) Stress–strain graphs of the composite and FESEM micrographs of fracture surface of: (a) AA6063; and (b) AA6063/12 vol.%. V AMC. Blue arrow: fractured particles; red arrow: pull out particles; yellow arrow: pull out particle pits. Source: adapted from Abraham et al. (2019), with permission from Elsevier.

Table 1. Summary of the mechanical response of Al matrix composites developed with metallic-based reinforcements.

Matrix + reinforcement	Processing technique	Tensile			Compressive			Strengthening/toughening mechanisms
		Yield strength (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	Elongation (%)	Yield strength (MPa)	UCS (MPa)	Elongation (%)
Al + Fe (Fathy et al., 2015)	Powder metallurgy					550	65	Dispersion
Al + Ni 10%	Stir casting		1295					Interaction between matrix and reinforcement
40% (Pal et al., 2015)			918
Al + Ni (Yadav & Bauri, 2010)	Friction stir processing		123	25				Grain boundary/ductile nature of reinforcement
Al + Cu 4%	Die casting		121.45	10.26				Solid solution, presence of intermetallics
6%			129	14.56
8%			131 .37	6.02
10% (Kumar & Devi, 2014)			86.57	4.86
Al + steel chips 5%	Powder metallurgy	176		25				Interfacial bonding/plastic strain capacity of reinforcement
7.5%		220		20
10% (Emara, 2017)		260		17
Al + steel chips 4%	Double stir casting		125 ± 5	14 ± 5				Grain refinement, interface bonding /intrinsic toughening of reinforcement
6%			138 ± 5	13.6 ± 5
8% (Alaneme et al., 2018)			150 ± 5	13 ± 5
Al + Mo 6%	Friction stir processing		259 ± 2	15 ± 2				Good interface bonding, grain refinement/plastic flow and thermal conductivity of reinforcement
12%			278 ± 2	9 ± 2
18% (Selvakumar et al., 2017)			303	7 ± 2
Al + Ti (Huang et al., 2018)	Multi-pass submerged friction stir processing	246	432	23.2				Grain refinement, grain boundary/absence of intermetallics, plastic deformability of reinforcement
Al + V 12% (Abraham et al., 2019)	Friction stir processing		268	20				Grain refinement, effective load transfer, presence of strong interfaces, consistent dispersion/ductility and thermal conductivity of reinforcement
Al + Zr57Ti8Nb2.5Cu13.9-Ni11.1Al7.5 40%	Powder metallurgy					200	30	Load transfer by shear
60% (Scudino et al., 2009)						250	10
Al + [(Fe1/2Co1/2)75B20Si5]96Nb4 (Aljerf et al., 2012)	Powder metallurgy				570	600	12	Higher mechanical strength of reinforcement
Al + Mg65Cu20Zn5Y10 10%	Uniaxial hot pressing				203	247	$\sim$ 25	Indirect strengthening by increased dislocation density
30% (Wang et al., 2014)					221	323	5.8
Al + Fe-based metallic glass (Zheng et al., 2014)	Powder metallurgy				403	660	12	Grain refinement, uniform distribution of reinforcement

Table 2. Tensile properties of the MB15 alloy and composites.

Materials	State	UTS (MPa)	0.2% Yield strength (MPa)	Elongation to fracture (%)	Young’s modulus (GPa)
MB15 alloy	Extruded	283	202	8.9	45.5
	Aged	315	229	8.5	46.2
TCp/MB15 alloy	Extruded	352	278	6.0	51.6
	Aged	386	295	5.6	52.8
SiCp/MB15 alloy		355	302	3.2	57.0

Source: adapted from Xi et al. (2005).

Table 3. Room temperature tensile test results for Mg alloys and ZK51 reinforced composite.

Materials	UTS (MPA)	0.2% Yield strength (MPa)	Elongation to fracture (%)	Young’s modulus (GPa)	Linear work hardenening rate
ZK51 alloy	315	229	8.5	46.2	10.4
SiCp/ZK51	355	302	3.2	57.0	17.7
TAp/ZK51	386	295	5.6	52.8	16.9

Source: adapted from Xi et al. (2006).

Figure 4. (a) Stress–strain curves in compression test at room temperature of hot extruded Mg composite materials reinforced with Ti particles by using elemental mixture powders. Ti content: 0, 3 and 5 mass%. Source: after Umeda et al. (2010), with permission from Elsevier. (b) Stress–strain curves in tensile test at room temperature of hot extruded pure Mg and Mg–3 mass% Ti composites via a water atomization process, compared with extruded pure Mg using cast ingot. Source: after Umeda et al. (2010), with permission from Elsevier.

Table 4. Tensile properties of Mg, Mg alloys and Mg-based composites.

Material	Processing routes	Size of Ti particulates	0.2 Yield strength (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	Ductility (%)
Pure Mg	Disintegrated melt deposition		73.5 ± 5.4	130.3 ± 4.4	13.82 ± 1.42
Mg-0.58Ti	Disintegrated melt deposition	30–50 nm	134 ± 7	190 ± 7	6.3 ± 0.6
Mg-0.97Ti	Disintegrated melt deposition	30–50 nm	135 ± 3	197 ± 8	8.3 ± 0.6
Mg-1.98Ti	Disintegrated melt deposition	30–50 nm	162 ± 5	231 ± 12	7.7 ± 0.1
Pure Mg	Disintegrated melt deposition		100 ± 4	258 ± 16	7.7 ± 1.2
Mg-2.2Ti	Disintegrated melt deposition	19 ± 10 µm	163 ± 12	248 ± 9	11.1 ± 1.4
Mg-4Ti	Disintegrated melt deposition	19 ± 10 µm	154 ± 10	239 ± 5	9.5 ± 0.3
Mg-10Ti	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion	˂150 µm		160	8
Pure Mg	Powder metallurgy		182	223	14.3
Mg-1 wt.%Ti	Powder metallurgy	29.8 µm	180	221	16.1
Mg-3 wt.%Ti	Powder metallurgy	29.8 µm	184	224	14.9
Mg-5 wt.%Ti	Powder metallurgy	29.8 µm	179	218	15.5
Pure Mg	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion		155	221	9.4
Mg-3 wt.%Ti	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion	29.8 µm	192	251	8.9
Pure Mg	Disintegrated melt deposition		125 ± 9	169 ± 11	6.2 ± 0.7
Mg-2.2Ti	Disintegrated melt deposition	˂140 µm	158 ± 6	226 ± 6	8.0 ± 1.5
Pure Mg	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion		136 ± 8	170 ± 7	6.1 ± 1.0
Mg-2.2Ti	Powder Metallurgy followed by hot extrusion	˂140 µm	151 ± 4	190 ± 4	4.2 ± 0.6
Pure Mg	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion		131 ± 5	163 ± 4	3.2 ± 2.5
Mg-10 wt.%Ti	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion	10-25 µm	141 ± 4	212 ± 5.1	11 ± 3
Mg-10 wt.%Ti-0.18GNPs	Powder metallurgy followed by hot extrusion	10-25 µm	160 ± 5.3	230 ± 3	14 ± 3.4
AZ63	As sand cast		75	180	4
AZ81	As sand cast		80	140	3
AZ91	As sand cast		95	135	2
AZ31	Wrought followed by extrusion		130	230	4
AZ61	Wrought followed by extrusion		180	260	7
ZK61	Wrought followed by extrusion		210	285	6

Source: adapted from Meenashisundaram and Gupta (2014).

Table 5. Summary of the mechanical response of Mg matrix composites developed with metallic-based reinforcements.

Matrix + reinforcement	Processing technique	Tensile			Compressive			Strengthening/toughening mechanisms
		Yield strength (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	Elongation (%)	Yield strength (MPa)	UCS (MPa)	Elongation (%)
Mg + Ni 7.3%	Disintegrated melt deposition technique coupled with hot extrusion	337 ± 15	370 ± 14	4.8 ± 1.4				Uniform distribution of reinforcements, presence of intermetallics
14%		420 ± 27	460 ± 4	1.4 ± 0.1
24% (Hassan & Gupta, 2002b)			313 ± 29	0.7 ± 0.1
Mg + Cu 10%	Disintegrated melt deposition technique coupled with hot extrusion	281 ± 13	355 ± 15	2.5 ± 0.2				Effective load transfer, presence of intermetallics
18%		355 ± 11	386 ± 3	1.5 ± 0.3
26% (Hassan & Gupta, 2003)			433 ± 27	1.0 ± 0.1
Mg + Cu 3.59% (Ho et al., 2004)	Disintegrated melt deposition technique coupled with hot extrusion	299 ± 5	382 ± 6	6 ± 1				Presence of secondary phases
Mg + Cu 0.3%	Microwave assisted rapid sintering and hot extrusion processing	188 ± 13	218 ± 11	5.9 ± 1.1				Work hardening, thermal mismatch, Orowan strengthening, effective load transfer
0.6%		237 ± 24	286 ± 8	5.4 ± 1.2
1.0% (Wong & Gupta, 2007)		194 ± 17	221 ± 17	2.9 ± 0.4
Mg + Ti 5.6%	Disintegrated melt deposition technique coupled with hot extrusion	163 ± 12	248 ± 9	11.1 ± 1.4				Dislocation strengthening/Ti diffusional dissolution
9.6% (Hassan & Gupta, 2003)		154 ± 10	239 ± 5	9.5 ± 0.3
Mg + Ti–6Al–4V 10% (Xi et al., 2005)	Powder metallurgy	278	352	6.0				Effective load transfer, grain refinement
Mg + Ti–6Al–4V 10% (Xi et al., 2006)	Powder metallurgy	295	386	5.6				Work hardening
Mg + Ti 1%	Powder metallurgy	180 (+6, 4)	221 (+7, −9)	16.1 (+1.5, −1.2)				Orowan strengthening, effective load transfer
3%		184 (+5, 8)	224 (+9, –4)	14.9 (+1.1, −1.0)
5% (Umeda et al., 2010)		179 (+6, −3)	218 (+6, −6)	15.5 (+1.4, −2.0)
Mg + Ti 0.58%	Disintegrated melt deposition technique coupled with hot deformation	134 ± 7	190 ± 7	6.3 ± 0.6	129 ± 2	431 ± 8	17.4 ± 0.3	Dislocation strengthening, grain refinement, load bearing capacity of reinforcement
0.97%		135 ± 3	197 ± 8	8.3 ± 0.6	130 ± 8	413 ± 15	18.5 ± 0.6
1.98% (Meenashisundaram & Gupta, 2014)		162 ± 5	231 ± 12	7.7 ± 0.1	120 ± 5	415 ± 4	17.7 ± 0.8
Mg + Ti 10%	Semi powder metallurgy	∼147	∼212	∼11.1				CTE and elastic modulus mismatch, Orowan strengthening, load transfer mechanism
Mg + Ti-Al 10% (Rashad et al., 2015)		∼163	∼238	∼21.2				Synergistic effect of two ductile reinforcements (Ti and Al)
Mg + metallic glass (Dudina et al., 2009)	Induction heating and low-pressure sintering				325	542	10.5
Mg + Ni50Ti50 3%	Microwave sintering and hot extrusion	94 ± 5	144 ± 6	8.8 ± 1.7	67 ± 9	291 ± 12	15.9 ± 0.7	Dislocation strengthening, grain size strengthening
Mg + Ni50Ti50 6%		127 ± 4	183 ± 6	6.5 ± 0.9	89 ± 3	368 ± 8	15.1 ± 1.5
Mg + Ni50Ti50 10% (Sankaranarayanan et al., 2015)		148 ± 7	178 ± 9	2.0 ± 1.3	102 ± 4	417 ± 6	14.9 ± 2.0

Figure 5. Compressive stress strain–curves corresponding to composite specimen with different volume fraction of Ta particles (large irregularly shaped). Source: adapted from Cardinal et al. (2019), with permission from Elsevier.

Table 6. Summary of the mechanical response of Cu matrix composites developed with metallic-based reinforcements.

Matrix + reinforcement	Processing technique	Tensile			Compressive			Strengthening/toughening mechanisms
		Yield strength (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	Elongation (%)	Yield strength (MPa)	UCS (MPa)	Elongation (%)
Cu + steel chips 5% (Alaneme & Odoni, 2016)	Double stir casting		235 ± 5.5	27 ± 0.8				Good interface bond/high plastic strain capacity of reinforcement
Cu + Ta (Cardinal et al., 2019)	Spark plasma sintering					800–1000	10 ± 3	/
Cu + AlCoNiCrFe 10%	Powder metallurgy	240
20% (Chen et al., 2015)		330

Table 7. Summary of the mechanical response of Zn matrix composites developed with metallic-based reinforcements.

Matrix + reinforcement	Processing technique	Tensile			Compressive			Strengthening/toughening mechanisms
		Yield strength (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	Elongation (%)	Yield strength (MPa)	UCS (MPa)	Elongation (%)
Zn + Steel chips 5%	Double stir casting		190 ± 5	6.5 ± 0.5				Good interface bond
7.5%			160 ± 3	5 ± 0.4
10% (Alaneme et al., 2016)			145 ± 3	4.5 ± 0.4

Selvakumar, S., Dinaharan, I., Palanivel, R., & Babu, B. G. (2017). Characterization of molybdenum particles reinforced Al6082 aluminium matrix composites with improved ductility produced using friction stir processing. Materials Characterization, 125, 13–22.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, G., Wu, J., Hou, W., & Shen, Y. (2018). Microstructure, mechanical properties and strengthening mechanism of titanium particle reinforced aluminum matrix composites produced by submerged friction stir processing. Materials Science & Engineering A, 734, 353–363.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abraham, S. J., Dinaharan, I., Selvam, J. D. R., & Akinlabi, E. T. (2019). Microstructural characterization of vanadium particles reinforced AA6063 aluminum matrix composites via friction stir processing with improved tensile strength and appreciable ductility. Composites Communications, 12, 54–58.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fathy, A., El-Kady, O., & Mohammed, M. M. (2015). Effect of iron addition on microstructure, mechanical and magnetic properties of Al-matrix composite produced by powder metallurgy route. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 25(1), 46–53.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pal, M. K., Singh, Sandhu, S., Kalia, R., & Ghosh, A. (2015). Identification of optimum composition and mechanical properties of Al-Ni metal matrix composite. Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering, 3, 326–334.

 Google Scholar

Yadav, D., & Bauri, R. (2010). Nickel particle embedded aluminium matrix composite with high ductility. Materials Letters, 64(6), 664–667.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, V. M., & Devi, C. N. (2014). Evaluation of mechanical characteristics for aluminum-copper metal matrix composite. Research Journal of Engineering Science, 3(3), 1–5.

 Google Scholar

Emara, M. M. (2017). Enhanced tensile hardness and wear behaviors of pure aluminum matrix reinforced with steel chips via powder metallurgy technique. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 3149516(72809107), 012041. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/191/1/012041

 Google Scholar

Alaneme, K. K., Bodunrin, M. O., & Awe, A. A. (2018). Microstructure, Mechanical and Fracture Properties of Groundnut Shell Ash - Silicon Carbide hybrid reinforced with aluminium-based composites. King Saud University Journal: Engineering Science, 30(1), 96–103.

 Google Scholar

Scudino, S., Liu, G., Prashanth, K. G., Bartusch, B., Surreddi, K. B., Murty, B. S., & Eckert, J. (2009). Mechanical properties of Al-based metal matrix composites reinforced with Zr-based glassy particles produced by powder metallurgy. Acta Materialia, 57(6), 2029–2039.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aljerf, M., Georgarakis, K., Louzguine-Luzgin, D., Le, Mouleca, A., Inoue, A., & Yavaria, A. R. (2012). Strong and light metal matrix composites with metallic glass particulate reinforcement. Material Science and Engineering A, 532, 325–330.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, Z., Tan, J., Sun, B. A., Scudino, S., Prashanth, K. G., Zhang, W. W., … Eckert, J. (2014). Fabrication and mechanical properties of Al-based metal matrix composites reinforced with Mg65Cu20Zn5Y10 metallic glass particles. Material Science and Engineering A, 600, 53–58.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zheng, R., Yang, H., Liu, T., Ameyama, K., & Maa, C. (2014). Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminum alloy matrix composites reinforced with Fe-based metallic glass particles. Materials and Design, 53, 512–518.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xi, Y. L., Chai, D. L., Zhang, W. X., & Zhou, J. E. (2005). Ti–6Al–4V particle reinforced magnesium matrix composite by powder metallurgy. Materials Letters, 59(14-15), 1831–1835.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xi, Y. L., Chai, D. L., Zhang, W. X., & Zhou, J. E. (2006). Titanium alloy reinforced magnesium matrix composite with improved mechanical properties. Scripta Materialia, 54, 9–23.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Umeda, J., Kawakami, M., Kondoh, K., Ayman, E., & Imai, H. (2010). Microstructural and mechanical properties of titanium particulate reinforced magnesium composite materials. Materials Chemistry and Physics, 123(2-3), 649–657.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meenashisundaram, G. K., & Gupta, M. (2014). Low volume fraction nano-titanium particulates for improving the mechanical response of pure magnesium. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 593, 176–183.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hassan, S. F., & Gupta, M. (2002b). Development of high strength magnesium based composites using elemental nickel particulates as reinforcement. Journal of Materials Science, 37(12), 2467–2474.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hassan, S. F., & Gupta, M. (2003). Development of high strength magnesium–copper based hybrid composites with enhanced tensile properties. Materials Science and Technology, 19(2), 253–259.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ho, K. F., Gupta, M., & Srivatsan, T. S. (2004). The mechanical behavior of magnesium alloy AZ91 reinforced with fine copper particulates. Materials Science and Engineering A, 369(1-2), 302–308.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wong, W. L. E., & Gupta, M. (2007). Development of Mg/Cu nanocomposites using microwave assisted rapid sintering. Composite Science and Technology, 67(7-8), 1541–1552.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rashad, M., Pan, F., Asif, M., She, J., & Ullah, A. (2015). Improved mechanical proprieties of “magnesium based composites” with titanium e aluminum hybrids. Journal of Magnesium and Alloys, 3(1), 1–9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dudina, D. V., Georgarakis, K., Li, Y., Aljerf, M., LeMoulec, A., Yavari, A. R., & Inoue, A. (2009). A magnesium alloy matrix composite reinforced with metallic glass. Composite Science and Technology, 69(15-16), 2734–2736.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sankaranarayanan, S., Hemanth, Shankar, V., Jayalakshmi, S., Quy, Bau, N., & Gupta, M. (2015). Development of high performance magnesium composites using Ni50Ti50 metallic glass reinforcement and microwave sintering approach. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 627, 192–199.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cardinal, S., Pelletier, J. M., Xie, G. Q., Mercier, F., & Dalmas, F. (2019). Enhanced compressive plasticity in a Cu-Zr-Al: Based metallic glass composite. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 782, 59–68.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alaneme, K. K., & Odoni, B. U. (2016). Mechanical properties wear and corrosion behavior of copper matrix composites reinforced with steel machining chips. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 19(3), 1593–1599.

 Google Scholar

Chen, J., Niu, P., Wei, T., Hao, L., Liu, Y., Wang, X., & Peng, Y. (2015). Fabrication and mechanical properties of AlCoNiCrFe high-entropy alloy particle reinforced Cu matrix composites. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 649, 630–634.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alaneme, K. K., Adeoye, K. O., & Oke, S. R. (2016). Mechanical and wear behaviour of steel chips reinforced Zn27Al composites. Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies, 29, 1–16.

 Google Scholar