Journal of Materials Processing Technology 133 (2003) 203–206

P/M aluminum matrix composites: an overview

J.M. Torralbaa,*, C.E. da Costab, F. Velascoa
a
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, c/Butarque no. 15, 28911 Leganés, Madrid, Spain
b
Centro de Ciencias Tecnológicas, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, CEP 89223–100, Joinville, Brazil

Abstract

This paper reviews the state of art concerning powder metallurgy (P/M) aluminum matrix composites. Among all the metal matrix
composites (MMCs) aluminum could be the most widely used metal as matrix due to its low density coupled with high stiffness. There are
different manufacturing methods which can be applied for this composite. From these, P/M could be remarked as a highly effective and
economic method compared with other alternatives.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Metal matrix composites (MMCs); Aluminum; Powder metallurgy

1. Introduction compared with ingot metallurgy or diffusion welding, the

Composite materials were developed as an alternative for
obtaining materials with high stiffness (high strength/mod-
ulus and low density) with special interest for the aerospace
and aeronautical industries. In principle, continuously rein-
forced materials offer better specific strength, and the effort
involved in their development has been higher than for other
composites. Unfortunately, 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 form-
ing 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-continu-
ously reinforced composites have been applied [1–5].
Composites with non-continuous reinforcement do not
have the same level of properties as continuously reinforced
composites, but their cost is lower, their processing methods
are more adaptable to conventional ones and their perfor-
mance is acceptable. Moreover, some interesting advantages
in properties such as thermal stability and wear behaviour
can be achieved [6–8].
2. Particulate composites obtained by powder
metallurgy (P/M)
The powder metallurgy (P/M) route for manufacturing
metal matrix composites (MMCs) offers some advantages
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: torralba@ing.uc3m.es (J.M. Torralba).
main of which is the low manufacturing temperature that
avoids strong interfacial reaction, minimizing the undesired
reactions between the matrix and the reinforcement [3]. In
other cases, P/M allows materials to be obtained which
cannot be obtained by any other alternative route (i.e. SiC
reinforcing Ti alloys) [9]. Composites that use particles or
whiskers as reinforcement can be obtained easily by P/M
than by other alternative routes; moreover, particles are
cheaper than continuos fibers of the same composition
[3,10]. Another advantage of P/M is the uniformity in the
reinforcement distribution. This uniformity not only
improves the structural properties but also the reproduci-
bility level in the properties [11–14].
In Table 1 some manufacturing methods for obtaining
composites are compared in terms of some attributes. In
Table 2 different process and reinforcements are compared
in terms of cost.
3. Aluminum alloys matrix
For a long period of time, aluminum alloys were some of
the most widely used materials as the matrix in MMCs, both
in research and development and in industrial applications.
This is mainly due to the low density of aluminum alloys (the
first requirement in most applications). Moreover, they are
cheap if compared with other low density alloys (such as Mg
or Ti). Finally, aluminum alloys are very well-known alloys
due to their high use in several industries, from automotive
and aeronautics to leisure [15]. Their excellent behaviour,
from different points of view (strength, ductility, corrosion),

0924-0136/02/$ – see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 3 4 - 0
204 J.M. Torralba et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 133 (2003) 203–206

Table 1
Relative characteristics of different manufacturing processes [2]
Attributes Process

Powder Co-spray Rheocasting Liquid

metallurgy infiltration
Microstructural versatility 1 2 2 2
Semicontinuous process 3 1 1 4
Low potential cost 4 2 1 2
Industrial maturity 1 2 2 4
Fig. 1. Left: mechanically alloyed intermetallic; right: atomized inter-
1¼best
metallic reinforcing a 2014 aluminum alloy.

Table 2 multiple improvements in the composite properties. Inter-

Trends in costs for different forming methods and reinforcements metallics offer, as a general rule, an increase in wear and
Process Cost Reinforcement corrosion behaviour as well as an improvement in mechan-
Diffusion joining Monofilaments
ical properties [28]. In Fig. 1 intermetallics with two dif-
Powder metallurgy Whiskers ferent morphologies, reinforcing an aluminum matrix can be
Spray methods Short fibers seen. One of the problems that must be controlled in
Melting process Particles reinforcing with intermetallics is their higher reactivity with
the matrix which can reduce the age hardenability of the
matrix alloy [28].

is very well known and can be modified in order to satisfy

different applications. 5. Aluminum matrix composite obtained by in
From all of the aluminum alloys, especially recommended situ formation
for MMCs, are the age hardening of Al alloys (Al–Cu–Mg
and Al–Zn–Mg–Cu) [16–18]. The commonly known example of in situ processing is the
Recently, in this group the age hardening Al–Li alloys unidirectional eutectic solidification. However, the newly
have been included. Li alloy to the Al decreases the density developing processes are based on two principles: controlled
in the same way that it increases the Young’s modulus, and reaction between a molten alloy and a gas, and the subsequent
this is especially interesting for the aerospace industry forming of reinforces in the molten metal, and/or endothermic
[19,20]. reactions between the components in order to produce the
reinforcement. The latter process is known as self-autopro-
pagating high temperature synthesis (SHS). One example of
4. Particles reinforcing aluminum alloys controlled reactions in a liquid is the in situ oxidizing process,
called the lanxide process [29,30]. In this process molten Al
Ceramic particles are some of the most widely used oxidizes to produce a mixture of Al and Al2O3.
materials for reinforcing aluminum alloys. In this way,
the aging process can accelerate in aging alloys and the
hardness can be improved considerably with direct impact 6. Spray forming
and wear behaviour. The widely used particles for reinfor-
cing Al alloys are SiC and Al2O3. Besides its density being One of the P/M process to obtain MMCs is spray forming
slightly higher than the density of aluminum SiC, it is among (Fig. 2). This is based on powder gas atomizing (which
the widely used due to it low cost and its wide range of consists of a melt of metal that is atomized by a gas at high
available grades. SiC promotes an increase in the Young’s pressure). In the case of spray forming the atomized beam
modulus and tensile strength of the composite [21–24].
Another interesting advantage of SiC reinforcement is an
increase in the wear behaviour.
The second most used reinforcement is Al2O3. Compared
with SiC it is more stable and inert and has better corrosion
and high temperature behaviour [25,26]. The way for sol-
ving its non-reactivity with the matrix is to alloy the matrix
or to coat the reinforcement.
Recently, a new family of particle reinforcement has been
used with promising results: intermetallics [27,28]. The
most used systems are Ni–Al (probably the most promising)
and Fe–Al, but other systems such as Al–Nb can suggest Fig. 2. Spray-forming process.
 J.M. Torralba et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 133 (2003) 203–206
strikes an intermediate preform (which is the matrix of the
composite with the desired shape).
MMCs manufactured by this method are made by the
introduction of reinforced particles inside the atomizing
beam for being incorporated into the solidified alloy. The
contact time between the liquid metal and the reinforcing
particles is short. This fact and the high cooling rate of the
molten particles reduce the interfacial reaction possibilities.
In this way the formation of brittle and undesired interfacial
compounds is minimized [3].
The atomizing melting rate is close to 5 kg/min, and the
obtained preform has a density of 95% of the theoretical
value. After that, a finishing operation must be done (such as
forging, extrusion or rolling) in order to obtain the full
density.
This processing method gives the obtained parts a fine
microstructure with a very homogeneous distribution of the
reinforcing material, and they can retain a high amount of
alloying elements in solution.
7. Conventional P/M
The P/M process usually involves mixing of powders of
the matrix alloy with the reinforcing particles, followed by
compacting and solid state sintering. This means using lower
temperatures than other alternative processing methods,
with less interaction between the matrix and the reinforce-
ment. It is very important that all particles are homoge-
neously distributed in the mixture in order to obtain a good
microstructure. When whiskers 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 fibers in the matrix.
Fig. 3. Conventional P/M process.
205
Fig. 4. P/M extrusion process.
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. In Figs. 3 and 4 the basic P/
M process and the typical extrusion sequence for the P/M
process can be seen [30].
8. Properties of P/M aluminum matrix composites
In general, P/M aluminum matrix composites exhibit
good levels of mechanical properties compared with those
from other alternative manufacturing processes. In Table 3,
reported by Harris [7], results for different P/M composites
are compared with those from materials obtained by squeeze
casting. Added to the base alloys, the best mechanical
properties can be obtained with the corresponding heat
treatment especially developed for each MMC because
the reinforcement can modify the solution and aging con-
ditions. One improvement of the composites regarding the
base alloys of the matrix is the behaviour at high temperature
which usually improves due to the effect of the ceramic
reinforcements. In case of an Al matrix, this can be increased
to more than 200 MPa in tensile strength by short periods of
holding time at 300 8C [7]. Longer periods can produce the
appearance of dimensional instabilities.
9. Summary
P/M is one of the most widely used methods for producing
aluminum matrix composites due to its low processing costs
added to its high versatility. On the other hand, some types of
composites cannot be made by any other alternative route.
Aluminum alloys offer a combination of mechanical and
tribological properties and low density that makes them
206 J.M. Torralba et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 133 (2003) 203–206

Table 3
Mechanical properties for different Al MMCs

Materials Manufacturing Young’s s0.2 (MPa) smax (MPa) Elongation (%) Fracture toughness
pffiffiffiffi
method modulus (GPa) (MPa m

Al–Cu Squeeze cast 70.5 174 261 14.0 –

AlCu þ Al2 O3 (Vf ¼ 0:2 fiber) Squeeze cast 95.4 238 374 2.2 –
Al–Cu–Mg (T6), 2014 Spray (sheet) 73.8 432 482 10.2 –
AlCuMg þ SiC (T6), Spray (sheet) 93.8 437 484 6.9 –
Vf ¼ 0:1–10 m part
Al–Cu–Mg (T4), 2124 Powder rolling (sheet) 72.4 360 525 11.0 –
AlCuMg þ SiC (T4), Powder rolling (sheet) 99.3 420 610 8.0 18
Vf ¼ 0.17–3 mm part
Al–Cu–Mg (T6), 2124 Powder rolling (sheet) 73.1 425 474 8.0 26
AlCuMg þ SiC (T6), Powder rolling (sheet) 99.6 510 590 4.0 17
Vf ¼ 0.17–3 mm part
Al–Si–Mg (T6), 6061 Spray þ rolling (sheet) 69.0 240 264 12.3 –
AlSiMg þ SiC (T6), Spray þ rolling (sheet) 91.9 321 343 3.8 –
Vf ¼ 0:1–10 mm part
Al–Zn–Mg–Cu (T6), 7075 Spray þ extrusion 71.1 617 659 11.3 –
AlZnMgCu þ SiC (T6), Spray þ extrusion 92.2 597 646 2.6 –
Vf ¼ 0:12–10 mm part
Al–Li–Cu–Mg (T6), 8090 Spray (sheet) 70.5 420 505 6.5 38
AlLiCuMg þ SiC (T6), Spray (sheet) 104.5 510 550 2.0 –
Vf ¼ 0:17–3 mm part

highly suitable for composite manufacturing that can be
used in several industries. The widely used particle reinfor-
cements are SiC, Al2O3 and recently different system of
intermetallics.
References
[1] V.K. Lindroos, M.J. Talvitie, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 53 (1995) 273–
284.
[2] A. Feest, Metal Powder Report, October 1992, p. 4045.
[3] D.L. Erich, Prog. Powder Metall. 46 (1986) 45–65.
[4] H.E. Deve, C. McCullough, J. Mater. (JOM) (July 1995) 33–37.
[5] T. Zhang, J.R.G. Evans, M.J. Bevis, The Int. J. Powder Metall. 32 (4)
(1996) 331–339.
[6] S. Suresh, A. Montensen, A. Needleman (Eds.), Fundamentals of
Metal Matrix Composites, Butterworth/Heinemann, London, 1993.
[7] S.J. Harris, AGARD Lectures Senes no. 174, New Light Alloys,
1990, pp. 4:1–4:21.
[8] W.D. Pollock, T.D. Bayha, F.E. Wawner, Adv. Powder Metall. 3
(1989) 449–460.
[9] F. Hehmann, F.H. Froes, PM’94, Vol. III, Paris, 1994, pp. 1591–1604.
[10] W.H. Hunt Jr., T.J. Rodjom, Adv. Powder Metall. 9 (1992) 21–31.
[11] S. Holecek, M. Prazák, M. Procio, A. Al-Rashed, PM’94, Vol. III,
1994, pp. 1631–1634.
[12] J.S. Zhang, X.J. Liu, H. Cui, Z.Q. Sun, G.L. Chen, Metall. Mater.
Trans. A 28A (5) (1997) 1261–1269.
[13] Y. Odani, Y. Takeda, T. Hayashi, K. Akechi, Metal Powder Report,
October 1990, pp. 712–716.
[14] F.H. Froes, C. Suryanarayana, P.R. Taylor, C.M. Ward-Close, P.
Goodwin, Powder Metall. 39 (1) (1996) 63–65.
[15] D.J. Lloyd, Adv. Struct. Mater. (1990) 1–21.
[16] W.J. Ullrich, Prog. Powder Metall. 46 (1986) 535–556.
[17] D.P. Voss, Mod. Dev. Powder Metall. 13 (1981) 467–481.
[18] H.-C. Shih, N.J. Ho, J.C. Huang, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 27A (1996)
2479–2494.
[19] M.J. Tan, L.H. Koh, Y. Murakoshi, T. Sano, PM’94, Vol. III, 1994,
pp. 1987–1990.
[20] J.C. LaSalle, R.L. Bye, D. Raybould, S.K. Das, Adv. Powder Metall.
3 (1989) 225–236.
[21] A.J. Mourisco, F. Ambrosio Filho, J.L. Rossi, PM’94, Vol. III, 1994,
pp. 1959–1962.
[22] T. Marcelo, M.H. Carvalho, H. Carvalhinhos, Y. Song, T.N. Baker,
Euro PM’95: Light Alloys, 1995, pp. 181–188.
[23] R. Sagar, P.K. Madan, M. Kumar, S. Sachdeva, Adv. Powder Metall.
9 (1992) 45–56.
[24] U.V. Bhanuprasad, R.B.V. Bhat, A.K. Kuruvilla, K.S. Prasad, A.B.
Randey, Y.R. Mahajan, Int. J. Powder Metall. 7 (3) (1991) 227–
235.
[25] F. Bonollo, L. Ceschini, G.L. Garagnani, App. Comp. Mater. 4
(1997) 173–185.
[26] T. Das, P.R. Munroe, S. Bandyopadhyay, J. Mater. Sci. 31 (1996)
5351–5361.
[27] M. Lieblich, J.L. González-Carrasco, G. Caruana, Intermetallics 5
(1997) 515–524.
[28] C. E. Costa, Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain,
1998.
[29] D.L. Erich, Prog. Powder Metall. 46 (1986) 45–65.
[30] T. Nukami, M.C. Flemings, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 26A (1995)
1877–1884.