0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

An Experimental Determination of Optimum Processing Parameters for AlSiC Metal Matrix Composites Made Using Ultrasonic Consolidation

[+] Author and Article Information
Y. Yang, G. D. Janaki Ram

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4130

B. E. Stucker

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4130brent.stucker@usu.edu

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 129(4), 538-549 (Apr 15, 2007) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2744431 History: Received October 23, 2006; Revised April 15, 2007

Ultrasonic consolidation, an emerging additive manufacturing technology, is one of the most recent technologies considered for fabrication of metal matrix composites (MMCs). This study was performed to identify the optimum combination of processing parameters, including oscillation amplitude, welding speed, normal force, operating temperature, and fiber orientation, for manufacture of long-fiber-reinforced MMCs. A design of experiments approach (Taguchi L25 orthogonal array) was adopted to statistically determine the influences of individual process parameters. SiC fibers of 0.1mm diameter were successfully embedded into an Al 3003 metal matrix. Push-out testing was employed to evaluate the bond strength between the fiber and the matrix. Data from push-out tests and microstructural studies were analyzed and an optimum combination of parameters was achieved. The effects of process parameters on bond formation and fiber/matrix bond strength are discussed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Solidica Formation™ ultrasonic consolidation machine. (b) Schematic of the ultrasonic consolidation process (not to scale).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of the MMC deposit

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic of push-out testing (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Experimental setup for push-out testing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

SEM images of Run #5: (a)200×, (b)500×, and (c)1000×

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

SEM microstructures of confirmation deposits: (a)100× and (b)500×

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Variation in average debonding load (Y-axis) as a function of chosen levels for various parameters (X-axis): (a) debonding load versus oscillation amplitude, (b) debonding load versus normal force, (c) debonding load versus temperature, (d) debonding load versus welding speed, and (e) debonding load versus fiber orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

SEM microstructures of MMC deposits: (a) Run #3 (2.3N)(b) Run #13 (2.8N), (c) Run #2 (4.0N), and (d) Run #5 (6.6N). All images are 500×. Values in brackets are the respective average debonding loads.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

AE signal and applied load plotted as a function of time during push-out test: (a) Indentation on fiber (Run #1), and (b) indentation on matrix material when no fiber is present (the load remains constant at 9.8N after reaching the maximum loading capacity of the machine)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a) SEM microstructure of an embedded Cu wire (100×). (b) SEM microstructure of an embedded stainless steel wire mesh (200×).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In