Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

5th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016)

Fabrication of Aluminium Metal Matrix Composites with

Particulate Reinforcement: A Review
Yashpala *, Sumankantb, C.S.Jawalkarc, Ajay Singh Vermad, N.M.Surie
a*,d
Research Scholar, Production and Industrial Engineering Department, PEC University of Technology, Sector-12, Chandigarh 160012, India
b,c,e,
, Faculty, Production and Industrial Engineering Department, PEC University of Technology, Sector-12, Chandigarh 160012, India

Abstract

This paper presents a summary of work reported on Aluminium metal matrix composites with particulate reinforcement.
Aluminium metal matrix has growing demand in aircraft, automotive and other industries due to its light weight, high strength to
weight ratio, corrosion resistance and workability. Particle reinforced aluminium matrix composites are preferable due to their
reduced cost, uniform properties, and their ability to be like monolithic materials. Although numerous method are available to
fabricate the particulate metal matrix composite, stir casting is the most preferable one due to its cost effectiveness and
convenience. Present paper reviews the problems taken and results obtained by various authors who have contributed in the area
of Aluminium metal matrix composites with particulate reinforcement through stir casting. The reported works reveal that
decrease in particle size and increase in percentage addition of reinforcement increase hardness and tensile strength of the
composite.
©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials
Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016).

Keywords: Aluminium metal matrix composite; Particulate Reinforcement; Stir Casting; Hardness; Tensile Strength

1. Introduction

Composite materials are those materials which are made from two or more materials with different physical and
chemical properties, when combined produce a material which is having different properties from the unit materials.
In a composite typically, there are two constituents. One constituent act as a matrix and other constituent acts as
reinforcement. The composite materials are heterogeneous at microscale but homogeneous at macroscale. These

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +919466748006.

E-mail address:[email protected]

2214-7853©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials Processing and
Characterization (ICMPC 2016).
2928 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936

materials are combined in such a way that they can use of their virtues while minimising the some effects of their
deficiencies [1]. So the designer can make use of tougher and lighter materials, with properties that can suit
particular design requirements because there are so many constraints associated with the selection of conventional
materials. Composite materials are not only fabricated artificially but they are available as natural composites like
wood, teeth, bones etc [2]. There are mainly three types of composites according to the matrix material:- Polymer
Matrix Composites, Metal Matrix Composites and Ceramic Matrix Composites.
Polymer Matrix composites (PMCs) are the materials in which polymers are used as the matrix phase. There are
two main types of polymers which are thermosets and thermoplastics. PMCs are light weighted with high stiffness
and strength along the direction of the reinforcement. So they are useful in aircraft, automobiles, and other moving
structures [3]. They are in superior corrosion and fatigue resistance compared to metals. PMCs have limitations of
their service temperature i.e. below 316◦ C. Ceramic Matrix Composites are the materials in which ceramics are used
as the matrix phase. The ceramic matrix materials are carbon, silica carbide, silica nitride etc. They consist of
ceramic fibres embedded in ceramic matrix forming ceramic fibre reinforced ceramic materials. Ceramics have high
fatigue resistance, low thermal conductivity, high coefficient of friction, high elastic modulus and very high
temperature range of above 2000◦ C. The carbon-carbon composite are of Ceramic Matrix Composites used in space
shuttles because of high temperatures resistance [4]. These composites have low shear strength, susceptible to
oxidation at elevated temperature and high production cost. Metal Matrix Composites are the materials in which
metals are used as the matrix phase. The common metals used as matrix materials are aluminium, titanium,
magnesium and copper. The metal matrix is reinforced with the other material i.e. ceramic [5]. They have higher
temperature capability, strength and thermal conductivity than offered by PMCs [6].
Aluminium metal matrix composites (AMMCs) are the materials in which aluminium metal is used as matrix
material reinforced with other materials i.e. mostly ceramics like SiC, Al2O3, B4C, Ti2B etc. AMMCs have a
numerous applications in aerospace, ground and water transportation applications like in airframes, pistons,
driveshfats, submarine etc. Demands for AMMCs have been increasing due to their light weight and higher strength
to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, wear resistance, higher thermal conductivity [53]. Reinforcement can be in the
form of continuous and discontinuous i.e. whiskers, particulates, fibres. Particulate reinforced Aluminium metal
matrix composites (PAMMCs) are those composites in which aluminium matrix material is reinforced with
particulate reinforcement. These composites contain ceramic reinforcement with aspect ratio less than 5. PAMMCs
have a number of applications in ground transportation like pistons, transmission components, cylinder liners,
bearings, brakes etc [5]. These composites are isotropic in nature [7]. They can be fabricated by solid state (Powder
Metallurgy) and liquid state processes (Stir casting, Compo-casting, Squeeze Casting, in situ casting routes).
Among the various processing routes to fabricate the PAMMCs, Stir casting is commercially used due to ease,
flexibility and large quantity of production applicability. This is the most economical method amongst all other
available routes [8]. Large sized components can be fabricated through this route and it also allows conventional
metal processing route like extrusion, forging, rolling etc. For achieving the better properties of the PAMMCs, the
reinforcement distribution in the aluminium alloy should be uniform, and the wettability between these reinforced
particles should be optimised. The porosity needs to be minimised and chemical reactions between the
reinforcements and the aluminium alloy should be avoided.
The next section discusses about contributions of various authors who reported their work on AMMCs with
particulate reinforcement through stir casting.

2. Reported works on Particulate reinforced AMMCs

This section discusses the works reported on particulate reinforced AMMCs.

Al-TiB2 composites using stir casting process was synthesised. Three composite samples were prepared with
AA 1100, AA 1100-4.5 wt.% Cu and AA 1100-4.5 wt.% Cu-3 wt.% reinforced with 15 Vf% TiB2. Further cast
billets were extruded at 350◦ C at an extrusion ratio of 12:1 and a rate of 2.85 mm/s. Due to the addition of TiB2 in
AA 1100, the tensile and yield strengths found to be increased more than two times, also the modulus of the
elasticity increases about 20% [9]. However the ductility loss reported to be 68% as compared to the matrix
material. For AA 1100-4.5 wt.% Cu tensile and yield strengths increased to be three times however these increment
benefits were marred by ductility, the decrease in ductility amount was 84% as compared to the matrix material. In
AA 1100-4.5 wt.% Cu-3, the tensile and yield strengths improved to be 2.5 times and the ductility loss reported to
be 27% as compared to the matrix material. Al base (AA 1100) composite was reinforced in situ TiB2 particulates
 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936 2929

through stir casting technique [10]. The Al base matrix material (AA 1100), Al-5%Vf TiB2, Al-10% Vf TiB2 and Al-
15% Vf TiB2 were casted in the form of billet, further it was found that there is an increase in tensile and yield
strength, however decrease in the ductility. In an additional experiment 4% Cu was added to the Al matrix and then
composites were casted with 10% Vf TiB2 reinforcement to increase its strength. Results indicated that tensile and
yield strengths improved by a factor of 2.5 and 2.8 respectively as compared to the Al matrix (without Cu addition).
A384 with 10% SiC (average size 60 µm of particulates) metal matrix composite fabricated through stir
casting technique was synthesized using various stirring speeds and stirring times [11]. The stirring speed was
varied at 500/600/700 rpm and the stirring time varied at 5, 10 and 15 min after the addition of SiC. Better
distribution of particles and hardness were observed at 600 rpm with 10 min stirring time. The properties like tensile
strength and hardness of Al alloy/glass composites through stir casting followed by cryogenically cooled copper
chills was studied [12]. The glass particles were taken in the range of 50 to 100 µm with the weight of 3%, 6%, 9%
and 12%. The stirring speed was fixed at 560 rpm. Results indicated that the hardness, UTS and Young’s modulus
were higher for the chilled MMCs than for the matrix alloy. The values of these properties increased up to 9 wt%,
beyond which the trend seen to be reverse. The effects of three different stir casting routes, liquid metal stir casting,
compo-casting and modified compo-casting cum squeeze casting with the fly ash particles (13 µm average particle
size) reinforced to Al–7Si–0.35Mg alloy composite was investigated [13]. They reported that the density and
electrical conductivity of liquid metal stir casted composite were the smallest as compared to other two techniques
and found to be 2.44 g/cc and 18% IACS respectively. This happened due to the presence of porosity and large
agglomerates of particles in the composites.
Al-Si alloy reinforced SiC composite strip fabricated by single roll continuous strip casting (SRCSC)
method [14]. Their study was carried out with the vol. fraction of SiC of 5%, 10% and 12% particles in melt. The
particle sizes were chosen as 53-75 µm, 44-53 µm and < 25 µm. The stirring speed was taken to be 400-450 rpm
with stirring time 15-20 min at 720-740◦ C temperature of melt. The caster drum speed was set at 12-20 rpm. It was
reported that wettability of the particles were improved by addition of Mg and also with preheating of the particles
at high temperature of composite melt. Their Results revealed that hardness, tensile and yield strengths were higher
in the presence of smaller particles. It was also reported higher percentage of particles in composite reduced the
ductility. A356-5% SiCp composites fabricated through stir casting was characterized [15]. The reinforcements
added in the two forms as i.e. SiC powder or as particulate (Al-SiCp)cp composite powder which was produced by
low energy ball milling of equal volume of commercially pure aluminium powder of average size about 80 µm and
SiC powder of average size of about 8 µm for 52 h. The reinforcement was added as (Al-SiCp)cp composite powder,
10% volume fraction of the composite powder was injected in the melt of A356 alloy. The stirring speed was
maintained at 500 rpm and the stirring was done with the graphite stirrer. Argon gas was used as the carrier gas for
the injection of reinforcements. Their major findings are:- In samples of A356-SiCp composites, the distribution of
SiC particles were less uniform than samples of A356-(Al-SiCp)cp composites. A356-(Al-SiCp)cp composites had
lower porosity content than A356-SiCp composites. Hardness and impact energy were higher in A356-(Al-SiCp)cp
composites than A356-SiCp composites. A356-SiCp, A356-(Al-SiCp)cp and A356-(Al-SiCp-Mg)cp composites with
5vol.% of reinforcement particles fabricated through stir casting were studied [16]. SiCp, pure aluminium and pure
magnesium powders with average particle sizes of about 8, 80 and 40 µm respectively, were used to form
reinforcements. Stirring spped was kept at 500 rpm and stirring time was opted as 2 minutes. 1% Mg was added to
the melt just before addition of reinforcements to increase wettability. They reported that the distribution of SiC
particles in the aluminium matrix became more uniform when (Al-SiCp) and (Al-SiCp-Mg) composite powders were
used instead of SiCp. Porosity contents of A356-SiCp were higher than other fabricated composites. Tensile strength,
yield strength and elongation of A356-(Al-SiCp-Mg)cp composite had been found higher than others.
The mechanical properties of A356-Al2O3 micro and nano-composites fabricated through stir casting were
investigated [17]. 1, 3, 5 and 10 vol.% of micro sized and 1, 2 and 3vol.% nano sized particles were added to A356
alloy. Al2O3 particles sizes of 20 µm and 50 nm were used with stirring speeds of 200, 300 and 450 rpm to fabricate
composites. Stirring was done 10 min before and 10 min after addition of reinforcement particles to the melt. Major
findings were reported that: As the reinforcement percentages increased and reinforcement size decreased, hardness
and porosity increased however the wettability of the particles decreased in the molten matrix. Increasing in Al2O3
percentage, the compressive strength also increased. Compressive strength of nano-composites was reported to be
higher than micro-composites. Al–2wt.%Cu matrix composites reinforced with 1, 2 and 4 wt.% B4C nano-particles
with average size of 100 nm were fabricated via stir casting were studied [18]. Stirring was done for 3 min before
and 13 min after addition of reinforcement at speed of 420 rpm. The findings include that with increased
2930 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936

reinforcement content, density decreased and porosity increased. Further with increasing B4C particle content up to
2 wt.%; hardness, the yield strength and the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) increase but at 4 wt.% , these three
properties observed to be decreased. Al–2wt.% B4C had highest yield strength and UTS, however Al–2 wt% B4C
had lowest elongation to fracture, amount of 0.8%. The mechanical properties of A356-Al2O3 micro and nano-
composites fabricated by stir casting were investigated [19]. 1, 3, 5 and 7.5 wt.% of micro-sized and 1, 2, 3 and 4
wt.% nano-sized particles were added to A356 alloy. Al2O3 particles sizes of 20 µm and 50 nm were used with
stirring speed of 300 rpm to fabricate the composite samples. They reported that Porosity increases with the
reinforcement percentage increases. Porosity percentage was observed to be same for both 1% micro and nano-
reinforcement addition. They found that hardness increased with increasing weight percent of micro and nano-
particles. Yield and ultimate tensile strength of micro composite were reported to be increased upto 5wt.% micro-
sized Al2O3 reinforcement particles, after that it got decreased. For nano-composite, strength increased upto 2wt.%
reinforcement particles addition after that it decreased.
AA6061-B4C fabricated through stir cast composite was characterized [20]. B4C particles were added 2, 4,
6, 8, 10 and 12 wt.% of particle size 10 µm into the melt. Stirring speed was kept at 300 rpm with stirring time 5
min. K2TiF6 flux was added to improve the wettability. Argon gas was also used to provide inert atmosphere. The
hardness and tensile strength reported to be increased with increased content of B4C particles %age in the
composite. Stir cast AA6061-T6-AlNp composites were characterized [21]. AlNp of size 3-4 µm at different wt.% of
0, 5, 10, 15 and 15 were used to analyse the properties of the composite samples. 2% Mg was added to improve
wettability. Stirring speed was maintained constant at 450 rpm. Stirring was done for 260 s to made vortex flow in
the melt. Results indicated that, macro-hardness, micro-hardness, ultimate tensile strength and yield strength
increased with increased percentage of AlNp in the matrix however the elongation decreased. AA6063-SiC
composite fabricated through stir casting technique was studied [22]. 3, 6, 9 and 12 vol.% SiC reinforcements
(average size of 30 µm) were used to prepare composite. Borax was used as a wetting agent; it was mixed with SiC
in a ratio of 1:2. Stirring speed was kept at 300 rpm with stirring time 20 min. Tensile and yield strength increased
with increasing the reinforcement percentage in matrix material. AA6061-TiC composite fabricated through stir
casting method was characterized [23]. 3 to 7 vol.% TiC reinforcements were added for good weldability reasons.
AA6061-7vol.% TiC composite has been reported to have maximum tensile strength. AA6061-3% TiC composite
had maximum ductility among these reinforced composites. It was also reported that tensile strength increased with
higher % of TiC addition but ductility found to be decreased. Al-10vol.%TiC, Al-10vol.%B4C and Al-5vol.%TiC-
5vol.%B4C composites fabricated with average particle size of 30 µm through stir casting [24]. Flux of Na3AlF6 was
added to increase incorporation of TiC particles into the melt and B4C particles were heat treated at 800◦ C for 1 hr
to increase incorporation in the matrix. Mechanical characterization of samples revealed that the maximum hardness
belonged to Al–5%TiC–5%B4C composite, maximum yield and tensile strength belonged to Al–10%B4C composite
and maximum elongation belonged to Al–10%TiC composite.
The mechanical properties of Al/Fe-aluminide composite prepared through reactive stir casting route was
studied. Pure aluminium was melted in an alumina crucible inside an electrically heated pot furnace at 800◦ C and
stirred continuously for 30 min with a mild steel stirrer rotating at a speed of 500 rpm [25]. Before stirring the mild
steel stirrer was normalized treated at 850◦ C for 3h and subsequently air cooled to room temperature. Molten Al
reacts with the iron of mild steel stirrer to form iron aluminide intermetallic particles. It was observed that 1h
normalized composite sample has 76.3 MPa and 125.4 MPa yield and ultimate tensile strength respectively, which
was higher than commercially pure aluminium casted sample. Pure aluminium (AA 1000) and different mass
fraction of 3, 5 and 7% alumina, particles size of 20 µm were used to prepare composite [26]. Stirring was
maintained at a speed of 200, 300 and 500 rpm for 30 min. The particles were injected into the melt by argon gas.
Samples were extruded on a material testing machine with capacity of 25 t. The hot forming process was performed
at 500° C. Results indicated that the addition of Al2O3 particles greater than 5%, the agglomeration of particles
occurs. The hot extrusion resulted in uniform distribution of Al2O3 and particles orientation. The porosity was found
to be increased with increase in alumina mass fraction however reverse trend was seen in extruded ones by
approximately 50%. Hardness, yield and ultimate tensile strength of the extruded composites increases with
increasing stirring speed up to the level of 300 rpm.
The process parameters for stir casted Al-TiB2 composites with response surface methodology tool were
optimized. The mathematical models were developed to predict the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and hardness of
A356/TiB2 MMCs [27]. The process parameters were kept at five different levels of the following three factors:
temperature (800◦ C - 1000◦ C), reaction time (20 min to 40 min) and mass fraction of TiB2 (2% to 6%). It was
 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936 2931

reported that hardness increases with the increase in mass fraction of TiB2 for all values of reaction time. The
optimal input factor combination for Al/TiB2 composite was found as temperature 949.18 °C, reaction time 33.64
min and mass fraction of TiB2 5.96%. The maximum UTS and hardness are reported to be 261.84 MPa and 70.98
HV, respectively. Nano-sized aluminium oxide reinforced A356 matrix composite was fabricated through stir
casting [28]. Nano-Al2O3 powders with average size of 20 nm and aluminium and copper powders with average size
of 50 µm were used as components of reinforcement powders. Al and Cu powders were separately milled with
nano-Al2O3 particles and incorporated into A356 alloy via vortex method to fabricate A356/1.5% nano-Al2O3
composites. The stirring process was carried out at the constant rate of 450 rpm for 4, 8, 12, and 16 min at 850◦ C.
The as-cast specimens were then heat-treated (T6) to the following schedule: 8 h at 495◦ C, followed by 2 h at 520◦
C, followed by water quenching (40◦ C), and artificially aging for 8 h at 180◦ C. A356/1.5 vol.% Al2O3 using Al
particle-4 min stirring and A356/1.5 vol.% Al2O3 using Cu particle-4 min stirring was found 2.2% and 2.1%
porosity respectively, which were lowest than others. Porosity level increased with adding nano-particles into alloy
and with an increase in stirring time. Hardness and compressive strength improved with adding nano-Al2O3 particles
in A356 matrix. The maximum of hardness and compressive strength were seen in the Al2O3–Cu reinforced sample,
stirred for 4 min.
Al6061-Fly Ashp-SiCp composites fabricated through stir casting were characterized [29]. The amount of
silicon carbide particles were varied from 7.5 and 10 wt.% and a constant weight percentage of 7.5 wt.% fly ash
particles were considered for this fabrication. Stirring speed was kept at 350 rpm for 600 sec. Results indicated that
the micro and macro hardness of AMCs linearly increase with the increase of reinforcement particulates. Tensile
strength increases and elongation decreases with the increase of reinforcement. The mechanical behaviour of
AA6061-TiB2 composites fabricated through stir casting method was investigated [30]. 4, 8 and 12 wt.% TiB2
powder was added in the molten metal matrix. Stirring was done with the help of drilling machine for 10 min at a
stirring speed of 450 rpm. It was reported that the micro-hardness and tensile strength increased with increase in
amount of the reinforcement.
A359-Al2O3 metal matrix composite samples were fabricated through electromagnetic stir casting method
[31]. 2 wt.%, 4 wt.%, 6 wt.% and 8 wt.% Al2O3 of average 30 µm size were added in the molten matrix material.
Stirring was done with a speed of 300 rpm. Results suggested that the hardness and tensile strength increase with
increase in amount of reinforcement addition in the matrix. Hardness and tensile strength values obtained at 8 wt.%
of Al2O3 were about 58% and 45% higher than the matrix metal respectively. The hardness and tensile strength
properties of the AA6061-Al2O3 nano-composites fabricated through the developed stir-casting process were
investigated [32, 33]. Nano-Al2O3 particles with average size of 40 nm and aluminium powders with average size of
50 µm were used as component of reinforcement powders. The magnitude of the reinforcement added to the melt
was chosen 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5wt.%. Argon gas was used for injection of milled Al-nano-Al2O3 composite powder and
mechanical stirring was done at 450 rpm for 15 min. Results indicated that hardness, yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength increased up to 1wt.% reinforcement addition to the matrix material, after that it started decreased.
Compressive strength increased with increased amount of reinforcement in the matrix material however the ductility
percentage decreased. The mechanical properties of A356 reinforced with nano-Al2O3 particles with combination
effects of stir and squeeze casting were investigated [34]. The percentage inclusions of Al2O3 nano particles (30 nm)
were varied from 0.5 to 1.5wt.% in to the molten matrix with stirring speed at 400 rpm for 10 min of stirring time.
The squeeze casting temperature was kept at 750◦ C and pressure of 600 MPa. It was found that by adding 0.5, 1 and
1.5wt.% of reinforcement particles in the composite caused the percentage increase in hardness values 34.8, 42.2
and 24 respectively. A356-0.5wt.% Al2O3 had maximum compressive stress of 215 MPa; beyond 0.5wt.%
reinforcement addition in the matrix material, compressive strength decreased. Commercially aluminium alloy
reinforced with 2vol.% Al2O3 average size of 100 nm fabricated through stir casting method [35]. Stirring speed was
kept at 500rpm and argon was used as a carrier gas for the injection of reinforcement. Their results showed that it
had 4.8% porosity, ultimate tensile strength of 110 MPa and 2.1% elongation. Their other results were in the area of
rolled bounding.
Al-Cu-Mg alloy-bean pod ash (BPA) nano-particles synthesized by double layer feeding fabricated through
stir casting process [36]. The aluminium matrix composites (AMCs) were fabricated by varying the BPA nano-
particles from 1 to 4 wt%. The aluminium alloy A2009 (3.7%Cu and 1.4%Mg) was cut into small pieces and put
into the crucible to form a bottom layer of matrix. Then 1–4 wt% nano-particles with a gap of 1 wt% were placed on
top of this layer mitigating the drop of particles to the bottom of the crucible. Their results showed that density of
the composites decreased with increasing the percentage of reinforcement particles, it is due to density of BPA
2932 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936

particles are lower than density of aluminium alloyed. The addition of bean pod ash nano-particles to Al–Cu–Mg
alloy led to increase both the tensile strength and hardness values to 35% and 44.1% at 4 w.t% BPA nano-particles.
A356 aluminium alloy and MgO nano-particles (1.5, 2.5, and 5 vol.%) fabricated via stir casting [37].
Properties of nano MgO reinforced Al composites manufactured was analysed at different processing temperatures
of 800, 850, and 950◦ C for stir casting. Results indicated that growth of density occurs due to increasing the MgO
vol.% from 1.5 to 2.5 with variation processing temperatures. Increasing of MgO content from 1.5 to 2.5 vol.% in
all temperatures, hardness increasing this is due to hardness of MgO. In contrast, 5 vol.% of MgO has lower
hardness compare to the 2.5 vol.% samples which could be due to the formation of micro-pores in the interface of
MgO–Al matrix, that decreases the hardness of sample. A356-SiC composites with different weight percent of
reinforcements (5%, 10%, 15%) with an average size of 25 µm fabricated through electromagnetic stir casting [38].
Stirring was done at a speed of 210 rpm for the period of 7 minutes. From the porosity analysis, minimum porosity
was observed for the 5% reinforcement. Results indicated that hardness, tensile strength, toughness and fatigue
strength of the composites increased with increasing the wt.% of reinforcement addition to the matrix material.
The mechanical properties of AA6061-Al2O3 composite prepared through stir casting were evaluated [39].
Al2O3 particles with size of 125μm and with varying amounts of 6, 9 and 12wt% were used as reinforcing material
in the preparation of composites. Reinforcement was added at three stages at stirring speed of 200 rpm with a
stirring gap of 10 minutes. It was reported that the AA6061-6%Al2O3, AA6061-9%Al2O3 and AA6061-12%Al2O3
composites had 2.57, 2.58 and 2.35 g/cm3 density respectively. Hardness reported to be increased with increasing
amount of reinforcement addition to matrix material. Both yield and tensile strength of the composites was found to
be increased with the addition of increase of reinforcement however the elongation decreased with the addition of
increase of reinforcement. AA6061-SiC composites were prepared by reinforced with 5%, 10% and 15% of SiCp
(average size of 30-40 µm) fabricated through stir casting [40].The stirring speed was kept at 300 rpm. Results
indicated that the micro-hardness and UTS (ultimate tensile strength) of composites increased as the weight
percentage of SiC increased. AA6061-15wt.% SiCp composite exhibited 133.3% higher micro-hardness and 65.2%
higher UTS as compared to unreinforced AA6061 alloy. The mechanical behaviour of stir cast Al6061-TiB2
composites was predicted using response surface methodology [41]. TiB2 reinforcements of average size 1-10 µm
were added by weight at 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%. Stirring speed was maintained at 425 rpm with stirring
time 10 min. It was observed that the micro-hardness and tensile strength of the composites increases with
increasing the addition amount of TiB2.
AA1100-5wt.% Mg alloy reinforced with various wt.% of SiC of average size 20-25 µm (3, 6, 9 and 12)
composites fabricated through stir casting method [42]. The stirrer was maintained at a speed of 300 rpm. It was
observed that the porosity, hardness, yield strength and tensile strength of composite increased with increasing
addition of SiC particles. Al-Mg-Si alloy hybrid composites reinforced with 10 wt.% of alumina, rice husk ash and
graphite fabricated through two step stir casting process [43]. Alumina of average particle size of 30 µm, rice husk
ash and graphite with particle sizes (<50 µm) were selected as reinforcing materials. It was observed that there was a
general decrease in hardness with increase in the weight ratio of RHA and graphite in the composites. The decrease
in hardness with increase in RHA and graphite content has been a result of the lower hardness possessed by both
reinforcing materials compared to alumina. The tensile strength and yield strength decrease with increase in the
RHA content. There is a slight increase in tensile strength and yield strength for the composites containing graphite
in comparison to the respective composites without graphite, which do not contained more than 50% RHA, however
there is a general decrease in tensile strength and yield strength with increase in graphite content from 0.5 to 1.5wt.
AA6063-SiC composites containing 0, 5, 10, and 15 wt.% of SiC particles (average size 17-20 µm) were
fabricated through stir casting [44]. Mechanical Stirring was performed at a speed of 600 rpm for 10-15 min. Results
indicated that micro-hardness increased with increasing the amount of SiC particles in the composites. It was
observed that the tensile strength value of the composites initially increases as the percentage of SiC increases up to
10% and then tends to decrease for 15% SiC inclusion. A356 aluminium alloy reinforced with 7wt.% microsilica
composites fabricated through stir casting [45]. Microsilica with particle size in the range of 15 to 24 μm was used.
Magnesium (1 wt.%) was added in the molten metal. It was reported that microsilica composite in cast and heat
treated condition there is a significant reduction in the hardness value compared to base alloy.
Al–TiB2 in situ composites were synthesized by the exothermic reaction of halide salts (KBF4–K2TiF6)
with molten aluminium [46]. The stirring intensity (60, 180 and 300 rpm), stirring duration (5, 15, 30 and 60 min)
and stirring start time (initial, middle and later) were varied to investigate the effects of stirring parameters on the
microstructures and mechanical performances of the Al–4% TiB2 composites. Results indicated that the composite
 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936 2933

(Al-4wt.% TiB2) without stirring, particles distribution is quite non-uniform. After stirring for 15 min at a speed of
60 rpm, the particle distribution is improved. As stirring speed increased to 180 rpm, TiB2 particles distribute more
uniformly. The composite with 300 rpm stirring speed exhibited more homogeneous distribution and well developed
hexagonal morphology of TiB2 particles. The σ0.2 and ultimate tensile strength increased with the increasing in
stirring speed up to 180 rpm. Beyond the stirring speed 180 rpm, degradation in the tensile properties. Middle
stirring stage results in a relative poor strength compared to the initial stirring and later stirring. The class F type fly
ash 5wt.% (average size 53-106 µm) and aluminium alloy (ADC6) were used to cast the composite through stir
casting [47]. Results suggested that as compared to the ADC6 base alloy, tensile strength of casted composite
decreased from 241 to 143 MPa, 0.2% proof stress decreased from 215 to 150 MPa and elongation also decreased
from 2.95 to 1.19%.
The mechanical properties of A356-Al3Ti composites were studied [48]. The raw materials were base alloy
A356 ingot and inorganic salt K2TiF6 powder. On the basis of reaction, A356-6vol.% Al3Ti composites were
synthesized at 750◦ C. Stirring was kept at 400 rpm for 15 min. Results indicated that composite contained 0.68
vol% porosity. The elongation of the casted composite was found 4.2%. AA6082-Si3N4 composites fabricated
through stir casting method [49]. The percentage of reinforcement was varied from 0 wt.% to 12 wt.% in a gap of
3%. The average size of particles was opted as 50 µm. Stirring speed was kept at 200 rpm for 10 min. Results
suggested that the density increased from 2.69 to 2.75 g/cm3, porosity increased from 0.37 to 1.43%, micro-hardness
increased from 49.5 to 93.5 VHN, macro-hardness increased from 31.6 to 58 BHN and tensile strength increased
from 161.5 to 210 MPa however the ductility reduced from 8.7 to 4.3% with respect to the addition of wt.% Si3N4
reinforcement particles (0% to 12%). AA6061 reinforced with nano-Al2O3 particles with average size 40 nm and
weight percentages 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 fabricated through stir casting and ultrasonic assisted stir casting
process [50]. It was reported that the value of hardness increases with increase in nano particle contents and the
maximum value is obtained corresponding to 3.5 weight% of nano alumina particles. Hardness, tensile strength and
compressive strengths are observed to be higher with ultrasonic assisted stir casting method over mechanical stir
casting.
Hybrid aluminium metal matrix composite (LM 25+ Activated Carbon+ Mica) fabricated through stir
casting method and compared the properties with conventional composites (LM25+ Activated Carbon) and
(LM25+Mica). 10wt.% reinforcements were added to the aluminium alloy LM25 [51]. Stirring was done for 10 min
at a speed of 500 rpm. Results indicated that the hybrid composite material has maximum hardness and MMC with
mica has the least hardness. Tensile behaviour of A356 matrix composites reinforced with TiB2 nano (average size
20 nm) and micro (average size 5 µm) particles was investigated [52]. To fabricate the composites 0.5, 1.5, 3, and 5
vol.% of nano and micro TiB2 powders were used. Stirring process was carried out at the constant speed of 450 rpm
and stirring duration of 8 min at casting temperatures of 750, 800 and 900◦ C and in an inert atmosphere of argon
gas. The casted specimens were then heat treated to T6 condition. Results indicated that increasing the
reinforcement content in the matrix material and decrease in reinforcement particle size, the porosity content of
composites increased. The porosity content increased with an increase in casting temperature. The significant
improvements in tensile strength and toughness were obtained when 1.5 vol.% TiB2 nano-particles were introduced
into A356 alloy; further increase in nano-particle content led to the reduction in strength values. Nano-composites
showed higher ductility and toughness compared with those of the micro-particle reinforced counterparts.

3. Discussions and Conclusions

From previous section it can be seen that the properties like hardness, tensile strength, yield strength etc for
fabricated composites have been discussed as reported by various authors. The most of the works [18-23, 28-31, 38-
42] suggested that hardness and strength of the composites increased with the addition of reinforcement like SiC,
Al2O3, TiB2, B4C, TiC etc. B4C provides more hardness and strength as compared to others. Composite powders of
(Al-SiCp-Mg and Al-SiCp) composites, which act as reinforcement also increases the hardness and strength of the
composites; however composites reinforced with composite powders fabricated through stir casting contain lower
porosity content [15-16]. Reported works [14, 17, 19, 52] also reveal that smaller particle size reinforcement lead to
increase hardness and tensile strength. Nano-reinforcement particulate composites have higher strength than micro
reinforcement particulate composite with less %age of reinforcement addition [17, 19, 52]. However, after a limit
when reinforcement %age is increased in composite there is some agglomerates of reinforcement in the composite
2934 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936

occurs that decreases the strength of composite. Stirring is required at the initial stage during addition of
reinforcement particles, however larger stirring time was not reported to be effective [28, 46]. The limitation of
adding particulate reinforcement reported to be reduction the ductility of the alloy [9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, 36, 39,
47, 49 ]. For the convenience of readers, some of the important reported works are also presented in tabular form as
given below in table-1:-

Table 1. Reported works in tabular form on particulate Aluminium Metal Matrix Composite.
Matrix Reinforcement Particulate Stirring Speed Tensile
Authors Hardness Remarks
Material with %age size / Time Strength
Kalaiselvan et. al 300 rpm /
AA6061 12wt.% B4C 10 µm 80.8 HV 215 MPa K2TiF6 added
(2011) 5 Min.
500 rpm / 89 Mpa at
5vol.% SiC 8 µm -
Amirkhanlou and A356 2 Min. 300◦ C
Niroumand (Al-SiC-Mg)cp Alp : 80 µm
165.5 MPa
(2011) Composite Mgp : 40 µm -
at 300◦ C
Powder SiCp : 8 µm
77.1
10vol.%Al2O3 20 µm -
Sajjadi et. al 300 rpm / BHN
A356
(2011 ) 5 Min. 76.3
3vol.% Al2O3 50 nm -
BHN
Alizadeh et. al 420 rpm /
Al-2wt% Cu 2wt.% B4C 0.8 µm - 197 MPa
(2011) 17 Min
91 VHN
Kumar and 450 rpm /
AA6061 20wt.% AlN 3-4 µm & 79 241 MPa
Murugan (2012) 260 sec.
BHN
Alaneme and 300 rpm /
AA6063 12vol.% SiC 30 µm - 158.5 MPa
Aluko (2012) 20 Min.
Gopalakrishnan
Two step
and Murugan AA6061 7vol.% TiC - - - 230 MPa
stirring
(2012)
1200 rpm /
10vol.% TiC 44 HV 115 MPa
20 Min.
Mazaheri et. 800 rpm / Stir + Squeeze
Pure Al 10vol.% B4C 30 µm 51 HV 132 MPa
al(2013 ) 20 Min. Casting
5vol.% TiC + 1200 rpm /
55 HV 123 MPa
5vol.% B4C 20 Min.
Chatterji et. al 500 rpm / Reactive stir
Pure Al Al13Fe4 - - 125.4 MPa
(2013) 30 Min. casting
Niranjan et. al 70.98 261.84 K2TiF6 & KBF4
A356 5.96wt.% TiB2 - -
(2013) HV MPa used
78.8 HV
Selvam et. al 10wt.% SiC + 350 rpm / 1wt.% Mg
AA6061 - & 57.21 213 MPa
(2013) 7.5wt%Fly Ash 10 min. added
BHN
Suresh and 450 rpm / 10 72.46 137.86 Stirring by
AA6061 12wt.% TiB2 -
Moorthi (2013) min. HV MPa drilling mc
Kumar et. al 72.8 Electromagnetic
A359 8wt.% Al2O3 30 µm 300 rpm 148.7 MPa
(2013) HRC Stirring
Sekar et. al 400 rpm / Stir and
A356 1wt.% Al2O3 30 nm 70 HRB -
(2014) 10 min. Squeeze
Ezatpour et. al 1wt.% (Al- 450 rpm /
AA6061 40 nm - 260 MPa
(2014) Al2O3)cp 15 Min.
Ardakani et. al Commercial Elongation
2vol.% Al2O3 100 nm 500 rpm - 110 MPa
(2014) AA 2.1%
Dwivedi et. al 210 rpm / 104.66 309.83 Electromagnetic
A356 15wt.%SiC 25 µm
(2014) 7 min. BHN MPa stir
Bharath et. al 200 rpm / 193.47 Three step
AA6061 12wt.% Al2O3 125 µm -
(2014) 30 min. MPa mixing
Mohanakumara 5wt.% Mg
AA1100 12wt.% SiC 20-25 µm 300 rpm - 181.2 MPa
et. al (2014) added
Suresh et. al 425 rpm / 73.93 Stirring by
AA6061 10wt. TiB2 1-10 µm -
(2014) 10 min. HV drilling mc
Balasubramanian 71.93 180.61
10wt.% SiC 600 rpm / Small amount
and Maheswaran AA6063 17-20 µm kg/mm2 N/mm2
10-15 min. of Mg added.
(2015) 15wt.% SiC 86.07 175.25
 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936 2935

kg/mm2 N/mm2
180 rpm / Exothermic
Commercial 15 min initial reaction of
Chen et. al (2015) 7wt.% TiB2 - - 136.6 MPa
Al + 15 min last KBF4–K2TiF6 &
of 60 min molten Al
Fe and
Juang and Xue Al Alloy
5wt.% Fly Ashp 53-106 µm - - 143 MPa unburned C
(2015) (ADC6)
removed
Reaction of
400 rpm /
Yang et. al (2015) A356 6vol.% Al3Ti >20 µm - 163 MPa A356 and
15 min.
K2TiF6
Sharma et. al 200 rpm / 93.5 Argon gas till
AA6082 12wt.% Si3N4 50 µm 201 MPa
(2015) 10 min. VHN pouring
61.46 212.53 Mechanical
10-15 min.
HRB MPa Stirring
Kohli et. al
AA6061 3.5wt.% Al2O3 40 nm 10-15 min +
(2015 ) 74.25 254.72 Ultrasonic
2-3 min
HRB MPa stirring
(probe)
Akbari et. al 1.5vol.% TiB2 20 nm 450 rpm / - 364.9 MPa 800◦ C casted
A356
(2015) 3vol.% TiB2 5 µm 8 min. - 308 MPa then treated T6

References

[1] Yatheshth Anand, Varun Dutta, Advanced Materials Manufacturing & Characterization, Vol 3, Issue 1, (2013), 359-364.
[2] V B Gupta, Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research, Vol. 26, (2001), 327-340.
[3] D.D.L. Chung, Polymer Composites, Vol. 22, 2 (2001), 251-269.
[4] T.L. Dhami, O.P. Bahl, Carbon Science, Vol. 6, 3 (2005), 148-157.
[5] S. Sheshan, A. Guruprasad, M. Parbha, A. Sudhakar, J. Indian Inst. Sci., 76 (1996), 1-14.
[6] M. Rosso, 12th International Scientific Conference on Achievements in Mechanical & Materials Engineering, Gliwice, Poland, 2003.
[7] M K Surappa, Sadhana, Vol. 28, 1& 2, (2003), 319-334.
[8] J. Hashim, L. Looney, M.S.J. Hashmi, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 92-93, (1999), 1-7.
[9] K.L. Tee, L. Lu, M.O. Lai, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 89-90, (1999), 513-519.
[10] K.L. Tee, L. Lu, M.O. Lai, Composite Structures, 47, (1999), 589-593.
[11] S.Balasivanandha Prabu, L.Karunamoorthy, S.Kathiresan, B.Mohan, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 171, (2006), 268-273
[12] K.H.W. Seah, J. Hemanth, Composites: Part A, 38, (2007), 1395-1402.
[13] T.P.D. Rajan, R.M. Pillai, B.C. Pai, K.G. Satyanarayana, P.K. Rohatgi, Composite Science and Technology, 67, (2007), 3369-3377.
[14] R.K. Gupta, S.P. Mehrotra, S.P. Gupta, Materials Science and Engineering A, 465, (2007), 116-123.
[15] S. Amirkhanlou, B. Niroumand, Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 20, (2010), s788-s793.
[16] Sajjad Amirkhanlou, Behzad Niroumand, Materials Science and Engineering A, 528, (2011), 7186-7195.
[17] S.A. Sajjadi, H.R. Ezatpour, H. Beygi, Materials Science and Engineering A, 528, (2011), 8765-8771.
[18] A. Alizadeh, E. Taheri Nassaj, M. Hajizamani, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 27, 12, (2011), 1113-1119.
[19] S.A. Sajjadi, H.R. Ezatpour, M. Torabi Parizi, Materials and Design, 34, (2012), 106-111.
[20] K. Kalaiselvan, N.Murugan, Siva Parameswaran, Materials and Design, 32, (2011), 4004-4009.
[21] B. Ashok Kumar, N. Murugan, Materials and Design, 40, (2012), 52-58.
[22] K.K. Alaneme, A.O. Akulo, Scientia Iranica Transactions A: Civil Engineering, 19, 4, (2012), 992-996.
[23] S. Gopalakrishnan, N. Murugan, Composites: Part B, 43, (2012), 302-308.
[24] Y. Mazaheri, M. Meratian, R. Emadi, A.R. Najarian, Materials Science and Engineering, A 560, (2013), 278-287.
[25] Subhranshu Chatterji, Arijit Sinha, Debdulal Das, Sumit Ghosh, Amitava Basumallick, Materials Science and Engineering A, 578, (2013), 6-
13.
[26] H.R. Ezatpour, M. Torabi Parizi, S.A. Sajjadi, Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 23, (2013), 1262-1268.
[27] K. Niranjan, P.R. Lakshminarayanan, Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 23, (2013), 1269-1274.
[28] M. Karbalaei Akbari, H.R. Baharvandi, O. Mirzaee, Composites: Part B, 52, (2013), 262-268.
[29] David Raja Selvam J., Robinson Smart, D.S. Dinaharan I, Energy Procedia, 34, (2013), 637-646.
[30] S. Suresh, N. Shenbaga Vinayaga Moorthi, Procedia Engineering, 64, (2013), 1183-1190.
[31] Abhishek Kumar, Shyam Lal, Sudhir Kumar, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2, 3, (2013), 250-254.
[32] H.R. Ezatpour, S.A. Sajjadi, M.H. Sabzevar, Y.Z. Huang, Materials Science and Engineering A, 607, (2014), 589-593.
[33] Hamid Reza Ezatpour, Seyed Abolkarim Sajjadi, Mohsen Hadded Sabzewar, Yizhong Huang, Materials and Design, 55, (2014), 921-928.
[34] K. Sekar, Allesu K., M.A. Joseph, Procedia Materials Science, 5, (2014), 444-453.
[35] Mohammad Reza Kamali Ardakani, Sajjad Amirkhanlou, Shohreh Khorsand, Materials Science and Engineering A, 591, (2014) 144-149.
[36] C.U. Atuanya, V.S. Aigbodion, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 601, (2014), 251-259.
[37] Hossein Abdizadeh, Reza Ebrahimifard, Mohammad Amin Baghchesara, Composites: Part B, 56, (2014), 217-221.
[38] Sashi Prakash Dwivedi, Satpal Sharma, Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, Procedia Materials Science, 6, (2014), 1524-1532.
[39] Bharath V., Madev Nagaral, V. Auradi, S.A. Kori, Procedia Materials Science, 6, (2014), 1658-1667.
2936 Yashpal et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2927–2936

[40] J. Jebeen Moses, I. Dinaharan, S. Joseph Sekhar, Procedia Materials Science, 5, (2014), 106-112.
[41] Mohanakumara K.C., Rajashekar H., Ghanaraja S., Ajitprasad S.L., Procedia Materials Science, 5, (2014), 934-943.
[42] S. Suresh, N. Shenbaga Vinayaga Moorthi, S.C. Vettivel, N. Selvakumar, Materials and Design, 59, (2014), 383-396.
[43] Kenneth Kanayo Alaneme, Kazeem Oladiti Sanusi, Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 18, (2015), 416-422
[44] I. Balasubramanian, R. Maheswaran, Materials and Design, 65, (2015), 511-520.
[45] K.M. Sree Manu, K. Sreeraj, T.P.D. Rajan, R.M. Shereema, B.C. Pai, B. Arun, Materials and Design, 88, (2015), 294-301.
[46] Fei Chen, Zongning Chen, Feng Mao, Tongmin Wang, Zhiqiang Cao, Materials Science & Engineering A, 625, (2015), 357-368.
[47] Shueiwan H. Juang, Cheng-Shuo Xue, Materials Science & Engineering A, 640, (2015), 314-319.
[48] Rui Yang, Zhenya Zhang, Yutao Zhao, Gang Chen, Yuhang Guo, Manping Liu, Jing Zhang, Materials Characterization, 106, (2015), 62-69.
[49] Pardeep Sharma, Satpal Sharma, Dinesh Khanduja, Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies, 3, (2015), 352-359.
[50] Dinesh Kumar Kohli, Geeta Agnihotri, Rajesh Purohit, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2, (2015), 3017-3026.
[51] B.N. Sarada, P.L. Srinivasa Murthy, G. Ugrasen, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2, (2015), 2878-2885.
[52] M. Karbalaei Akbari, H.R. Baharvandi, K. Shirvanimoghaddam, Materials and Design, 66, (2015), 150-161.
[53] Ajay Singh Verma, Sumankant, Narender Mohan Suri, Yashpal, Material Today: Proceedings, 2, (2015), 2840-2851.