| Literature DB >> 28793688 |
Attila Szlancsik1, Bálint Katona2, Kornél Májlinger3, Imre Norbert Orbulov4,5.
Abstract
Iron hollow sphere filled aluminum matrix syntactic foams (AMSFs) were produced by low pressure, inert gas assisted infiltration. The microstructure of the produced AMSFs was investigated by light and electron microscopy, extended by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and electron back-scattered diffraction. The investigations revealed almost perfect infiltration and a slight gradient in the grain size of the matrix. A very thin interface layer that ensures good bonding between the hollow spheres and the matrix was also observed. Compression tests were performed on cylindrical specimens to explore the characteristic mechanical properties of the AMSFs. Compared to other (conventional) metallic foams, the investigated AMSFs proved to have outstanding mechanical properties (yield strength, plateau strength, etc.) and energy absorbing capability.Entities:
Keywords: cellular materials; compression; electron back-scattered diffraction; energy dispersive spectroscopy; hollow sphere; mechanical characterization; metal matrix composites; metallic foams; microstructure; syntactic foams
Year: 2015 PMID: 28793688 PMCID: PMC5458885 DOI: 10.3390/ma8115432
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
The steps of the applied grinding and polishing process.
| Abrasive | Time (min) | Load (N) | Revolution (min−1) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P 320 SiC | 1 | 22 | 220 | counter |
| P 600 SiC | 1 | 22 | 220 | counter |
| P 1200 SiC | 1 | 22 | 220 | counter |
| P 2400 SiC | 1 | 22 | 220 | counter |
| 6 μm diamond | 15 | 27 | 150 | counter |
| 3 μm diamond | 6 | 27 | 150 | counter |
| 0.05 μm SiO | 3 | 27 | 125 | comply |
Figure 1Micrograph of a typical GM grade iron hollow sphere in (a) Al99.5-O; (b) AlSi12-O; (c) AlMgSi1-O; and (d) AlCu5-O AMSF.
Figure 2Line EDS profiles of (a) Al99.5-O; (b) AlSi12-O; (c) AlMgSi1-O; and (d) AlCu5-O AMSFs. The lines and direction of measurements are shown in the inset images.
Figure 3(a) SEM image; (b) EBSD image; and (c) image quality map of the iron sphere wall (cross-section).
Figure 4(a) EBSD image and (b) image quality map of Al99.5-O AMSF.
Figure 5Typical compressive response of AMSFs and the interpretation of the characteristic properties.
Figure 6Yield and plateau strength values of the investigated AMSFs.
Figure 7Structural stiffness values of the investigated AMSFs.
Figure 8Absorbed mechanical energy values of the investigated AMSFs up to the initial fracture (ε = 1%) and to the end of the test (ε = 50%).
Chemical composition and basic properties of the constituent materials (measured by EDS).
| Matrix | Chemical Element (wt %) | Young Modulus, | Density, | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al | Mg | Si | Cu | Fe | Other | |||
| Al99.5 | 99.5 | – | 0.1 | – | 0.1 | 0.3 | 69.0 | 2.71 |
| AlSi12 | 86.0 | 0.1 | 12.8 | – | 0.1 | 1.0 | 78.6 | 2.65 |
| AlMgSi1 | 97.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | – | 0.5 | 0.3 | 70.0 | 2.70 |
| AlCu5 | 95.0 | – | – | 4.5 | – | 0.5 | 73.1 | 2.81 |
| Fe sphere wall | – | – | – | – | 99.9 | 0.1 | 212.0 | 7.80 |
Figure 9Schematic sketch of the infiltration chamber.