James B. Min

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

James A. Cornie

Metal Matrix Cast Composites, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts

Fracture Analysis of Particulate Reinforced

Metal Matrix Composites

NASA/TM—2013-217871

May 2013
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
James B. Min

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

James A. Cornie

Metal Matrix Cast Composites, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts

Fracture Analysis of Particulate Reinforced

Metal Matrix Composites

NASA/TM—2013-217871

May 2013

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 1 

Fracture Analysis of Particulate Reinforced 

Metal Matrix Composites 

James B. Min 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

James A. Cornie 

Metal Matrix Cast Composites, Inc. 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02453 

Abstract 

A fracture analysis of highly loaded particulate reinforced composites was performed using laser 

moire interferometry to measure the displacements within the plastic zone at the tip of an advancing 

crack. Ten castings were made of five different particulate reinforcement-aluminum alloy combinations. 

Each casting included net-shape specimens which were used for the evaluation of fracture toughness, 

tensile properties, and flexure properties resulting in an extensive materials properties data. Measured 

fracture toughness range from 14.1 MPa m for an alumina reinforced 356 aluminum alloy to 

23.9 MPa m for a silicon carbide reinforced 2214 aluminum alloy. For the combination of these K 

values and the measured tensile strengths, the compact tension specimens were too thin to yield true plane 

strain KIc values. All materials exhibited brittle behavior characterized by very small tensile ductility 

suggesting that successful application of these materials requires that the design stresses be below the 

elastic limit. Probabilistic design principles similar to those used with ceramics are recommended when 

using these materials. Such principles would include the use of experimentally determined design 

allowables. In the absence of thorough testing, a design allowable stress of 60 percent of the measured 

ultimate tensile stress is recommended. 

Introduction 

Metal matrix composites are being increasingly substituted in place of metals in a variety of 

applications. Such substitutions can be successful when the mechanical properties of such composites are 

adequately considered; however, the mechanical properties of composites are often poorly understood 

resulting in potentially unfavorable consequences. 

Metal matrix composites can be made via numerous processing techniques. The advanced pressure 

infiltration casting (APIC) process (Ref. 1) was used for producing particulate-loaded composites. These 

materials, which typically have 40 to 70 percent of the particulate volume fraction, exhibit the behavior 

which lies between that of ceramics and that of metals. For example, APIC processed aluminum-alumina 

alloys have ultimate strengths equal to those of the base aluminum alloys, stiffness equal to those of cast 

iron or steel (at significantly less weight), yet minimal strains to failure. These same materials have fracture 

toughness, which are significantly below those of metals, yet 3 to 5 times greater than those of ceramics. 

To facilitate the appropriate application of these composites, the current study was undertaken to first 

characterize the fracture behaviors and limiting strengths of APIC processed composites, and then to 

develop a design guide for the application of particulate-loaded metal matrix composites. The study was 

performed for the following three primary objectives to: (1) study the mode I fracture behavior of highly 

loaded particulate composites (Alumina, B4C, and SiC) by applying tensile loading to thin plates with 

single edge notch cracks, (2) develop a mechanical properties database for the above materials, and 

(3) set the groundwork for the development of a design guide with brittle composite materials. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 2 

Materials and Methods 

Central to the first two objectives stated above was the production and testing of eight combinations 

of aluminum alloy matrix and reinforcement. 

Selection of Matrix Alloys 

Aluminum alloys 356 and 2214 were chosen as the matrix alloys for all of the castings produced in 

this study. Their compositions are listed in Table 1. Alloy 2214 was chosen because fracture data are 

much needed. The alloy 356 Al-Si was chosen because mechanical property data are lacking for high 

silicon alloys. 

Particulate composites based on the 520, 201, 295, and 2214 aluminum alloys were previously 

studied (Ref. 2). The constituents for these alloys are also listed in Table 1. These alloys are essentially 

Al-Mg, Al-Cu-Mg, Al-Cu-Si, and Al-Cu-Si-Mg alloys. 

TABLE 1.—NOMINAL COMPOSITION OF MATRIX ALLOYS 

AND EXPECTED PRECIPITATING PHASES 

Aluminum Cu Mg Si Precipitating phases 

Alloy Percent Percent Percent In matrix At internal interfaces 

356 0.25 0.3 7.0 Si Al-Mg spinel, Si 

2214 4.5 0.5 0.85 CuAl2, Si Al-Mg spinel, CuAl2, Si 

520 0.25 10.0 0.25 Mg5Al8 Al-Mg spinel, Mg5Al8

201 4.6 0.55 0.1 CuAl2 Al-Mg spinel, CuAl2

295 4.5 0.03 1.1 CuAl2, Si CuAl2, Si 

To increase the strength of a discontinuously reinforced material, it is desirable to increase the 

strength of the matrix/particulate interface and the strength of the matrix. Increasing the interface strength 

also increases toughness; however, to increase bulk toughness the matrix alloy might have to be softened. 

Each elemental addition has some effect in the matrix and at the internal interfaces. The addition of 

silicon has three potential strengthening effects. It can produce matrix strength through solid solution 

hardening and through precipitation hardening. It also leads to the precipitation of the silicon at 

reinforcement/matrix interfaces. In alumina reinforced systems the silicon precipitates will strongly 

adhere to the alumina and would therefore toughen the reinforcement interface. Similar effects might 

occur with other reinforcements. 

Copper alloying additions can provide similar solid solution and precipitation strengthening; 

however, it also leads to the precipitation of the CuAl2

 intermetallic at reinforcement/matrix interfaces. 

This precipitation is detrimental to the performance of particulate reinforced composites as CuAl2

debonds easily from alumina (Ref. 3). 

Magnesium increases mechanical properties in several ways: it produces solid solution hardening, 

and it leads to the formation of an Al-Mg spinel which strongly adheres to alumina; and its precipitate, 

Mg5

Al8, also strongly adheres to alumina. Regarding the aluminum-magnesium spinel layer on the 

reinforcement, it should be noted that this spinel forms in the liquid state during solidification and does 

not dissolve into the matrix during subsequent heat treatments. If anything, heat treatments would only 

increase the thickness of the spinel layer. 

Aluminum-Silicon-Magnesium—356 Alloy 

This alloy is essentially an aluminum—7 percent silicon with a small percentage of magnesium. In the 

alumina reinforced systems, the magnesium is expected to form magnesium-aluminum oxide spinel during 

casting by reaction of the melt with the reinforcement. This spinel is expected to strengthen the matrixparticle interface. The balance of the alloy (aluminum-silicon) should solidify as an eutectic structure. Heat 

treatment will result in spheroidal process of the dendrites and precipitation of silicon in the matrix, or at 

interfaces. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 3 

Aluminum-Copper-Silicon-Magnesium—2214 Alloy 

This alloy contains all three elements considered in this study. It was surmised that in alumina 

reinforced systems the magnesium would be largely consumed upon solidification due to the formation of 

the spinel. This would shift the matrix to the tertiary Al-Cu-Si system where there would be solid solution 

strengthening and precipitation hardening due to the presence of copper in the matrix and also 

precipitation strengthening of the interface due to silicon. We also expected interfacial CuAl2

precipitation during heat treatments. It is known that the copper solution and precipitation hardening 

greatly increases the strength of aluminum and provides versatility through heat treatment. 

Aluminum-Magnesium—520 Alloy 

This alloy is essentially Al-10% Mg. It was expected that in alumina reinforced systems the 

aluminum-magnesium spinel would form at the interfaces and there would be solid solution hardening in 

the matrix. Large amounts of Mg5

Al8 were expected to form at the matrix/particulate interface upon heat 

treatment which would strongly adhere to the particulate. 

Aluminum-Copper-Magnesium—201 Alloy 

It was already known that CuAl2 does not strongly adhere to alumina; however, this detrimental 

influence on interfacial strength is only triggered after the long over-aging in the discontinuously coated 

interface (DCI) heat treatment. Addition of Mg is intended to offset this effect and to strengthen the 

interface after conditional heat treatments. This allows a variation in matrix yield strength in Cu rich 

alloys, from a peak at T6 condition described in Table 2 to a low after over-aging, without a concern for 

interface strength reduction. 

Aluminum-Copper-Silicon—295 Alloy 

Both the weakly adhering CuAl2 and the strongly adhering Si were expected to precipitate from this 

alloy. It was observed that alternating areas of strongly and weakly bonded precipitation has dramatically 

increased the toughness of continuously reinforced composites. This same mechanism might operate in 

particulate reinforced materials. 

Selection of Ceramic Reinforcements 

The pressure infiltration process (Ref. 4) allows a large variety of ceramic reinforcements to be 

incorporated into an aluminum matrix. A fundamental requirement is that the reinforcement must be 

thermodynamically compatible or non-reacting with molten aluminum. Many oxides and carbides satisfy 

this requirement. Although continuous or discontinuous reinforcements can be successfully pressure 

infiltrated, the low cost potential of the APIC process can be best realized with particulate reinforcements 

which allow the mold cavities to be filled by slurry processing. 

The particulate reinforcements used in this study were alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), and 

silicon carbide (SiC) particulates. All of the particulates had a median particle size of nominally 15 m. 

The alumina particulate was a fused white alumina having the  crystal structure. These particulates have 

characteristically strong shapes because during their manufacture they are milled causing the weakest 

particles to fracture. Although alumina particulate has a significant density impact, its low cost makes it 

an attractive reinforcement. Boron carbide particulate is of interest in weight sensitive applications, 

because it’s low density results in composites of lower density than that of the aluminum matrix. A 

drawback of B4C is its relatively high cost. Silicon carbide, SiC, is attractive because of its low density 

and high thermal conductivity. SiC with a “blocky” shape was chosen over the more acicular powders 

available to maximize fracture toughness of the composite. A standard, abrasive grade aluminum oxide 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 4 

(alundum), the above high purity aluminum oxide and the above “blocky” SiC particulates were used as 

reinforcements. The abrasive grade alumina (“Dark” alumina) was selected because of its relatively low 

cost. The high purity alumina (“White” alumina) was chosen for its strength and lower iron content. All 

powders were 15 μm average in diameter. 

Selection of Heat Treatments 

To improve their mechanical properties, each set of specimens cast in the current study was heat 

treated by solution heat-treating, water quenching and then artificially-aging to a T6 temper. The heat 

treating times and temperatures used for the 2214 and 356 alloys are given in Table 3. 

The 356 alloy is a hypo-eutectic alloy containing 7 wt.% silicon and minor amounts of magnesium. 

The maximum solid solubility of silicon in aluminum is 1.65 wt.%; therefore, the heat treatment serves 

primarily to form spheroids of the eutectic structure. On the other hand, the copper present in the 2214 

alloy is fully soluble at the solution temperature, and forms fine precipitates on aging. 

All mechanical test specimens were heat treated to three conditions: T6, T7, or discontinuously 

coated interface (DCI) condition. The time and temperature for each condition is given in Table 2. T6 is 

the condition at which the matrix has peak hardness and theoretically peak strength. The T7 condition 

results in lower hardness in the alloy and possibly more ductility. Note that these heat treat times are 

shortened for the alloys selected. This is because the small inter-particle spacings in highly loaded 

composites greatly accelerate diffusion kinetics. These times, shown in Table 2, are based on highly 

loaded aluminum-224 alloys. The DCI treatment is a very over-aged condition at an intermediate 

temperature (between the age-hardening and homogenization temperatures) where intermetallic 

precipitates are easily formed at internal interfaces. These intermetallics may or may not be strongly 

adhering to the reinforcing material. 

TABLE 2.—TIME AND TEMPERATURE INFORMATION FOR HEAT TREATMENTS 

OF MATRIX ALLOYS 201, 2214, 295, AND 520 

Alloy T4 T6 T7 DCI 

201 530 °C 24 hr, 

water quench 

T4 followed by 

160 °C 10 hr, 

air cool 

T4 followed by 

200 °C 4 hr, 

air cool 

T7 followed by 

350 °C 48 hr, 

air cool 

2214 500 °C 24 hr, 

water quench 

T4 followed by 

170 °C 8 hr, 

air cool 

T4 followed by 

200 °C 4 hr, 

air cool 

T7 followed by 

350 °C 48 hr, 

air cool 

295 515 °C 24 hr, 

water quench 

T4 followed by 

155 °C 10 hr, 

air cool 

T4 followed by 

200 °C 4 hr, 

air cool 

T7 followed by 

400 °C 48 hr, 

air cool 

520 445 °C 24 hr, 

water quench 

N/A T4 followed by 

200 °C 4 hr, 

air cool 

T7 followed by 

350 °C 48 hr, 

air cool 

TABLE 3.—TREATING TIMES AND TEMPERATURES FOR 

ALUMINUM ALLOYS 356 AND 2214 

 Solid solution heat treatment Artificial aging heat treatment 

Alloy Time, 

hr 

Temperature, 

°C 

Time, 

hr 

Temperature, 

°C 

356 12 535 3.5 150 

2214 12 502 8.0 170 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 5 

Design and Fabrication of Specimens 

The fracture, tensile, and flexure properties of the materials were evaluated using appropriately 

designed specimens. The compact tension specimens, illustrated in Figure 1, were used to evaluate the 

Mode I fracture properties. Tensile coupons were flat dog-bones with gage sections 0.186 in. thick by 

0.5 in. wide. The flexure bars had nominal 0.312 by 0.25 in. cross sections and 5 in. overall length. 

Mold cavities for the above specimens were designed and machined into graphite such that 3 compact 

tension specimens, 5 flat tensile specimens, 4 flexure bars, and 2 impact toughness specimens could be 

cast at one time. Figure 2 shows the mold cavities used to cast specimens. For each combination of alloy 

and reinforcement, the mold pack was filled with a slurry of the desired reinforcement, allowed to dry, 

placed into a mold vessel, outgassed, preheated in an inert atmosphere, covered with molten Al alloy, 

evacuated from beneath through a vent tube and pressure infiltrated with the desired alloy. The product of 

one such casting is shown in Figure 3. All test specimens were cast to net shape and tested without further 

machining, other than gate removal. 

The APIC process allows net-shape castings to be made with accurate reproduction of detail. In this 

study, fracture specimens having a defined notch, tensile specimens, and flexure specimens suitable for 

mechanical testing were successfully cast. 

The combinations of alloy and reinforcement cast are provided in Table 4. 

After casting, each set of specimens was removed from the graphite molds and then given the desired 

heat treatment. Heat treating was done using a Blue M convection oven. Prior to mechanical testing all 

specimens were x-rayed to identify any casting defects. 

Figure 1.—Sketch of single edge notched compact 

tension specimen. 

Figure 2.—Graphite mold cavities used to cast test 

specimens. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 6 

Figure 3.—Product of one casting showing three compact tension, five tensile, four flexure specimens, 

and two ballistic specimens. 

TABLE 4.—MATRIX ALLOY AND REINFORCEMENTS 

COMBINATIONS CAST

Matrix alloy Reinforcement 

2214 Aluminum Alumina, Al2O3 (3 castings) 

2214 Aluminum Boron carbide, B4C (2 castings) 

2214 Aluminum Silicon carbide, SiC (2 castings) 

356 Aluminum Alumina, Al2O3

356 Aluminum Boron carbide, B4C 

Testing 

The Mode I fracture testing was performed. Crack length, a, to specimen width, w, ratios (a/w) of 0.3 

and 0.5 were used in testing. For an a/w ratio of 0.3, fatigue pre-cracks were generated at the root of the 

cast notches by cyclically loading the specimens. For an a/w ratio of 0.5, the cast notch was first extended 

by using a 0.3 mm wide diamond saw blade and then extended by fatiguing the specimen. The fatigue 

pre-cracks provide the necessary sharply- defined crack for accurate Mode I fracture testing. Moiré 

diffraction gratings were replicated on the surface of these specimens for measuring the two-dimensional 

deformation field using a four beam interferometer. The specimens were then loaded to failure while 

displacements, loads, and crack length were measured. 

For tensile testing, loads measured with a load cell were recorded as function of strain which was 

measured using extensometer with 1.00 in. gage length. Crosshead speed was 0.05 in./min (1.27 mm/min) 

for an effective nominal strain rate of 510–4/sec. The ultimate stress and strain were of particular interest 

because minimal yielding as evidenced by yield point and plastic offset was observed. 

Materials cast were tested in flexure using four point bending apparatus. The span between the two 

outer points was 103.6 mm and the cross head speed was 1.27 mm/min (0.05 in./min). Three point bend 

testing was also performed. For these tests the specimens were 6 by 8 mm in cross-section and 100 mm 

long. The span between the two outer points was 80 mm and cross head speed was 0.25 mm/min 

(0.01 in./min). 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 7 

Results 

Casting 

Ten castings were made with the materials listed in Table 4. All but one of the castings resulted in 

usable test specimens and eight of the castings were free of significant defects. One of the boron carbide 

reinforced 2214 aluminum castings was improperly loaded with the ceramic slurry resulting in 

unreinforced sections in two of the compact tension specimens. Because these defects were distant from 

the crack plane, these samples were allowed for testing. The first silicon carbide reinforced 2214 

aluminum casting exhibited severe inhomogeneity in reinforcement distribution and these materials were 

judged to be unsuitable for testing. 

Tensile Testing 

The results of tensile tests on the five materials cast (Table 4) are tabulated below in Table 5. Each 

value is the average of four to six experimental values. The elastic moduli of particulate-reinforced 

composites, 173 to 202 GPa, are approaching or equal to those of steel and cast iron, and significantly 

greater than the 72 GPa value of 2214 aluminum (Ref. 5). The very low failure strains of 0.12 to 

0.19 percent indicate an almost complete lack of plasticity.

The measured ultimate tensile strengths of the composites with the 2214 aluminum alloy matrix 

ranging from 224 to 328 MPa are less than the 483 MPa reported for the unreinforced 2214. This is not 

uncommon of particulate composites wherein the particulates neither carry the load nor block dislocation 

movement on a fine scale. Three casting of alumina reinforced 2214 were made and tested. Castings 1 

and 3 had very similar strengths, 325 and 328 MPa, while casting 2 had a considerably lower strength, 

224 MPa. This might be due to differences in heat treatment (operator error) or in alloy composition. This 

latter seems unlikely, as the melt stock for all of the 2214 castings was a single lot of pre-alloyed ingots. 

Two castings were made with 356 aluminum alloy matrices. These exhibited ultimate strengths of 

270 and 226 MPa. The data in Table 5 appear to indicate that the alumina reinforced aluminum 

composites are generally stronger than those reinforced with boron carbide or silicon carbide; however, 

further testing would be required to arrive at a statistically valid conclusion. It should be expected that 

matrix alloys could be similarly optimized for either silicon carbide or boron carbide reinforcements. 

TABLE 5.—TENSILE PROPERTIES OF CAST Al PARTICULATE-REINFORCED COMPOSITES

Aluminum alloy—

reinforcement 

Ultimate tensile strength, 

MPa 

Failure strain, 

percent 

Elastic modulus, 

Gpa 

2214—Alumina 

Casting 1 

328 0.152 202 

2214—Alumina 

Casting 2 

224 0.122 191 

2214—Alumina 

Casting 3 

325 not measured not measured 

2214—Boron carbide 

Casting 1 

318 0.190 189 

2214—Boron carbide 

Casting 2 

284 0.178 173 

2214—Silicon carbide 

Casting 2 

280 not measured not measured 

356—Alumina 270 not measured not measured 

356—Boron carbide 226 not measured not measured 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 8 

Flexure Testing 

The strength values of rupture determined in flexure tests on four materials cast are tabulated in 

Table 6. For comparison the ultimate tensile strengths shown in Table 5 are repeated in this table. The 

rupture strength values show a strong correlation with the ultimate tensile strengths and are typically 

60 percent higher than the ultimate tensile strengths. 

The results of flexure testing are shown in Table 7. In this study flexure strength was determined 

through a three-point bend test (Ref. 6). The specimens were 6 by 8 mm in cross-section and 100 mm 

long. Each data point is the average of four tests. 

TABLE 6.—RUPTURE STRENGTH FOR CAST Al PARTICULATE-REINFORCED COMPOSITES 

Aluminum alloy reinforcement Rupture tensile strength, 

MPa 

Ultimate tensile strength, 

MPa 

2214—Alumina 

Casting 1 

Not measured 328 

2214—Alumina 

Casting 2 

Not measured 224 

2214—Alumina 

Casting 3 

530 325 

2214—Boron carbide 

Casting 1 

Not measured 318 

2214—Boron carbide 

Casting 2 

Not measured 284 

2214—Silicon carbide 

Casting 2 

427 280 

356—Alumina 422 270 

356—Boron carbide 377 226 

TABLE 7.—FLEXURE STRENGTH OF COMPOSITE TEST SPECIMENS 

Flexure strength, MPa 

Alloy Reinforcement Heat treatment 

 T6 T7 DCI 

520 

White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

SiC 

--- 

--- 

--- 

472 

442 

367 

653 

527 

360 

201 

White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

SiC 

573 

561 

561 

507 

457 

458 

450 

413 

--- 

295 

White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

SIC 

573 

561 

561 

507 

457 

458 

450 

413 

--- 

2214 

White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

SIC 

656 

550 

503 

529 

--- 

379 

470 

427 

353 

Plane Strain Fracture Toughness, KIc, Testing 

Testing and data analysis were performed on two compact tension specimens. The data from these 

tests are provided in Table 8. The apparent plain strain fracture toughness, KIc, values are 16.09 and 

22.36 MPa √m for the first and second castings of alumina reinforced 2214 aluminum, respectively. Both 

of these values are unusually high for highly loaded aluminum matrix composites. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 9 

TABLE 8.—LOAD VERSUS CRACK EXTENSION DATA FOR 

PLAIN STRAIN FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTS 

Alumina—2214 Aluminum composite, first casting 

a/w = 0.3

Load, 

KN 

∆a, 

mm 

Global K, 

MPa √m 

2.5 0.96 7.88 

2.8 0.96 8.83 

3.2 1.09 10.15 

3.5 1.16 11.13 

3.8 1.26 12.14 

4.1 1.29 13.12 

4.4 1.43 14.16 

4.7 1.69 15.31 

Pmax = 4.93 KN 

KIc = 16.09 MPa √m 

Alumina—2214 Aluminum composite, second casting 

a/w = 0.5

Load, 

KN 

∆a, 

mm 

Global K, 

MPa √m 

1.1 0.19 7.2 

1.4 0.237 9.18 

1.7 0.261 11.17 

2.0 0.309 13.17 

2.3 0.38 15.19 

2.6 0.38 17.17 

2.9 0.523 19.29 

3.2 0.594 21.36 

Pmax = 3.35 KN 

KIc = 22.36 MPa √m 

These high KIc values are likely due to incorrect specimen geometry. All of the compact tension 

specimens cast in this analysis were 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) thick. In order to get an accurate measure of the 

plane strain fracture toughness, the specimen thickness should be a multiple of the plastic zone size which 

is related to (KIc

/

ys)

2

 where ys is yield stress. The ASTM specification requires that the specimen 

thickness, B, be no less than 2.5 * (KIc

 /ys)

2

. For the measured values of ultimate tensile strength and KIc, 

minimum specimen thicknesses of 5.9 mm (0.23 in.) and 24.9 mm (0.98 in.) would be required for 

accurate plain strain fracture toughness. In the future studies, thicker specimens will be cast and evaluated.

The second plane strain fracture toughness value may also be erroneously high because a sufficiently 

long pre-crack could not be grown in fatigue. This would result in a crack tip which was effectively 

blunter than desirable. A blunt crack tip would reduce the magnitudes of the stress fields at the crack tip; 

thereby, allowing higher loads to be carried for a given crack length. 

In spite of the short comings in specimen geometry, the results should provide valuable insight into 

the fracture behavior of particulate-loaded aluminum-matrix composites. 

Moiré interferometry (Ref. 7) was also employed to perform fracture studies. Laser Moiré 

interferometry is a unique surface deformation analysis tool that can image the propagation of stress 

waves in real time and analyze the evolution of the fracture event in-situ. Figure 4 is a V-field image 

which shows the displacements perpendicular to the crack plane, where numerous steps were required to 

extract displacement and strain fields from the photographs of the specimens in X, Y and Z locations, U, 

V and W displacements and strains. Each fringe is a contour of constant displacement and corresponds to 

a displacement of 0.43 mm. Figure 5 is a U-field image which shows the displacements parallel to the 

crack plane. Again each fringe corresponds to a displacement of 0.43 mm. Analysis of these displacement 

fields enabled the quantification of the plastic zone size and the effects of the particulate on the stress 

fields within the plastic zone. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 10 

Figure 4.—V-field wrapped fringe pattern for cast Al particulate-reinforced 

composite specimen showing displacements perpendicular to the crack 

plane. 

Figure 5.—U-field wrapped fringe pattern for cast Al particulate-reinforced 

composite specimen showing displacements parallel to the crack plane. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 11 

TABLE 9.—MEASURED FRACTURE TOUGHNESS VALUES, KQ, OF CAST 

ALUMINUM PARTICULATE-REINFORCED COMPOSITES USING 

LASER MOIRÉ INTERFEROMETRY METHOD

Aluminum alloy—Reinforcement Fracture Toughness, KQ, MPa √m 

2214—alumina 

Casting 1 

16.1 

2214—alumina 

Casting 2 

22.4 

2214—alumina 

Casting 3 

17.7 

2214—boron carbide 

Casting 1 

To be measured 

2214—boron carbide 

Casting 2 

To be measured 

2214—silicon carbide 

Casting 2 

23.9 

356—alumina 17.8 

356—boron carbide 14.1 

TABLE 10.—FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF COMPOSITE TEST SPECIMENS 

USING THREE POINT BENDING METHOD 

Fracture toughness, MPa√m 

Alloy Reinforcement Heat treatment 

 T6 T7 DCI 

520 White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

---- 

---- 

10.9 

9.01 

10.9 

8.51 

 

201 White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

9.75 

---- 

9.19 

9.99 

9.01 

8.78 

 

295 White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

8.96 

10.9 

---- 

10.2 

9.25 

9.71 

 

2214 White Alumina 

Dark Alumina 

11.7 

10.9 

11.7 

11.4 

10.1 

8.95 

Specimens from four of the castings were tested with as cast geometry, i.e., without generating a 

fatigue pre-crack. Acknowledging that these specimens were thinner than adequate, the results are 

provided in Table 9 as KQ values, where KQ is critical fracture toughness measured. 

Additionally the plane strain fracture properties of aluminum matrix composites were evaluated using 

a three point bending method. These fracture toughness tests followed ASTM Standard (Ref. 7). This setup involved a span of 80 mm and strain was measured through attached knife edge gauge arms. Specimen 

size was 20 by 10 by 90 mm. Cross head speed was 0.01 in./min. Fracture toughness results are listed in 

Table 10. Each data point is the average of three tests. 

Charpy Impact Toughness 

An evaluation of the impact toughness was conducted according to ASTM Standard (Ref. 9). 

Specimens were 6 by 8 by 55 mm and were un-notched. Pendulum distance to the center of strike was 

720 mm and the supporting force was 1722.3 g. Impact toughness results are detailed in Table 11. Each 

data point is the average of four tests. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 12 

TABLE 11.—CHARPY IMPACT TOUGHNESS OF COMPOSITE TEST SPECIMENS 

Charpy impact toughness, KJ/M2

Alloy Reinforcement Heat treatment 

 T6 T7 DCI 

520 

White Alumina ---- 22.8 22.0 

Dark Alumina ---- 22.9 22.6 

SiC ---- 8.97 9.53 

 

201 

White Alumina 15.5 19.7 20.6 

Dark Alumina 19.4 18.1 25.4 

SiC 11.6 11.0 10.2 

 

295 

White Alumina 14.9 12.5 14.2 

Dark Alumina 21.7 21.7 27.3 

SiC 10.5 9.35 11.6 

 

2214 

White Alumina 21.4 10.8 23.6 

Dark Alumina 19.6 22.1 27.4 

SiC 15.9 11.3 18.2 

Summary and Discussion 

The current fracture analysis provides mechanical property data for a large number of particulate 

reinforced aluminum-matrix composites produced by the net-shape casting process. 

The data show that these materials possess attractive elastic properties and good tensile strengths; 

however, they possess an inherent lack of plasticity which leads to failure once yielding begins. This 

behavior is illustrated in the stress strain plot shown in Figure 6 and by the low strain to failure values in 

Table 5. The total strain is very small, and the elastic (linear) strain is a significant fraction of the total 

strain. The onset of plasticity, marked by the departure from linearity leads quickly to failure. 

Successful application of these materials in engineered systems will require that this lack of plasticity 

be considered when designing with metal matrix composites. Specifically, we suggest that localized stress 

or general plastic flow be avoided. This differs from design with traditional metallic alloys where some 

localized stress flow may occur at regions of stress risers or part geometry. Localized stress flow in metals 

results in redistribution of the stresses with an accompanying reduction in peak stresses. In composites, 

such stress reduction through localized stress flow is not possible. Instead any highly localized stresses 

will result in localized failure initiation with subsequent propagation through the material. The results of 

this study suggest that when designing with metal matrix composites the stresses should be below the 

elastic limit. 

Designing at or below the elastic limit allows linear elasticity methodology to be applied when 

designing with these composites. This opens the door to the use of less complicated linear elastic fracture 

mechanics (LEFM) finite element methods (FEM) or even simple textbook closed-form solutions for 

analyzing the fracture behaviors of these composite materials. 

The material values provided in Table 5 are the average of 4 to 6 test results having a statistical 

scatter. Owing to the catastrophic failure mode of these materials, it would be required that probabilistic 

design principles, including Weibull statistics (Ref. 10), are considered. In this study six or fewer 

specimens of each material were evaluated for each mechanical property. Adequate probabilistic 

assessment would require testing approximately thirty samples. These same principles have long been 

applied to design with structural ceramics which possess similar brittleness, but far less fracture toughness. 

Such testing data could allow the determination of appropriate design allowables at which no failure should 

occur. As a rule of thumb, we would suggest that setting the maximum allowable stress at 60 percent of the 

ultimate tensile stress should suffice. For all of the tensile tests covered by this study (approximately 110), 

only five specimens would fail at stress of 60 percent of the ultimate tensile strength measured. 
NASA/TM—2013-217871 13 

Figure 6.—Stress-strain for alumina-reinforced 2214 composite. 

The material properties values at a lower level shown by individual specimens used in this study can 

be attributed to various flaws including inclusions and non-uniformities in reinforcement density. The 

scatter of materials properties should be further examined. 

This study result also demonstrates that tough composites can be developed by adjusting alloy and 

particulate chemistry to develop strongly adhering precipitates at the particle-matrix interface for the 

successful design of any reinforcement-alloy composite systems. Furthermore, the fracture data in this 

study add to the understanding of fracture behavior in these metal matrix composite materials and the 

general guideline of designing for zero plasticity is very useful for any detailed model aimed at analyzing 

fracture of specific parts. The lack of plasticity in these materials means that localized fracture will 

generally lead to catastrophic failure; therefore, standard linear elastic analysis will suffice for the 

analysis of specific parts. 

References 

1. Cornie, J.A., Zhang, G-D, Li, Q., Zhang, S-Y, Kowing, B.E., Blucher, J.T., Pressure Infiltration 

Processing of P-55 (Graphite) Fiber Reinforced Aluminum Alloys, in Ceramic Transactions, 

Advanced Composite Materials, ed. Michael D. Sacks, The American Ceramic Society, Inc., 

Westerville, Ohio, 19, 1991, pp. 851–875. 

2. Li, Q., Dunand, D.C., Mortensen, A., Cornie, J.A., “Interface Structure in Infiltrated Composites of 

Aluminum Reinforced with Alumina-Silica Fiber Preforms,” Metallurgical Transaction A, 22A, 

1126-1128, May 1991. 

3. Cornie, J.A., Selznev, M.L., Ralph, M., Armatis, Jr., F.A., “Improving mechanical properties of 

Nextel 610 reinforced Al-224 alloy through θ phase precipitation at the fiber-matrix interface, 

Materials Science and Engineering, A162, 1993, 135–142. 

4. Cornie, J.A., Chiang, Y.M., Uhlmann, D.R., Mortensen, A., Collins, J.M., Processing of metal and 

ceramic matrix composite, American Ceramic Society Bulletin, 65(2), pp. 293–304, 1986. 

5. ASM Specialty Handbook: Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys, Edited by J.R. Davis, pp. 82, 1993. 

6. ASTM Standard C1161, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at 

Ambient Temperature,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. 

7. Kokaly, M.T., Lee, J., Kobayashi, A.S., “Moire interferometry for dynamic fracture study,” Optics 

and Lasers in Engineering 40, 231–247, 2003. 

8. ASTM Standard E1304, “Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic 

Materials,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. 

9. ASTM Standard E23, “Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic 

Materials,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. 

10. Weibull, W., “A statistical distribution function of wide applicability” J. Appl. Mech.-Trans. 

ASME 18 (3): 293–297, 1951. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-05-2013 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Fracture Analysis of Particulate Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Min, James, B.; Cornie, James, A. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 473452.02.03.01.05 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-18668 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2013-217871 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 05, 16, and 39 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

A fracture analysis of highly loaded particulate reinforced composites was performed using laser moire interferometry to measure the 

displacements within the plastic zone at the tip of an advancing crack. Ten castings were made of five different particulate reinforcementaluminum alloy combinations. Each casting included net-shape specimens which were used for the evaluation of fracture toughness, tensile 

properties, and flexure properties resulting in an extensive materials properties data. Measured fracture toughness range from 14.1 MPa for 

an alumina reinforced 356 aluminum alloy to 23.9 MPa for a silicon carbide reinforced 2214 aluminum alloy. For the combination of these 

K values and the measured tensile strengths, the compact tension specimens were too thin to yield true plane strain KIc values. All materials 

exhibited brittle behavior characterized by very small tensile ductility suggesting that successful application of these materials requires that 

the design stresses be below the elastic limit. Probabilistic design principles similar to those used with ceramics are recommended when 

using these materials. Such principles would include the use of experimentally determined design allowables. In the absence of thorough 

testing, a design allowable stress of 60 percent of the measured ultimate tensile stress is recommended.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Fracture mechanics; Particulate reinforcement-aluminum alloy; Metal matrix composites; Finite element; Plastic zone; Design 

allowable stress 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

20 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18