Solidification and microstructure of ZA27/SiC p composite fabricated by mechanical–electromagnetic combination stirring process

The solidification behaviours and microstructural characteristics of both ZA27/SiC_p composites and monolithic ZA27 alloy were studied by using differential scanning calorimetry, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, electron probe microanalysis, and X-ray diffraction. It was found that there were differences in the transformation temperature and volume fraction of the phases, although the solidification process was almost identical for the composite and the monolithic alloy. The incorporation of SiC particles in the ZA27 alloy led to slight refinement of primary grains and reduced volume fraction of eutectic-like phase. The SiC particles obstructed Zn diffusion in the residual melt during the formation of proeutectic β phase, but promoted Zn diffusion from (Al) to η (Zn) phase during eutectoid transformation. During solidification, Cu was mainly segregated in the final solidification regions; Mg was present not only in the matrix but also on SiC particles; and oxide inclusions were mainly distributed around SiC particles. The matrix microstructure for both materials mainly consisted of primary cores of Al rich +η eutectoid; β′ phase resulting from the eutectoid transformation of the proeutectic β phase; and Zn rich +η eutectoid resulting from the eutectoid transformation of the eutectic-like phase. The SiC particles were mainly distributed around the primary grains. Several new phases based on the Al–Zn–Mg–Cu system and interfacial reaction products, including Al₂₁Fe₃Si, Cu₅Zn₈, Mg₆Cu₃Al₇, MgAl₂O₄, and amorphous oxide inclusions, were identified in the final solidification regions. The nucleation of both primary phase and eutectic-like +η phase at the surface of SiC particles and their crystallographic orientation relationships were investigated theoretically and experimentally. No distinct crystallographic orientation relationship between the matrix and SiC has been identified, although the mismatch between (0001)_SiC and (111)_α was calculated to be as small as 7·6%.