room temperature at the centre of cylindrical specimens using the instrumented drop weight test device as explained in detail
in second the section (experimental conditions). Three specimens were tested for each composition to obtain average values.
First of all, the type of the reinforcement and microstructure of the specimens influence strongly the impact resistance of the
specimens. It means that, impact resistance is directly related to absorbed energy. Absorbed energy should be related with the
process used here that this energy increases considerably in the structure mainly as a function of the microstructure. At a first
approach to these values, the combined effect of two fine ceramics (TiB 2 + B 4 C) on the absorbed energy seems more efficient
than the other values identified with individual effect, it means that each ceramic has a limited effect on the absorbed energy.
Once again these results are obtained only limited number of tests and carried out in laboratory scales. This part also should be
improved with detail analyses for industrial applications [4, 11–17].
Again, fracture surfaces of these composites failed with low velocity impact tests were shown in the Fig. 10.6. Among
others, Ti-Al-3 show higher more deformation behaviour whereas the other specimens (T-Al-1, 2 and 4) have shown brittle
behaviour. These results are not definitive results but they can be accepted as indicative values. For example, fracture surfaces
confirm the results presented in the Fig. 10.5 certainly for the specimens (Ti-Al-3) containing (TiB 2 + B 4 C) ceramics, it means
that the combined effect of two fine ceramics (TiB 2 + B 4 C) increases the absorbed energy regarding to the other values
identified with individual effect as given in the Fig. 10.5a–d.
Fig. 10.5 Low velocity impact (drop weight) tests (as a mean value) results for sintered + forged specimens containing fine ceramic powders, (a)
TiB 2 , (b) B 4 C and (c) TiB 2 + B 4 C and also (d) TiC respectively
Fig. 10.6 Fracture surfaces of the Ti-Al based composites reinforced with fine ceramics
70
E. Bayraktar et al.
in second the section (experimental conditions). Three specimens were tested for each composition to obtain average values.
First of all, the type of the reinforcement and microstructure of the specimens influence strongly the impact resistance of the
specimens. It means that, impact resistance is directly related to absorbed energy. Absorbed energy should be related with the
process used here that this energy increases considerably in the structure mainly as a function of the microstructure. At a first
approach to these values, the combined effect of two fine ceramics (TiB 2 + B 4 C) on the absorbed energy seems more efficient
than the other values identified with individual effect, it means that each ceramic has a limited effect on the absorbed energy.
Once again these results are obtained only limited number of tests and carried out in laboratory scales. This part also should be
improved with detail analyses for industrial applications [4, 11–17].
Again, fracture surfaces of these composites failed with low velocity impact tests were shown in the Fig. 10.6. Among
others, Ti-Al-3 show higher more deformation behaviour whereas the other specimens (T-Al-1, 2 and 4) have shown brittle
behaviour. These results are not definitive results but they can be accepted as indicative values. For example, fracture surfaces
confirm the results presented in the Fig. 10.5 certainly for the specimens (Ti-Al-3) containing (TiB 2 + B 4 C) ceramics, it means
that the combined effect of two fine ceramics (TiB 2 + B 4 C) increases the absorbed energy regarding to the other values
identified with individual effect as given in the Fig. 10.5a–d.
Fig. 10.5 Low velocity impact (drop weight) tests (as a mean value) results for sintered + forged specimens containing fine ceramic powders, (a)
TiB 2 , (b) B 4 C and (c) TiB 2 + B 4 C and also (d) TiC respectively
Fig. 10.6 Fracture surfaces of the Ti-Al based composites reinforced with fine ceramics
70
E. Bayraktar et al.