See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231946424

Effect of processing on Charpy impact

toughness of metallic glass matrix composites

Article · May 2011

DOI: 10.1557/jmr.2011.92

CITATIONS READS

6 81

8 authors, including:

Henry Kozachkov Scott Roberts

California Institute of Technology California Institute of Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS 161 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 149 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marios D. Demetriou William Johnson

Glassimetal Technology California Institute of Technology
80 PUBLICATIONS 2,873 CITATIONS 517 PUBLICATIONS 29,382 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

metallic glass review articles View project

NASA projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Johnson on 05 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass
matrix composites
Carl Zachrisson
Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109
Henry Kozachkov, Scott Roberts, and Georg Kaltenboeck
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91126
Robert D. Conner
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91126; and California State University—Northridge,
Northridge, California 91330
Marios D. Demetriou and William L. Johnson
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91126
Douglas C. Hofmanna)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109; and California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, California 91126

(Received 15 December 2010; accepted 14 March 2011)

In this study, compact Charpy impact testing was used to investigate the effect of processing history
and dendrite morphology of bulk metallic glass matrix composites (BMGMCs) on impact toughness.
Composite samples were fabricated via suction casting and semisolid forging, and the results were
compared with crystalline alloys in the same geometry. A strong dependence on processing was
observed, with samples exhibiting up to a 30-fold increase in impact toughness depending on
processing and microstructure. Provided that attention is paid to processing techniques, BMGMCs are
shown to have properties that equal or surpass some conventionally used crystalline alloys. These
properties invite further exploration of these materials in structural applications.

I. INTRODUCTION demonstrated that the length scale associated with the

Bulk metallic glasses (BMGs) are a relatively new class of
engineering metals that have been widely investigated as
potential high-performance materials for a variety of applica-
tions, from bulk structural hardware to microelectromechan-
ical systems (MEMS).1–6 Unfortunately, BMGs have been
underutilized in high performance structural applications due
to their abrupt failure in unconfined loading, their low fracture
toughness, and low fatigue limit.7–9 Recently, significant
progress has been made toward toughening BMGs by
developing a series of ductile phase-reinforced BMG matrix
composites (BMGMCs), which combine soft crystals (usu-
ally body-centered cubic) with a metallic glass matrix.10–17
Although these BMGMCs first emerged a decade ago,
a correlation between processing and mechanical perfor-
mance was not realized until recently.12,13 When cast from
the liquid, BMGMCs exhibit a wide range of dendrite
morphologies that develop as a result of thermal gradients
during cooling. By processing the composites below the
liquidus temperature, in the semisolid two-phase region,
a more uniform microstructure can be obtained. It has been
a)
Address all correspondence to this author.
e-mail: dch@jpl.nasa.gov
DOI: 10.1557/jmr.2011.92
dendrites is directly related to the fracture toughness of the
composites. For example, a BMGMC, termed LM2
(Zr56.2Ti13.8Nb5.0Cu6.9Ni5.6Be12.5), cast from the liquidus
exhibited a plane strain fracture toughness of K1C 5 31
MPa m1/2 (Ref. 18), which represents a twofold improvement
over the fracture toughness of the matrix BMG, Vitreloy 1
(Zr41.2Ti13.8Cu12.5Ni10Be22.5), K1C 5 15 MPa m1/2 (Ref. 19).
By processing a BMGMC with similar properties when cast
from the melt, DH1 (Zr39.6Ti33.9Nb7.6Cu6.4Be12.5), semi-
solidly, the fracture toughness is dramatically enhanced,
K1C 5 97 MPa m1/2 (Refs. 8,12).
The effect of processing on the mechanical properties
and microstructure of BMGMCs has been well established
utilizing quasistatic and even dynamic mechanical testing
(see Refs. 20–25), such as tension tests and fracture
toughness tests, but not as widely for impact testing (Charpy
or Izod). The objective of the current study is to investigate
the effect of processing on the Charpy impact toughness
(CIT) of a series of Zr–Ti–Be-based BMGMCs and to
compare those results with some common high-performance
crystalline materials. The Charpy impact test was selected
for its simplicity in estimating notched toughness at mod-
erately high-strain rates and has not been widely used for
BMGs because the American Society for Testing and
Materials standard-sized specimen (10
10
55 mm3)

1260 J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011 Ó Materials Research Society 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016 IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites

typically exceeds the critical casting thickness of many
glassy alloys and requires at least 30 g of material per test
(for Vitreloy 1, for example). Several groups have in-
vestigated the impact toughness of monolithic BMGs in
compact (miniaturized or substandard) dimensions, primar-
ily with the focus of investigating the ductile-to-brittle
transition.26–30 For example, Raghavan et al. demonstrated
a substandard impact toughness of 1.2 J in compact Charpy
samples of Vitreloy 1 at room temperature, whereas Park
et al. looked at the impact toughness of BMG/metal laminate
composites. The major objective of the current work is to
compare the CIT of two representative BMGMCs produced
through suction casting (SC) from above the liquidus
temperature with those produced by semisolid processing,
both in 3-mm-thick samples. As such, the selected geometry
for the testing is a compact specimen (3
3
30 mm3),
which can be rapidly produced on a mini-suction casting
arc melter. Although larger samples of the Be-bearing
BMGMCs can be produced, the smaller geometry was
selected so that future work on non-Be–bearing BMGs,
which typically cannot be produced thicker than 3 mm due
to cooling constraints necessary to produce BMGs, can be
directly compared with the current results. The impact
toughness of the compact specimens are directly compared
with commercially available BMGs and common crystalline
alloys for validity of the testing. In addition, the hardness of
each alloy tested was measured and compared.
II. MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTS
Two different BMGMCs were produced and examined
in this work, one based in Ti with 40% volume fraction of
crystalline phase (DV1)13 and one based in Zr with 67%
volume fraction of crystalline phase (DH3)12; the compo-
sitions are given in Table I. The composites were produced
by arc melting high-purity elements in a Ti-gettered argon
environment. Charpy specimens were produced either by
SC square beams or by semisolidly forging31 (SSF) 3-mm-
thick plates and then cutting them into beams. The 3
3

30 mm3 samples were then mounted and notched en masse
with a 90° notch 1-mm-wide and 0.5-mm-deep cut by an
endmill. These samples were compared with a monolithic
glass (Vitreloy 1)6 and a BMGMC (LM2),10,11 both
obtained commercially. The Vitreloy 1 samples were
broken and suction cast, whereas the LM2 samples were
cut from a large 3-mm-thick plate. Crystalline alloys used
for comparison (rolled 304 Stainless Steel, Al-2024-T6,
Al-7075-T6, and Grade 5 Ti-6Al-4V) were cut from 3-mm
(1/8 in) plates and notched using the endmill.
Charpy tests were performed on a modified Riehle
Impact Testing Machine, which was instrumented to detect
small changes in hammer velocity (Fig. 1). Standard Charpy
machines operate from two drop heights, 61 and 122 cm
(24 and 48 in) with two hammer masses so that four impact
energies can be obtained, 41, 81, 163, and 325 J (30, 60, 120,
and 240 ft-lbs). Unfortunately, full-sized Charpy testing on
Zr–Be-based BMGs from literature indicate only 1–5 J of
energy is absorbed, whereas Zr–Be-based BMGMCs absorb
25–45 J.12,26–29 Since the cross-sectional area of the compact
samples in the current work is ;10 times smaller, the
amount of energy absorbed would be nearly undetectable
using a standard drop height and hammer mass. As such, the
Charpy tester was modified by reducing the drop height and
the hammer mass and the impact energy was measured both
by dial and computer. By equating the potential energy of
the hammer at the drop height (PE 5 mgh) with the kinetic
energy of the hammer at impact (KE 5 ½ mv2), the initial
velocity (v0) of the hammer before impact is found to be
a function only of the height of the drop
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
v0 5 2gh : ð1Þ
To instrument the machine, a 1-cm-diameter cylindri-
cal magnet was attached to a plastic arm on the side of the

TABLE I. Physical and mechanical properties of the 11 different samples used in this study.

Name Vol% of crystalline Processing route CIT (J) CIT (J/cm2) ry (MPa) rmax (MPa) H (Rc) q (g/cm3) E (GPa) rmax/q

Vitreloy 1 0 SC 0.68 7.6 1700 1700 60.0 6.1 97.2 279

LM2 40 CCP 0.13 1.4 1000 1300 56.2 6.2 78.8 210
DV1 40 SC 1.31 14.6 1360 1430 58.3 5.2 92.4 275
DV1 40 SSF 4.82 53.6 1360 1430 50.8 5.2 92.4 275
DH3 100 Cryst 0.19 2.1 na na na 5.8 na na
DH3 67 SC 2.66 29.6 1100 1200 47.8 5.8 75.3 207
DH3 67 SSF 5.27 58.6 1100 1200 43.3 5.8 75.3 207
Ti-6Al-4V 100 Gd 5 STA 2.97 33.0 1100 1200 41.0 4.5 114.0 267
Al-7075 100 T6 0.38 4.2 500 570 6.0 2.8 71.7 203
Al-2024 100 T6 0.66 7.3 350 430 ,1 2.8 72.4 155
SS 304 100 STA 9.49 105.4 220 500 ,1 8.0 193.0 63

Yield strengths, ultimate tensile strengths, and Young’s Modulus for the crystalline alloys were obtained from www.matweb.com, a materials property
database. Compositions in at.%: Vitreloy 1, Zr41.2Ti13.8Cu12.5Ni10Be22.5; LM2, Zr56.2Ti13.8Nb5.0Cu6.9Ni5.6Be12.5; DV1, Ti48Zr20V12Cu5Be15; and DH3,
Zr39.9Ti33.9Nb7.6Cu6.4Be12.5. Processing conditions are SC, CCP, SSF, cryst, STA, and CIT.
CIT, Charpy impact toughness; SC, suction cast; CCP, commercial cast plate; SSF, semisolid forge; cryst, crystalline; na, not applicable; STA, standard.

J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011 1261
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016 IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites

FIG. 1. Instrumented small-scale Charpy testing. (a) The pendulum hammer has been stripped of mass to reduce the impact energy. A plastic
extension has been built to hold the magnet. As the pendulum swings, the magnet passes a coil before and after impact, which registers a current.
(b) The modified sample holder has a shorter span length of 20 mm for compact Charpy samples. (c) Suction cast (SC) samples of the alloy DV1.
(d) Data obtained from an impact test on DH3 using a digital oscilloscope. The location of the magnet relative to each coil during the test is shown
with a schematic. The hammer velocity slows during impact, which broadens the second peak. The width of the coils and magnets are known to be dx
5 1 cm, so the velocity of the hammer can be determined through v 5 dx/dt. The energy during the impact is E 5 1/2 mv2.

hammer pendulum. Two 1-cm-diameter copper coils were
mounted on a plate, 70-mm apart, with their midpoint
located at the impact location [Fig. 1(a)]. The coils were
wired to a digital oscilloscope connected to a computer.
When the magnet attached to the hammer passes the first coil,
it creates a voltage that registers as a sinusoidal peak on the
oscilloscope. During the impact with the specimen, the
hammer slows down before it passes the second coil, creating
a difference in the width of the sinusoidal peak. The energy
absorbed by the sample can then be determined through
1   be 21 cm (from the measured velocity) and, thus, the total
E 5 m v20  v2f : ð2Þ
2
The velocity of the hammer can be determined by v 5
Dx/Dt, where Dt is the width of the sinusoidal pulse (the
transit time of the magnet across the coil) and Dx is the
width of the coil. Using the known standard drop height
of the hammer, the initial velocity was calculated to be
3.46 m/s; using this known velocity, Dx was calculated to
be ;1.0 cm for each coil by measuring the peak width.
Using the known original impact energy and hammer
height, the original effective mass of the hammer was
calculated as 6.8 kg. To accommodate the small-scale
specimens, the energy of the hammer was reduced by
decreasing the hammer mass to 2.7 kg and the initial
velocity to 2.0 m/s. The new drop height was calculated to
energy of the hammer was reduced from 41 to 5.6 J. For
samples requiring more than 5 J to fracture, a second drop
height was calibrated at 83 cm imparting 22.2 J of energy
at impact. A modified fixture to support the shorter

1262 J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016 IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites
samples was built as an insert into the existing Charpy
fixture, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The span length was thereby
reduced from 50 to 20 mm for the small-scale tests. The
microstructures of the samples were analyzed through
x-ray, backscattered scanning electron microscope (SEM),
Rockwell hardness testing, acoustical measurements, and
optical microscopy.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Compact Charpy impact testing was performed on
10 alloys in total, six containing an amorphous phase and
four crystalline alloys, see Table I for compositions and
processing. Figure 2 is visual plot to the data shown in
Table I, which shows the impact energy (in Joule) for each
sample along with impact energy per cross-sectional area
(in Joule per square centimeter). On average, seven
samples of each type were impacted to observe the effect
of processing variation on impact energy and the average
value for each sample is shown in Fig. 2 with a circle. As
a baseline, the monolithic BMG Vitreloy 1 was also
evaluated via Charpy testing, as was done by several other
groups.26–29 Vitreloy 1, which is the most widely studied
and commercialized BMG to date (often under the trade
name LM1), is the matrix material for the composite LM2.
The samples were obtained commercially in a high-purity
form and were then broken up and suction-cast into beams.
The impact energy for the monolithic samples was de-
termined to be 0.68 J, which is similar to the results from
other studies when scaled to full size, despite differences
in sample geometry and origin. The crack propagation
through the Charpy test of Vitreloy 1 also appears similar
FIG. 2. Compact Charpy impact toughness values from 11 alloys
tested; one bulk metallic glass (BMG), six bulk metallic glass matrix
composites (BMGMCs) in various processing conditions, and four
crystalline alloys. The processing conditions are commercially cast plate
(CCP), crystalline (cryst), suction cast (SC), and semisolid forge (SSF).
The maximum hammer energy for the low drop height is displayed on
the plot along with a scaled estimation of the full-sized Charpy
toughness. On average, seven samples of each alloy were tested and
the average is plotted as a circle.
J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016
to the crack propagation through a fracture toughness tests
done in other studies (see Ref. 12).
Surprisingly, the lowest impact energy observed,
0.13 J, was that of the commercially cast plate of the
composite LM2, despite the 40% volume fraction of soft
crystalline phase. The brittle fracture surface representa-
tive of the impact tests are shown in Fig. 3 and the micro-
structure is shown in Fig. 4. These cast samples were
fabricated from commercial-grade starting materials, us-
ing graphite crucibles in an industrialized (low vacuum)
process. Quantitatively, the impact toughness of the BMG
alloys in this study can be measured using the energy
absorbed during impact. Qualitatively, the impact tough-
ness can be estimated by observing the relative roughness
of the fracture surface, the number of shear bands observed
on the sample’s surface, and the distance that shear bands
are observed from the edge of the crack (which is an
estimation of the plastic zone size). The lack of roughness
in the fracture surface of the LM2 sample, shown in Fig. 3,
demonstrates its low impact toughness, which is a well-
known result from the smooth fracture surfaces observed
in brittle crystalline metals after Charpy tests.
Figure 4(a) is a stitched backscattered SEM micrograph
of LM2 showing both the bulk microstructure and a crack
propagating through the entire width of a sample. It is of
interest that the microstructure in the LM2 sample is
actually quite coarse, despite being cast from near the
liquidus temperature (which generally leads to a smaller
microstructure). This particular sample was produced
commercially by die-casting the liquid from a shot sleeve
into a steel mold with the shape of a large plate. As such,
the cooling rate for this sample was quite slow, which
allowed the microstructure to coarsen to levels similar to
the SSF samples, as seen in Figs. 5 and 6. The dendrite
arms are ;10-lm thick, and the spacing between the arms
is 1–5 lm. The overall dendrites (i.e., the diameter of
dendrite trees sectioned near their centers) are ;100 lm in
diameter and are spaced several 100 microns apart.
Despite the coarsened microstructure, which is typical of
highly toughened alloys, the crack generated during the
impact essentially cleaves the LM2 sample [Fig. 4(b)],
without significant blunting or branching. Although some
regions near the crack exhibit shear bands [Fig. 4(c)], they
only extend between 5 and 50 lm away from the edge of
the crack. In total, very few shear bands are observed on
the surface, which is indicative of a brittle failure. The
reason for the low toughness is a combination of the high
oxygen content in the BMG matrix (;5000 ppm) and
brittle intermetallic phases that have nucleated during the
processing, as shown in Fig. 4(c). These brittle phases are
either carbide remnants from the graphite crucibles used to
cast these samples or from partial crystallization of the
matrix due to insufficient cooling. The combined result is
that the matrix BMG is brittle, which promotes easy crack
formation and propagation.
1263
IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites

FIG. 3. Fracture surfaces from six BMG composite samples tested in this study, along with their impact energy. X-ray scans from the composite DH3
in the SSF and the completely crystalline state are also shown. Although the body-centered cubic dendrites remain in the crystalline sample, the matrix
is no longer amorphous, evident from the numerous peaks. Also shown are magnified fracture surfaces from DH3 SSF and LM2, showing the
difference in the fracture pattern. Backscattered scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images from compact Charpy impact tests on the BMGMC DH3
(67% dendrites).

The first composite that was prepared in the laboratory
for Charpy testing was the Ti-based BMGMC DV1,
which is notable for its large amount of tensile strain
(;15%) and its low density (5.17 g/cm3).13 Ten samples
were produced by SC, and their impact energy is plotted
on Fig. 2. What is immediately clear from the plot is that
the SC produces a wide scatter in the impact energy of the
composite, from as low as 0.56 J to as high 3.1 J with an
average of 1.3 J. Unlike Vitreloy 1 (but similar to LM2),
DV1 contains a metal crystal phase, whose morphology
strongly affects the sample’s material properties. Although
SC produces very uniform samples of Vitreloy 1, which is
monolithic, the distribution of dendrites in DV1 is clearly
not uniform between casts, which can be seen in Fig. 5. To
demonstrate the effect of semisolid processing on impact
energy, a 90 g plate of DV1 was fabricated utilizing an
SSF technique developed in Ref. 31. The ingot was heated
into the two-phase region consisting of glass and dendrites
(at ;950 °C), was held isothermally for ;1 min to coarsen
the microstructure, and was then forged between two
copper plates into a 3-mm-thick plate. In the case of DV1,
the effect of SSF was dramatic, with an average Charpy
energy of 4.8 J, almost four times higher than the impact
energy of the SC samples and with much less scatter.
The difference between the impact tests of DV1 pro-
duced by SC and SSF is shown in Figs. 3 and 5. The
fracture surface from DV1 produced by SC shows a
rougher surface compared to the smooth LM2 sample.
The fracture surface from DV1 produced by SSF also
exhibits a rough surface but has significant shear lips on
the edges perpendicular to the notch. Stitched backscattered
SEM micrographs of the crack propagating through both
samples are shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(e). In the case of SSF,
the microstructure is coarse enough that it can be seen at low
magnification. The crack moves in a jagged manner and
exhibits severe blunting, especially at the notch. Damage is
observed 1–2 mm away from the crack edge and is
comprised of closely spaced shear bands (,10-lm separa-
tion) with significant damage evident in the dendrites
[Figs. 5(c) and 5(d)]. The nominal microstructure, shown
in Fig. 5(b), exhibits a dendrite arm size of 10- to 15-lm
thick, and the spacing between the arms is 5–10 lm. The

1264 J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016 IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites
FIG. 4. (a) A backscattered SEM micrograph showing a fractured
specimen of commercially cast LM2. Despite the large, coarse dendrites,
other factors (like oxygen content and partial crystallization) make this
the most brittle alloy. (b) The edge of the crack from a region in
(a) demonstrating very little toughness. (c) Another region near the edge
of the crack showing that several shear bands have formed. (d) A region
where the matrix has crystallized into an unknown brittle phase.
overall dendrites are ;200 lm in diameter and are spaced
several 100 microns apart. In contrast, the crack propagat-
ing through the SC sample shows much less branching and
blunting, with shear bands observed only ;100–200 lm
from the edge of the crack. Although many shear bands are
observed, as seen in Fig. 5(g), there are significantly less
than in the SSF sample. The microstructure from the SC
sample, shown in Fig. 5(f), is one order of magnitude
smaller than the SSF sample. At low magnification, this
makes the sample appear gray in Fig. 5(e). The dendrite arm
size is 0.5–1 lm and their spacing is much less. The overall
dendrite size is 5–10 lm in diameter, which is about
20 times smaller than the SSF sample. A highly magnified
image of the dendrites and the shear band spacing is seen in
Fig. 5(h). Although the impact toughness from the DV1 SC
samples is about 3.5 times lower than the SSF samples, they
are not brittle. In fact, the SC samples were 10 times tougher
than the LM2 samples, despite their fine dendrite structure.
Although the smaller dendrites are not as efficient at
blunting the crack as the coarser dendrites, there is still
a significant amount of damage near the edge of the crack.
The next composite that was impact tested was the Zr–
Ti-based BMGMC DH3, which is notable for its large
fracture toughness (173 MPa m1/2) and fatigue endurance
limit (25% of yield strength), mostly caused by the in-
creased volume fraction of soft dendrites (66%).12 Speci-
mens of DH3 were prepared in a similar fashion to DV1,
J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016
through SC and SSF, but also in a third way by crystallizing
the matrix into a eutectic phase, as shown in the x-ray scans
in Fig. 3. The x-ray scan from DH3 is a nominal scan for all
the composites, which exhibit a superposition between an
amorphous background and body-centered cubic diffrac-
tion peaks. The x-ray scan from the crystalline DH3 sample
demonstrates that when the matrix phase crystallizes, many
new intermetallic compounds are present. X-ray scans from
the other composites are not shown.
The SC samples of DH3 show the reverse trend during
impact testing like the SC samples of DV1. Instead of
a wide distribution of data points, the Charpy energies are
clustered very close to the average value of 2.7 J. In the
case of DH3, the volume fraction of crystal phase is
sufficiently large that the compact arc melter cannot fully
melt all the dendrites before casting, leading to a more
uniform microstructure during casting. Similar to DV1,
the samples of DH3 subjected to SSF exhibited much
higher average impact energy (5.3 J) than those produced
by SC. In fact, the toughness of the SSF plates of DH3
exceeded the limit of the hammer’s impact energy and
a larger drop height was required to break the samples,
which at least in part attributed to the large scatter. As with
the DV1 samples, the scale of the microstructure in the
DH3 SC and SSF samples varies by approximately an
order of magnitude. The nominal microstructure from the
SSF samples, shown in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c), exhibits
dendrite arms that are 10- to 15-lm wide and spaced
;5 lm apart. The overall dendrite size is 100–200 lm.
The scale of the dendrites is very similar to the DV1 SSF
samples, just with a smaller interdendrite spacing due to
the large volume fraction in DH3. In contrast, the dendrites
from the DH3 SC sample exhibit an arm size of 0.5–1 lm,
shown in Figs. 6(e) and 6(f), and a spacing of only a few
100 nm. The overall dendrite size is on the order of
5–10 lm in diameter.
As a direct comparison to the amorphous alloys, four
high-performance crystalline alloys were also tested in
the same geometry. The aerospace aluminum alloys Al-
2024-T6 and Al-7075-T6 exhibited impact energies of
0.66 and 0.38 J, respectively, with very low scatter.
Samples of Ti-6-4 were also tested in the same config-
uration, exhibiting average impact energy of 3.0 J. The
impact energy of Ti-6-4 was most closely matched by the
SC samples of DH3 but was surpassed by SSF samples of
DV1, which exhibit similar mechanical properties (see
Ref. 12 and Table I). To illustrate the importance of having
an amorphous matrix in DH3, we fabricated an ingot
through semisolid processing and then cooled the alloy
slowly by reducing the radio frequency (RF) power until
crystallization was visible on the sample’s surface. As
shown in the x-ray scan in Fig. 3, many crystalline phases
are present from crystallizing the matrix and a differential
scanning calorimetry scan was used to verify that very
little, if any, glass phase remains. Although not shown, the
1265
IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites

FIG. 5. Backscattered SEM micrographs from the BMGMC DV1 (40% dendrites). (a) Crack originating at the notch and then propagating through
a SSF sample during a compact Charpy test. (b) Initial microstructure obtained through SSF and (c, d) higher magnification of shear bands interacting
with the Ti-based dendrites. (e) Crack propagating through a SC sample during compact Charpy test. (f)–(h) Higher magnification micrographs of the
shear bands in the SC sample along with the nominal microstructure.

FIG. 6. (a) Crack arrest and branching after impact in a SSF sample. (b) Near the edge of the crack, many shear bands have formed and been arrested
by the soft dendrites. (c) Magnification of a region in (a) demonstrating that even far away from the crack, shear bands still form in the glass matrix.
(e) Crack propagating through a SC sample of DH3 and (f, g) higher magnification images of the shear bands and microstructure.

microstructure of the sample appears similar to Fig. 4(d),
with large coarsened dendrites and a crystalline eutectic
matrix. The ingot was cut into several Charpy specimens,
and the impact energy was measured to be 0.19 J (14 times
smaller than the SC samples and nearly 30 times smaller
than the SSF samples). The results are remarkable, but not
unexpected. By crystallizing the glass, the toughness of the
matrix goes down substantially, with a corresponding decrease
in the critical size at which cracks form (100 lm in the glass to
;10 nm in the crystalline eutectic).12 Since cracks form at
such small lengths in the crystalline matrix, the dendrites,
regardless of size, have no effect on toughening since cracks

1266 J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016 IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites
simply propagate through the matrix unimpeded. Even in
DH3, with 67% volume fraction of crystal, the toughness
decreases by more than an order of magnitude when the
matrix is crystallized. The fracture surfaces from all three
DH3 samples are also shown in Fig. 3 along with a higher
magnification image comparing the dimpled fracture pattern
between the tough DH3 SSF sample and the brittle LM2
sample. As expected, the brittle sample exhibits approxi-
mately an order of magnitude smaller dimple pattern than the
toughest composite alloy (;20 lm versus ;2 lm). The
fracture surfaces from the composites are shown in order of
increasing toughness from the crystalline DH3 sample to the
SC sample, to the SSF sample. In each case, the roughness
increases with toughness as does the size of the shear lips on
the sample’s edge (;1 mm in DH3 SSF).
Lastly, rolled samples of 304 Stainless Steel were impacted,
leading to an average of 9.5 J. These samples exhibited
sufficiently high toughness that the hammer experienced
substantial vibration and the results of the experiment were
widely scattered. Only the average is plotted in Fig. 2.
It is also of note that the toughened BMG composite
samples used in this study do not show a significant
toughening effect from being in plane strain conditions
due to the small sample sizes. This has been well
observed during the construction of R-curves for fracture
toughness testing (see Ref. 8). Therefore, despite using
compact specimens in this study, the results should scale
to larger samples. This is evident by scaling the impact
energy from the DH3 SSF sample up to a larger specimen
(58 J) and comparing it with half-sized semisolidly
processed Charpy tests done in Ref. 12, also scaled up
(45 J). They are of the same order. Nevertheless, the results
of this study were compared with crystalline alloys (Al, Ti,
and steel) in the exact same dimensions (3
3
30 mm3)
so that a direct comparison would be valid.
In addition to impact energy, Table I also lists the
standard mechanical properties of the alloys tested in this
work. The yield strength (ry), ultimate tensile strength
(rmax), density (q), and specific strength (rmax/q) of the
listed alloys allow a comparison between BMGMCs and
crystalline alloys; some values for the crystalline alloys
were taken from Matweb (www.matweb.com). In com-
parison to Ti-6-4, the increased strength of the BMGMCs
counteracts their slightly higher densities and their specific
strengths are about the same. The specific strengths of the
BMGMCs also exceed that of the Al alloys, which have
very low densities and low strengths. The hardness of the
alloys was also measured in Table I using the Rockwell C
scale. The monolithic BMG Vitreloy 1 exhibits the highest
hardness of 60.0, which is similar to hardened tool steel.
The composites exhibit a lower hardness than the mono-
lithic glass, depending on the volume fraction of soft
dendrites, with DH3 having the lowest hardness at 43.3. In
both DV1 and DH3, the hardness of the composite formed
by SSF was lower than that formed by SC due to the larger
J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016
scale of the dendrites. All the composites exhibited
a higher hardness than the hardest crystalline alloy tested,
Ti-6-4, at 41.0. Both Al alloys and 304 steel were too soft
for the Rockwell C scale, so a conversion from the
Rockwell B scale was used instead. One potential disad-
vantage in using a BMGMC over a crystalline material in
a structural application is the stiffness (or Young’s
modulus), also listed in Table I. The composites, with
their large elastic limits, have very low stiffness, typically
half that of steel and significantly lower than Ti-6-4.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The above results demonstrate the steep dependence of
the material properties of BMGMCs, in particular of CIT,
on processing techniques. In the example of DH3, the
average impact toughness ranged from 0.2 J for one
processing technique (crystalline) to 5.3 J for another
(SSF), a roughly 28-fold increase from the same compo-
sition. Even when all the processing techniques applied
preserved the glassiness of the matrix, as for DV1, one
technique yielded CIT values ;4 times higher than
another. Given such strong dependence on processing
conditions, the development of BMGMCs is facilitated by
quick, repeatable techniques for characterizing the mate-
rial properties yielded by a given set of parameters. The
substandard-sized Charpy impact test used herein is one
such method for quickly identifying the superior process-
ing technique for each alloy. Provided that the correct
processing techniques are applied, the resulting BMGMCs
compare favorably to both BMGs and crystalline alloys,
inviting further exploration of BMGMCs as high perfor-
mance structural materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank R. DeSalvo for assistance with the
setup and Liquidmetal Technologies Inc. for supplying
materials. D.C. Hofmann acknowledges financial support
from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, under contract with the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration (NASA). C.F. Zachrisson
acknowledges financial support from American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science Entry Point’s
ACCESS, a program sponsored by NASA.
REFERENCES
1. A.L. Greer: Metallic glasses. Science 267, 5206 (1995).
2. J. Schroers: Processing of bulk metallic glass. Adv. Mater. 22, 14
(2010).
3. G. Kumar, H.X. Tang, and J. Schroers: Nanomoulding with
amorphous metals. Nature 457, 7231 (2009).
4. Y.H. Liu, G. Wang, R.J. Wang, D.W. Zhao, M.X. Pan, and
W.H. Wang: Super plastic bulk metallic glasses at room tempera-
ture. Science 315, 5817 (2007).
1267
IP address: 131.215.220.163
 C. Zachrisson et al.: Effect of processing on Charpy impact toughness of metallic glass matrix composites
5. W.L. Johnson: Bulk glass-forming metallic alloys: Science and
technology. MRS Bull. 24, 42 (1999).
6. A. Peker and W.L. Johnson: A highly processable metallic
glass: Zr41.2Ti13.8Cu12.5Ni10.0Be22.5. Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 2342
(1993).
7. J. Xu, U. Ramamurty, and E. Ma: The fracture toughness of bulk
metallic glasses. JOM 62, 4 (2010).
8. M.E. Launey, D.C. Hofmann, J.Y. Suh, H. Kozachkov,
W.L. Johnson, and R.O. Ritchie: Fracture toughness and crack
resistance curve behavior in metallic glass-matrix composites. Appl.
Phys. Lett. 94, 241910 (2009).
9. M.E. Launey, D.C. Hofmann, W.L. Johnson, and R.O. Ritchie:
Solution to the problem of the poor cyclic fatigue resistance
of bulk metallic glasses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106,
4986 (2009).
10. C.C. Hays, C.P. Kim, and W.L. Johnson: Microstructure controlled
shear band pattern formation and enhanced plasticity of bulk
metallic glasses containing in situ formed ductile phase dendrite
dispersions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2901 (2000).
11. F. Szuecs, C.P. Kim, and W.L. Johnson: Mechanical properties of
Zr56.2Ti13.8Nb5.0Cu6.9Ni5.6Be12.5 ductile phase reinforced bulk
metallic glass composite. Acta Mater. 49, 1507 (2001).
12. D.C. Hofmann, J.Y. Suh, A. Wiest, G. Duan, M.L. Lind,
M.D. Demetriou, and W.L. Johnson: Designing metallic glass
matrix composites with high toughness and tensile ductility. Nature
451, 1086 (2008).
13. D.C. Hofmann, J.Y. Suh, A. Wiest, M.L. Lind, M.D. Demetriou,
and W.L. Johnson: Development of tough, low-density titanium
based bulk metallic glass matrix composites with tensile ductility.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 20136 (2008).
14. S. Pauly, S. Gorantla, G. Wang, U. Kuhn, and J. Eckert: Trans-
formation-mediated ductility in CuZr-based bulk metallic glasses.
Nat. Mater. 9, 473 (2010).
15. Y. Wu, Y. Xiao, G. Chen, C.T. Liu, and Z. Lu: Bulk metallic glass
composites with transformation-mediated work-hardening and
ductility. Adv. Mater. 22, 2270 (2010).
16. Z. Bian, H. Kato, C. Qin, W. Zhang, and A. Inoue: Cu–Hf–Ti–
Ag–Ta bulk metallic glass composites and their properties. Acta
Mater. 53, 2037 (2005).
17. C.L. Qin, W. Zhang, K. Asami, H. Kimura, X.M. Wang, and
A. Inoue: A novel Cu-based BMG composite with high corrosion
resistance and excellent mechanical properties. Acta Mater. 54,
3713 (2006).
1268 J. Mater. Res., Vol. 26, No. 10, May 28, 2011
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Feb 2016
View publication stats
18. K.M. Flores, W.L. Johnson, and R.H. Dauskardt: Fracture and
fatigue behavior of a Zr-Ti-Nb ductile phase reinforced bulk
metallic glass matrix composite. Scr. Mater. 49, 1181 (2003).
19. P. Lowhaphandu and J.J. Lewandowski: Fracture toughness and
notched toughness of bulk amorphous alloy: Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be. Scr.
Mater. 38, 1811 (1998).
20. J.L. Chen, G. Chen, F. Xu, Y.L. Du, Y.S. Li, and C.T. Liu:
Correlation of the microstructure and mechanical properties of
Zr-based in-situ bulk metallic glass matrix composites. Intermetal-
lics 18, 12 (2010).
21. K.R. Lim, J.H. Na, J.M. Park, W.T. Kim, and D.H. Kim:
Enhancement of plasticity in Ti-based metallic glass matrix
composites by controlling characteristic and volume fraction of
primary phase. J. Mater. Res. 25, 11 (2010).
22. J.M. Park, J. Jayaraj, D.H. Kim, N. Mattern, G. Wang, and J. Eckert:
Tailoring of in situ Ti-based bulk glassy matrix composites with
high mechanical performance. Intermetallics 18, 10 (2010).
23. S.F. Guo, L. Liu, N. Li, and Y. Li: Fe-based bulk metallic glass
matrix composite with large plasticity. Scr. Mater. 62, 6 (2010).
24. Z. Zhu, H. Zhang, Z. Hu, W. Zhang and A. Inoue: Ta-particulate
reinforced Zr-based bulk metallic glass matrix composites with
tensile plasticity. Scr. Mater. 62, 278 (2010).
25. J.W. Qiao, P. Feng, Y. Zhang, Q.M. Zhang, P.K. Liaw, and
G.L. Chen: Quasi-static and dynamic deformation behaviors of in
situ Zr-based bulk-metallic-glass-matrix-composites. J. Mater. Res.
25, 12 (2010).
26. R. Raghavan, P. Murali, and U. Ramamurty: On factors influencing
the ductile-to-brittle transition in a bulk metallic glass. Acta Mater.
57, 3332 (2009).
27. R. Raghavan, P. Murali, and U. Ramamurty: Ductile to brittle
transition in the Zr41.2Ti13.75Cu12.5Ni10Be22.5 bulk metallic glass.
Mater. Sci. Eng., A 417, 1 (2006).
28. H.S. Shin, K.H. Kim, and S.Y. Oh: Fracture behavior of Zr-based
metallic glass under impact loading. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 20, 27 (2006).
29. H.S. Shin, K.H. Kim, Y.J. Jung, and D.K. Ko: Impact fracture
behavior of Zr-based bulk metallic glass using subsize Charpy
specimen. Adv. Frac. Strength 279, 1356 (2005).
30. J.S. Park, H.K. Lim, E.S. Park, H.S. Shin, W.H. Lee, W.T. Kim, and
D.H. Kim: Fracture behavior of bulk metallic glass/metal laminate
composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 417, 1 (2006).
31. D.C. Hofmann, H. Kozachakov, H.E. Khalifa, J.P. Schramm,
M.D. Demetriou, K.S. Vecchio, and W.L. Johnson: Semi-solid induc-
tion forging of metallic glass matrix composites. JOM 61, 11 (2009).
IP address: 131.215.220.163