Fig. 1. Schematic of tensile-specimen orientations.

Fig. 2. BSE SEM images of as-rolled TMC on the (a) R-T plan, (b) T-N plan, and (c) R-N plan; (d) the relative and cumulative frequency distribution of TiBw aspect ratio in as-rolled TMC.

Fig. 3. (a) EBSD map (superposition of inverse pole figure (IPF) and band contrast) and (b) BSE SEM image from the identical location on the R-N plan of as-rolled TMC; (c) (0001),( $11\bar{2}0$) and ($10\bar{1}0$) pole figures of the α-Ti phase; (d) (001), (010) and (100) pole figures of the TiB phase.

Fig. 4. (a) Variation of room-temperature mechanical properties (yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and elongation) of as-rolled TMC as a function of test angle; (b) comparison of yield strength and elongation of as-rolled TMC with other high-temperature titanium-alloy-based TMCs together with roll-annealed IMI834. Note that the dots with circles are the solution-aged (TiB+La2O3)/IMI834, which has the same composition as this study.

Fig. 5. Variations of high-temperature mechanical properties (yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and elongation) of as-rolled TMC at (a) 600°C and (b) 650°C as a function of the test angle; (c) comparison of yield strength and elongation of as-rolled TMC with other high-temperature titanium-alloy-based TMCs together with roll-annealed IMI834 at 600°C [23,29,30,33,34].

Fig. 6. The subsurface sections (a-c, g-i) and fracture surface (d-f, j-l) of as-rolled TMC tested at different test angles and temperatures: 0°-TMC (a, d, g, j); 30°-TMC (b, e); 45°-TMC (h, k); 90°-TMC (c, f, i, l); at RT (a-f) and 650°C (g-l).

Fig. 7. (a) EDS map for Mo from the identical location of EBSD; (b) distribution map and (c) histogram of internal average Mo concentration in a grain; (d) IPF and (g) (0001) pole figure of the αp; (e) IPF and (h) (0001) pole figure of the αs; (f) misorientations angle distribution (MAD) between the αs and neighboring gains; (i) the φ2=45° ODF section of reconstructed β from the αs.

Fig. 8. (a) IPF and (d, e) pole figure of the grains around TiBw; (b) pole figure of grains α1, α2, TiB1 and TiB2 in (a); (c) IPF and (f) pole figure of the grains not adjacent to TiBw.

Fig. 9. (a) The variation in strength relative increment (Δσw/σm) with the whisker off-axis angle; (b) the Schmid factors of the slip systems in the single crystal α-Ti as a function of the angle φ between the loading axis and the [$10\bar{1}0$] axis on the ($11\bar{2}0$) plane; (c) the mean Schmid factors of the slip systems in α grains of as-rolled TMC as a function of the test angle; (d) the ratio of minimum active stress to prismatic-slip CRSS at different CRSS ratios at the test angle of 0, 45 and 90°.

Fig. 10. Variation of the percentage of whiskers with an aspect ratio less than the critical aspect ratio of the off-axis whisker (S ≤ SC,θ) as a function of the test angle and the ratio of whisker strength to matrix strength (σwu/σm).