Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Technical Report
Center for Manufacturing Sciences, National Engineering College, Kovilpatti 628 503, Tamil Nadu, India
Mechanical Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 October 2011
Accepted 8 February 2012
Available online 24 February 2012
a b s t r a c t
The wear and sliding friction response of a hybrid aluminium metal matrix composite reinforced with
hard ceramic (5 wt.% of SiC) and soft solid lubricant (0, 5, and 10 wt.% of graphite) fabricated by powder
metallurgy was investigated. The inuence of the percentages of reinforcement, load, sliding speed and
sliding distance on both the wear and friction coefcient were studied using the pin-on-disk method with
tests based on the design of experiments. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the inuence of the parameters on both the wear rate and the coefcient of friction. The hardness of the composites decreases as the % of graphite (Gr) increases. The wear and friction coefcient were mainly inuenced
by both the sliding distance and the load applied. The morphology of the worn out surfaces and the wear
debris was analysed to understand the wear mechanisms. The wear resistance of the hybrid composite
containing 5 wt.% SiC and 5 wt.% graphite is superior to that of the graphite free composites and the other
hybrid composites. This study reveals that the addition of both hard reinforcement like SiC and soft reinforcement like graphite improves the wear resistance of aluminium composites signicantly.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Metal Matrix Composites (MMCs) have recently evoked a keen
interest for their potential applications in cylinder liners, brake
drums, crankshafts, and the aerospace and automotive industries
because of their greater strength to weight ratios and high temperature resistances [1]. At the present time, aluminium metal matrix
composites (AMMCs) have been well recognised and steadily improved because of their advanced engineering properties, such as
their improved wear resistance, low density, specic strength
and stiffness [2]. Among all of these superior properties, the
improved wear resistance of AMMCs has attracted signicant
attentions in the eld of tribology. However, the use of single reinforcement in an aluminium matrix may sometimes compromise
the values of its physical properties [3]. Both the mechanical
strength and the wear resistance of composites increase with the
addition of SiC particulates to the aluminium matrix alloy.
However, the consequent increase in hardness makes machining
difcult [3]. Thus, it is essential identify ways to retain the advantageous inuence of SiC while simultaneously attending to the
Corresponding author. Address: 57/D, Vannar 2nd Street, Melashunmugapuraam,
Thoothukudi 628 003, Tamil Nadu, India. Tel.: +91 0461 2328915, mobile: +91
9842160709.
E-mail addresses: energyravindran@gmail.com, sweetravindran@yahoo.com,
ravicms@necmail.com (P. Ravindran).
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.02.013
problems of machining SiC reinforced composites. Graphite particulates are well suited to this application, and their addition improves the machinability as well as wear resistance of AlSiC
composites. AlSiC composites reinforced with graphite particulates are known as AlSiCGr hybrid composites. Basavarajappa
et al. [4] investigated the inuence of sliding speed on the dry sliding wear behaviour and subsurface deformation of hybrid metal
matrix composites by a liquid metallurgy technique. In addition,
Riahi and Alpas [5] showed that the formation of a tribolayer delayed the transition from mild wear to severe. Rohatgi et al. have
reported that the reduction in the friction coefcient of Al
10SiC6Gr is caused by the combination of an increase in the bulk
mechanical properties as a result of the addition of SiC and the formation of a graphite lm [6]. The investigation by Basavarajappa
et al. also reported that Al15SiC3Gr composites have a reduced
degree of subsurface deformation (and thereby, a reduced wear
rate) compared to that of graphite-free composites [7]. Biswas
and Pramila Bai [8] showed that unreinforced AlSi composites
had better wear properties than those with 2.75.7% graphite.
Ted Guo et al. have observed that the wear of Al10SiC28Gr increases as the graphite content approaches 5% because of the reduced fracture toughness, and it then decreases because of the
formation of a thick solid lubricant lm that overrides the effect
of the reduced fracture toughness [9]. From the literature study,
relatively little information about the effect of graphite particles
on wear properties is available. Therefore, further discussion of
43
Table 1
Chemical composition of the matrix alloy.
Element
Cu
Mg
Fe
Mn
Si
Cr
Zn
Al
Content %
4.0
1.8
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.2
Balance
Table 2
Details of reinforcements.
Reinforcement
Density (g/cm3)
SiC
Gr
4353
4360
3.22
2.092.23
Table 3
Mechanical properties of the samples.
Sample no.
Composition (Wt%)
Density (g/cm3)
Hardness (BHN)
1
2
3
Al5%SiC
Al5%SiC5%Gr
Al5%SiC10%Gr
2.89
2.84
2.82
55
53
51
44
Fig. 1. Typical SEM micrographs of the produced powder mixtures (a) Al/5 wt.% of SiC (b) Al/5 wt.% of SiC/5 wt% of Gr and (c) Al/5 wt.% of SiC/10 wt.% of Gr.
Fig. 2. Optical micrographs of the produced composites. (a) Al/5 wt.% of SiC composite (b) Al/5 wt.% of SiC/5 wt% of Gr hybrid composite and (c) Al/5 wt.% of SiC/10 wt.% of Gr
hybrid composite.
test for the signicance of the regression model, the test for the signicance of the individual model coefcients, and the test for lackof t were performed [12,13]. ANOVA analysis is usually applied to
summarise the above tests.
3.1. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA)
ANOVA is a statistical technique that can draw a set of important conclusions based on the analysis of experimental data.
45
Table 4
Designed experimental factors and their levels.
Table 5
Detail of tests in actual values of factors and corresponding experimental results.
S. no.
Code
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Graphite content
(% of weight)
Applied load (N)
Sliding distance (m)
Speed or sliding
velocity (m/s)
Gr wt.%
10
L
D
V
10
1000
1
20
3000
2
2
3
4
shows the following parameters: (i) Gr wt.%, (ii) L, (iii) D, and (iv) V.
Table 6 also shows that the interactions between (v) L and V
and between (vi) D and V are the signicant model terms that
inuence the sliding wear of the composites, whereas all other
interactions are less signicant (as determined by their percentage
contribution of model terms to the wear of the composites).
Table 6 shows that the sliding distance (P = 56.74%), the sliding
velocity (P = 13.4%), the weight percent of Gr (P = 11.67%), and
the load (P = 13.49%) are the controlling factors on the wear of
the composites, while the interaction effect of the composites on
the wear is marginal. The interaction between the load and speed
(P = 2.01%) and that between the sliding distance and speed
(P = 1.52%) are signicant interaction model terms. Their error
contribution is 0.93%. It can be observed from ANOVA (Table 7)
that the following model terms signicantly inuence the sliding
friction of the composites, while all other interaction terms have
less signicant percentage contributions to the friction of the composites: the (i) load, (ii) sliding velocity, (iii) sliding distance and
the interactions between, (iv) load and sliding distance. Table 7
shows that the load (P = 62.91%), sliding distance (P = 18.71%),
Gr.
(wt.%)
Load
(N)
Distance
(m)
Speed
(m/s)
Wear loss
(gm)
Coefcient of
friction (l)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
1000
1000
3000
3000
1000
1000
3000
3000
1000
1000
3000
3000
1000
1000
3000
3000
1000
1000
3000
3000
1000
1000
3000
3000
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
0.0095
0.0053
0.0198
0.0118
0.0124
0.0098
0.0226
0.0189
0.0050
0.0024
0.0150
0.0079
0.0078
0.0057
0.0162
0.0140
0.0069
0.0022
0.0153
0.0077
0.0092
0.0066
0.0185
0.0166
0.153
0.169
0.161
0.182
0.187
0.196
0.231
0.239
0.146
0.175
0.170
0.181
0.189
0.201
0.209
0.212
0.148
0.179
0.174
0.185
0.191
0.204
0.228
0.242
46
Table 6
Analysis of variance for wear loss.
Source
Degrees of freedom
Sum of squares
F-ratio
P-value
Percentage of contribution
Gr. (wt.%)
Load
Dist.
Speed
Gr. wt.% load
Gr. wt.% dist.
Gr. wt.% speed
Load dist.
Load speed
Dist. speed
Error
Total
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
23
0.0000883
0.0001021
0.0004293
0.0001013
0.0000019
0.0000010
0.0000013
0.0000035
0.0000152
0.0000057
0.0000071
0.0007566
0.0000883
0.0001021
0.0004293
0.0001013
0.0000019
0.0000010
0.0000013
0.0000035
0.0000152
0.0000057
0.0000071
0.0000441
0.0001021
0.0004293
0.0001013
0.0000010
0.0000005
0.0000006
0.0000035
0.0000152
0.0000057
0.0000008
56.30
130.23
547.57
129.18
1.24
0.65
0.82
4.40
19.39
7.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.335
0.543
0.470
0.065
0.002
0.024
11.67
13.49
56.74
13.40
0.25
0.13
0.17
0.46
2.01
0.75
0.93
100
Table 7
Analysis of variance for coefcient of friction.
Source
Degrees of freedom
Sum of squares
F-ratio
P-value
Percentage of contribution
Gr. (wt.%)
Load
Dist.
Speed
Gr. wt.% load
Gr. wt.% dist.
Gr. wt.% speed
Load dist.
Load speed
Dist. speed
Error
Total
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
23
0.0002891
0.0106682
0.0031740
0.0013202
0.0001701
0.0001803
0.0000176
0.0005042
0.0001500
0.0000735
0.0004123
0.0169593
0.0002891
0.0106682
0.0031740
0.0013202
0.0001701
0.0001803
0.0000176
0.0005042
0.0001500
0.0000735
0.0004123
0.0001445
0.0106682
0.0031740
0.0013202
0.0000850
0.0000901
0.0000088
0.0005042
0.0001500
0.0000735
0.0000458
3.15
232.85
69.28
28.82
1.86
1.97
0.19
11.00
3.27
1.60
0.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.211
0.196
0.829
0.009
0.104
0.237
1.71
62.91
18.71
7.79
1.00
1.06
Pooled
2.97
0.89
0.43
2.43
100
47
Fig. 4. Main effects plot of factors (a) Wear of AlSiCGr hybrid composites. and (b) Friction coefcient of AlSiCGr hybrid composites.
scatter plot graphs. Fig. 6a and b show that the optimum reinforcement content for both the wear and friction coefcient of the hybrid composite occurs at 5 wt.% of graphite for moderate loads
and sliding distances. Thus, the present analysis suggests that the
hybrid composite containing 5 wt.% of graphite is the optimum
values of both the friction and wear characteristics.
3.3. Coefcient of friction with the effect of applied load
The variation of the coefcient of friction for the Al-5% SiC and
hybrid composites under applied loads of 10 N and 20 N is shown
in Fig. 7. There is an increase in the coefcient of friction as the
normal load increases. The hybrid composites exhibited lower
coefcients of friction than the Al5% SiC composite. A higher
coefcient of friction is exhibited by the Al5% SiC composite for
all of the load conditions. The severity of the plastic deformation
48
Fig. 5. Interaction plots for (a) wear loss and (b) co-efcient of friction (l).
49
Fig. 6. Scatter plot for (a) wear loss and (b) co-efcient of friction (l).
Fig. 7. Variation of co-efcient of friction (a) at applied load of 10 N and (b) at applied load of 20 N.
morphological patterns that include deep continuous grooves, micro pits, debris and broken particles. The worn surface of the Al5%SiC composite (Fig. 10a) clearly exhibits the presence of deep
permanent grooves and fracture of the oxide layer, which may
have caused the increase of wear loss. However, the worn surfaces
of the other two composites (Figs. 11 and 12) exhibit ner grooves
50
Fig. 9. Normal probability plots of residuals for friction coefcient of Al hybrid composites.
Fig. 10. SEM morphologies of the worn surface of Al5%SiC composite at applied load of 20 N (a) Low-magnication micrograph and (b) high-magnication micrograph.
and slight plastic deformation at the edges of the grooves. The surfaces also appear to be smooth because of the graphite reinforcement content.
51
Fig. 11. SEM morphologies of the worn surface of Al5%SiC10%Gr composite at applied load of 20 N. (a) Low-magnication micrograph and (b) high-magnication
micrograph.
Fig. 12. SEM morphologies of the worn surface of Al5%SiC5% Gr composite at applied load of 20 N. (a) Low-magnication micrograph and (b) high-magnication
micrograph.
52
Fig. 13. EDX spectrum of worn surfaces at a sliding velocity of 2 m/s (a) Al5%SiC composite (b) Al5%SiC10%Gr composite and (c) Al5%SiC5%Gr. composite.
53
Fig. 14. Typical SEM micrographs of wear debris at applied load of 20 N. (a) Al5%SiC composite, (b) Al5%SiC10%Gr composite and (c) Al5%SiC5%Gr composite.
References
[1] Liu ZY, Wang QZ, Xiao BL, Ma ZY, Liu Y. Experimental and modeling
investigation on SiCp distribution in powder metallurgy processed SiCp/2024
Al composites. Mater Sci Eng A 2010;527:558291.
[2] Bayhan M, nel K. Optimization of reinforcement content and sliding distance
for AlSi7Mg/SiCp composites using response surface methodology. Mater Des
2010;31:301522.
[3] Suresha S, Sridhara BK. Effect of addition of graphite particulates on the wear
behaviour in aluminiumsilicon carbidegraphite composites. Mater Des
2010;31:180412.
[4] Basavarajappa S, Chandramohan G, Mukund K, Ashwin M, Prabu M. Dry sliding
wear behavior of Al2219/SiCpGr hybrid metal matrix composites. J Mater Eng
Perform 2006;15:66874.
[5] Riahi AR, Alpas AT. The role of tribo-layers on the sliding wear behavior of
graphitic aluminum matrix composites. Wear 2001;251:1396407.
[6] Rohatgi PK, Guo R, Kim JK, Rao S, Stephenson T, Waner T. Wear and friction of
cast AlSiCGr composites. In: Proceedings of materials solutions97 on wear
of engineering materials, Indianapolis. Indiana 1997;15:20511.
[7] Basavarajappa S, Chandramohan G, Mahadevan Arjun, Tangavelu Mukundan,
Subramanian R, Gopalakrishnan P. Inuence of sliding speed on the dry sliding
wear behaviour and the subsurface deformation on hybrid metal matrix
composite. Wear 2007;262:100712.
[8] Biswas SK, Pramila Bai BN. Dry wear of Al-graphite particle composites. Wear
1981;68:34759.
[9] Ted Guo ML, Tsao CYA. Tribological behavior of self-lubricating aluminium/
SiC/graphite hybrid composites synthesized by the semi-solid powder
densication method. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:6574.
[10] Kim HS. High strain rate super plastic behaviour of powder-metallurgy
processed 7475Al+07Zr alloy. Mater Sci Eng A 1998;251:100.
[11] Yamagushi K, Takakura N, Imatani S. Compaction and sintering characteristics
of composite metal powder. J Mater Process Technol 1997;63:346.
[12] Myers RH, Montgomery DC. Response surface methodology: process and
product optimization using designed experiments. New York: Wiley; 1995.
54
[21] Savaskan T, Bican O. Dry sliding friction and wear properties of Al25Zn3Cu
(05) Si alloys in the as-cast and heat-treated conditions. Tribol Lett
2010;40:32736.
[22] Jung-moo L, Suk-bong K, Jianmin H. Dry sliding wear of MAO-coated A356/
20 vol.% SiCp composites in the temperature range 25180 C. Wear
2008;264:7585.
[23] Rao RN, Das S, Mondal DP, Dixit G. Dry sliding wear behaviour of cast high
strength aluminium alloy (AlZnMg) and hard particle composites. Wear
2009;267:168895.
[24] Mahdavi S, Akhlaghi F. Effect of the Graphite Content on the Tribological
Behavior of Al/Gr and Al/30SiC/Gr Composites Processed by In Situ Powder
Metallurgy (IPM) Method. Tribol Lett 2011;44:112.
[25] Onat A. Mechanical and dry sliding wear properties of silicon carbide
particulate reinforced aluminiumcopper alloy matrix composites produced
by direct squeeze casting method. J Alloys Compd 2010;489:11924.
[26] Ramesh CS, NoorAhmed R, Mujeebu MA, Abdullah MZ. Development and
performance analysis of novel cast copperSiCGr hybrid composites. Mater
Des 2009;30:195765.
[27] ASTM G9905 (Reapproved 2010. Standard test method for wear testing with
a Pin-on-Disk apparatus, American Society for Testing and Materials, Edition;
2010.