ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Al2014–Alumina Aerospace Composites: Particle Size Impacts on Microstructure, Mechanical, Fractography, and Wear Characteristics
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Al2014–Alumina Aerospace Composites: Particle Size Impacts on Microstructure, Mechanical, Fractography, and Wear Characteristics
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Bharath Vedashantha Murthy
    Bharath Vedashantha Murthy
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, RNS Institute of Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Bengaluru 560098, Karnataka, India
  • Virupaxi Auradi*
    Virupaxi Auradi
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Tumakuru 572103, Karnataka, India
    *Email: [email protected]
  • Madeva Nagaral*
    Madeva Nagaral
    Aircraft Research and Design Centre, HAL, Bengaluru 560037, Karnataka, India
    *Email: [email protected]
  • Manjunath Vatnalmath
    Manjunath Vatnalmath
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Tumakuru 572103, Karnataka, India
  • Nagaraj Namdev
    Nagaraj Namdev
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, APS Polytechnic, Bengaluru 560082, Karnataka, India
  • Chandrashekar Anjinappa
    Chandrashekar Anjinappa
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangalore Institute of Technology, Bengaluru 560004, Karnataka, India
  • Shanawaz Patil
    Shanawaz Patil
    Department of Mechanical, School of Engineering, REVA University, Bengaluru 560063, Karnataka, India
  • Abdul Razak*
    Abdul Razak
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, P. A. College of Engineering (Affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi), Mangaluru 574153, Karnataka, India
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Abdul Razak
  • Abdullah H. Alsabhan
    Abdullah H. Alsabhan
    Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
  • Shamshad Alam
    Shamshad Alam
    Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
  • Mohammad Obaid Qamar
    Mohammad Obaid Qamar
    Department of Civil Engineering (Environmental Science & Engineering), Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, South Korea
Open PDF

ACS Omega

Cite this: ACS Omega 2023, 8, 14, 13444–13455
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c01163
Published March 27, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

An Al2014–alumina (Al2O3) composite’s characteristics are significantly influenced by the reinforcement particle size variation. Therefore, this study examines the microstructure, mechanical, fractography, and wear performance of an Al2014–Al2O3p composite made using a unique two-stage stir casting method and various alumina weight fractions (9, 12, and 15 wt %). Three categories of alumina particle size are used, i.e., fine particle size (FPS, 8 μm), intermediate particle size (IPS, 53 μm), and coarse particle size (CPS, 88 μm). The shapes of the composites were characterized using scanning electron microscopy. According to scanning electron microscopic analyses of the microstructure, the FPS dispersion was more uniform than IPS and CPS, whereas CPS causes agglomeration. Additionally, the studies show that the FPS composite outperformed CPS and IPS composites in terms of mechanical characteristics and wear performance. The fractography study shows conical and equiaxed dimple failure in the Al2014 matrix and the circular cavities.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Composites are mixtures of two or more chemically or physically distinct materials that have varying physical or chemical properties. (1) Composites are employed for thermal, tribological, and other purposes. (2,3) Matrix and reinforcement classify composites. Matrixes are metallic, polymer, and ceramic, and reinforcements are fiber, particle, and structural. (1)
Metal matrix composites incorporate hard ceramic particles into the matrix to increase hardness, yield strength (YS), and ultimate tensile strength (UTS). (4,5) Aluminum metal matrix composites are strengthened using discontinuous reinforcements, which improve their physical and mechanical qualities. (6) Aluminum alloys are utilized in engineering because of their ductility, corrosion resistance, strength-to-weight ratio, and low cost. (7) Aluminum alloys are wrought, cast, and heat treatable. (8) Hot and cold working processes distort aluminum into wrought products.
A wrought Al2XXX alloy, i.e., Al2014, is made by combining copper and aluminum. Adding copper to a material decreases its ductility, enhances its strength, and accelerates precipitation hardening. (9) The Al2014 alloy was selected for this investigation because of its high strength, high mechanical quality, wide range of applications, and ability to be cast. (10,11) Traditional aluminum alloys are soft and low-wearing, limiting their usefulness. Adding hard ceramic reinforcing particles to aluminum and related alloys creates a DRMMC (discontinuous reinforced metal matrix composite) with almost isotropic characteristics.
There has been much attention paid in recent years to ceramic-particle-containing metal matrix composites based on aluminum. Aluminum alloys have a wide range of ceramics: silicon carbide, (12−18) boron carbide, (13) alumina, (14) titanium carbide, (13−15) and graphite (16) have been reinforced into it in several forms such as particulates, whiskers, or fibers (17) that can be used due to their low density, melting temperature, high specific strength, and thermal conductivity. They can be adjusted to have better qualities than monolithic alloys, such as high specific strength and stiffness, higher wear resistance, and stronger thermal and mechanical fatigue and creep resistance. Researchers have found issues with metal matrix composites due to nonhomogeneous reinforcing particle dispersion. (19−21)
Powder metallurgy, (22) liquid metal infiltration, (23) and squeeze-exhausted casting (24) are all methods that have been used to create aluminum metal matrix composites using microsized ceramic particles. Stir casting is the most advantageous method for fabricating aluminum alloy matrix composites with discontinuous reinforcement because of its good matrix-reinforcing particle adhesion, simplified matrix structure regulations, ease of manufacturing and cost effectiveness, closer net shape, and high production rates (in terms of higher weight fraction). (25)
Stir casting incorporates ceramic particles into a molten matrix in one stage. (26,27) In the current study, Al2014–Al2O3 composites are created using two-stage stir casting in which reinforcing particles are introduced in two-stages. This two-stage mixing improves the wettability of the matrix’s reinforcing alumina. (28) Improving wettability and casting improves aluminum matrix composite characteristics.
Many researchers have evaluated the characteristics of Al2O3, TiC, B4C, SiC, graphite, and fly ash composites. (29−35) Sekar (36) described A356 and Al2O3 composites. Al2024 and Al2O3 particle-reinforced composites with varied particle size, (37) density, hardness, and tensile strength were investigated. Al2014 and Al2124 alloys were reinforced with different particle sizes of Al2O3, (38) as well as Al6061–Al2O3, (39) Al2024–ZrB2, (40) Al6061–B4C, (29) Al2219–TiC, (41) and Al5083–TiB2 (42) composites. Reduced particle size improves composite strength. (43)
The aluminum matrix composite concept can be extended. Currently, mechanical and wear attributes are driving metal matrix composite development. Mechanical and wear property improvements are still crucial. Further advancements in this area include reinforcing rapidly solidified matrices to provide strength and combining discontinuous and continuous matrix reinforcements to add strength and optimize mechanical and wear qualities. These issues require extensive laboratory research.
Several groups of researchers have applied various matrix and reinforcement processing techniques to metal matrix composites. Liquid and powder metallurgy (41,44,45) are used to treat metal matrix composites. Despite their best efforts, it is difficult to incorporate soft or hard nonmetal or ceramic reinforcements into aluminum alloy. An enhanced method is needed to enhance wetting and particle uniformity in aluminum-based metal matrix composites.
Few researchers have studied how particle size reinforcement affects mechanical and wear parameters of Al2014 alloy reinforced with Al2O3p composite manufactured by a unique two-stage liquid stirring technique. Al-based composites are being explored as candidates to replace steel or aluminum alloys in potential modern applications. Cylinder liners and brake rotors are classic examples. An Al2014 alloy reinforced with Al2O3 composite is employed in aircraft and motor sectors, mainly in the fabrication of structural frames (i.e., bulk head and fork hinge of rudder). New formulations and property evaluations are needed. This study investigates the influence of particle size variations (FPS, IPS, and CPS) on mechanical and wear behavior of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with varied weight fractions.

2. Fabrication Procedure

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Matrix and Microparticulate Reinforcement: The Particulars

In the present study, Al2014 and Al2O3 are used as the matrix (Supplier: Fenfee Metallurgical Bangalore, India) and reinforcement. The chemical composition of Al2014 is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Al2014 Chemical Composition in % by Weight
elementsMgSiFeCuTiCrZnMnAl
Al2014 (actual, wt %)0.630.70.24.50.060.010.190.83balance

2.2. Al2014–Al2O3 Metal Matrix Composite Synthesis

The current investigations examined the preparation of Al2014 reinforced with 9 wt % Al2O3 (CPS, 88 μm) metal matrix composites utilizing the most common and cost-effective liquid metallurgical method: the stir casting process. First, a Gr crucible containing a measured quantity of Al2014 alloy was heated to 725 °C in an electrical resistance furnace. A 9 wt % weighted quantity of reheated Al2O3 was injected into the melt in two stages to prevent segregation and enhance the dispersion of the particles throughout the alloy matrix. Once this temperature was reached, hexachloroethane (C2Cl6) was added to prevent gas entrapment during stirring. Intense mixing was achieved with a zirconia-coated steel impeller and a constant speed of 250 rpm for 10 min. Later, a 125 mm × 12.5 mm × 12.5 mm mold was created, and the melt was transferred into it. After cooling, the Al2O3 metal matrix composites took on a cylinder shape. The same procedure was followed for the preparation of the composites with different weight fractions (12 and 15 wt %) with varied particle sizes (IPS 53 μm and FPS 20 μm).

2.3. Experimental Details

In order to produce the test samples required by ASTM, the obtained Al2014–9, −12 and −15 wt % Al2O3 metal matrix composites were machined. Using a Vickers hardness tester manufactured by Zwick/Roell Indtech (ZHV) in Germany, the microhardness of the highly polished cast Al2014 and Al2014–9, −12 and −15 wt % Al2O3 metal matrix composites with variable particle sizes was measured in accordance with ASTM E10. The specimen was 15 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length, and tests were run with a load of 300 g (HV 0.3) distributed over its surface for 10 s. In order to check the potential effects of indenter laying on harder particles, the investigation was conducted at ten different locations. The sample’s hardness was determined by averaging the results of ten separate readings. ASTM E8 ultimate tensile strength tests were conducted on an INSTRON-5980 model of a computerized universal testing machine (UTM) built in the USA, which has a maximum capacity of 60 kN and a minimum count of 4 N. At a speed of 0.1 mm/min, displacement mode was used for all testing. There were three separate trials conducted, and the mean value was stated. Matrix and composite tensile behaviors, including UTS, YS, and ductility, were evaluated. The fracture surfaces were displayed using SEM to identify the mechanism of fracture for the microstructural studies. The wear behavior of the materials was examined by conducting wear tests. Produced composite samples were subjected to dry sliding wear testing using a computerized pin-on-disk tribometer from DUCOM Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India (35,36) (Model: TR20LE). The wear testing machine had a counter disc made of EN-32 steel that was HRC65 hard and had a maximum track diameter of 160 mm. The tests were performed on cylindrical samples that were 8 mm in diameter and 25 mm in height. The wear behavior of the composites under diverse conditions was studied in the present work. In the wear testing, variables like load (N) and sliding distance (m) were used. Optical investigations were performed to determine the major wear mechanism by observing the wear and debris on the as-cast and composite test samples, each of which contained particles of varying sizes. Scanning electron microscopy with a TESCAN VEGA 3 from LMU in the Czech Republic was used to examine the composites’ microstructure (SEM). Worn areas and fractured samples were scanned using a SEM for analysis of the wear and fracture.

3. Results and Discussions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. Microstructural Characterization of Alumina Reinforced Al2014 Composites with Different Weight Fractions

SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p (9, 12, and 15 wt %) reinforced composites with different particle sizes (CPS 88 μm, IPS 53 μm, and FPS 20 μm) that were synthesized by stir casting are shown in Figure 1a–j. In the composite microstructure, alumina particles are separated between eutectic silicon and primary α-Al dendrites. Changing the dendrite-shape into an equiaxed structure by stirring the melt at 250 rpm while adding preheated alumina particles in two phases improves the wettability and integration of alumina particles in the liquid and disperses them more uniformly throughout the matrix. Figure 1b–d illustrates the distribution of alumina particles CPS 88 μm in composites with varying weight percentages. As the amount of alumina (wt %) increases, the alumina particles continue to separate and form clusters enriched in eutectic silicon in interdendritic regions at very few locations, primarily as a result of optimization of processing parameters during stir casting.

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a–d) SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with different composition of CPS (83 μm) alumina particulates: (a) as-cast Al2014 alloy, (b) Al2014–9 wt % Al2O3p, (c) Al2014–12 wt % Al2O3p, and (d) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p. (e–g) SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with a different composition of IPS (53 μm) alumina particulates: (e) Al2014–9 wt % Al2O3p, (f) Al2014–12 wt % Al2O3p, and (g) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p. (h–j) SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with different compositions of FPS (20 μm) alumina particulates: (h) Al2014–9 wt % Al2O3p, (i) Al2014–12 wt % Al2O3p, and (j) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p.

Figure 1b–d illustrates that the grain size of the reinforced composite is less than that of the base alloy without alumina particles (Figure 1a). As the mixture solidifies, the alumina particles added to the molten metal frequently act as heterogeneous nucleation sites.
Figure 1e–g shows the composite reinforced with IPS (53 μm) with different weight fractions. In higher-weight fractions of alumina (12 and 15%) Al2014 composites (Figure 1e–g), regions in which an enormous number of particles were in contact were frequently observed because of the introduction of two-stage mixing of preheated (250 °C) alumina particles into the melt and keeping the uniform stirring speed (250 rpm), uniform stirring time (10 min), and constant pouring temperature (750 °C).
Optimized stirring time (10 min) and speed (250 rpm) leads to stronger dissemination of particles (Figure 1e–g), and if the stirring speed (>250 rpm) and time (>10 min) increases, it may cause the chemical reactions with the particles and matrix which leads to the formation of brittle secondary phases. (46,47) Hence, in the present work the stirring speed and time is optimized to 250 rpm and 10 min, respectively, to achieve consistent dissemination of the strengthened alumina particles. Further, much less agglomeration is found in the composite containing 15 wt % of Al2O3 particles, and good bonding is seen between the matrix and reinforcement (Figure 1g); this is because of implementing the optimized processing parameters in casting as mentioned above.
Figure 1h–j depict the electron microscopic images of composites reinforced with a FPS alumina (20 μm) with different weight fractions. Figure 1i,j depicts a much smaller quantity of interdendritic stage that leads to eutectic solidification. It can be seen that the matrix is well bonded with the reinforced particulates. Dendritic fracture can be related to the stirring action shearing the starting dendritic arms; i.e., vigorous stirring is carried out at 250 rpm about 10 min. The mechanical stirring disperses the particles consistently as well as reduces the settling of the particles during the solidification. Local solidification takes place due to the variations in the temperature between the particle and the melt during the addition of the particles. Finally, synthesized composite shows uniform and homogeneous dispersion of FPS (20 μm) particles within the alloy matrix depicted in Figure 1i,j.
Excellent bonding exists with the reinforced alumina particle and alloy matrix as is shown in Figure 1j, and this is because of the implementation of the optimized processing parameters. The strong interface offers excellent mechanical and tribological properties, as the transmission of the load happens via the interface. (48) The existence of hard ceramic particles which limit dendrite development and change the matrix with a progressively refined structure results in improving the strength. (49−53)Figure 1j depicts the existence of dendrites in places far away from the particle. The cumulative examination of the microstructure (Figure 1h–j) demonstrates that the gaps/interspaces between the reinforcements decrease in the matrix as the weight fraction of the reinforcement increases. This may additionally impede the movement of a dislocation. Hence alumina can probably stop the movement of dislocations in the Al2014 matrix. Therefore, the tribological property of the composites may improve.

3.2. Hardness Measurement

Figure 2 shows how particle size affects composite microhardness at different alumina weight percentages. Composite hardness improved by 5.50 (104.45 ± 3.26 HV 0.3), 13.17 (112.04 ± 3.82 HV 0.3), and (118.01 ± 4.50 HV 0.3) 19.20% for CPS (88 μm); 16.82 (115.66 ± 4.66 HV 0.3), 22.33 (121.11 ± 3.02 HV 0.3), and 29.43 (128.14 ± 3.97 HV 0.3) for IPS (53 μm); and 25.47 (124.22 ± 2.42 HV 0.3), 33.41 (132.08 ± 2.46 HV 0.3), and 45.55 (144.10 ± 2.06 HV 0.3) for FPS (20 μm) alumina particles compared to Al2014 alloy (99 HV 0.3). The presence of alumina is primarily responsible for the increase in matrix hardness. (54)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Particle size impact on microhardness measurements of base alloy and produced composites with variable particle size and weight fractions.

In Figure 2, decreasing particle size increases reinforced composite hardness. This has various causes. First, the FPS (20 μm) interface is greater than that of the IPS and CPS (53 and 88 μm) reinforced particles, which increases hardness. Second, smaller particles have more surface area than CPS (88 μm) particles in composites.
Third, considering that dissemination of the particle size is similar in all instances, the distance between finer particles is shorter than that between the IPS (53 μm) and CPS. As a result, the composite reinforced with FPS has more impact in preventing dislocation movement when pressure is being applied by the hardness system indicator. Therefore, maximum hardness value is obtained.

3.3. Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

Figure 3a shows how particle size affects composite UTS at different alumina weight percentages. In Figure 3a, decreasing particle size and increasing alumina weight percentage increases composite tensile strength. This is in agreement with other research. (55,56) In addition, fairly uniform dissemination (dispersion) of FPS (20 μm) alumina particles as confirmed by SEM micrographs (as all ready depicted in Figure 1h–j) in FPS alumina reinforced composites as compared to the composites reinforced with IPS and CPS (53 and 88 μm) affects the tensile strength of the composites produced with varying the weight percentages. The UTS of the composites improved by 12.46% (167.90 ± 4.14 MPa), 16.29% (173.61 ± 3.55 MPa), and 29.59% (193.47 ± 2.87 MPa) for CPS (88 μm); 23.71% (184.69 ± 4.46 MPa), 38.48% (206.75 ± 4.88 MPa), and 51.46% (226.12 ± 4.86 MPa) for IPS (53 μm); and 33.17% (198.81 ± 4.36 MPa), 49.70% (223.49 ± 2.22 MPa), and 59.78% (238.54 ± 4.16 MPa) for FPS (20 μm) alumina particles, compared to Al2014 alloy (149.29 MPa).

Figure 3

Figure 3. (a) UTS, (b) YS, and (c) percentage elongation of base alloy and produced composites with variable particle size (FPS, IPS, and CPS) of alumina at different compositions (9, 12, and 15 wt %)

The composite produced (Al2014–15 wt % of Al2O3p) with FPS (20 μm) has the maximum tensile strength in comparison to Al2014 base alloy and composites with varied compositions and particle sizes (IPS and CPS). The matrix and particles may be atomically cohesive. This suggests that the matrix and FPS (20 μm) particles are in intimate contact. (56)
The impact of particle size on the YS of composites generated at various alumina weight percentages is depicted in Figure 3b. As shown in Figure 3b, the yield strength of the generated composites increases as the size of the particle lowers and the weight fraction of the alumina increases. The alumina high strength protects the alloy matrix which is relatively fragile. The yield strength (0.2% offset) of base material is 138.01 ± 4.19 MPa while the maximum yield strength of 201.29 ± 3.56 MPa for 15 wt % of alumina particles with a size of 20 μm is observed. Clearly, more load can be transferred to reinforcement with an increase in weight percentage, resulting in maximum yield strength. Therefore, the key point is that the increase of the yield strength of the synthesized composite increases as the particle size decreases (Figure 3b). This is in line with other investigations. (55,56) The degree of improvement in the YS of the synthesized composites is about 5.45% (145.54 ± 3.40 MPa), 12.46% (155.21 ± 3.86 MPa), and 29.54% (178.78 ± 3.57 MPa) for CPS (88 μm); 24.06% (171.22 ± 3.21 MPa), 35.00% (186.32 ± 2.81 MPa), and 40.66% (194.13 ± 2.60 MPa) for IPS (53 μm); and 33.75% (184.60 ± 2.94 MPa), 42.09% (196.11 ± 2.96 MPa), and 45.85% (201.29 ± 3.56 MPa) for FPS (20 μm) alumina particles as contrasted to Al2014 alloy.
The effects of particle size on the percent elongation of composites generated at various alumina weight percentages are shown in Figure 3c. As shown in Figure 3c, increasing the weight percentage of alumina causes a reduction in the percentage elongation of the generated composites as the particle size decreases. Kok has a comparable observation. (37) As compared to the composites made using CPS and IPS (88, 53 μm) and the as-cast Al2014 alloy matrix, the composite generated with 15 wt % FPS (20 μm) exhibits less elongation in the current experiment. The decrease in ductility may also be directly related to a large refined microstructure, homogeneous distribution of reinforcing particles, and a decrease in porosity. All these variables together strengthen the matrix and composites interfacial strength and ductility. (57) These factors have been accomplished in the present studies by selecting the optimized parameters.

3.4. Fracture Behavior

At various magnifications, Figure 4a–h shows the cracked surfaces of both as-cast Al2014 alloy and Al2014–15 wt % alumina particles with CPS, IPS, and FPS (88, 53, and 20 μm). The objective of the tensile fracture is to determine the effect of variation in the size particle on the fracture behavior of composites with maximal weight fractions. The most significant weight fraction of composites with different particle size is selected in the present work for the study of fractured surface due to enhanced uniform dispersion of the reinforcing particulates in the matrix (Al2014) alloy and enriched mechanical properties such as microhardness, UTS, YS, and good ductility is accomplished with 15 wt % alumina particulate composites (as discussed in the earlier sections) as compared to the 9 and 12 wt % of alumina particulates. Failure of particle-reinforced AMCs is caused by interface decohesion between the matrix and reinforcement, fracture of reinforcement, and matrix failure.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a–h) Fractographic of images of (a, b) Al2014 and (c–h) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 with CPS, IPS, and FPS and at different magnifications.

The composite (Al2014–15 wt % alumina) reinforced with CPS (88 μm) exhibits tensile fracture as shown in Figure 4c,d. Small ductile dimples are clearly evident in the matrix alloy denoted by blue circles, and particle pull-out is detected, as depicted in Figure 4d. The reinforced composites’ fracture surfaces show that the modes of fracture along the particle surface (brittle rupture) and the matrix (dimple rupture) may be distinguished clearly (Figure 4c,d). These fracture characteristics indicate a reduction in plastic deformation because of the alumina particle inclusion. (58)
Figure 4e,f demonstrates the tensile fracture behavior of the composite (Al2014–15 wt % of alumina) with IPS (53 μm). Figure 4f reveals the very small/minute dimples (except that the length scale of the dimples is different as depicted in Figure 4d) in the matrix alloy marked by red-colored circles and the size of the dimples are dependent on the size of the alumina particles. In the images (Figure 4f), hair line microcracks (shown with the arrow) of the composites with CPS (in the present study as compared to the FPS of 20 μm) appear to fracture/break. (59) The interfaces between particles and matrix stay unchanged and support the proposal that the shear strength at the interface is greater than that of the particle fracture. Kumai et al. (60) in SiC enhanced particulate Al6061 alloy also observed similar findings. Some alumina particles were also found in the dimple centers (Figure 4f), while it appears that many particles were dislodged, possibly owing to relief of residual stress. The composite reinforced with CPS (53 μm) (Figure 4e,f) reveals nearly a ductile intermediate fracture with reinforcement dimples.
Figure 4g,h illustrates the tensile fracture behavior of the composite (Al2014–15 wt % of alumina) with FPS (20 μm), while the composite displays a two-way distribution of dimples, initially bigger dimples and then smaller dimples generated by ductile matrix failure. Furthermore, electron microscopy of the fracture surfaces of composite (Figure 4g,h) revealed decohesion of the particle with the matrix and reinforcement. In the majority of cases, the particle fracture surface is smooth, indicating that the particle is fractured rather than decohered and indicating that the interface strength of these composites is high. Due to the inclusion of Al2O3p particles, the fracture behavior of Al2014 matrix shifted from ductile to brittle mode and then to intermediate ductile mode, as shown by the presence of small dimples in the matrix material. Studies on fractography clearly demonstrate a strong link between matrix and reinforcement, leading to advancement in the mechanical properties of composites as the particle size decreases. Therefore, UTS, YS, and percentage elongation findings obtained (discussed in earlier section 3.3) are reasonably appropriate and can be interconnected with fractographic studies.

3.5. Wear Behavior

3.5.1. Effect of Particle Size Variation on Load

Figure 5a depicts the wear rate results of all produced composites (i.e., with CPS, IPS, and FPS) on different loads. It is seen that (Figure 5a) the produced composite with FPS demonstrated lower volumetric wear rate at all the tested loads as compared to the IPS and CPS reinforcing alumina particulate composite and unreinforced alloy. The explanation is likely that fine reinforcing particles are strongly disseminated in the matrix as contrasted to coarse and intermediate reinforcing particles. Furthermore, the edges of fine particles are sharp and help to cut the disc on which the specimen orbits. The sharp edges of the abrading alumina become blunt during this operation. This leads to the reduction of wear. In contrast to IPS and CPS, fine particles (FPS) have sharper edges. In addition, in comparison to IPS and CPS, the sharp edge particles (i.e., FPS) can be easily placed into the matrix when the load is applied. Since, under these conditions, the intermediate and coarse particles are not easily incorporated in the matrix, they become fragmented and the wear rate increases. This indicates that a composite produced with a fine particle (FPS) is more effective as compared to the composites with IPS and CPS, and also it indicates that composite produced with fine particles exhibits better wear resistance in comparison with IPS and CPS ones as well as unreinforced alloy.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a, b) Volumetric wear results of CPS, IPS, and FPS variations of synthesized composites (a) for different load conditions and (b) for different sliding distance conditions.

Even so, at higher (greater) normal loads, the variation between the wear rates of the composite produced and the as-cast is important. Hence, at greater load (49.05 N), the extent of improvement in wear resistance (i.e., reduction in wear rate) of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites is about 27.30% for CPS, 55.26% for IPS, and 72.03% for FPS as compared to Al2014 matrix alloy. Therefore, it is concluded that among all the produced composites with coarse, intermediate, and fine particle, the Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composite with FPS exhibits higher wear resistance. This considerable enhancement in wear resistance of the Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 composites with FPS (20 μm) can be related to the following explanation. The microhardness of the composite produced with FPS (20 μm) is improved by an increase in the level of alumina reinforcement as compare to the composites produced with 88 and 53 μm (confirmed by Figure 2). Improvement in hardness decreases the severity of wear. Extreme adhesive wear is stated to depend on the hardness of the material. (61) In addition, the experimental support and functional evidence (62) indicate that the beginning of the adhesive process, such as seizure and scuffing, is slowed down as the hardening of the metals is increased. The SEM of the worn sample of the composites produced shown in Figure 6b–d shows the strong relationship with the matrix and particles. The interfacial link with the matrix and reinforcement of the particle is of major relevance in wear operations. (63)

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a–h) Worn surface images of CPS, IPS, and FPS variation of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites. (e–h) Wear debris images of CPS, IPS and FPS variation of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites.

In addition, a decrease in volumetric wear rate of the synthesized composite with FPS (20 μm) as compared to the composites produced with CPS or IPS (88 and 53 μm) and as-cast can also be due to greater load carrying ability and fracture strength of the alumina particles. The micrograph, on the other hand, indicates that the matrix alloy and aluminum particles have strong bonding. Therefore, development of adequate bonding decreases the risk of decohesion or pull out of reinforced phase from the matrix alloy by restricting the circumstance of three abrasive wear on the body, that would otherwise have contributed to increased removal of material.

3.5.2. Effect of Particle Size Variation on Sliding Distance

Figure 5b depicts the volumetric wear rate results of all produced composites (i.e., with CPS, IPS, and FPS) on different sliding distance. Due to the increased load-bearing capacity of the fine particle composite compared to the IPS and CPS ones, the composite generated with FPS demonstrates not only reduced wear rate but also maximum reduction in run-in wear compared to composites containing IPS and CPS. In addition, there is an increase in interfacial resistance between Al2014 matrix alloy and FPS alumina particles due to the high surface adhesion, which impedes particle separation from the Al2014 matrix. Thus, it is determined that a rise in weight percentage (9, 12, and 15 wt %) and a reducing the Al2O3p size reduces the wear rate, thereby increasing the composite’s wear resistance. This indicates that a composite produced with FPS is more effective as compared to the composites with IPS and CPS. Thus, the composite produced with FPS exhibits improved wear resistance in comparison with IPS and CPS as well as unreinforced alloy. The possible reason for increased wear strength (resistance) of the composite is the larger contact surface area of FPS in the matrix.
At greater sliding distances, the differential in wear rate between the resulting composite and as-cast is typically taken into account. Consequently, over a greater sliding distance (2000 m), the wear resistance (i.e., reduction in wear rate) of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites is around 23.88% for CPS, 55.59% for IPS, and 74.15% for FPS in comparison to the as-cast Al2014 matrix alloy. In conclusion, among all the composites made using CPS, IPS, and FPS, the Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composite with FPS has the highest wear resistance.

3.6. Morphological Features of the Worn Surface and Wear Debris

The wear resistance of Al2014–15 wt % alumina composites reinforced with CPS (88 μm), IPS (53 μm), and FPS (20 μm) is higher than that of Al2014–9 or −12 wt % alumina composites reinforced with CPS, IPS, and FPS, and higher than that of unreinforced Al2014 alloy. The debris morphological features and worn surface of composites (Al2014–Al2O3p) containing CPS, IPS, and FPS alumina particles at higher weight fraction (Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3) are shown in this work to aid in the determination of the probable wear mechanism.
Figure 6a–h displays the results of an SEM study of wear debris and tracks produced by Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 composites reinforced with CPS, IPS, and FPS alumina particles over a sliding distance of 2000 m and a sliding speed of 400 rpm. Standard characteristics were seen for both Al2014 base alloy, and all composites include the formation of deep and continuous ploughing grooves and an adhesion and abrasion phenomenon in the direction of sliding.
Figure 6a depicts the worn surface images of Al2014 alloy tested under a sliding distance of 2000 m, speed of 400 rpm and a load of 49.05 N. The study of Al2014 alloy shows significant grooved patches on the worn surface. Also Al2014 alloy contains deeper adhesive grooves, cracks on the worn surface, and scratches indicating the plastic deformation of unreinforced material. It reveals continuous wear grooves and some damaged regions as shown in Figure 6a. A significant adhesive groove shows that the frictional heat (high temperature) renders the matrix soft. Highly damaged areas are also an indicator of greater material loss due to a chip out of the material at a greater load, sliding distance, and speed. The wide or bigger delaminated region reveals the predominant adhesive wear in the unreinforced Al2014 base alloy.
In the case of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 composites reinforced with CPS (Figure 6b), IPS (Figure 6c), and FPS (Figure 6d), the images show parallel grooves which indicate abrasive wear as formed by the intrusion of the hard alumina particle into a smooth surface. Scored grooves formed on the track disc in addition to the impact of the wear-hardened deposits. Figure 6b–d demonstrates that local damage and fractured spots are noticed at a maximum sliding distance of 2000 m, speed of 400 rpm, and load of 49.05 N.
Figure 6b, composite reinforced with CPS alumina particles, shows the existence of shallow abrasive grooves and higher delaminated area leading to a maximum wear rate, and Figure 6c, composite reinforced with IPS alumina particles, demonstrates the existence of medium size abrasive grooves and limited amount delaminated area resulting in a decreased rate of wear as compared to the composite reinforced with CPS. Figure 6d, composite reinforced with FPS alumina particles, exhibits very small grooves and smooth surface, resulting in small amount of material loss and thereby reduced wear rate to maximum extent which indicates the higher wear resistance of the FPS alumina reinforced composite as compared to the composites reinforced with IPS and CPS alumina particles, and the presence of smooth wear surface in the composite with FPS alumina particles is evident from the reduction in volumetric wear rate as compare to IPS and CPS alumina particle reinforced composites as well as as-cast Al2014 matrix alloy. The delaminated region in the composite relies on the distance between the particles in the matrix. This particle distance relies on the weight percentage of reinforcement and particle size. From the overall worn surface examination, it is observed that the Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 composite reinforced with FPS alumina particles shows a very small amount of delaminated area and formation of grooves compared to composites (Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3) with CPS and IPS alumina particles. The possible reason for this is that particle-to-particle distance might be less in the case of composite reinforced with FPS alumina particle as compared to IPS and CPS inside the matrix. The smooth surface morphology of the composite with FPS is because of the load carrying capability and formation of an oxide layer which prevents the higher wear rate of the composites as compare to composite reinforced with IPS and CPS alumina particles.
Overall the examination of the worn surface with respect to the variable particle size composites demonstrates that, under sliding distance of 2000 m, speed of 400 rpm, and load of 49.05 N, under the ploughing operation, the protecting layer of the reinforcing coarse particles may no longer remain intact and the wear strips produced are quite distinct and interfacial strength between the coarse alumina particles and Al2014 alloy matrix is poor. Hence, the highest wear rate is observed in case of composite reinforced with CPS alumina particles.
Moreover the composite with IPS experienced lower wear rate compared to the CPS alumina particle composite. On the other hand, the composite with FPS alumina particles results in the lowest wear rate compared to CPS and IPS alumina reinforced composites due to the higher interfacial strength existing between the fine size alumina particles and the Al2014 matrix alloy. This indicates that the composite reinforced with FPS alumina results in enhanced wear resistance as contrasted to the composites with CPS and IPS alumina.
Figure 6e–h shows electron microscopy of wear debris from Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 composites supplemented with CPS, IPS, and FPS alumina particles. The samples are tested at 400 rpm, 2000 m, and 49.05 N. As shown in Figure 6e, under the wear testing conditions, the amount of sheet- and flake-like debris increases significantly as the matrix becomes smooth, resulting in a transition from moderate to excessive wear. Repetitive sliding at greater loads caused microfractures. (64,65) At a higher load of 49.05N, sliding speed of 400 rpm, and distance of 2000 m, the matrix is softer and wears mildly to severely. This wear detritus shows that adhesive wear is mostly sliding. Metal is carved off in the shape of sheets and flakes resembling trash due to the sticky feature at increased load, speed, and sliding distance.
Figure 6f reveals the alloy matrix plate/flake-like debris and layered structure found by frequent rubbing from the pins to the counterface induced by continuous sliding. The fractured particles are bound to the delaminated debris with large scale, and also disengagement of the debris by ploughing activity is found. The resistance provided by dispersed particles shows the microcracks in the surface of the debris when the disconnected leaves are cracked in the surface. While rubbing, debris is fused with an iron disc, revealing the surface’s shearing characteristics. (66) The morphological characteristics of wear debris are found to display a higher composite wear rate. Figure 6f also shows pull-out of ductile material with thread-type structure.
Figure 6g reveals debris particles which can also be the abrasive particles of the third body and may also cause increased wear rate. The microploughing on the contact surface of the composite creates loose debris, stuck between the specimen and the counterface. The strong oxide layer (Figure 6g) encountered suggests severe symptoms of wear which rule under the above-mentioned wear testing conditions. Sheet, flake-like and crushed debris and also corrugated structure are found in the process of sliding wear (Figure 6g) because of the frequent rubbing of worn-out debris.
Figure 6h shows wear debris with a wavy pattern structure induced by microscopic particles in the matrix and plate/flake/sheet-like and round-shaped oxide (Al2O3) debris are seen in Figure 6h. Under the wear conditions stated above, the oxide layers (Al2O3/Fe2O3) rotate inside the grooves, reducing composite wear. (64,67) Many sources produce spherical wear debris, such as wear debris in surface grooves. These can also be induced by base metal, local melting, and contaminating of the air. (68) During frictional heating, these spherical types emerge at greater loads. The temperature of metallic debris is rising during the constant rubbing process. The presence of thin-wire style and spherical form debris reveals that metal threads are initially fused and develop to almost spherical shape. The smaller spherical molten debris (Figure 6h) on the surface of the bigger one is the result of the smaller molten mass adhering to the larger one. (69) The wear rate may not rise dramatically in this situation because the large adherent tribo-oxide layer is formed under greater frictional heat and the resulting increase of temperature.

4. Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • SEM images of produced composites with FPS, IPS, and CPS (20, 53, and 88 μm) reveal that stir casting with two-step addition of Al2O3p fairly uniformly distributes Al2O3p in the Al2014 matrix alloy. Further, increasing the weight percentage and reducing the alumina particle size in the produced composites leads to more uniform dissemination of Al2O3p.

  • Among all the produced composites, Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composite with FPS (20 μm particle size) results in more uniform dispersion of the particles in base matrix alloy as compared to the composites (Al2014–9, −12, and −15 wt % Al2O3) with CPS and IPS (53 and 88 μm), while the composite with IPS and CPS lead to accumulation and segregation of Al2O3p at certain locations.

  • Maximum hardness was observed for the produced composites with variable particle size compared with that of Al2014 matrix alloy due to the addition of alumina particles in the base alloy. Further, increase the weight proportion and varying the size of the alumina particles leads to maximum hardness value. Among the produced composites, the Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites with FPS (20 μm) show maximum hardness value of about 144.10 VHN compared to the composites with different weight percentages (9–15 wt %) of alumina particles with sizes of 53 and 88 μm, respectively.

  • Composites produced with CPS, IPS, and FPS variable particle sizes have shown better results in UTS and YS than the Al2014 alloy. Further, the UTS and YS of the composites increases with rise in the weight proportion and decreasing size of the reinforced alumina particles. Among produced composites, the Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites with FPS (20 μm) show maximum UTS and YS values as compared to the composites with different weight percentages (9–15 wt %) of alumina particles with CPS and IPS, as well as base Al2014 alloy.

  • Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites with FPS (20 μm) demonstrate lower percentage elongation as compared to the composites with different weight percentages (9–15 wt %) of alumina particles with CPS and IPS, as well as as-cast Al2014 alloy (11.21%).

  • Fractography analysis of tensile fractured surfaces using SEM indicates the various fracture mechanisms of Al2014 alloy and its Al2O3 reinforced composites with a variable particle size. Al2014 alloy exhibits larger and more uniform dimples, indicating a malleable fracture, whereas the composites reinforced with CPS and IPS exhibit an almost intermediate ductile fracture, with dimples embedded on the reinforcement, and the composite reinforced with FPS exhibits ductile-to-brittle-to-intermediate-ductile transition because of the alumina particulate incorporation.

  • Composites produced with CPS, IPS, and FPS alumina demonstrate decreased volumetric wear rate as compared to the base Al2014 alloy. The volumetric wear rate of the Al2014–Al2O3p composites with different weight proportion as well as varying particle size is affected by the wear parameters such as applied load and sliding distance.

  • Examination of the worn surfaces of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites with a variable particle size using SEM clearly indicates that adhesion, delamination, abrasion, and combination of adhesion and abrasion are the principal wear processes during material exclusion on sliding.

  • Wear debris of base matrix alloy and composites (Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p) with CPS, IPS and FPS were examined using SEM. Larger size flake and sheet like wear debris are observed in the case of Al2014 alloy than that of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites with a variable particle size. Metallic debris undergoes melting at 49.05 N load, speed of 400 rpm, and sliding distance 2000 m causing fine thread type and spherical shape debris.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • Bharath Vedashantha Murthy - Department of Mechanical Engineering, RNS Institute of Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Bengaluru 560098, Karnataka, IndiaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6765-4728
    • Manjunath Vatnalmath - Department of Mechanical Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Tumakuru 572103, Karnataka, IndiaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3138-9453
    • Nagaraj Namdev - Department of Mechanical Engineering, APS Polytechnic, Bengaluru 560082, Karnataka, India
    • Chandrashekar Anjinappa - Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangalore Institute of Technology, Bengaluru 560004, Karnataka, India
    • Shanawaz Patil - Department of Mechanical, School of Engineering, REVA University, Bengaluru 560063, Karnataka, India
    • Abdullah H. Alsabhan - Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
    • Shamshad Alam - Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
    • Mohammad Obaid Qamar - Department of Civil Engineering (Environmental Science & Engineering), Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, South Korea
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by Researchers Supporting Project Number RSP2023R473, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The authors would also like to thank Vision Group of Science and Technology, under CISEE Scheme Bengaluru, Government of Karnataka, India, for financial assistance in carrying out the research work, VGST/CISEE/GRD No: 928/2020-21/72

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 69 other publications.

  1. 1
    Chawla, K. K. Metal matrix composites; Springer: New York, 1998; pp 164211.
  2. 2
    Sharma, S.; Kini, A.; Shankar, G.; T C, R.; H, R.; Chaitanya, K.; Shettar, M. Tensile fractography of artificially aged Al6061-B4C composites. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2018, 12, 38663875,  DOI: 10.15282/jmes.12.3.2018.8.0339
  3. 3
    Ravikiran; Surappa, M. K. Effect of sliding speed on wear behavior of A356 Al-30 wt % SiC MMC. Wear 1997, 206, 3338,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(96)07341-3
  4. 4
    Vencl, A.; Bobic, I.; Arostegui, S.; Bobic, B.; Marinkovic, A.; Babic, M. Structural, mechanical and tribological properties of A356 aluminium alloy reinforced with Al2O3, SiC and SiC+ graphite particles. J. Alloys Compd. 2010, 506, 631639,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.07.028
  5. 5
    Chandrashekar, A.; Ajaykumar, B. S.; Reddappa, H. N. Mechanical, Structural and Corrosion behaviour of AlMg4.5/Nano Al2O3Metal Matrix Composites. Mater. Today Proceedings 2018, 5 (1), 28112817,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.069
  6. 6
    Sajjadi, S. A.; Ezatpour, H. R.; Beygi, H. Microstructure and mechanical properties of Al–Al2O3 micro and nano composites fabricated by stir casting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2011, 528, 87658771,  DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2011.08.052
  7. 7
    Xu, J.; Liu, W. Wear characteristic of in situ synthetic TiB2 particulate-reinforced Al matrix composite formed by laser cladding. Wear. 2006, 260, 486492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2005.03.032
  8. 8
    Joseph, R. D.; Kliman, V.; Jelemenska, J. ASM Specialty Handbook: Aluminum and aluminum alloys, ASM International, 1993.
  9. 9
    Fayomi, O. S. I.; Popoola, A. P. I.; Udoye, N. E. Effect of alloying element on the integrity and functionality of aluminium-based alloy. Aluminium alloys-recent trends in processing, characterization, mechanical behavior and applications; IntechOpen, 2017; pp 243261.
  10. 10
    Valsange, M.; Kulkarni, S. G.; Sonawane, S. A. Stir casting used in manufacturing of aluminium matrix composite. IJRTS 2014, 1, 3538
  11. 11
    Bharath, V.; Nagaral, M.; Auradi, V.; Kori, S. Preparation of 6061Al-Al2O3MMCs by stir casting and evaluation of mechanical and wear properties. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 6, 16581677,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.151
  12. 12
    Alpas, A. T.; Embury, J. D. Sliding and abrasive wear behavior of an aluminium (2014)–SiC particle reinforced composite. Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia 1990, 24, 931935,  DOI: 10.1016/0956-716X(90)90140-C
  13. 13
    Roy, M.; Venkataraman, B.; Bhanuprasad, V. V.; Mahajan, Y. R.; Sundararajan, G. The effect of participate reinforcement on the sliding wear behavior of aluminum matrix composites. Metall. Trans. A 1992, 23, 28332847,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02651761
  14. 14
    Zhang, Z. F.; Zhang, L. C.; Mai, Y. W. Wear of ceramic particle-reinforced metal-matrix composites: Part I Wear mechanisms. J. Mater. Sci. 1995, 30, 19611966,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00353018
  15. 15
    Khatri, S.; Koczak, M. Formation of TiC in in situ processed composites via solid-gas, solid-liquid and liquid-gas reaction in molten Al-Ti. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 1993, 162, 153162,  DOI: 10.1016/0921-5093(90)90040-A
  16. 16
    Das, S.; Prasad, S. V.; Ramachandran, T. R. Microstructure and wear of cast (Al-Si alloy)-graphite composites. Wear. 1989, 133, 173187,  DOI: 10.1016/0043-1648(89)90122-1
  17. 17
    Ramesh, C. S.; Keshavamurthy, R.; Channabasappa, B. H.; Pramod, S. Friction and wear behavior of Ni–P coated Si3N4 reinforced Al6061 composites. Tribol. Int. 2010, 43, 623634,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2009.09.011
  18. 18
    Tung, S. C.; McMillan, M. L. Automotive tribology overview of current advances and challenges for the future. Tribol. Int. 2004, 37, 517536,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2004.01.013
  19. 19
    Ceschini, L.; Minak, G.; Morri, A. Tensile and fatigue properties of the AA6061/20 vol% Al2O3p and AA7005/10 vol% Al2O3p composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006, 66, 333342,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.04.044
  20. 20
    Doel, T. J. A.; Bowen, P. Tensile properties of particulate-reinforced metal matrix composites. Composites, Part A 1996, 27, 655665,  DOI: 10.1016/1359-835X(96)00040-1
  21. 21
    Hong, S. J.; Kim, H. M.; Huh, D.; Suryanarayana, C.; Chun, B. S. Effect of clustering on the mechanical properties of SiC particulate-reinforced aluminum alloy 2024 metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 2003, 347, 198204,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00593-2
  22. 22
    Al-Qutub, A. M.; Allam, I. M.; Qureshi, T. W. Wear properties of 10% sub-micron Al2O3/6061 aluminium alloy composite. Int. J. Appl. Mech. Eng. Mech. 2002, 7, 329334
  23. 23
    Kouzeli, M.; Dunand, D. C. Effect of reinforcement connectivity on the elasto-plastic behavior of aluminum composites containing sub-micron alumina particles. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 61056121,  DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00431-2
  24. 24
    Wang, X.; Wu, G.; Sun, D.; Qin, C.; Tian, Y. Micro-yield property of sub-micron Al2O3 particle reinforced 2024 aluminum matrix composite. Mater. Lett. 2004, 58, 333336,  DOI: 10.1016/S0167-577X(03)00481-6
  25. 25
    Ray, S. Synthesis of cast metal matrix particulate composites. J. Mater. Sci. 1993, 28, 53975413,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00367809
  26. 26
    Prabhavalkar, Y.; Chapgaon, A. N. Effect of volume fraction of Al2O3 on tensile strength of aluminium 6061 by varying stir casting furnace parameters: A review. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 4, 13511355
  27. 27
    Mazahery, A.; Shabani, M. O. Microstructural and abrasive wear properties of SiC reinforced aluminum-based composite produced by compocasting. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2013, 23, 19051914,  DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(13)62676-X
  28. 28
    Bharath, V.; Ajawan, S. S.; Nagaral, M.; Auradi, V.; Kori, S. A. Characterization and Mechanical Properties of 2014 Aluminum Alloy Reinforced with Al 2 O 3p Composite Produced by Two-Stage Stir Casting Route. J. Inst. Eng. (India): Ser. C 2019, 100, 277282,  DOI: 10.1007/s40032-018-0442-x
  29. 29
    Auradi, V.; Rajesh, G. L.; Kori, S. A. Processing of B4C Particulate Reinforced 6061Aluminum Matrix Composites by melt stirring involving two-step addition. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 6, 10681076,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.177
  30. 30
    Sajjadi, S. A.; Ezatpour, H. R.; Parizi, M. T. Comparison of microstructure and mechanical properties of A356 aluminum alloy/Al2O3 composites fabricated by stir and compo-casting processes. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 106111,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.037
  31. 31
    Zulfia, A.; Putro, E. C.; Wahyudi, M.; Dhaneswara, D.; Utomo, B. W. Fabrication and characteristics of ADC-12 reinforced nano-SiC and nano-Al2O3 composites through stir casting route. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 432, 012032,  DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/432/1/012032
  32. 32
    Kumar, B. P.; Birru, A. K. Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminium metal matrix composites with addition of bamboo leaf ash by stir casting method. Trans. C. Soc. China 2017, 27, 25552572,  DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(17)60284-X
  33. 33
    Liu, X.; Zhang, P.; He, S.; Xu, Q.; Dou, Z.; Wang, H. Effect of beryllium content and heat treatment on microstructure and yield strength in Be/6061Al composites. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 743, 746755,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.02.060
  34. 34
    Mohanavel, V.; Rajan, K.; Kumar, S. S.; Vijayan, G.; Vijayanand, M. S. Study on mechanical properties of graphite particulates reinforced aluminium matrix composite fabricated by stir casting technique. Mater. Today: Proc. 2018, 5, 29452950,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.090
  35. 35
    Sharma, V. K.; Singh, R. C.; Chaudhary, R. Effect of flyash particles with aluminium melt on the wear of aluminium metal matrix composites. JESTECH. 2017, 20, 13181323,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jestch.2017.08.004
  36. 36
    Sekar, K.; Kanjirathikal, A.; Joseph, M. A. Effect of T6 Heat Treatment in Tribological Properties of A356 Aluminum Alloy Reinforced with Al2O3 Nanoparticles by Combination Effect of Stir and Squeeze Casting Method. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 592, 968971,  DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.592-594.968
  37. 37
    Kok, M. Production and mechanical properties of Al2O3 particle-reinforced 2024 aluminium alloy composites. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2005, 161, 381387,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.07.068
  38. 38
    Şahin, Y.; Öksüz, K. E. The Microstructure and Hardness of Al2O3 Particle Reinforced Composite. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 232, 3944,  DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.232.39
  39. 39
    Umanath, K.; Selvamani, S. T.; Palanikumar, K.; Raphael, T.; Prashanth, K. Effect of sliding distance on dry sliding wear behaviour of Al6061/SiC/Al2O3 hybrid composite. Proc. Int. Conf. Advances Mechanical Engineering 2013, 749756
  40. 40
    Tian, K.; Zhao, Y.; Jiao, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, X. Effects of in situ generated ZrB2 nano-particles on microstructure and tensile properties of 2024Al matrix composites. J. Alloys Compd. 2014, 594, 16,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2014.01.117
  41. 41
    Harti, J. I.; Prasad, T. B.; Nagaral, M.; Jadhav, P.; Auradi, V. Microstructure and dry sliding wear behaviour of Al2219-TiC composites. Mater. Today: Proc. 2017, 4, 1100411009,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.08.058
  42. 42
    Li, M.; Ma, K.; Jiang, L.; Yang, H.; Lavernia, E. J.; Zhang, L.; Schoenung, J. M. Synthesis and mechanical behavior of nanostructured Al 5083/n-TiB2 metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 2016, 656, 241248,  DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2016.01.031
  43. 43
    Gilman, P. S. Discontinuously reinforced aluminum: Ready for the 1990s. JOM 1991, 43, 715,  DOI: 10.1007/BF03221096
  44. 44
    Ünlü, B. S. Investigation of tribological and mechanical properties Al2O3–SiC reinforced Al composites manufactured by casting or P/M method. Mater. Des. 2008, 29, 20022008,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.014
  45. 45
    Ramachandra, M.; Abhishek, A.; Siddeshwar, P.; Bharathi, V. Hardness and wear resistance of ZrO2 nano particle reinforced Al nanocomposites produced by powder metallurgy. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2015, 10, 212219,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mspro.2015.06.043
  46. 46
    Prabu, S. B.; Karunamoorthy, L.; Kathiresan, S.; Mohan, B. Influence of stirring speed and stirring time on distribution of particles in cast metal matrix composite. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2006, 171, 268273,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.06.071
  47. 47
    Singla, M.; Dwivedi, D. D.; Singh, L.; Chawla, V. Development of aluminium based silicon carbide particulate metal matrix composite. J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 2009, 8, 455467,  DOI: 10.4236/jmmce.2009.86040
  48. 48
    Das, S.; Das, S.; Das, K. Abrasive wear of zircon sand and alumina reinforced Al–4.5 wt %Cu alloy matrix composites – A comparative study. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2007, 67, 746751,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.05.001
  49. 49
    Youssef, Y. M.; Dashwood, R. J.; Lee, P. D. Effect of clustering on particle pushing and solidification behaviour in TiB2 reinforced aluminium PMMCs. Composites, Part A 2005, 36, 747763,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.10.027
  50. 50
    Nakae, H.; Wu, S. Engulfment of Al2O3 particles during solidification of aluminum matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 1998, 252, 232238,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-5093(98)00664-9
  51. 51
    Rao, R. N.; Das, S.; Mondal, D. P.; Dixit, G.; Devi, S. T. Dry sliding wear maps for AA7010 (Al–Zn–Mg–Cu) aluminium matrix composite. Tribol. Int. 2013, 60, 7782,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2012.10.007
  52. 52
    Cruz, K. S.; Meza, E. S.; Fernandes, F. A.; Quaresma, J. M.; Casteletti, L. C.; Garcia, A. Dendritic arm spacing affecting mechanical properties and wear behavior of Al-Sn and Al-Si alloys directionally solidified under unsteady-state conditions. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2010, 41, 972984,  DOI: 10.1007/s11661-009-0161-2
  53. 53
    Murakami, T.; Kajino, S.; Nakano, S. High-temperature friction and wear properties of various sliding materials against aluminum alloy 5052. Tribol. Int. 2013, 60, 4552,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2012.10.015
  54. 54
    Mittal, P.; Dixit, G. Dry sliding wear behaviour of 2014 aluminium alloy reinforced with SiC composite. Int. J. Eng. Res. Sci. Technol. 2016, 5, 147153,  DOI: 10.17577/IJERTV5IS060172
  55. 55
    Zhang, Z.; Chen, D. L. Contribution of Orowan strengthening effect in particulate-reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 2008, 483, 148152,  DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2006.10.184
  56. 56
    Zhang, Z.; Chen, D. L. Consideration of Orowan strengthening effect in particulate-reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites: A model for predicting their yield strength. Scr. Mater. 2006, 54, 13211326,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.12.017
  57. 57
    Özdemir, I.; Önel, K. Thermal cycling behaviour of an extruded aluminium alloy/SiCp composite. Composites, Part B 2004, 35, 379384,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.02.007
  58. 58
    Tjong, S. C.; Wang, G. S.; Mai, Y. W. Low-cycle fatigue behavior of Al-based composites containing in situ TiB2, Al2O3 and Al3Ti reinforcements. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 2003, 358, 99106,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00266-1
  59. 59
    Llorca, J. An analysis of the influence of reinforcement fracture on the strength of discontinuously-reinforced metal-matrix composites. Acta Metall. Mater. 1995, 43, 181192,  DOI: 10.1016/0956-7151(95)90273-2
  60. 60
    Kumai, S.; King, J. E.; Knott, J. F. Short and long fatigue crack growth in a SiC reinforced aluminium alloy. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 1990, 13, 511524,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2695.1990.tb00621.x
  61. 61
    Levy, G.; Linford, R. G.; Mitchell, L. A. Wear behaviour and mechanical properties: The similarity of seemingly unrelated approaches. Wear 1972, 21, 167177,  DOI: 10.1016/0043-1648(72)90255-4
  62. 62
    Xue, Q. J.; Ludema, K. C. Plastic failure effects in scuffing of soft metals. Wear Mater. 1983, 499506
  63. 63
    Ramesh, C. S.; Seshadri, S. K. Tribological characteristics of nickel based composite coatings. wear 2003, 255, 893902,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00080-2
  64. 64
    Kumar, S.; Pandey, O. P. Role of fine size zircon sand ceramic particle on controlling the cell morphology of aluminum composite foams. J. Manuf. Process. 2015, 20, 172180,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.08.006
  65. 65
    Torrance, A. A. The effect of grit size and asperity blunting on abrasive wear. wear 2002, 253, 813819,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(02)00103-5
  66. 66
    Senthilkumar, M.; Saravanan, S. D.; Shankar, S. Dry sliding wear and friction behavior of aluminum–rice husk ash composite using Taguchi’s technique. J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 49, 22412250,  DOI: 10.1177/0021998314545185
  67. 67
    Gracia-Escosa, E.; García, I.; de Damborenea, J. J.; Conde, A. Friction and wear behaviour of tool steels sliding against 22MnB5 steel. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2017, 6, 241250,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.04.002
  68. 68
    Chaudhury, S. K.; Singh, A. K.; Sivaramakrishnan, C. S. S.; Panigrahi, S. C. Preparation and thermomechanical properties of stir cast Al-2Mg-11TiO 2 (rutile) composite. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2004, 27, 517521,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02707279
  69. 69
    Revankar, G. D.; Shetty, R.; Rao, S. S.; Gaitonde, V. N. Wear resistance enhancement of titanium alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) by by ball burnishing proceses. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2017, 6, 1332,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2016.03.007

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 13 publications.

  1. Chenfan Liang, Kai Zhang, Yu Wang, Lingrong Kong, Liwei Sun, Gang Su. Particle Size Effect on Abrasive Wear Behavior of All-Metal Positive Displacement Motor and Abrasive Particles Control. Journal of Tribology 2025, 147 (7) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4067817
  2. Sachin Prabha, S. Raghavendra, Vishwanath Koti, Shanawaz Patil. Fabrication and Investigation of Characteristics of Al2014-B4C Composites Using Liquid Metallurgy Technique. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D 2025, 8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-025-00884-z
  3. Sachin Tejyan, Chaman Lal, Ch. Kapil. Ror, Vedant Singh. Influence of marble waste reinforcement on mechanical properties and sliding wear behavior of an aluminium alloy metal matrix composite. Journal of Engineering Research 2025, 13 (1) , 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.08.002
  4. B. N. Nithin, Seenappa, K. C. Vishwanath, S. Manjunath Yadav, Nagaraj Namdev, Suresh Shetty, Madeva Nagaral. Microstructural and Tensile Characterisation of Si3N4 Reinforced Al2219 Alloy Composites. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels 2024, , 1361-1369. https://doi.org/10.18311/jmmf/2024/45286
  5. B. N. Nithin, Seenappa, Madeva Nagaral, Manjunath Maiyya, Fazil Nalband, V. Auradi. Mechanical Properties of ZrO2 Particles Reinforced Al2219 Alloy Metal Composites Prepared by Stir Casting Process. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels 2024, , 937-947. https://doi.org/10.18311/jmmf/2024/45198
  6. Feng Liu, Qi Zhao, Yuguo Xia, Xiuling Jiao, Dairong Chen. Elucidating the Hydrolysis and Polymerization Reactions of Al 3+ ‐Solvated Molecules by Reactive Molecular Dynamics Simulation. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2024, 124 (19) https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.27483
  7. Y. S. Balaji, K. S. Keerthiprasad, E. R. Babu, B. Om Prakash, Chandrashekar Anjinappa, Prabhakar Sharma, Abdul Razak, Anteneh Wogasso Wodajo. Dry sliding wear characteristics of Al7075 alloy‐reinforced with SiC and cenosphere particles. Engineering Reports 2024, 6 (9) https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12823
  8. Muhammad Faizan Khan, Abdul Samad Mohammed, Ihsan-ul-Haq Toor. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Electrochemical Performance of Aluminum Hybrid Nanocomposites Reinforced with Alumina (Al2O3) and Graphene Oxide (GO). Metals 2024, 14 (9) , 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14091057
  9. M. D. Kiran, H K Govindaraju, Nithin Kumar, Madeva Nagaral, Dhananjay Vasant Khankal, Amar Pradeep Pandhare, E. R. Babu, Chandrashekar Anjinappa, Abdul Razak, Anteneh Wogasso Wodajo. Effect of CNT filler and temperature on fracture toughness of epoxy composites reinforced with carbon fabric. Engineering Reports 2024, 6 (8) https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12816
  10. Gorad Sagar Ramachandra, Satish Babu Boppana, Samuel Dayanand, Madeva Nagaral, V. Auradi. Microstructure, Mechanical Behavior, and Tensile Fractography of Si3N4-Reinforced Al2219 Alloy Composites Synthesized by Squeeze Casting Method. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 2024, 24 (4) , 1719-1729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-024-01956-0
  11. Hailian Gui, Xiaotong Hu, Hao Liu, Chen Zhang, Qiang Li, Jianhua Hu, Jianxun Chen, Yujun Gou, Yuanhua Shuang, Pengyue Zhang. Research on the Solid–Liquid Composite Casting Process of Incoloy825/P110 Steel Composite Pipe. Materials 2024, 17 (9) , 1976. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17091976
  12. Ahmed M. Abdulhadi, Nagaraj Namdev, T. Subhas Chandra, Veerashetti S. Chavan, Ali Majdi, Salah J. Mohammed, Satyabodh Raichur, V. Auradi, T. H. Manjunatha. Microstructure and Wear Behaviour Assessment of Different Micron-Sized B4C Reinforced Al2021 Alloy Composites. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels 2024, , 357-368. https://doi.org/10.18311/jmmf/2024/44541
  13. Dejene Haile, Getinet Asrat Mengesha, Devendra Kumar Sinha, Haileeyesus Kebere Aschenaki, Shimelis Lemma Beshahwured. Effect of bamboo powder on mechanical property of aluminum matrix composite reinforced with aluminum oxide, boron carbide and molybdenum disulfide. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2024, 16 (1) https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132231221646

ACS Omega

Cite this: ACS Omega 2023, 8, 14, 13444–13455
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c01163
Published March 27, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

1908

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (a–d) SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with different composition of CPS (83 μm) alumina particulates: (a) as-cast Al2014 alloy, (b) Al2014–9 wt % Al2O3p, (c) Al2014–12 wt % Al2O3p, and (d) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p. (e–g) SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with a different composition of IPS (53 μm) alumina particulates: (e) Al2014–9 wt % Al2O3p, (f) Al2014–12 wt % Al2O3p, and (g) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p. (h–j) SEM images of Al2014–Al2O3p composites with different compositions of FPS (20 μm) alumina particulates: (h) Al2014–9 wt % Al2O3p, (i) Al2014–12 wt % Al2O3p, and (j) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Particle size impact on microhardness measurements of base alloy and produced composites with variable particle size and weight fractions.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (a) UTS, (b) YS, and (c) percentage elongation of base alloy and produced composites with variable particle size (FPS, IPS, and CPS) of alumina at different compositions (9, 12, and 15 wt %)

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (a–h) Fractographic of images of (a, b) Al2014 and (c–h) Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3 with CPS, IPS, and FPS and at different magnifications.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (a, b) Volumetric wear results of CPS, IPS, and FPS variations of synthesized composites (a) for different load conditions and (b) for different sliding distance conditions.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. (a–h) Worn surface images of CPS, IPS, and FPS variation of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites. (e–h) Wear debris images of CPS, IPS and FPS variation of Al2014–15 wt % Al2O3p composites.

  • References


    This article references 69 other publications.

    1. 1
      Chawla, K. K. Metal matrix composites; Springer: New York, 1998; pp 164211.
    2. 2
      Sharma, S.; Kini, A.; Shankar, G.; T C, R.; H, R.; Chaitanya, K.; Shettar, M. Tensile fractography of artificially aged Al6061-B4C composites. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2018, 12, 38663875,  DOI: 10.15282/jmes.12.3.2018.8.0339
    3. 3
      Ravikiran; Surappa, M. K. Effect of sliding speed on wear behavior of A356 Al-30 wt % SiC MMC. Wear 1997, 206, 3338,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(96)07341-3
    4. 4
      Vencl, A.; Bobic, I.; Arostegui, S.; Bobic, B.; Marinkovic, A.; Babic, M. Structural, mechanical and tribological properties of A356 aluminium alloy reinforced with Al2O3, SiC and SiC+ graphite particles. J. Alloys Compd. 2010, 506, 631639,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.07.028
    5. 5
      Chandrashekar, A.; Ajaykumar, B. S.; Reddappa, H. N. Mechanical, Structural and Corrosion behaviour of AlMg4.5/Nano Al2O3Metal Matrix Composites. Mater. Today Proceedings 2018, 5 (1), 28112817,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.069
    6. 6
      Sajjadi, S. A.; Ezatpour, H. R.; Beygi, H. Microstructure and mechanical properties of Al–Al2O3 micro and nano composites fabricated by stir casting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2011, 528, 87658771,  DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2011.08.052
    7. 7
      Xu, J.; Liu, W. Wear characteristic of in situ synthetic TiB2 particulate-reinforced Al matrix composite formed by laser cladding. Wear. 2006, 260, 486492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2005.03.032
    8. 8
      Joseph, R. D.; Kliman, V.; Jelemenska, J. ASM Specialty Handbook: Aluminum and aluminum alloys, ASM International, 1993.
    9. 9
      Fayomi, O. S. I.; Popoola, A. P. I.; Udoye, N. E. Effect of alloying element on the integrity and functionality of aluminium-based alloy. Aluminium alloys-recent trends in processing, characterization, mechanical behavior and applications; IntechOpen, 2017; pp 243261.
    10. 10
      Valsange, M.; Kulkarni, S. G.; Sonawane, S. A. Stir casting used in manufacturing of aluminium matrix composite. IJRTS 2014, 1, 3538
    11. 11
      Bharath, V.; Nagaral, M.; Auradi, V.; Kori, S. Preparation of 6061Al-Al2O3MMCs by stir casting and evaluation of mechanical and wear properties. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 6, 16581677,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.151
    12. 12
      Alpas, A. T.; Embury, J. D. Sliding and abrasive wear behavior of an aluminium (2014)–SiC particle reinforced composite. Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia 1990, 24, 931935,  DOI: 10.1016/0956-716X(90)90140-C
    13. 13
      Roy, M.; Venkataraman, B.; Bhanuprasad, V. V.; Mahajan, Y. R.; Sundararajan, G. The effect of participate reinforcement on the sliding wear behavior of aluminum matrix composites. Metall. Trans. A 1992, 23, 28332847,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02651761
    14. 14
      Zhang, Z. F.; Zhang, L. C.; Mai, Y. W. Wear of ceramic particle-reinforced metal-matrix composites: Part I Wear mechanisms. J. Mater. Sci. 1995, 30, 19611966,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00353018
    15. 15
      Khatri, S.; Koczak, M. Formation of TiC in in situ processed composites via solid-gas, solid-liquid and liquid-gas reaction in molten Al-Ti. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 1993, 162, 153162,  DOI: 10.1016/0921-5093(90)90040-A
    16. 16
      Das, S.; Prasad, S. V.; Ramachandran, T. R. Microstructure and wear of cast (Al-Si alloy)-graphite composites. Wear. 1989, 133, 173187,  DOI: 10.1016/0043-1648(89)90122-1
    17. 17
      Ramesh, C. S.; Keshavamurthy, R.; Channabasappa, B. H.; Pramod, S. Friction and wear behavior of Ni–P coated Si3N4 reinforced Al6061 composites. Tribol. Int. 2010, 43, 623634,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2009.09.011
    18. 18
      Tung, S. C.; McMillan, M. L. Automotive tribology overview of current advances and challenges for the future. Tribol. Int. 2004, 37, 517536,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2004.01.013
    19. 19
      Ceschini, L.; Minak, G.; Morri, A. Tensile and fatigue properties of the AA6061/20 vol% Al2O3p and AA7005/10 vol% Al2O3p composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006, 66, 333342,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.04.044
    20. 20
      Doel, T. J. A.; Bowen, P. Tensile properties of particulate-reinforced metal matrix composites. Composites, Part A 1996, 27, 655665,  DOI: 10.1016/1359-835X(96)00040-1
    21. 21
      Hong, S. J.; Kim, H. M.; Huh, D.; Suryanarayana, C.; Chun, B. S. Effect of clustering on the mechanical properties of SiC particulate-reinforced aluminum alloy 2024 metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 2003, 347, 198204,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00593-2
    22. 22
      Al-Qutub, A. M.; Allam, I. M.; Qureshi, T. W. Wear properties of 10% sub-micron Al2O3/6061 aluminium alloy composite. Int. J. Appl. Mech. Eng. Mech. 2002, 7, 329334
    23. 23
      Kouzeli, M.; Dunand, D. C. Effect of reinforcement connectivity on the elasto-plastic behavior of aluminum composites containing sub-micron alumina particles. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 61056121,  DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00431-2
    24. 24
      Wang, X.; Wu, G.; Sun, D.; Qin, C.; Tian, Y. Micro-yield property of sub-micron Al2O3 particle reinforced 2024 aluminum matrix composite. Mater. Lett. 2004, 58, 333336,  DOI: 10.1016/S0167-577X(03)00481-6
    25. 25
      Ray, S. Synthesis of cast metal matrix particulate composites. J. Mater. Sci. 1993, 28, 53975413,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00367809
    26. 26
      Prabhavalkar, Y.; Chapgaon, A. N. Effect of volume fraction of Al2O3 on tensile strength of aluminium 6061 by varying stir casting furnace parameters: A review. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 4, 13511355
    27. 27
      Mazahery, A.; Shabani, M. O. Microstructural and abrasive wear properties of SiC reinforced aluminum-based composite produced by compocasting. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2013, 23, 19051914,  DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(13)62676-X
    28. 28
      Bharath, V.; Ajawan, S. S.; Nagaral, M.; Auradi, V.; Kori, S. A. Characterization and Mechanical Properties of 2014 Aluminum Alloy Reinforced with Al 2 O 3p Composite Produced by Two-Stage Stir Casting Route. J. Inst. Eng. (India): Ser. C 2019, 100, 277282,  DOI: 10.1007/s40032-018-0442-x
    29. 29
      Auradi, V.; Rajesh, G. L.; Kori, S. A. Processing of B4C Particulate Reinforced 6061Aluminum Matrix Composites by melt stirring involving two-step addition. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 6, 10681076,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.177
    30. 30
      Sajjadi, S. A.; Ezatpour, H. R.; Parizi, M. T. Comparison of microstructure and mechanical properties of A356 aluminum alloy/Al2O3 composites fabricated by stir and compo-casting processes. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 106111,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.037
    31. 31
      Zulfia, A.; Putro, E. C.; Wahyudi, M.; Dhaneswara, D.; Utomo, B. W. Fabrication and characteristics of ADC-12 reinforced nano-SiC and nano-Al2O3 composites through stir casting route. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 432, 012032,  DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/432/1/012032
    32. 32
      Kumar, B. P.; Birru, A. K. Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminium metal matrix composites with addition of bamboo leaf ash by stir casting method. Trans. C. Soc. China 2017, 27, 25552572,  DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(17)60284-X
    33. 33
      Liu, X.; Zhang, P.; He, S.; Xu, Q.; Dou, Z.; Wang, H. Effect of beryllium content and heat treatment on microstructure and yield strength in Be/6061Al composites. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 743, 746755,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.02.060
    34. 34
      Mohanavel, V.; Rajan, K.; Kumar, S. S.; Vijayan, G.; Vijayanand, M. S. Study on mechanical properties of graphite particulates reinforced aluminium matrix composite fabricated by stir casting technique. Mater. Today: Proc. 2018, 5, 29452950,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.090
    35. 35
      Sharma, V. K.; Singh, R. C.; Chaudhary, R. Effect of flyash particles with aluminium melt on the wear of aluminium metal matrix composites. JESTECH. 2017, 20, 13181323,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jestch.2017.08.004
    36. 36
      Sekar, K.; Kanjirathikal, A.; Joseph, M. A. Effect of T6 Heat Treatment in Tribological Properties of A356 Aluminum Alloy Reinforced with Al2O3 Nanoparticles by Combination Effect of Stir and Squeeze Casting Method. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 592, 968971,  DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.592-594.968
    37. 37
      Kok, M. Production and mechanical properties of Al2O3 particle-reinforced 2024 aluminium alloy composites. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2005, 161, 381387,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.07.068
    38. 38
      Şahin, Y.; Öksüz, K. E. The Microstructure and Hardness of Al2O3 Particle Reinforced Composite. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 232, 3944,  DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.232.39
    39. 39
      Umanath, K.; Selvamani, S. T.; Palanikumar, K.; Raphael, T.; Prashanth, K. Effect of sliding distance on dry sliding wear behaviour of Al6061/SiC/Al2O3 hybrid composite. Proc. Int. Conf. Advances Mechanical Engineering 2013, 749756
    40. 40
      Tian, K.; Zhao, Y.; Jiao, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, X. Effects of in situ generated ZrB2 nano-particles on microstructure and tensile properties of 2024Al matrix composites. J. Alloys Compd. 2014, 594, 16,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2014.01.117
    41. 41
      Harti, J. I.; Prasad, T. B.; Nagaral, M.; Jadhav, P.; Auradi, V. Microstructure and dry sliding wear behaviour of Al2219-TiC composites. Mater. Today: Proc. 2017, 4, 1100411009,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.08.058
    42. 42
      Li, M.; Ma, K.; Jiang, L.; Yang, H.; Lavernia, E. J.; Zhang, L.; Schoenung, J. M. Synthesis and mechanical behavior of nanostructured Al 5083/n-TiB2 metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 2016, 656, 241248,  DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2016.01.031
    43. 43
      Gilman, P. S. Discontinuously reinforced aluminum: Ready for the 1990s. JOM 1991, 43, 715,  DOI: 10.1007/BF03221096
    44. 44
      Ünlü, B. S. Investigation of tribological and mechanical properties Al2O3–SiC reinforced Al composites manufactured by casting or P/M method. Mater. Des. 2008, 29, 20022008,  DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.014
    45. 45
      Ramachandra, M.; Abhishek, A.; Siddeshwar, P.; Bharathi, V. Hardness and wear resistance of ZrO2 nano particle reinforced Al nanocomposites produced by powder metallurgy. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2015, 10, 212219,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mspro.2015.06.043
    46. 46
      Prabu, S. B.; Karunamoorthy, L.; Kathiresan, S.; Mohan, B. Influence of stirring speed and stirring time on distribution of particles in cast metal matrix composite. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2006, 171, 268273,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.06.071
    47. 47
      Singla, M.; Dwivedi, D. D.; Singh, L.; Chawla, V. Development of aluminium based silicon carbide particulate metal matrix composite. J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 2009, 8, 455467,  DOI: 10.4236/jmmce.2009.86040
    48. 48
      Das, S.; Das, S.; Das, K. Abrasive wear of zircon sand and alumina reinforced Al–4.5 wt %Cu alloy matrix composites – A comparative study. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2007, 67, 746751,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.05.001
    49. 49
      Youssef, Y. M.; Dashwood, R. J.; Lee, P. D. Effect of clustering on particle pushing and solidification behaviour in TiB2 reinforced aluminium PMMCs. Composites, Part A 2005, 36, 747763,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.10.027
    50. 50
      Nakae, H.; Wu, S. Engulfment of Al2O3 particles during solidification of aluminum matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 1998, 252, 232238,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-5093(98)00664-9
    51. 51
      Rao, R. N.; Das, S.; Mondal, D. P.; Dixit, G.; Devi, S. T. Dry sliding wear maps for AA7010 (Al–Zn–Mg–Cu) aluminium matrix composite. Tribol. Int. 2013, 60, 7782,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2012.10.007
    52. 52
      Cruz, K. S.; Meza, E. S.; Fernandes, F. A.; Quaresma, J. M.; Casteletti, L. C.; Garcia, A. Dendritic arm spacing affecting mechanical properties and wear behavior of Al-Sn and Al-Si alloys directionally solidified under unsteady-state conditions. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2010, 41, 972984,  DOI: 10.1007/s11661-009-0161-2
    53. 53
      Murakami, T.; Kajino, S.; Nakano, S. High-temperature friction and wear properties of various sliding materials against aluminum alloy 5052. Tribol. Int. 2013, 60, 4552,  DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2012.10.015
    54. 54
      Mittal, P.; Dixit, G. Dry sliding wear behaviour of 2014 aluminium alloy reinforced with SiC composite. Int. J. Eng. Res. Sci. Technol. 2016, 5, 147153,  DOI: 10.17577/IJERTV5IS060172
    55. 55
      Zhang, Z.; Chen, D. L. Contribution of Orowan strengthening effect in particulate-reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 2008, 483, 148152,  DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2006.10.184
    56. 56
      Zhang, Z.; Chen, D. L. Consideration of Orowan strengthening effect in particulate-reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites: A model for predicting their yield strength. Scr. Mater. 2006, 54, 13211326,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.12.017
    57. 57
      Özdemir, I.; Önel, K. Thermal cycling behaviour of an extruded aluminium alloy/SiCp composite. Composites, Part B 2004, 35, 379384,  DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.02.007
    58. 58
      Tjong, S. C.; Wang, G. S.; Mai, Y. W. Low-cycle fatigue behavior of Al-based composites containing in situ TiB2, Al2O3 and Al3Ti reinforcements. Mater. Sci. Eng.A 2003, 358, 99106,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00266-1
    59. 59
      Llorca, J. An analysis of the influence of reinforcement fracture on the strength of discontinuously-reinforced metal-matrix composites. Acta Metall. Mater. 1995, 43, 181192,  DOI: 10.1016/0956-7151(95)90273-2
    60. 60
      Kumai, S.; King, J. E.; Knott, J. F. Short and long fatigue crack growth in a SiC reinforced aluminium alloy. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 1990, 13, 511524,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2695.1990.tb00621.x
    61. 61
      Levy, G.; Linford, R. G.; Mitchell, L. A. Wear behaviour and mechanical properties: The similarity of seemingly unrelated approaches. Wear 1972, 21, 167177,  DOI: 10.1016/0043-1648(72)90255-4
    62. 62
      Xue, Q. J.; Ludema, K. C. Plastic failure effects in scuffing of soft metals. Wear Mater. 1983, 499506
    63. 63
      Ramesh, C. S.; Seshadri, S. K. Tribological characteristics of nickel based composite coatings. wear 2003, 255, 893902,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00080-2
    64. 64
      Kumar, S.; Pandey, O. P. Role of fine size zircon sand ceramic particle on controlling the cell morphology of aluminum composite foams. J. Manuf. Process. 2015, 20, 172180,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.08.006
    65. 65
      Torrance, A. A. The effect of grit size and asperity blunting on abrasive wear. wear 2002, 253, 813819,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(02)00103-5
    66. 66
      Senthilkumar, M.; Saravanan, S. D.; Shankar, S. Dry sliding wear and friction behavior of aluminum–rice husk ash composite using Taguchi’s technique. J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 49, 22412250,  DOI: 10.1177/0021998314545185
    67. 67
      Gracia-Escosa, E.; García, I.; de Damborenea, J. J.; Conde, A. Friction and wear behaviour of tool steels sliding against 22MnB5 steel. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2017, 6, 241250,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.04.002
    68. 68
      Chaudhury, S. K.; Singh, A. K.; Sivaramakrishnan, C. S. S.; Panigrahi, S. C. Preparation and thermomechanical properties of stir cast Al-2Mg-11TiO 2 (rutile) composite. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2004, 27, 517521,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02707279
    69. 69
      Revankar, G. D.; Shetty, R.; Rao, S. S.; Gaitonde, V. N. Wear resistance enhancement of titanium alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) by by ball burnishing proceses. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2017, 6, 1332,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2016.03.007