ECM

INDUMATI B DESHMANYA* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No.
11, Issue No. 1, 238 - 252
Development of Models for Predicting Impact Strength of Al7075/Al2O3 Composites Produced by Stir-casting
*Research Scholar and Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, PDA College Engineering, Gulbarga-585 102, indu_bd@yahoo.co.in Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, PDA College Engineering, Gulbarga-585 102,
INDUMATI B DESHMANYA* AND DR GK PUROHIT
geeke_purohit@rediffmail.com
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Metal Matrix Composites, Stir-casting, Forging, Charpy-V, RSM, Modeling, ______________________________________________________________________________________
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 238
Metal matrix composites (MMCs) are advanced materials produced by combining two or more constituents-the major phase called matrix is a metal/metal alloy and the other is, generally, a ceramic. Composites with aluminium alloy matrix and ceramic reinforcements are popular candidates in automotive, aerospace and defense fields because of their high strength-to-weight ratio, stiffness, impact strength, wear resistance, etc. Often, they are subjected to secondary manufacturing processes like extrusion, rolling, forging and welding to obtain components which meet the service requirements. There are no standard methods for selecting the correct proportion of matrix and reinforcements for producing composites possessing desired properties, particularly in the forged condition. Of late, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is used to develop mathematical models to predict the effect of various process parameters on the behavior of MMCs. This paper presents the details of modeling the impact strength of Al7075 matrix reinforced with Al2O3 particulates in terms of Charpy-V in the forged condition. Stir-casting was used to produce the composites. Previous work by the authors showed that size and weight fraction of Al 2O3 particulates were the most influential parameters in deciding the impact strength in the as-cast condition. Hence, in this work in addition to these, forging temperature and reduction in area are used to evaluate the effect of forging on the impact strength of forged composites. Factorial design of experiments with the four selected parameters, viz., size of reinforcement, weight percent, forging temperature and reduction in area, maintained at five levels is used to develop the model.
ES
INDUMATI B DESHMANYA* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 11, Issue No. 1, 238 - 252
Metal matrix composites (MMCs) are a variety of composite materials which are obtained by metallic matrices with reinforcing constituents mostly, in the form of a ceramic or relatively soft and/or compliant phases, such as graphite flakes, lead particles, reinforcing metals, etc. [1-4]. Aluminium based MMCs find applications in areas like automotive components, aerospace, structures, mining equipments, etc., as they possess combination of properties such as improved strength, toughness, hardness, wear resistance, corrosion resistance and other desirable properties contributed by the constituent phases [5-14]. The reinforcements are in the form of particulates and short/long fibers. Recently, particulate MMCs comprising Al alloy matrices and SiC or Al2O3 reinforcement are being considered for a range of industrial applications, though MMCs Ti-, Fe-, and Mg-matrices combined with other reinforcements (Ti, B2, B4C ,Si2), TiC, WC, BN, ZrO2, etc. have also been investigated. However, Al2O3 is a preferred choice to SiC, because of its greater stability in Al alloys [15]. It is important to note that the choice of matrix and reinforcement, specification of the way in which the composites are synthesized, and the manner in which a stock item/component is fabricated by employing suitable secondary processes (eg. rolling, extrusion, forging) to which they are often subjected to, has a great bearing on the development of these MMCs [15-17]. Al-based particulate MMCs are most commonly manufactured by melt incorporation and casting technique or powder blending and consolidation. However, whether cast or produced via powder metallurgy,
1. Introduction
the lack of toughness, ductility and formability still limits the industrial applications of these materials. Hence, it is imperative to know the process parameters governing the properties such as strength under impact, bending, hardness, wear resistance, tensile strength, etc. of the particulate MMCs in the as processed and secondary processed conditions. A detailed literature survey conducted by the authors indicated that although a number of mechanical properties of particulate reinforced aluminium matrix composites have been examined and reported, there is relatively, less information about impact behavior of these materials. In particular, Al2O3 reinforced aluminium matrix composites which have important applications in many fields, need to be evaluated with regard to impact behavior and formability and lack of information regarding these aspects often limit the industrial applications of these composites. Many researchers have attempted to assess the impact behavior of Al based MMCs and the effect of applying different secondary processes such as extrusion, rolling, forging and welding. For example, Hunt et al [18] have observed that toughness and yield strength were independent of particle size both in as-cast and extruded form of 6061/Al2O3 composites. On the other hand, Kim et al [19] have reported from their study of 6061/SiC particulate with T6 conditioning that there existed a critical particle size, above which the composites would fracture due to particle mixing. Whitehouse and Clyne [20] studied the effect of reinforcement shape on the fracture behavior of powder formed and extruded Al/Al2O3 composites and reported that void formation at the in faces and
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
ES
Page 239
delamination were the main causes of fracture than particles size. [21,22] have reported that larger particle sizes resulted lower ductility, but when particles were smaller in size ductility remained unaffected. Application of forging resulted in redistribution of reinforcement particles and absence of segregation, if any, which helped improve the impact strength of forged composites as compared to as-cast composites. Mallik et al [23] have studied the effect of SiC particle content on the mechanical properties and forgeability of Duralumin based particulate MMCs produced by stircasting. They have indicated that both tensile strength and impact strength increased consistently with SiC particle size. Also, porosity was found to reduce after forging at 25C (room temperature). Huang et al [24] have studied fracture toughness (KIC) and low cycle fatigue of 6061/Al2O3 particulate composites by measuring fracture toughness as a function of particle concentration and aging temperature with a view to understanding fracture behavior of these MMCs. They have indicated that fracture toughness decreased with increasing reinforcement content due to large particle size. Luri et al [25] have studied the effect of friction stir welding on the Charpy-V of AA7005/Al2O3 composites produced by liquid metal process and extruded at 350C. They have reported that, in general, particle size had little effect on the energy absorbed by as-cast composites (0.7J). However, application of secondary process like friction stir welding resulted in increased Charpy-V (2.6J). They have attributed this phenomenon to void removal and redistribution as well as grain refinement of particulates at the
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
welding temperature. Wei & Huang [24] have studied the influence heat treatment and extrusion on instrumented Charpy-V and KIC. They have considered four types of matrix based aluminium metal matrix composites and concluded that toughness of matrix, particle size & distributions due to extrusion play an important role in improving the energy absorbed and both instrumented CharpyV and KIC gave consistent results. From the foregoing, it is evident that there is no consensus in the reported work as far as Al-based MMCs are concerned. Hence, the authors have undertaken a research program to develop Al7075/Al2O3 composites produced by stir-casting technique followed by forging. In an earlier study [26] the authors have reported that of the four process parameters, viz., particle size, particle weight fraction, holding temperature during stir casting and holding time, the first two were the most effective in deciding the impact strength in terms of Charpy-V. In this work an attempt has been made to study the effect of forging on the cast composites. Multi-factor, multi-reaction based response surface method (RSM) with central composite design (CCD) has been employed to model the stir-cast and forged Al7075/Al2 O3 composites. 2. Material The aluminium MMCs investigated are made up of Al7075 matrix and Al2O3 particulate reinforcement. The properties of the matrix used are given in Tables 1 and 2. Al2 O3 particulates were in the range of 36m and 72m. The composites were fabricated by melt route using stir casting. 3. Plan of investigation
ES
Page 240
The research work was planned to be carried out in the following steps: 1. Identifying the important controllable process parameters. 2. Finding the range of identified parameters viz. size of reinforcement (D), % weight of reinforcement (W), forging temperature (TF) and % reduction of forging area RF. 3. Developing the central composite design matrix. 4. Producing the stir-cast and forged specimens as per design matrix and extracting the Charpy-V specimens from defect-free regions of the specimens. 5. Conducting impact test and recording the values CVF. 6. Developing the CVF model and checking the adequacy. 7. Results and discussion. 3.1 Identifying the important controllable process parameters Based on the previous work it was observed that reinforcement size and % weight are the two most influential parameters [26]. In order to understand the effect of forging on hardness, forging temperature and reduction in size (area) after forging were included. Hence, the identified parameters are: reinforcement size (D), % of reinforcement (%W), forging temperature (TF) and % reduction in area (%RF). It was imperative that these parameters were controllable and reproducible. 3.2 Finding the range of the identified parameters Based on the previous work by the authors [26], the working ranges of size and weight fraction of Al2O3 were known. Therefore, a number of trial runs were conducted to arrive at the upper and lower limits of the remaining two parameters, forging temperature and reduction in area after forging. The
criterion for fixing the ranges was based on a visually defect-free specimen. As it was decided to employ central composite design, the extreme values of the parameters were further subdivided into 3 more equal divisions. The five levels were coded as +2, +1, 0, -1, 2. Table 3 gives the values of the parameters at various levels and the units of the same. 3.3 Developing the central composite design matrix The design matrix for the present work was developed as per [27,28]. Table 4 gives the details. It may be observed that, in all, 31 experimental combinations comprising 24 =16 factorial points, 7 center points and 8 star points have been used in the experimentation. 3.4 Producing the stir-cast and forged specimens as per design matrix 31 experimental samples measuring 25 mm diameter and 280mm long were stircast and forged as per the design matrix in a random order, to ensure that no systematic errors crept into the experimentation [29]. The details of stircasting process are available elsewhere [30]. 3.5 Conducting Charpy-V impact test and recording the values of CVF The cast and forged specimens were cut and sized to 10mm 10mm 55mm Charpy-V samples using standard metal cutting procedure and they were subjected to impact loading. In each case, 3 specimens were tested and the average values are presented in Table 3. 3.6 Developing the Charpy-V model and checking the adequacy Charpy-V, the response (Yu) of the forged composites was expressed as a function of Al2O3 size(D), % weight of Al2O3 (W), forging temperature (T F) and reduction in area (RF),
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
ES
Page 241
Yu = f(D, W, TF, RF) (1) nd The resulting 2 order equation could be expressed as, Yu = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b1X12 + b2X22 + b3X32 + b4X42 + b12X12 + b13X13 + b14X14 + b23X23 + b24X24 + b34X34 (2) where, b0 is the coefficient corresponding to the first column, b1, b2, b3 and b4 are the coefficients corresponding to the four selected process parameters, b11, b22, b33 & b44 refer to quadratic terms, and b12, b13, b14, b23, b24, b34 indicate coefficients corresponding to 2-factor interactionsb12 meaning interaction of factors 1 and 2, b13 is for factors 1 and 3, etc. 3.6.1 Evaluation of the coefficients of models The values of the regression coefficients were evaluated [27] with the help of the following equations (3) to (6). b0 = 0.142857 (0y) 0.035714(iiy) (3) bi = 0.014667 (iy) (4) bii = 0.031250 (iiy) + 0.003720(iiy) 0.035714 (0y) (5) bij = 0.0625 (ijy) (6) Substituting the values of coefficients, determined as above the fitted second order models for forged composites is given by Eqns. (7), CVF = 5.520 + 0.008D + 0.134W + 0.029T + 0.099t - 0.452D2 - 0.470W2 0.150T2 - 0.371t2 - 0.025DW - 0.035DT - 0.052Dt + 0.063WT - 0.023Wt 0.079Tt (7) The adequacy of the model was checked from the Analyses of Variance for the two cases and the models were confirmed using Fishers F-test [20]. Table 6 presents the details of the analyses of variance. It is noticed that Fvalues for the model is greater than the corresponding tabulated F-value, indicating that the model developed is adequate.
3.7 Results and discussion The average values of the impact strength as obtained by experimental results are presented in Table 4 for various combinations of the four process parameters. Also, the graphical relations depicting the effect of these parameters are presented from Figure 2 to Figure 11. Figures 2 to 5 show the effect of main parameters and Figures 6 to 11 show the interaction effects. The complex nature of MMCs is that invariably, they contain some primary discontinuities such as voids, inclusion and matrix-domination which affect their properties. Further, subjecting them to forging is observed to result in elimination of residual pores and defects formed during casting, more uniform distribution of the reinforcing particles, and also, stronger bonding between the matrix and particles. Often, a more ductile matrix might result from the homogenization and refinement of grains (4) during working. Consequently, this may result in increase/decrease in the impact (5) strength of the resulting products(6) [19,28]. Wei and Huang [28] have reported that Al2O3 particles were predominantly seen to crack and that optimum toughness corresponded to optimum bond strength: lower or higher strengths were found to lower the toughness. It is observed from the various graphs that the process parameters affect the impact strength not only individually, but even by interacting with each other. As such it is noticed that it is always possible to arrive at an optimum combination of the four process parameters that result in an optimum value of the impact strength in the castforged condition. Further, the mathematical model developed is found to be adequate by the
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
ES
Page 242
fact that Fishers F-value for the model (35.42) is much higher than the corresponding tabulated value of 4.07 as per Table (14, 6, 0.05). Also, the value of R-Sq (0.991) and R-Sq(adj) = 0.989 are the confirmation at 99% confidence level. Hence, the model can be used effectively in producing composite parts by stir casting followed by forging without loosing their basic properties (impact strength in this case). Table 5 gives the details of ANOVA. 3.8 Conclusion Based on the present work the following conclusions may be drawn. 1. A second order rotatable design can be used to predict the impact behavior of Al7075/Al2O3 stir-cast and forged Al7075/Al2O3 components. The mathematical model developed can be used to correlate the toughness parameters and their interactions with the response parameters. 2. Impact strength of the Al7075/Al2O3 composites, in the stircast and forged conditions is basically consistent and the optimum condition of toughness is obtained with reinforcement (Al2O3) size 54m, weight percent of Al2O3 of 15gm, forging temperature of 410C and at reduction factor of 30%. 3. As per analysis of variance, the Fvalues corresponding to the models are greater than the standard F-value as obtained for degrees of freedom (4, 16). Hence the model is validated with 99% significance level. 4. Elimination of residual pores and defects formed during casting, more uniform distribution of reinforcing particles, stronger bonding between the matrix and particles, and refinement of grains during working have a greater bearing as far as
impact strength is concerned. As such, a careful and judicious application of these models is recommended. 4. References 1. K. Pradeep Rohatgi, Cast metal matrix composites, ASM Hand Book, 9th Ed, Vol. 15, 1988. 2. L. Ceschini, G. Minak and A. Morri, Forging of the AA2618/20 vol% Al2O3p composite: Effects on microstructure and tensile properties, Comp. Sci. and Technol., 69, 2009, pp. 1783-1789. 3. Nikhilesh Chawla and Yu-Lin Shen, Mechanical Behavior of Particulate Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites, Adv. Eng. Mater., 3, No. 6, 2001, pp. 357-370. 4. T.S. Srivatsan, I.J. Ibrahim, F. A. Mohamed and E.J. Lavernia, Processing technique for particulatereinforced metal aluminium matrix composites, J. Mater. Sci., 26, Vol. 41, 1991, pp. 5965-5978. 5. Sedat Ozden, Recep Ekici and Fehmi Nair, Investigation of impact behavior of aluminium based SiC particle reinforced metal matrix composites, Composites: Part A 38, 2007, pp. 484-494. 6. G. Leisk and A Saigal, A Statistical approach to the heat treatment optimization of Al- Al2O3 particulate composites, J. Mater. Eng. and Performance JMEPEG 1, 1992, pp. 45-48. 7. J. Hashim, L. Looney and M.S.J. Hashmi, Metal matrix composites: production by the stir casting method, J. Mater. Proc. Technol., 1999, pp. 1- 7. 8. N. Barekar, S. Tzamtzis, B.K. Dhindaw, J. Patel, N. Hari Babu, and Z. Fan, Processing of Aluminium-
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
ES
Page 243
Graphite Particulate Metal Matrix Composites by Advanced Shear Technology, J. Mater. Eng. and Perf., DOI: 10.1007/s 11665-0099362-5, 2009. 9. M.K. Surappa, Aluminium matrix composites: Challenges and Opportunities. Sadhana, 28, 2003, pp. 319-334. 10. D. Huda, M.A. El Baradie and M.J.S. Hasmi, Development of a hardness model for MMCs (Al/A2O3). J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 44, 1994, pp. 81-90. 11. S. Abis, Characterization of an aluminium alloy/alumina metal matrix composites. J. Comp. Sci. and Technol. 35, 1989, pp.1-19 12. R.J. Arsenault and Y. Flom, Role of interfaces in SiC/Al composites, Proc. Symp. Structure and Deformation of Boundaries, Toronto, ONT. (Canada) 261, 1985. 13. A. Daoud, W. Reif and P. Rohatgi, Microstructure and tensile properties of extruded 7475 AL-Al2O3 particulate composites, USA. 14. D. Ramesh, R.P. Swamy and T.K. Chandrashekar, Effect of weight percent on mechanical properties of frit particulate reinforced Al6061 composite, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010, pp. 32-36. 15. T.W. Clyne, Metal matrix composites: Matrices and processing, Encyclopedia of Materials, Sci. and Technol., Composites: MMC, CMC, PMC, A. Mortensen (Ed), Elsevier, 2001, pp.1-14. 16. G. Leisk and A. Saigal, Taguchi analysis of heat treatment variables on the mechanical behavior of alumina/aluminium metal matrix composites, Comp. Eng., Vol.5, No.2, 1995, pp. 129-142.
17. L. Wei and J.C Huang, Influence of heat treatment and hot working on fracture toughness of cast aluminium base composites, Mater. Sci and Technol. Vol., 9, 1993, pp. 841-852. 18. W.H. Hunt Jr, T.M. Osman and J.J. Lewandowski, Micro and macrostructural factors in DRA fracture resistance, JOM, 1993, pp. 30-35. 19. H.J. Kim, T. Kobayashi and H.S. Yoon, Micromechanical fracture process of SiC-particle-reinforced aluminium alloy 6061-T6 metal matrix composites, Mater. Sci. and Eng., A 154, 1992, pp. 35-41. 20. A. F. Whitehouse and T.W. Clyne, Effects of reinforcement content and shape on cavitations and failure in metal matrix composites, Composites, 24(3), 1993, pp. 256261. 21. T.J.A. Doel and P. Bowen, Tensile properties of particulate-reinforced metal matrix composites, Composites Part A: Appl. Sci. and Manf., 27, 1996, pp. 655-665. 22. P. Mummery and Derby, The influence of microstructure on the fracture behavior of particulate metal matrix composites, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 135, 1991, pp. 221. 23. B. Mallik, et al, Effect of particle content on the mechanical behavior of Aluminium-based metal matrix composites (AMMC), Ind. Found. J., Vol. 52, No., 2006, pp. 35-42. 24. N.P. Hung, W. Zhou, E.T. Peh and C.S. Chan, Fracture toughness and low cycle fatigue of 6061/Al2 O3p composites, Comp. Eng., Vol.5, No.5, 1995, pp. 509-517. 25. Luri Boromei, Lorella Ceschini, Alessandrao Morri and Gian Luca Garagnani, Friction stir welding of aluminum based composites reinforced with Al2O3 particles:
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
ES
Page 244
effects on microstructure and Charpy impact energy, Metal. Sci. and Technol. pp. 12-21. 26. B.D. Indumati and G.K. Purohit, Developing a model for predicting the impact strength of Al7075/Al2O3 composites produced by stir casting (Communicated). 27. W.G. Cochran and G.M. Cox, Experimental Design, John Wiley, New York, 1992.
Table 1 Chemical Composition of Al7075 Cr Cu Mg 0.22 1.60 2.80
28. D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2009. 29. Y.P. Adler, E.V. Markov and Y.V. Granovsky, The design of experiments to find optimal conditions. MIR, Moscow, 1975. 30. B.D. Indumati and G.K. Purohit, Studies on modeling of aluminium matrix composites (AMCs) A Review Paper, ICAM-2011, pp. 144145.
Zn 5.50
Table 2 Details of other important properties of Al7075 Tensile Strength MPa 227.53 Yield Strength MPa 103.42 Elongation % 17 Hardness VHN 78.50
ES
0.29 Units Lower Level -2 36 5 385 10 -1 45 7.5 395 20 D m gm C % W TF RF
Thermal Conductivity Cal/Cm2/Cm/C at 25C
Table 3 Coded values of input variables at different levels Coded Values X1 X2 X3 X4 Input Parameters
A
Notation
T
Al Balance Middle 0 54 10 405 30 +1 63 40
Density g/cc at 20C 2.89
Elect. Resistivity -Cm at 20C 5.74
Upper Level +2 72 15 425 50
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
Size of Al2O3 % Wt of Al2O3 Forging Temperature % Reduction in Area after forging
12.5 415
Page 245
Table 4 Central Composite Design Matrix for Preparation of Forged Samples along with Responses Input Parameters Trial No. X1 Size of Al2O3, D (m) -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -2 +2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X2 Wt.% Al2O3, W (gm) -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 0 0 -2 +2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X3 Forging Temperature, TF (C) -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 -2 +2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X4 % Reduction in Area after forging, (RF) -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 +2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Output Parameter
Impact Energy in terms of Charpy-VF (Joules) 3.500 4.000 3.679 3.696 3.769 3.767 4.010 3.999 4.060 3.897 3.910 3.880 3.794 3.709 3.897 3.761 4.220 4.185 3.526 4.735 4.052 5.000 5.260 5.560 5.750 5.620 5.300 5.400 5.567 5.670 5.350
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
ES
Page 246
Table 5 Analysis of Variance ANOVA S.No. Source I & II Order terms Lack of fit Residual Error DF 14 SS 13.886 MS 0.991 F R2 Radj2
Forged Charpy-VF Energy, (Joules)
10 6 30
3.945 0.168 17.999 0.028 1.019
35.42
99.06
98.92
Total
35.42
99.06
98.92
Figure1: A close-up view of the stir-casting process
Charpy-V in Joules
IJ
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 Reinforcement size D in m
ES
Value of F-ratio as per Table (14, 6, 0.05) = 4.07; R-Sq(adj) =0.989
Composites: F = 35.42; R-Sq = 0.991;
Fig.2 Charpy-VF in Joules vs reinforcement size D in m
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 % wt of reinforcement W in g
Fig.3 Charpy-VF in Joules vs weight percent of reinforcement W in gm
Charpy-V in Joules
4 3 2 1
IJ
0 375 395
ISSN: 2230-7818
A
415 435 Forging temperature T in C
@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 248
ES
Fig.4 Charpy-VF in Joules vs forging temperature TF in C
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4 3 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 % reduction of area RF
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4 3 2 1 0
A
0 4 8 12 wt % of reinforcement W in g
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
ES
36(D) 45(D) 54(D) 63(D) 72(D)
Fig.5 Charpy-VF in Joules vs % reduction of area RF
T
16
Page 249
Fig. 6 Effect of interaction between weight percent of alumina W in gm and reinforcement size D in m on Charpy-VF in Joules
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4
36(D) 45(D) 54(D) 63(D) 72(D)
2 1 0 375 395 415
Forging temperature T in C
Fig. 7 Effect of interaction between forging temperature T in C and reinforcement size D in m on Charpy-VF in Joules
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4 3 2 1 0
IJ
0 10 20
ISSN: 2230-7818
A
36(D) 45(D) 54(D) 63(D) 72(D)
% Reduction of area RF
ES
435
30 40 50 60
T
Page 250
Fig. 8 Effect of interaction between % reduction of area RF in and reinforcement size D in m on CharpyVF in Joules
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4 3 2 1 0 375 395 415

5(W) 7.5(W)
Forging temperature T in C
12.5(W ) 435 15(W)
Fig. 9 Effect of interaction between forging temperature T in C and weight % of reinforcement W in gm on Charpy-VF in Joules
Charpy-V in Joules
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
A
0 10 20 30 40
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818
% reduction of area R in mm
ES
5(W) 7.5(W) 10(W) 12.5( W) 60 50 15(W)
T
Page 251
10(W)
Fig. 10 Effect of interaction between % reduction of area RF and weight percent of reinforcement W in gm Charpy-VF in Joules
6
Charpy-V in Joules
5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 % reduction of area RF
385(T ) 395(T ) 405(T ) 415(T ) 50 425(T )
60
Fig. 11 Effect of interaction between % reduction of area RF and forging temperature T in C on Charpy-VF in Joules
IJ
ES

ECM

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ECM

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INDUMATI B DESHMANYA* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No.

11, Issue No. 1, 238 - 252

INDUMATI B DESHMANYA* AND DR GK PUROHIT

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Thermal Conductivity Cal/Cm2/Cm/C at 25C

Density g/cc at 20C 2.89

Elect. Resistivity -Cm at 20C 5.74

Upper Level +2 72 15 425 50

Size of Al2O3 % Wt of Al2O3 Forging Temperature % Reduction in Area after forging

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Forged Charpy-VF Energy, (Joules)

3.945 0.168 17.999 0.028 1.019

Figure1: A close-up view of the stir-casting process

Value of F-ratio as per Table (14, 6, 0.05) = 4.07; R-Sq(adj) =0.989

Composites: F = 35.42; R-Sq = 0.991;

Fig.2 Charpy-VF in Joules vs reinforcement size D in m

Fig.3 Charpy-VF in Joules vs weight percent of reinforcement W in gm

Fig.4 Charpy-VF in Joules vs forging temperature TF in C

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Fig.5 Charpy-VF in Joules vs % reduction of area RF

2 1 0 375 395 415

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

5 4 3 2 1 0 375 395 415

12.5(W ) 435 15(W)

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Potrebbero piacerti anche