1. Wear 255 (2003) 638–642
Communication
Tensile and wear properties of aluminum composites
K.R. Suresh a , H.B. Niranjan b,∗ , P. Martin Jebaraj c , M.P. Chowdiah d
a Department of IEM, Bangalore Inst. of Tech., Bangalore, India
b Department of Mech. Engg., MS Ramiah Inst. of Tech., Bangalore, India
c Dr. Ambedkar Inst. of Tech., Bangalore, India
d Department of Mech. Engg., Bangalore University, Bangalore, India
Abstract
Beryl/Al–Si–Mg composites containing 2.0–10.0% of beryl particles have been fabricated by squeeze casting. Pressure of 80 MPa was
maintained during solidification in a specially designed die and punch maintained at 400 ◦ C. The tensile and wear properties have been
evaluated and compared with gravity cast beryl–aluminum composites. The squeeze cast composites show a peak strength of 216 MPa
showing an increase of 11.6% in tensile strength. The new composites also have improved wear resistance when compared to gravity cast
composites. Squeeze cast composites with 6 wt.% of beryl particles showed almost 1.2 times reduced adhesive wear rate at 2400 m sliding
distance when compared to that at 600 m.
© 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Particle composites; Squeeze casting; Beryl; Wear
1. Introduction ide which blocks the surface wetting and reacts with some
ceramics to form inter metallic phases which tend to influ-
The reinforcement of aluminum alloys with ceramic par- ence the final properties of composites [17]. Of the several
ticles leads to a new generation of tailor-made engineer- methods, which have been investigated to improve compat-
ing materials with higher properties to weight ratio [1,2]. ibility at the interface, squeeze casting is the most suitable.
Several researches have reported that composites reinforced In squeeze casting, the time of contact between reinforce-
with particles exhibit superior wear resistance compared ment and melt is short, limiting the reaction at the interface
to unreinforced alloys [3,4]. Most of the wear studies on and improving the wettability [18]. The squeeze casting of-
aluminum-MMC have been carried out on aluminum alloy fers good micro-structural control at relatively low costs.
system reinforced with SiC and alumina particles [5–13]. Composites can be cast directly into final shape eliminating
Hosking et al. observed in their work 2024 aluminum al- wastage. It also allows selective reinforcement only in the
loy with 20 wt.% alumina have fairly good wear resistance area of castings which will benefit from composite proper-
[14]. In the wear behavior of 7091 Al–SiC, Wang and Rack ties.
reported that although the wear rate of matrix and compos- The pressure applied during solidification in the squeeze
ites are almost the same at a sliding velocity of 1.2 m/s, on casting technique results in excellent feeding during so-
increasing sliding velocity composites exhibit lower value lidification shrinkage, resulting in a casting virtually free
than that of unreinforced matrix [15]. The abrasive wear rate from porosity [19,20]. It promotes fine equiaxed grain
of alumina fiber/6061 Al composites was found to be much structure due to large under-cooling and rapid heat ex-
less, indicating almost six times better wear resistance than traction [21]. It has been reported that squeeze infil-
matrix alloy [16]. As observed in various literatures, the par- trated Al2 O3 -MMC had uniform distribution with strong
ticle reinforced Al composites show reasonably good wear matrix-reinforcement bond [22,23]. In this study, Al–beryl
resistance. particle composites are fabricated through liquid metal-
One of the important limitations in fabrication of alu- lurgy route, using squeeze casting technique. Beryl ob-
minum matrix composites, is the compatibility of reinforce- tained in particle form has fairly high hardness and density
ment in the matrix. This is of prime importance in case of close to Al. The beryl particles are naturally available in
Al composites, as Al is covered with a thin layer of ox- powder as well as in cluster form. The result of tensile
and wear properties of squeeze cast composites are com-
∗ Corresponding author. pared with gravity cast composites [24] and are presented
E-mail address: girija hb@hotmail.com (H.B. Niranjan). here.
0043-1648/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00292-8

2. K.R. Suresh et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 638–642 639
2. Experimental details (case hardened to 80RC , to a depth of 3 mm) was used as
counter surface and composites were made into pin having
The matrix chosen for this work is ASM 356 Al–Si–Mg 6 mm diameter and 25 mm in height. The pins were made
alloy. It is a high strength alloy and renders itself favorably to slide on the steel disc. A sliding track diameter of 98 mm
to heat treatment. The composition of the alloy is 7.5% Si, was chosen and the disc was rotated at a speed of 390 rpm,
0.345% Mg and balance is aluminum. ‘Beryl’ chemically so that a linear distance of 120 m was covered in 1 min. The
beryllium–aluminum–silicate (Be3 Al2 (SiO3 )6 ) has a density test was carried out for different sliding distances under the
of 2700–2800 kg/m3 , having hardness of 7.5–8.5 on Mho’s normal a load of 10 N. The wear was measured in terms of
scale. It has hexagonal crystal structure and retains water of weight loss of the materials measured to 0.0001 g resolu-
crystallization up to 800 ◦ C [25]. The chemical composition tion. An average of three trials is presented here. The scatter
of beryl particles used here is presented in Table 1. The of three readings were within 5%. Since density of the alloy
particles used here have an average particle size of 20 m. has critical influence on properties, the same was measured
The Al composites having beryl particles varying from 2 for each specimen.
to 10% are prepared through gravity casting, their tensile
and wear properties are evaluated. The details of which are
reported elsewhere [24]. 3. Results and discussion
The squeeze casting of Al–beryl casting was carried out
by dispersing 2–10% beryl particles. The beryl particles are The densities of gravity cast and squeeze cast matrices
heated to 900 ◦ C before adding them so as to eliminate water were measured in order to know the effect of squeeze casting.
of crystallization, which is likely to hinder the wetting of It was found to be 2610 and 2790 kg/m3 for gravity cast and
Al melt [25]. The squeeze casting was obtained by pouring squeeze cast matrices, respectively, indicating an increase
melt-particle slurry into preheated (200 ◦ C) permanent die of 6.9% for squeeze cast matrix. This improvement in the
and punch. It is allowed to solidify under squeeze pressure density may be due to reduction of micro-porosity due to
of 80 MPa for a duration of 5 min. High temperature graphite squeezing the casting during solidification.
powder was used in the die to facilitate removal of cast Fig. 1 shows the tensile test results of gravity cast and
blanks from die after cooling. Also, unreinforced alloy was squeeze cast composites for varying percentage of particles.
cast in identical conditions for the purpose of comparison. It can be observed from the figure that the tensile strength of
The squeeze cast composites and matrix were machined squeeze cast matrix (0%) is higher than gravity cast matrix
to obtain tensile and wear specimens, the tensile test was by 11%. The improvement in strength in squeeze cast con-
carried out on samples according to ASTM-E8-95a. All the dition may be attributed to the absence of shrinkage porosity
composites were tested for strength, samples were loaded and fine grain structure [26].
till fracture. Three trials were carried out for the purpose of Application of pressure during solidification also results
repeatability and the average of them is presented here. in refined grain structure [27]. It can be observed from the
Hardness has some influence on the wear behavior on any figure that the addition of the beryl particulates enhanced the
material. Hence, the hardness was measured for the com- tensile strength of the composites. It is true for both gravity
posite samples as well as squeeze cast alloy. The hardness cast and squeeze cast conditions up to an addition of 6%.
tests were carried out as per ASTM-E-10-93 standard. The The composites attains peak strength on addition of 6 wt.%
tests were conducted on three locations on the sample to of beryl particles in both the gravity cast and squeeze cast
counter the possibility of indentor resting on hard particle, conditions. However, the squeeze composites, having 6 wt.%
which may result in anomalous value. of beryl showed enhancement of 11.3% over the gravity cast
Wear tests were carried out under dry condition on a sample of same composition.
pin-on-disc apparatus as per ASTM-G-99-95. A steel disc Further dispersion of hard ceramic particles in a soft duc-
tile matrix results in improvement in strength [28]. This may
be attributed to large residual stress developed during solidi-
Table 1
fication and to the generation of a density of dislocations due
Chemical composition of beryl particles to mismatch of thermal expansion between hard ceramic par-
ticles and soft Al matrix [29–32]. The hard ceramic particles
Composition (%)
obstruct the advancing dislocation front, thereby strength-
SiO2 65.4 ening the matrix [33–37]. The increase in the strength may
Al2 O3 17.92 also be result of closer packing of reinforcement and smaller
BeO 12.25
Fe2 O3 0.8
inter-particle spacing in the matrix, and the matrix material’s
CaO 1.34 ability to exhibit internal ductility to accommodate local-
MgO 0.48 ized internal stresses [38]. As mentioned earlier, squeeze
Na2 O 0.55 casting further enhances the strength due to the absence of
K2 O 0.004 micro porosity, better interfacial bond between matrix and
MnO 0.05
reinforcement, and grain reinforcement [39].

3. 640 K.R. Suresh et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 638–642
Fig. 1. Tensile strengths of gravity cast and squeeze cast Al composites.
3.1. Hardness gravity casting. However, the peak hardness observed for
addition of 10 wt.% of particles in both the cases. The hard-
Fig. 2 shows that the hardness of squeeze cast matrix is ness in squeeze casting conditions may be due to combined
higher than that of gravity matrix by about 4.5% approxi- effect of denser matrix and hard ceramic particle [41].
mately. The application of pressure during solidification in
squeeze casting minimizes porosity and makes the metal 3.2. Wear
more dense, making the matrix to resist surfacial plastic de-
formation, rendering higher hardness to the matrix. The dis- Dry sliding wear of both gravity cast and squeeze cast
persion of beryl particles enhances the hardness, as particles composites of different weight percentage particles is indi-
are harder than Al alloy, the materials render their inherent cated in Table 2. It can be noted from the table that the
property of hardness to the soft matrix [40]. The peak hard- composites show lower weight loss indicating the beneficial
ness of 64 BHN was found to be for an addition of 10 wt.% effect of addition of beryl particles. It may be attributed to
of beryl particles in gravity cast condition. hardness of the material a dominating factor affecting the
The squeeze cast composites having 6% beryl (the com- wear resistance [42–44]. The decrease in wear weight loss
position which has shown peak strength in both the cases) may also be attributed to higher load bearing capacity of
was found to be 19.8% more harder than the corresponding hard reinforcing material [45].
Fig. 2. Hardness of gravity cast and squeeze cast Al–beryl composites.

4. K.R. Suresh et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 638–642 641
Table 2
Wear weight loss (mg) of Al–beryl composites for different sliding dis-
tances under gravity cast (GC) and squeeze cast (SqC) conditions
Beryl (%) Sliding distance
600 (m) 1200 (m) 1800 (m) 2400 (m)
GC SqC GC SqC GC SqC GC SqC
0 5.2 4.5 11.4 7.9 16.2 8.2 20.8 11.2
2 4.9 4.0 7.8 5.3 12.6 7.6 20.3 10.0
4 4.6 3.6 7.4 4.8 10.9 5.8 18.6 9.4
6 4.4 3.0 6.0 4.1 9.8 4.9 14.1 8.5
8 4.3 2.3 5.6 3.3 9.0 4.7 12.3 7.3
10 4.1 1.9 5.2 2.3 8.5 4.2 11.2 6.4
Fig. 4. Wear track of 6% beryl–Al composite in gravity cast condition.
The processing of composites also influence the wear rate.
It can be seen from Table 2, that squeeze cast composites
show lesser wear weight loss when to gravity cast compos-
ites for any sliding distance.
From the component designer’s point of view, it is essen-
tial that the material should retain its strength character. In
the present study, it was observed that the composite with
6% beryl particle shows peak strength, both in gravity cast
and squeeze cast condition, hence the wear studies of this
composite is presented here. Fig. 3 depicts the wear weight
loss of these composites under different sliding distances.
The squeeze cast composite showed decreases of 31% com-
pared to gravity cast composite over a sliding distance of
600 m. When the sliding distance was increased to 2400 m
the squeeze cast composite showed decrease of 40% which
is almost 1.2 times lesser wear weight loss of gravity cast
composites for same distance.
The squeeze cast composite shows lower wear weight loss Fig. 5. Wear track of 6% beryl–Al composite in squeeze cast condition.
as can be seen from Fig. 3. The photomicrographs of the
wear track of the composite in both the processing condi-
tions are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. More debris can be seen than that of gravity cast sample), better interfacial bond be-
in the tracks of gravity cast composite Fig. 4, while in Fig. 5 tween the particle and the matrix than in the gravity sam-
shows uniform wear track with reasonably lower debris. The ples, reducing the possibility of particle pull out which may
lower wear weight loss of squeeze cast sample may be due result in higher wear. Besides, denser squeeze cast samples
to the fact that the material is more denser (density is higher resist surfacial deformation during hardness testing indicat-
Fig. 3. Wear weight loss of 6% beryl–Al composites for different sliding distances.

5. 642 K.R. Suresh et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 638–642
ing a higher hardness of the material which in-turn reduce [13] M. Narayanan, M.K. Surappa, B.M. Pramila Bai, Dry sliding wear
the wear weight loss. of Al alloy 2024 and Al 203 particle-MMC, Wear (1995) 181–
183.
[14] F.M. Hosking, F. Folgar Poritillo, R. Wunderlein, R. Mehrabion,
Composite of Al alloys fabrication and wear behavior, J. Mater. Sci.
4. Conclusions 17 (1982) 477.
[15] A. Wang, H.J. Rack, Transition wear behavior of SiC particulate and
SiC whisker reinforced 7091 Al metal matrix composite, Mater. Sci.
1. The tensile strength of Al–beryl squeeze cast composites Eng. A 147 (1991) 211–224.
show a peak strength of 216 MPa at 6% beryl particle [16] A. Wang, I.M. Hutchings, Wear of alumina fiber: aluminum metal
showing improvement of 11.7% when compared to cor- matrix composite by two body abrasion, Mater. Sci. Technol. 5
responding gravity cast composites. (1989) 71–76.
2. The squeeze cast composites of 10 wt.% addition reduce [17] Comp. Sci. Technol. 59 (1999) 157–162.
[18] A.M. Assar, M.A. Alnimir, J. Comp. Mater. 28 (1994) 1480.
the wear weight loss of 54% compared to gravity cast of [19] T.M. Yue, Squeeze casting of high strength Al wrought alloy
the same composite over a distance of 600 m. When the AA7010, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 66 (1–3) (1997) 179–185.
distance was increased to 2400 m it was found to be 48%. [20] J. Mater. Sci. 29 (1994) 424.
3. The decrease in wear weight loss of 10% beryl reinforced [21] Effect of pressure during solidification of particle dispressed Al alloy,
M.Tech. Thesis, V.T.U., Belgaum, India, 2002, p. 7.
squeeze cast was found to be 48% less than that of base
[22] T.K.L. Clyne, M.G. Bader, G.R. Cappleman, P.A. Steeber, J. Mater.
matrix over a sliding distance of 2400 m, which was al- Sci. 20 (1985) 85.
most 1.2 times less than the sliding distance of 600 m. [23] S.Q. Wu, H.Z. Wang, S.C. Tjong, Mechanical and wear behavior of
Al–Si alloy metal matrix composite reinforced with alumina silicate
fiber.
[24] K.R. Suresh, et al., Dry sliding wear of Al 356—beryl metal matrix
Acknowledgements composite, in: Proceedings of the Third Austrailasian Conference on
Composite Materials (ACCM-3), 15–18 July 2002,Auckland, New
Authors express heartful thanks to Sri. M.R. Seetharam, Zealand.
Director, MSRIT, and Sri. R. Manjunath, Chairman, BIT, [25] N.A. Deer, Howie, Zussman, Rock Forming Minerals, vol. I,
for their encouragement in carrying out this work. Longman, New York, p. 258.
[26] S.W. Kim, G. Durant, J.H. Lee, B. Cantor, The effect of die geometry
on the micro structure of indirect squeeze cast and gravity die cast
7075 (Al 6.2 mg, Zn 2.3 mg, Cu 2.3 mg) wrought alloy, J. Mater.
References Sci. 34 (1999) 1873–1883.
[27] Bonjour, Micro structure and mechanical properties of high volume
[1] D.M. Aylor, Metals Handbook V-13, vol. 9, ASM Metals Park, OH, fraction SiC particle reinforced Al–Cu and Mg–Al squeeze castings,
1982, pp. 859–863. J. Mater. Sci. 34 (1999).
[2] Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 24g (1998) 165–172. [28] H.B. Niranjan, et al., Tensile and corrosive properties of Al Hematite
[3] S.V. Prasad, P.K. Rohatgi, Tribological properties of Al alloy particle composite, in: Proceedings of the First Australasian Conference on
composite, J. Metall. 39 (1987) 22. Composite Materials (ACCM-I), Osaka, Japan, 7–9 October 1998,
[4] Y.M. Pan, M.E. Fine, H.S. Chang, Wear mechanism of aluminium p. 546.
based meal matrix composite under rolling and sliding contraction [29] M.K. Surappa, Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
in technology of composite materials, in: P.K. Rothagi, P.J.B. Ian, India, 1979.
C.S. Yune (Eds.), ASM International, 1990, pp. 93–101. [30] J. Gurlond, Composite Materials, in: L.J. Brautman (Ed.) vol. IV,
[5] M.A. Martinez, A.C. Marten, J.K. Lorca, Al–Si alloys and Al–Si–SiC Academic Press, New York, 1974.
composite at ambient and elevated temperature, Scripta Metall. Mater. [31] D.A. Koss, S.M. Coply, Metall. Trans. A24 (1971) 551.
28 (1993) 207–212. [32] W.J. Clegg, Acta Metall. 36 (1988) 0–73.
[6] F. Rana, D.M. Slefazeren, Friction properties of Al–1.5% Mg–SiC [33] M. Taya, K.E. Lulay, D.J. Lloyd, Acta Metall. 39 (1991) 0–73.
particulate metal matrix composite, Metall. Trans. 20A (1989) 1564– [34] R. Higgins, Engineering Metallurgy, Part I, Fifth ed., ELBS
1566. Publication, 1983, pp. 181.
[7] A.T. Alpas, J.D. Emburey, Sliding and abrasive wear behavior of an [35] R.A. Flinn, P.D. Trojan, Engineering materials and their applications,
Al 2014–SiC particle reinforced composite, Scripta Metall. Mater. Fourth ed., Jaico Publication House, Bombay, 1993, pp. 650.
24 (1990) 931–935. [36] G.E. Deiter, Mechanical Metallurgy, Second ed., McGraw-Hill, New
[8] R.A. Wang, H.J. Rack, Transition wear behavior of SiC particulate York, 1981, pp. 221.
and SiC whisker reinforced 7091 Al metal matrix composite, Mater. [37] R.J. Arsenault, R.M. Fischer, Scripta Metall. 17 (1983) 67.
Sci. Eng. A 147 (1991) 211–224. [38] R.J. Arsenault, Mater. Sci. Eng. (1984) 171.
[9] T. Alpas, T. Zhang, Wear rate transaction in cast Al–silicon alloys [39] M.C. Danieal DL, Metal Trans. (1985) 1105.
reinforced with SiC particle, Scripta Metall. Mater. 26 (1992) 505– [40] A.K. Banerjee, P.K. Rohatgi, W. Reif, in: Proceedings of the
509. Eighth Symposium in Advanced Material Research and Development
[10] Zhang, A.T. Alpas, Wear regime and transaction in Al 203 particle for Transport-Composites, 1985, Strausbourg, France, November
reinforced Al alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 16 (1993) 231–237. 1985.
[41] Seshan, et al., J. Mater. Sci. 34 (1999) 5045–5049.
[11] W. Sang, P. Karuklinn, A.P. Mouritz, S. Bandopathay, The effect
[42] L.F. Zhang, L.C. Zhang, Mai, Y. Woo, J. Mater. Sci. 30 (1995)
of thermal agency with abrasive wear behavior age hardening 2014
5999–6004.
Al–SiC and 6061 Al–SiC composite, Wear 185 (1995) 125–130.
[43] E. Rabinowicz, Friction and wear of materials, New York, 1965.
[12] X.Y. Li, K.M. Tandon, Formation of amorphous phase of Al–Si
[44] J.F. Archard, J. Appl. Phys. 24 (1953) 981.
during dry wear of Al–SiCP composite, Scripta Metall. Mater. 33
[45] A.B. Gurlan, T.N. Baker, Wear 185 (1995) 185–199.
(1995) 485.