RETRACTED
This paper has been retracted as it contains figures that are substantially similar to figures in the following published papers: (1) “Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of A356/SiC Composites Fabricated by Electromagnetic Stir Casting” by Shashi Prakash Dwivedi, Satpal Sharma, and Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, (2) “Effects of roller burnishing process parameters on surface roughness of A356/5%SiC composite using response surface methodology” by Shashi Prakash Dwivedi, Satpal Sharma, and Raghvendra Kumar Mishra.

International Journal of Manufacturing Engineering
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 747865, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/747865

Research Article

Comparison of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of A356/SiC Metal Matrix Composites Produced by Two Different Melting Routes

Shashi Prakash Dwivedi,1,2 Satpal Sharma,² and Raghvendra Kumar Mishra²

¹Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201310, India
²School of Engineering, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201310, India

Received 14 June 2014; Revised 1 October 2014; Accepted 2 October 2014; Published 21 October 2014

Academic Editor: Shia-Chung Chen

Copyright © 2014 Shashi Prakash Dwivedi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

A356/SiC metal matrix composites with different weight percent of SiC particles were fabricated by two different techniques such as mechanical stir casting and electromagnetic stir casting. The results of macrostructure, microstructure, and XRD study revealed uniform distribution, grain refinement, and low porosity in electromagnetic stir casing samples. The mechanical results showed that the addition of SiC particles led to the improvement in tensile strength, hardness, toughness, and fatigue life. It indicates that type of fabrication process and percentage of reinforcement are the effective factors influencing the mechanical properties. It is observed that when percentage of reinforcement increases in electromagnetic stir casting, best mechanical properties are obtained.

1. Introduction

The main challenge in the development and processing of engineering materials is to control the microstructure, mechanical properties, and cost of the product. The aluminum metal matrix composite materials are the combination of two or more constituents in which one is matrix and other is reinforcement [1–3]. If the casting processes of the melted metal are applied directly in the state of melted Al matrix with reinforcement, the reinforced metal matrix composite parts with the complicated shape can be produced. However, it is hard to get the products for the reinforcement to be distributed uniformly because of the difference of densities of matrix and reinforcement in metal matrix composite [4–6].

The mechanical properties of MMCs are sensitive to the processing technique used to fabricate the materials. Considerable improvements may be achieved by applying science-based modeling techniques to optimize the processing procedure. Several techniques have been employed to prepare the composites including powder metallurgy, melt techniques, and squeeze casting [7–10].

Investigation of mechanical behavior of aluminum alloys reinforced by hard particles such as SiC is an interesting area of research. Therefore, the aim of the present work is to investigate the effects of different factors such as: (i) weight percentage of the SiC particles (ii) type of fabrication process (mechanical stir and electromagnetic stir casting) on the microstructure, mechanical properties and wear behavior of the metal matrix composites [11, 12].

On the basis of literature review, the compositions of reinforcement selected in a multiplication of 5 and the percentage of reinforcements are varied from 0 to 15% weight fraction in metal matrix. If the weight percentage of reinforcement’s increases more than 15% there is no more effect occuring in physical and chemical properties of metal matrix composite. This work aims to compare the result of aluminum matrix composite material reinforced by (0, 5, 10, and 15 wt.%) silicon carbide particles using electromagnetic stir casting method and mechanical stir casting method.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection of the Material

2.1.1. Matrix Alloy

In this study, A356 alloy is selected. It has very good strength, ductility, hardness, fatigue strength, fluidity, and machinability. The chemical composition and properties of A356 are shown in Tables 1 and 2 [7].

Table 1: Chemical composition of A356 alloy (wt%) [13, 14].

Si
Fe
Cu
Mn
Mg
Zn
Ti
Al

6.5–7.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.25–0.45
0.1
0.1
Balance

Table 2: Properties of A356 alloy [13, 14].

Liquidus temperature
615°C

Solidus temperature
555°C

Density (g/cm³)
2.685

Tensile strength (MPa)
230

Hardness (BHN)
75

Toughness (joule)
6

Fatigue strength (1 × 10⁷ MPa)
120

2.1.2. Reinforcement

Silicon Carbide (SiC) is composed of tetrahedral of carbon and silicon atoms with strong bonds in the crystal lattice. This produces a very hard and strong material. Silicon carbide is not attacked by any acids or alkalis or molten salts up to 800°C. The high thermal conductivity coupled with low thermal expansion and high strength gives this material exceptional thermal shock resistant qualities. Chemical purity, resistance to chemical attack at temperature, and strength retention at high temperatures have made this material very popular as reinforced material in the research. The properties and DRX pattern of SiC particles are shown in Table 3 and Figure 1, respectively [7].

Table 3: Properties of silicon carbide [15].

Average particle size
15 µm

Melting point temperature
2700°C

Hardness (Vickers)
3100

Density (g/cm³)
3.2

Crystal structure
Hexagonal

Figure 1: DRX patterns of SiC particles.

2.2. Fabrication of Metal Matrix Composites

2.2.1. Mechanical Stir Casting Setup and Procedure

Mechanical stir casting is a liquid state method for the fabrication of composite materials, in which a dispersed phase is mixed with a molten matrix metal by means of mechanical stirring. The stir casting setup is shown in Figure 2(a). Three combinations of reinforcement (5%, 10%, and 15% of SiC) are fabricated with aluminium metal matrix. The metal matrix is reinforced with SiC particle having average particle size 15 μm. Silicon carbide is preheated at 500 K for 1 h prior to introduction into the melt. The temperature inside the furnace is controlled to about 700°C in order to minimize the chemical reaction between the substances. The temperature is controlled by connecting the relay from the furnace and thermocouple. The function of relay is to cut off the power supply when temperature goes beyond the 700°C. The mechanical stirring is used to disperse the silicon carbide particles in matrix alloy. The preheated particles of reinforcement is added to the melt and stirred at 650 rpm for 10 minutes. The stirring is continued before the composite reaches in mushy zone. The cooling is done in the furnace. Four samples of the metal matrix composites are shown in Figure 3. Mechanical stir casting process parameters are given in Table 4.

Table 4: Mechanical stir casting process parameters.

Casting parameters
Parameter setting

Stirring temperature
700°C

Stirring speed
650

Time to hold/stirring time
10 minutes

Blade angle
45°

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Fabrication of metal matrix composites: (a) by mechanical stir casting (b) by electromagnetic stir casting.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3: Fabricated metal matrix composites by mechanical stir casting.

2.2.2. Electromagnetic Stir Casting Setup and Procedure

Figure 2(b) shows the electromagnetic stirring setup for the processing of A356/SiC metal matrix composite. A356 alloy is cleaned and loaded in the graphite crucible and heated to above its liquidus temperature in muffle furnace. When temperature of the muffle furnace was recorded 750°C, the liquid A356 aluminum alloy at a given temperature was poured into a stainless steel crucible which was packed very well with the help of glass wool (between crucible and winding) inside the motor. SiC particles with an average size of 15 μm were chosen as the reinforcement particles. Silicon carbide is preheated at 500 K for 1 h prior to introduction into the melt. The amount of silicon carbide is varied from 0% wt to 15% wt in each matrix. The SiC reinforcing particles were added on the surface of the molten liquid A356 at 700°C to the crucible. The SiC particles disperse into the melt material. The prepared samples are shown in Figure 4. Electromagnetic stir casting process parameters are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Electromagnetic stir casting process parameters.

Sample number
Parameters
Values set as

1
Voltage supply
180 V

2
Current
18 Ampere

3
Stirring speed
215 rpm

4
Stirring time
3 minutes

5
Stirring temperature
700°C

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4: Fabricated metal matrix composites by electromagnetic stir casting.

2.3. Percent Porosity

Porosity () is the percentage of the pores volume to the total volume with the volume of a substance. It is defined by:

where is Porosity, is Volume, and is Density.

Porosity and characteristics of pores (including size, connectivity, and distribution, etc.) affect the properties of materials greatly. Generally, for the same material, the lower the porosity is, the less the connected pores are. Thus, the strength will be higher, the water absorption will be smaller, and the permeability and frost resistance will be better, but the thermal conductivity will be greater.

The density measurements were carried out to determine the porosity levels of the samples. This was achieved by comparing the experimental and theoretical densities of each volume percent SiC reinforced composite. The experimental density of the samples was evaluated by weighing the test samples. The measured weight in each case was divided by the volume of respective samples. The theoretical density was evaluated by using the rule of mixtures given by:

where is density of composite.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Macrostructure Analysis

Macrostructure of the composites of mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS) and electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS) is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. In Figure 5, the macrostructure of A356/SiC metal matrix composites for different percentage of reinforcement can be seen clearly. The white spots in Figures 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c) are the porosity. Metal matrix composite of electromagnetic stir casting samples (Figure 6) appears to be well-bonded, clean, and with little evidence of porosity. So from the point of macrostructure, it can be concluded that the electromagnetic stir casting samples are well-bonded.

Figure 5: Macrostructure of A356/SiC MMC produced by mechanical stir casting process.

Figure 6: Macrostructure of A356/SiC MMC produced by electromagnetic stir casting.

3.2. Microstructure Analysis

Figures 7 and 8 show six representative microstructures for the SiC reinforced A356 composites produced by mechanical stir casting process and electromagnetic stir casting process. The microstructure of the composites revealed that SiC particles were not distributed evenly and regional clusters of particles existed in the matrix, fabricated by mechanical stir casting process. But, in electromagnetic stir casting process, SiC particles were distributed evenly. In mechanical stir casting process the nonuniform distribution of the particles is mainly associated with the segregation effects of SiC particles during solidification of the composite. But, in electromagnetic stir casting process, the matrix alloy tends to deform in a plastic manner. This indicates that the technique electromagnetic stir casting process utilized for the production of the composite is efficient.

Figure 7: Microstructure of A356/SiC MMC produced by mechanical stir casting process.

Figure 8: Microstructure of A356/SiC MMC produced by electromagnetic stir casting.

Further, the microphotographs of A356/SiC metal matrix composites produced by electromagnetic stir casting process reveal an excellent bond between the matrix alloy and the reinforcement particles (Figure 9(b)). Figure 9(b) shows that matrix alloy tends to deform in a plastic manner in the electromagnetic stir casting process and produce good bond between A356 alloy and SiC. Figure 9(a) shows that bond between the matrix alloy and the reinforcement particles is not strong like electromagnetic stir casting samples. Some porosity was also observed in mechanical stir casting samples.

(a)

(b)

Figure 9: Optical micrograph of A356/SiC composite at higher magnification indicating bond between the matrix alloy (A356) and SiC particle; (a) mechanical stir casting sample (b) electromagnetic stir casting sample.

3.3. Porosity Analysis

Porosity of specimens with different weight percentages of silicon carbide particles for mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS) and electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS) IS shown in Table 6. It was observed that by increasing the percentage of reinforcement more than 5%, porosity increases. The least porosity was measured in 5% reinforcement of SiC in A356 alloy, while the highest porosity was measured in 15% reinforced A356. Based on Table 6, Figure 10 was plotted to show the variation of porosity with SiC particles content. Averagely, the porosity for electromagnetic stir casting samples was lower compared to the mechanical stir casting samples.

Table 6: Reduced percentage Porosity of A356/SiC MMC by electromagnetic stir casting process.

Metal matrix composite
(A356/SiC)
Theoretical density
(g/cm³)
Percentage porosity of mechanical stir casting samples
Percentage porosity of electromagnetic stir casting samples
Reduced percentage porosity

Experimental density
(g/cm³)
Percentage porosity
Experimental density
(g/cm³)
Percentage porosity

100% A356 + 0% SiCp
2.685
2.62
2.42%
2.67
0.55%
77.27%

95% A356 + 5% SiCp
2.71075
2.66
1.87%
2.70
0.39%
79.14%

90% A356 + 10% SiCp
2.7365
2.65
3.15%
2.71
0.96%
69.52%

85% A356 + 15% SiCp
2.7622
2.67
3.33%
2.73
1.16%
65.16%

Figure 10: Porosity of MSCS and ESCS.

When the external object (stirrer) is placed into the molten metal matrix composite in the mechanical stir casting process, some air penetrates into the molten metal along with the stirrer forming air bubbles. When stirrer is taken out from the metal matrix composite after the stirring, at the same time, air again penetrates into the metal matrix composite resulting in blow holes to be formed. This formation of air bubbles into the metal matrix composite was because of placing and taking out stirrer. While in electromagnetic stir casting process, no external object is used. Therefore, there are minimum chances of porosity observed in electromagnetic stir casting.

3.4. XRD Analysis

In the present work, X-ray diffraction (XRD) was utilized to identify the phases present in the metal matrix composite. XRD plots between relative intensity and 2-theta (degree) diffraction angle for electromagnetic stir casting sample (ESCS) and mechanical stir casting sample (MSCS) are shown in Figures 11(a) and 11(b). Each figure shows the variation of relative intensity with 2θ diffraction angle for composition of 5% SiC (for 5% SiC, minimum percent porosity was observed for both ESCS and MSCS). Figure 11(a) clearly shows the peak points corresponding to SiC and Al, respectively. Figure 11(b) shows that the peak points corresponding to SiC are very low; it indicates that distribution of SiC reinforcement in matrix alloy is not uniform. In the electromagnetic stir casting samples, only aluminum and silicon peaks were present. Very few Al₄C₃ peaks were found in electromagnetic stir casting sample (ESCS).

(a)

(b)

Figure 11: XRD of ESCS and MSCS for 5% of reinforcement.

3.5. Tensile Strength Analysis

For tensile testing of A356/SiC metal matrix composites material, twenty four samples (three samples for each percentage of ESCS and MSCS samples) have been prepared as per specification which is shown in Figures 12 and 13. The diameters of the sample prepared are 6 mm and gauge length is 36 mm. The tensile testing was carried out on universal testing machine linked to a computer where data were stored and analyzed by preparing the specimen of various compositions (Table 7). The tensile samples were tested at room temperature.

Table 7: Technical data of computerized universal testing machine.

Sample number
Parameters
Values set as

1
Gauge length
25–50 mm

2
Maximum extension
5 mm

3
Maximum load
10 T

4
Specimen diameter
0.5–30 mm

5
Strain rate
10⁻⁴–10⁻¹ s⁻¹

Figure 12: Dimension of tensile test specimen [16].

Figure 13: Tensile test samples.

Table 8 shows the effect of SiC particle on the tensile strength for electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS) and mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS). The tensile properties of the A356/SiC metal matrix composites for different weight fractions (0%, 5%, 10%, and 15%) at ambient temperature reveal an increase in tensile strength. The graph of the tensile strength of the composites according to the volume fraction of SiC is shown in Figure 14. Results show that the tensile strength of electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS) are higher than that obtained for the mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS). Improved tensile strength for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement by electromagnetic stir casting process can be seen from Table 8, which is 0.57%, 2.65%, 3.61%, and 3.75%, respectively.

Table 8: Improved tensile strength of A356/SiC MMC by electromagnetic stir casting process.

A356/SiC
MMC
Sample
number
Electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS)
Mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS)
Improved
tensile
strength
(MPa)

Tensile
strength
(MPa)
Variation
(MPa)
Average tensile strength
(MPa)
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
Variation
(MPa)
Average tensile strength
(MPa)

100% A356 + 0% SiC
1
232
4
232.66
235
7
231.33
0.57%

2
235
231

3
231
228

95% A356 + 5% SiC
1
274.6
4.7
274.23
268.5
14.1
266.96
2.65%

2
271.7
278

3
276.4
254.4

90% A356 + 10% SiC
1
292
2.5
290.63
258.8
36.2
280.13
3.61%

2
289.5
286.6

3
290.4
295

85% A356 + 15% SiC
1
310
7.5
309.83
318.6
46.6
298.2
3.75%

2
313.5
304

3
306
272

Figure 14: Tensile strength of MSCS and ESCS.

3.6. Hardness Analysis

For hardness testing, the samples of A356/SiC metal matrix composites have been prepared as per dimension (10 mm × 10 mm × 25 mm). Hardness testing was done on hardness testing machine (Table 9). Brinell hardness of A356/SiC composite is related to the distribution of SiC particles in the A356 alloy. Theoretically, the hardness of the cast ingot should be uniform from the top to the bottom of the ingot. This is due to the uniform distribution of SiC particles. However, other factors such as cooling rate, gravity effect, and nonuniform distribution of the particles in the ingot will give different values of hardness. Figure 15 shows that the hardness of the ingot is varied according to the distribution of silicon carbide. It can be seen from Table 10 that average hardness of mechanical stir casting samples for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement is 75.33 BHN, 81.16 BHN, 92.33 BHN, and 102 BHN, respectively, while average hardness of electromagnetic stir casting samples for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement is 75.66 BHN, 84.16 BHN, 96.13 BHN, and 104.66 BHN, respectively. Improved hardness for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement by electromagnetic stir casting was observed 0.43%, 3.56%, 3.95%, and 2.54%, respectively.

Table 9: Input parameters for hardness.

Sample number
Parameter
Values set as

1
Load applied
100 Kgf

2
Diameter Of ball
2.5 mm

3
Testing time
30 seconds

Table 10: Improved hardness of A356/SiC MMC by electromagnetic stir casting process.

A356/SiC
MMC
Sample
number
Electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS)
Mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS)
Improved
hardness
(BHN)

Hardness
(BHN)
Variation
(BHN)
Average Hardness
(BHN)
Hardness
(BHN)
Variation
(BHN)
Average hardness
(BHN)

100% A356 + 0% SiC
1
76
1
75.66
75
1
75.33
0.43%

2
76
76

3
75
75

95% A356 + 5% SiC
1
82
4.5
84.16
77.5
7.5
81.16
3.56%

2
84
85

3
86.5
81

90% A356 + 10% SiC
1
93
5.4
96.13
88
9
92.33
3.95%

2
98.4
97

3
97
92

85% A356 + 15% SiC
1
101
7
104.66
97
10
102
2.54%

2
105
107

3
108
102

Figure 15: Hardness of MSCS and ESCS.

3.7. Toughness Analysis

According to EN 10045 standard, three specimens from each percentage of reinforcement (10 mm × 10 mm × 55 mm) have been prepared as shown in Figure 16. Toughness was carried out on Charpy Impact Testing Machine. According to EN 10045 standard, three specimens from each percentage of reinforcement were prepared of square cross-section of size (10 × 10 × 55) with single V-notches.

Figure 16: Impact strength specimen.

The toughness of A356/SiC composites fabricated by mechanical stir casting process and electromagnetic stir casting process is listed in Table 11. Average toughness of mechanical stir casting samples for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcements was observed 6.16 joule, 7.33 joule, 10.16 joule, and 12.33 joule, respectively, while average toughness of electromagnetic stir casting samples for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement was found to be 6.33 joule, 8 joule, 11.5 joule, and 13.5 joule, respectively. Improved toughness of electromagnetic stir casting samples for different percentage of reinforcement can be also seen from Figure 17, which is 2.68%, 8.37%, 11.65%, and 8.66%, respectively.

Table 11: Improved toughness of A356/SiC MMC by electromagnetic stir casting process.

A356/SiC
MMC
Sample
number
Electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS)
Mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS)
Improved
toughness
(joule)

Toughness
(joule)
Variation
(joule)
Average toughness
(joule)
Toughness
(joule)
Variation
(joule)
Average toughness
(joule)

100% A356 + 0% SiC
1
6.5
0.5
6.33
6
0.5
6.16
2.68%

2
6.5
6.5

3
6
6

95% A356 + 5% SiC
1
7.5
1
8
7.5
1.5
7.33
8.37%

2
8
8

3
8.5
6.5

90% A356 + 10% SiC
1
11
3.5
11.5
7
5
10.16
11.65%

2
10
12

3
13.5
11.5

85% A356 + 15% SiC
1
15
2.5
13.5
13
8
12.33
8.66%

2
13
8

3
12.5
16

Figure 17: Toughness of MSCS and ESCS.

3.8. Fatigue Strength Analysis

Fatigue behavior of cast metal matrix composite can be correlated to its ductility and on strengthening mechanism. Compared to matrix (unreinforcement alloy), metal matrix composites have longer fatigue life as the ductility is lower. In these cases, a number of cycles (usually 10⁷) are chosen to represent the fatigue life of the material. Three representative specimens from each percentage of reinforcement were prepared for the test. Technical data of fatigue testing machine are given in Table 12. The specimens for fatigue test were machined according to ASTM E466 as shown in Figures 18 and 19. Table 13 indicates the fatigue strength of reinforced A356 at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% SiC particle. The results point out that higher content of reinforcement particulates produced higher fatigue strength. Improved fatigue strength for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement by electromagnetic stir casting process can be seen from Figure 20, which is 0.82%, 4.34%, 4.92%, and 1.55%, respectively.

Table 12: Technical data of fatigue testing machine.

Sample number
Parameters
Values set as

1
Number of cycles
1 × 10⁷

2
Distance of specimen holder
Adjustable

3
Cycle speed
1.7 Hz

4
Test temperature
Ambient

5
Testing extension ratio
1.6–2.4

6
Electricity
3 phase, 380 ± 10 V, 50/60 Hz

Table 13: Improved fatigue strength of A356/SiC MMC by electromagnetic stir casting process.

A356/SiC
MMC
Sample
Number
Electromagnetic stir casting samples (ESCS)
Mechanical stir casting samples (MSCS)
Improved fatigue
strength at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)

Fatigue
strength at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)
Variation at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)
Average fatigue
strength at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)
Fatigue
strength at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)
Variation at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)
Average fatigue
strength at
1 × 10⁷ 
(MPa)

100% A356 + 0% SiC
1
117
9
121.33
118
24
120.33
0.82%

2
121
114

3
126
129

95% A356 + 5% SiC
1
125
29
138
114
46
132
4.34%

2
135
122

3
154
160

90% A356 + 10% SiC
1
138
37
155.66
132
39
148
4.92%

2
175
141

3
154
171

85% A356 + 15% SiC
1
152
50
171.33
144
69
168.66
1.55%

2
202
149

3
160
213

Figure 18: Dimension of fatigue strength test specimen (ASTM E466) [16].

Figure 19: Fatigue test specimen.

Figure 20: Fatigue strength of MSCS and ESCS.

The microstructural fracture analysis was carried out to identify microstructural degradations after fatigue test for ESCS (5% SiC) and MSCS (5% SiC). Plastic fractures were observed for both ESCS and MSCS, respectively (Figures 21(a) and 21(b)). Most of the SiC particles concentrations were observed in the fractured areas for both ESCS and MSCS. However, more porosity and cracks were identified at the places of SiC particles for MSCS.

Figure 21: Microstructure of fracture after fatigue test (a) ESCS (A356 with 5% SiC) and (b) MSCS (A356 with 5% SiC).

Further, the light microscopy and phase contrast observations were carried out after fatigue test for ESCS (5% SiC) and MSCS (5% SiC), shown in Figures 22 and 23, respectively. From Figures 22 and 23, it can be concluded that more discontinuities were observed at the areas of the SiC concentration for MSCS.

(a)

(b)

Figure 22: Light microscopy of fracture after fatigue test (a) ESCS (A356 with 5% SiC) and (b) MSCS (A356 with 5% SiC).

(a)

(b)

Figure 23: Phase contrast of fracture after fatigue test (a) ESCS (A356 with 5% SiC) and (b) MSCS (A356 with 5% SiC).

4. Conclusions

A356/SiC (15 μm) composites at different percentage of reinforcement (0%, 5%, 10%, and 15%) were fabricated at 700°C via direct melt reaction method with mechanical stirring and electromagnetic stirring. By studying the properties of A356/SiC composites produced by mechanical stirring and electromagnetic stirring, the following conclusions can be drawn.

(1)Compared with the macrostructure and microstructures obtained by mechanical stirring, the macro- and microstructures obtained by electromagnetic stirring were homogenous.(2)Measured data with big deviation were observed in mechanical stir casting samples but, in electromagnetic stir casting samples, deviation of measured data was not so high. This is because of porosity observed in mechanical stir casting samples.(3)The percentage porosity of mechanical stir casting samples for the reinforcement of 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% is 2.42, 1.87, 3.15, and 3.33, respectively, while the percentage porosity of electromagnetic stir casting samples are 0.55, 0.39, 0.96, and 1.16, respectively. 77.27% (0% SiC), 79.14% (5% SiC), 69.52% (10% SiC), and 65.16% (15% SiC) percentage porosity reduced by electromagnetic stirring.(4)The tensile strength by mechanical stirring at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement is 231.33 MPa, 266.96 MPa, 280.13 MPa, and 298.2 MPa, respectively, while that by electromagnetic stirring is 232.66 MPa, 274.23 MPa, 290.63 MPa, and 309.83 MPa, respectively. 0.57%, 2.65%, 3.61%, and 3.75% tensile strength improved by electromagnetic stir casting process.(5)From the results, hardness of mechanical stir casting samples for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement is75.33 BHN, 81.16 BHN, 92.33 BHN, and 102 BHN, respectively. By electromagnetic stirring, 0.43%, 3.56%, 3.95%, and 2.54% hardness improved.(6)The value of toughness of A356/SiC composites by mechanical stirring for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement is 6.16 joule, 7.33 joule, 10.16 joule, and 12.33 joule, respectively. By electromagnetic stirring, 2.68%, 8.37%, 11.65%, and 8.66% toughness improved.(7)The significant improvements in fatigue strength were observed by electromagnetic stir casting process. Improved fatigue strength for 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of reinforcement by electromagnetic stir casting process is 0.82%, 4.34%, 4.92%, and 1.55%, respectively.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

E. J. Zoqui, M. Paes, and E. Es-Sadiqi, “Macro- and microstructure analysis of SSM A356 produced by electromagnetic stirring,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 120, no. 1–3, pp. 365–373, 2002.

T. P. D. Rajan, R. M. Pillai, B. C. Pai, K. G. Satyanarayana, and P. K. Rohatgi, “Fabrication and characterisation of Al-7Si-0.35Mg/fly ash metal matrix composites processed by different stir casting routes,” Composites Science and Technology, vol. 67, no. 15-16, pp. 3369–3377, 2007.

D. Lu, Y. Jiang, G. Guan, R. Zhou, and Z. Li, “Refinement of primary Si in hypereutectic Al-Si alloy by electromagnetic stirring,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 189, no. 1–3, pp. 13–18, 2007.

C. G. Kang, J. W. Bae, and B. M. Kim, “The grain size control of A356 aluminum alloy by horizontal electromagnetic stirring for rheology forging,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 187-188, pp. 344–348, 2007.

A. Çetin and A. Kalkanli, “Effect of solidification rate on spatial distribution of SiC particles in A356 alloy composites,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 205, no. 1–3, pp. 1–8, 2008.

N. Barman, P. Kumar, and P. Dutta, “Studies on transport phenomena during solidification of an aluminum alloy in the presence of linear electromagnetic stirring,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 209, no. 18-19, pp. 5912–5923, 2009.

S. P. Dwivedi, S. Kumar, and A. Kumar, “Effect of turning parameters on surface roughness of A356/5% SiC composite produced by electromagnetic stir casting,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 3973–3979, 2012.

D. Cree and M. Pugh, “Dry wear and friction properties of an A356/SiC foam interpenetrating phase composite,” Wear, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 88–96, 2011.

S. Gopalakrishnan and N. Murugan, “Production and wear characterisation of AA 6061 matrix titanium carbide particulate reinforced composite by enhanced stir casting method,” Composites B: Engineering, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 302–308, 2012.

Y. L. Yuan and Z. G. Li, “Microstructure and dry sliding wear behavior of Fe-based (Cr, Fe) 7C3 composite coating fabricated by PTA welding process,” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 3439–3449, 2013.

C. Mapelli, A. Gruttadauria, and M. Peroni, “Application of electromagnetic stirring for the homogenization of aluminium billet cast in a semi-continuous machine,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 210, no. 2, pp. 306–314, 2010.

J. Wang, P. Li, G. Mi, and Y. Zhong, “Microstructural evolution caused by electromagnetic stirring in superheated AlSi7Mg alloys,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 210, no. 12, pp. 1652–1659, 2010.

S. P. Dwivedi, S. Satpal, and M. Raghvendra, “A356 aluminum alloy and applications- a review,” Advanced Materials Manufacturing & Characterization, vol. 4, pp. 81–86, 2014.

S. P. Dwivedi, “Effect of process parameters on tensile strength of friction stir welding A356/C355 aluminium alloys joint,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 285–291, 2014.

S. P. Dwivedi, S. Sharma, and R. K. Mishra, “Effects of roller burnishing process parameters on surface roughness of A356/5%SiC composite using response surface methodology,” Advances in Manufacturing, 2014.

S. P. Dwivedi, S. Sharma, and R. K. Mishra, “Microstructure and mechanical behavior of A356/SiC/Fly-ash hybrid composites produced by electromagnetic stir casting,” Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 2014.