Self-lubricating bidirectional carbon fiber reinforced smart aluminum composites by squeeze infiltration process

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2019.04.034

Abstract

Abstract:

Self-lubrication is one of the smart material properties required for producing components with enhanced wear resistance and low coefficient of friction. Bidirectional (BD) satin weave polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based carbon fiber (C_f) fabric preform was successfully infiltrated with Al 6061 alloy by squeeze infiltration process. The infiltrated composite shows uniform distribution of carbon fibers in the matrix with the elimination of porosities, fiber damage and close control on the formation of deleterious aluminum carbide (Al₄C₃) phase. C_f/Al composite exhibits remarkable wear resistance compared to unreinforced alloy due to the formation of self-lubricating tribolayer on the pin surface, which intercepts the contact of matrix metal to counter surface. The BD carbon fiber enhanced the hardness and compressive strength of the composite by restraining the plastic flow behavior of matrix. High resolution transmission electron microscopy shows the presence of Al₂O₃ and MgAl₂O₄ spinel, confirmed by EDS and SAD pattern, at the composite interface. The composite shows a lower density of 2.16 g/cm³ which is a major advantage for weight reduction compared to the monolithic alloy (2.7 g/cm³).

Key words: Metal matrix composites, Squeeze infiltration, Aluminum, Carbon fiber fabric, Tribology, Microstructure

Sree Manu K.M., Ajay Raag L., Rajan T.P.D., Pai B.C., Petley Vijay, Namdeo Verma Shweta. Self-lubricating bidirectional carbon fiber reinforced smart aluminum composites by squeeze infiltration process[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2019, 35(11): 2559-2569.

Figures/Tables 22

Fig. 1. SEM photomicrographs of (a) as received carbon fiber and (b) surface treated carbon fiber.

Fig. 2. Macrographs of the carbon fiber mat preform and the BD Cf/Al 6061 infiltrated composite.

Fig. 3. Optical microstructures of (a) BD Cf fabric/Al 6061 infiltrated composite and (b) cross section of the infiltrated composite.

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of carbon fiber orientation in the infiltrated composite while polishing for metallographic preparations.

Fig. 5. SEM images of (a) Cf/Al infiltrated composite and (b) extracted carbon fiber from the infiltrated composite.

Fig. 6. HRTEM microstructures of the interface in Cf/Al composite: (a) presence of oxide layers Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 spinel at the interface with corresponding TEM-EDS; (b) Crystalline lattice planes in Al2O3 formed at the Cf/Al 6061 interface.

Fig. 7. (a) HRTEM image of the reaction product Al4C3, (b) twinned region of Al4C3, (c) SAD pattern of Al4C3 phase and its EDS.

Fig. 8. HRTEM image of the Mg2Si precipitate and its corresponding TEM-EDS.

Fig. 9. XRD pattern of extracted fibers from the infiltrated composite.

Fig. 10. TGA curve of carbon fiber.

Fig. 11. (a) Compressive stress-strain curve and (b) SEM fractograph of the compression tested specimen of composite.

Fig. 12. (a) Wear rate of squeeze cast Al 6061 alloy and Cf/Al composite at constant velocity with different loads (b) extensive graph of the composite (c) wear rate of the composite at constant load with different velocities.

Fig. 13. Friction coefficient of (a) squeeze cast Al 6061 alloy and Cf/Al composite at constant velocity with different loads and (b) composite at constant load with different velocities.

Fig. 14. SEM images of the worn surface of squeeze cast Al 6061 alloy at constant velocity with different loads: (a) at 2 m/s velocity with 20 N load; (b) at 2 m/s velocity with 30 N load.

Fig. 15. SEM images of the worn surface of Cf/Al infiltrated composite at constant velocity with different loads: (a) at 2 m/s velocity with 20 N load; (b) at 2 m/s velocity with 50 N load; (c) at 4 m/s velocity with 20 N load; (d) at 4 m/s velocity with 50 N load.

Fig. 16. SEM images of the worn surface of Cf/Al infiltrated composite at constant load with different velocities: (a) at 30 N load with 1 m/s velocity; (b) at 30 N load with 4 m/s velocity; (c) at 50 N load with 1 m/s velocity; (d) at 50 N load with 4 m/s velocity.

Fig. 17. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS spectrum of SL-tribolayer (MML) on the worn surface of the composite.

Fig. 18. (a) Turbostratic structure of PAN-carbon fiber and (b) structure of graphite.

Fig. 19. Tafel plots of Al 6061 alloy and Cf/Al infiltrated composite.

Table 1 Corrosion rate of Al 6061 alloy and BD Cf/Al infiltrated composite.

Sample	Exposure period (d)	Weight loss (g)	Corrosion rate (mm/year)
Alloy 1	7	0.0006	0.53
Alloy 2	14	0.0010	0.44
Alloy 3	21	0.0025	0.73
Composite 1	7	0.0100	10.9
Composite 2	14	0.0251	13.7
Composite 3	21	0.0507	18.4

Fig. 20. SEM images of the surface topography of the corroded samples of Al 6061 alloy immersed for (a) 7 d, (b) 14 d and (c) 21 d.

Fig. 21. SEM images of the surface topography of the corroded samples of Cf/Al infiltrated composite immersed for (a) 7 d, (b) 14 d, (c) 21 d and (d) EDAXS spectrum of the oxide layer.

References

[1]	R. Davidson, Mater. Des., 13(1992), 87-91.
[2]	K.P. Furlan, J.D. B. de Mello, A.N. Klein, Tribol. Int., 120(2017), 280-298.
[3]	M. Lancin, C. Marhic, J. Eur. Ceram.Soc., 20(2000), 1493-1503.
[4]	Q.R. Yang, J.X. Liu, S.K. Li, F.C. Wang, T.T. Wu, Mater. Des., 57(2014), 442-448.
[5]	E. Hajjari, M. Divandari, A.R. Mirhabibi, Mater. Des., 31(2010), 2381-2386.
[6]	Q.B. Zeng, J. Appl. Polym.Sci., 70(1998), 177-183.
[7]	C.W. Lee, I.H. Kim, W. Lee, S.H. Ko, J.M. Jang, T.W. Lee, Surf. Interface Anal., 42(2010), 1231-1234.
[8]	P. Baumli, J. Sychev, I. Budai, J.T. Szabo, G. Kaptay, Compos. Part A, 44(2013), 47-50.
[9]	M.H. Song, G.H. Wu, W.S. Yang, W. Jia, Z.Y. Xiu, G.Q. Chen, J. Mater. Sci.Technol., 26(2010), 931-935.
[10]	K. Shirvanimoghaddam, U.S. Hamim, M.K. Akbari, S.M. Fakhrhoseini, H. Khayyam, A.H. Pakseresht, E. Ghasali, M. Zabet, K.S. Munir, S. Jia, J.P. Davim, M. Naebe, Compos. Part A, 92(2017), 70-96.
[11]	K.M.S. Manu, L.A. Raag, T.P.D. Rajan, M. Gupta, B.C. Pai, Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 47(2016), 2799-2819.
[12]	L.H. Qi, J.T. Guan, J. Liu, J.M. Zhou, X.L. Wei, Wear, 307(2013), 127-133.
[13]	S.L. Li, L.H. Qi, T. Zhang, J.M. Zhou, H.J. Li, J. Mater. Sci.Technol., 33(2017), 541-546.
[14]	S.R. Bakshi, D. Lahiri, A. Agarwal, Int. Mater. Rev., 55(2010), 41-64.
[15]	M.M. El-Sayed Seleman, M.Z.M. Ahmed, S. Ataya, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 34(2018), 1580-1591.
[16]	J.Y. Wang, Z.Q. Li, G.L. Fan, H.H. Pan, Z.X. Chen, D. Zhang, Scr. Mater., 66(2012), 594-597.
[17]	D.J. Woo, F.C. Heer, L.N. Brewe, J.P. Hooper, S. Osswald, Carbon, 86(2015), 15-25.
[18]	J. Moosburger-Will, M. Bauer, E. Laukmanis, R. Horny, D. Wetjen, T. Manske, F. Schmidt-Stein, J. T?pker, S. Horn, Appl. Surf. Sci., 439(2018), 305-312.
[19]	T. Suzuki, H. Umehara, Carbon, 37(1999), 47-59.
[20]	G.H. Wu, C. Zhou, Q. Zhang, R.S. Pei, Scr. Mater., 96(2015), 29-32.
[21]	Y.Q. Wang, J.I. Song, Wear, 270(2011), 499-505.
[22]	K.M.S. Manu, K. Sreeraj, T.P.D. Rajan, R.M. Shereema, B.C. Pai, B. Arun, Mater. Des., 88(2015), 294-301.
[23]	NPTEL, , August 16, 2018.
[24]	P. Morgan, Boca Raton, 2005, pp. 203-214.
[25]	J.D.R. Tilley, Understanding Solids: The Science of Materials, first ed., John Wiley and Sons, England, 2005, 321.