Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 275, Issue 2, pp 653–667 | Cite as

Numerical evaluation of zirconium reinforced aluminium matrix composites for sustainable environment

  • S. RoselineEmail author
  • V. Paramasivam
  • R. Anandhakrishnan
  • P. R. Lakshminarayanan
Original Research
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Due to the momentous advantages of composite materials, recent years many studies focused on reinforcing different new materials to the existing ones to improve their conventional strength and life time within the concern of application status. In the row, reinforcements on Al6061 become a fancy topic among researchers due to its wide applications including automobiles, yachts, electrical fittings and so on. This study continues this innovation by reinforcing three different reinforcement materials including zirconia (ZrO2), zirconia + aluminium oxide (ZrO2 +Al2O3) and fused zirconia aluminum (40FZA). These three reinforcing materials are included with the proposition of varying particle reinforcements as 5, 10 and 15%. The testing specimens were experimented to explore its mechanical, wear and corrosion behavior. Further the experimental results are given as inputs to the numerical analysis, PROMETHEE. By combining the experimental and numerical methodologies the reliability of the results were improved. However, from this study it can be evident that inclusion of 15% particle reinforcement of zirconia fused alumina in Al6061 provides greater strength, toughness, high resistance to wear and corrosion on both experimental and numerical analysis. There is ample room that this proposed material inclusion be a better option for the reinforcement of Al6061 among available alternatives for sustainable development.

Keywords

Fused zirconia aluminum Al6061 PROMETHEE 

References

  1. Anojkumar, L., Ilangkumaran, M., & Sasirekha, V. (2014). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 2964–2980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Athawale, V. M., Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Decision making for facility location selection using PROMETHEE II method. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 1, 11(1–2), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilsel, R. U., Büyüközkan, G., & Ruan, D. (2006). A fuzzy preference ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 21(11), 1181–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chou, W. C., Lin, W. T., & Lin, C. Y. (2007a). Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: A case study in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan. Ecological Engineering, 31(4), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chou, W. C., Lin, W. T., & Lin, C. Y. (2007b). Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: A case study in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan. Ecological Engineering, 31(4), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dağdeviren, M. (2008). Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(4), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ezatpour, H. R., Torabi Parizi, M., Sajjadi, S. A., & Ebrahimi, G. R. (2017). Optimum selection of A356/Al2O3 nano/microcomposites fabricated with different conditions based on mathematical method. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 231(4), 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geldermann, J., Spengler, T., & Rentz, O. (2000). Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gul, M., Celik, E., Gumus, A. T., & Guneri, A. F. (2017). A fuzzy logic based PROMETHEE method for material selection problems. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B., Ferrari, A. M., Marinelli, S., et al. (2016). Waste treatment: an environmental, economic and social analysis with a new group fuzzy PROMETHEE approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(5), 1317–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manu, K. S., Rajan, T. P. D., & Pai, B. C. (2016). Structure and properties of squeeze infiltrated zirconia grade-aluminosilicate short fiber reinforced aluminum composites. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 688, 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marachakkanavar, M., Sanjey, S. J., Korade, D. N., & Jagtap, K. R. (2017). Experimental investigation of mechanical properties of Al6061 reinforced with iron ore. Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(8), 8219–8225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nagaral, M., Shivananda, B. K., Auradi, V., Parashivamurthy, K. I., & Kori, S. A. (2017). Mechanical behavior of Al6061-Al2O3 and Al6061-graphite composites. Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(10), 10978–10986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pazhouhanfar, Y., & Eghbali, B. (2018). Microstructural characterization and mechanical properties of TiB2 reinforced Al6061 matrix composites produced using stir casting process. Materials Science and Engineering A, 710, 172–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pournaderi, S., & Akhlaghi, F. (2017). Wear behaviour of Al6061-Al2O3 composites produced by in situ powder metallurgy (IPM). Powder Technology, 313, 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tuzkaya, G., Gülsün, B., Kahraman, C., & Özgen, D. (2010). An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(4), 2853–2863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, T. C., Chen, L. Y., & Chen, Y. H. (2008). Applying fuzzy PROMETHEE method for evaluating IS outsourcing suppliers. In Fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery, 2008. FSKD’08. Fifth international conference on (vol. 3, pp. 361–365). IEEE.Google Scholar
  19. Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., Shi, G. H., & Zhang, X. T. (2008b). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for trigeneration system. Energy Policy, 36(10), 3823–3832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yilmaz, B., & Dağdeviren, M. (2011). A combined approach for equipment selection: F-PROMETHEE method and zero-one goal programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 11641–11650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Roseline
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. Paramasivam
    • 2
  • R. Anandhakrishnan
    • 3
  • P. R. Lakshminarayanan
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMIET Engineering CollegeTrichyIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPSNA College of Engineering and TechnologyDindigulIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSBM College of Engineering and TechnologyDindigulIndia
  4. 4.Department of Manufacturing EngineeringAnnamalai UniversityAnnamalai NagarIndia

Personalised recommendations