Development and characterisation of iron millscale particle reinforced ceramic matrix composite

Peer review under responsibility of Taibah University

Figures & data

Table 1 Materials formulation.

Reinforcement		Matrix blend
Weight (%)	Weight (g)	Weight (%)	Weight (g)
0 (control)	0	100	80
5	4	95	76
10	8	90	72
15	12	85	68
20	16	80	64
25	20	75	60
30	24	70	56

Fig. 1 Picture of the produced hybrid ceramic composite.

Fig. 2 XRD spectra of iron millscale.

Table 2 Chemical composition of iron millscale by XRF.

Compounds	FeO	Fe2O3	Fe3O4	SiO2	MgO	CaO	MnO	L.O.I.
Weight (%)	68.809	24.735	6.184	0.011	0.016	0.220	0.024	0.001

Fig. 3 XRD spectra of silica sand particles.

Table 3 Chemical composition of silica sand by XRF.

Compounds	SiO2	Al2O3	Fe2O3	FeO	CaO	MnO	MgO	Na2O	K2O	M.O.I	L.O.I.
Wt.%	98.988	0.180	0.152	0.024	0.016	0.009	0.024	0.003	0.002	0.001	0.491

Fig. 4 XRD spectra of magnesia powder.

Table 4 Chemical composition of magnesia by XRF.

Components	MgO	CaO	SiO2	M.O.I.	L.O.I.
Wt.%	98.840	0.025	0.007	0.001	0.012

Fig. 5 XRD spectra of the as-received bentonite clay powder.

Table 5 Chemical composition of as-received bentonite powder by XRF.

Compounds	SiO2	Al2O3	MgO	Fe2O3	CaO	Na2O	K2O	TiO2	L.O.I.
Wt.%	62.986	23.247	3.864	2.673	1.316	2.457	0.524	0.136	2.797

L.O.I.: loss on ignition; M.O.I.: moisture.

Fig. 6 (a) SEM; (b) EDS of the unreinforced ceramic composite (control).

Fig. 7 (a) SEM; (b) EDS of the 10 wt.% 106 μm millscale reinforced ceramic composite.

Fig. 8 (a) SEM; (b) EDS of the 25 wt.% 106 μm millscale reinforced ceramic composite.

Fig. 9 Effect of varied iron millscale particles addition on the density of 106 μm millscale particles.

Fig. 10 Effect of varied iron millscale particles addition on porosity of the composites.

Fig. 11 Effect of varied iron millscale particles addition on linear shrinkage of the composites.

Fig. 12 Effect of varied iron millscale particles addition on impact energy of the composites.

Fig. 13 Effect of varied iron millscale particles addition on compressive strength of the composites.

Table 6 Comparison with other brake pads [23,24].

Authors/study	Density (g/cm^3)	Linear shrinkage (%)	Porosity (%)	HDN	CS (MPa)	SS (MPa)
Bagasse based brake pad	1.43	–	3.48	100.5 MPa	105.6	–
Uncarbonised banana peels based brake pad	1.26	–	3.21	98.8 BHN	95.6	–
Carbonised banana peels based brake pad	1.2	–	3.0	71.6 BHN	61.2	–
PKS + CS + MH (300 μm) based brake pad	0.853	–	0.91	127.8 MPa	10.3	–
Commercial asbestos based brake pad	1.89	–	0.9	101 MPa	110	54.6

PKS: palm kernel shell; CS: coconut shell; MH: maize husk; HDN: hardness; CS: compressive strength; SS: shear strength; BHN: Brinell hardness number.