Wear conduct of aluminum matrix composites: A parametric strategy using Taguchi based GRA integrated with weight method

Figures & data

Figure 1. OM and SEM image of AA6063/7% SiC_p.

Figure 2. XRD analysis of AA6063/7% SiC_p.

Figure 3. View of pin-on-disc wear and friction monitor.

Figure 4. Pin specimens from fabricated composites for wear testing.

Table 1. The input process factors and their levels

Sr. No.	Input process factors	Factors at three level
		Level 1	Level 2	Level 3
1	Load (L:N)	20	30	40
2	Sliding distance (SD:m)	523	1,046	1,570
3	Wt. % SiC (W: wt %)	3.5	7	10.5

Table 2. Taguchi L ₂₇ orthogonal array and values of different response characteristics

	Process parameters			Responses
Exp. No.	L (N)	SD (m)	W (wt. %)	Wear (µm)	FF (N)
1	20	523	3.5	160.25	12.01
2	20	523	7	125.37	10.82
3	20	523	10.5	97.21	8.39
4	20	1,046	3.5	185.43	14.53
5	20	1,046	7	130.35	3.56
6	20	1,046	10.5	101.34	4.32
7	20	1,570	3.5	179.06	17.04
8	20	1,570	7	168.01	3.59
9	20	1,570	10.5	123.53	2.15
10	30	523	3.5	196.24	12.31
11	30	523	7	135.27	4.15
12	30	523	10.5	107.25	8.95
13	30	1,046	3.5	208.71	16.0
14	30	1,046	7	141.25	2.64
15	30	1,046	10.5	150.94	8.17
16	30	1,570	3.5	233.15	13.22
17	30	1,570	7	213.1	6.95
18	30	1,570	10.5	174.02	10.1
19	40	523	3.5	215.52	18.73
20	40	523	7	159.85	6.89
21	40	523	10.5	145.52	17.56
22	40	1,046	3.5	220.25	19.05
23	40	1,046	7	155.52	7.26
24	40	1,046	10.5	147.25	12.95
25	40	1,570	3.5	261.35	17.77
26	40	1,570	7	237.03	6.61
27	40	1,570	10.5	225.07	18.71

Table 3. Data pre processing (normalization), deviation sequence and grey relational coefficient (GRC)

Exp. No.	Normalized values		Deviation sequence		Grey relational coefficient
Ref. Seq.	WEAR (µm)	FF (N)	WEAR (µm)	FF (N)	WEAR (µm)	FF (N)
	1.000	1.000	${\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathit{iowear}}$	${\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathit{ioFF}}$
1	0.6159	0.4166	0.3841	0.5834	0.5656	0.4615
2	0.8284	0.4870	0.1716	0.5130	0.7445	0.4936
3	1.0000	0.6308	0.0000	0.3692	1.0000	0.5752
4	0.4625	0.2675	0.5375	0.7325	0.4819	0.4057
5	0.7981	0.9166	0.2019	0.0834	0.7124	0.8570
6	0.9748	0.8716	0.0252	0.1284	0.9521	0.7957
7	0.5013	0.1189	0.4987	0.8811	0.5007	0.3620
8	0.5687	0.9148	0.4313	0.0852	0.5369	0.8544
9	0.8396	1.0000	0.1604	0.0000	0.7572	1.0000
10	0.3967	0.3988	0.6033	0.6012	0.4532	0.4541
11	0.7681	0.8817	0.2319	0.1183	0.6832	0.8086
12	0.9388	0.5976	0.0612	0.4024	0.8910	0.5541
13	0.3207	0.1805	0.6793	0.8195	0.4240	0.3789
14	0.7317	0.9710	0.2683	0.0290	0.6508	0.9452
15	0.6727	0.6438	0.3273	0.3562	0.6043	0.5840
16	0.1718	0.3450	0.8282	0.6550	0.3765	0.4329
17	0.2940	0.7160	0.7060	0.2840	0.4146	0.6377
18	0.5320	0.5296	0.4680	0.4704	0.5166	0.5152
19	0.2792	0.0189	0.7208	0.9811	0.4096	0.3376
20	0.6184	0.7195	0.3816	0.2805	0.5671	0.6406
21	0.7057	0.0882	0.2943	0.9118	0.6295	0.3541
22	0.2504	0.0000	0.7496	1.0000	0.4001	0.3333
23	0.6448	0.6976	0.3552	0.3024	0.5846	0.6232
24	0.6951	0.3609	0.3049	0.6391	0.6212	0.4390
25	0.0000	0.0757	1.0000	0.9243	0.3333	0.3511
26	0.1482	0.7361	0.8518	0.2639	0.3699	0.6545
27	0.2210	0.0201	0.7790	0.9799	0.3909	0.3379

Table 4. Grey Relational Grade (GRG)

Exp. No.	W 1 = W 2 = 0.5			W 1 = 0.7, W 2 = 0.3			W 1 = 0.3, W 2 = 0.7
	WEAR (µm) 0.5	FF (N) 0.5	GRG	WEAR (µm) 0.7	FF (N) 0.3	GRG	WEAR (µm) 0.3	FF (N) 0.7	GRG
1	0.2828	0.2307	0.5135	0.3959	0.1384	0.5343	0.1697	0.3230	0.4927
2	0.3723	0.2468	0.6191	0.5212	0.1481	0.6692	0.2234	0.3455	0.5689
3	0.5000	0.2876	0.7876	0.7000	0.1726	0.8726	0.3000	0.4027	0.7027
4	0.2410	0.2028	0.4438	0.3374	0.1217	0.4591	0.1446	0.2840	0.4285
5	0.3562	0.4285	0.7847	0.4986	0.2571	0.7557	0.2137	0.5999	0.8136
6	0.4760	0.3978	0.8739	0.6665	0.2387	0.9052	0.2856	0.5570	0.8426
7	0.2503	0.1810	0.4314	0.3505	0.1086	0.4591	0.1502	0.2534	0.4036
8	0.2684	0.4272	0.6956	0.3758	0.2563	0.6321	0.1611	0.5981	0.7591
9	0.3786	0.5000	0.8786	0.5300	0.3000	0.8300	0.2272	0.7000	0.9272
10	0.2266	0.2270	0.4536	0.3172	0.1362	0.4534	0.1360	0.3178	0.4538
11	0.3416	0.4043	0.7459	0.4782	0.2426	0.7208	0.2050	0.5660	0.7710
12	0.4455	0.2770	0.7225	0.6237	0.1662	0.7899	0.2673	0.3879	0.6552
13	0.2120	0.1895	0.4015	0.2968	0.1137	0.4105	0.1272	0.2652	0.3924
14	0.3254	0.4726	0.7980	0.4555	0.2836	0.7391	0.1952	0.6616	0.8569
15	0.3022	0.2920	0.5942	0.4230	0.1752	0.5982	0.1813	0.4088	0.5901
16	0.1882	0.2164	0.4047	0.2635	0.1299	0.3934	0.1129	0.3030	0.4160
17	0.2073	0.3189	0.5262	0.2902	0.1913	0.4815	0.1244	0.4464	0.5708
18	0.2583	0.2576	0.5159	0.3616	0.1546	0.5162	0.1550	0.3607	0.5156
19	0.2048	0.1688	0.3736	0.2867	0.1013	0.3880	0.1229	0.2363	0.3592
20	0.2836	0.3203	0.6039	0.3970	0.1922	0.5892	0.1701	0.4484	0.6186
21	0.3147	0.1771	0.4918	0.4406	0.1062	0.5469	0.1888	0.2479	0.4367
22	0.2001	0.1667	0.3667	0.2801	0.1000	0.3801	0.1200	0.2333	0.3534
23	0.2923	0.3116	0.6039	0.4092	0.1869	0.5962	0.1754	0.4362	0.6116
24	0.3106	0.2195	0.5301	0.4349	0.1317	0.5665	0.1864	0.3073	0.4936
25	0.1667	0.1755	0.3422	0.2333	0.1053	0.3387	0.1000	0.2457	0.3457
26	0.1849	0.3273	0.5122	0.2589	0.1964	0.4553	0.1110	0.4582	0.5691
27	0.1955	0.1689	0.3644	0.2737	0.1014	0.3750	0.1173	0.2365	0.3538

Table 5. Taguchi analysis: Main effects table for GRG (W ₁ = W ₂ = 0.5)

Level	L	SD	W
1	0.6698	0.5902	0.4145
2	0.5736	0.5996	0.6544
3	0.4654	0.5190	0.6399
Delta	0.2044	0.0806	0.2398
Rank	2	3	1

* Optimum level of the factors = L₁SD₂W₂.

Table 6. ANOVA results for GRG

Source	DF	Adj SS	Adj MS	F-Value	P-Value	PC
L	2	0.18817	0.094084	11.97	0.000	24.43
SD	2	0.03496	0.017479	2.22	0.134	3.84
W	2	0.32551	0.162755	20.71	0.000	43.88
Error	20	0.15721	0.007860			27.85
Total	26	0.70584				100.00

Figure 5. Graph showing main effects plot of grey relational grade (GRG).

Figure 6. Graph showing Residual plot for mean in terms of GRG.

Table 7. Predicted optimal values, confidence intervals and results of confirmation test

Sr. No.		W 1 = W 2 = 0.5
1.	Optimal parameter setting	Predicted optimal value (GRG)	Predicted confidence intervals at 95% confidence level	Actual value (Avg. of 3 confirmation test)
	L1SD2W2	0.7846	CI CE : 0.6649 < $\widehat{\gamma }$ < 0.9043	0.7929
			CI POP : 0.7302 < $\widehat{\gamma }$ < 0.8389
2.		W 1  = 0.7, W 2  = 0.3
	Optimal parameter setting	Predicted optimal value (GRG)	Predicted confidence intervals at 95% confidence level	Actual value (Avg. of 3 confirmation test)
	L1SD1W3	0.8197	CI CE : 0.7131 < $\widehat{\gamma }$ < .0.9262	0.8319
			CI POP : 0.8054 < $\widehat{\gamma }$ < 0.8339
3.		W 1  = 0.3, W 2  = 0.7
	Optimal parameter setting	Predicted optimal value (GRG)	Predicted confidence intervals at 95% confidence level	Actual value (Avg. of 3 confirmation test)
	L1SD2W2	0.8066	CI CE : 0.6667 < $\widehat{\gamma }$ < .0.9464	0.8238
			CI POP : 0.7879 < $\widehat{\gamma }$ < 0.8252

Figure 7. Graph showing a comparison between actual GRG and predicted GRG values.

Figure 8. Worn surfaces (a) In best condition (b) In worst condition (c) Worn surface of AA6063/SiC_p AMC at a Load of 40 N, Sliding distance of 1,570 m and 3.5 Wt. % of SiC.