3.8 Article

Microstructure and Fatigue Life of the A359 Alloy Reinforced with Al2O3 after Multiple Remelting

Journal

ARCHIVES OF FOUNDRY ENGINEERING
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 39-44

Publisher

POLSKA AKAD NAUK, POLISH ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.24425/122500

Keywords

Alloy; Composite microstructure; Properties; Recycling

Funding

  1. National Science Center (NCN) [N507 242740]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The multiple direct remelting of composites based on the A359 alloy reinforced with 20% of Al2O3 particles was performed. The results of both gravity casting and squeeze casting were examined in terms of the obtained microstructure and mechanical characteristics. In microstructure examinations, the combinatorial method based on phase quanta theory was used. In mechanical tests, the modified low cycle fatigue method (MLCF) was applied. The effects obtained after both gravity casting and squeeze casting were compared. It was noted that both characteristics were gradually deteriorating up to the tenth remelting. The main cause was the occurrence of shrinkage porosity after the gravity casting. Much better results were obtained applying the squeeze casting process. The results of microstructure examinations and fatigue tests enabled drawing the conclusion that the A359 alloy reinforced with Al2O3 particles can confer a much better fatigue life behavior to the resulting composite than the A359 alloy without the reinforcement. At the same time, comparing these results with the results of the previous own research carried out on the composites based also on the A359 alloy but reinforced in the whole volume with SiC particles, it has been concluded that both types of the composites can be subjected to multiple remelting without any significant deterioration of the structural and mechanical characteristics. The concepts and advantages of using the combinatorial and MLCF methods in materials research were also presented

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available