4.6 Article

Statistical Optimization by the Response Surface Methodology of Direct Recycled Aluminum-Alumina Metal Matrix Composite (MMC-AlR) Employing the Metal Forming Process

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr8070805

关键词

sustainable manufacturing; direct metal recycling; hot press forging; aluminum AA6061; reinforced particles; metal matrix composite

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia, through the Malaysian Technical University Network-Centre of Excellence (MTUN-CoE)
  2. Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) [1496, 1463, 015MA0-009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the response surface methodology (RSM) and desirability function (DF) were utilized to optimize the recycling conditions of aluminum (AA6061) chips, in the presence of particulate alumina (Al2O3), to obtain a metal matrix composite of recycled aluminum (MMC-Al-R) using hot press forging processes. The effects of temperature (430-530 degrees C) and holding time (60-120 min) were investigated. The introduction of 2.0 wt. % of Al2O3 to the aluminum matrix was based on preliminary research and some pilot tests. This study employed the 2(k) factorial design of experiments that should satisfy the operating temperatures (T) of 430 degrees C and 530 degrees C with holding times (t) of 60 min and 120 min. The central composite design (CCD) was utilized for RSM with the axial and center point to evaluate the responses to the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), elongation to failure (ETF), and microhardness (MH). Based on RSM, with the desirability of 97.6%, the significant parameters T = 530 degrees C and t = 120 min were suggested to yield an optimized composite performance with UTS = 317.99 MPa, ETF = 20.45%, and MH = 86.656 HV. Three confirmation runs were performed based on the suggested optimum parameters, and the error revealed was less than 25%. The mathematical models suggested by RSM could adequately describe the MMC-Al-R responses of the factors being investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据