World Corcon’09-TP 145 Sept.29 – Oct.

01, 2009, Mumbai, India

PROCESSING AND CORROSION STUDIES OF ALUMINIUM

FLYASH COMPOSITES

Ajit Bhandakkar
Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science,
IIT Bombay
Email: ajit_bb@iitb.ac.in

Dr.V.K.Kain
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai

Prof. R. C. Prasad
Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science
IIT Bombay

ABSTRACT

Aluminum metal matrix composites (MMC) have been extensively used for the high performance
applications where they come in contact with varied environments. The MMC are also used in
conjunction with metals such as Aluminum, Steel, Titanium etc. leading to their galvanic corrosion.

In the present investigation, a composite with Aluminum LM6 (12 wt% Si) as matrix material
and up to 10 wt% of fly ash particulate was fabricated using the liquid metallurgy, stir casting route.
The potentiodynamic polarization was carried in 3.5% NaCl and 0.5M sodium sulphate + 0.1M NaCl
solution for base alloy LM6 and aluminum fly ash composite to study the corrosion behavior of
aluminum fly ash composite .The polarization results in 3.5% NaCl solution shows uniform corrosion of
base and aluminium fly ash composite along the open circuit potential and there was no pitting.
However when the potentiodynamic polarization carried out in 0.5 M sodium sulphate+0.10 M NaCl
solution shows pitting of base alloy LM6 and aluminium fly ash composite, however the pitting of
aluminium fly ash composite starts at much lower Epit value as compare to base aluminium alloy LM6.
In addition 30 days immersion tests in water as well as 3.5% NaCl solution and high temperature
erosion test were carried out and weight loss data were acquired. The environmentally degraded
samples of aluminium MMC were analyzed using optical microscope and scanning electron
microscope.

Key words: Aluminium metal matrix composites, corrosion, fly ash composites,

1
INTRODUCTION

The major reasons that put hindrance to commercialization of MMCs is the cost of the
reinforcement. In India more than 100 million tons of fly ash is produced every year, less than 4% of
this is being used in high end products as compared to 20-80% in other countries. The objective of this
research is to add high value to light weight aluminium alloys casting in automobile industries. Another
potential constraint in the applications of MMCs is their environmental degradation. However limited
studies are reported on the corrosion behavior of aluminium fly ash matrix composites. With these
objectives in mind, studies were conducted to understand the general and localized corrosion behavior
of aluminium alloy (LM 6 and ALFA composites). In the present investigation influence of environment
has been evaluated on conventional LM6 cast fly ash composites.

EXPERIMENTAL

Materials

The base alloy (LM6) is an aluminium silicon alloy (Al and 13%Si). The microstructure of LM6
consists of silicon needles uniformly distributed in alpha aluminium matrix as shown in Fig 1a. The
reinforcement is precipitator fly ash . The SEM image and EDAX analysis of the precipitator fly ash
33
having density in the range of 2.0-2.4 g/cm3 in shown in Fig 1b. The fly ash predominantly consists of
Al2O3 + SiO2 + Fe2O3.

Figure1a Microstructure of LM6 base alloy Figure 1b SEM analysis of precipitator fly ash

PROCESSING

The Aluminum LM6 fly ash composites were processed at IIT Bombay through stir casting route
followed by top pouring in metallic mould. The Aluminum alloy (LM6) was melted at 800°C in the
electrical resistance furnace. The 2% flux was added during melting and processing in order to
minimize the oxidation of molten metal. The Fly ash particulates, preheated to 650 ◦C were then added
to the molten metal and stirred continuously by using mechanical stirrer at 720 ◦C. The stirring time was
maintained between 15 and 20 minutes at an impeller speed of 550 rpm. During stirring, 1%
magnesium was added to increase the wettability of fly ash particles. The melt with the reinforced
particulates were poured into the preheated and surface coated metallic moulds of size 250mm x
50mm x 25mm. The pouring temperature was maintained at 680 ◦C. The melt was allowed to solidify in
the moulds. For the purpose of comparison, the base alloy LM6 was also cast under similar processing
conditions as described. The schematic of the fabrication process is given in the Fig.2. and details of
the set up are shown in Fig.3.

2
 Melting of Aluminium alloy grade LM6 above the
liquidus temperature

Preheating of reinforcement fly ash up to 650 °C

Addition of alloying elements for melt adjustment

(Mg)

Continuous feeding of particle in the melt at

uniform rate 5gm/min

Vigorous agitation at speed of 300-500 rpm

Stirring after completion of particle feeding for 5-

15 min

Casting in preheated mould

200-300°C

Hot rolling at BARC

Mechanical and corrosion testing of MMC

Fig.2 Schematic Process Flow chart for composite manufacture

Figure 3 Stir casting setup

3
CORROSION STUDIES

The electrochemical studies of the Aluminum metal matrix composites were carried out by
potentiodynamic polarization in NaCl and Na2SO4 solution as per ASTM G 5-94. To ascertain the
susceptibility of ALFA composite to pitting corrosion, the Epit and Ecorr was measured through
potentiodynamic polarization test in 0.5M Na2SO4 + 0.10M NaCl solution (open to air) at a scan rate 0.2
mV/sec. The potentiodynamic polarization was carried out at range of -1000 mV SCE to + 1000 mV
SCE as per ASTM G5-94 and potential vs current density plot and is recorded Table.1 and Fig.4.

Table 1 Potentodynamic polarization of ALFA composite

Sample Solution ECORR E Pit ∆E pit

LM6 Base alloy Na2SO4+NaCl -560mV -95mV 465

LM6 + 5% P60 fly ash Na2SO4+NaCl -846mV -549mV 297
-877mV -543mV 334
LM6 + 5% P10 fly ash Na2SO4+NaCl -846mV -549mV 297
LM6 +10% P60 fly ash Na2SO4+NaCl -721mV -384mV 337
LM6 + 10% P10 fly ash Na2SO4+NaCl -706mV -130mV 576

0.3
LM6 base alloy
0.2
LM6+ 5 % P10
0.1 LM6+ 5 % P60
0.0 LM6+ 10 % P10
-0.1 LM6+ 10 % P60
Potential , V SCE

-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0
-1.1

1E-10 1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1
2
current density mA /cm

Figure 4. Potentiodynamic polarization of ALFA composite in 0.5M Na2SO4 + 0.10M NaCl

Table.1. lists the Ecorr, Epit and ∆Epit. It was observed that the base metal and ALFA composite is
showing transition from passive to active in 0.5 M sodium sulphate + 0.10M NaCl. The corrosion
potential Ecorr and pitting potential Epit of composite is more negative than the base alloy LM6, hence
ALFA composites are more active. The parameter ∆E pit shows the passivity range of the ALFA
composite and base alloy. Also in the rolled composites, the shift in Ecorr and Epit to active potential may

4
be due to dislocation near interface and possible debonding. Rolling degrades interface and makes the
composite susceptible to pitting corrosion.

IMMERSION CORROSION

The immersion corrosion properties of the ALFA composites and base alloy are listed in Fig 5.0.
The following observations can be made from immersion test results.

Immersion corrosion

1.4 Immersion Data

LM6 Base in water
1.2 LM6 Base in 3.5% NaCl
5% P10 in water
1.0
5% P10 in 3.5% NaCl
% weight loss

0.8 5% P60 in water

5% P60 in 3.5% NaCl
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
soaking time in hrs

23

Fig 5 Immersion corrosion of base alloy and ALFA composite

The results of immersion test in 3.5% NaCl show higher corrosion rate for all composites than
the matrix alloy LM6. The corrosion rate increase as the volume % fly ash is increased. There is no
common trend to correlate volume %, fly ash and corrosion rates in immersion test .

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

The dog bone round tensile samples of 30 mm gauge length and 6.5 mm diameter of
aluminum alloy grade LM6 and aluminum LM6 and fly ash composites samples were prepared as per
ASTM B 557M-94 /ASTM E8 and tested for tensile strength and % elongation. After tensile testing the
fracture surface was observed under the SEM. The tensile properties of the ALFA composites are listed
in Table.2. The following observations can be made from tensile test results.

5
 Table 2. Mechanical Properties of aluminum fly ash composite
Reinforcement Yield Tensile % Elongation Modulus
Strength Strength MPa
MPa MPa
LM6 Base alloy 106 134 9.92 68950
LM6 +5%P10 As cast 185 227 3.75 78614
LM6+5%P60 As cast 131 201 6.06 77444
LM6 +10%P10 As cast 100 160.1 5.61 55710
LM6+10%P60 As cast 106 143.2 5.20 65962
LM6 + 5% P10 Hot rolled 108 126 2.50 69548
LM6 + 5%P60 Hot rolled 128 143 3.40 71550
LM6 + 10% P10 Hot rolled 149 167 3.20 74310

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The chemical composition of ALFA composite listed in Table1. indicates an increase in silicon
from 10 to 13 with increase in fly ash. The increase in the silicon content in the Aluminium fly ash
composites is be due to interfacial reaction between SiO2 and Al.

The microstructure of the cast composite (LM6 + 5% P10 fly ash) shown in Fig.4. indicates that
the fly ash is retained and distributed uniformly in the aluminum matrix. The composite microstructure
contains alpha aluminum dendrite matrix, silicon needles, primary silicon and fly ash reinforcements.

Table 1. Chemical composition of fly ash composite

Grade Si Mg Fe Cu Mn Al
Requirement 10.8 0.1 0.60 0.10 0.50 Rest
max max max max
LM6+5%P10 13.0 0.60 0.37 0.004 0.004 Rest
LM6+5%P60 13.81 0.61 0.54 0.004 0.004 Rest
LM6+10%P10 12.93 0.60 0.25 0.0024 0.01 Rest

LM6+10%P60 14.04 0.60 0.48 0.0039 0.006 Rest

LM6 + 5% P10 LM6 + 5% P60

Figure 4 Microstructure of Aluminium fly ash composite
The tensile and yield strength of the cast LM6 composites is found to increases with the
increase in fly ash reinforcement as shown in Table 2. However the ductility decreases from 9.92 to

6
3.75. Increase in strength may be attributed to strengthening caused due to reinforcement. However
the increase in reinforcement beyond 5% results in decrease in strength which may be due to
agglomeration of fly ash. The hot rolled composite shows lower tensile properties. This is contrary to
belief and may be attributed to facilitation of fracture process resulting from poor bonding during hot
rolling.

The results of immersion test in 3.5% NaCl show in Table 3 indicates higher corrosion rate for
all composites compared to the matrix alloy LM6. The corrosion rate increases as the volume % fly ash
is increased. However there is no common trend to correlate volume %, fly ash and corrosion rates in
immersion test

The potentiodynamic polarization studies shown in Table .4 indicates transition from passive
to active in 0.5 M sodium sulphate + 0.10M NaCl. The corrosion potential Ecorr and pitting potential Epit
of composite is more negative than the base alloy LM6, hence ALFA composites are more active. The
parameter ∆E pit shows the passivity range of the ALFA composite and base alloy. Also in the rolled
composites, the shift in Ecorr and Epit to active potential may be due to structural discontunities near the
interface and possible debonding. Rolling degrades interface and makes the composite susceptible to
pitting corrosion.

In 3.5% NaCl solution both LM6 base alloy and ALFA composite do not show passivation
behavior and the uniform corrosion takes place at open circuit potential as shown in Fig.6 .

CONCLUSION

Both potentiodynamic polarization and immersion corrosion test shows that corrosion resistance of
the ALFA composite decreases due to the addition of the fly ash reinforcement .The erosion behavior
of the ALFA Composite is inferior to the base alloy.

REFERENCES
1. 1. Clyne TW, “An introductory overview of MMC systems, Types and developments” pp 1-
10University of Cambridge, UK.,
2. 2.K A Lucas and H Clarke , “ Corrosion of Aluminium based metal matrix composites”, pp 1-
6, 29-42,78-97 Research Study Press Ltd , Taunton , somerset , England ,
3. 3 Gaute Svenningsen,”Corrosion of Aluminium Alloys” pp 1-3 Department of Materials
Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway,
4. Christian vargel , “Corrosion of Aluminium”, pp 81-83B1,B2 Elsevier Ltd , Uk ,
5. Davis J R , “ Corrosion of Aluminium and Aluminum alloys”, ASM International, materials park
pp 1-23,(1999)
6. Silicon carbide , www.feldcoInternational.com date 16th may 2007
7. J. Bienia_ *, M. Walczak, B. Surowska, J. Sobczaka, , “ Microstructure and corrosion behavior
of aluminum fly ash composites” , Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials Vol. 5,
No. 2, (2003), pp. 493 – 502