4.6 Article

Comparison of anodised aluminium surfaces from four fabrication methods

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
Volume 212, Issue 11, Pages 2272-2281

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2012.06.007

Keywords

Aluminium; Anodising; Surface structure; Oxide thickness; Abrasive wear resistance

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a comparative analysis of surface characteristics and properties of anodised aluminium cylinders produced by sand casting, permanent mould casting, extrusion, and high pressure die casting. Differences in micro structure and distribution of silicon particles in the aluminium, due to the fabrication method and the silicon content in the alloy, resulted in varying thickness of the oxide layers (mean thicknesses between 7 and 19 mu m) and surface topography. The oxide layer was unevenly thick for the permanent mould cast and the sand cast cylinders, resulting in a surface with higher plateaus and lower areas. This was more prominent for the sand cast surface. The oxide of the extruded cylinder was thick and even and its surface was smooth. The high pressure die cast surface had an oxide that was very thin and uneven. The surfaces displayed different results in the scratch test due to the variations in the surface structure. For the permanent mould cast and the sand cast surfaces the silicon particles present in the oxide deflected the cracks that were formed during the scratching. This resulted in smaller wear debris. The nanohardness values of the oxides had a large scattering due to the inhomogeneous nature of the oxide layers, with pores and particles. However, the highest nanohardness values were between 5000 and 6000 MPa for the four surfaces, which is significantly lower than that of sintered alumina. In the micro abrasion test the wear mechanism for all four surfaces was microcutting resulting in chippings. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available