Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The influence of ball milling processing variables on the microstructure and compaction behavior of Fe–Mn–Cu alloys Cover

The influence of ball milling processing variables on the microstructure and compaction behavior of Fe–Mn–Cu alloys

Open Access
|Dec 2021

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

SEIs of the as-received (A) Fe, (B) Mn, and (C) Cu powders used in the present study. SEI, secondary electron image

Fig. 2

SEIs of the size and shape of the selected processed alloy powders: (A) BD5-1; (B) BD5-3; and (C) BD5-4 alloys. SEI, secondary electron image

Fig. 3

Results of EDS analysis of the alloys in powder form: (A–C) BD5-1; (D–F) BD5-3; (G–I) BD5-4. EDS, energy dispersive spectroscopy

Fig. 4

The distribution of particle size for BD5-1, BD5-2, BD5-4, BD5-9, BD5-10, and BD5-11 alloys. d, diameter

Fig. 5

XRD patterns of all powder samples: (A) BD0-1 to BD0-6; (B) BD5-7 to BD5-12; (C) BD5-13 to BD5-19; (D) BD10-20 to BD10-25. CPS, counts/s; XRD, X-ray diffraction

Fig. 6

The experimental results of RD versus CP for [(Fe–35 wt%Mn)95–Cu5] green samples. CP, compaction pressure; RD, relative density

Fig. 7

EDS analysis results of the compacted samples: (A–C) BD5-1; (D–F) BD5-3; and (G–I) BD5-4. EDS, energy dispersive spectroscopy

Fig. 8

EDS analysis results of the green samples: (A–C) BD5-9; (D–F) BD5-10; and (G–I) BD5-11. EDS, energy dispersive spectroscopy

Fig. 9

ANOVA results of RD: (A) The experimental and the predicted values of RD; and (B) normal probability of residuals of RD of the developed compacted samples. RD, relative density

Fig. 10

The impact of the input variables on the RD of the developed green samples: (A, C, E, G, I, K) 3D surface plots; (B, D, F, H, J, L) 2D contour plots. RD, relative density

The results of the ANOVA test performed for the lattice strain

SourceSum of squaresDFMean squareF-valuep-value
Model0.1630100.01632.490.0499
MT0.085510.085513.080.0023
BPMR0.012810.01281.960.1807
MS0.014710.01472.250.1532
CC0.009210.00921.410.2518
(MT) × (BPMR)0.007410.00741.130.3032
(MT) × (MS)0.029810.02984.550.0487
(MT) × (CC)0.001310.00130.19830.6621
(BPMR) × (MS)0.001910.00190.29620.5938
(BPMR) × (CC)0.000310.00030.04420.8361
(MS) × (CC)0.000110.00010.01690.8983
Residual0.1046160.0065
Lack of fit0.1045140.0075355.540.0028
Pure error0.000020.0000
Total0.267626

The results of ANOVA test performed for the RD

SourceSum of squaresDFMean squareF-valuep-value
Model274.08001027.410012.2300<0.0001
MT50.7600150.760022.64000.0002
BPMR37.1000137.100016.55000.0009
MS102.20001102.200045.5900<0.0001
CC50.0200150.020022.31000.0002
(MT) × (BPMR)6.430016.43002.87000.1098
(MT) × (MS)0.504110.50410.22490.6418
(MT) × (CC)19.7600119.76008.81000.0090
(BPMR) × (MS)3.100013.10001.38000.2570
(BPMR) × (CC)3.480013.48001.55000.2308
(MS) × (CC)0.739610.73960.32990.5737
Residual35.8700162.2400
Lack of fit35.6100142.540020.17000.0482
Pure error0.252220.1261
Total309.950026

Design input parameters (MT, MS, BPMR, and CC) and experimental results (RD, crystallite size, and lattice strain) obtained in the present study

Exp. no.Alloy codeMT, hBPMR, nMS, rev/minCC, wt%RD, %Crystallite size (from Fe peak), nmLattice strain (from Fe peak), %
1BD0-15.510100071.6537.00.3120
2BD0-25.510300065.9428.00.3340
3BD0-31.010200066.6332.00.3030
4BD0-410.010200067.7625.00.3730
5BD0-55.55200067.9944.00.2850
6BD0-65.515200068.5325.00.3760
7BD5-11.05200575.0458.00.1650
8BD5-210.05200572.6618.00.5070
9BD5-31.015200573.4938.00.2480
10BD5-410.015200566.0422.00.4180
11BD5-55.55100575.4658.00.1650
12BD5-65.515100572.0828.00.3340
13BD5-75.55300571.2041.00.2740
14BD5-85.515300564.3026.00.3550
15BD5-91.010100575.1958.00.1670
16BD5-1010.010100571.7917.00.5560
17BD5-111.010300570.9821.00.4610
18BD5-1210.010300566.1618.00.5050
19BD5-135.510200569.6622.00.4180
20BD10-15.5101001075.2325.00.3740
21BD10-25.5103001067.8023.00.4080
22BD10-31.0102001075.0833.00.3360
23BD10-410.0102001067.3228.00.3340
24BD10-55.552001075.3823.00.4080
25BD10-65.5152001072.1924.00.4580
26BD5-13R5.510200568.9922.00.4180
27BD5-13R5.510200569.1222.00.4180

The results of particle size analysis for selected alloys

Alloy codeAverage particle size, nmStandard deviation, nm% intensity (main peak)PDI
BD5-11,477.00480.5096.500.33
BD5-2655.40220.3091.200.49
BD5-4327.1053.28100.000.52
BD5-91,274.00315.9096.200.42
BD5-10638.70214.1091.100.41
BD5-11499.50129.4099.100.35

The results of the ANOVA test performed for the crystallite size

SourceSum of squaresDFMean squareF-valuep-value
Model2.696 × 1051026,963.563.890.0079
MT1.025 × 10511.025 × 10514.780.0014
BPMR56,033.33156,033.338.080.0118
MS33,920.33133,920.334.890.0419
CC12,610.08112,610.081.820.1963
(MT) × (BPMR)14,520.25114,520.252.090.1672
(MT) × (MS)36,100.00136,100.005.200.0366
(MT) × (CC)144.001144.000.02080.8872
(BPMR) × (MS)5,402.2515,402.250.77890.3906
(BPMR) × (CC)7,225.0017,225.001.040.3226
(MS) × (CC)1,190.2511,190.250.17160.6842
Residual1.110E × 105166,936.07
Lack of Fit1.109E × 105147,923.37316.930.0031
Pure Error50.00225.00
Total3.806 × 10526
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2021-0033 | Journal eISSN: 2083-134X | Journal ISSN: 2083-1331
Language: English
Page range: 410 - 429
Submitted on: Sep 23, 2021
|
Accepted on: Nov 21, 2021
|
Published on: Dec 30, 2021
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2021 Hany R. Ammar, Subbarayan Sivasankaran, Abdulaziz S. Alaboodi, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.