Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Three body abrasion of laser surface alloyed aluminium AA1200

L.A.B Mabhali a,b, N. Sacks a,n, S. Pityana b
a
School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa
b
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, National Laser Centre, PO Box 375, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Laser surface alloying of aluminium AA1200 was performed with a 4 kW Nd:YAG laser to improve the
Received 17 June 2011 abrasion wear resistance. Aluminium surfaces reinforced with metal matrix composites and inter-
Received in revised form metallic phases were achieved. The phases present depended on the composition of the alloying
30 May 2012
powder mixture. The wear performance of the alloyed surfaces was characterised using an ASTM G65
Accepted 31 May 2012
three body dry abrasion apparatus. A maximum 82% improvement in the wear resistance of the pure
Available online 9 June 2012
aluminium was achieved with a 40 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Ti þ40 wt% SiC composition. The three alloys which
Keywords: had the best wear resistance were all produced with a composition of 40 wt% SiC and Ti and Ni powders
Laser surface alloying ranging from 20 to 40 wt%. No direct correlation was observed between hardness and wear resistance.
Aluminium
Microstructural examination showed that the main wear mechanisms were intense plastic deformation
Metal-matrix composites
with micro-fracture of the SiC particles and intermetallic phases. The wear behaviour is mainly
Intermetallics
Three body-body abrasion determined by the response of the different alloy phases, either independently or in combination, to the
action of the abrasive particles and the precise nature of this response is complex and requires
further study.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Aluminium is widely used in industry due to its attractive
attributes such as low density, high strength to weight ratio, high
thermal conductivity and good formability [1]. Its drawback is the
poor surface properties such as hardness and wear resistance.
These surface properties can be improved by depositing hard
reinforcement materials on its surface in an attempt to provide a
composite material which has a tough matrix reinforced with
hard particles which should lead to improved wear resistance.
This can be achieved by a laser alloying process. Alloying
materials are deposited as powders into a melt pool generated
on the material surface by a focused laser beam. The beam is
scanned over the part and the deposited material resolidifies
resulting in good bonding between the substrate and the alloyed
layer. The surface of the material is modified by changing the
composition and microstructure without affecting the bulk prop-
erties of the material. Process parameters such as laser power,
laser beam spot size, laser scanning speed and powder feed rate
have to be controlled to achieve the desired metallurgical bonding
and alloyed surface properties.
Research on the wear properties of aluminium alloys rein-
forced with either ceramic or metallic materials has been done by
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: natasha.sacks@wits.ac.za (N. Sacks).
several authors [1–22]. Staia et al. [8] alloyed aluminium A356
with 96 wt% WC, 2 wt% Ti and 2 wt% Mg. The wear behaviour of
the alloyed material against AISI52100 steel balls under a load of
5 N was investigated. For high laser scanning speeds, large WC
particles were formed which served as the load carrying particles
and severely abraded the steel. For low laser scanning speeds, the
WC particle size decreased and the wear mechanisms changed as
the aluminium matrix participated in the transference process.
The wear mechanisms of the aluminium A356 was adhesive with
high quantities of aluminium transferred to the steel counterface.
Almeida et al. [9] studied the dry sliding wear mechanisms of
Al–Mo deposited on an aluminium substrate by laser surface
alloying. The wear mechanisms were predominantly adhesion
followed by material detachment and transfer, oxidation and
some abrasion, mainly by hard intermetallic compound particles
on the steel counterbody. Elleuch et al. [10] studied the abrasive
wear of aluminium alloys rubbed against sand. The author
reported that the wear rate increased by three times as the
incident angle of sand was increased from 01 to 451.
S- ahin [11] studied the abrasive wear of aluminium AA2014
reinforced with SiC particles of different sizes (9 mm, 14 mm and
33 mm). The authors observed that the wear rate decreased with
increasing hardness of the MMC while it increased with increas-
ing abrasive particle size of the counter surface, applied load and
sliding distance (up to a maximum value, then either decreased or
remained constant). Miyajima and Iwai [12] reported that SiC and
Al2O3 reinforcement caused severe wear of a steel counter surface

0043-1648/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.05.034
2 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
during sliding wear of the aluminium matrix composite on a pin-
on-disc wear tester. Metal matrix composites with low volume
fractions of embedded ceramics produced severe wear charac-
terised by plastic deformation and large grooves. MMCs with high
volume fractions of embedded ceramics did not wear severely
and the surfaces were smooth and flat without large grooves. The
embedded ceramic acted as inhibitors against plastic flow and
adhesion of the matrix metal to the steel counter surface.
Majumdar et al. [13] laser alloyed Ti with Si, Ti with Al, and Ti
with SiþAl and studied the wear behaviour on a ball-on-disc
wear testing machine. Surfaces alloyed with Al suffered extensive
amounts of abrasive and adhesive wear while surfaces alloyed
with Si þAl suffered abrasive wear. No significant amount of
adhesive or abrasive wear was observed in samples alloyed only
with Si. This decrease in the wear rates was associated with the
formation of the Ti5Si3 phase which was found in higher volume
fractions in the surfaces alloyed only with Si.
Anandkumar et al. [15] conducted three body abrasion wear
tests on Al–Si/SiC composite coatings using SiC as the abrasive.
The coatings were produced using two different specific energies,
namely 26 MJ/m2 and 58 MJ/m2 which yielded hardness values of
120 and 250 VH respectively. The higher hardness was attributed
to the larger proportions of Al4SiC4 and Si precipitates. However
the harder coating had the highest wear rate. The authors
concluded that this was due to the significant difference between
the SiC abrasive and the composite hardness. The lower wear rate
achieved by the softer coating was attributed to the presence of
SiC particles, which although do not provide an improvement in
hardness, do resist scratching by the abrasive. The friction and
wear behaviour of aluminium laser surface alloyed with SiC and
SiCþAl was also studied by Majumdar et al. [21,22]. It was
found that some the SiC dissociated to form Al4C3 which led
to an increase in the aluminium hardness from 25 VHN to
200–250 VHN. The resulting wear resistance was improved up
to three times and was attributed to the dispersion strengthening
effect provided by the Al4C3 phase.
Shipway et al. [14] studied the sliding wear mechanisms of
aluminium reinforced with TiC particles against a carbon-man-
ganese steel (BS 080A15) counterface and found that the wear
rates increased as the applied load increased and delamination
cracks were observed in the MMC layer. The addition of the TiC
particles resulted in counter surface wear as hard particles acted
as abrasives in the sliding process. The wear rates of the steel
counter surfaces increased as the volume fraction of the TiC
particles increased. These TiC particles resulted in ploughing
and cutting of the steel counter surfaces in the sliding direction.
In dry sliding wear tests of Al–12Si/TiB2 laser clads with an
AISI 440C tool steel counterbody by Anandkumar et al. [17] the
laser clads displayed ultra mild wear. The addition of TiB2 led to
an improvement in the hardness and wear resistance of the
Al–12Si alloy. The authors attributed this to the role played
by the reinforcement phase in protecting the Al-based alloy
against severe plastic deformation. Similar results were found
by Majumdar et al. [20] who studied the abrasion wear resistance
of aluminium reinforced with TiB and TiB2 particles where the
volume fractions were varied between 7 and 18%. The addition of
the TiB improved the hardness threefold using a laser power of
1.2 kW and a scan speed of 500 mm/min. The wear resistance was
improved and decreased with an increase in applied load. This
was attributed to the increased hardness provided by the TiB
particles.
Molybdenum has been shown to improve the mechanical
properties of aluminium. In a study done by Almeida et al. [9]
on a range of Al–Mo alloys (14.8–19.1 wt% Mo) the hardness was
shown to increase from 85 to 160 VH while Young’s Modulus
increased from 84 to 92 GPa. These increases were attributed to
increasing volume fractions of the intermetallic compounds. The
wear resistance of the alloys were tested under dry sliding wear
conditions using applied loads of 0.15 and 1 N respectively. The
wear resistance was found to increase with an increase in the
volume fraction of the intermetallic compounds. However higher
wear rates were observed at the lower load. This result was
attributed to the resulting wear mechanisms which included
adhesion, oxidation as well as detachment and transfer of the
surface material. Almeida et al. [18] reported that the addition of
niobium to aluminium provided a good combination of a very
high hardness and moderate toughness which was attributed to
the volume fraction and dendritic spacing of the Al3Nb phase.
Several authors have attempted to model the wear behaviour of
metal matrix composites and general multiphase materials as some
of the prevailing wear theories do not provide adequate insight into
multiphase material behaviour under abrasive wear conditions
[16,23–28]. Recently Colaco and Vilar [16] developed a mathema-
tical model to provide understanding of the functional dependence
of wear resistance on the properties of the reinforcement phases in
metal matrix composites. The model was based on the Rabinowicz
approach [29] on defining abrasive wear mechanisms of multiphase
materials and also considered the mechanisms proposed by Hutch-
ings [28] and Zum-Ghar [24] which reported that material loss
occurs by wear of the matrix, wear of the reinforcement particles
and extraction of the reinforcement particles from the matrix. The
model was tested against experimental data based on three body
abrasion wear of Fe-0.25%C-15%Cr coatings reinforced with different
volume fractions of Nb. The authors reported a good correlation
between the model and experimental data and provided detailed
understanding of the functional dependence of the wear resistance
on the proportion of reinforcement particles. The main conclusions
showed that while the average hardness increases as the volume
fraction of reinforcement increases, increased wear rates are possi-
ble when the volume fraction of reinforcement is increased where
cracking and extraction of the particles may increase due to
interaction with the abrasive.
Published work is generally limited to higher aluminium alloys
(i.e. 2xxx to 7xxx series). To the authors knowledge no published
work is available on the abrasive wear of Aluminium AA1200
which has been laser alloyed with ceramic and metallic materials
simultaneously. Therefore the aim of this work was to investigate
the abrasive wear resistance of Aluminium AA1200 by laser
surface alloying with mixed Ni, Ti and SiC powders. Intermetallic
phases are formed when aluminium is laser alloyed with metallic
materials (e.g. Ni and Ti) while metal matrix composites are
formed when alloying with ceramics (e.g. SiC).
2. Material and methods
Laser alloying of the aluminium AA1200 surface was per-
formed with a Nd:YAG laser. Aluminium AA1200 plates were
initially sand blasted to enhance the absorption of laser energy by
the aluminium substrate. The chemical composition of the alu-
minium plates was 0.12 wt% Cu, 0.13 wt% Si, 0.59 wt% Fe and the
balance was Al. The laser parameters used were 4 kW of power, a
beam diameter of 4 mm and a scanning speed of 10 mm/s. These
parameters ensured that sufficient laser energy was supplied for
the dissolution of the powders. The alloying powder mixture
consisted of different compositions of Ni, Ti and SiC powder
mixtures as listed in Table 1. The powder feed rate was 2.5–3 g/
min (depending on the powder composition) which ensured
sufficient supply of powder during the alloying experiments.
Argon was used as the carrier and shielding gas to prevent
oxidation during the alloying process. Ten overlapping tracks
with a track overlap of 50% were made.
 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
Table 1
Starting powder compositions.
Sample no. Powder composition
Al Untreated aluminium AA1200
1 10 wt% Ni þ70 wt% Tiþ 20 wt% SiC
2 20 wt% Ni þ30 wt% Tiþ 50 wt% SiC
3 20 wt% Ni þ40 wt% Tiþ 40 wt% SiC
4 30 wt% Ni þ30 wt% Tiþ 40 wt% SiC
5 30 wt% Ni þ40 wt% Tiþ 30 wt% SiC
6 33.3 wt% Ni þ 33.3 wt% Tiþ33.3 wt% SiC
7 40 wt% Ni þ20 wt% Tiþ 40 wt% SiC
8 40 wt% Ni þ30 wt% Tiþ 30 wt% SiC
9 40 wt% Ni þ40 wt% Tiþ 20 wt% SiC
10 50 wt% Ni þ20 wt% Tiþ 30 wt% SiC
11 60 wt% Ni þ30 wt% Tiþ 10 wt% SiC
12 70 wt% Ni þ10 wt% Tiþ 20 wt% SiC
13 70 wt% Ni þ20 wt% Tiþ 10 wt% SiC
14 80 wt% Ni þ15 wt% Tiþ 5 wt% SiC
Fig. 1. Wear response of untreated aluminium and laser alloyed surfaces.
The hardness was measured using a 1 kgf load and the average
of eleven indentations is reported as the surface hardness. The
microstructures of the alloyed surfaces were studied using scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray diffraction (XRD).
Samples were ground and polished to a 0.04 mm (colloidal silica
OP-S suspension) surface finish and etched with Keller’s reagent
(3 ml HClþ2 ml HFþ5 ml HNO3 þ190 ml HO2) prior to micro-
structural characterisation.
Three body abrasion wear tests were conducted using an ASTM
G65-04 [30] dry sand rubber wheel apparatus shown in Fig. 1. Silica
sand obtained from Rolfes (Pty) Ltd. with a particle size range of
0.3–0.65 mm was used as the abrasive. Prior to wear testing, the silica
sand was sieved with a MACSALAB electronic sieve shaker to
determine the particle size and distribution. Majority of the sand
particles were in the 500–600 mm range with a D50 of 525 mm and
were generally angular in shape. The sand feed rate was 2.3 g/s. This
feed rate ensured that sufficient sand was introduced into the rubber
wheel/specimen contact area in the test chamber. The samples,
70  20  6 mm in size, were polished to a 1 mm surface finish prior
to the wear tests. The applied load was kept constant at 9.8 N. The
duration of each wear test was 60 min and the mass of the samples
was recorded at 10 min intervals. Three tests were conducted to
determine the average for each alloy. The wear scars were examined
using a JEOL JSM-840 scanning electron microscope.
3. Results
Laser alloying was successfully performed with the laser
processing parameters used. Tables 2 and 3 list the hardness
3
Table 2
Vickers hardness of the alloyed surfaces.
Powder composition Hardness (HV1)
Untreated aluminium AA1200 24.03 7 0.27
10 wt% Ni þ 70 wt% Ti þ20 wt% SiC 143.697 9.32
20 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Ti þ50 wt% SiC 149.537 10.10
20 wt% Ni þ 40 wt% Ti þ40 wt% SiC 172.387 13.63
30 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Ti þ40 wt% SiC 184.487 6.92
30 wt% Ni þ 40 wt% Ti þ30 wt% SiC 192.217 8.19
33.3 wt% Ni þ33.3 wt% Ti þ33.3 wt% SiC 197.437 7.53
40 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Ti þ40 wt% SiC 198.197 13.49
40 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Ti þ30 wt% SiC 218.90 7 6.41
40 wt% Ni þ 40 wt% Ti þ20 wt% SiC 239.687 10.28
50 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Ti þ30 wt% SiC 250.10 7 7.75
60 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Ti þ10 wt% SiC 264.277 9.39
70 wt% Ni þ 10 wt% Ti þ20 wt% SiC 290.42 7 11.86
70 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Ti þ10 wt% SiC 295.817 11.18
80 wt% Ni þ 15 wt% Tiþ 5 wt% SiC 318.647 9.13
and phases of the alloyed surfaces. Metal matrix composites
reinforced with SiC particles and intermetallic phases were
formed in the alloyed layers. The predominant intermetallic
phases were Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, TiC and Ti5Si3. The Al3Ni, Al3Ni2
and Al3Ti phases were formed due to the reaction of Al with Ni
and Ti. The dissociation of SiC particles and reactions with Ti
resulted in the formation of TiC and Ti5Si3 phases. In alloys with a
high SiC content, Al4C3, Al4SiC4, Ti3SiC2 and Al3TiC2 intermetallic
phases were also formed from the reaction of the dissociated SiC
with either Al or Ti. A comprehensive study of the microstructures
produced by each powder composition and the methods used for
phase identification (EDS, XRD, phase diagrams, thermodynamic
calculations) can be found in Ref. [31]. The hardness results show
that laser alloying improved the surface hardness for all the
compositions used. Grain refinement, due to the rapid heating
and cooling rates associated with laser alloying plays a role in
increasing the hardness of the laser alloyed surfaces [32]. The
highest hardness was obtained when alloying with high Ni
contents.
Fig. 1 shows the typical wear behaviour of the materials during
the wear test. The wear response of all the alloys was initially
high during the first 10 min of testing followed by a levelling off
of the wear rate for the remainder of the test. Fig. 2 illustrates the
wear rates of all the alloyed surfaces after 60 min of wear. A
reduction in wear rate (or improved wear resistance) was found
in all the alloyed surfaces with the maximum reduction in wear of
82% observed when laser alloying with 40 wt% Niþ20 wt%
Tiþ40 wt% SiC. No correlation was observed between wear
response and hardness. The 80 wt% Niþ15 wt% Tiþ5 wt% SiC
alloy which had the highest hardness did not show the best wear
resistance. This alloy has the ninth highest wear rate of the fifteen
materials. The best wear resistance was shown by the alloy which
only had the eighth highest hardness.
From the SEM images of the worn surfaces similar features
were found on the wear scars of all the alloys. The degree to
which the different types of mechanisms occurred depended on
the alloying composition and phases present. Figs. 3–6 illustrate
the typical wear scars observed.
Fig. 3 shows the wear scars on the pure Al. Due to the high
ductility of aluminium, some of the fragmented SiO2 particles
were embedded in the deformed microstructure. During testing
the rubber wheel pushes the sand against the specimen leading to
point indentation of the SiO2 particles on the aluminium surface
under the applied load. Fig. 3(a) and (b) shows plastic deforma-
tion of the surface which is characterised by non-uniform ridges
and plastic flow. The extent of plastic deformation on the surface
is also evident on the cross-sections of the aluminium shown in
4 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
Table 3
Phases identified in the alloyed surfaces.
Powder composition
10 wt% Ni þ 70 wt% Tiþ 20 wt% SiC
20 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Tiþ 50 wt% SiC
20 wt% Ni þ 40 wt% Tiþ 40 wt% SiC
30 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Tiþ 40 wt% SiC
30 wt% Ni þ 40 wt% Tiþ 30 wt% SiC
33.3 wt% Ni þ 33.3 wt% Tiþ 33.3 wt% SiC
40 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Tiþ 40 wt% SiC
40 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Tiþ 30 wt% SiC
40 wt% Ni þ 40 wt% Tiþ 20 wt% SiC
50 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Tiþ 30 wt% SiC
60 wt% Ni þ 30 wt% Tiþ 10 wt% SiC
70 wt% Ni þ 10 wt% Tiþ 20 wt% SiC
70 wt% Ni þ 20 wt% Tiþ 10 wt% SiC
80 wt% Ni þ 15 wt% Ti þ5 wt% SiC
Fig. 2. Wear rate of untreated and laser alloyed aluminium surfaces. Numbers
correspond to alloy compositions listed in Table 1.
Fig. 3(c) and (d) which also highlights the extent and depth to
which the fragmented SiO2 abrasive particles were embedded in
the deformed aluminium. A few micro-cracks close to the surface
indicate that material removal occurred by progressive detach-
ment of the deformed material.
The worn surfaces of the alloyed layers was characterised by
plastic deformation mechanisms, fracture of the embedded SiC
particles and micro-fracture of the intermetallic phases as pre-
sented in Figs. 4–6. The plastic deformation observed in Figs. 4 and
5 is characterised by a non-uniform ridge structure where partial
delamination (Fig. 5(c)) of the deformed surface layers can also be
seen. Random paths of smearing are also present; these paths were
likely caused by the movement of wear debris during the wear test.
Sub-surface plastic deformation occurred in the laser alloyed
materials. This was evident in the cross-sections of the worn
surfaces where distortions in the microstructures were observed,
for example uniform changes in grain orientation in the direction
of motion of the abrasive. This deformation is caused by the cyclic
action of the abrasive over the surface under the influence of the
applied load. Lateral cracking seen in the cross-sectional views was
transgranular and contributed to delamination of the worn surface
layer as seen in Fig. 6(a) and (b). Fracturing of the SiC particles
(Fig. 6(c–e)) and transgranular cracking of the intermetallic matrix
(Fig. 6(f)) was also observed.
4. Discussion
A reduction in wear rate was observed for the laser alloyed
surfaces compared to the pure aluminium metal under three body
Phases observed
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ti and Ti5Si3
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3, Al3TiC2 and Al4SiC4
a-Al, Si, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3, Ti3SiC2 and Al4SiC4
a-Al, Si, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3, Ti3SiC2 and Al4SiC4
a-Al, Si, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3, Ti3SiC2 and Al4SiC4
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti and Ti5Si3
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3, Ti3SiC2 and Al4SiC4
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3 and Ti3SiC2
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3 and Ti3SiC2
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3 and Al4C3
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti and Ti5Si3
a-Al, SiC, TiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2, Al3Ti, Ti5Si3 and Al4C3
a-Al, SiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2 and Al3Ti
a-Al, SiC, Al3Ni, Al3Ni2 and Al3Ti
abrasion wear conditions. A maximum reduction in wear rate of
82% (compared to pure Al) was observed when laser alloying with
a 40 wt% Niþ20 wt% Tiþ40 wt% SiC powder composition. This
enhanced surface abrasive wear performance may be attributed
to a good combination of the tough aluminium matrix reinforced
with hard metal matrix composites and intermetallic and ceramic
phases.
One of the main results of the study was that no direct
correlation was observed between hardness and wear resistance.
Similar trends were found by others [16]. The alloy with the
highest hardness namely, the 80 wt% Niþ 15 wt% Ti þ5 wt% SiC
composition had the ninth highest wear rate of the fifteen
materials tested, while the best wear resistance was shown by
the alloy which only had the eighth highest hardness. The general
increase in hardness of the alloys is attributed to the presence of
the carbide (TiC, Al4SiC4,) and aluminide (Al3Ni, Al3N2) phases. TiC
has a hardness range of 2000–3000 HV [33] and was present in
alloys having both high hardness and high wear resistance, except
for the two hardest alloys which showed no traces of TiC. The
aluminides, Al3Ni and Al3Ni2, have hardnesses of 732 HV and
1013 HV respectively [34] and were present in most alloys. One of
the main phase differences in the five alloys which had the best
wear resistance and the five alloys which had the highest hard-
ness was the presence of the Ti3SiC2 and Al4SiC4 phases in the
alloys with the best wear resistance; these phases were not
present in alloys having high hardness values. Ti3SiC2 is known
to have a low hardness, but has a high Young’s modulus and a
high damage tolerance [35] while Al4SiC4 has a hardness of
1200 HV [15]. The presence of Al3Ti in all the alloys also led to
a strength increase in the alloys [36]. Despite the high hardness
values of some of the individual phases the overall average
hardness of the alloyed layers was in the range of 144–319 HV1.
Detailed analysis and discussion of the phases produced in the
alloyed surfaces and their contribution to hardness can be found
in references [31,37]. For the current discussion on the response
of the materials to abrasive wear it is sufficient to state that the
test results indicate that there is not a linear relationship between
alloy hardness and wear rate and therefore cannot be used as a
primary parameter to control the wear resistance of these alloys.
The wear behaviour is mainly determined by the response of the
different alloy phases, either independently or in combination, to
the action of the abrasive particles.
It has been shown that there is a direct correlation between
the microstructural properties, bonding and volume fraction of
the reinforcement particles in metal matrix composites and
intermetallic phases and their relationship to abrasive wear
[16,24,33]. The influence of volume fraction of reinforcement
phase on the abrasive wear has been studied by several authors;
 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9 5

Fig. 3. Worn surfaces of the untreated aluminium in (a) and (b) plan view; (c) and (d) cross-sections showing gross plastic deformation as well as embedded SiO2 abrasive
particles.

Fig. 4. SEM plan view images of wear scars of the laser alloyed surfaces showing typical features observed in all the alloyed layers. Images taken at low magnifications.
6 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
Fig. 5. SEM plan view images of wear scars of the laser alloyed surfaces showing typical features observed in all the alloyed layers. Images taken at high magnifications.
however contradictory results have been obtained. Some authors
reported that as the volume fraction increased the wear resis-
tance increased [23], while others observed the opposite trend
[24]. In an attempt to address these contradictions Colaco and
Vilar [16] developed a model which showed that while the
increase in volume fraction of reinforcement phase led to
increased hardness, the wear rates were influenced by the action
of the abrasive on the reinforcements which can cause cracking
and detachment of the reinforcements which may subsequently
lead to increased wear rates.
To a certain extent these factors determine if the alloyed
aluminium surfaces would respond homogenously or heteroge-
neously under the abrasive wear test conditions. The type of
response expected has been related to a comparison between the
size of the reinforcement particles and the dimension of damage
caused by the abrasive [24,28]. If the sizes are similar then a
heterogeneous response is expected and the hardness properties
of abrasive and reinforcement will determine the wear rates. If
the size of the reinforcement particles is much smaller than the
dimensions of the damage then the response is homogenous. In
the latter case the wear rates are influenced by the brittle
behaviour of the particles and matrix, the hardness of the
reinforcements and the abrasive as well as the volume fraction
of reinforcements present. These factors influence the wear
mechanisms which will prevail and determine the resulting
wear rates.
In the current study the worn surfaces did not display parallel
grooving which is typically observed under abrasion wear testing.
Rather gross plastic deformation as well as brittle fracture of the
SiC and intermetallic phases was observed. Thus the dimension of
damage done by the SiO2 abrasive could not be calculated. To
accurately assess this aspect it should be possible to conduct
scratch tests on the surfaces and to analyse the resulting wear
behaviour. This was not attempted in the current study. A partial
understanding of the material response can be gained by studying
the worn surfaces and comparing properties between the phases
present and the abrasive used. The largest reinforcement particle
size present was that of the retained SiC particles which had a
maximum size of at least 50 mm. The average SiO2 abrasive
particle size was 525 mm. On this basis it is likely that the alloyed
 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
Fig. 6. SEM images of cross-sections of the worn surfaces of the laser alloyed surfaces showing fractured SiC grains and micro-fracture of the intermetallic phases.
layers responded homogenously during wear. The precise nature
of the response in terms of linking increasing wear rates to
particle hardness, reinforcement volume fraction and phase
brittleness is more complex due to the wide range of reinforce-
ment phases present.
If the alloyed surfaces were treated as having a ‘pure’ homo-
geneous response and the hardness of the SiO2 abrasive, 800 HV
[33], is compared to the composite hardness, which ranged from
144 to 319 HV1, the ratio of the hardness of the abrasive particles
to the hardness of the alloyed surfaces (Ha/Hm) is in the range of
2.5–5.6. These calculated ratios are greater than 1.2 which sig-
nifies the boundary condition between soft and hard abrasion as
defined by Hutchings [33] and would therefore place the abrasive
wear of the alloyed surfaces in the hard abrasion category. This
classification would confer with the extent of hard abrasion
damage mechanisms observed on the wear scars of the alloyed
surfaces. If the individual reinforcement hardnesses are used,
then the Ha/Hm ratios span a range of values on either side of the
7
1.2 boundary condition and the wear rates are then influenced by
the ability of the SiO2 abrasive to plastically deform, fracture or
cause detachment of the particles from the matrix and would be
strongly influenced by the volume fraction of each reinforcement
phase present, the matrix properties and the applied stress during
testing. The applied stress was calculated to be 0.02 MPa but the
actual pressure is expected to be higher than this as the real
contact area between individual abrasive particles and the alloyed
surface is lower than the surface area of 420 mm2 used to
calculate the nominal stress. For each alloyed layer produced
the strength properties of the specific phases (matrix and rein-
forcement) present, would determine that phase’s response to the
applied pressure. This would lead to different wear mechanisms
being experienced by the different phases and ultimately result in
a variety of measured wear rates.
The influence of increasing reinforcement volume fraction
showed a variable wear response and cannot be easily quantified
as the alloying compositions were not kept constant for a wide
8 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
range of compositions. However a few deductions can be made.
When the Ni volume fraction was kept constant at 40 wt%, the
wear rate increased as the Ti volume fraction increased along
with a simultaneous decrease in the SiC volume fraction. When
the Ti volume fraction was kept constant at 40 wt%, the wear rate
increased with a decrease in SiC content, but no linear effect was
observed as the Ni volume fraction was simultaneously
decreased. When the SiC volume fraction was kept constant at
40 wt%, no linear relationships were observed with increasing the
Ti and decreasing the Ni volume fractions simultaneously. It is
noted that the three alloys which had the best wear resistance
were all produced with a composition of 40 wt% SiC and Ti and Ni
powders ranging from 20 to 40 wt%. Due to the influence of laser
processing conditions on the amount of dissolution and reaction
rates, the final proportions of each phase in the alloyed layers are
likely to change. Thus in order to state which composition would
ultimately produce the best wear resistance the final proportions
of each phase in the alloyed layers should be accurately deter-
mined. Due to the complex nature of the alloy system investi-
gated and the variety in phase morphologies present this proved
to be difficult; even qualitative results by EDS is considered
misleading.
Abrasive wear generally occurs by plastic flow, plastic defor-
mation, brittle fracture or combinations of the different modes
[18] and in this work all modes were observed. The presence of
intermetallic phases such as Al3Ni and Al3Ti together with the soft
a-Al in the inter-dendritic regions constituted a favourable
combination with these hard phases resisting abrasion and the
soft aluminium phase suppressing macro-crack growth in these
regions. The same behaviour was observed by Man et al. [36] who
studied the abrasive wear of aluminium AA6061 laser surface
alloyed with NiTi and reported that wear generally occurred by
micro-cracking and flaking of the surface. The brittleness of the
material has been shown to increase with increasing proportion
of reinforcement particles [23]. In a study on the relationship
between hardness and brittleness of intermetallic phases Guo
et al. [38] reported that hardness and brittleness of the inter-
metallic phases play a role in determining which phase would
have more wear resistance. Phases that have a high hardness and
are less brittle will have better wear resistance but when ductility
is low (for brittle phases) fracture occurs leading to high wear
rates. This may be the reason for the high wear rates observed by
the high-Ni alloys which showed the highest hardness, but did
not have the best wear resistance mainly due to the brittle
fracture of the aluminides.
The role of the mean free path between reinforcements has
also been reported to play a role in the wear resistance of
multiphase materials. Axén and Zum Gahr [39] studied the sliding
wear resistance of a tool steel 90MnCrV8 reinforced with TiC
particles and concluded that the mean free path (defined as the
average spacing between reinforcement particles) also plays an
important role during wear. Matrix protection is improved by a
reduced mean free path between the reinforcing particles. Large
reinforcement particles result in an increased mean free path
which ultimately results in reduced wear resistance. The effect of
the size of the reinforcements was also found to depend on the
matrix structure. Small reinforcement particles are of greater
advantage within a hard matrix than large particles within a soft
matrix [39]. It is well known that a high volume fraction of small
particles will result in low mean free paths which would generally
lead to a high wear resistance; this is based on the theory of
dispersion strengthening [33]. In the current study the alloyed
layers with small Al mean free paths had high wear rates as brittle
fracture was promoted by the formation of high densities of the
hard and brittle intermetallic and ceramic phases in which
cracking of the intermetallic phases and fracturing of the SiC
particles were observed. The Ti containing and the Al–SiC inter-
metallic phases resulted in large Al mean free paths. This
promoted wear by plastic deformation. In a few instances the
hard phases, e.g. the equiaxed dendritic Al3Ni2 grains and the SiC
particles, were also seen to interrupt plastic deformation. Fracture
of the SiC particles and intermetallic phases can be reduced if
narrower distributions of starting powders were used to ensure
either complete dissolution of the SiC particles or to limit
retention of larger particles. It has been shown that if the extent
of cracking or extraction of reinforcement particles is negligible,
then the abrasive wear resistance may be improved [16].
The hard intermetallic phases probably cracked due to
repeated loading and the stresses applied during wear and these
micro-cracks facilitated material removal as wear progressed.
Fracturing of the embedded SiC particles also occurred due to
cyclic loading but the strong bonding between the particles and
the matrix ensured that decohesion (interfacial debonding and
pull-out) of the SiC particles was prevented. A strong interfacial
bond between the reinforcements and the matrix is important.
When the bond is weak the reinforcements are easily pulled out
during wear and can act as additional abrasives thereby increas-
ing the wear rate, as was observed by reference [39]. Due to the
strong interfacial bonding and prior to fracture, the embedded SiC
particles in the MMCs probably led to lower wear rates in alloys
where these particles were present in high volume fractions. This
strong bond between the matrix and the reinforcements is
formed by a reaction between the ceramic particles and the metal
matrix at the metal/ceramic interface and therefore it is not easy
to detach these particles from the matrix even though they have
fractured. In wear tests conducted on Al–7 wt% Si laser alloyed
with SiC, Anandkumar et al. [15] observed discontinuous wear
grooves confined to the matrix on the worn surfaces and reported
that the hard SiC reinforcement particles interrupted the abrasive
grooving action.
Deeper analysis is required to fully understand the response of
the alloyed layers to abrasive wear and to quantify the role of
each individual phase in contributing to the overall wear perfor-
mance. Existing models based on the abrasive wear of multiphase
materials are generally limited to the addition of one reinforce-
ment phase in varying proportions to a constant matrix. In the
current work three reinforcement materials were added to a
constant matrix which produced a wide variety of reinforcement
phases. Due to the complex nature of the investigated systems a
model to understand the abrasive wear has not been attempted in
the present work. Existing models may be used to explain the
behaviour of individual phases, e.g. fracture of the SiC and micro-
cracking of intermetallic particles. However the application of
these models is limited as they do not provide a holistic view of
both the individual and the combined phase response of the
investigated system under abrasive wear conditions.
5. Conclusions
In general laser alloying improved the wear resistance of the
aluminium AA1200 surface with an improvement of 19–82% was
achieved. The three alloys which had the best wear resistance
were all produced with a composition of 40 wt% SiC and Ti and Ni
powders ranging from 20 to 40 wt%. No direct correlation was
observed between hardness and wear resistance. The alloy with
the highest hardness had the ninth highest wear rate while the
best wear resistance was shown by the alloy which only had the
eighth highest hardness. The predominant wear mechanisms
were intense plastic deformation with micro-fracture of the SiC
particles and intermetallic phases. The wear behaviour is mainly
determined by the response of the different alloy phases, either
 L.A.B Mabhali et al. / Wear 290–291 (2012) 1–9
independently or in combination, to the action of the abrasive
particles and the precise nature of this response in terms of
linking increasing wear rates to specific phases, particle hardness,
reinforcement volume fraction and phase brittleness is complex
due to the wide range of reinforcement phases present and
requires further study.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the Department of Science and Technology and the Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa. The University
of the Witwatersrand in South Africa is also acknowledged for
technical support.
References
[1] S. Tomida, K. Nakata, Surface and Coatings Technology 174–175 (2003)
559–563.
[2] L.R. Katipelli, A. Agarwal, N.B. Dahotre, Applied Surface Science 153 (2000)
65–78.
[3] H.C. Man, S. Zhang, F.T. Cheng, Materials Letters 61 (2007) 4058–4061.
[4] A. Almeida, et al., Surface and Coatings Technology 70 (1995) 221–229.
[5] N. Ravi, et al., Materials and Manufacturing Processes 15 (3) (2000) 395–404.
[6] M.H. Staia, M. Cruz, N.B. Dahotre, Wear 251 (2001) 1459–1468.
[7] M. Kok, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 161 (2005) 381–387.
[8] M.H. Staia, M. Cruz, N.B. Dahotre, Thin Solid Films 377–378 (2000) 665–674.
[9] A. Almeida, et al., Surface and Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 4782–4790.
[10] K. Elleuch, S. Mezlini, N. Guermazi, Ph. Kapsa, Wear 261 (2006) 1316–1321.
[11] Y. S- ahin, Tribology International 43 (2010) 939–943.
[12] T. Miyajima, Y. Iwai, Wear 255 (2003) 606–616.
9
[13] J.D. Majumdar, B.L. Mordike, I. Manna, Wear 242 (2000) 18–27.
[14] P.H. Shipway, A.R. Kennedy, A.J. Wilkes, Wear 216 (1998) 160–171.
[15] R. Anandkumar, et al., Surface and Coatings Technology 201 (2007)
9497–9505.
[16] R. Colaco, R. Vilar, Wear 254 (2003) 625–634.
[17] R. Anandkumar, et al., Surface and Coatings Technology 205 (2011)
3824–3832.
[18] A. Almeida, et al., Materials Science and Engineering A 303 (2001) 273–280.
[19] A. Almeida, R. Vilar, Scripta Materialia 63 (2010) 811–814.
[20] J.D. Majumdar, et al., Surface and Coatings Technology 201 (2006)
1236–1242.
[21] J.D. Majumdar, et al., Wear 262 (2007) 641–648.
[22] J.D. Majumdar, et al., Materials Science Engineering A 433 (2006) 241–250.
[23] J.W. Liou, L.H. Chen, T.S. Lui, Journal of Materials Science 30 (1995) 258–262.
[24] K.-H. Zum-Ghar, Tribology International 31 (10) (1998) 587–596.
[25] M.M. Krushkov, Wear 28 (1974) 69–88.
[26] W.M. Garrison, Wear 82 (1982) 213–220.
[27] N. Axen, I.M. hutchings, S. Jacobson, Tribology International 29 (6) (1996)
467–475.
[28] I.M. Hutchings, Materials Science and Technology 10 (1994) 513–517.
[29] E. Rabinowicz, Friction and Wear of Materials, Wiley, New York, 1965.
[30] American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Test Method for Measuring
Abrasion Using the Dry Sand/Rubber Wheel Apparatus, ASTM G65-04, 2004.
[31] L.A.B. Mabhali, Laser Surface Alloying and In-Situ Formation of Aluminium
Metal Composites Reinforced With Ceramics and Intermetallics, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, 2011.
[32] Z. Brytan, et al., Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing
Engineering 40 (1) (2010) 70–78.
[33] I.M Hutchings, Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials,
Edward Arnold, 2002.
[34] M.A. Zamzam, et al., Materials and Design 23 (2002) 161-138.
[35] J. Lis, et al., Ceramics International 19 (1993) 219–222.
[36] H.C. Man, S. Zhang, F.T. Cheng, Materials Letters 61 (2007) 4058–4061.
[37] L.A.B. Mabhali, et al., Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals 555 (1) (2012)
138–148.
[38] B. Guo, et al., Surface and Coatings Technology 202 (2008) 4121–4129.
[39] N. Axén, K.H. Zum Gahr, Wear 157 (1992) 189–201.