JOM

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-018-2774-7
Ó 2018 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

METAL AND POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITES

New-Generation Aluminum Composite with Bottom Ash

Industrial Waste
1,2,3
A.K. MANDAL and O.P. SINHA1

1.—Department of Metallurgical Engineering, IIT (BHU), Varanasi, Varanasi, India. 2.—e-mail:

arup9180@yahoo.co.in. 3.—e-mail: akmandal.ts@iitbhu.ac.in

Industrial waste bottom ash (BA) from a pulverized coal combustion boiler
containing hard wear-resistant particles was utilized in this study to form an
aluminum composite through a liquid metallurgy route. Composites com-
prising 5 wt.% and 10 wt.% bottom ash were characterized for their physio-
chemical, microstructural, mechanical, as well as tribological properties, along
with pure aluminum. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) microstructure
revealed uniform distribution of BA particles throughout the matrix of the
composite, whereas x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis confirmed presence of
aluminosilicate phase. Addition of 10 wt.% BA improved the Brinell hardness
number (BHN) from 13 to 19 and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) from
71 MPa to 87 MPa, whereas ductility was adversely reduced after 5% BA
addition. Incorporation of BA particles resulted in reduced dry sliding wear
rates examined up to 80 N load compared with aluminum. Hence, such com-
posites having lower cost could be applied as significantly hard, wear-resistant
materials in applications in the automotive industry.

Bottom ash is an inert vitrified material con-

INTRODUCTION
Fly ash, a waste byproduct of coal-based thermal
power plants, has been successfully dispersed into
cast and wrought aluminum alloys to form light-
weight aluminum–fly ash (ALFA) composites. Use
of such composites with lower density and adequate
properties has been confirmed for several automo-
tive applications.1,2 It is expected that, by 2020,
India will produce over 190 million tons of coal
combustion residues. Therefore, such materials will
be freely available at almost no cost, requiring only
costs associated with enhancement and
transportation.3–5
Powder or liquid metallurgy techniques are the
primary routes used for preparing particulate com-
posites by injecting reinforcement particles into a
solid/semisolid or liquid matrix.6–9 The liquid met-
allurgy route is preferred due to its inexpensive
processes, amongst which stir casting is the cheap-
est. Therefore, it is widely used for preparing
particulate-filled metal-matrix composites
(MMCs).10–12 However, nonuniform distribution of
the particulate material due to its poor wettability
and gravity-regulated segregation is a common
problem associated with this process.
taining silica and alumina as a combined alumi-
nosilicate phase, being a tough and wear-resistant
material.3,13 It has been proposed that bottom ash
could be used as road base material, although its
large-scale utilization requires further maturation.
Bottom ash has higher density than fly ash,
favoring its addition to aluminum melt. That also
explains why the retention of bottom ash in the
melt will be higher, resulting in uniform distribu-
tion of bottom ash at higher content. Breakage of
hollow cenospheres at higher loads degrades the
properties of such composites, whereas the non-
hollow structure of bottom ash could enhance the
properties of composites.3,14 Rohatgi et al. per-
formed testing of the abrasive wear properties of
an aluminum casting alloy A356–fly ash composite
and the base alloy simultaneously for comparison.
It was observed in that study that addition of
lower-density fly ash decreased the density as well
as wear rate of the composite. However, above
load of 8 N, debonding and fracture of fly ash
particles are responsible for increasing the wear
rate of the composite to a level higher than that of
the base alloy. Fractured fly ash particles accu-
mulate in spaces between abrading particles,

resulting in two- and three-body wear.15 The
objective of the present study is to prepare alu-
minum–bottom ash composites with improved
quality for mechanical and tribological
applications.
EXPERIMENTAL
Materials and Characterization
The materials used in this investigation were
commercially pure aluminum and thermal power
plant waste material (bottom ash). The bottom ash
sample was collected from a pulverized coal injec-
tion boiler with capacity of 250 MW of DPL, Dur-
gapur, West Bengal, India. Pure aluminum was
procured from a local dealer in Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh, India. The specific gravity of the samples
was determined by water pycnometer as per ASTM
method.16 The specific surface area of bottom ash
particles was measured by standard Brunauer–
Emmett–Teller (BET) analysis (SMART SORB 92/
93) based on the gas absorption/desorption isotherm
using liquid N2 at 77 K as per ASTM C1069.17
Chemical analysis of samples was carried out by x-
ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis (ARL OPTIM’X x-
ray analyzer). X-ray diffraction analysis was per-
formed on the sample using a RIGAKU D-MAX IIIB
at scan rate of 3°/min in the range from 3° to 85°.
Various physicochemical properties of the raw
materials are presented in Supplementary
Table SI. Major constituents of the bottom ash were
silica and alumina, as indicated by the XRF results,
in combined aluminosilicate form. These properties
motivated the formation of aluminum–bottom ash
composites. The size, shape, and texture of the
materials were observed by SEM [QUANTA 200F at
20 kV with scan rate of 10 ls using an Everhart–
Thornley detector (ETD)], revealing that the bottom
ash was relatively coarser with irregular, rough
surface texture, as shown in Supplementary Fig. S1.
The main particle size of the raw bottom ash lay in
the sand range, as shown in Supplementary Fig. S2.
Preparation of Composite Samples
The required amount of commercially pure alu-
minum was melted in a graphite crucible inside a
resistance-heated muffle furnace as shown in Sup-
plementary Fig. S3. The melt temperature was
raised to 1073 K, and the melt was degassed by
purging argon gas. The pulverized bottom ash
particles with size of 50 lm were preheated to
423 K for 5 h to remove moisture. After degassing of
each melt, preheated bottom ash particles were
added at different wt.% values (5, 10, 15, and 20)
separately into the vortex formed in the melt by
stirring with a graphite stirrer attached to an
electric motor. The speed of the stirrer was opti-
mized and maintained at 500 rpm to achieve uni-
form mixing of the bottom ash in the melt.
Mandal and Sinha
Fig. 1. Stress–strain diagram of pure aluminum and composite.
Testing Methodology
Bottom ash retention in the composite was deter-
mined by chemical extraction method, dissolving
the composite in 20% hydrochloric acid solution.
The amounts of bottom ash addition and retention
in the composite are presented in Supplementary
Table SI. Compared with earlier reported values of
fly ash retention inside pure aluminum composite,
made under similar condition, greater retention of
bottom ash was observed.18 It is clear from the
table that the retention ratio of bottom ash in the
aluminum composite was not uniform. Therefore,
two composites having 5.1% ( 5%) and 9.9%
( 10%) bottom ash with pure aluminum were
selected for the present study.
The bulk density values of pure aluminum and
both composites were determined by water displace-
ment method as per ASTM C-20.19 SEM imaging
and XRD analysis were also performed to investi-
gate the second-phase particle morphology and their
distribution in the composite.
Brinell hardness number was determined by
applying load of 500 kg using a steel ball indenter
with diameter of 10 mm. Standard specimens with
gauge length of 15.5 mm and sample diameter of
4.5 mm were used for tensile testing to measure the
UTS and % elongation of the composite as well as
the base metal using an INSTRON machine at
constant loading rate of 0.5 mm/s. Stress–strain
curves for pure aluminum and both composites are
shown in Fig. 1. The SEM image of the fracture
surface after the tensile test is shown in Fig. 2. The
results of analysis conducted on the composites and
pure aluminum are summarized in Table I.
The wear characteristics of pure aluminum and
both composites were evaluated under dry sliding
condition in adherence to ASTM G99-05(2010)
standard under atmospheric conditions (1 atm,
30 ± 1°C) using a DUCOM wear friction monitor
New-Generation Aluminum Composite with Bottom Ash Industrial Waste
Fig. 2. SEM image after tensile fracture of (a) pure aluminum, (b) 5 wt.% composite, and (c) 10 wt.% composite.
Table I. Physical properties of composites
Property Pure Al
Density (g/cc) 2.26
Hardness (BHN) 13
UTS (MPa) 71.20
Fracture strength (MPa) 44.05
Strain 0.3646
% Elongation 26.5
Young’s modulus (MPa) 3245
(model-TR 20 LE) at sliding speed of 1 m/s and
sliding distance up to 3600 m at different loads (10–
80 N).20 Wear test specimens with diameter of
8 mm and minimum length of 30 mm at the rubbing
end were used. Pins of samples (unreinforced and
composite) were tested against EN32 hardened steel
disc (62HRC). Many authors have observed that the
wear rate is greater at lower velocity, so a speed of
1 m/s was chosen.12,14,15
After load of 80 N, the test was stopped due to
sticking of the pin above the disk; therefore, the test
was restricted to 80 N. A similar result was
observed by Sudarshan and Surappa.14 Each exper-
iment was repeated thrice, and the averages of close
repeatable test values were taken.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The amount of bottom ash retained in the com-
posites showed a decreasing tendency with increas-
ing amount of addition. At lower addition (5 wt.%),
almost 60% yield was observed, gradually decreas-
ing to 49.5% for addition of 20 wt.% bottom ash.
This occurred due to the difference between the bulk
density values of aluminum and bottom ash, result-
ing in their separation. Addition of bottom ash
decreased the bulk density of the composite. XRD
analysis and SEM proved presence of aluminosili-
cate phases and their uniform distribution through-
out the matrix of the composite, as shown in
Supplementary Fig. S4. The increasing hardness
and tensile strength along with % elongation of the
5 wt.% BA 10 wt.% BA
2.22 2.18
15 19
84.37 87.74
64.72 84.34
0.4621 0.2612
29.0 27.5
1622 2460
composite demonstrate its enhanced toughness
compared with the base metal up to 5 wt.% bottom
ash addition, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table I. During
solidification of aluminum, bottom ash particles
help to nucleate aluminum grains, and also restrict
their growth as foreign particles are mainly present
in grain-boundary regions.21 This combined effect
decreased the grain size of the aluminum; therefore,
addition of bottom ash resulted in grain refinement,
as evidenced by observation of finer dimples on the
tensile fracture surface compared with pure alu-
minum. On increasing the bottom ash content
beyond 5 wt.%, the hardness and UTS values
increased due to the presence of the hard second-
phase particles, but brittleness occurred inside the
composite, resulting in lower elongation values.
With increasing bottom ash content, segregation of
the bottom ash particles increased, mainly in grain-
boundary regions. The nonmetallic nature of the
bottom ash particles resisted plastic deformation
but failed suddenly when applying load without
prior indication. Therefore, the composite contain-
ing 10% bottom ash showed lower elongation and
higher tensile strength values. The only ductile
fracture was observed in the case of pure aluminum,
as pure aluminum is ductile and contains no second-
phase particles in the matrix. Mixed-mode fracture
was found in the case of the 5 wt.% bottom ash
composite due to presence of fine grains as well as
hard second-phase particles. Brittle fracture was
found in the case of the 10 wt.% bottom ash
 Mandal and Sinha

Fig. 3. Wear properties of pure aluminum and composite (a) wear rate vs applied load, (b) friction coefficient vs applied load.

Fig. 4. SEM of wear surface at 40 N load of (a) pure aluminum, (b) 5 wt.% composite, and (c) 10 wt.% composite and photographs of wear
surface at 80 N load of (d) pure aluminum, (e) 5 wt.% composite, and (f) 10 wt.% composite.

composite due to presence of a greater amount of
hard and brittle second-phase particles (Fig. 2).
This explains why increased strength along with
ductility was observed for the 5 wt.% composite
whereas high strength and low ductility were found
in case of the 10 wt.% composite.
The results of the dry sliding wear test revealed a
lower wear rate in case of the 10 wt.% composite
compared with pure aluminum (Fig. 3a). Increasing
the bottom ash content decreased the wear rate
gradually due to the increased presence of hard
second-phase particles which resist material trans-
fer. On increasing the load applied during testing,
the wear rate increased for all samples. In the case
of pure aluminum, the wear rate was directly
proportional to the applied load, whereas for the
composites, after a specific applied load, a drastic
increase in wear rate was observed. For pure
aluminum, the wear rate was mild up to loads of
40 N. The wear rate increased drastically when the
load was increased from 40 N to 60 N. Significant
material transfer from the pin to the steel disc was
also observed at these high loads. Patches of Al were
seen on the wear tracks, possibly indicating melting
and subsequent smearing of pin material onto the
surface of the steel disk. The amount of material
transferred onto the disc was more pronounced at
load of 80 N. This indicates a transition from mild to
New-Generation Aluminum Composite with Bottom Ash Industrial Waste
severe wear when the load exceeded 40 N. Above
load of 80 N, excessive wear occurred, and the test
could not be performed for aluminum. This is due to
generation of excess heat, which softens the alu-
minum and results in a viscous nature, sticking the
aluminum sample to the rotating disk. For the
composites, above a certain load, the wear rate
increased to a greater extent due to delamination of
second-phase particles. The wear surface for load of
40 N was examined by SEM, revealing that adhe-
sive wear was most dominating for pure aluminum
whereas abrasive wear was dominant for the com-
posites, as shown in Fig. 4a–c. Beyond load of 40 N,
the wear phenomena changed drastically. With
increasing load, it was observed that pure alu-
minum showed lower wear rate compared with the
composites. At higher load, due to generation of
high frictional force, excess removal of materials
generated more heat, which softened the surface of
the aluminum, and delamination of the material did
not occur, resulting in formation of elephant’s tusk
(Fig. 4d). The formation of elephant trunks
decreased with increasing bottom ash content
(Fig. 4e and f). With increasing applied load, the
friction coefficient gradually decreased, due to
removal of large quantities of wear debris particles
from the wear surface and filling of the empty
spaces between abrasive particles, thereby decreas-
ing the adequate depth of penetration. As wear
debris particles are loose, they can also start sliding
at the interface between the pin material and
abrasive, which reduces grooving of the matrix
while simultaneously decreasing the effectiveness of
the cutting force, as has been mentioned by many
authors. In the composites, as delaminated second-
phase particles can act as an abrasive material,
resulting in three-body abrasion (i.e., disk, pin, and
particles), the friction coefficient increased.12,14 The
coefficient of friction depends upon the adhesion of
the surface, which is increased at higher load in
case of pure aluminum due to patches of the melted
product of aluminum, whereas for the composite, it
occurs due to the three-body abrasion between the
pin, disk, and second-phase particles. Mahanthesh
and Umashankar studied the mechanical properties
of a composite formed from aluminum alloy (6061)
reinforced with particulate bottom ash by a liquid
metallurgy route, although the tribological proper-
ties of that bottom ash–aluminum composite were
not determined.22
CONCLUSION
From the results of the present study, it can be
concluded that retention of bottom ash in aluminum
is higher compared with fly ash due to the denser
structure of bottom ash.
The composite with 5 wt.% bottom ash exhibited
good toughness with increased strength and ductil-
ity values, whereas the composite with > 5 wt.%
bottom ash showed increased values of strength and
hardness and wear properties, but lost ductility.
They could be used effectively up to applied load of
40 N.
The wear behavior changed drastically at loads
above 40 N, and the test could not be performed
above the 80 N load condition due to significant
material transfer from the pin to steel disc. Patches
of Al were seen on the wear tracks, indicating
possible melting and subsequent smearing of pin
material onto the surface of the steel disk.
Based on the experimental results, such alu-
minum composites could indeed be formed using
industrial waste materials such as bottom ash as
reinforcement through a liquid metallurgy route.
The produced composite with 5% bottom ash repre-
sents a significantly hard, tough, and wear-resistant
material for use in applications in the automotive
industry.
ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY
MATERIAL
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11837-018-2774-7) contains supplemen-
tary material, which is available to authorized
users.
REFERENCES
1. P.K. Rohatgi, R. Guo, B.N. Keshavarm, and D.M. Golden,
AFS Trans. 103, 575 (1995).
2. R.Q. Guo, P.K. Rohatgi, and S. Ray, Trans. Am. Foundrym.
Soc. 104, 1097 (1996).
3. A.K. Mandal and O.P. Sinha, J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 95, 277
(2014).
4. P.K. Rohatgi, D. Weiss, and N. Gupta, JOM 58, 71 (2006).
5. P.K. Rohatgi, JOM 46, 55 (1994).
6. M.J. Koczak and M.K. Premkumar, JOM 45, 44 (1993).
7. P.C. Maity, P.N. Chakraborty, and S.C. Panigrahi, Mater.
Lett. 20, 93 (1994).
8. A.K. Kuruvilla, K.S. Prasad, V.V. Bhanuprasad, and Y.R.
Mahajan, Scr. Metall. Mater. 24, 873 (1990).
9. P.C. Maity, S.C. Panigrahi, and P.N. Chakraborty, Scr.
Metall. Mater. 28, 549 (1993).
10. V.V. Monikandan, M.A. Joseph, and P.K. Rajendrakumar,
Resour. Technol. 2, S12 (2016).
11. N. Kumar, R.K. Gautam, and S. Mohan, Mater. Des. 80,
129 (2015).
12. N. Kumar, G. Gautam, R.K. Gautam, A. Mohan, and S.
Mohan, Tribol. Int. 97, 313 (2016).
13. J.-Y. Hwang, X. Huang, and A.M. Hein, JOM 46, 36 (1994).
14. Sudarshan and M.K. Surappa, Wear 265, 349 (2008).
15. P.K. Rohatgi, R.Q. Guo, P. Huang, and S. Ray, Metall.
Mater. Trans. A 28, 245 (1997).
16. ASTM C135, Standard Test Method for True Specific
Gravity of Refractory Materials by Water Immersion (West
Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2015).

17. ASTM C1069, Standard Test Method for Specific Surface
Area of Alumina or Quartz by Nitrogen Adsorption (West
Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2014).
18. S. Sarkar, S. Sen, S.C. Mishra, M.K. Kudelwar, and S.
Mohan, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 29, 144 (2010).
19. ASTM C20, Standard Test Methods for Apparent Porosity,
Water Absorption, Apparent Specific Gravity, and Bulk
Density of Burned Refractory Brick and Shapes by Boiling
Water (West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2010).
Mandal and Sinha
20. ASTM G99, Standard Test Method for Wear Testing with a
Pin-on-Disk Apparatus (West Conshohocken: ASTM
International, 2017).
21. V. Singh, Preparation and Property Evaluation of Alu-
minium Alloy (6061) Reinforced with Bottom Ash Particu-
late Composite (ALBAP Composite), 4th ed. (Delhi:
Standard Publishers Distributors, 2005).
22. G. Mahanthesh and Umashankar, Int. J. Sci. Res. 1, 192
(2013).