Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-020-00390-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Evaluation of Fracture Mechanisms in Al-Si Metal Matrix

Nanocomposites Produced by Three Methods of Gravity Sand
Casting, Squeeze Casting and Compo Casting in Semi-Solid State
Mohsen Ostad Shabani 1,2 & Amir Baghani 3 & Ali Khorram 4 & Fatemeh Heydari 5

Received: 7 September 2019 / Accepted: 10 January 2020 / Published online: 29 January 2020
# Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Magnetic stirring is considered to be the most useful stirring method in semi-solid casting processes which doesn’t have the
restrictions of the mechanical stirring. In this research, fracture mechanisms of aluminum-Al2O3 nanocomposites produced by
three methods of gravity sand casting, squeeze casting and compo casting in semi-solid state using electromagnetic stirring were
studied and discussed. For this purpose, microstructure and fracture surfaces obtained from broken tensile test samples were
analyzed using optical and scanning electron microscopies. On the fracture surfaces of all the samples, dimples were observed,
which are the sign of ductile fracture. It was revealed that the dimples on the samples produced by the compo casting method are
smaller, more spherical and uniformly distributed in the metal matrix in comparison with the ones from sand and squeeze casting.
It also investigated that on the fracture surfaces of compo casting samples less cleavage planes, dendritic fracture and particles
agglomeration were observed in comparison with the ones from the sand and squeeze casting processes.

Keywords Nano . Metal matrix . Casting . Fractography . Silicone . Al-Si . A356

1 Introduction Mechanical properties of aluminum matrix composites de-

Aluminum A356 alloy has been used in permanent mold cast-
ing especially where no specific heat treatment is required
[1–6] and also in production of thin sections which are not
subjected to very high forces [7–11]. Low contraction and
high castability has made A356 alloy a reliable option partic-
ularly for high pressure die casting [12–14]. In addition, this
alloy exhibits excellent properties when solidified at high
cooling rates, [15–18]. Accordingly, aviation and automotive
industries have been the biggest consumers of aluminum cast-
ing components [19, 20].
* Mohsen Ostad Shabani
vahid_ostadshabany@yahoo.com; M.O.Shabani@aut.ac.ir
1
Materials and Energy Research Center (MERC), Tehran, Iran
2
Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of mechanical engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, IA, USA
4
K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
5
Iran University of Industries and Mines (IUIM), Tehran, Iran
pend on the casting method, matrix and reinforcements. The
casting method is recognized to be the most important param-
eter which affects the distribution of the ceramic reinforce-
ments and interfacial coherency between matrix and reinforce-
ments [21, 22]. Aluminum matrix composites have been pro-
ducing in both liquid and solid states. The particle-reinforced
aluminum composites can be easily produced by the aim of
stir casting method which has been attracting considerable
interest because of being inexpensive and covering a wide
range of alloy compositions [23, 24].
In metal matrix composites, matrix-reinforcement inter-
faces are the stress concentration locations, where external
loads expected to be damped by reinforcements. In metal
matrix-reinforcement interface, there exists a transition from
a soft and deformable matrix to a high strength ceramic mate-
rial which withstands much of the load [25–28]. In order to
transfer mechanical loads to the reinforcements smoothly
without any failure at the interface, an adequate wettability
is required between the reinforcing particles and the metal
matrix to obtain a strong bonding [29–31]. Stronger bonding,
which is formed by the reaction between the ceramic particle
and the metal matrix, result in higher strength composite [27,
32–35].
2978
Among all production methods, stir casting is set to be-
come the most economically efficient method [36–38]. The
advantage of this method is being easy to use, low cost, flex-
ibility and the ability to use it for mass production. This is the
most cost-effective method for producing metal matrix com-
posites which allows production of heavy section casting
components [39–41]. The cost of producing these composites
by casting is about one third to half of the other methods,
which in mass production it is reduced to one tenth.
The performance of nanocomposites evaluate with analysis
of fracture surfaces. To have a precise fracture analysis a per-
fect understanding of fracture mechanisms are required. A
fracture can be started from the damaged surface (corrosion
or abrasion damage) or occurred because of overloading, ex-
cessive plastic deformation or internal defects such as cracks,
porosities and voids, [42–44]. Many factors have been inves-
tigated to describe and categorize the types of fractures that
occur in the laboratory as well as during the service [45, 46].
These factors can be summarized as loading conditions, crack
growth rates, microscopic and macroscopic appearance of
fracture surfaces [47, 48]. In macroscopic scale, fracture is
classified as ductile or brittle fracture, fatigue fracture and
fractures that occur due to the combination of stress and the
environmental effects. Frequently, fractures are a combination
of one or two mechanisms [19, 26, 49–54].
Countless number of dimples are characteristic of a ductile
fracture surface which correspond to the nucleation and growth
of microvoids that initiate crack formation. However, in brittle
fracture usually there is no plastic deformation and crack prop-
agates fast and perpendicular to the direction of applied load
along cleavage planes. From the crystallographic point of view,
metals with the HCP unit cell can withstand slip and cleavage
on a plate, while this occurs in BCC metals on different planes
[55–57]. On the other hand, in FCC metals usually there is no
cleavage fracture. In this study, the fracture surfaces of alumi-
num nanocomposites produced by three different casting pro-
cesses were analyzed to reach the most efficient method.
Optical emission microscopy and scanning electron microsco-
py were used to study microstructures and fracture surfaces.
2 Experimental Procedure
Aluminum alloy A356 was used as the metal matrix in this
study, (Table 1). 1.8 wt% weight percentage of alumina pow-
der Al2O3 with characteristic lenght of 100 nm was used as
Table 1 Chemical composition of aluminum A356 matrix
Sn Pb Ni Cr Ti Zn Mg Mn Cu Fe Si
<0.01 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.20 0.25 0.3 7.10
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987
reinforcing ceramic particles. This 1.8 wt% content of Al2O3
provides the optimum properties for this composite according
to the previous study [3, 56, 58]. In order to improve the
wettability between the secondary phase particles and the
melt, powders were mixed and prepared as follows:
25 wt%Al2 O3 þ 25 wt%Mg þ 50 wt%Al:
Magnesium is used to increase the wettability of particles and
compensate the magnesium lost during the melt preparation,
pouring and composite production process. The powders were
then pressed as tablets with diameter and thickness of 10 mm
and 2 mm respectively, Fig. 1. The pressure was so low that only
the powders were stuck together and when the powders were
thrown into the melt the pills dissolved in the melt. The reason
for this has been proven by past experiments, if the powders are
routinely added to the melt, steam and the melt atmosphere will
not allow these fine (nano) powders to enter the melt. Charge
materials were melted in a furnace at 720 °C, then slags removed
from the surface of the melt and tablets of ceramic reinforce-
ments were added to the melt and mixed.
In this study, samples were produce using three methods of
conventional gravity sand casting, squeeze casting and compo
casting in semi-solid state. In the sand casting process, a step-
like sample was poured using the gravity force without any
further operations. In squeeze casting process, the melt was
poured into a rectangular stainless steel mold and pressed by a
weight of 50Kg. Finally, in compo casting process after the
melt preparation process, the mixture of liquid aluminum and
reinforcing particles were poured into a cylindrical stainless
steel mold located in the middle of the electromagnetic stirrer.
In this study, an electromagnetic stirrer, shown in Fig. 2, was
used to apply shear forces and globalize solid morphology,
which has a high tendency to grow as columnar or equiaxed
dendrites. After the electromagnetic stirring process, the melt
were poured into a rectangular stainless steel mold in semi-
solid state and pressed using a weight of 50Kg.
In all three casting methods the materials were melted at
720 °C
& In the sand casting method, the molten material was im-
mediately poured into the sand mold
& In the squeeze casting method, the molten material was
immediately cast into a metal mold and pressed by a weight
& In sand casting and squeeze methods, the tablets were
poured into the melt and stirred for about 7 min obtained
from the ANFIS-PSO optimization value.
& In the semi-solid method, the materials are melted at 720 °C
and then transferred to a magnetic stirrer and then held at about
612 °C and at this temperature it was stirred under different
shear forces. After about 7 min, the semi-solid mixture was
poured into a metal mold and pressed with a weight [3, 58].
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987
Fig. 1 Reinforcing Al2O3 in the
form of compact tablets used for
producing nanocomposites
At the end of sand casting process two samples were ex-
tracted and prepared for the tensile test from each steps. On the
other hand, tensile test samples were extracted from the mid-
dle of rectangular castings for squeeze and compo casting
process. In order to investigate the microstructure and dendrite
arm spacing of composites optical microscopy were used.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was employed to ana-
lyze fracture surfaces of composite samples obtained from
tensile test.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Dendritic Microstructure
Dendrite arm spacing is one of the most important character-
istic of the microstructure which has significant influence on
the mechanical properties of the alloy [58, 59]. Aluminum
A356 is considered as a long freezing range alloy, and increas-
ing the cooling rate provides adequate undercooling and in-
creases the nucleation sites and consequently decreases the
dendritic arm spacing. Moving on the step-like sample from
thicker to the thinner section, cooling rate and solidification
undercooling increase which provide more energy for the
Fig. 2 Electromagnetic stirring
system, used in compo casting in
semi-solid state
2979
nucleation of solid grains. As expected, having higher cooling
rate result in nucleation of more and smaller nucleis, which
solutally and mechanically block each other during the growth
process. Consequently this blocking produces a fine and uni-
form dendritic microstructure, Fig. 3. As anticipated, our ex-
periments demonstrated that finer microstructure and smaller
dendrite arm spacing were obtained in squeeze and compo
casting in comparison with the sand casting process. The rea-
son for this finding is related to the using permanent metallic
mold (in squeeze and compo casting) instead of sand mold
which increases the cooling rate, and applying external me-
chanical forces and shear stresses which break the dendrite
arms and refine solid grains.
3.2 Ductile Fracture
Low magnification scanning electron microscopy (SEM) im-
ages of fracture surfaces obtained from different casting pro-
cedures are presented in Fig. 4. It is worth noting that stress
concentration as the main cause of fracture is increased in
presence of porosities, inclusions and intermetallic com-
pounds. Shrinkage porosities were observed on the fracture
surface samples obtained from the thicker section of step-
like sample. This thicker section has the highest thermal
2980 Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987

Fig. 3 Dendritic microstructure

of nanocomposites a and b thick
and thin sections of step-like
sample produce by gravity sand
casting, c squeeze casting, d and e
compo casting in semi-solid state
with low and high shear tress

module, temperature and solidification time, and because of
lack of feeding shrinkage porosities form in these regions.
During tensile test, in the presence of the porosities, the load
bearing area decreases and accordingly, local stresses increase
and fracture occurs at those surfaces. We are of the opinion
that, in sand and squeeze casting processes, lack of feeding
and entrapment of gas pockets in interdendritic zones form
interdendritic microvoids which act as crack nucleation sites.
These micro-scale interdendritic cracks grow and merge by
applying more tensile stresses and form bigger cracks. It’s
interested to mention here that there are less interdendritic
cracks in the composites made by compo casting process
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987
Fig. 4 Fracture surface of nanocomposites a and b thick and thin sections of step-like sample produce by gravity sand casting, c squeeze casting, and d
compo casting in semi-solid state
which enhanced mechanical properties in comparison with
sand and squeeze casting processes.
Figure 5, illustrates fracture surfaces obtained from three
methods of gravity sand casting, squeeze casting and compo
casting in semi-continuous state in higher magnification. In all
samples, dimples, which are characteristic of a ductile fracture,
are well visible throughout the fracture surfaces. These dimples
are coaxial and their axis are parallel to the applied force. It’s
worth mentioning here that, in ductile fracture there is notice-
able plastic deformation and high amount of energy is required
for crack initiation and propagation. This analysis revealed that,
fracture surfaces belong to the thinner part of the step-like
2981
sample have smaller dimples compared to the thicker portion,
due to the smaller dendrite arm spacing as a result of higher
cooling rate in thinner section of step-like sample. Dimples size
on the fracture surface of the squeeze casting samples are even
smaller than the ones for the sand casting because of using
metallic mold and applying external forces. Significantly, dim-
ples on the fracture surfaces of semi-solid compo casting sam-
ples were smaller and more spherical than the ones for two
other methods. It can be explained that, applying shear stresses
using electromagnetic stirring results in finer and uniformly
distributed α dendrites, silicones, and intermetallic in compo
casting process which increase the fracture toughness of the
2982 Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987

Fig. 5 Scanning electron microscopic images of nanocomposites fracture gravity sand casting, c squeeze casting, and compo casting in semi-solid
surfaces a and b thick and thin sections of step-like sample produce by state stirred by electric current of d 30A, e 50A, f 70A, and g 100A
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987 2983

Fig. 6 Dendritic fracture and agglomeration of particles on the fracture sample produce by gravity sand casting, c squeeze casting, compo casting
surfaces of nanocomposites a and b thick and thin sections of step-like in semi-solid state with d 1.8 wt% and e 10 wt% reinforcing particles
2984 Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987

composite. Having smaller and uniformly distributed silicon 3.4 Fracture of Silicone Particles
particles, results in smaller and well distributed voids at the α
phase-particle interface. Consequently, to merge these small Another fracture mechanism in the aluminum composites is
voids together to reach a critical radius and form a crack more the stress concentration and crack formation around the sili-
energy is required. In compo casting in semi-solid state, silicon cones. Figure 7 shows the crack initiation from the silicones in
and intermetallic particles become completely spherical. It’s a sand casting sample. It can be explained that accumulation
worth to mention here that, small and well distributed particles of dislocation in these regions accompany with big Young’s
have strong bonding with matrix which make nucleation and modulus of silicone particles, and formation of the local shear
growth of voids at the interface harder. stresses are the reasons of this fracture mechanism. First be-
In ductile fracture of composites, by applying the force cause of shear stresses, cracks nucleated inside the silicone
microvoids nucleate mainly around the ceramic reinforce- particles and then propagated to the α dendritic matrix. The
ments, intermetallic particles, and impurities and grow to form α dendritic matrix is soft and deformable, so at the beginning
a crack. The microvoids can also form due to the accumulation resists against crack propagation. However, gradually by ap-
of dislocations and then create the cracks [58]. When a dislo- plying more forces crack distributed in the matrix and break
cation collides a reinforcing particle, it circles around it and the whole sample [59].
increases work hardening with the production of a new loop.
Therefore, having smaller and well distributed reinforcing par-
ticles increases the work hardening in a composite which is 3.5 Brittle Fracture
the target of compo casting process. In compo casting, due to
the proper distribution of silicones particles and alumina rein- Brittle and cleavage fracture was observed mainly in the sam-
forcements, the highest rate of work hardening has been ob- ples produced by gravity sand casting process. In this type of
tained with considering microscopic analysis and mechanical fracture, the fracture surfaces in contrast with ductile fracture
tests. The spherical shape of these particles causes more cross- is smooth and bright, because the fracture is propagated along-
slip during the accumulation of dislocations, which retard side cleavage plates and there is no significant plastic defor-
crack formation. mation. The fracture surfaces are perpendicular to the direc-
tion of applied force, and observed in vicinity of porosities and
large inclusions where the stress pattern is very complex, there
3.3 Dendritic Fracture is a possibility of dislocation lock at lower stress. Porosities
and voids change the mechanism of brittle fracture. In Fig. 8,
During solidification of metal matrix composites produced by river marks which are the characteristics of a brittle fracture
gravity sand casting process, because of low solubility of re- are shown on the fracture surface. In this fracture mechanism,
inforcing particles (Al2O3) in the melt (aluminum A356), most the cracks are divided into two or more branches when reach
of the reinforcing particles are rejected into the liquid at the dendrites.
solid-liquid interface. These particles gradually accumulate
and agglomerate in locations where solidified last, and are
adjacent to the shrinkage porosities. These regions containing
segregated alumina particles and shrinkage porosities are con-
sidered to be brittle, thus less fracture energy is required com-
pared to the ductile fracture. On the image of fracture surface
taken from the thicker section of the step-like sample (Fig. 6a)
more particles are seen in comparison with the thinner section
(Fig. 6b). This can be explained that the thicker section of the
step-like sample solidified last and more shrinkage porosity
and particles are expected to be seen in this region. However,
in the semi-solid compo casting, because of the applied shear
stresses and stirring forces the reinforcing particles are distrib-
uted more uniformly compared to the gravity casting and
squeeze casting processes. Because of this, dendrites and par-
ticles on the fracture surfaces of the semi-solid compo casting
samples are smaller. Accumulation of particles in front of the
dendritic interface can be seen easily on the fracture surface of
the composite containing 10 wt% reinforcing particles (Fig.
6e). Fig. 7 Crack propagation though silicone particles
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987
Fig. 8 Dendritic fracture and agglomeration of particles on the fracture surfaces of nanocomposites a and b thick and thin sections of step-like sample
produce by gravity sand casting, c squeeze casting, compo casting in semi-solid state with d 1.8 wt% and (e) 10 wt% reinforcing particles
4 Conclusion
Aluminum-Al 2 O 3 nanocomposites produced by three
methods of sand casting, squeeze and compo casting:
& In the sand casting method, the molten material was im-
mediately poured into the sand mold
& In the squeeze casting method, the molten material was
immediately cast into a metal mold and pressed by a
weight
& In the semi-solid method, the materials are melted at
720 °C and then transferred to a magnetic stirrer and then
held at about 612 °C and at this temperature it was stirred
under different shear forces.
Tensile tests performed on the samples extracted from each
castings and obtained fracture surfaces of the samples analyzed
using scanning electron microscopy. Our fractography and mi-
croscopic analysis have led us to conclude as follow:
2985
1 Dimples became smaller, more spherical and uniformly
distributed in the matrix of compo casting samples due to
refined and more spherical α dendrites and silicones in
comparison with sand casting and squeeze casting
samples.
2 Sever agglomeration of reinforcing particles and coarser
dendritic fracture were observed in the sand casting sam-
ples rather than squeeze and compo casting in semi-solid
state. In squeeze casting and compo casting in semi-solid
state applying pressure and shear stresses broke the solid
network and decrease the dendrites size which disperse the
reinforcing particles more uniformly. This type of fracture
mechanism required less fracture energy to occur in com-
parison with a ductile (dimple-like) fracture.
3 It was concluded that having smaller and uniformly dis-
tributed silicones in the metal matrix decreases the stress
concentration and consequently enhance the ultimate
strength. In gravity sand casting process cracks can initiate
and propagate through the silicones.
2986
4 Brittle and cleavage fracture was observed mainly in the
samples produced by gravity sand casting process in vi-
cinity of porosities and large inclusions where the stress
pattern is very complex. It is very likely to have a disloca-
tion lock at lower stress. These cleavage planes hardly
found on the fracture surface of the compo casting
samples.
References
1. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2014) Experimental investigation on
the aging response, hardness and total impact energy absorption
of Sr-modified heat-treatable cast automotive aluminum alloys.
Trans Indian Inst Metals 67(5):753–759
2. Shabani M, Alizadeh M, Mazahery A (2011) Modelling of mechan-
ical properties of cast A356 alloy. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
34(12):1035–1040
3. Rahimipour M et al (2014) The enhancement of wear properties of
compo-cast A356 composites reinforced with Al 2 O 3 nano par-
ticulates. Tribol Ind 36(2)
4. Dezecot S et al (2017) 3D characterization and modeling of low
cycle fatigue damage mechanisms at high temperature in a cast
aluminum alloy. Acta Mater 123:24–34
5. Bahmani A et al (2013) A mathematical model for prediction of
microporosity in aluminum alloy A356. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:
1–9
6. Mazahery A et al (2012) Hardness and tensile strength study on
Al356–B4C composites. Mater Sci Technol 28(5):634–638
7. Shabani M et al (2012) Silicon morphology modelling during so-
lidification process of A356 Al alloy. Int J Cast Metal Res 25(1):
53–58
8. Baghani A et al (2015) Application of computational fluid dynam-
ics to study the effects of Sprue Base geometry on the surface and
internal turbulence in gravity casting. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and
Applications 229(2):106–116
9. Kheirabi A et al (2015) Understanding the occurrence of the surface
turbulence in a nonpressurized bottom gating system: Numerical
simulation of the melt flow pattern. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and
Applications 1464420715621930
10. Zhao ZY et al (2016) Effects of Activation Treatment on Interfacial
Bonding in A356-10 wt% B4C Composite Sheets Prepared by
Rheo-Rolling. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Electrical Engineering and Automatic Control. Springer
11. Mazahery A, Alizadeh M, Shabani M (2012) Wear of Al–Si alloys
matrix reinforced with sol–gel coated particles. Mater Technol
27(2):180–185
12. Shabani M et al (2012) The most accurate ANN learning algorithm
for FEM prediction of mechanical performance of alloy A356. Kov
Mater 50:25–31
13. Baghani A et al (2013) Numerical investigation of the effect of
sprue base design on the flow pattern of aluminum gravity casting.
In Defect and Diffusion Forum. Trans Tech Publications
14. Kumar SM, Pramod R, Govindaraju H (2017) Evaluation of me-
chanical and wear properties of aluminium AA430 reinforced with
SiC and Mgo. Mater Today-Proc 4(2):509–518
15. Shabani MO, Mazahery A (2014) Automotive copper and magne-
sium containing cast aluminium alloys: report on the correlation
between yttrium modified microstructure and mechanical proper-
ties. Russ J Non-Ferr Metals 55(5):436–442
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987
16. Tofigh AA et al (2013) Optimized processing power and trainability
of neural network in numerical modeling of Al matrix nano com-
posites. J Manuf Process 15(4):518–523
17. Ramnath BV et al (2014) Evaluation of mechanical properties of
aluminium alloy–alumina–boron carbide metal matrix composites.
Mater Des 58:332–338
18. Efzan E et al (2016) Fabrication method of aluminum matrix com-
posite (AMCs): a review. In Key engineering materials. Trans Tech
Publ
19. Shabani MO, Heydari F (2018) Influence of solutionising temper-
ature and time on spherodisation of the silicon particles of AMNCs.
Int J Mater Prod Technol 57(4):336–349
20. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2012) The enhancement of wear prop-
erties of squeeze-cast A356 composites reinforced with B4C par-
ticulates. Int J Mater Res 103(7):847–852
21. Sree Manu KM et al (2016) Liquid metal infiltration processing of
metallic composites: a critical review. Metall Mater Trans B 47(5):
2799–2819
22. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2013) Application of the extrusion to
increase the binding between the ceramic particles and the metal
matrix: enhancement of mechanical and tribological properties. J
Mater Sci Technol 29(5):423–428
23. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2013) Existence of good bonding be-
tween coated B4C reinforcement and al matrix via semisolid tech-
niques: enhancement of wear resistance and mechanical properties.
Tribol Trans 56(3):342–348
24. Shabani MO, Mazahery A (2013) Good bonding between coated
B4C particles and aluminum matrix fabricated by semisolid tech-
niques. Russian Journal of Non-Ferrous Metals 54(2):154–160
25. Katz-Demyanetz A et al (2017) Manufacturing of Aluminum Metal
Matrix Cast Composites with Carbon Based Additives for Thermal
Management Applications. In Materials Science Forum. Trans Tech
Publ
26. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2014) Extruded AA6061 alloy matrix
composites: the performance of multi-strategies to extend the
searching area of the optimization algorithm. J Compos Mater
48(16):1927–1937
27. Shabani MO et al (2016) Superior tribological properties of partic-
ulate aluminum matrix Nano composites. Prot Metals Phys Chem
Surf 52(2):244–248
28. Kumar UKAV (2017) Method of stir casting of aluminum metal
matrix composites: a review. Mater Today-Proc 4(2):1140–1146
29. Mazahery A, Shabani M (2012) Mechanical properties of A356
matrix composites reinforced with nano-SiC particles. Strength
Mater 44(6):686–692
30. Shabani MO, Mazahery A (2013) Optimization of Al matrix rein-
forced with B4C particles. JOM 65(2):272–277
31. Shamsipour M et al (2016) Optimization of the EMS process pa-
rameters in compocasting of high-wear-resistant Al-nano-TiC com-
posites. Appl Phys A 122(4):1–14
32. Ficici F, Koksal S (2016) Microstructural characterization and wear
properties of in situ AlB2–reinforced Al–4Cu metal matrix com-
posite. J Compos Mater 50(12):1685–1696
33. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2014) The effect of primary and sec-
ondary processing on the abrasive wear properties of compocast
aluminum 6061 alloy matrix composites. Prot Metals Phys Chem
Surf 50(6):817–824
34. Shabani MO, Heydari F (2019) The enhancement of wear proper-
ties of compo-cast A356 composites reinforced with SiC nano par-
ticulates. Prot Metals Phys Chem Surf 55(4):748–752
35. Chen Q et al (2016) Microstructure evolution of SiC p/ZM6 (Mg–
Nd–Zn) magnesium matrix composite in the semi-solid state. J
Alloys Compd 656:67–76
36. Shabani MO, Mazahery A (2013) Computational modeling of cast
aluminum 2024 alloy matrix composites: adapting the classical
Silicon (2020) 12:2977–2987
algorithms for optimal results in finding multiple optima. Powder
Technol 249:77–81
37. Wang K et al (2016) A novel method to achieve grain refinement in
aluminum. Metall Mater Trans A 47(10):4788–4794
38. Shabani MO et al (2016) Wear wear properties of rheo-squeeze cast
aluminum matrix reinforced with nano particulates. Prot Metals
Phys Chem Surf 52(3):486–491
39. Murthy N et al (2016) Preparation of SiC based Aluminium metal
matrix nano composites by high intensity ultrasonic cavitation pro-
cess and evaluation of mechanical and tribological properties. In
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP
Publishing
40. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2015) The performance of pressure
assisted casting process to improve the mechanical properties of
Al-Si-Mg alloys matrix reinforced with coated B4C particles. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol 76(1–4):263–270
41. Shabani MO, Mazahery A (2013) Suppression of segregation, set-
tling and agglomeration in mechanically processed composites fab-
ricated by a semisolid agitation processes. Trans Indian Inst Metals
66(1):65–70
42. Jayashree P et al (2013) Review on effect of silicon carbide (SiC) on
stir cast aluminium metal matrix composites. Int J Curr Eng
Technol 3(3):1061–1071
43. Shabani MO et al (2018) Performance of ANFIS coupled with PSO
in manufacturing superior wear resistant aluminum matrix nano
composites. Trans Indian Inst Metals 71(9):2095–2103
44. Jiang L et al (2016) Toughening of aluminum matrix nanocompos-
ites via spatial arrays of boron carbide spherical nanoparticles. Acta
Mater 103:128–140
45. Tofigh AA, Shabani MO (2013) Efficient optimum solution for high
strength Al alloys matrix composites. Ceram Int 39(7):7483–7490
46. Rahimipour MR et al (2014) Strategic developments to improve the
optimization performance with efficient optimum solution and pro-
duce high wear resistance aluminum–copper alloy matrix compos-
ites. Neural Comput & Applic 24(7–8):1531–1538
47. Mazahery A, Shabani M (2012) Sol–gel coated B4C particles rein-
forced 2024 Al matrix composites. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and
Applications 226(2):159–169
48. Shamsipour M et al (2017) Squeeze casting of electromagnetically
stirred aluminum matrix nanocomposites in semi-solid condition
using hybrid algorithm optimized parameters. Kovove Mater
55(1):33–43
2987
49. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2013) Elaboration of an operative and
efficacious optimization route to ameliorate the mechanical and
tribological properties of implants. Powder Technol 249:530–535
50. Srivastava MC, Lohne O (2016) Effects of heat treatment on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of ductile AlSi9MgMn
die castings. Int J Met 10(4):556–565
51. Mazahery A et al (2013) Concurrent fitness evaluations in
searching for the optimal process conditions of Al matrix nanocom-
posites by linearly decreasing weight. J Compos Mater 47(14):
1765–1772
52. Kumar SD et al (2017) Erosion response of Thixoformed A356-
5TiB2 in situ composite using Taguchi's experimental design.
Tribol Trans 60(1):39–46
53. Shabani MO, Heydari F, Khorram A (2018) The effect of electro-
magnetic stirrer on the size and morphology of intermetallic parti-
cles in Al-Si metal matrix composite. Silicon:1–8
54. Mazahery A, Shabani MO, Elrefaei A (2014) Searching for the
superior solution to the population-based optimization problem:
processing of the wear resistant commercial AA6061 AMCs. Int J
Damage Mech 23(7):899–916
55. Yang X et al (2016) High shear dispersion technology prior to twin
roll casting for high performance magnesium/SiC p metal matrix
composite strip fabrication. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 90:349–
358
56. Mazahery A, Shabani MO (2013) Development of the principle of
simulated natural evolution in searching for a more superior solu-
tion: proper selection of processing parameters in AMCs. Powder
Technol 245:146–155
57. Kim H, Babu J, Kang C (2014) Hot extrusion of A356 aluminum
metal matrix composite with carbon nanotube/Al2O3 hybrid rein-
forcement. Metall Mater Trans A 45(5):2636–2645
58. Tofigh AA et al (2015) Application of the combined neuro-com-
puting, fuzzy logic and swarm intelligence for optimization of
compocast nanocomposites. J Compos Mater 49(13):1653–1663
59. Shabani MO et al (2015) Refined microstructure of compo cast
nanocomposites: the performance of combined neuro-computing,
fuzzy logic and particle swarm techniques. Neural Comput &
Applic 26(4):899–909
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.