This article was downloaded by: [Duke University Libraries]

On: 10 October 2013, At: 01:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tribology Transactions
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrb20

A Study on Tribological Behavior of Alumina-Filled

Glass–Epoxy Composites Using Taguchi Experimental
Design
a a
Sandhyarani Biswas & Alok Satapathy
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering , National Institute of Technology , Rourkela,
769008, India
Published online: 24 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Sandhyarani Biswas & Alok Satapathy (2010) A Study on Tribological Behavior of Alumina-Filled
Glass–Epoxy Composites Using Taguchi Experimental Design, Tribology Transactions, 53:4, 520-532

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402000903491309

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Tribology Transactions, 53: 520-532, 2010
Copyright
C Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
ISSN: 1040-2004 print / 1547-397X online
DOI: 10.1080/10402000903491309
A Study on Tribological Behavior of Alumina-Filled
Glass–Epoxy Composites Using Taguchi Experimental
Design
SANDHYARANI BISWAS and ALOK SATAPATHY
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela 769008, India
This article describes the development of alumina-filled
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013
glass fiber–reinforced epoxy matrix composites and compared
the experimental results obtained from Taguchi experimental
design with the reported theoretical erosion model. An exhaus-
tive literature survey indicated that six control factors, viz. im-
pact velocity, filler content, erodent temperature, impingement
angle, stand-off distance, and erodent size, predominantly af-
fect on erosion behavior of polymer composites. This system-
atic experimentation has led to determination of significant pro-
cess parameters and material variables that predominantly in-
fluence the wear rate of different particulates-filled glass fiber–
reinforced composites. The comparative study indicates that
although the alumina-filled composites exhibit relatively infe-
rior mechanical properties, their erosion wear performance is
better than that of the published literature red mud–filled glass
fiber–reinforced composites (S. Biswas and A. Satapathy, Ma-
terials and Design, vol. 30, 2009). The glass fiber–reinforced
epoxy matrix composite filled with alumina content showed
semiductile erosion behavior with peak erosion rate occurring
at 60◦ impingement angle. The morphology of eroded surfaces
is examined by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and
possible erosion mechanisms are discussed.
KEY WORDS
Epoxy Resin; E-Glass Fiber; Taguchi Method; ANOVA; Con-
firmation Experiment
INTRODUCTION
Polymer composites have been used for a long time with
an increased demand in various engineering fields, particularly
in aerospace applications, due to their high specific mechanical
properties compared to the other conventional materials. These
composites are also finding various other applications in hos-
tile environments where these are subjected to external attacks
such as solid particle erosion. Examples of such applications are
pipeline carrying sand slurries in petroleum refining, helicopter
Manuscript received August 25, 2009
Manuscript accepted November 16, 2009
Review led by David Burris
520
rotor blades, pump impeller blades, high-speed vehicles, water
turbines, aircraft engine blades and engineering/structural com-
ponents operating in desert environments, etc. (Tewari, et al. (1),
(2)).
Solid particle erosion manifests itself in thinning of com-
ponents, surface roughening, surface degradation, macroscopic
scooping appearance, and reduction in functional life of the struc-
ture. Hence, it has been considered as a serious problem re-
sponsible for many failures in engineering applications. Erosion
resistance has become an important material property, particu-
larly while selecting alternative materials such as polymer-based
composites. Ongoing research efforts in this field are mainly
focused on studying the influence of experimental and target-
related parameters. This has been reviewed earlier by Barkoula
and Karger-Kocsis (3) and the work done by the previous inves-
tigators has been summarized subsequently by Harsha, et al. (4).
Recently Biswas, et al. (5) have reported exhaustively on the solid
particle erosion behavior of polymer matrix composites. Studies
of erosive wear by solid particle impingement involve the mea-
surement of several significant experimental parameters such as
particle velocity, particle size (distribution), angle of incidence,
and others. Though a number of research papers on the erosion
wear exist in the literature, most are confined to fiber-reinforced
composites and only limited reports are available on particulate-
filled polymer composites.
The inclusion of inorganic fillers into polymers for commer-
cial applications is primarily aimed at the cost reduction and stiff-
ness improvement (Rothon (6); Bonner (7). It is worth noting
that the inclusion of micrometer-sized particulates into polymers,
a high filler content typically greater than 20 vol% is generally
required to bring the above-stated positive effects into play. This
would detrimentally affect some important properties of the ma-
trix polymers such as processability, appearance, density, and ag-
ing performance (Attwood, et al. (8). On the other hand, short
carbon fiber–reinforced polyetheretherketone (PEEK) compos-
ites possess reasonably high tensile modulus and strength with
30 vol% fiber and are also characterized by their high fracture
toughness. The key similarity in the above research has been that
the investigations involved the wear of polymers filled with mi-
croscale particles. With this scale of filler particles, the mechan-
ical behavior of fillers tends to emulate the behavior of the bulk
filler material (Li, et al. (9); Voss and Friedrich (10). The work
 Solid Particle Erosion of Polymer Composites
NOMENCLATURE
Er = Erosion rate, kg/kg
Erth = Theoretical erosion wear rate, kg/kg
H = Hardness, N/m2
S = Specific heat of silica sand, J/Kg K
U = Impact velocity, m/s
reported here is carried out with a different combination of
particulate filler (Al2 O3 ) and polymer materials (glass fiber–
reinforced epoxy) and investigated the reasons for modification
of the tribological behavior, which included the aspects that have
not been studied yet.
To obtain the desired properties from a hybrid composite
system, reinforcement and fillers both are added to the poly-
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013
mers. The additional improvements in mechanical and tribologi-
cal properties are in many cases attained through the incorpora-
tion of glass or carbon fiber reinforcement and through the filling
of particulate matters. However, tribo properties are not intrinsic
material properties but strongly depend upon the system in which
material functions (Harsha and Tewari (11). So the influence of
fillers and fibers on the tribo-behavior of composites cannot be
predicted a priori and has to be tested in the laboratory. In many
industrial applications of composites, an understanding of the tri-
bological behavior is also necessary along with an understanding
of the mechanical properties.
Hence, the primary concern here is to study how the alumina
particle–filled glass fiber–reinforced epoxy composites respond to
the impact of erodent under different operating conditions, to as-
sess the damage due to wear and finally to determine the signif-
icant factor setting for minimization of erosion rate. In addition
to a comprehensive review of the status of research in the field
of solid particle erosion of polymer composites, it also aims to
compare the theoretical wear rates with the values obtained from
experiments carried out as per Taguchi’s design.
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Composite Fabrication
E-glass fibers (360 roving taken from Saint Gobian Ltd.,
India) are reinforced in alumina-filled Epoxy LY 556 (NICE Ltd.,
Kolkata, India), which was used as the matrix material. Its com-
mon name is bisphenol-A-diglycidyl-ether and it chemically be-
longs to the epoxide family. The epoxy resin and the hardener
were supplied by Hindustan Ciba Geigy Mumbai, India Ltd. E-
glass fiber and epoxy resins have modulus of 72.5 and 3.42 GPa,
respectively, and possess density of 2590 and 1100 kg/m3 , respec-
tively. The filler material alumina (density 3.89 g/cm3 ) was pro-
vided by NICE Ltd., Kolkata, India and was sieved to obtain par-
ticle size in the range 70–90 µm. Composites of three different
compositions (0, 10, and 20 wt% alumina filling) were made and
the fiber loading (weight fraction of glass fiber in the composite)
was kept at 50% for all the samples. The low-temperature-curing
epoxy resin and corresponding hardener (HY951) were mixed in
a ratio of 10:1 by weight as recommended. The mix was stirred
manually to disperse the fibers in the matrix. Care was taken to
ensure a uniform sample because fibers have a tendency to clump
521
α = Angle of impingement, degree
θ = Erodent temperature, ◦ C
θ0 = Room temperature, ◦ C
η = Erosion efficiency
ηnormal = Erosion efficiency with normal impact
ρc = Density of composite, kg/m3
ρ = Density of erodent, kg/m3
and tangle together when mixed. The cast of each composite was
cured under a load of about 50 kg for 24 h before it was removed
from the mold. Then this cast was postcured in the air for another
24 h after removing out of the mold. Specimens of suitable dimen-
sion were cut using a diamond cutter for physical characterization
and mechanical testing.
Test Apparatus
The solid particle erosion experiments were carried out as
per ASTM G76 on the erosion test rig shown schematically in
Fig. 1. The test rig consists of an air compressor, an air drying
unit, a conveyor belt–type particle feeder, and an air–particle
mixing and accelerating chamber. The dried and compressed air
was then mixed with the silica sand (300–600 µm size), which was
fed constantly by a conveyor belt feeder into the mixing chamber
and then accelerated by passing the mixture through a conver-
gent brass nozzle of 3 mm internal diameter. The setup is capa-
ble of creating reproducible erosive situations for assessing ero-
sion wear resistance of the composite samples. The erodent par-
ticles impact the specimen, which can be held at different angles
with respect to the direction of erodent flow using a swivel and
an adjustable sample clip. The velocity of the eroding particles
was determined using a standard double disc method (Ruff and
Ives (12). The apparatus was equipped with a heater, which reg-
ulates and maintains the erodent temperature at any predeter-
mined fixed value during an erosion trial. In the present study,
dry silica sand (assumed to be square pyramidal shaped) of differ-
ent particle sizes (300, 450, and 600 µm) was used as erodent. The
samples were cleaned in acetone, dried, and weighed to an accu-
racy of ±0.1 mg before and after the erosion trials using a pre-
cision electronic balance. The weight loss was recorded for sub-
sequent calculation of erosion rate. The erosion process was re-
peated until the erosion rate attained a constant value, called the
steady-state erosion rate. The surfaces of the specimens were ex-
amined directly by a (SEM) scanning electron microscope JEOL
JSM-6480LV Japan. The eroded samples were mounted on stubs
with silver paste. To enhance the conductivity of the eroded sam-
ples, a thin film of platinum was vacuum-evaporated onto them
before the photomicrographs were taken.
Experimental Design
Taguchi experimental design is a powerful analysis tool for
modeling and analyzing the influence of control factors on per-
formance output. This method achieves the integration of design
of experiments (DOE) with the parametric optimization of the
process yielding the desired results. The orthogonal array (OA)
requires a set of well-balanced (minimum experimental runs) ex-
periments. Taguchi’s method uses a statistical measure of perfor-
 522 S. BISWAS AND A. SATAPATHY
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

Fig. 1—A schematic diagram of an erosion test rig.

mance called signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), which is a logarithmic
function of desired output to serve as objective functions for op-
timization. The S/N ratio takes both the mean and the variabil-
ity into account. It is defined as the ratio of the mean (signal) to
the standard deviation (noise). The ratio depends on the quality
characteristics of the product/process to be optimized. The three
categories of S/N ratios are used: lower-the-better (LB), higher-
the-better (HB), and nominal-the-best (NB). The experimental
observations are transformed into an S/N ratio. The S/N ratio for
minimum erosion rate coming under the LB characteristic can be
calculated as logarithmic transformation of the loss function as
shown below:
S 1
 2 
= − 10 log y [1]
N n
where n is the number of observations, and y is the observed data.
The standard linear graph, as shown in Fig. 2, is used to assign
the factors and interactions to various columns of the orthogonal
array (Glen (13)).
The most important stage in the design of experiment lies
in the selection of the control factors. An exhaustive literature
B(2)
review on erosion behavior of polymer composites reveals that
factors such as impact velocity, filler content, erodent temper-
ature, impingement angle, stand-off distance, erodent size, etc.,
largely influence the erosion rate of polymer composites (Pat-
naik, et al. (14), (15). Hence, in the present work the impact of
these six parameters is studied using an L27 (313 ) orthogonal de-
sign. In a conventional full-factorial experiment design, it would
require 36 = 729 runs to study six factors each at three levels,
whereas Taguchi’s factorial experiment approach reduces it to
only 27 runs, offering a great advantage in terms of experimen-
tal time and cost. The fixed and variable parameters chosen for
the test are given in Table 1. The selected levels of the six control
parameters are listed in Table 2.
The plan of the experiments is as follows: the 1st column is
assigned to impact velocity (A), the 2nd column to alumina con-
tent (B), the 5th column to erodent temperature (C), the 9th col-
umn to impingement angle (D), the 10th column to stand-off dis-
tance (E), and the 12th column to erodent size (F); the 3rd and
TABLE 1—PARAMETERS SETTING
Control Factors Symbols Fixed Parameters

Velocity of impact Factor A Erodent Silica sand

Fiber loading Factor B Erodent feed rate 10.0 ±1.0
(3,4) (6,7) (g/min)
Erodent temperature Factor C Nozzle diameter 3
D(9) E(10) F(12) (13) (mm)
Impingement angle Factor D Length of nozzle 80
A(1) (8,11) C(5) (mm)
Stand-off distance Factor E
Erodent size Factor F
Fig. 2—Linear graphs for L27 array.
 Solid Particle Erosion of Polymer Composites 523

TABLE 2—LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONTROL FACTORS in the composites increases with the filler content. But when this
Level glass-reinforced epoxy is filled with microsized red mud particles,
the density of the resulting hybrid composites assume higher val-
Control factor I II III Units
ues; that is, 1.65 g/cm3 (void fraction of 3.225%) and 1.752 g/cm3
A: Velocity of impact 43 54 65 m/s (void fraction of 7.894%) for composites with red mud contents
B: Filler content 0 10 20 % of 10 and 20 wt%, respectively. Consequently, the void fraction
C: Erodent temperature 40 50 60 ◦C
in the composites increases with the filler content (Biswas and
D: Impingement angle 30 60 90 ◦
Satapathy (16).
E: Stand-off distance 65 75 85 mm
Table 3 presents the tensile and flexural strengths of the com-
F: Erodent size 300 450 600 µm
posites with and without alumina filling. Similarly, Table 3 illus-
trates the variation of tensile modulus with the weight fraction of
alumina content in the composites. It can be seen that the tensile
4th column are assigned to (A × B)1 and (A × B)2 , respectively, properties have become distinctly poorer with the incorporation
to estimate interaction between impact velocity (A) and alumina of alumina particles in the matrix. But the same author reported
content (B); the 6th and 7th column are assigned to (B × C)1 for other filler material like red mud–filled glass fiber–reinforced
and (B × C)2 , respectively, to estimate interaction between alu-
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

epoxy composite shows better tensile strength, flexural strength,

mina content (B) and erodent temperature (C); the 8th and 11th
column are assigned to (A × C)1 and (A × C)2 , respectively, to
estimate interaction between the impact velocity (A) and erodent
temperature (C); and the remaining columns are used to estimate
experimental errors.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mechanical Properties
The present investigation reveals that the presence of alumina
has varied effect on the glass–epoxy composites in terms of me-
chanical properties. As is seen in Table 3, the composite micro-
hardness has significantly improved with the addition of alumina.
The density has also increased with alumina content. The neat
epoxy taken for this study possesses a density of 1.1 g/cm3 , which
increases to 1.53 g/cm3 (with a void fraction of 0.9%) with the
reinforcement of 50 wt% of glass fiber in it. But when this glass
fiber–reinforced epoxy is filled with microsized alumina particles,
the density of the resulting hybrid composites assumes higher val-
ues; that is, 1.62 g/cm3 (void fraction of 5.241%) and 1.80 g/cm3
(void fraction of 6.880%) for composites with alumina contents
of 10 and 20 wt%, respectively. Consequently, the void fraction
and tensile modulus (Biswas and Satapathy (16)). This is possi-
bly not occurring better in tensile strength, flexural strength and
tensile modulus in the present study with the presence of alumina
particle as the filler material in the epoxy composites instead of
red mud particulates. This might have influenced some other me-
chanical properties of the composites, such as inter laminar shear
strength (ILSS) or impact strength. This phenomenon might re-
sult from the comparatively poorer dispersion of microsized par-
ticles (alumina filler) and a greater possibility of the existence of
voids in composites. The decreases in the ultimate mechanical
strengths of the composites are probably caused by an incompat-
ibility of the alumina particles and the epoxy matrix, leading to
poor interfacial bonding. However, it also depends on other fac-
tors such as the size and shape of the filler in the composites.
A short beam shear test was carried out on these laminates to
determine the ILSS of composites prepared with different filler
content. Apparent ILSS of glass fiber–reinforced epoxy resin is
measured as 99.75 MPa. With the addition of alumina, ILSS of
laminates decreases drastically, as is seen in the case of the com-
posite with filler up to 20 wt% (Table 3). Similarly, with the ad-
dition of red mud, ILSS of laminates decreases drastically, as is

TABLE 3—MECHANICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE COMPOSITES

Tensile Tensile Flexural Impact Measured Theoretical

Hardness Strength Modulus Strength ILSS Energy Density Density
Volume Fraction
Composites (Hv) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (J) (g/cm3 ) (g/cm3 ) of Voids (%)

Epoxy + 50 wt% glass 24.8 516 8.77 393.1 99.75 0.976 1.53 1.544 0.906
fiber
Epoxy + 50 wt% glass 37.05 494 8.24 275.9 59.44 1.301 1.65 1.705 3.225
fiber + 10 wt% Red
mud
Epoxy + 50 wt% glass 43.05 468 8.32 401.81 83.97 0.958 1.752 1.9 7.894
fiber + 20 wt% Red
mud
Epoxy + 50 wt% glass 39.92 427 7.57 378.02 77.86 1.198 1.627 1.717 5.241
fiber + 10 wt% alumina
Epoxy + 50 wt% glass 47.46 385 6.95 258.19 57.83 1.311 1.8 1.933 6.88
fiber + 20 wt% alumina
 524 S. BISWAS AND A. SATAPATHY
seen in case of the composite with filler up to 10 wt% (Table 3).
The reduction may be related with the formation of voids in the
matrix, which are generally located at the interlaminar region of
composites. However, for the composite with 20 wt% filler, a rel-
atively higher value of ILSS has been recorded. Compared with
red mud particulates, alumina particulates show better ILSS up to
10 wt%, after which on further addition of both particulates with
the same composites up to 20 wt% red mud–filled composites
show better ILSS (Table 3). For both flexural and interlaminar
shear strength the test is repeated six times and the mean value is
reported.
In case impact tests the machine is adjusted such that the blade
on the free-hanging pendulum just barely contacts the specimen
(zero position). Because there are practically no losses due to
bearing friction, etc. (<0.3%), the testing conditions may be re-
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013
garded as ideal. The specimens are clamped in a square support
and are struck at their central point by a hemispherical bolt of
diameter 5 mm. The respective values of impact energy of dif-
ferent specimens are recorded directly from the dial indicator.
Impact strength is the ability of a material to resist the fracture
under stress applied at high speed. The impact properties of com-
posite materials are directly related to their overall toughness.
Composite fracture toughness is affected by interlaminar and in-
terfacial strength parameters. As can be seen from Table 3, the
impact strength of the composites is significantly improved by the
addition of alumina and red mud particulate compared with un-
filled glass epoxy composite. The increased filler content (up to
approximately 20 wt.) leads to a higher impact strength due to the
interfacial reaction and provides an effective barrier for pinning
and bifurcation of the advancing cracks. The mechanical prop-
erty tests were repeated six times and the mean value is reported
in this study.
Surface Morphology
Figure 3 presents the scanning electron micrographs (SEMs)
of the unfilled glass–epoxy composite surfaces eroded under var-
ious test conditions. In Fig. 3(a) no cracks or craters are seen on
the composite surface after erosion due to impact of dry silica
sand particles (temperature 40◦ C) of smallest grit size (300 µm)
with a lower impact velocity (43 m/s) at a low impingement angle
of 30◦ . But as the erosion tests were carried out with higher ero-
dent temperature (60◦ C) and grit size (450 µm), the morphology
of the eroded surface became different as in Fig. 3(b). The matrix
was chipped off and the glass fibers are clearly visible beneath
the matrix layer. The micrographs with higher magnifications pre-
sented in Figs. 3(c), 3(d), and 3(e) distinctly illustrate the craters
formed due to material loss and the arrays of broken and semi-
broken glass fibers within. Due to repeated impact of hard and
high-temperature sand particles there is initiation of cracks on the
fibers and as erosion progresses, these cracks subsequently prop-
agate on the fiber bodies both in a transverse as well as a longi-
tudinal manner. Such cracks are clearly noticed in Figs. 3(f), 3(g),
and 3(h), respectively. It is also evident from the microstructures
of these eroded surfaces that for higher erodent temperature and
impact velocity, the damage to the surface is relatively greater.
Figure 4(a) shows a portion of the composite surface before
erosion occurred. Scattered alumina particles are observed on the
upper surface. The distribution of filler as seen in the micrograph
is reasonably uniform, although at places the particles are seen
to have formed small and large clusters. The SEM image of the
eroded surface at impingement angle of 30◦ is seen in Fig. 4(b).
The erodent particles at an elevated temperature of 60◦ C hit the
composite surface with an impact speed of 43 m/s. As expected,
due to the parallel hits of the erodent at a low angle, not much
fiber cracking is seen to have occurred. Because of the small nor-
mal impact component of the erodent, the fibers resist cracking.
As seen in Figs. 4(c) and 4(d) a large number of cracks is not no-
ticed on the fibers (vertical to their length). On the other hand,
there is a matrix removal between the fibers, which weakens the
fiber-supporting mechanism. Insufficiently supported fibers are
broken and this may lead to displacement of the fibers from their
original positions.
Figures 5(a)–5(d) show SEM micrographs of alumina-filled
glass fiber–reinforced epoxy matrix composites eroded at a 60◦
impingement angle where maximum wear rate is recorded. SEM
investigations reported previously reveal that the erosion of the
polymer composites in general and thermoset composites in
particular is a complex process involving matrix microcracking,
fiber matrix debonding, fiber breakage, and material removal
(Friedrich (17); Pool, et al. (18); Hager, et al. (19); Zahavi and
Schmitt ((20)). The observed anisotropy of the erosion of these
materials can be attributed to the following mechanisms. It is well
known that the fibers in composites, subjected to particle flow,
break in bending (Hager, et al. (19)). In case of an impact hav-
ing a parallel component of velocity with respect to the fiber ori-
entation (Figs. 5(c) and 5(d)), bending requires particle inden-
tation into the composite. The indentation involves compressive
stresses, and resistance to microbending is very high. Thus, there
is local removal of resin material from the impacted surface; this
results in the exposure of the fibers. For transverse particle im-
pact (Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)), the resistance to lateral component of
the bending moment is lower and bundles of fibers are bent and
break easily. This caused more erosive wear in both composites.
Also, in case of transverse erosion, high interfacial tensile stresses
are generated by particle impacts. This causes intensive debond-
ing and breakage of the fibers, which are not supported by the
matrix. The continuous impact of sand particles on the compos-
ite surface breaks the fibers because of the formation of cracks
along their length. The bending of fibers is possible because the
surrounding matrix and supporting fibers have been removed.
As the impact angle of the particles shifts toward larger
values, the effects of normal force become dominant. Figures
6(a)–6(d) illustrate the wear morphology of the material after
normal erosion (at 90◦ ) at high particle speed of 65 m/s. At this
impingement angle there is no parallel component of particle
speed and parallel force. Hence, no abrasive wear is expected.
Each erodent particle has a totally normal speed and exerts
totally low-energy repeated impact loading for the material
surface. Many fibers are cracked into small fragments and they
are removed from their places partly with the surrounding
matrix like spalled fragments. When comparing two surface mor-
phologies, it is clear that the wear morphology in Fig. 6 is quite
different compared to Fig. 5(d). On the other hand, the effects of
the particle impacts on the subsurface of the composites should
 Solid Particle Erosion of Polymer Composites 525
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

Fig. 3—SEM micrographs of the eroded surfaces of the unfilled glass–epoxy composites.

be noted. At acute angles, due to the smaller normal constituent
of the particle impingement, the effect of impact phenomena is
smaller. Greater part of the particle’s energy spent for removing
the matrix between the fibers and fracture them to limited extent.
The eroded surfaces of glass–epoxy composites with alumina
filling (20 wt%) subjected to normal impingement angle at high
impact velocity are shown in Figs. 7(a)–7(d). The worn surfaces
exhibit signs of plastic deformation in the matrix regime, which
indicates the initiation of surface damage (Figs. 7(a), (b)). Subse-
quently, there is removal of matrix material from the surface, re-
sulting in exposure of fibers to an erosive environment, which can
be clearly seen (Fig. 7(c)). In this micrograph, the fibers are still
held firmly in place by the matrix surrounding them. Repeated
impacts gradually form larger craters and fiber matrix debond-
ing, brittle fracture of matrix, and pulverization of fibers conse-
quently occur. Some of these features are reflected in the micro-
graph (Fig. 7(d)). The fibers are broken by means of shearing ac-
tion, which can be seen from the micrograph due to impingement
of particles at higher impact velocity (Fig. 7(d)).
Steady-State Erosion
The erosion wear rates of glass–epoxy–alumina composites as
a function of impingement angle are shown in Fig. 8. Steady-state
wear rates are reached during the erosion periods for each
impingement angle. No incubation period is observed at any
impingement angle or particle velocity. It is observed that the
rate of mass loss of the eroded samples vary with the erosion
time at each impingement angle (15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90◦ ). As is
well known, the impingement angle has a great influence on the
particle erosion. In order to monitor the effect of impingement
 526 S. BISWAS AND A. SATAPATHY
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

Fig. 4—Scanning electron micrograph of alumina-filled glass fiber–epoxy matrix composite eroded surfaces (impact velocity 43 m/s, impingement angle
30◦ , filler content 10 wt%, erodent temperature 60◦ C, erodent size 450 µm, and stand of distance 65 mm.)

angles, experimental results are illustrated in Fig. 8. The erosion
wear behavior of polymer composites can be grouped into ductile
and brittle categories, although this grouping is not definitive
because the erosion characteristics depend on the experimental
conditions as much as on composition of the target material. It is
well known that for ductile materials the peak erosion normally
occurs at 15–20◦ angle, whereas for brittle materials the erosion
damage is maximum usually at normal impact; that is, at 90◦
impingement angle. Impingement angle is defined as the angle
between the target material and the trajectory of the erodents.
Dependence of erosion rate on the impact angle is largely deter-
mined by the nature of target material. In the present study, the
variation of erosion wear rate of the composites with impinge-
ment angle is studied by conducting experiments under specified
operating conditions. The results are presented in Fig. 8, which
shows the peak erosion taking place at an impingement angle
of 60◦ for the unfilled as well as the alumina-filled glass–epoxy
composites. This clearly indicates that these composites respond

Fig. 5—Scanning electron micrograph of alumina-filled glass fiber–epoxy matrix composite surfaces erodent at impact velocity 43 m/s, impingement
angle 60◦ , filler content 20 wt%, erodent temperature 60◦ C, erodent size 300 µm, and S.O.D 75 mm.
 Solid Particle Erosion of Polymer Composites 527
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

Fig. 6—Scanning electron micrograph of alumina-filled glass fiber–epoxy matrix composite surfaces erodent at impact velocity 54 m/s, impingement
angle 90◦ , filler content 20 wt%, erodent temperature 50◦ C, erodent size 300 µm, and S.O.D 85 mm.

to solid particle impact neither in a purely ductile nor in a purely
brittle manner. This behavior can be termed as semiductile in
nature, which may be attributed to the incorporation of glass
fibers and alumina particles within the epoxy body.
Analysis of Experimental Results
In Table 4, the erosion rates of different composites for all 27
test runs and their corresponding S/N ratios are given. Each value
is in fact the average of two replications. The overall mean for the
S/N ratio of the erosion rate is found to be −47.47 db. The analysis
was made using the popular software specifically used for design
of experiment applications known as MINITAB 14. Before any
attempt is made to use this simple model as a predictor for the
measure of performance, the possible interactions between the
control factors must be considered. Thus, factorial design incor-
porates a simple means of testing for the presence of the inter-
action effects. Analysis of the result leads to the conclusion that
a factor combination of A3 , B2 , C1 , D3 , E1 , and F1 gives a min-
imum erosion rate (Fig. 9). The interaction graphs are shown in
Figs. 10(a)–10(c).

Fig. 7—Scanning electron micrograph of alumina-filled glass fiber–epoxy matrix composite surfaces erodent at impact velocity 65 m/s, impingement
angle 90◦ , filler content 20 wt%, erodent temperature 50◦ C, erodent size 450 µm, and S.O.D 75 mm.
 528 S. BISWAS AND A. SATAPATHY

275 defined by Sundararajan, et al. (21) is given as

0 wt% Alumina
2ErHv
250 10 wt% Alumina ηnormal = [2]
ρ V2
Erosion rate (mg/kg)

20 wt% Alumina
But considering impact of erodent at any angle α to the surface,
225
the actual erosion efficiency can be obtained by modifying Eq. [2]
200 as
2ErH
η= [3]
175 ρ U2 Sin2 α
According to the theoretical erosion wear model proposed by
150 Biswas and Satapathy (16), the nondimensional erosion wear rate
15 30 45 60 75 90 of a composite material is given by
Impingement angle (degree) η.ρC  2 2 
Er = U Sin α + 2.S(θ − θ0 ) [4]
3H
Fig. 8—Effect of impingement angle on the erosion wear rate of the com-
The mathematical expression in Eq. [4] can be used for predictive
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

posites.
Erosion Efficiency
The hardness alone is unable to provide sufficient correlation
with erosion rate, largely because it determines only the volume
displaced by each impact and not really the volume eroded. Thus,
a parameter that will reflect the efficiency with which the volume
that is displaced is removed should be combined with hardness
to obtain a better correlation. The erosion efficiency is obviously
one such parameter. In case of a stream of particles impacting a
surface normally (i.e., at α = 90◦ ), the erosion efficiency (ηnormal )
purpose to make an approximate assessment of the erosion dam-
age from the composite surface. When the erodent temperature
is same as room temperature, Eq. [4] reduces to:
η.ρc  2 2 
Er = U Sin α [5]
3H
Here in Eq. [5], the role of thermal energy transfer from erodent
to target material in causing erosion is absent and thus the ex-
pression is similar to the one in the theoretical model proposed
earlier by Patnaik, et al. (15).
The evaluation of erosion efficiency can be made only on the
basis of experimental data. Hence, the values of erosion efficien-
cies of these composites calculated using Eq. [3] are summarized

TABLE 4—EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN USING L27 ORTHOGONAL ARRAY

Sl. No. A (m/s) B (%) C (◦ C) D (◦ ) E (mm) F (µm) Er1 (mg/kg) Er2 (mg/kg) Er = ( Er1 + Er2 )/2 (mg/kg) S/N Ratio (db)

1 43 0 30 30 65 300 202.3478 206.3482 204.348 −46.207

2 43 0 50 60 75 450 338.029 346.029 342.029 −50.681
3 43 0 70 90 85 600 410.7203 416.7197 413.720 −52.334
4 43 10 30 60 75 600 219.2472 221.3328 220.290 −46.86
5 43 10 50 90 85 300 173.913 192.753 183.333 −45.265
6 43 10 70 30 65 450 184.058 210.210 197.134 −45.895
7 43 20 30 90 85 450 263.768 315.942 289.855 −49.244
8 43 20 50 30 65 600 179.1923 168.6337 173.913 −44.807
9 43 20 70 60 75 300 192.3188 223.4632 207.891 −46.357
10 54 0 30 60 85 450 223.6232 228.5508 226.087 −47.086
11 54 0 50 90 65 600 342.1473 365.0987 353.623 −50.971
12 54 0 70 30 75 300 376.087 388.207 382.147 −51.645
13 54 10 30 90 65 300 147.2464 154.2036 150.725 −43.564
14 54 10 50 30 75 450 286.5217 293.1883 289.855 −49.244
15 54 10 70 60 85 600 300.1972 302.1208 301.159 −49.576
16 54 20 30 30 75 600 218.3712 233.8028 226.087 −47.086
17 54 20 50 60 85 300 374.4928 379.1312 376.812 −51.523
18 54 20 70 90 65 450 274.3478 267.7582 271.053 −48.661
19 65 0 30 90 75 600 163.7123 163.8237 163.768 −44.285
20 65 0 50 30 85 300 363.7681 355.0719 359.420 −51.112
21 65 0 70 60 65 450 449.4203 438.0037 443.712 −52.942
22 65 10 30 30 85 450 197.1014 208.6966 202.899 −46.146
23 65 10 50 60 65 600 158.8903 164.5877 161.739 −44.176
24 65 10 70 90 75 300 136.7391 149.2069 142.973 −43.105
25 65 20 30 60 65 300 142.8986 146.9574 144.928 −43.223
26 65 20 50 90 75 450 284.9275 283.1885 284.058 −49.068
27 65 20 70 30 85 600 287.8922 298.4238 293.158 −49.342
 Solid Particle Erosion of Polymer Composites 529

Main Effects Plot (data means) for SN ratios

A B C
-46

-47

-48
Mean of SN ratios
-49

-50
43 54 65 0 10 20 30 50 70
D E F
-46

-47

-48

-49
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

-50
30 60 90 65 75 85 300 450 600

Signal-to-noise: Smaller is better

Fig. 9—Effect of control factors on erosion rate.

in Table 5 along with their hardness values and operating condi- efficiencies of these composites under normal impact (ηnormal )
tions. This clearly shows that erosion efficiency is not exclusively vary from 3 to 6%, 6 to 9%, and 9 to 12% for impact velocities
a material property but also depends on other operational vari- 65, 54, and 43 m/s, respectively. The value of η for a particular
ables such as impingement angle and impact velocity. The erosion impact velocity under oblique impact can be obtained simply by

TABLE 5—EROSION EFFICIENCY OF GLASS FIBER–REINFORCED ALUMINA–EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITE

Expt. Impact Velocity Density of Eroding Hardness of Eroding Erosion Rate Erosion
No. (V) m/s Material (ρ) kg/m3 Material (Hv) MPa (Er) mg/kg Efficiency (η)

1 43 1530 24.80 204.348 14.05465

2 43 1530 24.80 342.029 7.841816
3 43 1530 24.80 413.720 7.113708
4 43 1627 39.92 220.290 7.645242
5 43 1627 39.92 183.333 4.771697
6 43 1627 39.92 197.134 20.52361
7 43 1800 47.46 289.855 8.107095
8 43 1800 47.46 173.913 19.45703
9 43 1800 47.46 207.891 7.753261
10 54 1530 24.80 226.087 3.286841
11 54 1530 24.80 353.623 3.855488
12 54 1530 24.80 382.147 16.66592
13 54 1627 39.92 150.725 2.487522
14 54 1627 39.92 289.855 19.13473
15 54 1627 39.92 301.159 6.627377
16 54 1800 47.46 226.087 16.03871
17 54 1800 47.46 376.812 8.910926
18 54 1800 47.46 271.053 4.807155
19 65 1530 24.80 163.768 1.232335
20 65 1530 24.80 359.420 10.81837
21 65 1530 24.80 443.712 4.452102
22 65 1627 39.92 202.899 6.419776
23 65 1627 39.92 161.739 2.456526
24 65 1627 39.92 142.973 1.628533
25 65 1800 47.46 144.928 2.365436
26 65 1800 47.46 284.058 3.476976
27 65 1800 47.46 293.158 14.35345
 530 S. BISWAS AND A. SATAPATHY

Interaction Plot (data means) for SN ratios

-44 B
0
10
-45 20

-46

SN ratios
-47

-48

-49

-50
43 54 65
A
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

Signal-to-noise: Smaller is better

(a)

Interaction Plot (data means) for SN ratios

-44 C
30
50
-45
70

-46
SN ratios

-47

-48

-49

-50

-51
43 54 65
A
Signal-to-noise: Smaller is better

(b)

Interaction Plot (data means) for SN ratios

-45 C
30
-46 50
70
-47

-48
SN ratios

-49

-50

-51

-52

-53
0 10 20
B
Signal-to-noise: Smaller is better

(c)

Fig. 10a—Interaction graph between A × B for erosion rate (b). Interaction graph between A × C for erosion rate (c). Interaction graph between B × C for
erosion rate.
 Solid Particle Erosion of Polymer Composites 531

multiplying a factor 1/Sin2 α with ηnormal . A similar observation on TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL AND EXPERI-
velocity dependence of erosion efficiency has previously been re- MENTAL RESULTS

ported by investigators (Roy, et al. (22). Expt. No. Erth (mg/kg) Erexpt. (mg/kg) Error (%)
The theoretical erosion wear rate (Erth ) of the alumina-filled
1 231.712 204.348 11.8096
glass–epoxy composites is calculated using Eq. [4]. These val-
2 387.851 342.029 11.8144
ues are compared with those obtained from experiments (Erexpt )
3 479.506 413.720 13.7195
conducted under similar operating conditions. Table 6 presents a 4 198.058 220.290 −11.2248
comparison among the theoretical and experimental results and 5 168.967 183.333 −8.5016
the corresponding associated error percentage. The errors in ex- 6 185.092 197.134 −6.5059
perimental results with respect to the theoretical ones lie in the 7 296.660 289.855 2.2939
range 0–10%. The magnitude of η can be used to characterize 8 168.416 173.913 −3.2634
the nature and mechanism of erosion. For example, ideal mi- 9 183.665 207.891 −13.1903
croploughing involving just the displacement of the material from 10 206.075 226.087 −9.7109
the crater without any fracture (and hence no erosion) will result 11 333.054 353.623 −6.1757
12 378.521 382.147 −0.9579
in η = 0. In contrast, if the material removal is by ideal microcut-
13 135.548 150.725 −11.1966
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

ting, η = 1.0 or 100%. If erosion occurs by lip or platelet forma-

14 277.781 289.855 −4.3465
tion and their fracture by repeated impact, as is usually the case
15 339.767 301.159 11.3632
with ductile materials, the magnitude of η will be very low; that 16 208.071 226.087 −8.6583
is, η ≤ 100%. In the case of brittle materials, erosion occurs usu- 17 380.134 376.812 0.87398
ally by spalling and removal of large chunks of materials resulting 18 247.356 271.053 −9.5801
from the interlinking of lateral or radial cracks and thus η can be 19 160.040 163.768 −2.3292
expected to be even greater than 100% (Arjula and Harsha (23). 20 327.574 359.420 −9.7215
The erosion efficiencies of the composites under the present study 21 395.002 443.712 −12.331
indicate that at low impact speed the erosion response is semiduc- 22 179.336 202.899 −13.138
tile (η = 10–100%). On the other hand, at relatively higher impact 23 186.329 161.739 13.1971
24 153.003 142.973 6.5553
velocity the composites exhibit ductile (η < 10%) erosion behav-
25 132.226 144.928 −9.6057
ior (Roy, et al. (22).
26 268.441 284.058 −5.8174
27 304.157 293.158 3.6163
ANOVA and the Effects of Factors
In order to determine the statistical significance of various fac-
tors like impact velocity (A), alumina content (B), erodent tem- has least effect on performance characteristics. Factors A and C
perature (C), impingement angle (D), stand-off distance (E), and have a significant effect on erosion rate but their interaction has
erodent size (F) on erosion rate, analysis of variance (ANOVA) the least effect on erosion rate (Table 7). Therefore, factor F and
was performed on experimental data. Table 7 shows the results interaction A × C can be omitted for further prediction. The es-
of the ANOVA with the erosion rate. This analysis is undertaken timated S/N ratio for erosion rate can be calculated with the help
for a level of confidence of significance of 5%. The last column of of following prediction equation:
the table indicates that the main effects are highly significant (all
η1 = T + (A2 − T) + (B3 − T) + [(A2 B3
have very small p-values; Montgomery (24).
From Table 7, one can observe that alumina content (p = − T) − (A2 − T) − (B3 − T)] + (C2 − T) + [(B3 C2 − T)
0.044), erodent temperature (p = 0.059), stand-off distance (p =  
− (B3 − T) − (C2 − T)] + (E3 − T ) + F 2 − T [6]
0.102), erodent size (p = 0.152), and impact velocity (p = 0.159)
have a great influence on erosion rate. The interaction of Alu- where is predicted average, T is overall experimental average,
mina Content × Erodent Temperature (p = 0.163) and Impact and A2 , B3 , C2 , E3 and F 2 are mean response for factors and in-
Velocity × Erodent Temperature (p = 0.205) show significant teractions at designated levels.
contribution on the erosion rate but the remaining factor and in- By combining like terms, the equation reduces to
teractions make a relatively less significant contribution to ero-
sion rate. η1 = A2 B3 + B3 C2 − B2 + E3 + F 2 − 2T [7]

A new combination of factor levels A2 , B3 , C2 , E3 , and F2 is used

Confirmation Experiment
The optimal combination of control factors has been deter-
mined in the previous analysis. However, the final step in any
design of experiment approach is to predict and verify improve-
ments in observed values through the use of the optimal com-
bination level of control factors. The confirmation experiment
is performed by taking an arbitrary set of factor combination
A2 B3 C2 E3 F2 , but factor D has been omitted and factor A also
to predict deposition rate through the prediction equation and it
is found to be η̄1 = − 52.7645 dB.
For each performance measure, an experiment is conducted
for a different factor combination and compared with the result
obtained from the predictive equation as shown in Table 8. The
resulting model seems to be capable of predicting erosion rate
to a reasonable accuracy. An error of 6.63% for the S/N ratio
of erosion rate is observed. However, the error can be further
 532 S. BISWAS AND A. SATAPATHY

TABLE 7—ANOVA TABLE FOR EROSION RATE (ALUMINA- impingement angle for all composite samples under various
FILLED COMPOSITES) experimental conditions.
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Rank
6. The confirmation tests showed that the error associated be-
tween experimental results and the predictive model for ero-
A 2 15.170 15.170 7.585 5.27 0.159 5 sion rate is 6.63%. However, the error can be further reduced
B 2 62.209 62.209 31.104 21.62 0.044 1 if the number of experiments is increased.
C 2 45.522 45.522 22.761 15.82 0.059 2
D 2 2.255 2.255 1.127 0.78 0.561 6 REFERENCES
E 2 25.464 25.464 12.732 8.85 0.102 3
(1) Tewari, U. S., Harsha, A. P., Hager, A. M., and Friedrich, K. (2003), “Solid
F 2 16.073 16.073 8.036 5.59 0.152 4 Particle Erosion of Carbon Fibre and Glass Fibre Epoxy Composites,”
A*B 4 7.449 7.449 1.862 1.29 0.480 3 Composites Science and Technology, 63, pp 549–557.
A*C 4 23.668 23.668 5.917 4.11 0.205 2 (2) Tewari, U. S., Harsha, A. P., Hager, A. M., and Friedrich, K. (2002),
B*C 4 31.027 31.027 7.757 5.39 0.163 1 “Solid Particle Erosion of Unidirectional Carbon Fibre Reinforced
Polyetheretherketone Composites,” Wear, 252, pp 992–1000.
Error 2 2.877 2.877 1.438 (3) Barkoula, N. M. and Karger-Kocsis, J. (2002), “Review—Processes and
Total 26 231.713 Influencing Parameters of the Solid Particle Erosion of Polymers and Their
Composites,” Journal of Materials Science, 37, pp 3807–3820.
(4) Harsha, A. P., Tewari, U. S., and Venkataraman, B. (2003), “Solid Particle
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 01:17 10 October 2013

TABLE 8—RESULTS OF THE CONFIRMATION EXPERIMENTS FOR
EROSION RATE
Optimal Control Parameters
Prediction Experimental
Level A2 B3 C2 E3 F2 A2 B3 C2 E3 F2
S/N ratio for erosion rate (db) −52.7645 −49.2661
reduced if the number of measurements is increased. This vali-
dates the development of the mathematical model for predicting
the measures of performance based on knowledge of the input
parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research presented in this article the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. These composites suitable for applications in highly erosive
environments can be prepared by reinforcement of glass
fibers and filling of microsized alumina particles in epoxy
resin.
2. Erosion characteristics of these composites can be successfully
analyzed using a Taguchi experimental design scheme. The
erosion wear performance of these composites improves quite
significantly by addition of alumina filler.
3. The factors like alumina content (p = 0.044), erodent temper-
ature (p = 0.059), stand-off distance (p = 0.102), erodent size
(p = 0.152), impact velocity (p = 0.159), and interactions Alu-
mina Content × Erodent Temperature (p = 0.163) and Impact
Velocity × Erodent Temperature (p = 0.205) in order of pri-
ority show significant contributions to the erosion rate.
4. The erosion efficiency (η), in general, characterizes the wear
mechanism of composites. The alumina-filled glass fiber–
epoxy composites exhibit semiductile erosion response (η =
10–60%) for low impact velocities and ductile erosion re-
sponse (η < 10%) for relatively high impact velocity.
5. A study of influence of impingement angle on erosion rate
of the composites filled with different weight percentage of
alumina reveals their semiductile nature with respect to ero-
sion wear. The peak erosion rate is found to occur at 60◦
Erosion Behaviour of Various Polyaryletherketone Composites,” Wear,
254, pp 693–712.
(5) Biswas, S., Satapathy, A., and Patnaik, A. (2008), “Erosion Wear Be-
haviour of Polymer Composites: A Review,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics
and Composites. doi: 10.1177/0731684408097786.
(6) Rothon, R. N. (1997), “Mineral Fillers in Thermoplastics: Filler Manufac-
ture,” Journal of Adhesion, 64, pp 87–109.
(7) Bonner, W. H. (1962), “Aromatic polyketones and preparation thereof,”
U.S. Patent Specification 3065205.
(8) Attwood, T. E., Dawson, P. C., Freeman, J. L., Hoy, L. R. J., Rose, J. B.,
and Staniland, P. A. (1981), “Synthesis and Properties of Polyaryletherke-
tones,” Polymer, 22(8), pp 1096–1103.
(9) Li, T. Q., Zhang, M. Q., Zeng, K., and Zeng, H. M. (2000), “The Depen-
dence of the Fracture Toughness of Thermoplastic Composite Laminates
on Interfacial Interaction,” Composites Science and Technology, 60(3),
pp 465–476.
(10) Voss, H. and Friedrich, K. (1986), “Wear Performance of Bulk Liquid
Crystal Polymer and Its Short Fibre Composites,” Tribology International,
19, pp 145–156.
(11) Harsha, A. P. and Tewari, U. S. (2002), “Tribo Performance of Pol-
yaryletherketone Composites,” Polymer Testing, 21, pp 697–709.
(12) Ruff, A. W. and Ives, L. K. (1975), “Measurement of Solid Particle Veloc-
ity in Erosive Wear,” Wear, 35(1), pp 195–199.
(13) Glen, S. P. (1993), Taguchi Methods: A Hands on Approach, Addison-
Wesley: New York.
(14) Patnaik, A., Satapathy, A., Mahapatra, S. S., and Dash, R. R. (2008),
“A Modeling Approach for Prediction of Erosion Behavior of Glass
Fiber-Polyester Composites,” Journal of Polymer Research, 15(2), pp 147–
160.
(15) Patnaik, A., Satapathy, A., Mahapatra, S. S., and Dash, R. R. (2009),
“Tribo-Performance of Polyester Hybrid Composites: Damage Assess-
ment and Parameter Optimization Using Taguchi Design,” Materials and
Design, 30, pp 57–67.
(16) Biswas, S. and Satapathy, A. (2009), “Tribo-Performance Analysis of Red
Mud Filled Glass-Epoxy Composites Using Taguchi Experimental De-
sign,” Materials and Design, 30, pp 2841–2853.
(17) Friedrich, K. (1986), “Erosive Wear of Polymer Surfaces by Steel Blast-
ing,” Journal of Material Science, 21, pp 3317–3332.
(18) Pool, K. V., Dharan, C. K. H., and Finnie, I. (1986), “Erosive Wear of
Composite Materials,” Wear, 107, pp 1–12.
(19) Hager, A., Friedrich, K., Dzenis, Y. A., and Paipetis, S. A. (1995), “Study
of Erosion Wear of Advanced Polymer Composites,” in ICCM-10 Con-
ference Proceedings, Street, K. (Ed.), Woodhead PublishingL Cambridge,
UK, pp 155–162.
(20) Zahavi, J. and Schmitt, G. F. (1981), “Solid Particle Erosion of Reinforced
Composite Material,” Wear, 71, pp 179–190.
(21) Sundararajan, G., Roy, M., and Venkataraman, B. (1990), “Erosion
Efficiency—A New Parameter to Characterize the Dominant Erosion
Micro-Mechanism,” Wear, 140, pp 369–381.
(22) Roy, M., Vishwanathan, B., and Sundararajan, G. (1994) “Solid Particle
Erosion of Polymer Matrix Composites,” Wear, 171, pp 149–161.
(23) Arjula, S. and Harsha, A. P. (2006), “Study of Erosion Efficiency of Poly-
mers and Polymer Composites,” Polymer Testing, 25, pp 188–196.
(24) Montgomery, D. C. (2005), Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.