Effect of graphite additive on physical,mechanical,and wearing properties of Al 2 O 3 /E-glass/phenol formaldehyde hybrid composite grinding wheel

Abstract

The research was conducted to develop and assess the performance of composite grinding wheels enhanced with a graphite additive. These composite wheels were composed of aluminum oxide as abrasive and reinforcement material, E-glass as a reinforcement material, and phenolic resin as the matrix material. Various concentrations of graphite (4%, 8%, 12%, and 16% by weight) were incorporated into the composite formulations. Aluminum oxide, phenolic resin, and graphite were hand-stirred and combined. The mixture was then compressed at 94.4 MPa at room temperature, followed by heat treatment at 204°C for 50 min. The incorporation of graphite into Al2O3/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde composite grinding wheels significantly enhanced their mechanical properties and grinding performance. Increasing the graphite content up to 12 wt% in grinding wheels (GW3) resulted in a steady increase in density (from 1.9 g/cm³ to 2.1 g/cm³) and a corresponding decrease in porosity (from 16.5% to 3.6%) compared to the 4 wt% graphite-filled grinding wheels (GW1). Moreover, GW3 showed improvements in push-out strength by 60.6% (from 4.1 MPa to 6.57 MPa) and compressive strength by 15.7% (from 21.8 MPa to 25.17 MPa) compared to GW1. Wheels containing 16 wt% graphite (GW4) exhibited the lowest wear rate, reducing it by 89% (from 0.105 g/cm² to 0.019 g/cm²) compared to GW1. These findings suggest that graphite incorporation is a promising approach for developing more durable and efficient grinding wheels, with the optimal graphite content for balancing strength and wear being 12 wt%.

Keywords

grinding wheel abrasive phenol resin graphite E-glass wear rate

Introduction

Grinding is a technique used to remove material from a workpiece using a spinning grinding wheel. These wheels are made up of abrasive particles bonded together in a special “bond” that holds them in shape. As the wheel rotates at high speeds, the abrasive particles act like tiny cutting points, grinding away at the material. This process can be used to achieve a desired shape, a smooth surface finish, or precise dimensions. There are two main components to a grinding wheel: the abrasive grains that do the cutting, and the bonding material that holds them together. The size, spacing, and type of abrasive particles, along with the chosen bond material, all influence the overall structure and performance of the grinding wheel. Selecting the right combination of abrasive and bond material is crucial for the grinding task at hand.¹ Oliveira et al.² found that PCBN tools outperformed aluminum oxide tools in interrupted cutting. Aluminum oxide experienced greater flank wear, leading to rougher surfaces compared to PCBN. This is because interrupted cutting puts a higher stress on tools, similar to grinding.³ Researchers explored how grinding wheel features, grain size, and grinding settings affect surface roughness of ceramic materials.^4,5 Another study used a thermal camera to measure grinding temperatures, improving models for heat distribution.⁶ Szajna1 and Bazan⁷ reported a link between feed rate, grain size, and grinding wheel wear, surface quality, and temperature. When choosing a grinding wheel, wheel speed is another crucial factor to consider. Different wheel types have varying optimal operating speeds that affect performance and safety. For example, organic-bond wheels can be safely used at speeds between 6500 and 9500 SFPM, offering faster material removal. However, vitrified wheels are limited to a maximum speed of 6500 SFPM, prioritizing control and wheel life over speed.¹ Ribeiro et al.⁸ found that increasing feed rates in interrupted grinding of hardened steel (AISI 4340) with a vitrified aluminum oxide wheel improved surface finish and roundness but accelerated grinding wheel wear compared to uninterrupted grinding.

Resin-based grinding wheels are among the widely used for grinding of hard and brittle materials.^9,10 The bonding material’s state of matter significantly influences the homogeneity of the abrasive mixture with the bonding material. Furthermore, the physical and mechanical characteristics of the grinding wheel, in addition to the surface finish, are significantly impacted by the abrasive’s grain size.¹⁰

Fillers are among the effective hybrid materials to enhance the properties of fiber-reinforced composites and reduce the cost of their final product.^11–13 Tesfay et al.¹² found that carbon fillers increased the tensile strength of sisal/polyester composites by a maximum of 24.2% and the impact strength by a maximum of 78.5%. Lohiya et al.¹⁴ investigated the use of Linz-Donawintz (LD) slag as a reinforcement material in epoxy composites. They found that while adding LD slag improves physical properties, it slightly compromises tensile and flexural strength. However, compressive strength, hardness, and wear resistance increase significantly. Purohit et al.¹⁴ conducted a comprehensive study on the mechanical and dry sliding wear properties of LD sludge (LDSE), BF slag (BFS), and LD slag (LDS)-filled epoxy composites. The results revealed that EP-LDSE composites exhibited significantly superior wear and mechanical properties compared to EP-BFS and EP-LDS composites. Furthermore, Purohit et al.¹⁵ studied epoxy composites with wood apple dust (WAD) filler. Results show WAD improves wear resistance and mechanical properties. Tensile, compressive, and flexural strength increase with WAD content. WAD content, sliding velocity, sliding distance, and normal load affect wear rate.

The addition of graphite nanoparticles is observed to improve the tensile strength, flexural strength, impact properties, and wear resistance of composites.^16–19 Bhanuprakash et al.¹⁷ studied aluminum matrix composites (AMCs) reinforced with synthetic graphite and granite. Results show AMCs have improved mechanical properties compared to pure aluminum. Reinforcement distribution and particle size affect composite properties. Devendrapash et al.²⁰ studied sisal and glass fiber-reinforced epoxy composites with graphite filler. The research revealed that hybrid composites demonstrate superior mechanical properties compared to composites with individual fibers. Graphite filler significantly enhanced the wear resistance of the composites. Moreover, Demir²¹ investigated the effects of graphite filler on the tribological properties of glass fiber-reinforced epoxy composites. The study found that the addition of graphite significantly improved wear resistance and reduced the friction coefficient. Microstructural analysis revealed that filled composites exhibited less abrasion and shallower surface porosity compared to unfilled composites. Güler et al.²² found that ZA27 hybrid composites reinforced with nano-graphite and nano-alumina exhibited enhanced wear resistance compared to pure ZA27. Graphite content significantly influenced wear behavior, with the highest wear resistance observed at 4% volume fraction of graphite and 4% volume fraction of alumina. These findings suggest that graphite filler is a promising material for enhancing the wear performance of fiber-reinforced epoxy composites.

Despite extensive research on grinding wheels, there remains a limited understanding of how incorporating graphite into an aluminum oxide grinding wheel bonded with glass and phenol resin would affect performance. This research gap presents an opportunity to investigate the effects of graphite on wear rate and wheel strength. By comparing graphite-filled wheels to traditional wheels, this research aims to explore potential improvements in strength and wear resistance. Additionally, the use of graphite as an internal lubricant could potentially eliminate the need for external lubricants. Ultimately, this research seeks to develop cost-effective alternative grinding tools with comparable performance.

Materials and methods

Materials

Aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃)

An abrasive aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃) with a grain size of 0.5 mm, “36” based on ANSI purchased from brake pad manufacturers in Addis Ababa. Abrasive aluminum oxide grit sizes were identified based on grinding wheel hardness, good surface finish, acceptable lifetime and temperature resistance. So, based on the above specification grit sizes from (30) to (46) were used for sample preparation. The aluminum oxide used is illustrated in Figure 1(a).

Figure 1.

Materials: (a) Aluminum oxide abrasive, (b) Phenolic resin, and (c) Graphite.

Phenolic resin

This study employed a grinding wheel composition consisting of 24% by weight phenol formaldehyde resin and a delayed-action hardener, which were used to bond abrasive particles, E-glass reinforcement, and graphite filler, as described by Manoharan1 et al.²³ The delayed-action hardener to achieve controlled curing of phenol-aldehyde resins was performed as described by Orpin.²⁴ The phenolic resin used is illustrated in Figure 1(b).

Graphite

The graphite particles had a grit size of 90 (ANSI standard), corresponding to a size of 125 μm according to Ahmed et al.²⁵ These filler materials were added in varying weight percentages: 4%, 8%, 12%, and 16%. This composition of graphite was selected based on previous studies, which identified an optimal value within the chosen composition range.^26,27 The graphite used is illustrated in Figure 1(c).

E-glass

E-glass fiber, a type of alumina-borosilicate glass with less than 1% alkali oxide content by weight, has been widely used as reinforcement in composite materials. In this study, woven E-glass fiber, as illustrated in Figure 2(b), was employed as the reinforcing material. The E-glass fiber was obtained from local composite suppliers.

Figure 2.

Fiber glass: (a) E-type fiber glass and (b) woven form fiber glass.

Mold preparation

The grinding wheel mold was composed of four parts: an upper plate, a bottom plate, a pin, and a cylindrical shell, all constructed of seamless carbon steel. The cylinder walls were designed to withstand the high internal pressure that could be generated during sample preparation. The dimension for the cylindrical mold is given in Table 1. The ASTM A106 standard specification for seamless carbon steel pipe is provided below.

Yield strength $σ_{y}$ = 240 MPa

Ultimate strength $σ_{u l}$ = 415 MPa

Ultimate shear strength $τ_{u l}$ = 308 MPa

Table 1.

Cylinder mold dimensions.

Parameter	Dimension (mm)
Thickness	8
Inner diameter	150
Outer diameter	166

Mass fractions

The resin and E-glass contents are kept constant at 24% and 4% by weight, respectively. The percentages of Al₂O₃ and graphite were varied to investigate their influence on grinding wheel performance. The weight percentages of the abrasive, resin, E-glass, and graphite used are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Composition of grinding wheels by weight.

Designation	Composition (wt. %)
Designation	Al₂O₃	Resin	Fiber glass	Graphite
GW1	68	24	4	4
GW2	64	24	4	8
GW3	60	24	4	12
GW4	56	24	4	16

Sample preparation

Sample grinding wheels were manufactured using the cold-press method, involving the mixing and pressing of components into a centrally depressed disc shape at room temperature. Aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃) abrasive, phenolic resin binder, and graphite additive were meticulously blended through manual stirring. The homogeneously mixed raw materials were poured onto an E-glass woven mat placed in a steel mold. Another E-glass woven mat was then placed on top, and the assembly was compressed at a pressure of 94.4 MPa. Subsequently, the compacted wheels were subjected to heat treatment at 204°C for 50 min. The fabrication technique closely followed the process described by Linke.²⁸ The fabrication process and the produced samples are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.

Figure 3.

Grinding wheel sample preparation process flow.

Figure 4.

Samples: (a) samples for compression test and (b) samples for push-out test.

Testing methods

Speed test

The spin burst test is a crucial preliminary test for grinding wheels. It involves gradually increasing the wheel’s rotational speed until it fractures, allowing us to determine its maximum speed capability. To conduct the test, the wheel is mounted on a centrifugal testing machine and its speed is gradually increased while monitoring for signs of stress or deformation. Once the wheel fractures, the rotational speed at that point is recorded. This data is then analyzed to determine the wheel’s maximum speed capability and to identify any factors that may have influenced its performance.

Density and porosity

Density and porosity of samples were evaluated using the Archimedes’ principle, following the ASTM standard C373-88. To ensure complete pore filling, the samples were submerged in boiling water for 3 hours. After cooling to room temperature, the suspended mass of each sample in water was measured. The samples were then carefully patted dry with a paper towel to remove surface water. This mass represents the water-saturated weight. Five measurements for both wet and dry masses were taken and averaged. Finally, the samples were dried in a furnace at 105°C for 2 hours to remove any remaining moisture.^29,30 Their dry mass was then determined.

Push-out strength

The push-out test for wheels involved clamping a small ring around the inner rim. A pin through the ring prevented it from spinning. Then, a force was applied to the ring, pushing it outwards. The deformation of the ring under increasing load was measured to create a load versus deformation curve. For each test, five samples were examined.

Compression strength

Compressive strength of the samples was determined according to ASTM D6641-16.³¹ Rectangular specimens measuring 155 × 25 × 6.5 mm were prepared following the standard’s specifications. A universal testing machine (Microcomputer Controlled Electro-hydraulic Servo Universal Testing Machine, Model: SI-1000 KN) performed the compression test under ambient conditions. The average value of five samples was used to represent the compressive strength.

Wear rate

Wear rate is a measure of how quickly material is lost from a surface due to wear, which can occur through friction, abrasion, or other processes. In the context of a grinding wheel, wear rate specifically refers to the rate at which material is lost from the wheel during operation. The wear rate of samples was determined using the pin-on-disc method in accordance with ASTM G99-05. No coolant was employed during the test. Prior to testing, each sample’s weight was accurately recorded. The samples were then placed within the pin-on-disc apparatus for wear rate measurement. Each test stayed for 18 min, with weight measurements taken every 6 min under a constant applied load of 20 N and a disc speed of 11,500 r/min followed previous researches.^32–36 For each test, at least five samples were examined. The wear rate was then expressed in terms of mass loss per unit area per minute (g/cm²·min), a common unit for circular parts.^37–40

Results and discussion

Speed test

Typically, center-depressed wheels are expected to withstand a speed of 14,000 r/min.⁴¹ However, incorporating E-glass fiber reinforcement and graphite particles was observed to significantly enhance their maximum speed, increasing it by more than 20%. This means that with E-glass reinforcement, the grinding wheels can withstand speeds closer to 150 m/s.

Density and porosity

Figure 5 investigates the influence of the weight percentage of graphite on the density and porosity of Al₂O₃/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde hybrid composite grinding wheels. Graphite content significantly influenced both the density and porosity of the grinding wheels. As graphite content increases, the grinding wheel’s density steadily rises, reaching a maximum of 2.1 g/cm³ at 12% graphite (GW3). This increase is attributed to graphite filling the pores within the composite, thereby enhancing its mass without appreciably altering its volume. Conversely, porosity decreased significantly, dropping from 16.5% at 4% graphite to just 3.6% at 16% graphite. This trend reinforces the idea that graphite fills the empty spaces within the grinding wheel. Interestingly, adding further graphite (beyond 12%) caused the density to decline. It decreased from the maximum of 2.1 g/cm³ at 12% to 2.01 g/cm³ at 16% graphite (GW4). The decrease in density beyond 12% graphite addition could be attributed to graphite agglomeration. At higher graphite concentrations, the graphite particles may start to agglomerate or clump together; increasing the viscosity of the resin and making the mixing process more challenging. This agglomeration can create voids or pores within the composite structure, leading to a decrease in density.⁴² Similar investigation is reported by Pulikkalparambil et al.¹⁶ There is an inverse relationship between porosity and wear rate. Grinding wheels with higher porosity wear out faster because they have less material to resist abrasion. Conversely, wheels with lower porosity last longer due to their denser structure. Thus, the addition of graphite is enhancing the density and porosity of the grinding wheel for improved performance.

Figure 5.

Effect of graphite percentage: (a) Density and (b) porosity.

Push-out strength

Figure 6 depicts the average push-out strength of the grinding wheels. The enhancement in push-out strength with increasing graphite content can be attributed to a combination of factors. Primarily, the fine graphite particles effectively fill the voids within the A36 aluminum oxide grinding wheel, resulting in a denser material with increased resistance to bending forces. Additionally, graphite may enhance the interfacial adhesion between the abrasive grains and the binder matrix, potentially due to its lubricating or filling properties.⁴³ Grinding wheels containing 4%, 8%, 12%, and 16% graphite exhibit average push-out strengths of 4.09 MPa, 6.13 MPa, 6.57 MPa, and 6.53 MPa, respectively. Sample GW3, containing 12% graphite, exhibited the highest push-out strength. This increase in push-out strength represents a 60.6% improvement compared to the 4% graphite grinding wheel (GW1). The value is significantly higher than a conventional composite’s value of 5 MPa.⁴⁴ However, further increases in graphite content (to 16%) resulted in a slight decrease in push-out strength, potentially due to agglomeration of graphite powder within the resin.¹⁶

Figure 6.

Effect of graphite additive on push-out strength.

Compression strength

Figure 7 illustrates a direct correlation between compressive strength and graphite content. The enhancement in compressive strength is primarily attributed to the lubricating properties of graphite particles. These particles effectively reduce friction between the abrasive particles (Al2O3) and glass fibers, promoting a more even distribution of stress throughout the wheel. This mitigation of stress concentration points minimizes the likelihood of cracks and fractures under pressure. Additionally, graphite fills voids, potentially acting as bridges to hinder crack initiation and propagation, thereby significantly enhancing the compressive strength of the grinding wheel.⁴⁵ Among the tested grinding wheels, GW3 exhibited the highest compressive strength of 25.17 MPa, representing a notable 15.7% increase compared to GW1. However, further additions of graphite resulted in a decline in compressive strength. Grinding wheel GW4 exhibited a compressive strength of 24.8 MPa, slightly lower than that of GW3 grinding wheels. This reduction can be attributed to the agglomeration of graphite particles within the matrix.¹⁶

Figure 7.

Effect of graphite additive on compressive strength.

Wear rate

Figure 8 illustrates the wear rate variation of the grinding wheels as a function of graphite content. The majority of grinding wheels exhibited a decreasing wear rate over time; for example, GW4’s wear rate decreased from 0.0175 g/cm²·min after 3 min of grinding to 0.0105 g/cm²·min after 18 min. Moreover, a direct correlation was observed between increased graphite content (from 4% to 16% by weight) and a corresponding reduction in wear rate. This is attributed to graphite’s remarkable thermal conductivity, which efficiently dissipates heat from the wheel, and its lubricating properties, akin to those found in friction linings.⁴⁶ Notably, GW4, containing 16% graphite, demonstrated the lowest wear rate at 0.19 g/cm² after 18 min of grinding, representing an impressive 89% reduction compared to GW1 with only 4% graphite. The results demonstrated exceptional wear rate values, comparable to those reported for high-performance grinding wheels in previous studies.⁴⁰ However, while higher graphite content enhances grinding efficiency by strengthening the bond between abrasive grains, it’s important to note that excessive amounts can lead to glazing. Although glazing is beneficial for achieving a finer finish, it significantly hinders material removal rates.⁴⁷

Figure 8.

Wear rate variation (g/cm²) of grinding wheels with various compositions recorded at different times (minutes).

Conclusion

This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the Al2O3/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde composite grinding wheel, highlighting its potential as a promising alternative in the grinding wheel market. The incorporation of graphite into the composite, in conjunction with E-glass, significantly enhanced its performance. The drawn conclusions include the following:

• The grinding wheels demonstrated a 20% increase in maximum speed tolerance compared to the standard 14,000 rpm for center-depressed wheels, enabling higher grinding speeds.

• The incorporation of graphite into the Al2O3/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde composite grinding wheels significantly influenced their density and porosity. A maximum density of 2.1 g/cm³ was achieved with 12% graphite, while porosity was reduced from 16.5% to 3.6% over the same graphite content range. However, excessive graphite addition (beyond 12%) led to a decline in density due to agglomeration.

• Graphite addition significantly enhanced the push-out strength of the Al2O3/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde composite grinding wheels. The highest strength (6.57 MPa) was achieved with 12% graphite (GW3), representing a 60.6% improvement over the control sample (GW1).

• The incorporation of graphite into Al2O3/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde composite grinding wheels significantly enhanced compressive strength. Among the tested grinding wheels, GW3 demonstrated the highest compressive strength, reaching 25.17 MPa, which represents a notable 15.7% increase compared to GW1.

• The incorporation of graphite into Al2O3/E-glass/phenol formaldehyde composite grinding wheels significantly decreased wear rates. GW4, containing 16% graphite by weight, exhibited the lowest wear rate of 0.19 g/cm² after 18 min of grinding, representing an 89% reduction compared to GW1 (4% graphite by weight), which had a wear rate of 0.105 g/cm² after the same grinding time.

Overall, the experimental results demonstrate that the developed grinding wheels possess properties that are highly competitive with conventional wheels. This makes them particularly suitable for application in small and medium-sized manufacturing industries.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to appreciate the School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering and School of Civil Engineering at Ethiopian Institute of Technology Mekelle (EIT-M), Mekelle University for providing us with materials, laboratory service, and research funding.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Mekelle University.

ORCID iD

Abrha G Tesfay

References

Malkin

. Grinding processes abrasive machining processes. Berlin: Springer, 2013, pp. 1573–1580.

Oliveira

Diniz

Ursolino

. Hard turning in continuous and interrupted cut with PCBN and whisker-reinforced cutting tools. J Mater Process Technol 2009; 209: 5262–5270.

de Mello

Rodriguez

, et al. Contribution to cylindrical grinding of interrupted surfaces of hardened steel with medium grit wheel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2018; 95: 4049–4057.

Cheng

Gao

, et al. Research on predicting model of surface roughness in small-scale grinding of brittle materials considering grinding tool topography. Int J Mech Sci 2020; 166: 105263.

Kanakarajan

Sundaram

Kumaravel

, et al. Prediction of the surface roughness and wheel wear of modern ceramic material (Al2 O3) during grinding using multiple regression analysis model. Indian J Eng Mater Sci 2017; 24(3): 182–186.

Brosse

Naisson

Hamdi

, et al. Temperature measurement and heat flux characterization in grinding using thermography. J Mater Process Technol 2008; 201: 590–595.

Szajna

Bazan

. Influence of grain size and feed rate on selected aspects of corundum ceramic grinding using spherical diamond heads. Adv Sci Technol Res J 2021; 15: 149–159.

Ribeiro

FSF

Lopes

Garcia

, et al. Grinding assessment of workpieces with different interrupted geometries using aluminum oxide wheel with vitrified bond. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2020; 108: 931–941.

Yin

Huang

. Ceramic response to high speed grinding. Mach Sci Technol 2004; 8: 21–37.

10.

Zhang

, et al. Selective laser sintering and grinding performance of resin bond diamond grinding wheels with arrayed internal cooling holes. Ceram Int 2019; 45: 20873–20881.

11.

Das

Ashek-E-Khoda

Sayeed

, et al. On the use of wood charcoal filler to improve the properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. Mater Today Proc 2021; 44: 926–929.

12.

Tesfay

Kahsay

Kumar

. Effect of carbon and glass fillers on tensile and impact strength, water absorption, and degradation properties of sisal/polyester composites. J Nat Fibers 2023; 20: 2202886.

13.

Xanthos

. Functional fillers for plastics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

14.

Lohiya

Agrawal

, et al. Physical, mechanical, and sliding wear behavior of micro-sized Linz-Donawintz slag filled epoxy composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2022; 139: e52714.

15.

Purohit

Pradhan

Gupta

, et al. Sliding wear characterization of epoxy composites filled with wood apple dust using Taguchi analysis and finite element method. J Vinyl Addit Technol 2024; 30: 788–800.

16.

Pulikkalparambil

Saravana Kumar

Babu

, et al. Effect of graphite fillers on woven bamboo fiber-reinforced epoxy hybrid composites for semistructural applications: fabrication and characterization. Biomass Convers Biorefin 2024; 14: 17761–17777.

17.

Bhanuprakash

Thejasree

John

, et al. Study on mechanical and micro-structural properties of aluminium matrix composite reinforced with graphite and granite fillers. Mater Today Proc. 2023; 1–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2023.06.243, In press.

18.

Gautam

Kar

. Synthesis and properties of highly conducting natural flake graphite/phenolic resin composite bipolar plates for pem fuel cells. Adv Compos Lett 2016; 25: 096369351602500.

19.

Wang

, et al. Preparation and properties of graphite/antimony composites based on coal tar pitch. Adv Compos Lett 2017; 26: 096369351702600.

20.

Devendrappa

Madhu

Sharath

. Enhancing wear resistance, mechanical properties of composite materials through sisal and glass fiber reinforcement with epoxy resin and graphite filler. J Indian Chem Soc 2024; 101: 101349.

21.

Demir

. The effect of graphite addition on the friction coefficient and wear behavior of glass fiber reinforced composites. Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendis. Fakültesi Derg 2024; 29: 113–124.

22.

Güler

Cuvalci

Canakci

, et al. The effect of nano graphite particle content on the wear behaviour of ZA27 based hybrid composites. Adv Compos Lett 2017; 26: 096369351702600.

23.

Manoharan

Suresha

Bharath

P.B

Ramadoss

. Investigations on Three-Body Abrasive Wear Behaviour of Composite Brake Pad Material. Plast Polym Technol. 2014; 3: 10–18.

24.

Orpin

. Process for hardening phenolic resins. European Patent Application EP0549893A1, Publication number: 0539098 A1, Jouve, 18, rue Saint-Denis, 75001 PARIS. 1992; 1–7.

25.

Ahmed

Adebayo

, et al. Mechanical properties and application of graphite and graphite-based nanocomposite: a review. Chem Mater Res. 2023; 15(1): 10–32.

26.

Sharma

Paliwal

Garg

, et al. A study on wear behaviour of Al/6101/graphite composites. J. Asian Ceram. Soc 2017; 5: 42–48.

27.

Panda

Bijwe

Pandey

. Optimization of graphite contents in PAEK composites for best combination of performance properties. Composites Part B 2019; 174: 106951.

28.

Linke

. Manufacturing and sustainability of bonding systems for grinding tools. Prod Eng 2016; 10: 265–276.

29.

Singh

Bhaskar

. Physical and mechanical properties of coconut shell particles reinforcedepoxy composite. J Mater Environ Sci 2013; 4: 227–232.

30.

Nadolny

Herman

. Effect of vitrified bond microstructure and volume fraction in the grinding wheel on traverse internal cylindrical grinding of Inconel® alloy 600. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2015; 81: 905–915.

31.

ASTM D6641-16 . Standard test method for compressive properties of polymer matrix composite materials using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC) test fixture. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2017.

32.

Jackson

Davim

. Machining with abrasives. Berlin: Springer, 2011.

33.

Unal

Mimaroglu

. Friction and wear behaviour of unfilled engineering thermoplastics. Mater Des 2003; 24: 183–187.

34.

Singh

Chattopadhyaya

Pramanik

, et al. Wear behavior of chromium nitride coating in dry condition at lower sliding velocity and load. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2018; 96: 1665–1675.

35.

Leech

Alam

. Comparison of abrasive wear of a complex high alloy hardfacing deposit and WC–Ni based metal matrix composite. Wear 2012; 294-295: 380–386.

36.

Baradeswaran

Perumal

. Study on mechanical and wear properties of Al 7075/Al2O3/graphite hybrid composites. Composites Part B 2014; 56: 464–471.

37.

Traoré

Jolissaint

OSP

Kouadio

, et al. Elaboration of a composite material based on fabrics waste and polystyrenes: effect of polystyrene resin on the strengths of the composite. Int J Compos Mater 2023; 13: 1–6.

38.

Alzahrani

Alsoruji

Moustafa

, et al. Optimization of friction stir processing parameters for improvement of mechanical properties of AlSi [sub. 7] Mg [sub. 0.2] alloy. Coat Basel. 2023; 13: 1–13.

39.

Zhao

. Comparative study on the tribological properties of PTFE coated Kevlar fabric and hybrid PTFE/Kevlar fabric. Fibers Polym 2022; 23: 1111–1118.

40.

Hussein Talab

. Study some properties for manufactured grinding wheels by use different abrasive materials. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2017; 11(2): 50–58.

41.

Jin

Guo

, et al. Analysis on the effects of grinding wheel speed on removal behavior of brittle optical materials. J Manuf Sci Eng 2017; 139: 031014.

42.

Dhanunjayarao

Sanivada

Swamy Naidu

, et al. Effect of graphite particulate on mechanical characterization of hybrid polymer composites. J Ind Text 2022; 51: 2594S–2615S.

43.

Adibi

Hatami

Rezaei

. Effects of Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) on grinding processes using eco-friendly nanofluids: a review. Adv Mater Process Technol 2023; 10: 1–42. DOI: 10.1080/2374068X.2023.2198834.

44.

Patierno

Rueggeberg

Anderson

, et al. Push-out strength and SEM evaluation of resin composite bonded to internal cervical dentin. Dent Traumatol 1996; 12: 227–236.

45.

Yuan

Zhang

, et al. Porous grinding wheels toward alleviating the pre-fatigue and increasing the material removal efficiency for rail grinding. Tribol Int 2021; 154: 106692.

46.

Tong

, et al. High-performance thermally conductive phase change composites by large-size oriented graphite sheets for scalable thermal energy harvesting. Adv Mater 2019; 31: 1905099.

47.

Wang

Fan

, et al. Wear of diamond grinding wheels and material removal rate of silicon nitrides under different machining conditions. Mater Lett 2007; 61: 54–58.

Effect of graphite additive on physical,mechanical,and wearing properties of Al 2 O 3 /E-glass/phenol formaldehyde hybrid composite grinding wheel

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Materials

Aluminum oxide (Al2O3)

Phenolic resin

Graphite

E-glass

Mold preparation

Mass fractions

Sample preparation

Testing methods

Speed test

Density and porosity

Push-out strength

Compression strength

Wear rate

Results and discussion

Speed test

Density and porosity

Push-out strength

Compression strength

Wear rate

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

Aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃)