Microstructure, Properties and Tribological Behaviour of Advanced Functional MaterialsView this Special Issue
A Cutting-Edge Survey of Tribological Behavior Evaluation Using Artificial and Computational Intelligence Models
Any metal surface’s usefulness is essential in various applications such as machining and welding and aerospace and aerodynamic applications. There is a great deal of wear in metals, used widely in machines and appliances. The gradual loss of the upper metal layers in all metal parts is inevitable over the machine or component’s lifetime. Artificial intelligence implementations and computational models are being studied to evaluate different metals’ tribological behavior, as technological progress has been made in this field. Different neural networks were used for different metals. They are classified in this paper, together with a description of their benefits and inconveniences and an overview and use of the different types of wear. Artificial intelligence is a relatively new term that uses mechanical engineering. There is still no scientific progress to examine various metal wear cases and compare AI and computational models’ accuracy in wear behavior.
Given the potential and technological developments we have experienced in an industrial revolution, we have a long path to cover as engineers. The wear behavior varies from metal to metal, mainly depending on its properties or the method used, and AI has helped companies better understand metals’ wearing behavior and deploy them in processes or machinery because the speed with precision is more critical in the industry, helping companies increase their response speed. Artificial intelligence is a computer science field dealing with the simulation of computer systems to imitate human intelligence. AI is a large field in computers and other areas such as economics, theory of control, probability, optimization, and bilingualism. AI is such a phenomenon that it can model and find patterns in complex inputs and outputs on the given data. It has been made an essential element of our lives without even realizing weather prediction, mechanical wear and tear, the probability of different diseases, and many more, as recommended by Netflix and YouTube. An AI process consists of data acquisition and correction to enhance its earlier forecasts over time. Mechanical engineering, as technology helps mechanical design or engineering works, is AI’s biggest consumer. All sections of mechanical engineering benefiting highly from AI are robotics, automation, and sensor technology.
Wear means that the substance is consistently removed from or deformed from a solid surface while moving about another substance or fluid. Wear is a natural phenomenon when two bodies are rubbed or slipped. Mechanical and chemical behavior and combinations of these factors, such as corrosion, erosion, and abrasion, cause wear on the solid surface of the material. Tribology is the wear science involving friction, lubrication, and wear applications and concepts. Wear is an essential characteristic of products that must be carefully examined before producing a product. Other processes such as fatigue, material failure, and loss of functionality cause surface degradation. In the manufacturing industry, wear is a constant inconvenience, and it is expensive because it is causing loss of part and wear deterioration. The wear of the active surfaces, near-surface compositions, and fragmentation leads to wear debris caused by the plastic deformation of metals. The wear waste produced varies between nanometers and thousands. Wear can be correlated with the help of the wear rate. The material mass or volume removed by the sliding distance of each unit is the ratio. The wear volume per unit is usually expressed as a dimensionless entity called the wear coefficient on the unit’s sliding distance (K). The wear mechanism is generally considered a negative feature and is unwanted in most practical contexts, but it has many applications. Wear, for example, is affected by processes such as filing, lapping, sanding, and polishing used to create finished surfaces.
They also collected datasets, if provided, software used, benefits, and drawbacks, and all studies referred to for that survey were fully applicable to explain the subject matter of the case studies cited beforehand and cover artificial intelligence and calculation models as shown in Figure 1.
2. Types of Wear
We must first understand the various types of wear before applying artificial intelligence principles to evaluate wear behavior. Wear can occur due to a single mechanism or a complex combination of mechanisms. To solve a wear problem, we must first understand the various wear mechanisms at work. Abrasion or surface deterioration occurs when the force acting on the surface is caused by load stress or friction. When chemical reactions alter a material body’s outer layer, the wear mechanisms responsible are adhesion and tribo-oxidation. The sections that follow describe the various types of clothing.
The most common wear process encountered in the industry is abrasive wear. According to reports, abrasion is to blame for 50% of all wear issues. Abrasive wear is the substance loss caused by hard particles being forced against and moved along a solid surface . The wear mechanism that causes abrasive wear is referred to as abrasion (scraping off). Abrasion occurs when a solid body with a rough surface collides with a coupling part with a soft surface. Abrasive wear is classified into two types based on the type of contact and the contact environment.(a)Three-body abrasion: A third dimension is included in sliding two surfaces (as shown in Figure 2), hence blaming the third body for material removal from both surfaces (particles are usually assumed the third body).(b)Two-body abrasion: This occurs when the hard material on one surface absorbs material from the opposite surface. Two-body abrasion is always possible because the asperities that cause removal on a hard surface can never be removed entirely, even with the most advanced polishing. As a result, wear debris forms between the two sliding surfaces. Long-term two-body abrasive wear causes three-body abrasion, which causes more wear than two-body abrasion.
Three mechanisms commonly cause abrasive wear:(1)Ploughing: The displacement of particles away from the wear particles causes the formation of grooves. Ridges form on the edges of the grooves and are removed by abrasive materials moving through them.(2)Cutting is the removal of material from a solid surface in the form of primary debris or microchips. This method is similar to traditional machining.(3)Fragmentation occurs when the indenting material is removed from the surface, resulting in a localized fracture.
Adhesive wear: This occurs due to the interaction of asperities between two surfaces . Formalized paraphrase adhesion is the wear mechanism that causes adhesive wear (stickiness). It occurs when the compositions of the two metals are incredibly similar. A bond can form because of this compatibility, allowing parts to seize or become cold-welded together (as seen in Figure 3). Because of these bonded sections’ swaying and sliding motion, abrasion occurs on the bordering surfaces. Adhesive wear is classified into two types:(a)Classifying wear due to relative motion/direct contact between two surfaces along with plastic deformation, leading to transfer of metal debris onto the other metal’s surface during wear.(b)Cohesive-adhesive forces hold two faces together even when a significant distance separates them. The actual transition could occur.
Surface fatigue: This occurs when the surface of a material is stressed. As a result of this phenomenon, which thermal or mechanical forces can cause, surfaces crack. The fatigue wear caused due to particle detachment is mainly because of cyclic increase of metal surface microcracks (as shown in Figure 4). Each period increases the crack by a small amount until a surface microcrack develops. As a result, large surface cracks develop over time, posing a direct threat to the components.
Corrosive wear/oxidation wear: This material deterioration combines corrosion and wear. It is defined as a wear phase in which materials slide against each other in a corrosive environment. It is a type of material degradation that combines corrosion and wear. It is defined as a corrosive wear process in which materials slide against each other. When there is no sliding, corrosion on the surfaces forms a micrometer-thick film layer, reducing or even preventing further corrosion. This film is chipped away during the sliding application, exposing the metal surface to further corrosion (as shown in Figure 5). This process of wear occurs in the presence of harmful or oxidizing metals. Oxidation, also known as rust, is a severe form of corrosive wear. Oxides create a decrease in the equilibrium of friction between surfaces or are often a more significant challenge to work with than the materials involved and can be used as excellent abrasives.
Cavitation wear: A liquid medium causes cavitation wear on metal surfaces. It happens when cavities in a liquid flowing near the material are nucleated, developed, and violently collapsed repeatedly. Because of the rapid changes in liquid pressure, small vapor-filled craters with low vapor pressure form. Cyclic stress occurs when these craters or voids collapse near a metal surface. It causes surface fatigue, which contributes to the wear of the base material over time.
3. Wear Tests
The wear rate is defined as the volume loss per unit sliding distance. It is a dimensionless quantity (K) that can assess wear damage. The wear rate is defined as the body’s height adjustment ratio to the relative sliding distance duration.
Under normal conditions, wear progresses through three stages, the first of which is the primary stage, during which the surfaces involved adjust to one another, and the wear rate can be high or low. The second level, also known as the mid-age process, follows the first and is distinguished by a consistent wear rate. This process consumes the majority of the component’s operating life. Finally, the component reaches the tertiary level, also known as the “old-age phase.” The surfaces involved experience rapid wear, resulting in the component’s premature failure [3–11].
Wear tests are classified as follows:(1)Pin-on-Disc Wear Test. This is one of the most common ways to test wear rates and wear resistance. It is popular due to its ability to simulate various wear modes including omnidirectional, bidirectional, unidirectional, and quasi-rotational wear. Many different materials can be tested for wear. A test of wear resistance between PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) and its composites  was done using a pin-on-disc wear test, and it was observed that as the load increased, the coefficient of friction decreased. Pure PTFE experienced maximum wear followed by PTFE with 17% GFR, PTFE with 25% bronze, and PTFE with 35% carbon which experienced minimum wear.(2)Block-on-Ring Wear Test. This is widely used to evaluate the sliding wear behavior of materials in various simulated conditions. It also helps in ranking material couples for specific tribological applications. A test of woven glass fibers is conducted on a block-on-ring wear testing machine , and it was found that aramid fiber-reinforced composites are less prone to wear than simple glass fabrics. Also, weaved 300 glass fabrics displayed better wear resistance than woven 500 glass fabrics.(3)Abrasion Wear Test. This is used to test the abrasive resistance of materials such as metals, composites, ceramics, thick thermal spray, and weld overlay coatings.(4)Cavitation Erosion Vibratory Test. The surface of the test sample is immersed in liquid, and the cavitation process is induced by vibrational erosion. Ultrasonic waves consisting of alternate expansions and compressions are transmitted into the liquid, which causes erosion (material loss) of the surface of the sample. This method is used to determine the relative wear resistance of test samples to cavitation erosion. In a test between HN steel and AISI 304 steel , the samples’ cavitation wear increased with the decrease in the pH value of the water. Also, AISI 304 steel was more resistant to wear than HN steel.(5)Ball-on-Flat Wear Test. This allows observing the wear tracks’ dynamic load, friction force, and depth. Three different teeth from three different young males were tested using this apparatus , and it was observed that, for all the three teeth, three different wear scars were observed. The enamel layer displayed better wear resistance and had a lower friction coefficient than the dentin region.
4. Wear Testing Case Studies
Tables 1 to 5 discuss various case studies that involve various wear tests, briefly discussing the test and the implementations or additions in the metal workpiece chosen along with the observed outcomes.
5. Computational and Artificial Intelligence Models to Detect Wear Behavior
Artificial neural networks are a subset of AI widely used in mechanical engineering. ANNs are modelled after the biological neural system like an animal brain and are made up of neurons linked to each other that perform complex computations in the same way that the brain does. Dr. Robert Hecht–Nielson defined ANNs as “a computing system composed of several simple, highly interconnected processing elements that process information through their dynamic state response to external inputs.” The networks are widely applicable in solving classification and optimization problems, predictions, pattern recognition, etc. Because ANNs are adaptable, they can imitate linear and nonlinear relationships since the data are divided into various layers, making them well generalizable. These are trained using the datasets defined for training and then further used to predict the output values with the help of different algorithms (Figure 6) [4, 5].(1)ANNs typically have three main layers. Input layer: The layer to which input data and patterns are fed is always a single input layer.(2)Hidden layers: There could be several of these layers. Behind the scenes, processing occurs, and the output is calculated based on “weights,” which determine the significance of a specific characteristic. These layers also remove inessential data from the input data before sending them to the hidden layer, next in line for processing.(3)The endmost hidden layer is linked to the output layer, which provides the final output value(s).
The center of NNs is backpropagation. It is an algorithm through which the neural network corrects itself with each iteration that relies on weights.
6. Summary and Conclusions
The research works discussed briefly in this review propose various systems for supervising the machining process, tool wear monitoring, determination of wear state for a tool, and many more. Significant research has been done involving ANNs with the LVM (as shown in Tables 6 and 7) algorithm training the models, resulting in highly generalized and fault-tolerant models; however, LVM can only provide a local optimum and may not respond to flat functions, producing unwanted results, and the starting point is way far from the optimal.
Some studies consider the ANFIS, adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system, method that combines ANN and fluidic logic, specifically the “Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy interference system,” which can capture neural networks fumigating logic in one. However, this model may not perform well for many inputs, i.e., this model fails in a big data paradigm. The surface roughness and wear were predicted using RNNs, i.e., ANNs having memory; hence, they are more suitable for a constantly developing environment of such wear behavior of tools. Surface wear was detected using random forests and multilayer perceptrons based on surface isotropy levels. Random forests are superior because MLPs require parameter tuning, and their output is nearly identical to that of RFs. These methods for various processes are also discussed in some research that encompasses most of the approaches [80–92].
6.1. Accuracies Achieved in Recent Research Works
Using a two-hidden-layer neural network, Kumar and Singh  obtained a normalized standard error of 0.00085. At the same time, Çetinel et al. , who also used a two-hidden-layer network but with the addition of the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm, found an average error of 2.461% for wear (in micrometers) and 0.245% error for microhardness (in HV). A least square support vector machine to predict wear behavior in  yielded an average of 1.2 percent better results on 52 runs than the RSM model. Kolodziejczyk  used PCA preprocessing and the LVM algorithm to achieve a mean relative error of 1.8 percent, three times lower than that in previous studies. A multilayer perceptron model was used in , which yielded 0.0186 and 0.0180 training and testing residual errors, respectively. The SOM model had a higher correlation coefficient than the ART2 model in , with 0.964 and 0.946 for the training and test sets. The ANN was combined with the Taguchi method in , and a 99.5 percent confidence level was observed between predicted and actual wear rates and coefficients of friction. In , the ANN with one hidden layer had a more significant sum of squares error (SSE) of 0.025 and 0.25 for training and testing, respectively, whereas the ANN with two hidden layers had 0.008 and 0.46 SSEs for training and testing. As a result of the lower SSE, the two-hidden-layer networks were chosen, with an RMSE of 2.64 percent on average. The ANFIS models—sigmoidal, triangular, Gaussian, and bell-shaped MFs—were used . The most accurate model was sigmoidal MF, which had a regression coefficient of 0.96775. RFs and MLPs were used in , with RFs having a better accuracy of 33 to 44 percent and an error of 0.2457 micrometers than the MLP’s 0.4139. An ANFIS was used for various membership functions . The RMSE was in the order of E-11, which was 0.557 for the ANN. The Sugeno-type ANFIS model had the best correlation coefficient of 97.74 percent with gbellmf membership. Nagaraj and Gopalakrishnan  reported an MSE of 0.0904 and an MAE of 0.1257. In , various ML techniques model various parameters, with MLPs better in 3/4 of them and RFs taking one of the parameters. MLPs were found to have a 52 percent accuracy rate. The ANFISs appear to have the least amount of error.
6.2. Open Issues
Multiple systems have been proposed in recent research to address the supervision process in machining, tool wear monitoring, tool wear detection, and so on. More researchers use ANNs with the LVM algorithm to train fault-tolerant and well-generalized models, but the LVM only provides a local optimum and may not work for flat functions. If the starting point is too far from the optimal, it may also produce undesirable results. The ANFIS, adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system, is a combination of ANN and fuzzy logic used in a few papers, specifically the Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy interference system, which can capture the essence of both neural nets and fuzzy logic in one [94–102]. However, this model may not work well for many inputs, i.e., this model fails in a big data paradigm. RNNs, which are technically ANNs with memory and thus more suited for such ever-changing dynamic environments as tool wear, were also used to predict wear and surface roughness [103–106]. Surface wear was also predicted using random forests and multilayer perceptrons and surface isotropy levels. MLPs require parameter tuning, and their output is nearly identical to that of RFs, so random forests are preferable. These various processes are also discussed in , which encompasses most approaches.
6.3. Future Directions
Wear analysis using artificial intelligence is a relatively new concept. Formal result: Accordingly, it was discovered that there is less work on AI than aluminum (e.g., FGP grey-coated or NiCrBSi-coated aluminum) writable composites (e.g., polymer-reinforced glass), which indicates that it is to be expected since less work has been done on AI (e.g., plastic/FGP-NiCr alloyed glass) to grasp fully [80, 108].Further study is required to understand the full capabilities of using AI. This state-of-the-art technology for analyzing artificial neural networks is now being utilized for efficient and economical wear-resistant materials. Tool wear is one of the most common aspects of the machining process that needs to be analyzed. Research can be done on the tool metal’s wear behavior in the future, and the metal can be modified and tested for wear. New research opportunities can be found to find an ideal metal for machining processes. Artificial neural networks for wear analysis can help identify the most efficient coating materials for various substrates to increase the substrate’s wear resistance with accurate predictions, which is inefficient and time-consuming when identified using traditional methods. Artificial intelligence is currently limited to analyzing wear for various materials used in manufacturing and production. Still, the main benefit of using AI is studying a wide range of data and making accurate predictions. More experimentation is needed to make the most of this technology, which will allow industries to predict the time and type of wear that will occur on a material ahead of time, allowing them to continue operating without interruption [108–114].
|ANN:||Artificial neural network|
|SVR:||Support vector regression|
|LSSVM:||Least square support vector machine|
|RSM:||Response surface methodology|
|RBF:||Radial basis function|
|POD:||Proper orthogonal decomposition|
|SCG:||Scaled conjugate gradient|
|FIS:||Fuzzy inference system|
|FZM:||Fuzzy clustering method|
|ELM:||Extreme learning method|
|GBR:||Gradient boosting regression|
|GPR:||Gaussian process regression.|
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj and Aditya Raj have Contributed Equally AR and SKS conceptualized the research idea and ran the software. SKS performed the methodology, validated the data, and administered the project. AR, MD, UC, IS, and CK were involved in formal analysis and wrote the original draft. AR, MD, and UC investigated the data and obtained the resources. AR, MD, UC, and IS curated the data. UC and CK visualized the data and reviewed and edited the paper. SKS and UC supervised the study. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
“Standard terminology relating to wear and erosion,” Annual Book of Standards, vol. 03.02, pp. 243–250, 1987.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. W. Stachowiak and A. W. Batchelor, Engineering Tribology, Elsevier Applied Science, Amsterdam, Netherland, 2014.
F. Kara, M. Karabatak, M. Ayyıldız, and E. Nas, “Effect of machinability, microstructure and hardness of deep cryogenic treatment in hard turning of AISI D2 steel with ceramic cutting,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 969–983, 2020.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. C. Karthik, R. L. Malghan, F. Kara, A. Shettigar, S. S. Rao, and M. A. Herbert, “Influence of support vector regression (SVR) on cryogenic face milling,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 9984369, 18 pages, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Eser, E. A. Ayyıldız, M. Ayyıldız, and F. Kara, “Artificial intelligence-based surface roughness estimation modelling for milling of AA6061 alloy,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 5576600, 10 pages, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Ganeshan, S. S. Kumaran, K. Raja, and D. Venkateswarlu, “An investigation of mechanical properties of madar fiber reinforced polyester composites for various fiber length and fiber content,” Materials Research Express, vol. 6, 2019.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kannan, S. S. Kumaran, and L. A. Kumaraswamidhas, “Optimization of friction welding by taguchi and ANOVA method on commercial aluminium tube to Al 2025 tube plate with backing block using an external tool,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 30, pp. 2225–2235, 2016.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Senthil, S. Muthukumaran, and C. R. Chandrasekhar, “Effect of tube preparations on joint strength in friction welding of tube-to-tube plate using an external tool process,” Experimental Techniques, vol. 37, pp. 24–32, 2013.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. V. Kumar and S. S. Kumaran, “Friction material composite: types of brake friction material formulations and effects of various ingredients on brake performance-a review,” Materials Research Express, vol. 6, 2019.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Senthil, S. Muthukumaran, D. Venkateswarlu, G. K. Balaji, and S. Vinodh, “Eco-friendly aspects associated with friction welding of tube-to-tube plate using an external tool process,” Int J Sustain Eng, vol. 5, pp. 120–127, 2012.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Senthil and A. D. Daniel, “Friction welding joints of SA 213 tube to SA 387 tube plate boiler grade materials by using clearance and interference fit method,” Materials Today Proceedings, vol. 5, pp. 8557–8566, 2018.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Unal, A. Mimaroglu, U. Kadıoglu, and H. Ekiz, “Sliding friction and wear behaviour of polytetrafluoroethylene and its composites under dry conditions,” Materials & Design, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 239–245, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Pıhtılı and N. Tosun, “Effect of load and speed on the wear behavior of woven glass fabrics and aramid fiber-reinforced composites,” Wear, vol. 252, no. 11-12, pp. 979–984, 2002.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Bregliozzi, A. Di Schino, S. U. Ahmed, J. M. Kenny, and H. Haefke, “Cavitation wear behavior of austenitic stainless steels with different grain sizes,” Wear, vol. 258, no. 1-4, pp. 503–510, 2005.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zheng, Z. R. Zhou, J. Zhang, H. Li, and H. Y. Yu, “On the friction and wear behavior of human tooth enamel and dentin,” Wear, vol. 255, no. 7-12, pp. 967–974, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Şahin, “Abrasive wear behavior of SiC/2014 aluminium composite,” Tribology International, vol. 43, no. 5-6, pp. 939–943, 2010.View at: Google Scholar
N. N. Aung, W. Zhou, and L. E. Lim, “Wear behavior of AZ91D alloy at low sliding speeds,” Wear, vol. 265, no. 5-6, pp. 780–786, 2008.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Breeds, S. N. Kukureka, K. Mao, D. Walton, and C. J. Hooke, “Wear behaviour of acetal gear pairs,” Wear, vol. 166, no. 1, pp. 85–91, 1993.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. P. Modi, B. K. Prasad, A. H. Yegneswaran, and M. L. Vaidya, “Dry sliding wear behaviour of squeeze cast aluminium alloy-silicon carbide composites,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 235–245, 1992.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Unal, U. Sen, and A. Mimaroglu, “Abrasive wear behaviour of polymeric materials,” Materials & Design, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 705–710, 2005.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ipek, “Adhesive wear behaviour of B4C and SiC reinforced 4147 Al matrix composites (Al/B4C-Al/SiC),” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 162-163, pp. 71–75, 2005.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. P. Mondal, S. Das, and N. Jha, “Dry sliding wear behaviour of aluminum syntactic foam,” Materials & Design, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 2563–2568, 2009.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Nie, L. Wang, Z. C. Yao, L. Zhang, and F. Cheng, “Sliding wear behavior of electrolytic plasma nitrided cast iron and steel,” Surface and Coatings Technology, vol. 200, no. 5-6, pp. 1745–1750, 2005.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Gurcan and T. N. Baker, “Wear behavior of AA6061 aluminium alloy and its composites,” Wear, vol. 188, no. 1-2, pp. 185–191, 1995.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. P. Harsha and U. S. Tewari, “Two-body and three-body abrasive wear behaviour of polyaryletherketone composites,” Polymer Testing, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 403–418, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. M. Hosking, F. F. Portillo, R. Wunderlin, and R. Mehrabian, “Composites of aluminium alloys: fabrication and wear behaviour,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 477–498, 1982.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Natarajan, S. Vijayarangan, and I. Rajendran, “Wear behavior of A356/25SiCp aluminium matrix composites sliding against automobile friction material,” Wear, vol. 261, no. 7-8, pp. 812–822, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Venkataraman and G. Sundararajan, “The sliding wear behaviour of AlSiC particulate composites-I. Macrobehaviour,” Acta Materialia, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 451–460, 1996.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Güleryüz and H. Çimenoğlu, “Effect of thermal oxidation on corrosion and corrosion–wear behavior of a Ti–6Al–4V alloy,” Biomaterials, vol. 25, no. 16, pp. 3325–3333, 2004.View at: Google Scholar
S. Suresha and B. K. Sridhara, “Effect of addition of graphite particulates on the wear behaviour in aluminium-silicon carbide-graphite composites,” Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1804–1812, 2010.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Venkateswarlu, L. C. Pathak, A. K. Ray et al., “Microstructure, tensile strength and wear behaviour of Al-Sc alloy,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 383, no. 2, pp. 374–380, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Voss and K. Friedrich, “On the wear behaviour of short-fibre-reinforced peek composites,” Wear, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 1987.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kumar, M. Chakraborty, V. S. Sarma, and B. S. Murty, “Tensile and wear behavior of in situ Al–7Si/TiB2 particulate composites,” Wear, vol. 265, no. 1-2, pp. 134–142, 2008.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Y. H. Lim, S. C. Lim, and M. Gupta, “Wear behavior of SiCp-reinforced magnesium matrix composites,” Wear, vol. 255, no. 1-6, pp. 629–637, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Yasar, A. Canakci, and F. Arslan, “The effect of brush spring pressure on the wear behaviour of copper-graphite brushes with electrical current,” Tribology International, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1381–1386, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. M. Mens and A. W. J. D. Gee, “Friction and wear behavior of 18 polymers in contact with steel in environments of air and water,” Wear, vol. 149, no. 1-2, pp. 255–268, 1991.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Fedrizzi, S. Rossi, R. Cristel, and P. L. Bonora, “Corrosion and wear behavior of HVOF cermet coatings used to replace hard chromium,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 49, no. 17-18, pp. 2803–2814, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Jacobs, W. Xu, B. Schädel, and W. Wu, “Wear behaviour of carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin composites,” Tribology Letters, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65–75, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. List, M. Nouari, D. Géhin et al., “Wear behavior of cemented carbide tools in dry machining of aluminium alloy,” Wear, vol. 259, no. 7-12, pp. 1177–1189, 2005.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Mao, W. Li, C. J. Hooke, and D. Walton, “Friction and wear behavior of acetal and nylon gears,” Wear, vol. 267, no. 1-4, pp. 639–645, 2009.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. H. Hou, M. D. Ger, L. M. Wang, and S. T. Ke, “The wear behavior of electro-codeposited Ni–SiC composites,” Wear, vol. 253, no. 9-10, pp. 994–1003, 2002.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Gonzalez, M. Cadenas, R. Fernandez, J. L. Cortizo, and E. Rodríguez, “Wear behavior of flame sprayed NiCrBSi coating remelted by flame or by laser,” Wear, vol. 262, no. 3-4, pp. 301–307, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Fernández, M. Cadenas, R. González, C. Navas, R. Fernández, and J. D. Damborenea, “Wear behavior of laser clad NiCrBSi coating,” Wear, vol. 259, no. 7-12, pp. 870–875, 2005.View at: Google Scholar
G. Zhang, H. Liao, H. Li, C. Mateus, J.-M. Bordes, and C. Coddet, “On dry sliding friction and wear behaviour of PEEK and PEEK/SiC-composite coatings,” Wear, vol. 260, no. 6, pp. 594–600, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Pirso, S. Letunovitš, and M. Viljus, “Friction and wear behavior of cemented carbides,” Wear, vol. 257, no. 3-4, pp. 257–265, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Chand and U. K. Dwivedi, “Effect of coupling agent on abrasive wear behaviour of chopped jute fibre-reinforced polypropylene composites,” Wear, vol. 261, no. 10, pp. 1057–1063, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sundström, J. Rendón, and M. Olsson, “Wear behavior of some low alloyed steels under combined impact/abrasion contact conditions,” Wear, vol. 250, no. 1-12, pp. 744–754, 2001.View at: Google Scholar
A. Hayrettin, K. Tolga, C. Ercan, and C. Huseyin, “Wear behavior of Al/(Al2O3p/SiCp) hybrid composites,” Tribology International, vol. 39, pp. 213–220, 2006.View at: Google Scholar
S. Chatterjee and T. K. Pal, “Wear behavior of hardfacing deposits on cast iron,” Wear, vol. 255, no. 1-6, pp. 417–425, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Stewart, P. H. Shipway, and D. G. McCartney, “Abrasive wear behaviour of conventional and nanocomposite HVOF-sprayed WC-Co coatings,” Wear, vol. 225-229, pp. 789–798, 1999.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Cirino, R. B. Pipes, and K. Friedrich, “The abrasive wear behaviour of continuous fibre polymer composites,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 2481–2492, 1987.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Bolelli, V. Cannillo, L. Lusvarghi, and T. Manfredini, “Wear behavior of thermally sprayed ceramic oxide coatings,” Wear, vol. 261, no. 11-12, pp. 1298–1315, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kumar and D. Singh, “Artificial neural network-based wear loss prediction for A390 aluminium alloy,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, vol. 4, no. 10, 2008.View at: Google Scholar
H. Çetinel, H. Öztürk, E. Çelik, and B. Karlık, “Artificial neural network-based prediction technique for wear loss quantities in Mo coatings,” Wear, vol. 261, no. 10, pp. 1064–1068, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Stojanović, A. Vencl, I. Bobić, S. Miladinović, and J. Skerlić, “Experimental optimisation of the tribological behaviour of Al/SiC/Gr hybrid composites based on Taguchi’s method and artificial neural network,” Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, vol. 40, no. 6, 2018.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. B. Mishra, R. Pattnaik, and S. S. Mahapatra, “Parametric analysis of wear behaviour on fused deposition modelling build parts,” International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 375–391, 2017.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Kavimani and K. S. Prakash, “Tribological behaviour predictions of r-GO reinforced Mg composite using ANN coupled Taguchi approach,” Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, vol. 110, pp. 409–419, 2017.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kolodziejczyk, R. Toscano, S. Fouvry, and G. E. Morales, “Artificial intelligence as efficient technique for ball bearing fretting wear damage prediction,” Wear, vol. 268, no. 1-2, pp. 309–315, 2010.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Marani, M. Zeinali, J. Kouam, V. Songmene, and C. K. Mechefske, “Prediction of cutting tool wear during a turning process using artificial intelligence techniques,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 111, no. 1-2, pp. 505–515, 2020.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Monostori, “AI and machine learning techniques for managing complexity, changes and uncertainties in manufacturing,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 277–291, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Padmanabhan, A. Arulbrittoraj, R. Srinivasan, and G. Ebenezer, “Study the influence of case hardening and sliding wear parameters on carburised AISI 1211 steel,” International Journal of Surface Science and Engineering, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 415, 2016.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Y. Pimenov, A. Bustillo, and T. Mikolajczyk, “Artificial intelligence for automatic prediction of required surface roughness by monitoring wear on face mill teeth,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1045–1061, 2017.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Rao and R. R. Srikant, “Tool wear monitoring-an intelligent approach,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol. 218, no. 8, pp. 905–912, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sahraoui, S. Guessasma, N. E. Fenineche, G. Montavon, and C. Coddet, “Friction and wear behaviour prediction of HVOF coatings and electroplated hard chromium using neural computation,” Materials Letters, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 654–660, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. Silva, S. J. Wilcox, and R. L. Reuben, “Development of a system for monitoring tool wear using artificial intelligence techniques,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol. 220, no. 8, pp. 1333–1346, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Nagaraj and S. Gopalakrishnan, “Modelling wear behavior of aluminium-silicon alloys using generalized feed forward neural network,” Tierärztliche Praxis, vol. 40, 2020.View at: Google Scholar
D. Vijay and T. K. Kandavel, “Application of artificial neural network on wear properties of sinter-forged Fe-C-Mo low alloy steel,” International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms, vol. 7, no. 3/4, 2015.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wang, S. Khatir, and M. Abdel Wahab, “Proper Orthogonal Decomposition for the prediction of fretting wear characteristics,” Tribology International, vol. 152, Article ID 106545, 2020.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Aleksendrić and Č. Duboka, “Fade performance prediction of automotive friction materials by means of artificial neural networks,” Wear, vol. 262, no. 7-8, pp. 778–790, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Sosimi, O. P. Gbenebor, O. Oyerinde, O. O. Bakare, S. O. Adeosun, and S. A. Olaleye, “Analysing wear behaviour of Al-CaCO3 composites using ANN and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference systems,” Neural Computing & Applications, 2020.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Alambeigi, S. M. Khadem, H. Khorsand, and E. S. H. Mirza, “A comparison of performance of artificial intelligence methods in prediction of dry sliding wear behavior,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 84, no. 9-12, pp. 1981–1994, 2015.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. ArriandiagaLaresgoiti, E. P. Portillo, J. A. G. Sánchez, I. A. Cabanes, and I. R. Pombo, “Virtual sensors for on-line wheel wear and part roughness measurement in the grinding process,” Sensors, vol. 14, no. 5, 2014.View at: Google Scholar
A. Bustillo, D. Y. Pimenov, M. Matuszewski, and T. Mikolajczyk, “Using artificial intelligence models for the prediction of surface wear based on surface isotropy levels,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 53, pp. 215–227, 2018.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. E. Haber and A. Alique, “Intelligent process supervision for predicting tool wear in machining processes,” Mechatronics, vol. 13, no. 8-9, pp. 825–849, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Aydin, “The investigation of the effect of particle size on wear performance of aa7075/al2o3 composites using statistical analysis and different machine learning methods,” Advanced Powder Technology, vol. 32, no. 2, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. O. Barrionuevo, J. A. Ramos-Grez, M. Walczak, and A. B. Carlos, “Comparative evaluation of supervised machine learning algorithms in the prediction of the relative density of 316L stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 113, no. 8, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Agarwal, M. Kumar Singh, R. Srivastava, and R. K. Gautam, “Microstructural measurement and artificial neural network analysis for adhesion of tribolayer during sliding wear of powder-chip reinforcement based composites,” Measurement, vol. 168, Article ID 108417, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Szala, M. Awtoniuk, L. Łatka, W. Macek, and R. Branco, “Artificial neural network model of hardness, porosity and cavitation erosion wear of APS deposited Al2O3-13 wt% TiO2 coatings,” Journal of Physics: conference Series, vol. 1736, no. 1, Article ID 012033, 2021.View at: Google Scholar
L. Tyagi, R. Butola, L. Kem, and M. S. Ranganath, “Comparative analysis of response surface methodology and artificial neural network on the wear properties of surface composite fabricated by friction stir processing,” Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion, vol. 7, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Basavarajappa, G. Chandramohan, and J. P. Davim, “Application of Taguchi techniques to study dry sliding wear behavior of metal matrix composites,” Materials & Design, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1393–1398, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sahin, “Optimization of testing parameters on the wear behavior of metal matrix composites based on the Taguchi method,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 408, no. 1-2, pp. 1–8, 2005.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. E. Buchanan, P. H. Shipway, and D. G. McCartney, “Microstructure and abrasive wear behavior of shielded metal arc welding hardfacings used in the sugarcane industry,” Wear, vol. 263, no. 1-6, pp. 99–110, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Ramesh and A. Ahamed, “Friction and wear behavior of cast Al 6063 based in situ metal matrix composites,” Wear, vol. 271, no. 9-10, pp. 1928–1939, 2011.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ahlatci, T. Koçer, E. Candan, and H. Çimenoğlu, “Wear behavior of Al/(Al2O3p+SiCp) hybrid composites,” Tribology International, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 213–220, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sahin and K. Özdin, “A model for the abrasive wear behavior of aluminium based composites,” Materials & Design, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 728–733, 2008.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Basavarajappa, G. Chandramohan, A. Mahadevan, M. Thangavelu, R. Subramanian, and P. Gopalakrishnan, “Influence of sliding speed on the dry sliding wear behavior and the subsurface deformation on hybrid metal matrix composite,” Wear, vol. 262, no. 7-8, pp. 1007–1012, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Umanath, K. Palanikumar, and S. T. Selvamani, “Analysis of dry sliding wear behavior of Al6061/SiC/Al2O3 hybrid metal matrix composites,” Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 53, pp. 159–168, 2013.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Durand, M. Vardavoulias, and M. Jeandin, “Role of reinforcing ceramic particles in the wear behavior of polymer-based model composites,” Wear, vol. 181-183, pp. 833–839, 1995.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kondratiuk and P. Kuhn, “Tribological investigation on friction and wear behavior of coatings for hot sheet metal forming,” Wear, vol. 270, no. 11-12, pp. 839–849, 2011.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sathish and S. Karthick, “Wear behavior analysis on aluminium alloy 7050 with reinforced SiC through taguchi approach,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 9, no. 3, 2020.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Sharma, K. Paliwal, R. K. Garg, S. Sharma, and D. Khanduja, “A study on wear behavior of Al/6101/graphite composites,” Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 42–48, 2017.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Alidokht, A. Abdollah-zadeh, and H. Assadi, “Effect of applied load on the dry sliding wear behavior and the subsurface deformation on hybrid metal matrix composite,” Wear, vol. 305, no. 1-2, pp. 291–298, 2013.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Vrabeľ, I. Mankova, J. Beno, and J. Tuharský, “Surface roughness prediction using artificial neural networks when drilling udimet 720,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 48, pp. 693–700, 2012.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Leyland and A. Matthews, “On the significance of the H/E ratio in wear control: a nanocomposite coating approach to optimised tribological behavior,” Wear, vol. 246, no. 1-2, pp. 1–11, 2000.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Aydin and R. Durgut, “Estimation of wear performance of AZ91 alloy under dry sliding conditions using machine learning methods,” Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 125–137, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Ramkumar, in Trends in Mechanical and Biomedical Design, E. T. Akinlabi, P. Ramkumar, and M. Selvaraj, Eds., Springer, Singapore, 2021.View at: Publisher Site
L. Provezza, I. Bodini, C. Petrogalli, M. Lancini, L. Solazzi, and M. Faccoli, “Monitoring the damage evolution in rolling contact fatigue tests using machine learning and vibrations,” Metals, vol. 11, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Pattnaik, A. Nayak, A. Parida, and S. S. Kumar, “The study of surface roughness and tool wear analysis in turning of aluminum using different advanced cutting tools (january 16, 2021),” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Manufacturing & Renewable Energy (ICAIMRE), Bhubaneswar, India, October 2019.View at: Google Scholar
C. S. Lee, Y. H. Kim, K. S. Han, and T. Lim, “Wear behavior of aluminium matrix composite materials,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 793–800, 1992.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Gülenç and N. Kahraman, “Wear behavior of bulldozer rollers welded using a submerged arc welding process,” Materials and Design, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 537–542, 2003.View at: Google Scholar
M. Semlitsch and H. G. Willert, “Clinical wear behavior of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene cups paired with metal and ceramic ball heads in comparison to metal-on-metal pairings of hip joint replacements,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 211, no. 1, pp. 73–88, 1997.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Sivaprasad, S. K. Babu, S. Natarajan, R. Narayanasamy, B. A. Kumar, and G. Dinesh, “Study on abrasive and erosive wear behavior of Al 6063/TiB2 in situ composites,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 498, no. 1-2, pp. 495–500, 2008.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Natrayan and M. K. Senthil, “Optimization of wear behavior on AA6061/Al2O3/SiC metal matrix composite using squeeze casting technique – statistical analysis,” Materials Today Proceedings, vol. 27, 2019.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. U. Prakash, T. V. Moorthy, and S. Ananth, “Fabrication and sliding wear behavior of metal matrix composites,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 612, pp. 157–162, 2014.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Ramesh, C. K. Srinivas, and B. H. Channabasappa, “Abrasive wear behavior of laser sintered iron–SiC composites,” Wear, vol. 267, no. 11, pp. 1777–1783, 2009.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Raj, S. R. Kishore, L. Jose et al., “A survey of electromagnetic metal casting computation designs, present approaches, future possibilities, and practical issues,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 136, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Hermann, “Artificial intelligence in monitoring and the mechanics of machining,” Computers in Industry, vol. 14, no. 1-3, pp. 131–135, 1990.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Selvaraj, K. Srinivasan, U. Chadha et al., “ContemporaryProgresses in ultrasonic weldingof aluminum metal MatrixComposites,” Frontiers in Materials, vol. 8, Article ID 647112, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sharma, A. Chouhan, L. Pavithran, U. Chadha, and S. K. Selvaraj, “Implementation of LSS framework in automotive component manufacturing: a review, current scenario and future directions,” Materials Today Proceedings, vol. 46, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Sivasubramani, A. Verma, G. Rithvik, U. Chadha, and K. S. Senthil, “Influence on nonhomogeneous microstructure formation and its role on tensile and fatigue performance of duplex stainless steel by a solid-state welding process,” Materials Today Proceedings, vol. 46, no. 5, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Virmani, C. Deepak, S. Sharma et al., “Nanomaterials for automotive outer panel components: a review,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 136, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Senthil, R. Ramesh, M. Tharun et al., “New developments in carbon-based nanomaterials for automotive brake pad applications and future challenges,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2021, Article ID 6787435, 24 pages, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dharnidharka, U. Chadha, L. M. Dasari et al., “Optical tomography in additive manufacturing: a review, processes, open problems, and new opportunities,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 136, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ghimire, A. Joshi, S. Sen, K. Chinmay, U. Chadha, and K. S. Senthil, “Blockchain in additive manufacturing processes: recent trends & its future possibilities,” Materials Today Proceedings, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. D. Mamdiwar and Z. Shakruwala, “Recent advances on IoT-assisted wearable sensor systems for healthcare monitoring,” Biosensors, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 372, 2021.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T.. Pati, P. H. Kabra, and U. Chadha, “Statistical quality study of the parts produced in an automobile industry: a Daimler India case study,” In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1206, no. 1, Article ID 012022, 2021.View at: Google Scholar
H. Unal and A. Mimaroglu, “Friction and wear behaviour of unfilled engineering thermoplastics,” Materials & Design, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 183–187, 2003.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar