materials

Article
Response Surface Methodology Based Optimization of Test
Parameter in Glass Fiber Reinforced Polyamide 66 for Dry
Sliding, Tribological Performance
Narendran Jagadeesan 1, *, Anthoniraj Selvaraj 2 , Santhosh Nagaraja 3 , Mohamed Abbas 4,5 ,
C. Ahamed Saleel 6 , Abdul Aabid 7, * and Muneer Baig 7

1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Paavai College of Engineering, Namakkal 637018, India

2 Information Science and Engineering, MVJ College of Engineering, Bangalore 560067, India
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, MVJ College of Engineering, Near ITPB, Whitefield,
Bangalore 560067, India
4 Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
5 Electronics and Communications Department, College of Engineering, Delta University for Science and
Technology, Gamasa 35712, Egypt
6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University,
Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
7 Department of Engineering Management, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University,
Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (N.J.); [email protected] (A.A.)

Abstract: The tribological performance of a glass fiber reinforced polyamide66 (GFRPA66) composite
with varying fiber weight percentage (wt.%) [30 wt.% and 35 wt.%] is investigated in this study using a
pin-on-disc tribometer. GFRPA66 composite specimens in the form of pins with varying percentages
of fiber viz., 30 wt.% and 35 wt.% are fabricated by an injection molding process. Tribological
Citation: Jagadeesan, N.; Selvaraj, A.;
performances, such as coefficient of friction (COF) and the specific wear rate (SWR), are investigated.
Nagaraja, S.; Abbas, M.; Saleel, C.A.;
The factors affecting the wear of GFRPA66 composites [with 30 wt.% and 35 wt.% reinforcements]
Aabid, A.; Baig, M. Response Surface
are identified based on the process parameters such as load, sliding velocity, and sliding distance.
Methodology Based Optimization of
Test Parameter in Glass Fiber
Design Expert 13.0 software is used for the experimental data analysis, based on the design of
Reinforced Polyamide 66 for Dry experiments planned in accordance with the central composite design (CCD) of the response surface
Sliding, Tribological Performance. methodology (RSM) technique. The significance of the obtained results are analyzed using analysis
Materials 2022, 15, 6520. https:// of variance (ANOVA) techniques. To attain minimum SWR and COF, the wear performance is
doi.org/10.3390/ma15196520 optimized in dry sliding conditions. The analysis of experimental data revealed that SWR and COF
increased with increasing load, sliding velocity, and sliding distance for GFRPA66 [30 wt.%], but
Academic Editor: Andrea Petrella
decreased with increasing polyamide weight percentage. The SWR for a maximum load of 80 N,
Received: 4 August 2022 and for a sliding velocity of 0.22 m/s, and a sliding distance of 3500 m for GFRPA66 composite
Accepted: 14 September 2022 specimens with 30 wt.% reinforcements are found to be 0.0121 m3 /Nm, while the SWR for the same
Published: 20 September 2022
set of parameters for GFRPA66 composite specimens with 35 wt.% reinforcements are found to be
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 0.0102 m3 /Nm. The COF for the GFRPA66 composite specimens with 30 wt.% reinforcements for the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in above set of parameters is found to be 0.37, while the GFRPA66 composite specimens with 35 wt.%
published maps and institutional affil- reinforcements showed significant improvement in wear performance with a reduction in COF to
iations. 0.25. Finally, using a scanning electron microscope (SEM), the worn surfaces of the GFRPA66 are
examined and interpreted.

Keywords: polyamide; GFRPA66; composite; SWR; COF; ANOVA

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
1. Introduction
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Polymers are now widely used in the manufacture of various components such as
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ machine parts, cams, bearing, bearing cages and gears, worm wheel parts used in gear
4.0/). box, etc., in various fields of engineering such as automobiles, robots, and aircrafts. They

Materials 2022, 15, 6520. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15196520 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2022, 15, 6520 2 of 16

have significant advantages such as a low friction coefficient without external lubrica-
tion, improved abrasion, corrosion, and wear resistance, low density, and suitability for
mass production [1]. Nowadays, many tribological applications are using polyamide and
polyamide composites as a better alternative to metallic parts in the manufacturing of the
mechanical parts. Weight, cost, and ease of manufacturing are also often considered as
additional benefits for using polyamides in composites [2].
Polyamide has a highly ordered (semi-crystalline) molecular structure, a hydrogen
bond, and superior wear and mechanical properties due to its semi-crystalline nature [3,4].
Understanding wear mechanism and behavior under different sliding conditions is critical
when using polyamide and polyamide composites for sliding applications [5]. Moreover,
the adhesion mechanism of friction of polymer occurs due to the breakage of weak bonds
between polymer pin and steel disc. Similarly, dissipation of energy in the contact area
of the deformation mechanism is a major challenge [6–8]. The nylon gears and bearings
possess hydrogen bond and the Van der Waals force present in the molecular chains resist
the wear [9,10]. The transfer layer protects wear loss of material, and this is controlled by
adhesion and cohesion of the transfer film. The wear loss of disc depends on the transfer
layer formation and surface degradation occurs due to the loss of transfer layer [11].
The need to withstand the environmental degradations and higher stress are also the
major concerns for plastic parts in current scenario [12–14]. To overcome the above chal-
lenges, mechanical and tribological properties such as tensile strengths, Young’s modulus
of polyamide and bending strength needs to be improved by using fillers such as glass
fiber, MoS2 (Molybdenum disulfide), and carbon fiber in a polymer matrix [15–18]. On the
other hand, while improving mechanical and tribological properties, several properties
tend to decrease, owing to the improper distribution of reinforcements in the matrix phase.
Hence, there is a need for filler material. The filler may be affected by fiber reinforcement.
The filler material used depends on the matrix, size, shape and type of the reinforcement.
The tribological characteristics of such composites mainly depends on wear conditions.
Polyamide 66 (PA66) is preferred due to its economy, maximum wear resistance,
better strength, thermal properties, and capability to absorb energy and plastically deform
without fracturing [19,20]. For ultimate properties, PA66 is used in food and chemical
industry, at the same time it is used for betterment of tribological properties facilitating their
use in components such as gears, bearings etc. [21–24], and also polyamide has inherent
lubrication property as added advantage [25]. Many researchers have explained the effect
of adding glass fiber as a reinforcement material to PA66 for enhancing its wear behavior
The reinforcement material, such as glass fiber, increases wear resistance and generates a
transfer film between the polyamide pin and steel disc during surface contact, as well as it
acts as a self-lubricant [26].The wear behavior of polyamide 66 and polyamide composites
with 10, 20, and 30 wt.% glass fiber addition have been studied. The results show an increase
in wear resistance with an increase in weight percentage [27]. The ultimate strength, flexural
strength, and elastic modulus all increase as the weight fraction of glass fiber increases [28].
As a result, the deformation mechanism of polymer should be considered while using
fiber reinforced material. The deformation mechanism mainly depends on tribological
properties. At low load and low sliding speeds, the coefficient of friction and wear becomes
high, but as the load increases within the elastic limit, the friction coefficient decreases. With
a further increase in the load beyond the elastic limit, the friction coefficient may increase
due to the increase in the plastic deformation [29]. However, the tribological properties are
found to be lower while using a glass fiber reinforced polymer composite with 30 weight %
glass fiber and 6 wt.% nylon (30 wt.% GFR and 6 wt.% nylon) [30].
Also, several studies have focused on the optimization of the reinforcement percentage
using statistical methods. The best statistical method such as design of experiments (DoE)
for determining a specific quality characteristic of a result by using a large number of
variables is an important technique for optimization studies. DoE consists of arrangement
of variables, experiments, performance, evaluation, experiments controlled by a set of
data facilitating the reduction in the number of experimental trials [31]. This supports the
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 3 of 16

primary goal of the current study, which is to investigate the effect of process parameters
and condition optimization using RSM for optimizing the tribological performance of
polyamide. This fosters the objective of the optimization of process parameters such as
load, temperature, weight percentage of reinforcement, sliding velocity, sliding distance,
and etc., especially using the response surface methodology (RSM) [32]. To optimize the
process variables for tribological performance, the central composite design (CCD) is used,
and the results of the experiments are scientifically tabulated. The influence of process
parameters of polyamide with varying weight percentages are identified and also the
number of trials is reduced via RSM to improve the tribological performance [33–37]. Also,
several related studies on the optimization of process variables using the RSM approach
for improving the tribological performance in polyamide has been studied and adopted for
the present work [38–51].
This study focuses on coefficient of friction (COF) and the specific wear rate (SWR) of
PA66 composite with 30 wt.% and 35 wt.% glass fiber against a very high strength alloy
steel (EN31) disc. The glass fiber reinforced polyamide 66 composite with 30 and 35 wt.%
reinforcement has been preferred due to superior mechanical properties such as increased
strength, rigidity, creep strength, and dimensional stability [52–56]. When compared to
unreinforced PA66, the properties of the glass filled composites make it suitable for use
in parts subjected to high static loads for extended periods of time in high temperature
conditions [57–61]. The following assumptions are considered for investigation: (1) while
increasing the weight percentage of glass fiber, the COF and SWR decreases; (2) if the load,
sliding velocity and sliding distance is increased, the transfer film in the specimen is not
affected by contact surface temperature; (3) if the weight of glass fiber increases it may
increase elastic modulus and ultimate strength of glass fiber. Finally, a study was conducted
to analyze the optimized conditions in order to determine the tribological performance of
polyamide and also results are validated by RSM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
In this investigation, the effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the tribological properties
of the PA66 are analyzed. Henceforth E Glass fibers (E glass) were obtained from Ikon
traders, Bangalore, and used as reinforcements, while the PA66 matrix was sourced from
SS Impex, Bangalore, and used for the synthesis of the composite. The Toshiba make
injection molding machine was used to create the eighteen polyamide pins to determine
the tribological properties.

2.2. Specimen Details

The GFRPA66 pin with varying weight percentage of reinforcements viz., 30 wt.% and
35 wt.% of E Glass fiber is as shown in Figure 1a,b. The dimensions of cylindrical polyamide
pins were 12 mm × 30 mm and EN31 steel disc specimen was 165 mm in diameter and
8 mm in thickness and is depicted in Figure 1c.

Figure 1. (a) GFRPA66 30 wt.% pin, (b) GFRPA66 35 wt.% pin, and (c) EN31 steel disc.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 4 of 16

3. Experimental Design
3.1. Friction and Wear Analysis
The COF and SWR of GFRPA66 with 30 wt.% and 35 wt.% reinforcements are studied
under dry conditions by using pin-on-disc tribometer (DUCOM make) which is as shown
in Figure 2. The input parameters for tribological tests are load (60, 70, and 80 N), sliding
velocity (0.16, 0.19, and 0.22 m/s) and sliding distance (2500, 3000, and 3500 m). The
experiments are conducted with constant room temperature under dry sliding conditions.
Before conducting the test, the disc was cleaned by acetone and surface of the pins were
polished using emery paper (320 and 600 grit sizes) [48]. Subsequently, the friction force
was measured, and the data were recorded during the experiment by using transducer. The
mass losses of the pin were measured by using micro weighing balance with an accuracy
of 0.0001 mg. The mass loss was determined by measuring the mass of the specimen before
and after the experiment.

Figure 2. DUCOM Pin on Disc Tribometer.

3.2. Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

The difficulty of the problem such as uncertainty conditions, ambiguity effect in
various parameters, factor settings that produce the desired (maximum, minimum, or
optimum) response and experimentation far from the region of optimum conditions that
can be reduced by RSM which will help reduce the insignificant factors and consider the
main contact factors and model the quadratic expressions based on the considerations.
Central composite design (CCD) of RSM confirms the prediction capabilities in the form
of second order numerical models. The 20 experimental observations of CCD with three
independent input variables and second order polynomial regression quadratic model
have been analyzed in the present work. The static model is fitted on the surface and based
on those observations; independent variables are analyzed. The contour plots exhibit the
optimum values of responses [62–69].
The COF and SWR of the GFRPA66 reinforced with 30 wt.% and 35 wt.% reinforce-
ments are expressed by Y and the load (A), sliding speed (B), and sliding distance (C) are
considered for modeling. The response can be expressed by the following equation.

β = f (A, B, C) (1)

Y = N0 + N1 X1 + N2 X2 + . . . +N11 X1 2 + N22 X2 2 + N12 X1 X2 + . . . Nm−1,m Nm−1 Xm (2)

Initially, experiments are planned with load from 60 to 80 N, sliding velocity rang-
ing from 0.16 to 0.22 m/s, and sliding velocity from 2500 to 3500 m. Each numerical
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 5 of 16

factor is further divided into three levels: low, medium, and high. Experiments are car-
ried out for at least three levels of each factor, with the levels being equally spaced, in
order to develop a quadratic model. Table 1 displays the actual values of the factors
as well as their coded levels. The optimization of process variables in RSM consists of
seven distinct steps. The steps are as follows: (1) response selection (COF/SWR mini-
mize), (2) variable selection and assignment of codes, (3) development of experimental
design for minimizing the tribological properties, i.e., COF/SWR, (4) analysis of regression,
(5) response development i.e., quadratic polynomial formation, (6) development of a 2D
contour plot or 3D surface of the observed response surface, and finally (7) analysis of the
optimum operating conditions. The experimentations on given optimal standard settings
is used to validate the mathematical model generated by the RSM approach. The various
statistical parameters are validated by statistical t-test such as R2 (coefficient of determina-
tion), R2 adj (adjusted R2 ) and R2 pred (predicted R2 ). Table 1 gives the process parameters
and their levels, adopted in the present investigation.

Table 1. Process parameters and their levels.

Factor Levels
Parameters
−1 0 +1
Load (N) 60 70 80
Sliding Velocity (m/s) 0.16 0.19 0.22
Sliding Distance (m) 2500 3000 3500

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Effect of Applied Load, Sliding Velocity and Sliding Distance with 30 and 35 wt.% Glass Fiber
Weight on Coefficient of Friction
At different applied load conditions, sliding velocity and sliding distance, the coeffi-
cient of friction varying with respect to glass fiber content are as shown in Figure 3. The
COF of GFRPA66 with 30 wt.% glass fiber decreases initially and with the further increase
in the load and sliding velocity, it becomes high due to loss of transfer film on the specimen.
The fiber comes out of the specimen surface by loss of transfer film, which in turn increases
the friction between the exposed glass fiber and the disc. At the same time, the increased
sliding velocity also increases COF due to increased temperature between the glass fiber
and the disc.

Figure 3. Effect of glass fiber content on COF at varying loads, sliding velocities, and sliding distances.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 6 of 16

In the case of GFRPA66 with 35 wt.% reinforcement, the COF decreases under all
load and sliding velocity conditions attributed to the transition in material’s behavior from
ductile to fragile [29,46,47]. As the glass fiber weight increases in the matrix, the glass
fiber carries all of the friction load and the transfer film available on specimen surface
maintains relatively lesser temperature between pin and steel disc surface. From the result
it is revealed that the COF of GFRPA66 with 35 wt.% is low as compared with GFRPA66
with 30 wt.% reinforcements, since it has better transfer layer formation, increased adhesion
of PA66, and low abrasion by glass fiber with less temperature between the contact surfaces.
Also the elastic modulus and ultimate strength of glass fiber improve as the weight of glass
fiber increases [70–73].

4.2. Effect of Applied Load, Sliding Velocity and Sliding Distance with Constant Glass Fiber
Content 30% and 35% Weight on SWR
Figure 4 shows the SWR variation with glass fiber content such as 30 wt.% and
35 wt.% reinforcements at different loads, sliding velocities, and sliding distances. From
the graph, the SWR of GFRPA66 with 30 wt.% reinforcement range from 0.0120 m3 /Nm to
0.0164 m3 /Nm. Similarly, the SWR of GFRPA66 with 35 wt.% range from 0.0101 m3 /Nm
to 0.0161 m3 /Nm. In the case of GFRPA66 with 35 wt.%, the SWR has decreased due to the
increase in glass fiber content. The SWR also increased due to the increase in load, sliding
velocity and sliding distance in the case of GFRPA 66 with 30 wt.% reinforcement due to
stronger contact between the surfaces (such as between the pin and rotating disc) [74–78].
From this contact, more heat was developed between the surfaces by visco-elastic property
and SWR also increased. T Trzepiecinski et al., have also iterated the significance of
studying the basic concepts related to the material losses in polymer based composite
materials and have reported that the heating effect is also an important factor in analyzing
the material removal process, especially for the aerospace applications [79,80].

Figure 4. Effect of glass fiber content on SWR at varying loads, sliding velocity, and sliding distance.

Also, when the fiber peels out by removal of transfer layer in GFRPA66 30 wt.%
after an increase in the load, sliding velocity, and sliding distance, greater contact occurs
between the two relatively hard surfaces (EN31 steel and peeled glass fiber) resulting in
severe abrasive friction. In case of GFRPA66 35 wt.%, the fiber reinforcement does not
peel out as the transfer film is retained even at increased load, sliding velocity and sliding
distance, thereby resulting in contact between a hard surface (EN31 steel) and another
relatively soft (polymer) material, which corresponds to a soft abrasive friction mechanism,
and a lesser SWR.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 7 of 16

4.3. Optimization of Experimental Condition of GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%

Using Design—Expert 13.0 software, optimization of experimental conditions were
carried out to minimize the COF and SWR of the composite specimens. The process
variables were wisely chosen to optimize the load, sliding velocity, and sliding distance.
The optimization program was used to determine the highest level of desirability, and
then different numerical combinations were searched in order to maximize the model
functions. The optimized conditions of GFRPA66 with 30 wt.% reinforcements and their
response for Minimum COF and SWR was obtained at a load of 80N, a sliding velocity
of 0.22 m/s and a sliding distance of 3500m. The optimized conditions of GFRPA66 with
35 wt.% reinforcements and their response for minimum COF and SWR was obtained
at a load of 70 N, a sliding velocity of 0.19 m/s and a sliding distance of 3000 m. The
obtained optimum conditions were further validated by an additional set of experiments to
confirm the minimization. This confirmatory run validated the model’s accuracy, COF and
SWR datasets using the model equation. The model assumed theoretical values were well
in agreement with experimentally observed response levels. This indicates the response
surface models’ precision and accuracy.

Development of Response Surface Models of Composite Specimens

Tables 2 and 3 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for both the models. The
“F-value” of GFRPA66 composite with 30 wt.% reinforcement and GFRPA66 with 35 wt.%
reinforcement for the developed model was found to be 96.25 and 44.54 for COF and 17411.57
and 48.87 for SWR, respectively, indicating that both the models are statistically significant.

Table 2. ANOVA table of COF for GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%.

ANOVA for GFRPA66 30 wt.% ANOVA for GFRPA66 35 wt.%

Source
SS df MSq F-Value p-Value SS df MSq F-Value p-Value
Model 0.0203 9 0.0023 96.25 <0.0001 0.2546 9 0.0283 44.54 <0.0001
A 0.0022 1 0.0022 94.51 <0.0001 0.0513 1 0.0513 80.72 <0.0001
B 0.0052 1 0.0052 223.52 <0.0001 0.0365 1 0.0365 57.54 <0.0001
C 0.0023 1 0.0023 98 <0.0001 0.0874 1 0.0874 137.68 <0.0001
AB 0.0001 1 0.0001 4.79 0.0534 0.0001 1 0.0001 0.1771 0.6828
AC 0.0045 1 0.0045 192.17 <0.0001 0.0378 1 0.0378 59.53 <0.0001
BC 0 1 0 0.5323 0.4824 0.0010 1 0.0010 1.60 0.2353
A2 0.0016 1 0.0016 68.28 <0.0001 0.0004 1 0.0004 0.6582 0.4361
B2 0.0016 1 0.0016 68.28 <0.0001 0.0567 1 0.0567 89.34 <0.0001
C2 0.0022 1 0.0022 94.88 <0.0001 0.0053 1 0.0053 8.37 0.0160
Res 0.0002 10 0 0.0064 10 0.0006
Lack of
0.0001 5 0 0.7611 0.6141 0.0023 5 0.0005 0.5556 0.7327
Fit
Pure
0.0001 5 0 0.0041 5 0.0008
Error
Cor
0.0206 19 0.2610 19
Total
Standard Adjusted Standard Adjusted
Deviation= 0.0048 R2 = 0.9783 Deviation= 0.0252 R2 = 0.9538
R2 = 0.9886 Adeq Precision = 40.7828 R2 = 0.9757 Adeq Precision = 23.4526
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 8 of 16

Table 3. ANOVA table of SWR for GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%.

ANOVA for GFRPA66 30 wt.% ANOVA for GFRPA66 35 wt.%

Source
SS df MSq F-Value p-Value SS df MSq F-Value p-Value
Model 0.0000 9 4.816 × 10−6 17411.57 <0.0001 0.0209 9 0.0023 48.87 <0.0001
A 0.0000 1 0.0000 92934.97 <0.0001 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.9939 0.3423
B 1.103 × 10−6 1 1.103 × 10−6 3989.13 <0.0001 0.0003 1 0.0003 6.59 0.0280
C 0.0000 1 0.0000 59745.62 <0.0001 0.0003 1 0.0003 6.84 0.0258
AB 5.000 × 10−9 1 5.000 × 10−9 18.08 0.0017 0.0037 1 0.0037 78.42 <0.0001
AC 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0034 1 0.0034 70.46 <0.0001
BC 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0019 1 0.0019 40.00 <0.0001
A2 3.624 × 10−13 1 3.624 × 10−13 0.0013 0.9718 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.5246 0.4855
B2 3.624 × 10−13 1 3.624 × 10−13 0.0013 0.9718 0.0089 1 0.0089 186.44 <0.0001
C2 4.423 × 10−9 1 4.423 × 10−9 15.99 0.0025 2.795 × 10−6 1 2.795 × 10−6 0.0587 0.8134
Residual 2.766 × 10−9 10 2.766 × 10−10 0.0005 10 0.0000
Lack of
2.016 × 10−9 5 4.032 × 10−10 2.69 0.1509 0.0002 5 0.0000 0.8700 0.5589
Fit
Pure
7.500 × 10−10 5 1.500 × 10−10 0.0003 5 0.0001
Error
Cor Total 0.0000 19 0.0214 19
Standard 2 Standard
Adjusted R = 0.9999 Adjusted R2 = 0.9578
Deviation = 0.00010 Deviation = 0.0069
Adeq Precision = 468.7422 Adeq Precision = 19.0151
R2 = 0.9999 R2 = 0.9778
MS—Sum of Square; df—Degree of Freedom; MSq—Mean Square; Res—Residual

Large F values can occur due to noise, with a 0.01% chance. The “Prob > F” values
are less than 0.0500, indicating that both model terms are significant. Model terms for
GFRPA66 30 wt.%—A, B, C, AC, A2 , B2 , C2 and GFRPA66 35 wt.%—A, B, C, AC, B2 , C2
are found to be significant for COF, respectively. In the case of SWR also, model term
for GFRPA66 30 wt.%—A, B, C, AB, C2 and GFRPA66 35 wt.%—B, C, AB, AC, BC, B2 ,
respectively, are found to be significant. “p values” for all of the models were remarked
to be <0.001, representing the significance level of developed models. The model terms
are insignificant if the p-values are greater than 0.10. In addition to p value, the ability of
developed models is evaluated using other statistical parameters such as R2 (coefficient of
determination), R2 adj (adjusted R2 ), R2 pred (predicted R2 ), CV (coefficient of variation), etc.
The R2 analysis for COF for GFRPA66 30 wt.% (R2 values-0.9886 and R2 adj −0.9783) and
COF—GFRPA66 35 wt.% (R2 values—0.9757 and R2 adj −0.9538) are greater than 0.9 which
ascertains its validity. In the case of SWR, R2 values for GFRPA66 30 wt.% (R2 = 0.9999 and
R2 adj. = 0.9999) and GFRPA66 35 wt.% (R2 = 0.9778 and R2 adj. = 0.9578) are having a value
closer to 1. Both the models’ standard deviations (SD) are found to be small (i.e., the SD
for GFRPA66 30 wt.% (COF-0.0048. and SWR-0.0001) and GFRPA66 35 wt.% (COF-0.0252
and SWR-0.0069)) are very minimal. The adjusted R2 value is very close to the predicted R2
value and models are statistically accurate.
To fit the experimental outcomes attained from the design, several iterative are runs
performed in connection with the arranged CCD, the response designs are subsequently
modified. This resulted in a coded equation. Where, A, B, and C represent load, sliding
velocity and sliding distance. Consequently, the response (i.e., minimum COF and SWR
for GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.% was calculated using Equations (3)–(6),
respectively) [33–37,50].

(COF)GFRPA66 30 wt.% = +0.2866 + 0.0127 A+0.0196 B + 0.0130 C + 0.0238 AC + 0.0105 A2 + 0.0105 B2 − 0.0124 C2 (3)

(COF)GFRPA66 35 wt.% = +0.2646 + 0.0613 A + 0.0524 B+0.0916 C + 0.0687AC + 0.0639B2 − 0.0249 C2 (4)

(SWR)GFRPA66 30 wt.% = +0.0142 − 0.0014 A + 0.0003 B − 0.0011 C − 0.0000 AB + 0.0000 C2 (5)

(SWR)GFRPA6635 wt.% = +0.0186 − 0.0049B − 0.0056C + 0.0216 AB − 0.0205 AC − 0.0152BC + 0.0252 B2 (6)
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 9 of 16

The relationship between actual values of COF for GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66
35 wt.% and SWR for GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.% and the measured responses
depicted by CCD, are as shown in Figure 5a–d, and by using the estimated function values
for model assessment, the differences between the actual and predicted responses are found
to be close to each other.

Figure 5. (a) Relationship between actual and predicted values of GFRPA66 30 wt.% COF;
(b) relationship between actual and predicted values of GFRPA66 35 wt.% COF; (c) relationship
between actual and predicted values of GFRPA66 30 wt.% SWR; (d) relationship between actual and
predicted values of GFRPA66 35 wt.% SWR.

To examine the combined effect of the factors on the COF of GFRPA66 30 wt.% and
GFRPA66 35 wt.%, 3-D surface plots of the regression equation were used and are presented
in Figure 6a–f. The contour 3D-plot shows the plot in three different colors: the lowest
value—blue; the average value—green and cyan; and the highest value—red. The highest
COF was obtained due to more interaction between polyamide and the steel surface, such
as frictional heating and bulk erosion. Similarly, the lowest COF was obtained due to strong
control of molecular position during the run. The moderate COF was obtained due to a
lower surface degradation effect.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 10 of 16

Figure 6. 3D surface of COF model GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%; (a) GFRPA66 30 wt.%
effects of sliding velocity and load, (b) GFRPA66 30 wt.% effects of sliding distance and load,
(c) GFRPA66 30 wt.% effects of sliding distance and sliding velocity, (d) GFRPA66 35 wt.% effects of
sliding velocity and load, (e) GFRPA66 35 wt.% effects of sliding distance and load, and (f) GFRPA66
35 wt.% effects of sliding distance and sliding velocity.

To study the combined effect of the factors on SWR of GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66,
3-D surface plots of the regression equation were used in Figure 7a–f. The contour 3D-plot
shows the plot in three different colors: the lowest value—blue; the average value—green
and cyan; and the highest value—red. The highest SWR was obtained due to the volume of
the material decreased. Similarly, the lowest SWR was obtained due to strong control of
molecular position during run and less frictional heating (e.g., less temperature developed
between contacting surfaces). The moderate SWR was obtained due to less degradation of
polyamide occurs throughout the whole material evenly.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 11 of 16

Figure 7. 3D surface of SWR model GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%; (a) GFRPA66 30 wt.%
effects of sliding velocity and load, (b) GFRPA66 30 wt.% effects of sliding distance and load,
(c) GFRPA66 30 wt.% effects of sliding distance and sliding velocity, (d) GFRPA66 35 wt.% effects of
sliding velocity and load, (e) GFRPA66 35 wt.% effects of sliding distance and load, and (f) GFRPA66
35 wt.% effects of sliding distance and sliding velocity.

Experimental Validation
In order to evaluate the numerical model, validating experiments are conducted at
optimized parameters of 70 N load, sliding velocity of 0.19 m/s, sliding distance of 3000 m,
and weight percentage of 35%. The results of the predictions and experiments for COF and
SWR can be seen in Table 4. It is herewith reported that the experimental outcomes and
predicted results are in close agreement.

Table 4. Validation experiments of COF and SWR for PA66 GF35.

Polyamide Values Predicted Experimental Error

COF 0.3401 0.3409 0.0008
PA66GF Wt 35%
SWR(m3 /Nm) 0.0122 0.0128 0.0006
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 12 of 16

4.4. Worn Surface Morphology for Variations in Sliding Velocity and Sliding Distance at 80N Load
Figure 8a,b shows the worn out surfaces of GFRPA66 30 wt.%, for a sliding velocity
0.16, and 0.22 m/s, sliding distance of 2500 m, and 3500 m and applied load of 80 N. It
is observed that the glass fiber comes out of the surface due to surface degradation and
increase the SWR. Similarly Figure 8c,d shows the worn out surface of GFRPA66 35 wt.%,
for the same set of parameters. It is observed that the glass fiber does not come out of the
surface and is less due to less surface erosion. Subsequently, it decreases the SWR.

Figure 8. SEM image of worn surfaces of the GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%, at a load
of 80 N: (a) GFRPA66 30 wt.%, 0.16 m/s; (b) GFRPA66 30 wt.%, 0.22 m/s; (c) GFRPA66 35 wt.%,
0.16 m/s; (d) GFRPA66 35 wt.%, 0.22 m/s.

5. Conclusions
The tribological properties of polyamide GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.%
composites are analyzed, and the following inferences are drawn:
• The friction coefficient and SWR decreases with increase in weight percentage of glass
fiber content and lowest values are achieved for 35 wt.% of glass fiber.
• The SWR of GFRPA66 30 wt.% ranges from 0.0120 m3 /Nm to 0.0164 m3 /Nm for
different set of process parameters. Similarly, the SWR of GFRPA6635 wt.% range from
0.0101 m3 /Nm to 0.0161 m3 /Nm. However, as the load, sliding velocity and sliding
distance increases, the SWR decreases.
• The coefficient of friction values ranges from 0.22 to 0.37 for GFRPA66 30 wt.%, while
the coefficient of friction values ranges from 0.15 to 0.31 for GFRPA 66 35 wt.% for
different set of process parameters, which are carefully observed and optimized.
• The ANOVA revealed that the significant and insignificant terms used for the model
(i.e., the “F-value” of GFRPA66 30 wt.% and GFRPA66 35 wt.% for the developed
model) was found to be 96.25 and 44.54 for COF and 17411.57 and 48.87 for SWR,
respectively, indicating that both models are statistically significant.
• The R2 values for COF for GFRPA66 30 wt.% (R2 values-0.9886 and R2 adj -0.9783) and
COF for GFRPA66 35 wt.% (R2 values- 0.9757 and R2 adj -0.9538) are close to a unity.
In the case of SWR, GFRPA66 30 wt.% (R2 = 0.9999 and R2 adj. = 0.9999) and SWR-
GFRPA66 35 wt.% (R2 = 0.9778 and R2 adj. = 0.9578) are also close to unity.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 13 of 16

• Based on the significant terms, the polynomial equations are formed and using this
equation, optimized COF and SWR are estimated.
• The experimental validations signified that the predicted values are in good conformity
with the actual data and the developed models are adequate.
• The SEM image showed the wear mechanism of the worn out surface of composites
and glass fibers which have come out of the polyamide surface for GFRPA66 30 wt.%
and is more than the GFRPA66 35 wt.% composites.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.J. and C.A.S.; Data curation, A.S. and A.A.; Formal
analysis, N.J., S.N. and M.B.; Methodology, A.S., S.N., M.A., A.A. and M.B.; Resources, A.S., M.A. and
C.A.S.; Software, S.N. and M.A.; Validation, C.A.S.; Writing—original draft, N.J.; Writing—review &
editing, A.A. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is supported by the Structures and Materials (S&M) Research Lab of Prince
Sultan University. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the support of Prince Sultan University for
paying the article processing charges (APC) of this publication.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at
King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia for funding this work through Research Group Program under
Grant No: R.G.P.1/256/43.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sidiq, P.; Abdalrahman, R.M.; Rostam, S. Optimizing the simultaneous cutting-edge angles, included angle and nose radius for
low cutting force in turning polyamide PA66. Results Mater. 2020, 7, 100100. [CrossRef]
2. Muhandes, H.; Kalácska, Á.; Székely, L.; Keresztes, R.; Kalácska, G. Abrasive Sensitivity of Engineering Polymers and a
Bio-Composite under Different Abrasive Conditions. Materials 2020, 13, 5239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Shin, M.W.; Kim, S.S.; Jang, H. Friction and Wear of Polyamide 66 With Different Weight Average Molar Mass. Tribol. Lett. 2011,
44, 151–158. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, H.-G.; Ren, J.-F.; Jian, L.; Pan, B.; Zhang, J.-Y.; Yang, S.-R. Friction and Wear Behavior of Polyamide 66/Poly(vinylidene
fluoride) Blends. J. Macromol. Sci. Part B 2008, 47, 701–711. [CrossRef]
5. Ruan, H.; Zhang, Q.; Liao, W.; Li, Y.; Huang, X.; Xu, X.; Lu, S. Enhancing tribological, mechanical, and thermal properties of
polyimide composites by the synergistic effect between graphene and ionic liquid. Mater. Des. 2020, 189, 108527. [CrossRef]
6. Villanueva, J.L.; Trino, J.; Thomas, D.; Bijukumar, D.; Royhman, M.M.; Stack, M.T. Mathew, Corrosion, tribology, and tribocor-
rosion research in biomedical implants: Progressive trend in the published literature. J. Bio. Tribo. Corros. 2016, 3, 1. [CrossRef]
7. Kurdi, A.; Chang, L. Recent Advances in High Performance Polymers—Tribological Aspects. Lubricants 2018, 7, 2. [CrossRef]
8. Friedrich, K. Polymer composites for tribological applications. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 2018, 1, 3–39. [CrossRef]
9. Golchin, A.; Simmons, G.; Glavatskih, S.; Prakash, B. Tribological behaviour of polymeric materials in water-lubricated contacts.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J. J. Eng. Tribol. 2013, 227, 811–825. [CrossRef]
10. Srinath, G.; Gnanamoorthy, R. Effect of Short Fibre Reinforcement on the Friction and Wear Behaviour of Nylon 66. Appl. Compos.
Mater. 2005, 12, 369–383. [CrossRef]
11. Ye, J.; Khare, H.; Burris, D. Transfer film evolution and its role in promoting ultra-low wear of a PTFE nanocomposite. Wear 2013,
297, 1095–1102. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, Z.; Liu, X.; Lü, R.; Li, T. Friction and wear mechanisms of PA66/PPS blend reinforced with carbon fiber. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
2007, 105, 602–608. [CrossRef]
13. Bondy, M.; Rodgers, W.; Altenhof, W. Tensile fatigue characterization of polyamide 66/carbon fiber direct/in-line compounded
long fiber thermoplastic composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 173, 106984. [CrossRef]
14. Kumar, R.; Verma, A.; Shome, A.; Sinha, R.; Sinha, S.; Jha, P.K.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, P.; Shubham; Das, S.; et al. Impacts of
Plastic Pollution on Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development Goals, and Need to Focus on Circular Economy and Policy
Interventions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9963. [CrossRef]
15. Fonseca, J.H.; Han, G.; Quagliato, L.; Kim, Y.; Choi, J.; Keum, T.; Kim, S.; Han, D.S.; Kim, N.; Lee, H. Design and numerical
evaluation of recycled-carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer/metal hybrid engine cradle concepts. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2019, 163, 105115.
[CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 14 of 16

16. Nagaraja, K.; Rajanna, S.; Prakash, G.; Rajeshkumar, G. Mechanical properties of polymer matrix composites: Effect of hybridiza-
tion. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 34, 536–538. [CrossRef]
17. Sudheer, M.; Hemanth, K.; Raju, K.; Bhat, T. Enhanced Mechanical and Wear Performance of Epoxy/glass Composites with
PTW/Graphite Hybrid Fillers. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 6, 975–987. [CrossRef]
18. Panwar, V.; Chattree, A.; Pal, K. Effect of Nanoclay on Thermomechanical Behaviour of Graphene Oxide/Polymer Composites.
Procedia Eng. 2017, 216, 101–110. [CrossRef]
19. Tang, G.; Huang, W.; Chang, D.; Nie, W.; Mi, W.; Yan, W. The Friction and Wear of Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polyamide 6
Composites Filled with Nano-MoS2 . Polym. Technol. Eng. 2011, 50, 1537–1540. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, Z.; Li, T.; Liu, X.; Lü, R. Friction and wear mechanisms of polyamide 66/high density polyethylene blends. J. Polym. Sci.
Part B Polym. Phys. 2005, 43, 2514–2523. [CrossRef]
21. Mistry, M.; Randhawa, K.S. Investigations of the influence of hexagonal boron nitride particulates on mechanical & tribological
properties of PA66. J. Physics: Conf. Ser. 2020, 1706, 012180. [CrossRef]
22. Kunishima, T.; Kurokawa, T.; Arai, H.; Fridrici, V.; Kapsa, P. Reactive extrusion mechanism, mechanical and tribological behavior
of fiber reinforced polyamide 66 with added carbodiimide. Mater. Des. 2018, 188, 108447. [CrossRef]
23. Clavería, I.; Gimeno, S.; Miguel, I.; Mendoza, G.; Lostalé, A.; Fernández, Á.; Castell, P.; Elduque, D. Tribological Performance of
Nylon Composites with Nanoadditives for Self-Lubrication Purposes. Polymers 2020, 12, 2253. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Xing, Y.; Zhang, G.; Ma, K.; Chen, T.; Zhao, X. Study on the Friction and Wear Behaviors of Modified PA66 Composites. Polym.
Technol. Eng. 2009, 48, 633–638. [CrossRef]
25. Briscoe, B.J.; Sinha, S.K. Tribological applications of polymers and their composites: Past, present and future prospects. Tribol.
Inter Eng. 2008, 55, 1–14.
26. Ravichandran, G.; Rathnakar, G.; Santhosh, N.; Thejaraju, R. Antiwear Performance Evaluation of Halloysite Nanotube (HNT)
Filled Polymer Nanocomposites. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019, 9, 3314–3321.
27. Rodiouchkina, M.; Lind, J.; Pelcastre, L.; Berglund, K.; Rudolphi, K.; Hardell, J. Tribological behaviour and transfer layer
development of self-lubricating polymer composite bearing materials under long duration dry sliding against stainless steel.
Wear 2021, 484-485, 204027. [CrossRef]
28. Kumara, S.; Panneerselvam, K. Optimization of Friction and Wear of Nylon 6 and Glass Fiber Reinforced (GFR) Nylon 6
Composites against 30wt.% GFR Nylon 6 Disc. J. Adv. Res. Mater. Sci. 2016, 19, 14–32.
29. Autay, R.; Missaoui, S.; Mars, J.; Dammak, F. Mechanical and tribological study of short glass fiber-reinforced PA 66. Polym. Polym.
Compos. 2019, 27, 587–596. [CrossRef]
30. Rymuza, Z. Tribology of polymers. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2007, 7, 177–184. [CrossRef]
31. Klump, K.; Tenzer, D.; Pfaendner, R.; Schönberger, F. Mode of dipentaerythritol stabilization during thermo-oxidative aging of
glass fibre reinforced PA66. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2021, 184, 109471. [CrossRef]
32. Purkayastha, S.; Dutta, A.; Ghosh, A.K.; Saha, N.C. Processability and performance property correlation for LDPE/PA6-based
nanocomposite and its monolayer blown film for packaging application. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2022, 45, 47. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, K.; Yao, S.; Peng, Y.; Rao, Y.; Ahzi, S. Progressive collapse behaviors and mechanisms of 3D printed
thin-walled composite structures under multi-conditional loading. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 171, 108810. [CrossRef]
34. Vinny, R.S. 6—Engineering Thermoplastics: Acrylics, Polycarbonates, Polyurethanes, Polyacetals, Polyesters, and Polyamides. In
Plastics Design Library, Plastics in Medical Devices, 3rd ed.; Vinny, R.S., Ed.; William Andrew Publishing: Norwich, NY, USA, 2022;
pp. 167–232. [CrossRef]
35. Ganorkar, S.B.; Shirkhedkar, A.A. Design of experiments in liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis of pharmaceuticals: Analytics,
applications, implications and future prospects. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2017, 36, 20160025. [CrossRef]
36. Radini, F.A.; Ghozali, M.; Ujianto, O.; Haryono, A. Effect of Fillers and Processing Parameters on the Shrinkage of Injected
Molding Polyamide 66. Int. J. Mater. Mech. Manuf. 2019, 7, 165–169. [CrossRef]
37. Boaretti, C.; Rossignolo, G.; Roso, M.; Modesti, M.; Kandola, B.; Vendrame, A.; Lorenzetti, A. Investigation and Optimization of
Vacuum Plasma Treatment of PA66 Fabric for Reduced Fire Retardant Consumption. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 21775–21787. [CrossRef]
38. Huang, C.-T.; Xu, R.-T.; Chen, P.-H.; Jong, W.-R.; Chen, S.-C. Investigation on the machine calibration effect on the optimization
through design of experiments (DOE) in injection molding parts. Polym. Test. 2020, 90, 106703. [CrossRef]
39. Di Benedetto, R.M.; Gomes, G.F.; Janotti, A.; Junior, A.C.A.; Botelho, E.C. Statistical approach to optimize crashworthiness of
thermoplastic commingled composites. Mater. Today Commun. 2022, 31, 103651. [CrossRef]
40. Sisay, M.; Balasubramanian, E. Optimization of fatigue strength of selective inhibition sintered polyamide 12 parts using RSM.
Manuf. Rev. 2020, 7, 23. [CrossRef]
41. Chavhan, G.; Wankhade, L. Optimization of Test Parameters that Influence on Dry Sliding Wear Performance of Steel Embedded
Glass/Epoxy Hybrid Composites by Using the Taguchi Approach. Tribol. Ind. 2020, 42, 556–571. [CrossRef]
42. Murali, B.; Ramnath, B.M.V.; Rajamani, D.; Nasr, E.A.; Astarita, A.; Mohamed, H. Experimental Investigations on Dry Sliding
Wear Behavior of Kevlar and Natural Fiber-Reinforced Hybrid Composites through an RSM–GRA Hybrid Approach. Materials
2022, 15, 749. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Ravichandran, G.; Rathnakar, G.; Santhosh, N.; Suresh, R. Wear Characterization of HNT Filled Glass-Epoxy Composites Using
Taguchi’s Design of Experiments and Study of Wear Morphology. Compos. Theory Pract. 2020, 20, 85–91.
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 15 of 16

44. Puhan, M.R.; Sutariya, B.; Karan, S. Revisiting the alkali hydrolysis of polyamide nanofiltration mem-branes. J. Membr. Sci. 2022,
661, 120887. [CrossRef]
45. Ramokgopa, S.K.; Sikhwivhilu, K.; Moutloali, R.M.; Moothi, K. Process optimisation through Response Surface Methodology for
treatment of acid mine drainage using carbon nanotubes-infused thin film nano-composite membranes. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts
A/B/C 2021, 124, 103008. [CrossRef]
46. Benzannache, N.; Belaadi, A.; Boumaaza, M.; Bourchak, M. Improving the mechanical performance of biocomposite plas-
ter/Washingtonian filifira fibres using the RSM method. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 33, 101840. [CrossRef]
47. Fuat, T. Experimental Investigation of Mechanical Properties for Injection Molded PA66+PA6I/6T Composite Using RSM and
Grey Wolf Optimization. El-Cezerî J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 7, 835–847. [CrossRef]
48. Suresha, B.; Kumar, B.N.R. Two-body abrasive wear behavior of particulate filled polyamide66/polypropylene nanocomposites.
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2011, 119, 2292–2301. [CrossRef]
49. Güllü, A.; Özdemir, A.; Ozdemir, E. Experimental investigation of the effect of glass fibres on the mechanical properties of
polypropylene (PP) and polyamide 6 (PA6) plastics. Materials & Design—MATER DESIGN. 2006, 27, 316–323. [CrossRef]
50. Harrass, K.; Mauer, S.; Tsekov, R. Resistance of glass fibre reinforced polyamide 6.6 materials to automotive cooling fluids: An
analytical method for lifetime prediction. Polym. Int. 2022, 71, 724–733. [CrossRef]
51. Zhang, S.; Cui, C.; Chen, G. Tribological behavior of MC Nylon6 composites filled with glass fiber and fly ash. J. Wuhan Univ.
Technol. Sci. Ed. 2012, 27, 290–295. [CrossRef]
52. Mahesh, V.; Joladarashi, S.; Kulkarni, S.M. A comprehensive review on material selection for polymer matrix composites subjected
to impact load. Def. Technol. 2020, 17, 257–277. [CrossRef]
53. Chan, J.X.; Wong, J.F.; Petrů, M.; Hassan, A.; Nirmal, U.; Othman, N.; Ilyas, R.A. Effect of Nanofillers on Tribological Properties of
Polymer Nanocomposites: A Review on Recent Development. Polymers 2021, 13, 2867. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Jenczyk, P.; Grzywacz, H.; Milczarek, M.; Jarzabek,
˛ D. Mechanical and Tribological Properties of Co-Electrodeposited Particulate-
Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites: A Critical Review with Interfacial Aspects. Materials 2021, 14, 3181. [CrossRef]
55. Nagaraja, S.; Anand, P.B.; Naik, R.N.M.; Gunashekaran, S. Effect of aging on the biopolymer composites: Mechanisms, modes
and characterization. Polym. Compos. 2022, 43, 4115–4125. [CrossRef]
56. Wang, Z.; Dong, Y.; Yang, J.-C.; Wang, X.-J.; Zhang, M.-L.; Zhang, G.; Long, S.-R.; Liu, S.; Yang, J. Improved interfacial shear
strength in carbon fiber enhanced semi-aromatic polyamide 6T composite via in-situ polymerization on fiber surface. Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2022, 223, 109401. [CrossRef]
57. Choudhari, D.S.; Kakhandki, V.J. Comprehensive study and analysis of mechanical properties of chopped carbon fibre reinforced
nylon 66 composite materials. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 44, 4596–4601. [CrossRef]
58. Fathima, S.B.D.S.; Deeraj, S.; Appukuttan, K. 12—Carbon Fiber and Glass Fiber Reinforced Elastomeric Composite, Fiber Reinforced
Composites Constituents, Compatibility, Perspectives, and Applications Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering;
Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2021; pp. 307–340. [CrossRef]
59. Zsófia, K.; Ákos, P.; Andrea, T. The flame retardancy of polyamide 6—prepared by in situ polymerisation of ε-caprolactam—For
T-RTM applications. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2022, 195, 109797. [CrossRef]
60. Oliver-Ortega, H.; Julian, F.; Espinach, F.X.; Tarrés, Q.; Delgado-Aguilar, M.; Mutjé, P. 6—Biobased polyamide reinforced with natural
fiber composites„Fiber Reinforced Composites Constituents, Compatibility, Perspectives, and Applications, Woodhead Publishing Series in
Composites Science and Engineering; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2021; pp. 141–165. [CrossRef]
61. Umesh, G.; Rudresh, B.; Krishnaprasad, N.; Madhu, D. Micro fillers effect on two body abrasive wear behavior of Polyamide 66,
Polyamide 6 blend based composites. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 54, 217–222. [CrossRef]
62. Afzal, A.; Khan, S.A.; Islam, T.; Jilte, R.D.; Khan, A.; Soudagar, M.E.M. Investigation and back-propagation modeling of base
pressure at sonic and supersonic Mach numbers. Phys. Fluids 2020, 32, 096109. [CrossRef]
63. David, O.; Okwu, M.O.; Oyejide, O.J.; Taghinezhad, E.; Asif, A.; Kaveh, M. Optimizing Biodiesel Production from Abundant
Waste Oils through Empirical Method and Grey Wolf Optimizer. Fuel 2020, 281, 118701. [CrossRef]
64. Afzal, A.; Saleel, C.A.; Badruddin, I.A.; Khan, T.Y.; Kamangar, S.; Mallick, Z.; Samuel, O.D.; Soudagar, M.E. Human thermal
comfort in passenger vehicles using an organic phase change material– an experimental investigation, neural network modelling,
and optimization. Build. Environ. 2020, 180, 107012. [CrossRef]
65. Afzal, A.; Alshahrani, S.; Alrobaian, A.; Buradi, A.; Khan, S.A. Power Plant Energy Predictions Based on Thermal Factors Using
Ridge and Support Vector Regressor Algorithms. Energies 2021, 14, 7254. [CrossRef]
66. Afzal, A. Optimization of Thermal Management in Modern Electric Vehicle Battery Cells Employing Genetic Algorithm. J. Heat
Transf. 2021, 143, 112902. [CrossRef]
67. Afzal, A.; Yashawantha, K.M.; Aslfattahi, N.; Saidur, R.; Razak, R.K.A.; Subbiah, R. Back propagation modeling of shear stress
and viscosity of aqueous Ionic-MXene nanofluids. J. Therm. Anal. 2021, 145, 2129–2149. [CrossRef]
68. Mokashi, I.; Afzal, A.; Khan, S.A.; Abdullah, N.A.; Bin Azami, M.H.; Jilte, R.; Samuel, O.D. Nusselt number analysis from a
battery pack cooled by different fluids and multiple back-propagation modelling using feed-forward networks. Int. J. Therm. Sci.
2021, 161, 106738. [CrossRef]
69. Elumalai, P.V.; Moorthy, R.K.; Parthasarathy, M.; Samuel, O.D.; Owamah, H.I.; Saleel, C.A.; Enweremadu, C.C.; Reddy, M.S.;
Afzal, A. Artificial neural networks model for predicting the behavior of different injection pressure characteristics powered by
blend of biofuel-nano emulsion. Energy Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 2367–2396. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 6520 16 of 16

70. Veza, I.; Afzal, A.; Mujtaba, M.; Hoang, A.T.; Balasubramanian, D.; Sekar, M.; Fattah, I.; Soudagar, M.; El-Seesy, A.I.; Djamari, D.; et al.
Review of artificial neural networks for gasoline, diesel and homogeneous charge compression ignition engine. Alex. Eng. J. 2022,
61, 8363–8391. [CrossRef]
71. Bakır, H.; Ağbulut, Ů.; Gürel, A.E.; Yıldız, G.; Güvenç, U.; Soudagar, M.E.M.; Hoang, A.T.; Deepanraj, B.; Saini, G.; Afzal, A.
Forecasting of future greenhouse gas emission trajectory for India using energy and economic indexes with various metaheuristic
algorithms. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 131946. [CrossRef]
72. Sharma, P.; Said, Z.; Kumar, A.; Nižetić, S.; Pandey, A.; Hoang, A.T.; Huang, Z.; Afzal, A.; Li, C.; Le, A.T.; et al. Recent Advances
in Machine Learning Research for Nanofluid-Based Heat Transfer in Renewable Energy System. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 6626–6658.
[CrossRef]
73. Sharma, J.; Soni, S.; Paliwal, P.; Saboor, S.; Chaurasiya, P.K.; Sharifpur, M.; Khalilpoor, N.; Afzal, A. A novel long term solar
photovoltaic power forecasting approach using LSTM with Nadam optimizer: A case study of India. Energy Sci. Eng. 2022, 10,
2909–2929. [CrossRef]
74. Ziaee, O.; Zolfaghari, N.; Baghani, M.; Baniassadi, M.; Wang, K. A modified cellular automaton model for simulating ion
dynamics in a Li-ion battery electrode. Energy Equip. Syst. 2022, 10, 41–49.
75. Taslimi, M.S.; Dastjerdi, S.M.; Mousavi, S.B.; Ahmadi, P.; Ashjaee, M. Assessment and multi-objective optimization of an off-grid
solar based energy system for a Conex. Energy Equip. Syst. 2021, 9, 127–143. [CrossRef]
76. Sharifi, M.; Amidpour, M.; Mollaei, S. Investigating carbon emission abatement long-term plan with the aim of energy system
modeling; case study of Iran. Energy Equip. Syst. 2018, 6, 337–349. [CrossRef]
77. Zare, S.; Ayati, M.; Ha’iri Yazdi, M.R.; Kabir, A.A. Convolutional neural networks for wind turbine gearbox health monitoring.
Energy Equip. Syst. 2022, 10, 73–82.
78. Sabzi, S.; Asadi, M.; Moghbelli, H. Review, analysis and simulation of different structures for hybrid electrical energy storages.
Energy Equip. Syst. 2017, 5, 115–129. [CrossRef]
79. Trzepieciński, T.; Najm, S.M.; Lemu, H.G. Current Concepts for Cutting Metal-Based and Polymer-Based Composite Materials. J.
Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 150. [CrossRef]
80. Trzepieciński, T.; Najm, S.M.; Sbayti, M.; Belhadjsalah, H.; Szpunar, M.; Lemu, H.G. New Advances and Future Possibilities
in Forming Technology of Hybrid Metal–Polymer Composites Used in Aerospace Applications. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 217.
[CrossRef]