Original article

Proc IMechE Part L:

J Materials: Design and Applications
Preliminary evaluations on 0(0) 1–15
! IMechE 2017
development of new materials Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

for hip joint femoral head DOI: 10.1177/1464420717714495

journals.sagepub.com/home/pil

Amit Aherwar1, Amar Patnaik2, Marjan Bahraminasab3 and

Amit Singh2

Abstract
Development and selection of a proper biomaterial with diverse properties (i.e. physical, mechanical, wear, corrosion,
and many others) for hip femoral head is one of the most exigent tasks. Improper material often causes component
failure during functioning. Therefore, in this study, a series of implant materials containing tungsten of different weight
percentages were fabricated by high temperature vacuum casting induction furnace and the physical, mechanical, wear,
and corrosion properties were examined. The proportions were varied from 0 wt% to 4 wt% in a cobalt–chromium alloy
(Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni). The mechanical properties were tested by the micro-hardness tester and the compression testing
machine, while the wear performance was analyzed through a pin-on-disc tribometer under different operating condi-
tions at room temperature. Corrosion resistance was analyzed under NaCl solution by the electrochemical test method.
Due to the conflict between the properties obtained, the Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenjemeaning
(VIKOR) method integrated with analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied to choose the best material among the set
of alternatives, where AHP was used to determine criteria weights, and VIKOR approach was used to rank the alter-
natives. From the results obtained, it was found that Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni implant material containing 2 wt% tungsten
provides the best combination of the properties for a given application (i.e. hip femoral head).

Keywords
Material selection, multi-criteria decision-making, analytic hierarchy process-Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija
Kompromisno Resenjemeaning method, ranking, implant material

Date received: 1 February 2017; accepted: 18 May 2017

based alloys is the corrosion resistance in chloride

Introduction
Nowadays, the real world problems faced by a
researcher in the field of biomaterials are the selection
of the constituent materials with appropriate
proportions and design of formulation for optimized
physical, mechanical, corrosion, and wear properties.
Metallic materials are the leading biomaterials utilized
for orthopedic implants and are becoming
progressively significant. The metallic implant mater-
ials generally used for orthopedic applications include
stainless steels, cobalt–chromium alloys, and titanium
and titanium alloys. These metallic biomaterials have
numerous properties such as good corrosion resist-
ance, high strength, high hardness, high fracture
toughness and biocompatibility, which make them a
magnificent option for orthopedic applications.1
Currently, Co-based alloys are among the favorable
biomaterials for making implant components, owing
to their superior corrosion properties and mechanical
strength. One of the main characteristics of cobalt-
environment, which is due to addition of alloying
elements and the formation of the chromium oxide
(Cr2O3) passive layer.2 Usually, Co-based alloys com-
prise of a cobalt-rich solid–solution matrix including
carbides (e.g. Cr7C3 and M23C6) within the grains and
at grain boundaries, where tungsten (W), chromium
(Cr), silicon (Si), tantalum (Ta), zirconium (Zr),
nickel (Ni), and cobalt (Co), may present in a single
carbide particle.3,4 Addition of tungsten content in the
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Madhav Institute of Technology
and Science, Gwalior, India
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of
Technology, Jaipur, India
3
Department of Tissue Engineering and Applied Cell Sciences, School
of Medicine, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
Corresponding author:
Amit Aherwar, Mechanical Engineering Department, Madhav Institute
of Technology and Science, Gwalior 474005, India.
Email: amit.aherwar05@gmail.com
2 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
modified cobalt–chromium alloy may provide further
strength to the matrix5 (as a result of their fine grain
structure and large atomic size) and excellent resist-
ance to heat, which is the influential parameter in
wear rate.6 The authors in their previous work7 devel-
oped novel Co–30Cr–4Mo alloys with added nickel
content as potential biomaterials for hip implants
and applied the Taguchi technique to optimize the
material. Their results showed that the 1 wt% Ni par-
ticulate-filled alloy provides minimal material loss.
Therefore, the main goal of the present study is to
develop different weight percentages of tungsten
added Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni alloys as implant materials,
and to evaluate their density, hardness, strength, tribo-
performance and corrosion behavior. These are the
vital properties of an orthopedic material for general
acceptance and long term performance.
A few of the properties such as hardness and com-
pressive strength are desired to be as high as possible
while the other characteristics including coefficient of
friction, wear and corrosion rate are preferred to be
as low as possible. On the other hand, the fabricated
materials possess distinct performance for each indi-
vidual property. It is needed, therefore, to decide on
the best alternative that has the utmost level of sat-
isfaction for all the relevant properties. This can be
done by applying systematical approaches that
logically identify the importance of the performance
defining attribute (PDA), i.e. material properties for
a given engineering application and decide on the
most relevant alternative and eradicate the improper
candidate materials. In this view, numerous multi-
criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods such as
analytical hierarchy process (AHP), grey relational
analysis (GRA), Preference ranking organization
METHod for enrichment of evaluations
(PROMETHEE), Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija
Kompromisno Resenjemeaning (VIKOR), preference
selection index (PSI), ELimination Et Choix
Traduisant la REalité – ELimination and choice
expressing the REality (ELECTRE), range of value
method (ROVM), and many others have been pro-
posed to assist in selecting the best alternative among
the promising materials.8–15 Among all, the VIKOR
technique is quite an efficient ranking method
because of its simple mathematical calculations and
amiability of the use compared with other MCDM
methods.16,17 This approach has been used in mater-
ial selection for orthopedic applications.18–20 AHP
method addresses how to generate the weight or rela-
tive importance of a PDA in a given MCDM prob-
lem. AHP is a hierarchy structured approach, which
determines the priority order of a set of PDAs (i.e.
criteria/material properties) by constructing a pair-
wise comparison matrix. Therefore, in this study,
after fabrication of new materials and obtaining
their properties by experimentation, AHP-VIKOR
technique is used to rank them. Figure 1 shows the
methodology used in this paper.
Experimental details
Fabrication of implant material
The raw materials of cobalt, chromium, molybdenum,
nickel, and tungsten were provided (Mittal Industries,
India) to make samples with different weight percent-
ages of W, in which Co was in the form of Ingot and
all the other materials were powders with size of
<44 mm. The chemical compositions of the fabricated
materials are shown in Table 1. The tungsten added
Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni alloys for femoral component
were fabricated by a high temperature vacuum casting
induction furnace. There are two separate chambers
available in the high temperature vacuum centrifugal
casting machine including the melting unit and the
casting section located just below the melting cham-
ber. The two chambers are under vacuum environ-
ment and connected with the chiller unit. The lower
chamber is connected with a motor, for function of
vertical centrifugal casting while pouring the molten
alloy. In this analysis the rotational speed was main-
tained around 200 r/min for uniform mixing of tung-
sten with the base materials. First, the materials in the
powder form, i.e. Cr, Mo, Ni, and W based on their
weight percentages were pre-heated up to 200  C.
Then, the materials were heated in the cylindrical
graphite crucible attached to the high temperature
vacuum casting induction furnace, so that when the
cobalt attained above its liquid temperature (1800  C)
Cr, Mo, Ni, and W powders in pre-heated form were
poured into the molten metal (i.e. cobalt) slowly
according to the required quantity for 6–8 min. The
melting was above 1800  C for 15 min. Subsequently,
the molten mixture was dropped vertically downward
into the rectangular graphite mold (120 mm 
65 mm  10 mm) under vacuum environment. Then,
the rectangular mold was removed from the vacuum
chamber and cooled in a quench medium for 30 min.
Afterward, the samples were prepared for
characterization by Buehler Isomet 4000 high speed
diamond cutter and semi-automatic Buehler
MetaServ 250 polisher/grinder. Then the samples
were cleaned in ethanol with an ultrasonic cleaner
and dried with a commercially available blower.
Test of density, micro-hardness, and
compression properties
The density of the fabricated materials was obtained
by Archimedes’ principle through weighing the
samples in air and then in water. Micro-hardness
was analyzed by the USL Vickers micro-hardness test-
ing machine having a square-based pyramidal (angle
136 between opposite faces) diamond indenter by
applying a load of 0.5 N for 15 s. All measurements
were carried out as per ASTM E-92 standard. The
micro-hardness was measured at six different
locations and the mean value was considered.
Compression test was conducted on compression
Aherwar et al. 3

Figure 1. The steps taken in the methodology.

Table 1. Chemical composition and designation of samples (in tests supplied by DUCOM, India. During the test the
weight percentage). specimen (Pin) was held stationary while the disc
(Figure 2(b)) was rotated and the load was applied
Sample
designation Composition through a lever mechanism. The tribometer had a
disc working as a counter body made up of hardened
W-0 Co balancing, 30% Cr, 4% Mo, 1% Ni, 0% W alloy steel (EN-31) with 60–70 Rockwell hardness
W-1 Co balancing, 30% Cr, 4% Mo, 1% Ni, 1% W (HRC) and surface roughness of 1.6 mm. Five
W-2 Co balancing, 30% Cr, 4% Mo, 1% Ni, 2% W groups of W-0, W-1, W-2, W-3, and W-4 were
W-3 Co balancing, 30% Cr, 4% Mo, 1% Ni, 3% W tested using a pin-on-disc tribometer.21 Each sample
W-4 Co balancing, 30% Cr, 4% Mo, 1% Ni, 4% W was tested using pin shaped with a 10 mm in length,
10 mm in width, and with height of 20 mm. Two dif-
ferent steady state conditions were applied by varying
testing machine AIMIL at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/ each of the parameters such as normal load (5 N, 15 N,
min to evaluate the compression strength of the and 25 N) and sliding velocity (0.26 m/s, 0.52 m/s, and
materials. For evaluation of density, hardness, and 1.04 m/s), by keeping other parameters constant. All
compression properties, three specimens were tested experiments were performed in 50 mm diameter of
and mean values were reported. wear track. Each experiment run was repeated twice
and the mean value was reported for more accuracy.
After each experimental run, each sample was cleaned
Wear test with cotton dipped in acetone and dried with a hot air
A pin-on-disk tribometer (Figure 2(a)) confirming to blower for 2 min. Thereafter, a precise electronic bal-
ASTM G 99 was utilized for carrying out the wear ance with accuracy of 0.1 mg is used to find the
4 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
Figure 2. (a) Test setup of pin-on-disc tribometer; (b) arrangement of disc and pin position; and (c) pin sample.
material loss. Finally, the volumetric wear loss (mm3)
was computed by the following equation:
m
Volumetric wear loss ¼
n
where m is the mass loss of a fabricated material
during the wear test (g) and n signifies the sample
density (g/mm3). The coefficient of frictions () were
also monitored continuously and the readings were
recorded separately by using WINDCOM 2010
software, provided by DUCOM Pvt. Ltd for indi-
vidual test run. Finally the mean values were
considered.
Corrosion test
Corrosion test was conducted using the electrochem-
ical test method with a combination of three
electrodes glass cell. For this, GAMRY potentiostat
VFP600 instrument was attached to a computer
controlled data acquisition system and suitable
current and voltages at room temperature were
applied. The corrosion current density (icorr) and cor-
rosion parameters, i.e. anodic and cathodic Tafel
slopes (ba and –bc, respectively), were computed by
ð1Þ using Tafel extrapolation. A saline solution was pre-
pared using 8 g/l NaCl, pH 7.4 at body temperature
37  C. The volume of the glass cell considered for elec-
trochemical measurement was 100 ml. The anodic
polarization curve for the Tafel analysis was recorded
from 150 mV to þ150 mV versus Ecorr with 1 mV/s
scan rate. The potentiodynamic curves were obtained
at a constant voltage scan rate of 10 mV/s. The sample
area exposed for this test was 8 cm2 and the scan fre-
quencies were considered from 1 V to 1 V. In the
electrochemical cell, the sample was used as working
electrode to observe the degradation property, the
graphite electrode was employed to be the counter
electrode, and saturated calomel electrode was used
as reference electrode. Prior to the tests, the sample
was polished with 1000 mesh size SiC paper, ultrason-
ically cleaned for 10 min, degreased with acetone,
cleaned with distilled water for 5 min, and finally
dried with air blower.
Aherwar et al. 5

Figure 3. Schematic of the applied ranking methodology.

which all the PDAs are compared with each other

Ranking methodology
by using nine-point scale (see Table 2) which was
The ranking of different formulations (fabricated discovered by Saaty.22 Let H ¼ {Hj where, j ¼ 1,
alloys) based upon distinct parameters was obtained 2,. . ., u} be the group of all the PDAs then the
using AHP integrated VIKOR approach. Firstly, size of comparison matrix (H) will be u  u and
AHP method was utilized to determine the weights the entry Hij donates the relative importance of
or relative importance of criteria (material proper- PDA i with respect to PDAj.
ties/PDAs) by priority basis and then the alternatives
were ranked by applying VIKOR technique. The 2 H1 H2  Hu 3
applied methodology contains three main phases H1 H11 H12    H1u
H2 6H H22    H2u 7
(see Figure 3), namely: 6 21 7 ð2Þ
Huu ¼ . 6 . .. .. .. 7
.. 6 . 7
4 . . . . 5
Phase I: determination of alternatives and perform-
ance defining attributes or PDAs. Hu Hu1 Hu2    Huu
Phase II: determination of criteria weights.
Phase III: selection of best composition. Hii ¼ 1, Hji ¼ 1=Hij , Hij 6¼ 0

Step II. The relative weights (wj) for all PDAs are
Phase I: Determination of alternatives and PDAs determined. Firstly, the geometric mean (GM) of
In this phase, the number of alternatives (Ai, i ¼ 1, ith row of comparison matrix is computed, after-
2,. . ., u) and PDAs (Zj, j ¼ 1, 2. . ., v) for a given wards the GM of rows is normalized in the pair-
MCDM problems are identified. wise comparison matrix. The weight for ith row
can be computed as:
Phase II: Determination of criteria weights by AHP " #1=u
Yu
GMj
method GMj ¼ Hij and wj ¼ Pu ð3Þ
j¼1 j¼1 GMj
The common steps in the AHP approach are as
follows:
Step III. The consistency ratio (CR) is calculated
Step I. The relative importance of every PDA is com- based on.23 As per the theory of AHP method-
puted by utilizing a pair-wise comparison matrix in ology, the accepted higher limit for CR is 0.1 or
6 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Table 2. Fundamental relational scale for pair-wise   min  

Kij ¼ i Kiij ¼ min Kij , i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , U ð6Þ
comparisons.13 min

Scale of
importance Definition and explanation
Step III. The respective weights of all the PDAs are
1 Equal importance: two activities contribute computed by AHP method (Phase II).
equally to the objective. Step IV. The utility measure (ai) and the regret meas-
3 Moderate importance: one activity is moder- ure (bi) values are calculated by using equations (7)
ately preferred over other activity. and (8).
5 Strong importance: one activity is strongly
preferred over other activity. 9
P
V
ai ¼  wj ½ðKij Þmax Kij   for benefit criteria >
>
>
7 Very strong importance: one activity is very
j¼1 ðKij Þmax ðKij Þmin
=
strongly preferred over other activity.  
PV w K  K >
9 Extreme importance: one activity is extremely ai ¼  j ij ð ij Þmin  for cost criteria > >
;
preferred over other activity. j¼1 ðKij Þmax ðKij Þmin
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between two adjacent ð7Þ
judgments.
Reciprocals If activity A has one of the above numbers For some of the properties (criteria/PDAs), the
assigned to it when compared with activity objective is the higher the better (benefit criteria)
B, then B has the reciprocal value when meaning that higher values of those properties are
compared with A. desirable such as hardness and strength in which
first part of equation (7) is used. While for properties
less. If the CR value exceeds 0.1, the evaluation including wear and corrosion rates, the objective is the
process has to be adjusted to improve the lower the better (cost criteria) meaning that lower
consistency. values are desired for which second part of equation
(7) is employed.
8   9
> wj ðKij Þmax Kij
Phase III: Selection of best composition by VIKOR >
>   for benefit criteria >
>
>
< ðKij Þ ðKij Þ =
method k
bi ¼ max of
max miin
,
>
> wj ½Kij ðKij Þmin  >
>
VIKOR technique has common steps which are pre- >
:   for cost criteria ; >
sented as follows: ðKij Þmax ðKij Þmiin

for j ¼ 1, 2, . . . , V ð8Þ
Step I. The number of alternatives and PDAs utilized
in the performance evaluation for a given applica-
tion are identified and a decision matrix is con-
structed. If U represents the number of Step-V. VIKOR index ( i) value is computed as:
alternatives and V represents the numbers of " # " #
PDAs, then the order of U  V decision matrix is ai  a
i bi  b
i
represented as: i ¼   þ  þ ð1   Þ  þ  ð9Þ
ai  ai bi  b i
2 3
K11 K12 ... K1V
6 K21 K22 ... K2V 7
EUV ¼6
4 .. .. .. .. 7
5 ð4Þ where
. . . .
KU1 KU2 . . . KUV max
i
aþ
i ¼ i ai ¼ max½ai , i ¼ 1, 2 . . . U
min
i
a
i ¼ i ai ¼ min½ai , i ¼ 1, 2 . . . U
where an element Kij (for i ¼ 1, 2, 3,. . ., U; j ¼ 1, 2, i
max
3,. . ., V), of the decision matrix EUV shows the value bþ
i ¼ i bi ¼ max½bi , i ¼ 1, 2 . . . U
of the alternative ith respect to criterion jth. i
min
b
i ¼ i bi ¼ min½bi , i ¼ 1, 2 . . . U

Step II. After construction of the decision matrix, the

maximum and the minimum value of all the PDAs z is introduced as a weight for the maximum group
((Kij)max and (Kij)min, respectively) are determined utility while 1  z is the weight of the individual regret
by using equations (5) and (6). and usually z is taken as 0.5.

  max   Step VI. The VIKOR index ( i) of all the alternatives

Kij max ¼ i Kiij ¼ max Kij , i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , U ð5Þ
are arranged in the ascending order and the
Aherwar et al.
best alternative is the one having the minimum
value of i.
Results and discussion
Interpretation on PDAs
The descriptions of the PDAs and their quantitative
results obtained by experiments for five investigated
materials of femoral component are given in Tables 3
and 4. The physical, mechanical, and corrosion prop-
erties were determined as per ASTM standards while
the wear performance for all the implant materials
was carried out in similar test conditions. The density,
hardness, compressive strength, sliding wear loss, and
friction coefficient (in various normal loads (i.e. 5 N,
15 N, and 25 N) and sliding velocities (i.e. 0.26 m/s,
0.78 m/s, and 1.3 m/s)), and corrosion resistance
were measured and considered as PDAs. Figures
4–9 represent that the mechanical and wear properties
have a strong dependence on the composition.
The influence of tungsten on PDA-1 (density),
PDA-2 (hardness), and PDA-3 (compressive strength)
of the alloy (i.e. Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni) is depicted in
Figure 4. It was observed that, the density is 8.58 g/
cc at W-0. Beyond W-0 to W-4, the density was
increased slowly up to 8.64 g/cc. The increment of
density was occurred due to ample bonding between
the particle (tungsten) and metal alloy (i.e. Co–30Cr–
4Mo–1Ni). The densities obtained with the addition
of tungsten content (W-0 to W-4) were close to those
identified by ASTM F75.24 The hardness of the fab-
ricated implant materials increased (linearly) with
increase in weight percentage of tungsten content in
the metal alloy. The increase in hardness was quite
evident and expected since hard tungsten particles
were combined with Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni metal alloy
and consequently contributed to effectively increase
the hardness of the samples. Therefore, from
Table 4 it is seen that the hardness of tungsten-free
(i.e. W-0) material was 738 HV. Afterwards, as the
content of tungsten increased, the hardness also
increased and reached a maximum value of 750 HV
at W-4 (see Table 4). Similar tendency was reported in
the literature25 where all the tungsten-incorporating
samples demonstrated higher matrix hardness than
tungsten-free samples. Lv et al.26 also reported the
influence of tungsten on high chromium cast iron
alloys and showed increase in micro-hardness for
samples with higher content of tungsten.
Furthermore, the results showed that the compressive
strength was concerned with the increase in tungsten
content in the metal alloy for which the compressive
strength also gradually increased (see Figure 4). It
clearly indicates that the incorporation of tungsten
content can improve the load bearing capacity of
the fabricated materials.
Figure 5 shows the influence of tungsten on the
PDA-4 (wear at 5 N), PDA-5 (wear at 15 N), and
7
PDA-6 (wear at 25 N) of the investigated implant
materials. As shown in Figure 5 volumetric wear
loss steadily increased when the normal load was
raised from 5 N to 25 N. As the normal load was
elevated on the pin, the actual contact area was
increased to the nominal contact area; consequently,
the frictional force between the two contacting sur-
faces was also increased. This implies that the shear
and frictional forces were higher at the increased
applied load and this accelerated the volumetric
wear. Out of all alternatives, W-4 (i.e. Co–30Cr–
4Mo–1Ni–4 W) exhibited maximum volumetric wear
loss of 0.012 mm3 because the bonding of the hard
tungsten content and the matrix material (i.e. Co–
30Cr–4Mo–1Ni) was not so strong which resulted in
maximum matrix material worn out, whereas W-2
had the maximum wear resistance with 0.007 mm3
volumetric wear loss in comparison with other mater-
ials. The reason is the presence of hard molybdenum
content in the matrix which forms a good bonding
and a good quality transfer film adhering well to the
rubbing surfaces and reducing the wear. In this study,
the material utilized for pin and counter disc were
different and the observed values of wear loss were
in the range of various biomedical alloys used ear-
lier.27 Furthermore, Firkins et al.28 employed the
same materials for both pin and disc and found simi-
lar pattern for the wear behavior. Capel et al.29 exam-
ined the behavior of Co–W and Co–W–Fe alloys and
showed the wear resistance was enhanced after incor-
porating tungsten content in cobalt-based alloy.
Figure 6 shows the influence of tungsten on the
PDA-7 (wear at 0.26 m/s), PDA-8 (wear at 0.52 m/
s), and PDA-9 (wear at 1.04 m/s) of the investigated
implant materials. Different weight percentages (0, 1,
2, 3, and 4 wt%) of tungsten added materials were
tested using the pin-on-disc tribometer at a varying
sliding velocity while the other operating parameters
such as normal load (15 N) and sliding distance
(1500 m) remained constant at room temperature. It
is clearly seen in Figure 6 that the volumetric wear
loss gradually increased with the increase in sliding
velocity irrespective of tungsten content. The
volumetric wear loss attained the maximum value in
W-4 alternative (i.e. Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni–4 W) at
0.52 m/s sliding velocity and the minimum value in
W-2 (i.e. Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni–2 W) under the same
operating condition. The improved wear resistant
may be attributed to strong interface bonding
between matrix-particulate preventing the material
from wear out phenomenon. A similar tendency for
electrodeposited chromium, cobalt, and cobalt–tung-
sten alloy sliding against a hard steel was reported by
Weston et al.30 in which it was shown that the wear
loss were lowest for cobalt–tungsten alloy and it
decreased as the tungsten content increased.
The effect of tungsten on the PDA-10 (coefficient of
friction at 5 N), PDA-11 (coefficient of friction at
15 N), and PDA-12 (coefficient of friction at 25 N)
 8

Table 3. Description of the different performance defining attributes.

Performance
PDAs Description of the individual criteria implications

PDA-1 Density as a measure to attain an enrichment of the bonding between the particle and metal matrix Lower-is-good
Density (g/cc)
PDA-2 Hardness as a measure of opposition to indentation under loads is measure on a digital hardness testing machine. Higher-is-good
Hardness (HV)
PDA-3 The compressive strength for fabricated implant materials was performed on compression testing machine AIMIL with the sample Higher-is-good
Compressive strength (MPa) dimension of 25  10  10 at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min.
PDA-4 It is the continuous removal of material (mm3) from the surface when sample (pin) slides at 5 N normal load while keeping other Lower-is-good
Volumetric wear loss (mm3) parameters constant such as sliding velocity: 0.785 m/s and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-5 It is the continuous removal of material (mm3) from the surface when sample (pin) slides at 15 N normal load while keeping other Lower-is-good
Volumetric wear loss (mm3) parameters constant such as sliding velocity: 0.785 m/s and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-6 It is the continuous removal of material (mm3) from the surface when sample (pin) slides at 25 N normal load while keeping other Lower-is-good
Volumetric wear loss (mm3) parameters constant such as sliding velocity: 0.785 m/s and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-7 It is the continuous removal of material (mm3) from the surface when sample (pin) slides at 0.26 m/s sliding velocity while keeping Lower-is-good
Volumetric wear loss (mm3) other parameters constant such as normal load: 15 N and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-8 It is the continuous removal of material (mm3) from the surface when sample (pin) slides at 0.52 m/s sliding velocity while keeping Lower-is-good
Volumetric wear loss (mm3) other parameters constant such as Normal load: 15 N and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-9 It is the continuous removal of material (mm3) from the surface when sample (pin) slides at 1.04 m/s sliding velocity while keeping Lower-is-good
Volumetric wear loss (mm3) other parameters constant such as normal load: 15 N and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-10 It is the average of friction coefficient of all the actual test run when sample (pin) slides at 5 N normal load while keeping other Lower-is-good
Friction coefficient (m) parameters constant such as sliding velocity: 0.785 m/s and sliding distance 1500 m
PDA-11 It is the average of friction coefficient of all the actual test run when sample (pin) slides at 15 N normal load while keeping other Lower-is-good
Friction coefficient (m) parameters constant such as sliding velocity: 0.785 m/s and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-12 It is the average of friction coefficient of all the actual test run when sample (pin) slides at 25 N normal load while keeping other Lower-is-good
Friction coefficient (m) parameters constant such as sliding velocity: 0.785 m/s and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-13 It is the average of friction coefficient of all the actual test run when sample (pin) slides at 0.26 m/s sliding velocity while keeping Lower-is-good
Friction coefficient (m) other parameters constant such as normal load: 15 N and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-14 It is the average of friction coefficient of all the actual test run when sample (pin) slides at 0.52 m/s sliding velocity while keeping Lower-is-good
Friction coefficient (m) other parameters constant such as normal load: 15 N and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-15 It is the average of friction coefficient of all the actual test run when sample (pin) slides at 1.04 m/s sliding velocity while keeping Lower-is-good
Friction coefficient (m) other parameters constant such as normal load: 15 N and sliding distance 1500 m.
PDA-16 It is the removal of material in the form of metal ions from the surface when contact with saline solution at 7.4 pH. The tests are Lower-is-good
Corrosion rate (mm/year) done using GAMRY potentiostate VFP600.
Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
Aherwar et al. 9

Figure 4. Variation of PDA-1 (density), PDA-2 (hardness), and PDA-3 (compressive strength) with composition.
PDA: performance defining attribute.

Figure 5. Variation of PDA-4 (wear at 5 N, mm3), PDA-5 (wear at 15 N, mm3), PDA-6 (wear at 25 N, mm3) with composition.
PDA: performance defining attribute.

of the materials is depicted in Figure 7. It was
observed that micron-sized tungsten content caused
a distinct transition in terms of their performance.
As seen in Figure 7, coefficient of friction was max-
imum (0.68) for tungsten-free implant material at
25 N normal load. However, 2 wt% tungsten mixed
in the metal alloy (Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni–2 W), i.e.W-2
alternative, had a little effect on the variation of fric-
tion coefficient. The coefficient of friction had a sub-
stantial drop with the inclusion of 2 wt% W content in
10 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 6. Variation of PDA-7 (wear at 0.26 m/s, mm3), PDA-8 (wear at 0.52 m/s, mm3), and PDA-9 (wear at 1.04 m/s, mm3) with
composition.
PDA: performance defining attribute.

Figure 7. Variation of PDA-10 (friction coefficient at 5 N), PDA-11 (friction coefficient at 15 N), PDA-12 (friction coefficient at 25 N)
with composition.
PDA: performance defining attribute.

the base material. This possibly can be understand-
ably attributed to the presence of tungsten, which
maintains a transfer film between the contact surfaces.
This film makes the contact area slippage of the two
mating surfaces move easily against each other result-
ing in a reduced coefficient of friction.
Figure 8 shows the effect of tungsten on the PDA-
13 (coefficient of friction at 0.26 m/s), PDA-14 (coef-
ficient of friction at 0.52 m/s), and PDA-15 (coefficient
of friction at 1.04 m/s) of the implant materials.
Initially, when the disc was rotated at slow speed
(0.26 m/s) the lower coefficient of friction was
Aherwar et al.
Figure 8. Variation of PDA-13 (friction coefficient at 0.26 m/s), PDA-14 (friction coefficient at 0.54 m/s), and PDA-15 (friction
coefficient at1.04 m/s) with composition.
PDA: performance defining attribute.
Figure 9. Variation of PDA-16 (corrosion rate) with composition.
PDA: performance defining attribute.
observed for all weight percentages of tungsten added
materials. This lower coefficient of friction may be due
to the presence of a thin layer of foreign material on
the counterface, this thin layer may contain the mois-
ture, and oxides of metal, previously deposited lubri-
cating substance which results in a lower coefficient of
friction. After a certain sliding distance, the above
11
thin layer is removed and smooth surface of the coun-
ter face comes in contact with a pin which causes coeffi-
cient of friction gradually increases. The coefficient of
friction was attained to be 0.78 for tungsten-free implant
material i.e. W-0 at 1.04 m/s sliding velocity. However,
W-2 alternative had the least friction coefficient (i.e.
0.41) compared with other materials under the same
12 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

operating condition. Similar observation was reported, Identification of relative weights and ranking of
where 0.48 of friction coefficient registered for heat
alternatives
treated Co-W alloy.30
Figure 9 shows the influence of tungsten on the As observed above, no single implant material alter-
PDA-16 (corrosion rate) of the investigated implant native demonstrated an excellent performance when
materials. It was observed that the corrosion rate all the PDAs were taken into account simultaneously.
decreased with increment in the weight percentage Therefore, AHP-VIKOR method was implemented to
of tungsten into the base material up to 2 wt%. find the best implant material. Table 4 represents the
Beyond that, the corrosion rate was increased as the decision matrix for the analysis based on equation (4).
weight percentage of tungsten was increased. W-4 After constructing the decision matrix, the values of
implant material showed the highest corrosion rate utility measure (ai), regret measure (bi), and VIKOR
of 0.266 mm/year and W-2 indicated the lowest cor- index ( i) were computed by using equations (7) to (9)
rosion rate equal to 0.152 mm/year. The possible and the alternative with minimum i value were con-
reason behind the decrement in corrosion rate at W- sidered as the best alternative. The weights for all the
2 implant material can be the stronger bonding with selected PDAs were computed by the AHP approach
the metal matrix; thus fewer amounts of metal ions using equations (2) and (3) and listed in Table 5. Prior
can release from the surface of the fabricated implant to the calculation, a hierarchy structure shown in
materials. The trend of corrosion behavior observed Figure 10 was prepared for the decision problem
from this study is similar to earlier measurements, and the sixteen PDAs were analyzed pair-wise to
where different biological solutions including serum, evaluate the importance for each PDA with the help
urine and joint fluids were utilized to examine the cor- of scaling shown in Table 2, and the created pair-wise
rosion behavior of the biomedical alloys.31,32 matrix was demonstrated in Table 5. Subsequently,
Therefore, it can be concluded that Co–30Cr–4Mo– the weights and the CR were calculated and
1Ni with addition of 2 wt% tungsten (i.e. W-2) is shown in Table 6. As clearly identified in the table,
more stable against corrosion. the value of CR was 0.084705 which was lesser than

Table 4. Experimental results of the PDAs.

Materials
designation PDA-1 PDA-2 PDA-3 PDA-4 PDA-5 PDA-6 PDA-7 PDA-8 PDA-9 PDA-10 PDA-11 PDA-12 PDA-13 PDA-14 PDA-15 PDA-16

W-0 8.58 738 1296 0.003 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.9 0.7 0.68 0.64 0.71 0.78 0.239
W-1 7.81 630 1158 0.004 0.007 0.01 0.005 0.007 0.01 0.52 0.29 0.27 0.32 0.49 0.44 0.218
W-2 8.19 680 1208 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.25 0.42 0.41 0.152
W-3 8.36 720 1266 0.003 0.008 0.011 0.004 0.007 0.011 0.4 0.47 0.61 0.4 0.54 0.63 0.266
W-4 8.64 750 1310 0.005 0.008 0.012 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.31 0.2 0.23 0.21 0.47 0.41 0.276

PDA: performance defining attribute.

Table 5. Pair-wise comparison matrix.

PDA-1 PDA-2 PDA-3 PDA-4 PDA-5 PDA-6 PDA-7 PDA-8 PDA-9 PDA-10 PDA-11 PDA-12 PDA-13 PDA-14 PDA-15 PDA-16

PDA-1 1 3 3 2 5 3 3 5 5 7 7 3 5 5 9 9
PDA-2 1/3 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5
PDA-3 1/3 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 5 3 3 4 7 4 3 3
PDA-4 1/2 1 1 1 4 4 3 3 5 7 7 5 3 3 7 5
PDA-5 1/5 1/3 1/3 1/4 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 6 4 6 3 6
PDA-6 1/3 1/2 1/2 1/4 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 5
PDA-7 1/3 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/3 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 3 3 2
PDA-8 1/5 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/4 1/3 1 2 6 2 4 5 4 5 4
PDA-9 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 2 1 2 4 3 3 9
PDA-10 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/7 1/3 1/4 1/4 1/6 1/2 1 1 1 3 3 2 7
PDA-11 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/7 1/2 1/5 1/2 1/2 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 2
PDA-12 1/3 1/5 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/2 1 1/3 1 3 5 3 4
PDA-13 1/5 1/3 1/7 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/3 1 3 5 1
PDA-14 1/5 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/6 1/3 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/3 1 1 3
PDA-15 1/9 1/3 1/3 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/5 1 1 1
PDA-16 1/5 1/9 1/9 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/7 1/6 1/8 1/8 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/8 1/7 1

PDA: performance defining attribute.

Aherwar et al. 13

Figure 10. The hierarchy structure used in AHP-VIKOR.

AHP-VIKOR: analytic hierarchy process-Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenjemeaning.

Table 6. Relative weights obtained from the comparison

(Rank-4) > W-0 (Rank-5). This was chosen based on
matrix. the VIKOR index which was minimum (0.000029) for
W-2 and followed by W-4 (0.244596), W-1 (0.545894),
Consistency and W-3 (0.910469), respectively. Implant material
PDAs Weight (wi) max, CI, RI ratio (CR) W-0 was indicated the least favored implant material
PDA-1 0.183 with closeness index of 0.964527. Finally, it can be
PDA-2 0.102 concluded that the formulation of Co–30Cr–4Mo–
1Ni–2 W exhibits the best performance among the
PDA-3 0.108
investigated implant materials.
PDA-4 0.130
PDA-5 0.070
PDA-6 0.082 max ¼ 18.033 Conclusions
PDA-7 0.056 CI ¼ 0.1355 CR ¼ 0.0847 The physical, mechanical, wear, and corrosion
PDA-8 0.057 RI ¼ 1.598 performances of implant materials based on a com-
PDA-9 0.042 bination of Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni metal alloy with the
PDA-10 0.032 different weight percentages of tungsten were exam-
PDA-11 0.033 ined. It was found that the addition of tungsten
PDA-12 0.033 enhanced the physical, mechanical, wear, and corro-
PDA-13 0.026 sion properties of the implant materials in a bene-
PDA-14 0.020 ficial way. Incorporation of 2 wt% tungsten in the
fabricated material (i.e. Co–30Cr–4Mo–1Ni–2 W)
PDA-15 0.017
proved effectiveness for enhancing the wear and cor-
PDA-16 0.009
rosion resistances under different operating condi-
PDA: performance defining attribute; CI: consistency index; RI: random tions. By applying VIKOR approach, the final
consistency index. ranking of implant materials was attained as W-
2 > W-4 > W-1 > W-3 > W-0. It was examined that
the VIKOR index of the W-2 was minimum, and
Table 7. ai, bi, i, values and ranking of the alternatives.
hence W-2 exhibited as most favored and promising
Materials femoral head material for hip joint replacements.
designation ai bi i Rank Moreover, it was observed that the VIKOR index
of the W-0 was maximum and hence W-0 exhibited
W-0 0.8707 0.4900 0.964527 5
the least preferred implant material. This was a pre-
W-1 0.8370 0.1830 0.545894 3
liminary study on the development of tungsten
W-2 0.2651 0.0992 0.000029 1
added Co-Cr based alloy and the wear test was
W-3 0.9169 0.4200 0.910469 4 the initial analysis conducted by pin-on-disk tribom-
W-4 0.5326 0.1300 0.244596 2 eter with hardened alloy steel as counter body. This
might not represent the biological condition of hip
joint implants as the counter body is usually ultra-
0.1 which shows that the results are acceptable. high molecular weight polyethylene and the lubri-
The respective weights were utilized in the VIKOR cant is serum. However, it may provide a basis
process and the results were shown in Table 7. The for comparison of the materials developed; particu-
final ranking of implant material was obtained as W-2 larly when they are in the same group. Our future
(Rank-1) > W-4 (Rank-2) > W-1 (Rank-3) > W-3 work will be focused on wear testing of the
14
developed materials under the biological conditions
of the hip joint implants and on their biocompati-
bility assessments.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Advance Material Research Centre
and Advance Research Centre for Tribology for providing
them experimental support to complete their research work
smoothly.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Aherwar A, Singh A and Patnaik A. Cobalt based
alloy: a better choice biomaterial for hip implants.
Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2016; 30(1): 50–55.
2. Ghalme SG, Mankar A and Bhalerao Y. Biomaterials in
hip joint replacement. Int J Sci Eng 2016; 4(2): 113–125.
3. Budzynski P, Youssef AA and Sielanko J. Surface
modification of Ti–6Al–4V alloy by nitrogen ion
implantation. Wear 2006; 261(11–12): 1271–1276.
4. Ramsden JJ, Allen David M and Stephenson David J.
The design and manufacture of biomedical surfaces.
CIRP Ann Manufact Technol 2007; 56(2): 687–711.
5. Chen Q and Thouas GA. Metallic implant biomaterials.
Mater Sci Eng: R: Rep 2015; 87: 1–57.
6. Sagbas B, Durakbasa MN, Sagbas M, et al.
Measurement and theoretical determination of
frictional temperature rise between sliding surfaces of
artificial hip joints. Measurement 2014; 51: 411–419.
7. Aherwar A, Singh A and Patnaik A. Study on mechan-
ical and wear characterization of novel Co30Cr4Mo
biomedical alloy with added nickel under dry and wet
sliding conditions using Taguchi approach. Proc
IMechE, Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
2016. DOI: 10.1177/1464420716638112.
8. Singh T, Patnaik A, Satapathy BK, et al. Development
and optimization of hybrid friction materials consisting
of nanoclay and carbon nanotubes by using analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order pref-
erence by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) under
fuzzy atmosphere. Walailak J Sci Technol 2013; 10(4):
343–362.
9. Jahan A and Bahraminasab M. Multicriteria decision
analysis in improving quality of design in femoral com-
ponent of knee prostheses: influence of interface geom-
etry and material. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2015; 2015: 1–16.
10. Singh T, Patnaik A, Satapathy BK, et al.
Performance analysis of organic friction composite
materials based on carbon nanotubes-organic-inor-
ganic fibrous reinforcement using hybrid AHP-
FTOPSIS approach. Compos: Mech Comput Appl
Int J 2012; 3(3): 189–214.
Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
11. Rouyendegh BD and Erkan TE. An application of the
Fuzzy ELECTRE method for academic staff selection.
Hum Factors Ergonomics Manufact Serv Ind 2013; 23:
107–115.
12. Singh T, Patnaik A, Gangil B, et al. Optimization of
tribo-performance of brake friction materials: effect of
nano filler. Wear 2015; 324–325: 10–16.
13. Singh T, Patnaik A and Chauhan R. Optimization of tribo-
logical properties of cement kiln dust-filled brake pad using
grey relation analysis. Mater Des 2016; 89: 1335–1342.
14. Zhu Z, Xu L, Chen G, et al. Optimization on tribo-
logical properties of aramid fiber and CaSO4 whisker
reinforced non-metallic friction material with analytic
hierarchy process and preference ranking organization
method for enrichment evaluations. Mater Des 2010;
31: 551–555.
15. Jahan A, Edwards KL and Bahraminasab M. Multi-
criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of
engineering materials in product design. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016.
16. Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail MY, et al. A comprehen-
sive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des
2011; 32: 1215–1221.
17. Opricovic S and Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by
MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR
and TOPSIS. Eur J Operational Res 2004; 156(2): 445–455.
18. Hafezalkotob A and Hafezalkotob A. Interval
MULTIMOORA method with target values of attri-
butes based on interval distance and preference
degree: biomaterials selection. J Ind Eng Int 2016; 13:
181–198.
19. Bahraminasab M and Jahan A. Material selection for
femoral component of total knee replacement using
comprehensive VIKOR. Mater Des 2011; 32:
4471–4477.
20. Quigley FP, Buggy M and Birkinshaw C. Selection of
elastomeric materials for compliant-layered total hip
arthroplasty. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in
Medicine 2002; 216(1): 77–83.
21. ASTM G99-95. Standard Test method for wear testing
with a pin-on disc apparatus. Annual Book of Standards.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2000.
22. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1980.
23. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hier-
archy process. Eur J Operational Res 1990; 48(1): 9–26.
24. ASTM F75. Standard specification for cobalt-28 chro-
mium-6 molybdenum alloy castings and casting alloy for
surgical implants (UNS R30075)1. Annual Book of
Standards. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International, 2014.
25. Anijdan SHM, Bahrami A, Varahram N, et al. Effects
of tungsten on erosion-corrosion behavior of high chro-
mium white cast iron. Mater Sci Eng: A 2007; 454:
623–628.
26. Lv Y, Sun Y, Zhao J, et al. Effect of tungsten on micro-
structure and properties of high chromium cast iron.
Mater Des 2012; 39: 303–308.
27. Ernest R. Friction and wear of materials. New York:
John Willey & Sons, Inc., 1995, pp.44–238.
28. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Ingham E, et al. A novel
low wearing differential hardness, ceramic-on-metal
Aherwar et al.
hip joint prosthesis. J Bio-mech 2001; 34(10):
1291–1298.
29. Capel H, Shipway PH and Harris SJ. Sliding wear
behavior of electrodeposited cobalt–tungsten and
cobalt–tungsten–iron alloys. Wear 2003; 255: 917–923.
30. Weston DP, Shipway PH, Harris SJ, et al. Friction and
sliding wear behaviour of electrodeposited cobalt and
cobalt–tungsten alloy coatings for replacement of elec-
trodeposited chromium. Wear 2009; 267: 934–943.
15
31. Hsu RWW, Yang CC, Huang CA, et al.
Electrochemical corrosion studies on Co–Cr–Mo
implant alloy in biological solutions. Mater Chem
Phys 2005; 93: 531–538.
32. Munoz AI, Schwiesau J, Jolles BM, et al. In vivo elec-
trochemical corrosion study of a CoCrMo biomedical
alloy in human synovial fluids. Acta Biomater 2015; 21:
228–236.