4.1 Article

Finite Element Analysis of Temperature Distribution and Stress Behavior of Squeeze Pressure Composites

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2021/8665674

关键词

-

资金

  1. King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [RSP-2021/257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of solidification behavior of composites is limited, with finite element method (FEM) being used to gather information on cooling rates and reduce experimentation time. Research on Al/SiCp composites revealed that increasing squeeze pressure enhances cooling rate, and temperature distribution affects stress in components.
Aluminium-reinforced composites play a vital role in the engineering industry because of their better strength and stiffness. The properties are directly related to the solidification phenomenon of the cast alloy. The design engineer should understand the importance of the solidification behavior of base alloy and its reinforcement. Composites' solidification study is rare, and the reviews are limited. The solidification process is analyzed using the finite element method (FEM), and this would fetch a lot of information about the cooling rate of the composites and also helps to reduce the time in experimentation. This paper reports and plots the cooling curves of Al/SiCp composites using simulation software. Cylindrical-shaped composites were developed using the squeeze casting method, and the experimental cooling curves were plotted using a K-type thermocouple. Composites samples were prepared at the following squeeze pressures: 0, 30, 50, 70, 100, and 130 MPa; melt and die temperature was kept constant at 800 and 400 degrees C, respectively. The experimental and FEA cooling curves were compared, and it was agreed that the increase in the squeeze pressure increases the cooling rate of the developed composite. Furthermore, the effect of temperature distribution from the inner region of the melt and die material which causes the radial and tangential stress of components has also been examined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据