Figure 1.
Samples in different combinations. (a) 3D-printed surface + aluminum alloy base; (b) 3D-printed surface + Steel base; (c) CNC-machined surface + aluminum alloy base; (d) CNC-machined surface + Steel base.
Figure 1.
Samples in different combinations. (a) 3D-printed surface + aluminum alloy base; (b) 3D-printed surface + Steel base; (c) CNC-machined surface + aluminum alloy base; (d) CNC-machined surface + Steel base.
Figure 2.
(a) Design drawing of wear test parts; (b) physical objects of wear test part.
Figure 2.
(a) Design drawing of wear test parts; (b) physical objects of wear test part.
Figure 3.
The surface roughness test location of the sample, the dotted line in the figure represents the axis of symmetry, and the red circle represents the position of the surface roughness test. (a) CNC-machined surface, (b) 3D-printed surface.
Figure 3.
The surface roughness test location of the sample, the dotted line in the figure represents the axis of symmetry, and the red circle represents the position of the surface roughness test. (a) CNC-machined surface, (b) 3D-printed surface.
Figure 4.
When the current of the energized coil = 0.8A, ANSYS simulation results of magnetic field strength on aluminum alloy surface. The blue markers represent the locations with the lowest magnetic fields. (a) aluminum alloy base (Access Date: 23:15, 18 November 2022), (b) steel base (Access Date: 23:12, 18 November 2022).
Figure 4.
When the current of the energized coil = 0.8A, ANSYS simulation results of magnetic field strength on aluminum alloy surface. The blue markers represent the locations with the lowest magnetic fields. (a) aluminum alloy base (Access Date: 23:15, 18 November 2022), (b) steel base (Access Date: 23:12, 18 November 2022).
Figure 5.
When the current of the energized coil = 2.5A, ANSYS simulation results of magnetic field strength on aluminum alloy surface. The blue markers represent the locations with the lowest magnetic fields. (a) aluminum alloy base (Access Date: 23:18, 18 November 2022), (b) steel base (Access Date: 23:20, 18 November 2022).
Figure 5.
When the current of the energized coil = 2.5A, ANSYS simulation results of magnetic field strength on aluminum alloy surface. The blue markers represent the locations with the lowest magnetic fields. (a) aluminum alloy base (Access Date: 23:18, 18 November 2022), (b) steel base (Access Date: 23:20, 18 November 2022).
Figure 6.
Friction coefficient of 3D-printed surface and CNC-machined surface under different conditions. The material of the base will not be affected when there is no electromagnetic field, so no legend is added to the line diagram when the current = 0, and the shaded part of the line diagram represents the fluctuation of the friction coefficient. (a) Current = 0A, 3D-printed surface; (b) Current = 0A, CNC-machined surface; (c) Current = 0.8A, 3D-printed surface; (d) Current = 0.8A, CNC-machined surface; (e) Current = 2.5A, 3D-printed surface; (f) Current = 2.5A, CNC-machined surface.
Figure 6.
Friction coefficient of 3D-printed surface and CNC-machined surface under different conditions. The material of the base will not be affected when there is no electromagnetic field, so no legend is added to the line diagram when the current = 0, and the shaded part of the line diagram represents the fluctuation of the friction coefficient. (a) Current = 0A, 3D-printed surface; (b) Current = 0A, CNC-machined surface; (c) Current = 0.8A, 3D-printed surface; (d) Current = 0.8A, CNC-machined surface; (e) Current = 2.5A, 3D-printed surface; (f) Current = 2.5A, CNC-machined surface.
Figure 7.
Histogram of coefficient of friction for different experimental groups.
Figure 7.
Histogram of coefficient of friction for different experimental groups.
Figure 8.
The line chart of the change of friction coefficient of different combination samples with the change of current.
Figure 8.
The line chart of the change of friction coefficient of different combination samples with the change of current.
Figure 9.
Surface wear marks of each control group sample under current = 0 A. (a) 3D-printed surface; (b) CNC-machined surface.
Figure 9.
Surface wear marks of each control group sample under current = 0 A. (a) 3D-printed surface; (b) CNC-machined surface.
Figure 10.
Surface wear marks of each control group sample under the optical microscope. (a) Current = 0A, 3D-printed surface; (b) Current = 0A, CNC-machined surface; (a) Current = 0.8A, 3D-printed surface—Al base; (b) Current = 0.8A, CNC-machined surface—Al base; (c) Current = 0.8A, 3D-printed surface-steel base; (d) Current = 0.8A, CNC-machined surface-steel base; (e) Current = 2.5A, 3D-printed surface—Al base; (f) Current = 2.5A, CNC-machined surface—Al base; (g) Current = 2.5A, 3D-printed surface-steel base; (h) Current = 2.5A, CNC-machined surface-steel base.
Figure 10.
Surface wear marks of each control group sample under the optical microscope. (a) Current = 0A, 3D-printed surface; (b) Current = 0A, CNC-machined surface; (a) Current = 0.8A, 3D-printed surface—Al base; (b) Current = 0.8A, CNC-machined surface—Al base; (c) Current = 0.8A, 3D-printed surface-steel base; (d) Current = 0.8A, CNC-machined surface-steel base; (e) Current = 2.5A, 3D-printed surface—Al base; (f) Current = 2.5A, CNC-machined surface—Al base; (g) Current = 2.5A, 3D-printed surface-steel base; (h) Current = 2.5A, CNC-machined surface-steel base.
Figure 11.
Wear scar profile plot of each control group. (a) Current = 0A; (b) Current = 0.8A, Al base; (c) Current = 0.8A, Steel base; (d) Current = 2.5A, Al base; (e) Current = 2.5A, Steel base.
Figure 11.
Wear scar profile plot of each control group. (a) Current = 0A; (b) Current = 0.8A, Al base; (c) Current = 0.8A, Steel base; (d) Current = 2.5A, Al base; (e) Current = 2.5A, Steel base.
Figure 12.
Histogram of wear data for different experimental groups. (a) Histogram of wear depth for different experimental groups, (b) histogram of wear width for different experimental groups.
Figure 12.
Histogram of wear data for different experimental groups. (a) Histogram of wear depth for different experimental groups, (b) histogram of wear width for different experimental groups.
Figure 13.
(a) Variation diagram of wear scar width; (b) variation diagram of wear scar depth.
Figure 13.
(a) Variation diagram of wear scar width; (b) variation diagram of wear scar depth.
Figure 14.
Histogram of wear volume for different experimental groups.
Figure 14.
Histogram of wear volume for different experimental groups.
Table 1.
Data for MRF-132DG.
Table 1.
Data for MRF-132DG.
Item | Unit | Content |
---|
Viscosity | Pa-s | 0.112 ± 0.02 |
Density | g/cm3 | 2.95–3.15 |
Solids Content by Weight | % | 80.98 |
Flash Point | °C | >150 |
Operating Temperature | °C | −40~130 |
Table 2.
Comparison of metal properties of 3D-printed parts of aluminum alloy and traditional casting parts.
Table 2.
Comparison of metal properties of 3D-printed parts of aluminum alloy and traditional casting parts.
Item | 3D-Printed | Traditional Casting |
---|
Tensile Strength (Mpa) | 400~460 | 220~300 |
Yield Strength (Mpa) | 240~300 | 140~200 |
Elongation (%) | 2~4 | 1~3 |
Hardness (HBW) | 120~160 | 70~100 |
Table 3.
Test conditions of wear test.
Table 3.
Test conditions of wear test.
Parameter | Unit | Content |
---|
Speed | rpm | 50 |
Test Radius | mm | 11.5 |
Lubricant | - | MRF |
Temperature | °C | 15–25 |
Load | N | 100 |
Duration | Sec | 3600 |
Table 4.
Summary of friction test evaluation results.
Table 4.
Summary of friction test evaluation results.
Surface | Base | Current (A) | Friction Coefficient | Growth Rate (%) |
---|
Avg. | Sta. Dev |
---|
Metal 3D printing | - | 0 | 0.1459 | 0.0011 | - |
Metal 3D printing | Aluminum alloy | 0.8 | 0.1509 | 0.0016 | 3.43 |
Metal 3D printing | Steel | 0.8 | 0.1726 | 0.0018 | 18.30 |
Metal 3D printing | Aluminum alloy | 2.5 | 0.1595 | 0.0012 | 9.32 |
Metal 3D printing | Steel | 2.5 | 0.2089 | 0.0013 | 43.18 |
CNC machining | - | 0 | 0.1493 | 0.0009 | - |
CNC machining | Aluminum alloy | 0.8 | 0.1525 | 0.0012 | 2.14 |
CNC machining | Steel | 0.8 | 0.1717 | 0.0019 | 15.00 |
CNC machining | Aluminum alloy | 2.5 | 0.1671 | 0.0018 | 11.92 |
CNC machining | Steel | 2.5 | 0.1841 | 0.0016 | 23.31 |
Table 5.
Summary of evaluation results for wear scar profiles.
Table 5.
Summary of evaluation results for wear scar profiles.
Surface | Base | Current (A) | Wear Dept (µm) | Wear Width (µm) |
---|
Avg. | Sta. Dev | Avg. | Sta. Dev |
---|
Metal 3D printing | - | 0 | 17.83 | 0.10 | 1292.84 | 8.43 |
Metal 3D printing | Aluminum alloy | 0.8 | 18.32 | 0.13 | 1305.36 | 9.71 |
Metal 3D printing | Steel | 0.8 | 19.18 | 0.18 | 1345.26 | 13.92 |
Metal 3D printing | Aluminum alloy | 2.5 | 19.09 | 0.12 | 1328.19 | 12.31 |
Metal 3D printing | Steel | 2.5 | 20.93 | 0.21 | 1390.26 | 14.84 |
CNC machining | - | 0 | 21.06 | 0.08 | 1427.15 | 6.71 |
CNC machining | Aluminum alloy | 0.8 | 21.76 | 0.09 | 1494.67 | 7.67 |
CNC machining | Steel | 0.8 | 23.14 | 0.08 | 1614.64 | 8.98 |
CNC machining | Aluminum alloy | 2.5 | 22.81 | 0.09 | 1556.49 | 9.04 |
CNC machining | Steel | 2.5 | 24.13 | 0.14 | 1678.12 | 10.20 |
Table 6.
Wear volume calculation results for all experimental groups.
Table 6.
Wear volume calculation results for all experimental groups.
Surface | Base | Current(A) | Wear Volume (mm3) |
---|
Avg. | Sta. Dev |
---|
Metal 3D printing | - | 0 | 1.7593 | 0.0172 |
Metal 3D printing | Aluminum alloy | 0.8 | 1.8523 | 0.0184 |
Metal 3D printing | Steel | 0.8 | 2.0694 | 0.0246 |
Metal 3D printing | Aluminum alloy | 2.5 | 1.9746 | 0.0228 |
Metal 3D printing | Steel | 2.5 | 2.6078 | 0.0348 |
CNC machining | - | 0 | 1.7969 | 0.0054 |
CNC machining | Aluminum alloy | 0.8 | 1.8699 | 0.0095 |
CNC machining | Steel | 0.8 | 2.0376 | 0.0106 |
CNC machining | Aluminum alloy | 2.5 | 1.9879 | 0.0086 |
CNC machining | Steel | 2.5 | 2.4618 | 0.0118 |