Scholarlink

<p>Finite Element Analysis (ANSYS 19.2) was used to compare four piston materials — Aluminium 7075, Aluminium 2618, Aluminium 4032 and Titanium Ti-6Al-4&#xa0;V — under combined mechanical and thermal loading. The study reports steady-state thermal and static structural snapshots for comparison. Under the present steady-state setup (uniform crown temperature and static crown pressure), Aluminium 2618 exhibited the lowest total deformation (0.476&#xa0;mm) compared with Aluminium 7075 (0.951&#xa0;mm) and Ti-6Al-4&#xa0;V (0.833&#xa0;mm), representing ~ 50.0% and ~ 42.9% reductions in deformation, respectively. Al-2618 also showed the lowest maximum heat flux in these steady runs (≈ 2.059 × 10⁻¹² W·mm⁻²) compared to Ti-6Al-4&#xa0;V (≈ 5.148 × 10⁻¹² W·mm⁻²), and the highest minimum safety factor (6.732), which is ~ 123.7% greater than that of Al-4032 (3.010). These steady-state results suggest Al-2618 offers a favorable combination of dimensional stability and mechanical resilience for the modeled conditions; however, we highlight limitations of steady-state, static loading and recommend transient, cycle-based analyses prior to final material selection.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Finite element analysis of engine pistons: comparative assessment of aluminium and titanium alloys under combined thermal-structural loading

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月24日

查看全文
  • Elias Wakshume,
  • Gadisa Sufe

摘要

Finite Element Analysis (ANSYS 19.2) was used to compare four piston materials — Aluminium 7075, Aluminium 2618, Aluminium 4032 and Titanium Ti-6Al-4 V — under combined mechanical and thermal loading. The study reports steady-state thermal and static structural snapshots for comparison. Under the present steady-state setup (uniform crown temperature and static crown pressure), Aluminium 2618 exhibited the lowest total deformation (0.476 mm) compared with Aluminium 7075 (0.951 mm) and Ti-6Al-4 V (0.833 mm), representing ~ 50.0% and ~ 42.9% reductions in deformation, respectively. Al-2618 also showed the lowest maximum heat flux in these steady runs (≈ 2.059 × 10⁻¹² W·mm⁻²) compared to Ti-6Al-4 V (≈ 5.148 × 10⁻¹² W·mm⁻²), and the highest minimum safety factor (6.732), which is ~ 123.7% greater than that of Al-4032 (3.010). These steady-state results suggest Al-2618 offers a favorable combination of dimensional stability and mechanical resilience for the modeled conditions; however, we highlight limitations of steady-state, static loading and recommend transient, cycle-based analyses prior to final material selection.