OBRABOTKAMETALLOV MATERIAL SCIENCE Vol. 27 No. 2 2025 a b c d Fig. 9. FEA analysis: a – modelling; b – meshing; c – pressure distribution; d – simulation Material M1 showed moderate agreement between experimental and numerical results, as shown in Fig. 10, a. However, it was observed that higher loading conditions showed considerable deviation in the results. In Fig. 10, b, material M2 showed closer agreement between experimental and numerical results. It was also observed that the simulation model overestimated the volume loss compared to the experimental results; however, the results were found to be more consistent. Fig. 10, c shows that, for material M3, the simulation model consistently overestimated the volume loss. It was observed from the results that material M2 outperformed materials M1 and M3, as predictions aligned closely with the experimental results. The deviation in the results might have been observed due to factors such as material inhomogeneity, surface conditions, and external environmental factors, which the simulation model failed to address. Conclusions This study focuses on the tribological performance evaluation of three materials ‑ M1, M2, and M3 ‑ under different operating conditions using experimental, statistical, and numerical approaches. It was observed that M1 exhibited the highest wear rate under high load and temperature situations, whereas M2 showed moderate wear resistance. M2 offers superior wear resistance, thermal stability, and low sensitivity to different operating conditions. The amalgamation of experimental and numerical approaches gives a robust framework for evaluating and predicting the tribological behaviour of the composite materials. This provides a pathway to overcome the time and resource constraints of the experimental approach, with improved ability to predict the material performance with accuracy and reliability. The following conclusions can be derived from the present study: – The experimental and numerical analysis revealed that 25 % carbon-filled PTFE (M2) outperformed pure PTFE (M1) and 20 % glass-filled PTFE (M3) in wear resistance under various operating conditions. M2 exhibited the lowest specific wear rate of 3.1091 × 10−5 mm³/N×m under high load (200 N), speed (700 rpm), and temperature (130 °C), significantly reducing wear by 93.6 % compared to M1 and 71 % compared to M3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk0ODM1