| Literature DB >> 31963538 |
Masoud Kamoleka Mlela1, He Xu1, Feng Sun1, Haihang Wang1, Gabriel Donald Madenge2.
Abstract
In the milestone of straggling to make water hydraulics more advantageous, the choice of coating polymer for water hydraulics valves plays an essential role in alleviating the impact of cavitation erosion and corrosion, and this is a critical task for designers. Fulfilling the appropriate selection, we conflicted properties that are vital for erosion and corrosion inhibitors, as well as the tribology in the sense of coefficient of friction. This article aimed to choose the best alternative polymer for coating on the selected substrate, that is, Cr2O3, Al2O3, Ti2O3. By applying PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations), the best polymer obtained with an analyzed performance attribute is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) that comes up with higher outranking (0.5932052). A Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulation was conducted to identify the stronger bonding with the regards of the better cleave plane between Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and the selected substrate. Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)/Al2O3 cleaved in (010) plane was observed to be the strongest bond in terms of binding energy (3188 kJ/mol) suitable for further studies.Entities:
Keywords: cavitation; coating selection; corrosion; erosion; molecular dynamics; polymer; water hydraulic valve
Year: 2020 PMID: 31963538 PMCID: PMC7014062 DOI: 10.3390/ma13020453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Flowchart for polymer coating selection.
Selected polymers and properties that are suitable for water hydraulic valves.
| Attribute or Criteria | Units | Polymer | Reference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | ||||
| Non-beneficial | A1 | % | 0.4 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.3 | 0.5 | [ |
| A2 | (MPa0.5) | 19.1 | 12.7 | 14.9 | 21.3 | 22.8 | [ | |
| A3 | - | 0.8 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 0.539 | 0.4 | [ | |
| Beneficial | A4 | (degree) | 91.9 | 122 | 110 | 74.7 | 90 | [ |
| A5 | MPa | 51.7 | 35 | 9.7 | 72.4 | 103 | [ | |
| A6 | D | 25 | 50 | 70 | 78 | 88 | [ | |
| A7 | J/m | 200 | 188 | 22 | 20 | 80 | [ | |
| A8 | - | Satisfactory | Excellent | Good | Poor | Very Good | [ | |
Annotation: P1 is the polyvinylchloride, P2 is the polytetrafluoroethylene, P3 is the polydimethylsiloxane, P4 is the Polymethylmethacrylate, and P5 is the Polyaryletheretherketone. While non-beneficial criteria are water absorption or equilibrium in the water at 23° C (A1), Hildebrand Solubility(A2), and coefficient of friction(A3). The beneficial criteria are Contact angle (A4), Tensile strength (A5), Hardness Shore D (A6), Impact Strength (A7) and Chemical resistance (A8) [24,25,26,27].
Figure 2Shows (a) Polyvinylchloride; (b) Polytetrafluoroethylene; (c) Polydimethylsiloxane; (d) Polymethylmethacrylate; (e) Polyaryletheretherketone.
Polymer properties and introducing the 5-point scale.
| Polymer | Attributes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | |
|
| 0.4 | 19.1 | 0.4 | 91.9 | 51.7 | 25 | 200 | 2 |
|
| 0 | 12.7 | 0.06 | 122 | 35 | 50 | 188 | 5 |
|
| 0.17 | 14.9 | 0.8 | 110 | 9.7 | 70 | 22 | 3 |
|
| 0.3 | 21.3 | 0.539 | 74.7 | 72.4 | 78 | 20 | 1 |
|
| 0.5 | 22.8 | 0.4 | 90 | 103 | 88 | 80 | 4 |
Annotation: Apply the 5-point scale for Chemical Resistance attribute (A8) in Table 1. Poor = 1, Satisfactory = 2, Good = 3, Very Good = 4 and Excellent = 5.
Figure 3The hierarchy of the Material Selection.
Figure 4Stepwise complete ranking PROMETHEE II.
Figure 5Molecular dynamics simulation algorithm.
Applying normalization to the evaluation criteria to obtain Rij (beneficial and non-beneficial) using Equations (1) and (2).
| Polymer | Attributes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | |
| P1 | 0.2 | 0.46835 | 0 | 0.36364 | 0.45016 | 0 | 1 | 0.25 |
| P2 | 1 | 1.2848 | 1 | 1 | 0.37513 | 0.39683 | 0.93333 | 1 |
| P3 | 0.66 | 1 | 0 | 0.7463 | 0 | 0.71429 | 0.01111 | 0.5 |
| P4 | 0.4 | 0.18987 | 0.3527 | 0 | 0.67202 | 0.84127 | 0 | 0 |
| P5 | 0 | 0 | 0.54054 | 0.32347 | 1 | 1 | 0.33333 | 0.75 |
| Max (Xij) | 0.5 | 22.8 | 0.8 | 122 | 103 | 88 | 200 | 5 |
| Min (Xij) | 0 | 14.9 | 0.06 | 74.7 | 9.7 | 25 | 20 | 1 |
Applying the calculation of the evaluative differences of ith alternative with respect to other alternatives using Equation (3).
| dj (a,b) | Attributes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | |
| d(P1-P2) | −0.80 | −0.81645 | −1 | −0.63636 | 0.07503 | −0.39683 | 0.06667 | −0.75 |
| d(P1-P3) | −0.46 | −0.53165 | 0 | −0.38266 | 0.45016 | −0.71429 | 0.98889 | −0.25 |
| d(P1-P4) | −0.2 | 0.27848 | −0.3527 | 0.36364 | −0.22186 | −0.84127 | 1 | 0.25 |
| d(P1-P5) | 0.2 | 0.46835 | −0.54054 | 0.04017 | −0.54984 | -1 | 0.66667 | −0.5 |
| d(P2-P1) | 0.8 | 0.81645 | 1 | 0.63636 | −0.07503 | 0.39683 | −0.06667 | 0.75 |
| d(P2-P3) | 0.34 | 0.2848 | 1 | 0.2537 | 0.37513 | −0.31746 | 0.92222 | 0.5 |
| d(P2-P4) | 0.6 | 1.09493 | 0.6473 | 1 | −0.29689 | −0.44444 | 0.93333 | 1 |
| d(P2-P5) | 1 | 1.2848 | 0.45946 | 0.67653 | −0.62487 | −0.60317 | 0.6 | 0.25 |
| d(P3-P1) | 0.46 | 0.53165 | 0 | 0.38266 | −0.45016 | 0.71429 | −0.98889 | 0.25 |
| d(P3-P2) | −0.34 | −0.2848 | −1 | −0.2537 | −0.37513 | 0.31746 | −0.92222 | −0.5 |
| d(P3-P4) | 0.26 | 0.81013 | −0.3527 | 0.7463 | −0.67202 | −0.12698 | 0.01111 | 0.5 |
| d(P3-P5) | 0.66 | 1 | −0.54054 | 0.42283 | −1 | −0.28571 | −0.32222 | −0.25 |
| d(P4-P1) | 0.2 | −0.27848 | 0.3527 | −0.36364 | 0.22186 | 0.84127 | −1 | −0.25 |
| d(P4-P2) | −0.6 | −1.09493 | −0.6473 | −1 | 0.29689 | 0.44444 | −0.93333 | −1 |
| d(P4-P3) | −0.26 | −0.81013 | 0.3527 | −0.7463 | 0.67202 | 0.12698 | −0.01111 | −0.5 |
| d(P4-P5) | 0.4 | 0.18987 | −0.18784 | −0.32347 | −0.32798 | −0.15873 | −0.33333 | −0.75 |
| d(P5-P1) | −0.2 | −0.46835 | 0.54054 | −0.04017 | 0.54984 | 1 | −0.66667 | 0.5 |
| d(P5-P2) | −1 | −1.2848 | −0.45946 | −0.67653 | 0.62487 | 0.60317 | −0.6 | −0.25 |
| d(P5-P3) | −0.66 | −1 | 0.54054 | −0.42283 | 1 | 0.28571 | 0.32222 | 0.25 |
| d(P5-P4) | −0.4 | −0.18987 | 0.18784 | 0.32347 | 0.32798 | 0.15873 | 0.33333 | 0.75 |
Application of the preference function using Equation (4).
| Pj(a,b) | Attributes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | |
| d(P1-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0750 | 0 | 0.0667 | 0 |
| d(P1-P3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.4502 | 0 | 0.9889 | 0 |
| d(P1-P4) | 0 | 0.2785 | 0 | 0.3636 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.25 |
| d(P1-P5) | 0.2 | 0.4684 | 0 | 0.0402 | 0 | 0 | 0.6667 | 0 |
| d(P2-P1) | 0.8 | 0.8165 | 1 | 0.6364 | 0 | 0.3968 | 0 | 0.75 |
| d(P2-P3) | 0.34 | 0.2848 | 1 | 0.2537 | 0.3751 | 0 | 0.9222 | 0.5 |
| d(P2-P4) | 0.6 | 1.0949 | 0.6473 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.9333 | 1 |
| d(P2-P5) | 1 | 1.2848 | 0.4595 | 0.6765 | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 0.25 |
| d(P3-P1) | 0.46 | 0.5317 | 0 | 0.3827 | 0 | 0.7143 | 0 | 0.25 |
| d(P3-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3175 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P3-P4) | 0.26 | 0.8101 | 0 | 0.7463 | 0 | 0 | 0.0111 | 0.5 |
| d(P3-P5) | 0.66 | 1 | 0 | 0.4228 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P4-P1) | 0.2 | 0 | 0.3527 | 0 | 0.2219 | 0.8413 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P4-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2969 | 0.4444 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P4-P3) | 0 | 0 | 0.3527 | 0 | 0.6720 | 0.1270 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P4-P5) | 0.4 | 0.1899 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P5-P1) | 0 | 0 | 0.5405 | 0 | 0.5498 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 |
| d(P5-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.6249 | 0.6032 | 0 | 0 |
| d(P5-P3) | 0 | 0 | 0.5405 | 0 | 1 | 0.2857 | 0.3222 | 0.25 |
| d(P5-P4) | 0 | 0 | 0.1878 | 0.3235 | 0.3280 | 0.1587 | 0.3333 | 0.75 |
Applying the calculation of the overall or global preference index, using Equation (5).
| Attributes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | |
| 0.2 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.12 | ||
| wj × d(P1-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0045 | 0 | 0.0093 | 0 | 0.0138356 |
| wj × d(P1-P3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0270 | 0 | 0.1384 | 0 | 0.1654542 |
| wj × d(P1-P4) | 0 | 0.0501 | 0 | 0.0582 | 0 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.2783088 |
| wj × d(P1-P5) | 0.04 | 0.0843 | 0 | 0.0064 | 0 | 0 | 0.0933 | 0 | 0.224064 |
| wj × d(P2-P1) | 0.16 | 0.1470 | 0.08 | 0.1018 | 0 | 0.0238 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.6025884 |
| wj × d(P2-P3) | 0.068 | 0.0512 | 0.08 | 0.0406 | 0.0225 | 0 | 0.1291 | 0.06 | 0.4514746 |
| wj × d(P2-P4) | 0.12 | 0.1971 | 0.0518 | 0.16 | 0 | 0 | 0.1307 | 0.12 | 0.7795376 |
| wj × d(P2-P5) | 0.2 | 0.2313 | 0.0368 | 0.1082 | 0 | 0 | 0.084 | 0.03 | 0.6902656 |
| wj × d(P3-P1) | 0.092 | 0.0957 | 0 | 0.0612 | 0 | 0.0429 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.32178 |
| wj × d(P3-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0191 | 0 | 0 | 0.0190476 |
| wj × d(P3-P4) | 0.052 | 0.1458 | 0 | 0.1194 | 0 | 0 | 0.0016 | 0.06 | 0.3787868 |
| wj × d(P3-P5) | 0.132 | 0.18 | 0 | 0.0677 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3796528 |
| wj × d(P4-P1) | 0.04 | 0 | 0.0282 | 0 | 0.0133 | 0.0505 | 0 | 0 | 0.1320038 |
| wj × d(P4-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0178 | 0.0267 | 0 | 0 | 0.0444798 |
| wj × d(P4-P3) | 0 | 0 | 0.0282 | 0 | 0.0403 | 0.0076 | 0 | 0 | 0.076156 |
| wj × d(P4-P5) | 0.08 | 0.0342 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1141766 |
| wj × d(P5-P1) | 0 | 0 | 0.0432 | 0 | 0.0330 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.1962336 |
| wj × d(P5-P2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0375 | 0.0362 | 0 | 0 | 0.0736824 |
| wj × d(P5-P3) | 0 | 0 | 0.0432 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.0171 | 0.0451 | 0.03 | 0.1954966 |
| wj × d(P5-P4) | 0 | 0 | 0.0150 | 0.0518 | 0.0197 | 0.0095 | 0.0467 | 0.09 | 0.2326512 |
Applying the calculation of the positive and negative outranking flows, using Equations (6) and (7).
| Aggregate Preference Function | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | Leaving Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | - | 0.0138356 | 0.1654542 | 0.2783088 | 0.224064 | 0.17041565 |
| P2 | 0.6025884 | - | 0.4514746 | 0.7795376 | 0.6902656 | 0.63096655 |
| P3 | 0.32178 | 0.0190476 | - | 0.3787868 | 0.3796528 | 0.2748168 |
| P4 | 0.1320038 | 0.0444798 | 0.076156 | - | 0.1141766 | 0.09170405 |
| P5 | 0.1962336 | 0.0736824 | 0.1954966 | 0.2326512 | - | 0.17451595 |
|
| 0.31315145 | 0.03776135 | 0.22214535 | 0.4173211 | 0.35203975 |
Applying the Equation (8) to calculate the net outranking flow and the complete ranking.
| Polymer | Leaving Flow | Entering Flow | Net Flow | Ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 0.17041565 | 0.31315145 | −0.1427358 | 3 |
| P2 | 0.63096655 | 0.03776135 | 0.5932052 | 1 |
| P3 | 0.2748168 | 0.22214535 | 0.05267145 | 2 |
| P4 | 0.09170405 | 0.4173211 | −0.32561705 | 5 |
| P5 | 0.17451595 | 0.35203975 | −0.1775238 | 4 |
The value of the net flow of polymer alternatives.
| Alternative Polymer | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.1427358 | 0.5932052 | 0.05267145 | −0.32561705 | −0.1775238 |
Figure 6PROMETHEE I-II partial and complete ranking.
Figure 7Ranking sequence.
Figure 8Molecular dynamics Polytetrafluoroethylene coating on Metal Oxides (Ti2O3, Al2O3, and Cr2O3).