4.7 Article

Quantifying the efficiency of reactions between silicate melts and rare earth aluminate-zirconate T/EBC materials

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
Volume 43, Issue 13, Pages 5626-5635

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.05.009

Keywords

T/EBCs; CMAS; Apatite; Garnet; Fluorite

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The durability of T/EBCs exposed to CMAS deposits depends on the nature of reactions between the coatings and deposits, which consume the melt and can block porosity. This study compares the efficiency of reaction products reported in the literature to those formed on four prospective T/EBC materials. The results show that adding aluminates to zirconate materials promotes the crystallization of garnet, cuspidine, and apatite, but reduces reaction efficiency compared to single phase zirconates.
The durability of thermal and environmental barrier coatings (T/EBCs) exposed to molten calcium magnesium aluminosilicate (CMAS) deposits depends on the nature of reactions between the coatings and deposits. These reactions consume the melt, and the crystallization products can block porosity that otherwise facilitates melt infiltration. The ideal reactions rapidly crystallize the melt with a small amount of dissolved T/EBC. This work compares the relative efficiency of reaction products reported in the literature to those formed on four pro-spective T/EBC materials based on multi-phase combinations of Gd-or Y-zirconates with GdAlO3, YAlO3, Gd4Al2O9, or Y4Al2O9. The results show that adding the aluminates to the zirconate materials promotes Gd-or Y -based aluminosilicates garnet and cuspidine crystallization, in addition to apatite. These phases effectively crystallize the melt, but the reaction efficiency is reduced compared to reactions with single phase zirconates. The implications for integration of these multiphase materials into T/EBC architectures are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available