4.7 Article

Powder stream characteristics in cold spray nozzles

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 206, 期 6, 页码 1069-1076

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2011.07.061

关键词

Computational Fluid Dynamics; Cold spray; Powder stream; Narrow coatings; Polymers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The exponential increase of industrial demand in the past two decades has led scientists to the development of alternative technologies for the fast manufacturing of engineering components, aside from standard and time consuming techniques such as casting or forging. Cold Spray (CS) is a newly developed manufacturing technique, based upon the deposition of metal powder on a substrate due to high energy particle impacts. In this process, the powder is accelerated up to considerable speed in a converging-diverging nozzle, typically using air, nitrogen or helium as a carrier gas. Recent developments have demonstrated significant process capabilities, from the building of mold-free 3D shapes made of various metals, to low porosity and corrosion resistant titanium coatings. In CS, the particle stream characteristics during the acceleration process are important in relation to the final geometry of the coating. Experimental studies have shown the tendency of particles to spread over the nozzle acceleration channel, resulting in a wide exit stream and in the difficulty of producing narrow tracks. This paper presents an investigation on the powder stream characteristics in CS supersonic nozzles. The powder insertion location was varied within the carrier gas flow, along with the geometry of the powder injector, in order to identify their relation with particle trajectories. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) results by Fluent v6.3.26 are presented, along with experimental observations. Different configurations were tested and modeled, giving deposited track geometries of copper and tin ranging from 1 mm to 8 mm in width on metal and polymer substrates. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据