4.7 Article

Synthesis of Ti-Al intermetallic coatings via electrospark deposition in a mixture of Ti and Al granules technique

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 387, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.125550

关键词

Ti-Al intermetallic compounds; Coatings; Electrospark granule deposition; Corrosion resistance; Oxidation resistance; Wear

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [19-73-00031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the results of studies of the formation of Ti-Al intermetallic coatings on a Ti6Al4V alloy by the electric spark deposition method in a mixture of titanium and aluminum granules are presented. Five mixtures of granules with an aluminum concentration of 24 to 88 at% were prepared. As the concentration of aluminum in the mixture of granules increased, the phase composition of the corresponding coatings changed from alpha Ti and titanium rich aluminides to aluminum aluminides rich and Al. According to EDS analysis, with an increase of the aluminum content in the mixture of granules from 24 to 88 at.% its concentration on the surface of the coatings increased from 19 to 68 at.%. The main mechanism of Ti-Al coatings formation at electrospark granule deposition is convective mixing of melted materials of granules and substrate. Potentiodynamic polarization tests in a 3.5% NaCl solution showed that coatings can improve the corrosion resistance of the Ti6Al4V alloy. A high-temperature corrosion test for 100 h at 900 degrees C showed that coated samples were oxidized 1.1-3.4 times less than initial Ti6Al4V substrate. The best oxidation resistance properties showed the coating with the highest aluminum content. Electric spark granule deposition increase microhardness of Ti6Al4V alloy up to 6.4-9.4 GPa. The wear resistance of the coatings at dry sliding with 10 and 25 N loads was 4-27 and 6-36 times higher, respectively, than wear resistance of the initial alloy. The wear rate of coatings decreased with increasing titanium concentration.

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