4.7 Article

Particle flattening during cold spray: Mechanistic regimes revealed by single particle impact tests

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 403, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.126386

关键词

Cold spray; Impact; Flattening ratio; Hydrodynamic particle penetration

资金

  1. U.S. Army Research Office [W911NF-13-D-0001]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. National Science Foundation under NSF [1541959]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flattening ratio, epsilon, is an important diagnostic measurement of particle deformability and coating quality assessment in cold spray. However, the experimental determination of epsilon and correlation of it to experimental parameters (particle size, velocity) is not straightforward from observations of cold-sprayed coatings. Here we present a series of direct site-specific measurements of epsilon for well-known particle sizes and velocities, without the many complications involved in a full cold spray experiment. This approach permits us to identify mechanistic transitions separating three apparent regimes of behavior. In regime I, at lower velocities just high enough to cause bonding, an impacting particle flattens largely unhindered. In regime II, at somewhat higher velocities, the substrate develops a significant crater, which in turn constrains lateral particle flattening as the particle burrows more deeply into the substrate. In regime III, at very high velocities, hydrodynamic particle penetration is observed, distinguished by deep burrowing of the particle, which adopts a concave-saucer shape, with large petals of substrate ejected backwards out of the surface. While direct measurements in regimes I and II show that deformed particles can be reasonably modeled as oblate spheroids, that assumption fails in regime III. To the extent that particle flattening is deemed desirable, this analysis suggests a more nuanced view of the velocities used in cold spray.

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