4.5 Article

Characterization Study of an Oxide Film Layer Produced under CO2/Steam Atmospheres on Two Different Maraging Steel Grades

期刊

METALS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met11050746

关键词

maraging steel grades; oxide layer; microstructural characterization; sliding properties; spinel; nickel-rich austenitic phase

资金

  1. CAPES/PRINT-UFC
  2. FUNCAP
  3. CNPq
  4. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades [RTI2018-099668-BC22]
  5. Junta de Andalucia [UMA18-FEDERJA-126]
  6. FEDER [UMA18-FEDERJA-126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The experimental work investigated the oxide layer generated under different atmospheres during the thermal aging treatment of two different maraging grades, revealing that the majority of the oxide layer is composed of compounds like TiO2, MoO3, hematite, and CoFe2O4, with the latter being distributed homogeneously throughout the layer. Additionally, a nickel-rich austenitic phase at the interphase was mainly composed of cobalt ions (Co2+), showing a different composition within the spinel lattice than expected.
Currently, surface treatments lead to inducing a superficial layer of several nanometers up to micrometer, which in some cases can be protective. In this experimental work, an oxide layer was generated under different atmospheres (CO2 and steam atmospheres) during the thermal aging treatment of two different maraging grades, 300 and 350. Afterwards, this layer was microstructural and mechanically characterized by advanced characterization techniques at the micro- and submicron length scale to highlight some information related to the generated oxide layer. The results showed that the oxide layer (in both grades) was made up of several compounds like: TiO2, MoO3, hematite (alpha-Fe2O3), and CoFe2O4, this being the majority compound distributed homogeneously throughout the layer. Furthermore, a nickel-rich austenitic phase at the interphase was mainly made up cobalt ions (Co2+), instead of iron ions (Fe2+), within the spinel lattice.

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

4.5
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