4.7 Article

Calcia-magnesia-alumino-silicate-induced degradation of (Gd0.9Yb0.1)2Zr2O7 thermal barrier coatings prepared by plasma spray-physical vapor deposition (PS-PVD)

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 454, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.129179

关键词

PS-PVD; GYbZ thermal barrier coatings; CMAS-resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(Gd0.9Yb0.1)2Zr2O7 (GYbZ) coatings with quasi-columnar structure prepared by PS-PVD were isothermally exposed to Calcia-magnesia-alumino-silicate (CMAS) at T = 1300 degrees C for various time periods. The resistance of GYbZ coatings against CMAS penetration was examined by wetting test and the reaction products were analyzed. The results showed that a dense reaction layer formed after 1 hour of exposure and the thickness remained almost constant from 1 hour to 100 hours, indicating effective suppression of CMAS penetration. The particles between columns played a significant role in the rapid formation of a CMAS barrier apatite layer.
(Gd0.9Yb0.1)2Zr2O7 (GYbZ) coatings with quasi-columnar structure prepared by PS-PVD were isothermally exposed to Calcia-magnesia-alumino-silicate (CMAS) at T = 1300 degrees C for t0 = 0.1 h, t1 = 1 h, t2 = 10 h, and t3 = 100 h. The resistance of GYbZ coatings against the CMAS melt penetration was investigated by wetting test and the reaction products were analyzed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The results show that a dense reaction layer was formed after isothermal exposure for t1 = 1 h, and the thickness of the reaction layers was almost the same from t1 = 1 h to t3 = 100 h, which indicated that the penetration of CMAS was basically suppressed. The particles between columns played a significant role in the rapid generation of a large amount of CMAS barrier apatite layer which prevented the penetration of the CMAS melt in the axial direction. The main reaction products were Gd-apatite, fluorite and spinel of which the Gd-apatite slowly grew from free-island to net-frame.

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