4.7 Article

Effect of using unpyrolyzed powder on mechanical properties of vertically cracked thermal barrier coatings

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 459, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2023.129404

关键词

Thermal spray; Unpyrolyzed powder; Segmentation cracked thermal barrier coating; Indentation technique; Young's modulus; Fracture toughness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermal barrier coatings with segmentation cracks (UP TBC) and dense vertically cracked coatings (DVC) with varying crack density and porosity were produced using air plasma spray technique. The mechanical properties of the coatings were evaluated and correlated with porosity. Higher porosity resulted in lower elastic modulus and fracture toughness for DVC TBCs. However, the UP TBCs exhibited higher fracture toughness due to the presence of unmelted particles.
In this study, thermal barrier coatings with segmentation cracks produced using synthesized unpyrolyzed powder (UP TBC) and dense vertically cracked (DVC) thermal barrier coatings with varying vertical crack density and porosity were produced by air plasma spray technique. The mechanical properties of the coatings including microhardness, Young's modulus and fracture toughness were evaluated by indentation technique and the correlation of the results with porosity is discussed. The results of elastic modulus indicated that higher percentage of porosity results in a lower elastic modulus and consequently lower fracture toughness for DVC TBCs. In the case of the UP TBC samples, the porosity percentage, compared to the conventional one, is higher but in contrary a higher elastic modulus was measured; probably due to the existence of submicron size unmelted zones. The results of fracture toughness measurement showed that the UP TBC has a lower elastic modulus compared to that of DVC TBCs. However, due to non-melted zones which are consisted of unpyrolyzed particles, UP TBC demonstrates a higher fracture toughness than the DVC TBCs.

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