4.7 Article

Wear performance of TiC/Fe cermet electrical discharge coatings

期刊

WEAR
卷 402, 期 -, 页码 109-123

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2018.02.007

关键词

Electrical discharge coating; EDC; EDM; TiC/Fe cermet; Tribology; Wear

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research in Iraq
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L017547/1]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K005138/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. EPSRC [EP/L017482/1, EP/K005138/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tribological behaviours of TiC-based cermet coatings, prepared by electrical discharge coating (EDC) using a semi-sintered TiC tool electrode, have been investigated. The as-deposited coatings exhibited complex microstructures, comprising TiC grains within an Fe matrix, on both high speed steel (HSS) and 304 stainless steel (304-SS) substrates. The wear resistance of TiC/Fe cermet coatings, on both substrate types, increased dramatically (one and two orders of magnitude improvement in specific wear rate), compared to as-polished substrates. Further, EDC cermet coatings on HSS were typically 2-4 times more wear resistant, depending on loading, than those deposited on 304-SS, with wear performance reflecting the composite nature of the coating coupled with the mechanical properties of the substrate. Laser surface treatments used to improve surface integrity of the as-deposited coatings, through elimination of cracks and porosity characteristic of ED coating, acted to increase wear rates for all samples, with the exception of coatings on HSS under conditions of high loading. The general increase of wear rate was attributed to a significant reduction in the proportion of TiC within the ED coatings, after laser treatment, combined with an increase in grain size; whilst improvements to the wear performance of laser treated, cermet coated HSS, under high loading, was attributed to the avoidance of an abrasive wear mechanism.

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