4.4 Article

Effects of spray conditions on coating formation by the kinetic spray process

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL SPRAY TECHNOLOGY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 373-383

出版社

ASM INTERNATIONAL
DOI: 10.1361/105996305X59369

关键词

coating formation; computational fluid dynamics; deposition efficiency; discrete particle simulations; kinetic spray process; metallic powders; spray parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The kinetic spray coating process involves impingement of a substrate by particles of various material types at high velocities. In the process, particles are injected into a supersonic gas stream and accelerated to high velocities. A coating forms when the particles become plastically deformed and bond to the substrate and to one another upon collision with the substrate. Coating formation by the kinetic spray process can be affected by a number of process parameters. In the current study, several spray variables were investigated through computational modeling and experiments. The examined variables include the temperature and pressure of the primary gas, the cross-sectional area of the nozzle throat, the nozzle standoff distance from a substrate, and the surface condition of nozzle interior and the powder gas flow. Experimental verification on the effects of these variables was performed primarily using relatively large-size aluminum particles (63-90 mu m) as the feedstock material. It was observed that the coating formation is largely controlled by two fundamental variables of the sprayed particles: particle velocity and particle temperature. The effects of different spray conditions on coating formation by the kinetic spray process can be generally interpreted through their influences on particle velocity and/or particle temperature. Though it is limited to accelerate large particles to high velocities using compressed air or nitrogen as carrier gas, increasing particle temperature provides an additional means that can effectively enhance coating formation by the kinetic spray process.

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

4.4
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