4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Formation of ceramic thin films using electrospray in cone-jet mode

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/28.980346

关键词

atomization; ceramic coatings; droplet size; elcetrospray; suspensions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An electrostatic atomization technique has been developed to generate ultrafine spray droplets of ZrO2 and SiC ceramic suspensions in a range of a few micrometers with a narrow size distribution. The aim of this paper is to deposit uniform thin films (from a few micrometers to a few tens of micrometers) of these ceramic materials on alloy, substrates. Compared to sonic other thin-film deposition techniques, such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD,) and plasma spray, (PS). etc., the thin-film deposition process using electrostatic atomization is not only cheap but also capable of depositing a very thin multilayer with abrupt interfaces. CVD and PVD are expensive techniques. They, require either a high vacuum, even an ultrahigh vacuum environment or complex gas handling system. Their deposition rate is also low. PS is normally, used to grow thermal barrier coatings which usually have a thickness of a few tens to a fend hundreds micrometers. Its application is limited by the quality of the coatings (high porosity, coarse and nonuniform microstructure). Preliminary results in this work have shown that, for low through-put atomization, the cone-jet is the most suitable method to produce a fine charged aerosol with a narrow size distribution, which is crucial to produce uniform thin films. It was found that the size of ceramic particles in ZrO2 and SiC thin films is less than 10 mum. Microstructures of these thin films show very homogenous morphologies. These results indicate that ceramic thin films with high homogeneity can be deposited using electrostatic atomization. It was also observed that the morphology of the underlayer has some influence on the morphology of the top layer.

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

4.6
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