Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:12:21.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Influence Of Substrate On Partially Rapidly Solidified Alumina-3 wt % titania Nanocrystalline Coatings Deposited by Plasma Spray Technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

R. Venkataraman
Affiliation:
[email protected], National Metallurgical Laboratory, MST division, Burma Mines, jamshedpur, Jharkand, 831007, India
B. Parmanick
Affiliation:
B. Ravikumar
Affiliation:
L. C. Pathak
Affiliation:
[email protected], MST division, National Metallurgical Laboratory, India
D. K. Das
Affiliation:
[email protected], surface engineering group, Defence Metallurgical research Lab, India
B Venkataraman
Affiliation:
Get access

Abstract

In this paper an attempt was made to impose different degrees of rapid solidification by spraying on diverse substrates of varying thermal properties. Substrates such as Copper, Aluminum, Stainless steel, Low alloy steel substrates were used to alter the imposed cooling rate and thereby the amount of residual α phase. A start powder of 3 wt % Alumina-titania powder was used for spraying to a thickness of 250 μm on the different substrates specified. In all cases the rapidly solidified phases show nanocrystalline sizes with the most rapidly solidified metastable γ phase showing finer grain size of less than 25 nm. The surface roughness of the substrate and the coating were characterized by Atomic force microscopy. In contrary to the Alumina-13 wt % titania, coupons of Alumina-3 wt % titania had shown poor indentation fracture toughness with increased amount of residual α phase. Coupons of stainless steel and low alloy steel had shown the lowest fracture toughness when tested by Vickers type indentation at loads of 3 N and 5 N. In contrast to these results the interfacial toughness when measured by Rockwell indentation technique at loads of 150 N was found to be dependent on the elastic modulus of the substrate more than the coating hardness. The interfacial toughness was found to be lower for softer material such as aluminum and copper than stainless steel and low alloy steel.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. McPherson, R., Journ. Mat. Science. 15, 31413149 (1980).Google Scholar
2. Venkataraman, R., Singh, Paramand, Krishnamurthy, R., Journ. Amer. Ceram. Soc, (in press).Google Scholar
3. Venkataraman, R. and Krishnamurthy, R., Journ. Eur. Ceram Soc, (in press)Google Scholar
4. Murakami, K., Lin, C.K., Leigh, S-H., Berndt, C.C., Sampath, S., Herman, H., Sodeoka, S. and Nakajima, H., “in proceedings Surface Modification Technologies XI, eds. Sudarshan, T.S., Jeandin, M. and Khor, K.A. (The Institute of Materials, London, 1998). pp203212.Google Scholar
5. Gopalakrishnan, M.V., “Processing, characterization and tribological studies in plasma spray formed ceramic composites,” Ph.D Thesis, IIT-Madras (1998).Google Scholar
6. Joint Committee for Powder Diffraction Files (JCPDF), International Centre for Diffraction Data, 1979, Swarthmore, PA, Inorganic Phases.Google Scholar
7. Sampath, S. and Herman, H., Journal of thermal spray technology, 5, 445 (1996). Google Scholar
8. Kruzic, Jamie & Ritchie, R.O. Journ. Amer. Ceram. Soc, 86, 1433–36 (2003).Google Scholar
9. Drory, M.D. and Hutchinson, J.W., Proc. Royal. Soc of London, A, 452, 2319 (1996).Google Scholar
10. Osgerby, S., Technical literature on interfacial toughness and Adhesion measurements, National Physical Laboratory, United Kingdom (2000).Google Scholar