Correlating particle impact condition with microstructure and properties of the cold-sprayed metallic deposits

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2019.09.023

Abstract

Abstract:

Inter-particle bonding is an important factor affecting the property of cold sprayed metallic deposit. Because the interface bonding between particles in deposit is directly determined by plastic strain of particles during spraying, Cu deposits were made at series of impact velocities of 578 m s^-1 to 745 m s^-1 and 807 m s^-1 to correlate particle impact condition with microstructure and properties of the deposits. Results show that as the average particle impact velocity increases from 578 m s^-1 to 745 m s^-1 and 807 m s^-1, the deposition efficiency of feedstock powder increases from 58% to 84% and even to 95%. Although all three deposits reveal dense microstructure due to the high ductility of Cu, the deformation degree of the deposited particles remarkably increases with increasing impact velocity. The enhanced plastic deformation of the deposited particles leads to more dispersed oxide scale and thereby stronger inter-particle bonding with the strength of the deposit along the deposition direction increasing from 25.8 MPa to 148.5 MPa. The electrical and thermal conductivities at through-thickness direction of the deposit at particle impact velocity of 807 m s^-1 are 78 % IACS, 295 W m^-1 K^-1, respectively.

Key words: Cold spray, Particle impact velocity, Deposition efficiency, Electrical conductivity, Thermal conductivity, Mechanical property

Yujuan Li, Yingkang Wei, Xiaotao Luo, Changjiu Li, Ninshu Ma. Correlating particle impact condition with microstructure and properties of the cold-sprayed metallic deposits[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2020, 40: 185-195.

Figures/Tables 17

Fig. 1. Morphology (a) and particle size distribution (b) of Cu powder particles.

Table 1 Cold spray parameters for deposit preparation.

	Main gas pressure / MPa	Carrier gas pressure / MPa	Gas temperature / ^oC	Powder feeding rate / g min^-1	Gun traverse speed / mm s^-1	Stand-off distance / mm
low	2.5	2.6	500	120	300	20
Medium	3.0	3.1	800	120	300	20
High	5.0	5.1	800	120	300	20

Fig. 2. Sampling strategy (a) and dimensions (b) of plate tensile specimen.

Fig. 3. Measured velocity distributions of in-flight particles at different spraying parameters by a commercial thermal spray particle diagnostic DPV 2000: (a) 2.5 MPa ×500 °C, (b) 3 MPa ×800 °C and (c) 5 MPa ×800 °C.

Fig. 4. Deposition efficiency of the feedstock powder at different particle impact velocities.

Fig. 5. Microstructure of the deposits prepared at different particle impact velocities showing difference in deformation degree of particles, (a) and (b) 578 m s-1, (c) and (d) 745 m s-1, (e) and (f) 807 m s-1.

Fig. 6. Measurement method of interface density in through-thickness direction.

Fig. 7. Through-thickness interface densities of deposits produced at different particle impact velocities measured from the etched cross sections of deposits.

Fig. 8. Bright-fielder TEM images and EDS mapping images at center of inter-particle interface in specimens sprayed at 578 m s-1 (a, b, c and d) and 807 m s-1 (e, f, g and h); (a) and (e) SEM image, (b) and (f)TEM image, (c) and (g) STEM-EDS element maps of Cu, (d) and (h) STEM-EDS element maps of oxygen.

Fig. 9. Stress-strain curves of the samples produced at different spraying parameters along the through-thickness direction.

Table 2 Tensile strength and elastic modulus of the deposits produced at different particle impact velocities.

Average particle impact velocity /ms^-1	Tensile strength in depositing direction /MPa	Elastic modulus in depositing direction /GPa
578	25.8 ± 5.5	50.1 ± 2.5
745	86.8 ± 7.9	69.2 ± 1.5
807	148.5 ± 8.2	90.4 ± 1.1

Fig. 10. Fracture surface morphologies of samples produced at different particle impact velocities along through-thickness direction; (a) and (b) 578 m s-1, (c) and (d) 745 m s-1, (e) and (f) 807 m s-1.

Fig. 11. Thermal (a) and electrical (b) conductivities of deposit samples prepared at different particle impact velocities along through-thickness direction. The blue line represents the thermal conductivity of annealed high purity Cu at 20 °C and red marks present the observed data.

Fig. 12. Schematic diagram showing oxide scale fragments at deposited-particle interface converted to oxide scale atinterface of initial particle.

Fig. 13. A simplified structure of deposit (a) and corresponding equivalent electrical circuit (b) of structure unit in the through-thickness direction.

Table 3 The measured dimensions and estimated electrical properties for the splats.

Impact velocity	L_s / m	t_s / m	t_i / m	ρ / Ω·m	R_s / Ω	R_PI / Ω	R / Ω
578 m s^-1	33.6	10.5	0.1	0.0172	0.000155	0.000063	0.00129
745 m s^-1	42.0	6.9	0.1	0.0172	0.000065	0.000011	0.00096
807 m s^-1	53.2	4.8	0.1	0.0172	0.000025	0.000004	0.00087

Fig. 14. Electrical conductivities of specimens calculated according to brick-wall model as function with particle velocities.

References

[1]	W. Li, K. Yang, S. Yin, X. Yang, Y. Xu, R. Lupoi, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2018)440-557.
[2]	N.H. Tariq, L. Gyansah, X. Qiu, C. Jia, H.B. Awais, C. Zheng, H. Du, J.Q. Wang, T. Y.Xiong, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 1053-1063.
[3]	K. Yang, W. Li, X. Guo, X. Yang, Y. Xu, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018)1570-1579.
[4]	C. Huang, W. Li, M.P. Planche, H. Liao, G. Montavon, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 33 (2017) 507-515.
[5]	C. Huang, W. Li, Y. Xie, M.P. Planche, H. Liao, G. Montavon, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 33 (2017) 338-346.
[6]	R. Jenkins, S. Yin, B. Aldwell, M. Meyer, R. Lupoi, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 427-431.
[7]	K. Yang, W. Li, C. Huang, X. Yang, Y. Xu, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018)2167-2177.
[8]	S. Yin, W. Li, B. Song, X. Yan, M. Kuang, Y. Xu, K. Wen, R. Lupoi, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 1003-1007.
[9]	M. Kamaraj, V.M. Radhakrishnan, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 28 (2019) 756-768.
[10]	Y. Ichikawa, R. Tokoro, M. Tanno, K. Ogawa, Acta Mater. 164 (2019) 39-49.
[11]	R. Fernandez, B. Jodoin, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 28 (2019) 737-755.
[12]	M.S. Baek, Y.K. Kim, K.A. Lee, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 28 (2019) 917-929.
[13]	S. Theimer, M. Graunitz, M. Schulze, F. Gaertner, T. Klassen, J. Therm. SprayTechnol. 28 (2019) 124-134.
[14]	B.A. Bedard, T.J. Flanagan, A.T. Ernst, A. Nardi, A.M. Dongare, H.D. Brody, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 27 (2018) 1563-1578.
[15]	Q. Blochet, F. Delloro, F. N’Guyen, D. Jeulin, F. Borit, M. Jeandin, J. Therm. SprayTechnol. 26 (2017) 671-686.
[16]	Y. Xie, C. Chen, M.P. Planche, S. Deng, R. Huang, Z. Ren, J. Therm. SprayTechnol. 27 (2019) 769-779.
[17]	D. Cetiner, A.H. Paksoy, O. Tazegul, M. Baydogan, H. Guleryuz, H. Cimenoglu, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 27 (2018) 1414-1427.
[18]	Y. Li, Y. Hamada, K. Otobe, T. Ando, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 26 (2016)350-359.
[19]	Y.K. Wei, X.T. Luo, C.X. Li, C.J. Li, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 26 (2016) 173-183.
[20]	E. Lin, Q. Chen, O.C. Ozdemir, V.K. Champagne, S. Müftü, J. Therm. SprayTechnol. 28 (2019) 472-483.
[21]	H. Zhao, X. Ning, C. Tan, X. Yu, Z. Nie, X. Sun, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 28 (2019) 780-793.
[22]	S.J. Michael, C. Desrayaud, R.R. Chromik, S. Descartes, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 684(2017) 510-516.
[23]	S. Kumar, S.K. Reddy, S.V. Joshi, Surf. Coat. Technol. 318 (2017) 62-71.
[24]	Y.J. Li, X.T. Luo, H. Rashid, C.J. Li, J. Alloys Compd. 740 (2018) 406-413.
[25]	Y.K. Wei, Y.J. Li, Y. Zhang, X.T. Luo, C.J. Li, Corros. Sci. 138 (2018) 105-115.
[26]	M. Yu, M.Y. Ding, H. Ma, H.L. Liao, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 28 (2018) 460-471.
[27]	R. Huang, H. Fukanuma, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 21 (2011) 541-549.
[28]	R. Huang, W. Ma, H. Fukanuma, Surf. Coat. Technol. 258 (2014) 832-841.
[29]	F. Gärtner, T. Stoltenhoff, J. Voyer, H. Kreye, S. Riekehr, M. Koc¸ ak, Surf. Coat. Technol. 200 (2006) 6770-6782.
[30]	C.H. Zhou, H.T. Ma, L. Wang, Corros. Sci. 52 (2010) 210-215.
[31]	S. Cabanas-Polo, R. Bermejo, B. Ferrari, A.J. Sanchez-Herencia, Corros. Sci. 55 (2012) 172-179.
[32]	E.A. Gulbransen, in: Ninety-First General Meeting, 1947, pp. 573-604.
[33]	W.E. Campbell, U.B. Thomas, in: Ninety-First General Meeting, 1947, pp.623-640.
[34]	S. Yin, X. Wang, W. Li, H. Liao, H. Jie, Appl. Surf. Sci. 259 (2012) 294-300.
[35]	W.Y. Li, H. Liao, C.J. Li, H.S. Bang, C. Coddet, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253 (2007)5084-5091.
[36]	W.Y. Li, C.J. Li, H. Liao, Appl. Surf. Sci. 256 (2010) 4953-4958.
[37]	W.Y. Li, H. Liao, H.T. Wang, C.J. Li, G. Zhang, C. Coddet, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253 (2006) 708-713.
[38]	W.Y. Li, H. Liao, G. Douchy, C. Coddet, Mater. Des. 28 (2007) 2129-2137.
[39]	S. Yin, R. Jenkins, X. Yan, R. Lupoi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 734 (2018) 67-76.
[40]	K. Yang, W. Li, X. Yang, Y. Xu, Surf. Coat. Technol. 335 (2018) 219-227.
[41]	X.T. Luo, C.J. Li, Mater. Des. 140 (2017) 387-399.
[42]	W.Y. Li, C. Zhang, H. Liao, C. Coddet, J. Coat. Technol.Res. 6 (2008) 401-406.
[43]	H. Assadi, F. Gärtner, T. Stoltenhoff, H. Kreye, Acta Mater. 51 (2003)4379-4394.
[44]	M. Grujicic, C.L. Zhao, W.S. DeRosset, D. Helfritch, Mate. Des. 25 (2004)681-688.
[45]	R. Holm, Electric Contacts: Theory and Application, Springer Science &Business Media, 2013.
[46]	L. De Los Santos Valladares, D.H. Salinas, A.B. Dominguez, D.A. Najarro, S. I.Khondaker, T. Mitrelias, Thin Solid Films 520 (2012) 6368-6374.