Next Article in Journal
Mechanical and Microstructural Characterization of Class 800 Complex Phase Steel before and after the Laser Welding Process
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Lubricated Liquid Carbon Dioxide (LCO2 + MQL) on Grinding of AISI 4140 Steel
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Shot Peening Media on Surface Properties and Fatigue Behaviour of Aluminium Alloy 6082 T6
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMMP
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/jmmp8050231
jmmp-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Erosion Wear Behavior of HVAF-Sprayed WC/Cr3C2-Based Cermet and Martensitic Stainless Steel Coatings on AlSi7Mg0.3 Alloy: A Comparative Study

by
Yury Korobov
1,2,
Maksim Antonov
3,
Vladimir Astafiev
1,
Irina Brodova
1,
Vladimir Kutaev
4,
Svetlana Estemirova
2,5,
Mikhail Devyatyarov
6 and
Artem Okulov
1,*
1
M.N. Mikheev Institute of Metal Physics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg 620108, Russia
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg 620002, Russia
3
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
4
AO AMZ Ventprom, Artyomovsky 623780, Russia
5
Institute of Metallurgy, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg 620016, Russia
6
SE Ural Welding Institute-Metallurgy, Ekaterinburg 620012, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2024, 8(5), 231; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050231
Submission received: 18 September 2024 / Revised: 12 October 2024 / Accepted: 12 October 2024 / Published: 14 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Deformation and Mechanical Behavior of Metals and Alloys)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The paper presents a comparative study of the erosion wear resistance of WC-10Co4Cr, Cr3C2-25NiCr and martensitic stainless steel (SS) coatings deposited onto an AlSi7Mg0.3 (Al) alloy substrate by high-velocity air‒fuel (HVAF) spraying. The influence of the abrasive type (quartz sand or granite gravel), erodent attack angle, thickness, and microhardness of the coatings on their and Al substrate’s wear resistance was comprehensively investigated under dry erosion conditions typical for fan blades. The HVAF-spraying process did not affect the Al substrate’s structure, except for when the near-surface layer was 20‒40 μm thick. This was attributed to the formation of a modified Al-Si eutectic with enhanced microhardness and strength in the near-substrate area. Mechanical characterization revealed significantly higher microhardness values for the cermet WC-10Co4Cr (~12 GPa) and Cr3C2-25NiCr (~9 GPa) coatings, while for the SS coating, the value was ~5.7 GPa. Erosion wear tests established that while Cr3C2-25NiCr and SS coatings were more sensitive to abrasive type, the WC-10Co4Cr coating exhibited significantly higher wear resistance, outperforming the alternatives by 2‒17 times under high abrasive intensity. These findings highlight the potential of HVAF-sprayed WC-10Co4Cr coatings for extending the service life of AlSi7Mg0.3-based fan blades exposed to erosion wear at normal temperatures.

1. Introduction

Aluminum alloys, favored for their high strength-to-weight ratio compared with conventional steels [1,2], are widely utilized in aerospace, automotive, and polymer extrusion industries [3,4,5]. Despite their strength, aluminum materials, particularly the widely used commercial AlSiMg0.3 alloys, exhibit poor wear resistance, necessitating the use of protective coatings [6]. These coatings must be sufficiently thick to withstand impact-abrasive wear and high contact loads, preventing deformation of the ductile aluminum substrate. Dissimilar joining of iron subgroup-based materials (Fe, Ni, Co) to aluminum alloys is often problematic due to the formation of brittle intermetallic phases, which can lead to cracking under high contact pressures [7,8].
The microstructure and mechanical performance of coatings are significantly influenced by both their chemical composition and the deposition technique employed. Electrochemical methods such as electroplating [9,10] and anodizing [11], laser cladding [12,13,14,15,16], and thermal spraying [17,18] represent some of the most widely used coating technologies. Electrochemical coating methods, while offering certain advantages, are constrained by their limited ability to produce coatings with substantial thickness and are also subject to several other drawbacks. While conventional anodizing of aluminum alloys provides hard coatings with a thickness of 10–50 µm, their inherent brittleness makes them prone to cracking and delamination under severe conditions [19,20]. Furthermore, the composition of anodized films can vary depending on the specific aluminum alloy used [21]. Micro-arc oxidation offers a compelling alternative to traditional anodizing, with significantly enhanced hardness (5–10 GPa) and thicker coatings (up to 150 µm) [22,23], but it also faces inherent limitations. Such coatings are vulnerable to failure under high contact pressures, and their production costs escalate considerably when dealing with large or intricately shaped components. Despite such advantages of laser cladding as a low dilution rate, a minimized heat-affected zone, and a robust interfacial metallurgical bonding, its cost also remains a significant barrier to wider adoption [12].
Given these findings, thermal-spray methods may be advantageous in many applications due to their versatility in depositing a wide range of materials with satisfactory performance. Recent advancements in thermal spraying have resulted in coatings for aluminum-based components that exhibit enhanced interfacial adhesion, increased microhardness, and improved resistance to high contact stresses, significantly mitigating adhesive wear. These thermal-sprayed coatings have demonstrated high wear resistance in both lubricated and dry conditions, showing effectiveness in applications such as textile equipment [24], polymer extrusion tools [25,26], cylinder blocks, and car brake discs [27].
To enhance the wear resistance of aluminum alloys susceptible to adhesive wear, high-velocity oxygen/air–fuel (HVOF/HVAF) spraying is used to deposit metal–ceramic coatings (cermets) onto the aluminum substrate. This process, characterized by high particle velocities (over 500 m/s) and low flame temperatures (below 3000 °C), results in coatings with superior adhesion, low porosity, reduced decarburization, and improved wear resistance compared with other thermal-spray methods [28].
Bolelli et al. [29] studied the performance of HVOF-sprayed WC-CoCr cermet coatings (up to 150 μm thick) on aluminum alloys under ball-on-disk loading conditions up to 2600 MPa. Their findings revealed several key features:
  • A graded transition zone formed between the WC-CoCr coating and the aluminum substrate due to cermet particle penetration, dramatically enhancing wear resistance compared with hard anodized film.
  • Thicker WC-CoCr cermet coatings exhibited reduced wear due to a decrease in surface-layer peeling.
  • Cyclic impact testing resulted in localized transverse cracks within the coating, negatively affecting performance but occurring less frequently than in WC-CoCr cermets deposited on a less ductile steel base.
Aluminum blades, enhanced with HVAF-sprayed wear-resistant coatings, offer advantages in industrial fans used for ventilation in subway tunnels, and coal and ore mines. Their reduced weight improves performance compared with steel blades, and they can operate at temperatures up to 400 °C [30]; therefore, they are suitable for many industrial applications. However, the presence of fine solid particles in fan-operating environments poses a challenge, as aluminum blades exhibit poor erosion resistance.
Erosion wear resistance is influenced by factors such as the impact angle, velocity, solid-particle size, concentration, and hardness of the erodent [31]. Additionally, the material’s ductility and strength play a crucial role. Ductile metals, such as austenitic steel, aluminum, and gray cast iron, generally exhibit the highest erosion rates at low attack angles (15° to 60°). Aluminum alloys specifically show maximum wear at a 15° angle, where microcutting is the dominant wear mechanism. This wear rate decreases by 4–5 times as the attack angle increases to 60°, where plastic deformation becomes the primary wear mechanism [32]. Brittle materials experience maximum erosion at high attack angles (60° or more) due to the primary erosion mechanism of spalling caused by cracking [33]. HVOF-sprayed coatings have proven effective in extending the operating life of components exposed to erosion [34]. A comparative study demonstrated that HVOF-sprayed coatings exhibit higher hardness (~9%) and superior erosion resistance compared with coatings produced by spark plasma sintering (SPS) [35].
Comparative studies have shown that HVAF-sprayed Cr3C2-based coatings on steel substrates exhibit superior resistance to dry, gas-abrasive, and cavitation wear, along with enhanced microhardness, lower porosity, and smoother surfaces compared with HVOF coatings [36]. Similar properties have been observed for WC-10Co4Cr coatings [37], while the HVAF-spraying process itself is considered more technologically advanced [38]. HVOF-sprayed WC-10Co4Cr coatings deposited onto steel substrates demonstrate approximately twice the erosion resistance of similar Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings [39,40]. While HVOF/HVAF-sprayed steel coatings offer a cost-effective solution, their wear resistance is significantly lower than that of more advanced metal ceramics.
This study investigated the erosion wear resistance of HVAF-sprayed WC-10Co4Cr, Cr3C2-25NiCr, and martensitic SS coatings on an AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy under dry erosion conditions, mimicking the demanding environment of fan blades. By systematically examining the influence of abrasive type (quartz sand or granite gravel), erodent attack angle, coating thickness, and microhardness, this research provides valuable insights into optimizing wear resistance for these critical components. The comprehensive analysis, utilizing optical, electron microscopic, and X-ray diffraction techniques, deepens our understanding of erosion wear mechanisms and offers valuable data for informed material selection and fan-blade design.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Feedstock Powders

Agglomerated and sintered WC-10Co4Cr (WC-340, C&M Technologies GmbH, Barchfeld-Immelborn, Germany), Cr3C2-25NiCr (GP25HC-16, Luoyang Golden Egret Geotools Co., Luoyang, China), and martensitic SS (3650-07, Hoganas, Sweden) powders were used as feedstock material. They are typical for wear-resistant applications. A schematic illustration of the HVAF-spraying process and a general view of the feedstock powders is shown in Figure 1. Fractional and chemical compositions of the feedstock powders are indicated in Table 1.
The particle size of the SS powder was twice that of the cermet powders. The substrate was 25 × 15 × 4 mm blanks of ENAC-AlSi7Mg0.3 (ENAC-42100) alloy, which is widely used for fan-blade manufacturing due to its good casting and mechanical characteristics [30].

2.2. HVAF-Spraying-Process Parameters

The spraying parameters of a robotic HVAF-gun SB9500 (UniqueCoat Technologies LLC, Oilville, VA, USA) are given in Table 2.
The parameters listed in Table 2 for the HVAF-spraying process were carefully chosen to achieve a balance between deposition efficiency, coating thickness, and desired microstructural and mechanical performance. The spray distance of 180 mm was selected to balance particle velocity and ensure adequate kinetic energy for proper bonding while minimizing the risk of particle rebound. The gas pressures of 0.61 MPa for air, 0.58 MPa for propane 1 (base fuel), and 0.45 MPa for propane 2 (secondary fuel) were optimized to achieve a stable combustion process and provide sufficient energy for particle acceleration. The carrier gas flow rate of 68 L/min was set to ensure efficient particle transport and prevent excessive powder agglomeration. The powder feed rate of 200 g/min was chosen to maintain a consistent coating deposition rate and avoid excessive build-up. The spray gun movement speed of 1.0 m/s was selected to control the coating thickness per pass at 40 microns while ensuring smooth and uniform layers.
HVAF-sprayed coatings with a 50–320 μm thickness range were deposited onto ENAC-AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy blanks (hereinafter Al), see Table 3.
Before the HVAF spraying process, the blanks underwent grit blasting using corundum particles with a size of 0.3 mm, employing an air pressure of 0.6 MPa. Following the deposition process, all samples were manually ground to a surface roughness of Ra = 0.32 µm using a diamond grinding wheel.

2.3. Erosion Wear Tests

Wear tests were carried out in accordance with GOST 23.201-78 [41] using a laboratory four-channel erosion SAC-5 tester with a centrifugal accelerator [31,42]. Figure 2 provides a schematic illustration of the erosion wear tester used in the study.
Abrasive particles of the required mass were fed into the hopper of the accelerating disk and passed through channels in the rotating disk. As a result, a particle-laden jet, ejected from the outlet holes of the tubes, was formed. This allowed for control of the erodent mass flow and the generation of a particle-laden jet at various concentrations. The attack angle was adjusted by rotating the samples relative to the horizontal axis. The front edges of the specimens were protected by a holder, and the side edges were protected by a bracket to avoid excessive wear during testing (edge effect). In contrast to gas-jet-type devices, in centrifugal erosion wear testers, the collision of particles upon impact and the occurrence of stagnant zones are reduced [43].
The wear tests were carried out at an attack angle of 60°, which corresponds to high-intensity erosive wear for metals and cermets [33]. An aluminum AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy, chosen as the basis for comparison, was tested under obviously favorable conditions, since its wear decreases as the attack angle increases up to the experimental one of 60° [32]. A fresh abrasive was used for each test. Before wear testing, the samples were wiped with acetone and dried with compressed air.
The abrasive jet velocity was 50 and 100 m/s when the loading (the amount of sand spilled during the test) was 2 kg, 3 kg, and 6 kg. The average test results for 3 samples of each type were used for data analysis. The abrasive materials were quartz sand (SiO2), with a spherical shape, a fraction of 0.1–0.6 mm, and hardness of 1000 HV0.1, and fragmented granite gravel, which was classified in accordance with EN 12620. The main components of the granite gravel were quartz (black, about 70 vol.%) with a hardness of 1045–1110 HV0.1, feldspar (white mineral, about 10 vol.%) with a hardness of 745–925 HV0.1, and their mixtures (about 20 vol.%).
The following designations of wear-testing modes were accepted: index S—abrasive quartz sand, and index G—abrasive granite gravel. These letters are followed by indices of abrasive jet velocity, m/s, and jet loading with abrasive, kg. For example, S 50-2 means that an abrasive material is quartz sand impacting the sample at an abrasive jet velocity of 50 m/s and with a jet loading of 2 kg.

2.4. Volumetric Wear Calculation

Based on the results, the specific volumetric wear (V, mm3/kg) of the samples was estimated as the ratio of their mass loss to the abrasive mass causing wear:
V = Δ m G ν ρ
where Δm—mass loss, mg; G—abrasive jet loading, kg; ν—abrasive share per sample; and ρ—coating density, mg/mm3.
Since the test specimens possessed different densities, volumetric wear is a better indicator of erosion wear resistance than mass wear. The coating densities were calculated by measuring their mass and volume using the VLR-200 analytical scale (Gosmetr, St. Petersburg, Russia) with a maximum load of 200 g and an accuracy of 0.5 mg. The volume was measured by immersing the separated coating in water. The coating densities were as follows: 2.67 mg/mm3 for Al [2], 14.05 mg/mm3 for WC-10Co4Cr, 5.94 mg/mm3 for Cr3C2-25NiCr, and 6.45 mg/mm3 for SS. The relative wear resistance of the WC-10Co4Cr coatings, depending on their thickness, was assessed based on the ratio of volumetric wear of HVAF-sprayed and uncoated Al-based samples under the same test conditions.

2.5. Optical and Scanning Electron Microscopy

The microstructure of the samples was studied using a Micromed MC-2-ZOOM Digital (LLC Observational Instruments, St. Petersburg, Russia) binocular microscope, a light metallographic NEOPHOT-32 (Carl Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany) microscope equipped with a digital camera, and a Quanta 200 Pegasus (FEI Company, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) scanning electron microscope (SEM).

2.6. Microhardness and Porosity Characterization

The microhardness (Hv) of the coatings was measured on a PMT-3 device (LOMO, St. Petersburg, Russia) at a load of 1 N and 2 N. Microhardness measurements were conducted across the entire cross-section of the coatings (20 indentations) with a 50 µm interval, resulting in a measurement error of less than 5%. The coating thickness for all samples and the thickness of the abrasive layer after wear tests were calculated from microphotographs with a consistent magnification (60–70 measurements). The porosity of the coatings was determined by quantitative analysis of grinding surface images captured using a light microscope. ImageJ2 analysis software (LOCI, University of Wisconsin, USA) was employed to calculate the percentage of porosity by determining the ratio of pore area to the total area of the grinding surface.

2.7. X-ray Diffraction Analysis

X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the coatings was carried out with a Shimadzu XRD-7000 diffractometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) coupled with a graphite monochromator using CuKα radiation. The diffraction spectrum was recorded in the angular range 2Θ = 10–100° in the continuous scanning mode at a speed of 1°/min. Phase identification was carried out using the International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD, PDF-2) database. The ICDD database also contained a quantitative analysis program by corundum number method with the possibility of determining the relative phase content in coatings.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructural and Microhardness Characterization

Figure 3 presents the microstructural features and microhardness of the HVAF-sprayed SS, Cr3C2-25NiCr, and WC-10Co4Cr coatings prior to erosion wear testing.
The cross-section of the WC-10Co4Cr coating (Figure 3a) reveals a uniform surface profile at the interface with the Al substrate. The coating thickness ranged from 155 to 221 μm and exhibited excellent adhesion, indicated by its tight fit with the substrate. The Al matrix substrate, away from the coating–substrate interface (Figure 3c), displayed a skeletal-shaped Al-Si eutectic with sizes ranging from 20 to 40 μm. The soft Al substrate underwent noticeable deformation upon exposure to WC-10Co4Cr particles, resulting in a five-fold decrease and globularization of the eutectic Al-Si crystals in the near-surface layer (Figure 3b). These structural changes are known to enhance the microhardness and strength of alloys [44]. The spherical shape of the WC-10Co4Cr particles in the intermediate layer contributed to its good plasticity, as evidenced by the reduced hardness in the pointed area (Figure 3i). This enhanced plasticity led to improved durability of the WC-10Co4Cr coating on the Al substrate compared with a steel material. The WC-10Co4Cr coating in the near-interface layer (10–30 μm from the Al substrate) exhibited slight splashing and a deviation from the spherical shape of the particles (Figure 3II). This corresponded to 2–4 deposited layers. The splashing effect was minimized in the upper layers due to the increased microhardness of the forming coating (Figure 3I). This observation corroborates the findings of Bolelli et al. [29] regarding HVOF coatings, where splashing behavior of WC-10Co4Cr particles in the upper layers was attributed to the plasticity of the Al-based substrate.
The Cr3C2-25NiCr coating exhibited a similar structure to the WC-10Co4Cr coating, with a thickness ranging from 177 to 209 µm (Figure 3d). The surface-layer deformation of the Al substrate was less expressed in this case, likely due to the lower kinetic impact energy and density of the Cr3C2-25NiCr coating compared with its WC-10Co4Cr counterpart. Globular Al-Si eutectics were also observed in the Al substrate near the interface region (Figure 3e). Well-spread splashes of the Cr3C2-25NiCr coating were clearly visible here (Figure 3f). In turn, the SS coating was specified by excellent splashing of the particles over the entire coating thickness (Figure 3g,h), which was due to its lower melting point compared with the cermets.
The average microhardness (Hv) values of the WC-10Co4Cr and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings, as shown in Figure 3i, were ~12 GPa and ~9 GPa, respectively, aligning with previous findings [3,6,7]. The porosity of both coatings did not exceed 3.5%. Notably, the average microhardness of the cermet near-surface layers was approximately 20% higher than that of the near-interface layers. This difference is likely attributed to increased heat removal from the cermet particles into the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy substrate compared with the heat transfer within the upper coating layers. This enhanced heat removal likely limited the precipitation of secondary carbides from the solution.
The SS coating displayed an inverse relationship, with higher porosity in the surface layers contributing to variations in its microhardness. The lower microhardness value (~5.2 GPa) of the SS coating near the Al substrate (Figure 3i) was likely due to more intense cooling compared with the near-surface layers, which, as in the case of cermets, restricted the release of secondary carbides from the solid solution.

3.2. Phase Composition

The phase composition of WC-10Co4Cr and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings is shown in Figure 4 and Table 4. These compositions align with those observed in similar HVOF-sprayed materials, as reported in previous studies [36,40,45].
Certain aspects of the coatings’ phase composition are crucial for their performance under erosive wear conditions. For the WC-10Co4Cr coating, the absence of distinct peaks corresponding to W2C carbides, known for their increased brittleness, indicates a low degree of decarburization and, consequently, excellent ductility. This can be attributed to the lower combustion temperature of the propane–air mixture used in the HVAF spraying process compared with HVOF.
Regarding the Cr3C2-25NiCr coating, the Cr3C2 carbide content decreased from 75% in the feedstock powder to 49.5% in the coating. This reduction is primarily attributed to carbide dissolution within the powder matrix and mechanical removal during the molten particle’s impact with the substrate surface. The findings of Matikainen et al. [36] lend support to this observation.

3.3. Wear-Resistance Highlights

Metallographic analysis of cross-sections (Figure 5a–h) revealed distinct wear characteristics among the 200 μm thick coatings when subjected to abrasive impact with quartz sand and granite gravel.
Erosion wear studies on uncoated AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy blades indicated a characteristic abrasive-dependent layer on the surface, regardless of the abrasive type (Figure 5a,b). This layer exhibited numerous pits, microcracks, and embedded erodent particles. Figure 5a,b illustrates the abrasive layer areas of the uncoated AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy after wear tests with quartz sand and granite gravel, respectively. In both cases, the Al alloy exhibited deep cavities and cracks, extending both along and across the wear surface. Crack formation was predominantly observed along the Al-Si eutectic, which ran along the grain boundaries of the Al solid solution matrix (Figure 5a,b).
Abrasive wear testing demonstrated that SS coatings exhibited lower wear resistance than cermet coatings (Figure 5c,d). The SS coating thickness decreased by ~25 µm after a wear test using the harder granite gravel abrasive.
Figure 5e–h display the cross-sectional macrostructure of the cermet Cr3C2-25NiCr and WC-10Co4Cr coatings after wear tests with quartz sand and granite gravel. Notably, these coatings demonstrated greater resistance to abrasives of varying hardnesses than the SS coatings. The primary defects observed were thin microcracks oriented perpendicular to the wear surface (Figure 5f,h). Comparing wear characteristics based on erodent type, exposure to quartz sand resulted in fewer deformation areas. In contrast, granite gravel, a harder erodent, led to significantly uneven surface wear and increased surface-layer defectiveness.
Wear analysis of the 200 µm thick coatings (Figure 5i) yielded insightful observations. Notably, the WC-10Co4Cr coating exhibited the highest erosion wear resistance, with its performance differing significantly from other materials based on the abrasive type and jet loading. It demonstrated 2–3 times higher resistance than the Cr3C2-25NiCr coating and 2–17 times higher resistance than the SS coating and the AlSi7Mg0.3 substrate.
The use of fragmented abrasive (granite gravel) resulted in increased wear on uncoated AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy, which, in turn, led to a corresponding increase in the wear resistance of the coatings (Figure 5i). At low abrasive jet loading and velocity, the AlSi7Mg0.3 base alloy exhibited relatively high wear resistance. This resulted in a moderate increase in the relative wear resistance of the coatings (most notably for the WC-10Co4Cr coating), with a 1.4-fold increase for spherical abrasive and a 2.8-fold increase for fragmented abrasive.
The obtained data indicate that the WC-10Co4Cr coatings maintained consistent thickness and microhardness during wear tests, regardless of whether quartz sand or granite gravel was used as the abrasive. The surface layer also displayed a smooth appearance, devoid of cavities or cracks. These observations suggest that the wear of the SS and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings was more strongly influenced by the abrasive type than the WC-10Co4Cr coating.

3.4. Thickness-Dependent Wear Resistance of the WC-10Co4Cr Coatings

To determine the relative wear resistance of WC-10Co4Cr coatings with thicknesses ranging from 50 to 200 µm, their macrostructure was compared following wear tests using the same abrasive—quartz sand (Figure 6).
According to Figure 6, as the WC-10Co4Cr coating’s thickness decreased, its roughness increased. This was due to the coating’s deflection on the ductile AlSi7Mg0.3 substrate. Another pattern was that as the thickness of the WC-10Co4Cr coatings decreased, their wear resistance also decreased compared with the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy.
Analysis of the WC-10Co4Cr coating with a thickness of 50 μm (Figure 6a) revealed a significant crack at the coating–substrate interface (indicated by the dotted yellow line). This crack likely occurred during the deflection of the coating on the ductile Al substrate, resulting in brittle fracture. The 50 μm coating exhibited extensive damage, characterized by numerous cracks and cavities on its cross-section. In contrast, no similar defects were observed in the coating–substrate interface of the WC-10Co4Cr coatings with thicknesses of 100 μm and 200 μm (Figure 6b,c). This suggests that the coating deformations remained below the threshold for brittle fracture in these thicker coatings.
The thinner coatings exhibited insufficient stiffness, leading to bending on the ductile AlSi7Mg0.3 substrate under repeated gas–dynamic abrasive impacts, resulting in a decline in their fatigue strength. As the coating thickness increased, its density and microhardness also increased At maximum jet impact parameters (jet velocity of 100 m/s and abrasive jet loading of 3 kg), peeling was observed on the 50 μm WC-10Co4Cr coatings. Of the two variable parameters, abrasive jet loading had a greater impact on wear resistance. Higher wear resistance was observed for the 100 and 200 μm WC-10Co4Cr coatings at lower abrasive jet loading and higher jet velocity.
The increased dependence of wear resistance on WC-CoCr coating thickness, when deposited onto an aluminum substrate, has been previously noted by Bolelli et al. [29]. Their ball-on-disk tribological tests, conducted at a normal load of 10 N and a relative sliding velocity of 0.20 m/s, showed a three-fold increase in wear resistance when coating thickness increased from 50 to 100 μm. In our study, we observed a significantly greater increase in wear resistance, of up to 12 times (Figure 6d), within a similar thickness range. This substantial difference in wear resistance may be attributed to both a variation in wear mechanisms and a higher intensity of abrasive jet loading compared with the ball-on-disk tribological tests.

4. Conclusions

Comparative analysis of the structure, chemical composition, and microhardness of AlSi7Mg0.3-based fan-blade samples with and without WC-10Co4Cr, Cr3C2-25NiCr, and SS coatings showed the following:
  • The impact of molten particles during HVAF spraying altered the Al substrate’s near-surface layer (20–40 µm), resulting in a modified Al-Si eutectic with enhanced microhardness and strength. This modification was attributed to spheroidization and a five-fold decrease in eutectic crystal size. Deeper layers remained structurally unchanged.
  • The WC-10Co4Cr and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings exhibited a 20% increase in microhardness within 100 µm of the Al substrate. This increase was due to the high ductility and high thermal conductivity of the Al substrate, which absorbed impact energy and slowed carbide dissolution inside its metal matrix.
  • Additionally, WC-10Co4Cr particles near the substrate show less splashing and deviation from their spherical shape, indicating a less disruptive deposition process due to the Al substrate’s performance.
  • The SS coating’s greater thickness and uniform microhardness distribution were attributed to its complete melting during the HVAF-spraying deposition process.
  • The WC-10Co4Cr coating displayed significantly higher microhardness than both Cr3C2-25NiCr and SS coatings, with values of ~12 GPa, ~9 GPa, and ~5.7 GPa, respectively.
Erosion wear tests revealed:
  • At high abrasive intensity, the WC-10Co4Cr coating exhibited 2–17 times greater wear resistance than Cr3C2-25NiCr, SS, and AlSi7Mg0.3 substrate materials.
  • The wear resistance of the WC-10Co4Cr coating also increased when exposed to harder abrasives. Conversely, the alternative coatings showed an increase in wear resistance as abrasive impact intensity decreased.
  • The relative wear resistance of the WC-10Co4Cr coatings demonstrated a qualitative decrease when the coating thickness decreased below 100 μm, attributed to brittle fracture propagation along cracks at the coating–substrate interface.
HVAF-sprayed cermet WC-10Co4Cr coatings offer significant potential for extending the service life of AlSi7Mg0.3-based fan blades subject to erosion wear at normal temperatures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.K.; formal analysis, Y.K., M.A., V.A., I.B., M.D., V.K., S.E., and A.O.; investigation, Y.K., M.A., V.A., I.B., M.D., V.K., S.E., and A.O.; supervision, Y.K.; writing—original draft, Y.K., M.A., V.A., I.B., M.D., V.K., S.E., and A.O.; writing—review and editing, Y.K., M.A., V.A., I.B., M.D., V.K., S.E., and A.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out within the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (theme “Structure” No. 122021000033-2) using the equipment of the Collaborative Access Center “Testing Center of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials” of the IMP UB RAS and the Research Laboratory of Tribology and Materials Testing of Tallinn University of Technology.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Vladimir Kutaev was employed by AO AMZ Ventprom company. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ashby, M.F.; Bréchet, Y.J.M.; Cebon, D.; Salvo, L. Selection strategies for materials and processes. Mater. Des. 2004, 25, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, H.; Liu, K.; Li, J.; Yu, W.; Wu, H.; Okulov, A. Research Progress on Solidification Cracking of Aluminum Alloy During Welding and Crack Resistance of Filler Materials. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2024, 60, 207–219. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang, W.; Xu, J. Advanced lightweight materials for Automobiles: A review. Mater. Des. 2022, 221, 110994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, S.-S.; Yue, X.; Li, Q.-Y.; Peng, H.; Dong, B.; Liu, T.; Yang, H.; Fan, J.; Shu, S.; Qiu, F.; et al. Development and applications of aluminum alloys for aerospace industry. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 27, 944–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhu, Z.; Hu, Z.; Seet, H.L.; Liu, T.; Liao, W.; Ramamurty, U.; Nai, S.M.L. Recent progress on the additive manufacturing of aluminum alloys and aluminum matrix composites: Microstructure, properties, and applications. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2023, 190, 104047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wielage, B.; Wank, A.; Pokhmurska, H.; Grund, T.; Rupprecht, C.; Reisel, G.; Friesen, E. Development and trends in HVOF spraying technology. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2006, 201, 2032–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wallerstein, D.; Salminen, A.; Lusquiños, F.; Comesaña, R.; García, J.d.V.; Rodríguez, A.R.; Badaoui, A.; Pou, J. Recent Developments in Laser Welding of Aluminum Alloys to Steel. Metals 2021, 11, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, J.; Oliveira, J.P.; Li, Y.; Tan, C.; Gao, C.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, Z. Laser techniques for dissimilar joining of aluminum alloys to steels: A critical review. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2022, 301, 117443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maniam, K.K.; Paul, S. A Review on the Electrodeposition of Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys in Ionic Liquids. Coatings 2021, 11, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rahimi, A.; Sarraf, S.; Soltanieh, M. Nickel electroplating of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy using anodizing process as the pretreatment. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 27, 5701–5708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Araujo, J.V.d.S.; Milagre, M.; Costa, I. A historical, statistical and electrochemical approach on the effect of microstructure in the anodizing of Al alloys: A review. Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2024, 49, 521–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhao, P.; Shi, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Cao, Z.; Zhao, M.; Liang, J. A Review of the Laser Cladding of Metal-Based Alloys, Ceramic-Reinforced Composites, Amorphous Alloys, and High-Entropy Alloys on Aluminum Alloys. Lubricants 2023, 11, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gokhfeld, N.V.; Okulov, A.V.; Filippov, M.A.; Estemirova, S.K.; Korobov, Y.S.; Morozov, S.O. The Comparative Analysis of the Fe–Cr–C–Ti–Al Coatings Synthesized by Laser, Arc and Hybrid Cladding Methods. Phys. Solid State 2022, 64, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Okulov, A.; Korobov, Y.; Stepchenkov, A.; Makarov, A.; Iusupova, O.; Korkh, Y.; Kuznetsova, T.; Kharanzhevskiy, E.; Liu, K. Mechanical and Structural Characterization of Laser-Cladded Medium-Entropy FeNiCr-B4C Coatings. Materials 2023, 16, 5479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wang, H.; Li, J.; Liu, K.; Xu, G.; Zhu, H.; Wang, J.; Xu, C.; Wang, L.; Okulov, A. Microstructural evolution and corrosion resistance property of in-situ Zr–C(B, Si)/Ni–Zr reinforced composite coatings on zirconium alloy by laser cladding. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 26, 530–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Okulov, A.; Iusupova, O.; Liu, K.; Li, J.; Stepchenkov, A.; Zavalishin, V.; Korkh, Y.; Kuznetsova, T.; Mugada, K.K.; Moganraj, A. Micromechanical and Tribological Performance of Laser-Cladded Equiatomic FeNiCr Coatings Reinforced with TiC and NbC Particles. Materials 2024, 17, 4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Łatka, L.; Pawłowski, L.; Winnicki, M.; Sokołowski, P.; Małachowska, A.; Kozerski, S. Review of Functionally Graded Thermal Sprayed Coatings. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Qadir, D.; Sharif, R.; Nasir, R.; Awad, A.; Mannan, H.A. A review on coatings through thermal spraying. Chem. Pap. 2024, 78, 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Paz Martínez-Viademonte, M.; Abrahami, S.T.; Hack, T.; Burchardt, M.; Terryn, H. A Review on Anodizing of Aerospace Aluminum Alloys for Corrosion Protection. Coatings 2020, 10, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sheasby, P.G.; Pinner, R. The Surface Treatment and Finishing of Aluminium and Its Alloys, 6th ed.; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tsangaraki-Kaplanoglou, I.; Theohari, S.; Dimogerontakis, T.; Wang, Y.-M.; Kuo, H.-H.; Kia, S. Effect of alloy types on the anodizing process of aluminum. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2006, 200, 2634–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yerokhin, A.L.; Nie, X.; Leyland, A.; Matthews, A.; Dowey, S.J. Plasma electrolysis for surface engineering. Surf. Coat. Technol. 1999, 122, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, J.; Dai, W.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Yue, H.; Li, Q.; Yang, X.; Guo, C.; Li, C. Micro-arc oxidation of Al alloys: Mechanism, microstructure, surface properties, and fatigue damage behavior. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 23, 4307–4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ravi, N.; Bukhovets, V.L.; Varshavskaya, I.G.; Sundararajan, G. Deposition of diamond-like carbon films on aluminum substrates by RF-PECVD technique: Influence of process parameters. Diam. Relat. Mater. 2007, 16, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gibbons, G.J.; Hansell, R.G. Down-selection and optimization of thermal-sprayed coatings for aluminum mould tool protection and upgrade. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2006, 15, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Picas, J.A.; Forn, A.; Rilla, R.; Martίn, E. HVOF thermal sprayed coatings on aluminium alloys and aluminium matrix composites. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2005, 200, 1178–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kavorkijan, V. Engineering wear-resistant surfaces in automotive aluminum. JOM 2003, 55, 32–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sathish, M.; Radhika, N.; Saleh, B. Duplex and Composite Coatings: A Thematic Review on Thermal Spray Techniques and Applications. Met. Mater. Int. 2023, 29, 1229–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bolelli, G.; Lusvarghi, L.; Barletta, M. HVOF-sprayed WC-CoCr coatings on Al alloy: Effect of the coating thickness on the tribological properties. Wear 2009, 267, 944–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pushkarev, I.I.; Dudarev, V.V.; Golemgrain, V.V.; Muravlev, O.P. Fire resistance of the subway main ventilation fan. Bull. Tomsk Polytech. Univ. 2011, 319, 111–116. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  31. Kleis, I.; Kulu, P. Solid Particle Erosion: Occurrence, Prediction and Control; Springer: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yildiran, Y.; Avcu, E.; Şahin, A.E.; Fidan, S.; Yetiştiren, H.; Sinmazcelik, T. Effect of Particle Impact Angle, Erodent Particle Size and Acceleration Pressure on the Solid Particle Erosion Behavior of 3003 Aluminum Alloy. Acta Phys. Pol. 2014, 125, 523–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huttunen-Saarivirta, E.; Antonov, M.; Veinthal, R.; Tuiremo, J.; Mäkelä, K.; Siitonen, P. Influence of particle impact conditions and temperature on erosion–oxidation of steels at elevated temperatures. Wear 2011, 272, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sugiyama, K.; Nakahama, S.; Hattori, S.; Nakano, K. Slurry wear and cavitation erosion of thermal-sprayed cermets. Wear 2005, 258, 768–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, X.; Li, F.; Li, Y.; Lu, Q.; Li, Z.; Lu, H.; Ran, X.; Qi, X. Comparison on multi-angle erosion behavior and mechanism of Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings sprayed by SPS and HVOF. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2020, 403, 126366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Matikainen, V.; Rubio Peregrina, S.; Ojala, N.; Koivuluoto, H.; Schubert, J.; Houdková, Š.; Vuoristo, P. Erosion wear performance of WC-10Co4Cr and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings sprayed with high-velocity thermal spray processes. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2019, 370, 196–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bolelli, G.; Berger, L.-M.; Börner, T.; Koivuluoto, H.; Lusvarghi, L.; Lyphout, C.; Markocsan, N.; Matikainen, V.; Nylén, P.; Sassatelli, P.; et al. Tribology of HVOF- and HVAF-sprayed WC-10Co4Cr hardmetal coatings: A comparative assessment. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2015, 265, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, Y.; Liu, W.; Ma, Y.; Meng, S.; Liu, C.; Long, L.; Tang, S. A comparative study on wear and corrosion behavior of HVOF- and HVAF-sprayed WC-10Co-4Cr coatings. Surf. Eng. 2017, 33, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Peat, T.; Galloway, A.; Toumpis, A.; Harvey, D.; Yang, W.-H. Performance evaluation of HVOF deposited cermet coatings under dry and slurry erosion. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2016, 300, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Maekai, I.A.; Harmain, G.A.; Zehab-ud-Din; Masoodi, J.H. Resistance to slurry erosion by WC-10Co-4Cr and Cr3C2-25(Ni20Cr) coatings deposited by HVOF stainless steel F6NM. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2022, 105, 105830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. GOST 23.201-78; Products Wear Resistance Assurance: Gas Abrasive Wear Testing of Materials and Coatings with Centrifugal Accelerator. Publishing House of Standards: Moscow, Russia, 1987. (In Russian)
  42. Antonov, M.; Pirso, J.; Vallikivi, A.; Goljandin, D.; Hussainova, I. The effect of fine erodent retained on the surface during erosion of metals, ceramics, plastic, rubber and and hardmetal. Wear 2016, 354–355, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nguyen, V.B.; Nguyen, Q.B.; Lim, C.Y.H.; Zhang, Y.W.; Khoo, B.C. Effect of air-borne particle–particle interaction on materials erosion. Wear 2015, 322–323, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blondeau, R. Metallurgy and Mechanics of Welding: Processes and Industrial Applications; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu, J.; Chen, T.; Yuan, C.; Bai, X. Performance Analysis of Cavitation Erosion Resistance and Corrosion Behavior of HVOF-Sprayed WC-10Co-4Cr, WC-12Co, and Cr3C2-25NiCr Coatings. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2020, 29, 798–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmmp 08 00231 g001
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the HVAF-spraying process and a general view of the feedstock powders: (a) WC-10Co4Cr, (b) Cr3C2-25NiCr, and (c) SS.
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the HVAF-spraying process and a general view of the feedstock powders: (a) WC-10Co4Cr, (b) Cr3C2-25NiCr, and (c) SS.
Jmmp 08 00231 g001
Jmmp 08 00231 g002
Figure 2. (a) Schematic illustration of the erosion wear tester and (b) general view of the samples on a fixing mandrel (before and after wear tests (enlarged image)).
Figure 2. (a) Schematic illustration of the erosion wear tester and (b) general view of the samples on a fixing mandrel (before and after wear tests (enlarged image)).
Jmmp 08 00231 g002
Jmmp 08 00231 g003
Figure 3. Optical- and SEM-based microstructural features of the HVAF-sprayed (a–c) WC-10Co4Cr (splashing of the WC-10Co4Cr particles (I) on the coating surface and (II) inside the near-interface areas), (d–f) Cr3C2-25NiCr, and (g,h) SS coatings, and (i) their microhardness graph before erosion wear tests.
Figure 3. Optical- and SEM-based microstructural features of the HVAF-sprayed (a–c) WC-10Co4Cr (splashing of the WC-10Co4Cr particles (I) on the coating surface and (II) inside the near-interface areas), (d–f) Cr3C2-25NiCr, and (g,h) SS coatings, and (i) their microhardness graph before erosion wear tests.
Jmmp 08 00231 g003
Jmmp 08 00231 g004
Figure 4. X-ray diffraction patterns and bar diagrams of standards: (a) WC-10Co4Cr and (b) Cr3C2-25NiCr.
Figure 4. X-ray diffraction patterns and bar diagrams of standards: (a) WC-10Co4Cr and (b) Cr3C2-25NiCr.
Jmmp 08 00231 g004
Jmmp 08 00231 g005
Figure 5. SEM-based microstructure of the AlSi7Mg0.3, SS, Cr3C2-25NiCr, and WC-10Co4Cr coatings after wear tests with (a,c,e,g) quartz sand and (b,d,f,h) granite gravel, and (i) volumetric wear test graphs.
Figure 5. SEM-based microstructure of the AlSi7Mg0.3, SS, Cr3C2-25NiCr, and WC-10Co4Cr coatings after wear tests with (a,c,e,g) quartz sand and (b,d,f,h) granite gravel, and (i) volumetric wear test graphs.
Jmmp 08 00231 g005
Jmmp 08 00231 g006
Figure 6. Optical images of the WC-10Co4Cr coatings (top view) with various thicknesses: (a) 50 μm, (b) 100 μm, and (c) 200 μm; and (d) their relative wear resistance after wear tests with quartz sand.
Figure 6. Optical images of the WC-10Co4Cr coatings (top view) with various thicknesses: (a) 50 μm, (b) 100 μm, and (c) 200 μm; and (d) their relative wear resistance after wear tests with quartz sand.
Jmmp 08 00231 g006
Table 1. Fractional and chemical composition of the feedstock powders.
Table 1. Fractional and chemical composition of the feedstock powders.
PowderFraction, μmChemical Composition, wt. %
CCoCrFeMnNiSiMoW
WC-10Co4Cr−30 + 105.2810.133.990.05-0.12--Bal.
Cr3C2-25NiCr−25 + 108.6-69.2≤0.10-19---
SS−45 + 161.78-27.5Bal.0.7616.61.44.5-
Table 2. HVAF-spraying-process parameters.
Table 2. HVAF-spraying-process parameters.
ParametersValue
Spraying distance, mm180
Gas pressure, MPaAir0.61
Base fuel (propane 1)0.58
Secondary fuel (propane 2)0.45
Carrier gas flow rate (nitrogen), L/min68
Powder feed rate, g/min200
Spray gun movement speed, m/s1.0
Coating thickness per pass, μm40
Table 3. Thickness of HVAF-sprayed coatings.
Table 3. Thickness of HVAF-sprayed coatings.
CoatingsWC-10Co4CrCr3C2-25NiCrSS
123
Thickness, μm50 ± 20100 ± 20200 ± 30200 ± 30320 ± 30
Table 4. Phase composition of the WC-10Co4Cr and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings.
Table 4. Phase composition of the WC-10Co4Cr and Cr3C2-25NiCr coatings.
PhaseICDD Database NumberWt. %
WC-10Co4Cr
WC01-089-272792.1
C (graphite)01-071-37392.3
W (α-phase)01-071-46462.1
Co13.34Cr17.6701-080-83343.5
Cr3C2-25NiCr
Cr3C201-074-713749.5
C (graphite)01-075-207812.7
Cr01-077-759123.1
CrNi01-071-759414.7
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Korobov, Y.; Antonov, M.; Astafiev, V.; Brodova, I.; Kutaev, V.; Estemirova, S.; Devyatyarov, M.; Okulov, A. Erosion Wear Behavior of HVAF-Sprayed WC/Cr3C2-Based Cermet and Martensitic Stainless Steel Coatings on AlSi7Mg0.3 Alloy: A Comparative Study. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2024, 8, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050231

AMA Style

Korobov Y, Antonov M, Astafiev V, Brodova I, Kutaev V, Estemirova S, Devyatyarov M, Okulov A. Erosion Wear Behavior of HVAF-Sprayed WC/Cr3C2-Based Cermet and Martensitic Stainless Steel Coatings on AlSi7Mg0.3 Alloy: A Comparative Study. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing. 2024; 8(5):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Korobov, Yury, Maksim Antonov, Vladimir Astafiev, Irina Brodova, Vladimir Kutaev, Svetlana Estemirova, Mikhail Devyatyarov, and Artem Okulov. 2024. "Erosion Wear Behavior of HVAF-Sprayed WC/Cr3C2-Based Cermet and Martensitic Stainless Steel Coatings on AlSi7Mg0.3 Alloy: A Comparative Study" Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing 8, no. 5: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050231

APA Style

Korobov, Y., Antonov, M., Astafiev, V., Brodova, I., Kutaev, V., Estemirova, S., Devyatyarov, M., & Okulov, A. (2024). Erosion Wear Behavior of HVAF-Sprayed WC/Cr3C2-Based Cermet and Martensitic Stainless Steel Coatings on AlSi7Mg0.3 Alloy: A Comparative Study. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 8(5), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050231

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop