Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 1661–1663 | Cite as

Interface science of thermal barrier coatings

  • Theodore M. BesmannEmail author
Interface Science in Thermal Barrier Coatings Editorial

The drive for greater efficiency in propulsion and industrial/power production machinery has pushed metallurgists to develop ever better alloys and taken existing metallic components to their reliability threshold. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in gas turbine engine materials. The nickel-based superalloys currently in use for the most demanding areas of the engines melt at 1,230–1,315 °C and yet see combustion environments ~1,600 °C. The result is that these components require thermal protection to avoid failure from phenomena such as melting, creep, oxidation, thermal fatigue, and so on [1]. The stakes are high as the equipment must remain reliable for thousands of take-offs and landings for aircraft turbine engines, and at least 40,000 h of operation in power generating land-based gas turbines [2, 3]. The most critical items that see both the greatest temperatures and experience the highest stresses are the hot-section components, particularly the high pressure turbine...

Keywords

Hafnium Turbine Blade Bond Coat Thermal Barrier Coating Thermally Grown Oxide 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was sponsored by the Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC.

References

  1. 1.
    Meier SM, Gupta DK (1994) Trans ASME 250(116):250Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Padture NP, Gell M, Jordan EH (2002) Science 296:280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pint BA, Distefano JR, Wright IG (2006) Mater Sci Eng A 415:255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stecura S (1977) Am Ceram Soc Bull 56:1082Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feurstein A, Knapp J, Taylor T, Ashary A, Bolcavage A, Hitchman N (2008) J Thermal Spray Technol 17:199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller RA (1984) J Am Ceram Soc 67:517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wright PK, Evans AG (1999) Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 4:255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strangman T, Raybould D, Jameel A, Baker W (2007) Surf Coat Technol 202:658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaudhury ZA, Newaz GM, Nusier SQ, Ahmed T, Thomas RL (1999) J Mater Sci 34:2475. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004535305143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans AG, Clarke DR, Levi CG (2008) J Eur Ceram Soc 28:1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smialek JL (1991) Metall Trans A 22:739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tawancy HM, UI-Hamid A, Abbas NM, Aboelfotoh MO (2008) J Mater Sci 43:2978. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-007-2130-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang Y, Haynes JA, Lee WY, Wright IG, Pint BA, Cooley KM, Liaw PK (2001) Metall Mater Trans A 32:1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ali MY, Nusier SQ, Newaz GM (2004) J Mater Sci 39:3383. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMSC.0000026940.56103.d3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haynes JA, Pint BA, More KL, Zhang Y, Wright IG (2002) Oxid Metals 58(5/6):513CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Science and Technology DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations