Journal of Thermal Spray Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1009–1019 | Cite as

Mechanical Behavior of Spray-Coated Metallic Laminates

Peer Reviewed

Abstract

Thermal spray (TS) coatings have been extensively utilized for various surface modifications such as enhancing wear/erosion resistance and thermal protection. In the present study, a new function of TS material is explored by studying its load-carrying capability. Due to the inherent microstructures containing voids and interfaces, it has been presumed TS materials were not suitable to bear loads. However, the recent advances in TS technology to manufacture near fully dense TS coatings have expanded their potential applications. In the current experiments, TS nickel coatings are deposited onto metallic substrates, and their mechanical behaviors are closely examined. Based on the measured data, the estimated elastic modulus of TS Ni is about 130 GPa (35% less than bulk value), and the maximum tensile strength is about 500 MPa (comparable to bulk value). It was found that such a high value is attainable because the coating is deposited onto a substrate, enabling a load-transfer mechanism and preventing coating failure at a much lower stress level. Three distinct deformation stages are identified to describe this behavior. Such a clarification is critical for enabling TS process to restore structural parts as well as to additively manufacture load-bearing components.

Keywords

finite element modeling HVOF mechanical behavior repair 

Introduction

Most of the modern thermal-spray (TS) applications seek to enhance surface functionality of structural substrate materials (Ref 1). However, the roots of the technology lie in machine component repair, reclamation, and restoration. From its inception in the early 1900s to the 1960s, worn-out engineering components such as shafts, hydraulic cylinders, paper mill rolls, etc., have been restored using TS overlays followed by secondary finishing operations (Ref 2, 3). Given the presence of porosity and defects inherent in these spray-assembled materials, the regenerated surfaces were not considered to have the same mechanical integrity as bulk materials and treated as such in applications.

The recent decades have seen the introduction of advanced high-velocity TS processes such as high-velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF), high-velocity air-fuel (HVAF), and even non-thermal cold-spray-based solid-state consolidation (Ref 4-8). In all the above processes, the very high particle kinetic energies allow for the synthesis of deposits with near-full density. This enhancement in density with concomitant improvements in properties and performance has led to expanded applications of TS coatings to meet stringent performance requirements. For instance, these advanced coatings offer excellent wear and corrosion resistances and even improved functionalities such as near-bulk electrical properties (Ref 6, 9-11).

Increasingly, there is significant increase of interest in considering TS for not just a protective barrier coating but enabling duality of function (structure and surface) through synergistic benefits arising from the structurally integrated coatings (Ref 12). Several examples embody this development, including landing gears of large airplanes (through replacement of electroplated Chromium), hydraulic cylinders in earth moving machinery, and even repair and reclamation of superalloy gas turbine engine components. More recently, directed TS has been considered as potential repair solutions for selective locations of infrastructures experiencing severe corrosion and material loss (Ref 13). These new opportunities have pushed the requirement landscape of thermal sprayed layers from just surface modification to one requiring system level functionalities. Today, advancements in TS technology may allow for their applications in true structural restoration and even additive manufacturing via layered spray-based assembly.

There has been a significant amount of past research studies producing near-bulk materials using a spray-forming process, generally using low-pressure plasma (Ref 14-17). Microstructural characteristics and defects were correlated to mechanical properties of the spray-formed materials, often with post-processing heat treatments for improved performance (Ref 17). Materials formed ranged from ceramics and layered composites (Ref 16) to superalloy compositions for gas turbine applications (Ref 14). Mechanical testing results of these spray-formed materials were assessed on free-standing coatings, using substrates only for the collection of the deposited materials and their removal either mechanically or through chemical dissolution.

Traditionally, design of structural members does not take into account any load-bearing contribution of the sprayed layers. As new opportunities emerge for spray-based structural reclamation and additive manufacturing, several questions arise as follows:
  • Mechanical behavior/strength of the spray-assembled materials.

  • Adhesion with the parent metal and bonding at the restored/substrate interface.

  • Changes if any to the characteristics of the remaining original structure, after having been subjected to impacting particles (peening) and thermal effects during processing.

  • Fatigue and cyclic load performance of spray-coated metallic composites.

  • Corrosion response of the reclaimed system and potential galvanic issues.

In addition to microstructural integrity, residual stresses play an integral role in defining the properties and performance of a TS coating, including hardness, reclaiming strength, and wear and corrosion behaviors (Ref 18). The evolution of these stresses are complex, arising from impact, thermal mismatch, and phase changes. In processes involving melting and solidification, large tensile quenching stresses arise due to constrained shrinkage and cooling of impacting droplets (Ref 19). Thermal mismatch stresses are imposed due to expansion mismatch between the depositing material and substrate. In high-velocity spray processes, additional stress variants arise due to solid-state peening, which results in local compressive stresses. All of the above stress variants and their intensities are affected by material, process condition, and parameters. Impact and peening processes may offer the benefit of compaction of deposited layers, enhancing the characteristics of these coatings. Much progress has been achieved in understanding formation and quantification of residual stresses including process parameter effects to control such stresses (Ref 20). The above attributes of substrate-deposit interaction, microstructural integrity, and state of stress in deposited material all affect the effective properties of the coating, and ultimately that of the substrate-coating system. The latter is of significance in structurally integrated coating’s major role of which requires load-bearing applications (Ref 12).

The present study seeks to address these questions through a novel analysis of the mechanical behavior of coating-substrate specimens. In these tests, HVOF thermal-sprayed metallic (nickel) coatings were deposited onto steel tensile specimens under various processing parameters. The resultant coating-substrate laminates were tested under uniaxial tension to examine the overall stress-strain responses. With various test results, the tensile behaviors of sprayed material are analyzed, and their contributions to the load-carrying capacities are estimated. These results are necessary to quantify and confirm possible enhancement in the residual strength of structural materials.

Experimental Methods

Process and Coating Characterization

Commercially available nickel-spray powder (NI 914-3—Praxair Surface Technologies, Indianapolis, IN, USA) was sprayed using a liquid fuel HVOF TS torch (JP 5220—Praxair Surface Technologies, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Spray conditions are indicated in Table 1. Spray conditions were chosen in order to compare particle plumes with similar kinetic energies but with different plume stoichiometries. A condition with lower particle kinetic energy for producing a more porous coating was also used for comparison. All coatings were sprayed with a 102-mm barrel and a standoff distance of 406 mm. Nickel was chosen as the reclaiming material for various reasons as stated below.
Table 1

Spray conditions for the JP-5220 used to deposit nickel coatings

Condition

O2, slpm

Fuel, L/h

A

820

25.7

B

940

25.4

C

960

17.0

  • Its processibility under TS conditions. Nickel and nickel alloys experience limited in-flight oxidation compared to ferrous alloys during TS processing.

  • Relatively small thermal expansion mismatch with steel and ferrous alloys.

  • Excellent ductility, enabling densification and peening during high-velocity TS processing.

  • Reasonable corrosion resistance.

Inflight particle properties (average temperature and velocity) were measured using Accuraspray G3™ (Tecnar Automation LTEE, St-Bruno, QC, Canada), while coating-formation dynamics and residual stresses were obtained from in situ beam curvature monitoring (Ref 21-23). Here, the slope of the curvature change during deposition is related to stress development within coating and consequently the deposit cohesion. In the case of HVOF spraying of metals, this feature is generally negative, indicative of compressive stress state due to impact peening. Details of these procedures are available in ref (Ref 24-26). Cross-sectional metallographic analysis of the samples was also conducted with backscattered scanning electron microscopy. Vickers Hardness was measured using a 300-g load for 15 s on the polished top surface of coupons sprayed alongside the beam curvature monitoring, as well as the substrate material.

Tensile Sample Preparation, Testing, and Analysis

To assess the mechanical behavior, nickel was sprayed on both sides of the steel specimens as shown in Fig. 1. The substrates were commercially produced, rolled 1008 carbon steel sheet materials and laser cut into a dogbone shape. Substrates used were either in the as-received condition, stress relieved at 300 °C in a furnace under inert atmosphere, or mechanically grooved in order to simulate “damaged” substrates prior to spraying. Thicker specimens (6.3 mm) of 1018 were also sprayed upon with select spray conditions. Copper tensile specimens of the same dimensions were additionally prepared, and were annealed at 500 °C in a furnace under inert atmosphere. A summary of the tensile substrate materials and preparation is shown in Table 2.
Fig. 1

TS Ni-coated specimen and its schematic (12.7-mm neck width; 63.5-mm length). Note it is coated on both sides to maintain symmetry

Table 2

Substrate conditions

Material

Preparation

Average thickness, mm

Nickel-coating condition

Spray fixturing

1008 steel

As-received

3.2

A, B, C

Carousel

1008 steel

As-received

3.2

B (0.08, 0.35, 0.70 mm)

Carousel

1008 steel

Heat treated (300 °C)

3.2

B

Carousel

Copper

Heat treated (500 °C)

3.2

B

Stationary

1018 steel

Heat treated (300 °C)

6.3

B

Stationary

1008 steel

As-received, grooved

3.2-0.25

B

Stationary

To ensure good bonding during spraying, the tensile substrates were grit blasted using 24-mesh alumina grit using a suction blaster set to 80 psi on both sides, followed by air, blowing away excess grit. They were then placed in an acetone ultrasonic bath for cleaning and for removing any embedded grit or grit dust. For coating application, the substrates were mounted on a disk and spun on a carousel with the torch rastering past the necked region with shielding to reduce overspray on the gripping portion of the dogbones. After coating one side, the specimens were flipped and coated to equal thickness on the other side. Air cooling was directed at the samples during spraying, which maintained the substrate temperature to be below 300 °C (monitored with infrared thermal camera). This was the basis for future heat treatment of the steel substrate prior to spraying.

All the tensile tests were conducted with a servo hydraulic tensile testing machine with static 200-kN load cell. The deflection within the dogbone was measured with a clip-on extensometer (with resolution of ~1 µm) with the clips placed 25 mm apart. The mechanical arm pull rate was set at 2 mm/min, producing a strain rate of 0.033/min between the two grips, 60 mm apart. In all cases, at least three samples from each condition were tested for repeatability. The averaged results are meant to show typical tensile data for each sample set.

Results

Nickel Deposit Condition Characterization

It is well known that thermal spraying introduces residual stresses in both the coating and the substrate due to splat quenching, impact peening, and mismatch in coefficients of thermal expansion (Ref 7, 25, 27-29). The extent of residual stresses in the deposit, as well as the mechanical properties, is known to be sensitive to spray process condition. To assess their role in understanding the performance of the spray-coated laminates, the three different sprayed parameters were investigated to yield differences in coating properties as well as interactions with the substrate. Average in-flight particle temperature and velocity were measured for each condition, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Coating A is sprayed with a high combustion pressure and a reducing flame, which results in high particle velocity and particle temperature. Coating B is also fabricated with high combustion pressure but with an oxygen-rich flame to cause possibilities for some particle oxidation. Coating C was sprayed with the lowest combustion pressure among the three conditions, resulting in lower particle temperature and velocity.
Fig. 2

Ni coatings are sprayed under three different process conditions. (a) Measured in-flight particle velocity and temperature. (b) Estimated residual stress and measured hardness. (c) SEM micrographs of coating cross sections

The hardness and residual stress for these coatings are shown in Fig. 2(b). All the coatings have significantly higher hardness than that of steel. The higher hardness of coatings A and B than coating C can be explained from the high densities of these coatings as evident from the SEM micrographs shown in Fig. 2(c). Coatings A and B are almost fully dense at >99% of bulk Ni, whereas Coating C has significant visible porosity and is considered a poorer-quality coating. It is estimated that 95 MPa compressive stress is present in coating B, with lesser amounts being present in coatings A and C.

These compressive stresses and hardness affect the overall mechanical behaviors of coated specimens as shown in Fig. 3, where the tensile behavior of the as-received tensile specimens coated under conditions A, B, and C are shown. All coatings were sprayed to the same thickness of 0.175 mm on each side of the tensile specimens, for the total thickness of 0.35 mm. This thickness was chosen in order to represent a typical TS-coating thickness. In all cases, the stress is adjusted for the increase in the thickness due to Ni addition, i.e., the cross section under load includes the thickness of the coating. Note that “average stress” is shown here, since the actual stresses within the steel and Ni are different due to their different stiffness levels. The average stress is calculated by dividing the measured load by the total specimen’s cross-sectional area (Substrate and Coating). For each sample type, at least three specimens were tested with typical stress-strain results shown in all figures. The average stress-strain relations of less dense and lower residual stress coating C is very similar to that of steel-only specimen which suggest the actual stress-strain of this Ni coat is likely to be similar to that of steel. On the other hand, specimens with higher energy coatings A and B show the higher yield strengths (0.2% off set), corresponding with their higher hardness values, compared to steel and coating C. These measurements imply the yield stress of Ni coating to be significantly higher than that of 1008 steel. In fact, to account for ~40 MPa rise in the average yield strength when the coating is only about 10% of total thickness, its yield stress would have be greater than that of bulk nickel, which would be unreasonable. Hence, it is likely that some modification of the substrate occurs during the spray process (this will be explained in the later section). It is also important to note since the compressive residual stresses (55 to 95 MPa) are present in Ni coatings (see Fig. 2b), these stresses were subtracted when estimating their yield strengths. For processes A and B, the stress-strain behaviors begin to merge at about 0.5% strain. This is likely to be an indication that these coatings start to lose load-carrying capability. Samples that were only grit blasted were tensile tested as well to ensure no change of the tensile behavior of the steel come from surface preparation and are not shown.
Fig. 3

Average stress-strain relations of the as-received specimens sprayed under different process conditions. All are with 0.35-mm-thick Ni coatings

The repeatability of multiple coated specimens was very good, as their measured stresses were within ±4 MPa for any given strain. The only major variability occurred in the failure above 15% strain.

Due to it being the best-performing coating in terms of hardness, compressive residual stress, and composite stress-strain behavior, coating B is used for additional mechanical characterization.

Coating Thickness Effect

Ni coatings were sprayed to different thicknesses onto the same as-received steel substrates with the processing parameter of coating B. Here two other coating thicknesses, 0.08 and 0.70 mm, were prepared in addition to the 0.35-mm-thick coating shown previously. These dimensions were selected to test if a similar behavior can be observed in a very thin coating as well as in a moderately thick coating. The thicknesses of three coatings represented about 2.5, 10, and 20% of the total specimen thicknesses, respectively. Although results of coatings with additional thicknesses will offer clearer picture of Ni-coated specimens’ behaviors, the selected thicknesses should reveal their dependence on the thickness. Note that for potential applications (e.g., repair), thicker coatings will be of more interest. The measured averaged stress-strain behaviors are shown in Fig. 4. The result of the 0.08-mm-thick-coated specimen differs very little from that of the steel-only specimen, while the specimens with thicker coatings (0.35 and 0.70 mm) exhibited appreciable rises in the average yield stress. Although both specimens yield at around 230 MPa, the hardening rate is higher for the one with the thicker Ni coats (0.70 mm). The tangent modulus of 0.70-mm-thick-coated specimen is about double of that of 0.35-mm-thick-coated specimen for strains of 0.2 to 0.4%, which is consistent with the coating thickness ratio. However, at about 0.35% strain, the 0.70-mm-thick-coated specimen develops cracks within the coating and also partially delaminates from the substrate near the edge of the fillet of the dogbone. At this point, the strain hardening halts, and the stress remains nearly constant. Although the Ni coating has partially failed at this stage, most of the coating is still adhered to the substrate, albeit discontinuously. This explains the stress level being maintained around 260 MPa and not dropping to the level of the uncoated steel. For the thinnest Ni coating, it may retain strength even at strain of 1%; however, since its thickness is so much smaller than that of substrate, its actual behavior is somewhat unclear.
Fig. 4

Average stress-strain relations of Ni-coated specimens with various thicknesses. Specimen without the coating (as-received) is also shown as a reference

These measured results raise an important question. In elastic plastic bimetallic specimens, if response of each phase is independent of the other, the effective behavior should still show the nonlinearity near the lower yield strain of the two metals. Here the nonlinear behavior of steel begins at about 0.1% strain but the average stress-strain curve of coated specimen remains linear well past this strain. The only way to explain this phenomenon is that the spraying Ni alters the stress state of steel substrate. This aspect is closely investigated in the following sections.

Coating on Stress-Relieved Substrates

Previously shown results suggest some changes in mechanical behavior had occurred in the substrate steel due to the heating during the spray (both from the torch and solidifying particles). In order to minimize such effects, 1008 steel substrates were heat treated at 300 °C in an inert gas furnace for 2 h and allowed to cool prior to spraying. This preheat-treatment condition was selected in order to relieve any residual stresses within the tensile specimens that would otherwise occur during coating deposition, since the measured substrate temperature stayed below 300 °C during the spray. Note that when a molten droplet initially strikes the substrate, the surface temperature rises above this value. However, due to the small size of droplet, the heat transfer is limited, and the high-temperature region is no more than a few microns deep from the surface. Additionally as the torch rasters over the specimens, local substrate temperature oscillates instead of staying at a steady state condition. The stress-strain relations of the “stress-relieved” and the “as-received” steel specimens are shown in Fig. 5. The heat treatment essentially removes embedded stresses and exhibits the upper and lower yield points of the steel (230 and 220 MPa, respectively) as well as provides linear behavior at higher stresses prior to yield. Both essentially exhibit similar behaviors for strains >0.6%.
Fig. 5

Average stress-strain relations of Ni coating on the stress-relieved and the as-received steel substrates. The results of steel-only specimens (stress-relieved and as-received) are also shown

Ni coating at condition B was then deposited on the “heat-treated” steel substrate. The stress-strain behaviors of coated and steel-only specimens are shown in Fig. 5. Here the stress-strain relation of Ni coating on the as-received steel is also included. It essentially overlaps that of Ni coating on heat-treated steel. These results suggest that heat input from spray essentially causes the similar effects on the rolled steel as the heat treatment at 300 °C with the differences in substrate heating time from the furnace or spray process not producing significant differences in the sprayed specimen tensile behavior.

Estimated Stress-Strain Relation of Ni Coating

The large increase in the yield strength of Ni-coated specimen can be explained by the raise in the yield strength of the heat-treated steel. However, there is a large discrepancy between the post-yielding behavior between the steel and the Ni-coated specimens. Based on the results shown in Fig. 5, the difference in behavior between coated and non-coated stress-relieved specimens were analyzed to estimate the property of Ni coating. First, the elastic modulus of the annealed 1008 steel was extracted from the stress-strain relations and determined to be E = 204 GPa. Then the tangent modulus of Ni-coated specimen between 0.02% < ε < 0.07% was measured and found to have an effective modulus of 196 ± 3 GPa. It is assumed that the strain in this range to be nearly linear elastic although it exhibited some variations. From the thickness ratio of coating and substrate, the effective/average tangent modulus of the Ni coating was then determined to be 131 ± 20 GPa. The relatively large error bound arises from the fact that the coating is only about 9% of the total specimen thickness and also the variability in the measured tangent elastic modulus of Ni-coated specimen. The latter observation suggests that the inhomogeneous microstructure may cause TS Ni coat to exhibit some degree of non-linearity. Then, the entire stress-strain of Ni coat is essentially estimated from subtracting the steel-only result from the composite Ni-coated-steel result (after adjusting for thicknesses). In the procedure, a residual stress of −95 MPa in Ni coat (Fig. 2b) was also taken into account to obtain the Ni coat’s property, although residual stress could vary based on spray orientation as well as other factors. Thus, this may not represent a perfect match between the residual stresses of the sprayed tensile specimens and curvature measurement samples.

The overall stress-strain relation is shown in Fig. 6. As shown in the figure, the estimated maximum stress of Ni coat is about 515 MPa which occurs at about 0.55% strain. Note that the results from repeat specimens are within ±20 MPa of this value. Without considering the residual stress effects, the peak stress reaches about 560 MPa. After reaching the peak, the stress gradually decreases as damage and cracks begin to develop within Ni coat (resulting in lower load-carrying capability). If free-standing Ni coatings were tested, it would likely fail (fracture) at a lower strain. However, since the Ni coat is adhered to the substrate, it effectively retains its stiffness albeit in a decreasing manner.
Fig. 6

Estimated stress-strain relation of the TS Ni coating obtained from the differences in the measured stress-strain results of Ni-coated and stress-relieved steel-only specimens

Nickel Coating on Copper Substrate

The stress-strain behavior of the Nickel-coated copper specimen shows a different behavior than Nickel on steel, shown in Fig. 7, with the main features being a dramatic rise in the yield point and the visible drops in stress as the coating cracks with the ductile substrate being strained, producing a serrated like stress-strain behavior at a strain of 0.005 to 0.015. The difference in these results is used to extract the stress-strain behavior of the Ni coating following the procedure explained in the previous section. However, since the estimation of residual coating stress through prior substrate-curvature measurement was not carried out with the Cu specimen, the residual stress was estimated in the following procedure. Using the linearly estimated secant modulus, the input value of residual stress in Ni coating (and corresponding stress in steel substrate) was adjusted until the secant modulus of Ni-coated steel is nearly constant in the range 0.03 to 0.13% strain. This is based on the assumption both Cu and Ni coats should behave linearly during this strain range. The estimated residual stress was −13 MPa.
Fig. 7

Estimated stress-strain relation of the TS Ni coating obtained from the differences in measured stress-strain results of Ni-coated and Cu-only specimens. Note the serrations in the post-yield-coating stress-strain behavior, indicative of coating cracking

The extracted stress-strain relation of Ni coat indicated the maximum stress of about 530 MPa at 0.46% strain, which then starts to lose its stiffness. Note without adjusting for the residual stress, the peak stress would be 540 MPa. However, because of Cu having a lower modulus and being more compliant than steel, the Ni coat carries a larger fraction of load here. Hence, the estimated stress-strain relation of TS Ni prior to reaching the maximum tensile strength should be somewhat more accurate. Although the general trend of post-peak behavior is similar to the one estimated with 1008 steel substrate, this result exhibits oscillations. This is not experimental noise, but likely to be from unstable damage and local microcracking taking place in the Ni coat. Compared with the stiffer steel substrate, the compliant Cu substrate amplifies the unstable events. More detailed discussion is given on post-peak behavior in the section 4.

Nickel Coating on 1018 Steel

Additional tests were conducted for TS Ni coat on 1018 steel (sprayed with condition B). The thickness of steel is 6.3 mm, while that of Ni coat is 0.73 mm. This steel has significantly higher yield strength (325 MPa) than that of 1008 steel as shown in Fig. 8. This steel shows almost no hardening up to 1.3% strain, bur then begins to harden to 460 MPa at about 10% strain (outside the range of plot). The average stress-strain relation of Ni-coated specimen exhibits a very similar behavior as that of 1018 steel-only specimen. In fact, the only apparent difference is the higher average stress of about 20 MPa observed during post-yielding (up to 1.5% strain).
Fig. 8

Estimated stress-strain relation of the TS Ni coating obtained from the differences in measured stress-strain results of Ni-coated and 1018 steel-only specimens

The stress-strain relation of Ni coat was extracted similarly with the estimated residual stress of −13 MPa. It is noted that this residual stress value is different from the value measured via bilayer curvature in section 3.1, although it is not surprising given that a flat beam versus rotating carousel substrate mounting and rastering pattern differences would produce a different magnitude of residual stress. The peak stress reaches about 535 MPa which is consistent with the 1008 steel and Cu substrate tests. However, due to the higher yield and post-yield stress of 1018 steel, the difference between the steel-only and Ni-coated specimens is very small, as shown in the Figure. Thus, the estimated property is less accurate than those obtained earlier. In fact, a small noise in the measured data translates to larger error and oscillation as shown in the Figure. The estimated post-yielding behavior of this Ni coat is somewhat different from the previous tests. It still exhibits softening but at a lower rate. Nevertheless, the general trend is still consistent with the other cases, and this is described more in detailed in the section 4.

Repairing of “damaged” Substrates

In order to simulate the repair of a damaged structural element, the as-received 1008 steel specimens were locally grooved within the gage-section and then re-filled with sprayed Ni coating as shown in Fig. 9. In a preliminary test, the groove depth was chosen to be 0.25 mm, and Ni coating under the condition B described earlier was sprayed. To illustrate repair of the substrates to desired load-bearing capability by the coatings, the total load versus extension (between extensometer clips) records are shown in Fig. 10. As noted in Fig. 10, the grooved specimen has a lower load-bearing capability. After Ni coating is filled in, the resulting load-displacement curve is raised. Approximately the difference in the load is carried by the Ni coat. The post-yield load (~10.4 kN) is higher than that of the same thickness steel specimen without groove (~9.6 kN). This is possible since the Ni coat has a higher yield strength, as demonstrated in section 3.5.
Fig. 9

Grooved and groove filled with the TS Ni-coated specimens. Schematic is also shown with dimensions

Fig. 10

Measured deflection from 25-mm-gage length extensometer vs. load of filled and unfilled grooved (steel-only) specimens. The results of FE simulation are also shown for comparison

In order to analyze the state of stress more closely, a 3D finite element model of the grooved and coated specimen was constructed. The mesh for nickel-steel specimen contains ~30,000 eight-noded linear brick elements. In this initial study, the steel and nickel were modeled as elastic-perfectly plastic materials. The experimentally determined Young’s moduli of 204 and 131 GPa and yield stresses of 230 and 500 MPa for the steel and Nickel, respectively, were used for the model. The softening observed for post-yielding of Ni coat (e.g., Fig. 9) was not considered. Incorporation of such a behavior would require a damage model and will be left for a future study.

The displacement controlled boundary condition at the both ends was gradually increased to simulate the loading. The computed load-displacement result is shown in Fig. 10. Here, following the actual deflection measurement by an extensometer, the extension between two surface nodes that are 25 mm apart was reported as FE deflection. The computed result matches well with the experimental measurement. For deflections greater than ~0.05 mm, the FE results exhibit higher load. This is due to the fact that softening behavior not included in the Ni-coated model. The distribution of axial stress at 0.15-mm deflection is shown in Fig. 11. The contours clearly show that higher stress is carried by the Ni coat than the steel substrate. Specimens with deeper groove (0.60 mm) repaired with Ni coat was also modeled. Although the initial behavior is consistent with the thinner coating, at about 0.4% strains, the coat begins to delaminate from substrate as shown in Fig. 12. This finite element model with thicker coat clearly shows large tensile stress (i.e., maximum principal stress) near the groove fillet which can drive the delamination. Such a phenomenon was not as obvious in the thinner coating model.
Fig. 11

Axial stress contours at deflection of 0.15 mm from FE simulation at about 0.05-mm deflection, showing higher stress in coating. A magnified section of the groove fillet is also shown

Fig. 12

Delaminated thick Ni coating. FE analysis shows the largest principal stress (tensile) near the groove fillet, which promotes the debonding

Discussion

The present study investigated a potential role of TS metallic coatings as load-supporting components. The application of dense TS coating onto steel leads to enhanced strength of the existing structures due to the added metal as well as through process induced changes to the system, as in the case of the as-received 1008 steel. To further interpret the results, it is of importance to identify the respective contributions of substrate (subjected to TS): the coating material and any synergistic effects of the two.

The question of how the surface preparation and coating application affect the parent material’s stress strain response requires critical examination. As shown in Fig. 5, the stress-strain response between the coated structures made with the stress-relieved and the as-received 1008 steels is nearly the same, although the response of the stress-relieved steel is different from that of the as-received steel. It is likely that the as-received substrates contained residual stress from manufacturing and machining, indicated by the lack of the upper and lower yield points seen in the heat-treated specimen. Nickel particle impact and latent heat during deposition, as well as heat from the torch may have contributed to alterations to the substrate steel. Thermal camera images indicate substrate temperatures to remain below 300 °C (with spray time under 10 min), which indicates full annealing accompanied with microstructural changes is not likely to occur, although some stress relief is possible. A mixture of residual stress in the as-received specimens, grit-blasting, and accumulation and relaxation during deposition from particle impact and cooling, respectively, may also induce the phenomenon of static strain aging in the substrate steel, although no change in yield point was observed in samples that were grit blasted and heated by the torch plume (no introduction of powder into the plume).

Based on several tests of repeat samples, the modulus of TS Ni coating B was estimated to 130 GPa, while its maximum strength was estimated to be about 500 MPa, which is greater than many of structural metals. The reduction of 35% in the Young’s modulus as compare to bulk Nickel is due to presence of weak interfaces (i.e., boundaries between splats) within TS Ni coating. Since the coating is 99% + dense, the modulus reduction due to porosity should be small. On the other hand, the maximum strength is comparable to the strength of bulk Ni. There are two scenarios for this high stress. The rapidly solidified metal is known to comprise of fine grains, which are known to provide higher hardness and consequently higher yield strength (Ref 30). In addition, the HVOF sprayed Ni could have finely dispersed oxides which can contribute to dispersion strengthening, although no oxide phases were detectable through x-ray diffraction measurements of Coating B. However, in this particular case, the explanation of high tensile strength lies on the “load-transfer” mechanisms of coating-substrate structure. As damage initiates at some voids and/or weak interface, their progression is prevented by the local load transfer through the substrate.

Based on the extracted stress-strain of Ni coat on various substrates, the tensile deformation of TS metallic coating on substrate can be described in three stages as shown in Fig. 13(a). In the 1st stage (strains less than ~0.2%), near-linear elastic response prevails (with E ≅ 130 GPa for Coating B). In the 2nd stage (strains between 0.2 and ~0.5%), some damage initiates and progresses. If there were no substrate to transfer load, sudden failure (at the weakest site) is likely to occur during this stage. Such an event is statistical, and the actual failure stress should depend on the size of specimen (e.g., a larger specimen is more likely to contain weaker sections and tends to have a lower failure load). Although not tested, failure stresses of free-standing TS Ni specimens would be expected to be lower. With the substrate to transfer load as schematically shown in Fig. 13(b), Ni coat can continue to carry load although at a slightly modulus (~100 GPa) in this stage. However, once the stress reaches the yield stress of bulk Ni (~500 MPa), the deformation increases rapidly, and the coating begins to fail at many locations. In the 3rd and the final stage (strains greater than ~0.5%), cracks form, and the coatings lose their stiffness or effectively soften-up as illustrated in the figure. Even with cracking, as long as the coating is still adhered to the substrate, it provides some residual strength to the overall specimen and does not fail suddenly as is the case for that without the substrate. How TS coatings soften up will probably depend on the (plastic) deformation behaviors of substrates with different softening-up behaviors of TS Ni coats on different substrates.
Fig. 13

(a) Estimated three deformation stages of the Ni coating on substrate are shown in tensile stress-strain relation. (b) Schematic of load-transfer mechanisms during the stage II

Conclusions

The present study elucidated the mechanical behavior of TS nickel coating and its capacity to carry mechanical load. Such an understanding is needed for establishing potential applications of TS metals to be used as load-bearing components. TS Ni’s deformation behavior can be described in three stages. The key mechanism is the load transfer which occurs when it is deposited on to sufficiently ductile substrate. With a non-brittle substrate, the TS coating is prevented from brittle failure at much lower loads, as it would do if it were the sole component of the specimen. With the substrate, the maximum strength of TS Ni reaches near the strength of bulk Ni. It is expected that other near-fully dense metallic coatings have similar deformation stages as introduced here. Although only tensile behaviors were examined here, the compression behavior of TS coating is expected to be different, especially at large strains. The softening behavior may not occur under compression. Since many of engineering structures are subjected to compression (e.g., bridges, buildings), investigation of TS coatings under compression is clearly needed and will be studied in the near future.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was supported through funding by the Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) program of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, managed by Dr. I. Jawed (NCHRP IDEA 155). The authors also acknowledge support from the Stony Brook’s Industrial Consortium for Thermal Spray Technology.

References

  1. 1.
    H. Herman, S. Sampath, and R. McCune, Thermal Spray: Current Status and Future Trends, MRS Bull., 2000, 25(7), p 17-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Kumar, J. Boy, R. Zatorski, and L. Stephenson, Thermal Spray and Weld Repair Alloys for the Repair of Cavitation Damage in Turbines and Pumps: A Technical Note, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2005, 14(2), p 177-182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Santa, L. Espitia, J. Blanco, S. Romo, and A. Toro, Slurry and Cavitation Erosion Resistance of Thermal Spray Coatings, Wear, 2009, 267(1), p 160-167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Thorpe and H. Richter, A Pragmatic Analysis and Comparison of HVOF Processes, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 1992, 1(2), p 161-170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.C. Dykhuizen, M.F. Smith, D.L. Gilmore, R.A. Neiser, X. Jiang, and S. Sampath, Impact of High Velocity Cold Spray Particles, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 1999, 8(4), p 559-564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Verstak and V. Baranovski, Activated Combustion HVAF Coatings for Protection Against Wear and High Temperature Corrosion, Therm. Spray Adv. Sci. Appl. Technol., 2003, 2003, p 5-8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.B. Choi, L. Li, V. Luzin, R. Neiser, T. Gnaupel-Herold, H.J. Prask, S. Sampath, and A. Gouldstone, Integrated Characterization of Cold Sprayed Aluminum Coatings, Acta Mater., 2007, 55(3), p 857-866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Kuroda, M. Watanabe, K. Kim, and H. Katanoda, Current Status and Future Prospects of Warm Spray Technology, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2011, 20(4), p 653-676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Savarimuthu, H. Taber, I. Megat, J. Shadley, E. Rybicki, W. Cornell, W. Emery, D. Somerville, and J. Nuse, Sliding Wear Behavior of Tungsten Carbide Thermal Spray Coatings for Replacement of Chromium Electroplate in Aircraft Applications, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2001, 10(3), p 502-510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Kawakita, T. Fukushima, S. Kuroda, and T. Kodama, Corrosion Behaviour of HVOF Sprayed SUS316L Stainless Steel in Seawater, Corros. Sci., 2002, 44(11), p 2561-2581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.D. Eason, J.A. Fewkes, S.C. Kennett, T.J. Eden, K. Tello, M.J. Kaufman, and M. Tiryakioğlu, On the Characterization of Bulk Copper Produced by Cold Gas Dynamic Spray Processing in as Fabricated and Annealed Conditions, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2011, 528(28), p 8174-8178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. B. Beardsley, and J. L. Sebright, Structurally Integrated Coatings for Wear and Corrosion, 2008, No. DOE/GO14037Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Weyant and S. Sampath, Engineered Thermal Spray Coatings for Bridge Repair and Reclamation, Adv. Mater. Process., 2011, 169(5), p 64-65Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Jackson, J. Rairden, J. Smith, and R. Smith, Production of Metallurgical Structures by Rapid Solidification Plasma Deposition, JOM, 1981, 33(11), p 23-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Murakami, H. Asako, T. Okamoto, and Y. Miyamoto, Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Rapidly Solidified Deposited Layers of Fe-C-Cr Alloys Produced by Low Pressure Plasma Spraying, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1990, 123(2), p 261-270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Sampath, R. Gansert, and H. Herman, Plasma-Spray Forming Ceramics and Layered Composites, JOM, 1995, 47(10), p 30-33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Tiwari, S. Sampath, B. Gudmundsson, G. Halada, C. Clayton, and H. Herman, Microstructure and Tensile Properties of L12—Type Ni-Cr-Al Alloy Prepared by Vacuum Plasma Spray Forming, Scr. Metall. Mater., 1995, 33(7), p 1159-1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Valarezo, W.B. Choi, W.G. Chi, A. Gouldstone, and S. Sampath, Process Control and Characterization of NiCr Coatings by HVOF-DJ2700 System: A Process Map Approach, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2010, 19(5), p 852-865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Kuroda and T. Clyne, The Quenching Stress in Thermally Sprayed Coatings, Thin Solid Films, 1991, 200(1), p 49-66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Dwivedi, T. Wentz, S. Sampath, and T. Nakamura, Assessing Process and Coating Reliability Through Monitoring of Process and Design Relevant Coating Properties, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2010, 19(4), p 695-712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Kuroda, T. Fukushima, and S. Kitahara, Simultaneous Measurement of Coating Thickness and Deposition Stress During Thermal Spraying, Thin Solid Films, 1988, 164, p 157-163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y.C. Tsui and T.W. Clyne, An Analytical Model for Predicting Residual Stresses in Progressively Deposited Coatings. 1. Planar Geometry, Thin Solid Films, 1997, 306(1), p 23-33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Matejicek and S. Sampath, In Situ Measurement of Residual Stresses and Elastic Moduli in Thermal Sprayed Coatings—Part 1: Apparatus and Analysis, Acta Mater., 2003, 51(3), p 863-872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Varis, T. Suhonen, A. Ghabchi, A. Valarezo, S. Sampath, X. Liu, and S.-P. Hannula, Formation Mechanisms, Structure, and Properties of HVOF-Sprayed WC-CoCr Coatings: An Approach Toward Process Maps, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2016, 23, p 1-10Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Kuroda, Y. Tashiro, H. Yumoto, S. Taira, H. Fukanuma, and S. Tobe, Peening Action and Residual Stresses in High-Velocity Oxygen Fuel Thermal Spraying of 316L Stainless Steel, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2001, 10(2), p 367-374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. Suhonen, T. Varis, S. Dosta, M. Torrell, and J. Guilemany, Residual Stress Development in Cold Sprayed Al, Cu and Ti Coatings, Acta Mater., 2013, 61(17), p 6329-6337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Matejicek, S. Sampath, D. Gilmore, and R. Neiser, In Situ Measurement of Residual Stresses and Elastic Moduli in Thermal Sprayed Coatings—Part 2: Processing Effects on Properties of Mo Coatings, Acta Mater., 2003, 51(3), p 873-885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Sampath, V. Srinivasan, A. Valarezo, A. Vaidya, and T. Streibl, Sensing, Control, and In Situ Measurement of Coating Properties: An Integrated Approach Toward Establishing Process-Property Correlations, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2009, 18(2), p 243-255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Valarezo and S. Sampath, An Integrated Assessment of Process-Microstructure-Property Relationships for Thermal-Sprayed NiCr Coatings, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 2011, 20(6), p 1244-1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Sampath and H. Herman, Rapid Solidification and Microstructure Development During Plasma Spray Deposition, J. Therm. Spray Technol., 1996, 5(4), p 445-456CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Vackel
    • 1
  • Toshio Nakamura
    • 1
  • Sanjay Sampath
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Thermal Spray ResearchStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations