Effect of counter body on wear behavior of plasma-sprayed TiO2-45Cr2O3 coating.

Figures & data

Table 1. Chemical composition (wt.%) of ceramic powder [16]

Product	TiO2	Cr2O3	SiO2	Al2O3	Fe2O3	All others
Metco 111	Balance	44–46	<0.50	<0.25	<0.25	<1

Table 2. APS deposition parameters applied for the coating process

Coating powder	Coating thickness (μm)	Particle size (μm)	Arc current (A)	Ar flow (slpm)	H2 flow (slpm)	Feeder’s disc revolution (rpm)	Torch stand-off distance (mm)
TiO2-45Cr2O3 (Metco 111)	350	11–63	600	80	15	13	80

Table 3. Dry sliding wear test results of TiO₂-45Cr₂O₃ coating

Test No	Counterbody ball	Load (N)	Sliding frequency (Hz)	Stroke length (mm)	Test duration (min)	Wear volume (x10^−3 mm^3)	Specific wear rate (x10^−6 mm^3N^−1m^−1)
1	WC-Co	5	1	5	30	2,095 ± 10%	23,278
2	WC-Co	5	2	5	15	2,280 ± 8%	25,333
3	WC-Co	5	3	5	10	2,445 ± 8%	27,167
4	WC-Co	10	1	5	30	2,845 ± 6%	15,806
5	WC-Co	10	2	5	15	3,370 ± 6%	18,722
6	WC-Co	10	3	5	10	3,905 ± 6%	21,694
7	WC-Co	15	1	5	30	4,010 ± 4%	14,852
8	WC-Co	15	2	5	15	4,560 ± 4%	16,889
9	WC-Co	15	3	5	10	5,395 ± 4%	19,981
10	Al2O3	5	1	5	30	6,513 ± 3%	72,361
11	Al2O3	5	2	5	15	6,670 ± 3%	74,111
12	Al2O3	5	3	5	10	8,615 ± 3%	95,722
13	Al2O3	10	1	5	30	22,790 ± 2%	126,611
14	Al2O3	10	2	5	15	23,100 ± 2%	128,333
15	Al2O3	10	3	5	10	23,248 ± 2%	129,153
16	Al2O3	15	1	5	30	32,238 ± 1%	119,398
17	Al2O3	15	2	5	15	33,453 ± 1%	123,898
18	Al2O3	15	3	5	10	34,693 ± 1%	128,491

Table 4. Dry sliding wear test parameters

Counterbody ball	Test Rig Motion	Load (N)	Sliding Frequency (Hz)	Stroke length (mm)	Number of cycles
		5	1
WC-6 wt.%Co	Reciprocating	10	2	5	1800
Al2O3		15	3

Table 5. Mechanical properties of counter body balls used in the wear tests [17]

Counterbody ball	Hardness (HV10)	Elastic modulus E (GPa)	Fracture toughness KIC(MPa.m^1/2)	Poisson’s ratio ν
WC-6 wt.%Co	1800	650	12	0.20
Al2O3	1400	300	3.5	0.21

Figure 1. Worn track profilometer images used in calculating the wear rates. (a) 3D view (b) cross-section view (c) cross-section area (μm²)

Figure 2. Cross-section SEM image of as-sprayed TiO₂-45Cr₂O₃ coating

Figure 3. XRD patterns for TiO₂-45Cr₂O₃ composition (a) powder (b) APS-sprayed coating

Figure 4. Worn surface SEM micrographs obtained using Al₂O₃ ball under different loads a1) 5 N b1) 10 N c1) 15 N (magnification 500x); 2) represents higher magnification (2kx) for corresponding images

Figure 5. Worn surface EDS images obtained using Al₂O₃ counter body ball. (load: 15 N; sliding frequency: 3 Hz) (a) area mapping (b) line scanning

Figure 6. Worn surface SEM micrographs obtained using WC-Co ball under different loads (a) 5 N (b) 10 N c) 15 N (magnification: 500x); 1) represents higher magnification (2kx) for corresponding images

Figure 7. Worn surface EDS images obtained using WC-Co counter body ball. (load: 15N; sliding frequency: 3Hz) (a) area mapping (b) line scanning

Figure 8. COF graphs of TiO₂-45Cr₂O₃ coating under different loads and counter body balls

Figure 9. Schematic illustration of the change of wear mechanisms between the coating surface and the Al₂O₃ ball over the test time

Figure 10. Optical profilometer images of worn surface counterparts under different loads (Frequency: 3 Hz) (a) 15 N, (b) 5 N, a1) and b1) represent top views of Al₂O₃ ball; a2) and b2) corresponding counterpart top views of the coating; a3) and b3) cross-section views of worn track

Figure 11. Worn surface images of TiO₂-45Cr₂O₃ coating under different loads and counter body balls (a) Al₂O₃ ball (b) WC-Co ball

Figure 12. Mean values of the wear results of TiO₂-45Cr₂O₃ coating under different loads and counter body balls (frequency: 3 Hz) (a) wear volume loss (b) specific wear rate

Figure 13. Worn surface morphologies taken after the wear tests carried out with Al₂O₃ ball at different sliding speeds and loads (magnification: 500x, f: reciprocating frequency)

Figure 14. Worn surface morphologies taken after the wear tests carried out with WC-Co ball at different sliding speeds and loads (magnification: 1000x, f: reciprocating frequency)

Figure 15. Mean COF value vs. sliding speed (reciprocating frequency) under different loads and counter body balls (a) WC-Co ball (b) Al₂O₃ ball

Figure 16. Variation of wear volume loss according to sliding speed and load with different counter body balls (a) WC-Co ball (b) Al₂O₃ ball

Oerlikon metco thermal spray materials guide, issue. April 2017.

 Google Scholar

Küçük Y. Effect of counter body on the dry sliding wear performance of plasma-sprayed calcia-stabilized zirconia coating. Int J Refract Metals Hard Mater. 2020;92:105284.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar