Salt fog corrosion behavior of high-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray coatings compared to electrodeposited hard chromium
The corrosion behavior of several coating/substrate combinations was determined using the ASTM B117 Salt Fog Test. The coatings were electrodeposited hard chromium (EHC) and two high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal-sprayed coatings, tungsten-carbide/cobalt (WC/Co) and Tribaloy 400 (T400). The su...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surface & coatings technology 2000-08, Vol.130 (2), p.218-223 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 223 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 218 |
container_title | Surface & coatings technology |
container_volume | 130 |
creator | Natishan, P.M Lawrence, S.H Foster, R.L Lewis, J Sartwell, B.D |
description | The corrosion behavior of several coating/substrate combinations was determined using the ASTM B117 Salt Fog Test. The coatings were electrodeposited hard chromium (EHC) and two high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal-sprayed coatings, tungsten-carbide/cobalt (WC/Co) and Tribaloy 400 (T400). The substrates were 4340 steel, 7075 aluminum alloy, and PH13-8 stainless steel. On the 7075 Al alloy, a sulfamate nickel layer was deposited prior to the deposition of hard chromium. The results indicated that on the 4340 steel none of the coatings provided significant protection, with equivalent performance between the EHC and WC/Co coatings and slightly poorer performance for the T400. On the 7075 Al alloy, the EHC with sulfamate nickel exhibited excellent performance as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges of the samples. The WC/Co showed no pitting or blistering on the faces but had a significant amount of pitting along the edges. The EHC and WC/Co coatings performed well on the 13-8 stainless steel as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges. The T400 coatings had rust stains on the faces and edges but defects could not be seen with the unaided eye or at a 7× magnification. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0257-8972(00)00671-X |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_27713291</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S025789720000671X</els_id><sourcerecordid>27713291</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-3dc66887767a9744e15865fdee748acbe9a034a137643c1f5c020748a163932e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1r3DAQhkVoINs0PyGgQyntwa1k2ZJ1CiH0CwI9JIHcxEQerxVky5G0S7e_vtpsSI89adA87wzzEHLO2WfOuPxyw-pWVZ1W9UfGPjEmFa_uj8iKd0pXQjTqDVm9IifkbUqPjDGudLMif27AZzqENbUhxpBcmOkDjrB1IdIw0NGtx2qLPliXdzT83q1xroYNeppHjBN4mpYIu5KG7OZ1KsW0QMSe5kDRo80x9LiUwbn8jRB7ascYJreZ3pHjAXzCs5f3lNx9-3p79aO6_vX959XldWWFVLkSvZWy65SSCrRqGuRtJ9uhR1RNB_YBNTDRABdKNsLyobWsZvsWl0KLGsUp-XCYu8TwtMGUzeSSRe9hxrBJplaKi1rzArYH0BYRKeJglugmiDvDmdmbNs-mzV6jYcw8mzb3Jff-ZQEkC36IMFuX_oWbVrdSF-zigGE5duswmmQdzhZ7F4sn0wf3n0V_AR3alNQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>27713291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Salt fog corrosion behavior of high-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray coatings compared to electrodeposited hard chromium</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Natishan, P.M ; Lawrence, S.H ; Foster, R.L ; Lewis, J ; Sartwell, B.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Natishan, P.M ; Lawrence, S.H ; Foster, R.L ; Lewis, J ; Sartwell, B.D</creatorcontrib><description>The corrosion behavior of several coating/substrate combinations was determined using the ASTM B117 Salt Fog Test. The coatings were electrodeposited hard chromium (EHC) and two high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal-sprayed coatings, tungsten-carbide/cobalt (WC/Co) and Tribaloy 400 (T400). The substrates were 4340 steel, 7075 aluminum alloy, and PH13-8 stainless steel. On the 7075 Al alloy, a sulfamate nickel layer was deposited prior to the deposition of hard chromium. The results indicated that on the 4340 steel none of the coatings provided significant protection, with equivalent performance between the EHC and WC/Co coatings and slightly poorer performance for the T400. On the 7075 Al alloy, the EHC with sulfamate nickel exhibited excellent performance as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges of the samples. The WC/Co showed no pitting or blistering on the faces but had a significant amount of pitting along the edges. The EHC and WC/Co coatings performed well on the 13-8 stainless steel as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges. The T400 coatings had rust stains on the faces and edges but defects could not be seen with the unaided eye or at a 7× magnification.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0257-8972</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3347</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0257-8972(00)00671-X</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SCTEEJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lausanne: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Corrosion ; Corrosion tests ; Electrodeposited hard chrome ; Exact sciences and technology ; High-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray ; Metals. Metallurgy ; Salt fog corrosion ; Tungsten-carbide/cobalt</subject><ispartof>Surface & coatings technology, 2000-08, Vol.130 (2), p.218-223</ispartof><rights>2000 Elsevier Science S.A.</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-3dc66887767a9744e15865fdee748acbe9a034a137643c1f5c020748a163932e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-3dc66887767a9744e15865fdee748acbe9a034a137643c1f5c020748a163932e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S025789720000671X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1459569$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Natishan, P.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, S.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, R.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sartwell, B.D</creatorcontrib><title>Salt fog corrosion behavior of high-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray coatings compared to electrodeposited hard chromium</title><title>Surface & coatings technology</title><description>The corrosion behavior of several coating/substrate combinations was determined using the ASTM B117 Salt Fog Test. The coatings were electrodeposited hard chromium (EHC) and two high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal-sprayed coatings, tungsten-carbide/cobalt (WC/Co) and Tribaloy 400 (T400). The substrates were 4340 steel, 7075 aluminum alloy, and PH13-8 stainless steel. On the 7075 Al alloy, a sulfamate nickel layer was deposited prior to the deposition of hard chromium. The results indicated that on the 4340 steel none of the coatings provided significant protection, with equivalent performance between the EHC and WC/Co coatings and slightly poorer performance for the T400. On the 7075 Al alloy, the EHC with sulfamate nickel exhibited excellent performance as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges of the samples. The WC/Co showed no pitting or blistering on the faces but had a significant amount of pitting along the edges. The EHC and WC/Co coatings performed well on the 13-8 stainless steel as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges. The T400 coatings had rust stains on the faces and edges but defects could not be seen with the unaided eye or at a 7× magnification.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Corrosion</subject><subject>Corrosion tests</subject><subject>Electrodeposited hard chrome</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>High-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray</subject><subject>Metals. Metallurgy</subject><subject>Salt fog corrosion</subject><subject>Tungsten-carbide/cobalt</subject><issn>0257-8972</issn><issn>1879-3347</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1r3DAQhkVoINs0PyGgQyntwa1k2ZJ1CiH0CwI9JIHcxEQerxVky5G0S7e_vtpsSI89adA87wzzEHLO2WfOuPxyw-pWVZ1W9UfGPjEmFa_uj8iKd0pXQjTqDVm9IifkbUqPjDGudLMif27AZzqENbUhxpBcmOkDjrB1IdIw0NGtx2qLPliXdzT83q1xroYNeppHjBN4mpYIu5KG7OZ1KsW0QMSe5kDRo80x9LiUwbn8jRB7ascYJreZ3pHjAXzCs5f3lNx9-3p79aO6_vX959XldWWFVLkSvZWy65SSCrRqGuRtJ9uhR1RNB_YBNTDRABdKNsLyobWsZvsWl0KLGsUp-XCYu8TwtMGUzeSSRe9hxrBJplaKi1rzArYH0BYRKeJglugmiDvDmdmbNs-mzV6jYcw8mzb3Jff-ZQEkC36IMFuX_oWbVrdSF-zigGE5duswmmQdzhZ7F4sn0wf3n0V_AR3alNQ</recordid><startdate>20000821</startdate><enddate>20000821</enddate><creator>Natishan, P.M</creator><creator>Lawrence, S.H</creator><creator>Foster, R.L</creator><creator>Lewis, J</creator><creator>Sartwell, B.D</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000821</creationdate><title>Salt fog corrosion behavior of high-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray coatings compared to electrodeposited hard chromium</title><author>Natishan, P.M ; Lawrence, S.H ; Foster, R.L ; Lewis, J ; Sartwell, B.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-3dc66887767a9744e15865fdee748acbe9a034a137643c1f5c020748a163932e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Corrosion</topic><topic>Corrosion tests</topic><topic>Electrodeposited hard chrome</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>High-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray</topic><topic>Metals. Metallurgy</topic><topic>Salt fog corrosion</topic><topic>Tungsten-carbide/cobalt</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Natishan, P.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, S.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, R.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sartwell, B.D</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Surface & coatings technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Natishan, P.M</au><au>Lawrence, S.H</au><au>Foster, R.L</au><au>Lewis, J</au><au>Sartwell, B.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Salt fog corrosion behavior of high-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray coatings compared to electrodeposited hard chromium</atitle><jtitle>Surface & coatings technology</jtitle><date>2000-08-21</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>130</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>218</spage><epage>223</epage><pages>218-223</pages><issn>0257-8972</issn><eissn>1879-3347</eissn><coden>SCTEEJ</coden><abstract>The corrosion behavior of several coating/substrate combinations was determined using the ASTM B117 Salt Fog Test. The coatings were electrodeposited hard chromium (EHC) and two high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal-sprayed coatings, tungsten-carbide/cobalt (WC/Co) and Tribaloy 400 (T400). The substrates were 4340 steel, 7075 aluminum alloy, and PH13-8 stainless steel. On the 7075 Al alloy, a sulfamate nickel layer was deposited prior to the deposition of hard chromium. The results indicated that on the 4340 steel none of the coatings provided significant protection, with equivalent performance between the EHC and WC/Co coatings and slightly poorer performance for the T400. On the 7075 Al alloy, the EHC with sulfamate nickel exhibited excellent performance as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges of the samples. The WC/Co showed no pitting or blistering on the faces but had a significant amount of pitting along the edges. The EHC and WC/Co coatings performed well on the 13-8 stainless steel as no pits or blisters were noted on the faces or edges. The T400 coatings had rust stains on the faces and edges but defects could not be seen with the unaided eye or at a 7× magnification.</abstract><cop>Lausanne</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0257-8972(00)00671-X</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0257-8972 |
ispartof | Surface & coatings technology, 2000-08, Vol.130 (2), p.218-223 |
issn | 0257-8972 1879-3347 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_27713291 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Applied sciences Corrosion Corrosion tests Electrodeposited hard chrome Exact sciences and technology High-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray Metals. Metallurgy Salt fog corrosion Tungsten-carbide/cobalt |
title | Salt fog corrosion behavior of high-velocity oxygen-fuel thermal spray coatings compared to electrodeposited hard chromium |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T14%3A20%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Salt%20fog%20corrosion%20behavior%20of%20high-velocity%20oxygen-fuel%20thermal%20spray%20coatings%20compared%20to%20electrodeposited%20hard%20chromium&rft.jtitle=Surface%20&%20coatings%20technology&rft.au=Natishan,%20P.M&rft.date=2000-08-21&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=218&rft.epage=223&rft.pages=218-223&rft.issn=0257-8972&rft.eissn=1879-3347&rft.coden=SCTEEJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0257-8972(00)00671-X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E27713291%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=27713291&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S025789720000671X&rfr_iscdi=true |