| Literature DB >> 32098109 |
Xiaoben Qi1, Hailong Shang1, Bingyang Ma1, Rulin Zhang1, Leyang Guo1, Bo Su1.
Abstract
The interaction effect of micro arc oxidation (MAO) parameters on the microstructure and wear properties was investigated. The results showed that the electric current and oxidation time significantly influenced the thickness and grinding crack width of the ceramic coatings within the range of the selected parameters, and the interaction effect of the electrical parameters was not obvious. The surface morphology, cross-section morphology, and element distribution of the coatings were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). The results showed that ceramic coatings with γ-Al2O3 and α-Al2O3 formed, which enhanced the coating performance. After that, the microhardness and wear resistance were tested. Under the optimal process, the microhardness of a coating section was up to 1200 HV0.1, and the friction coefficient was just 0.3. When wear occurred, the volcanic microstructures experienced extrusion and deformation, and then peeled off under shear stress, which led to the formation of a grinding crack. The main failure modes of the micro arc oxidation coatings were abrasive wear and spalling failure.Entities:
Keywords: ceramic coating; electrical parameters; micro arc oxidation; microstructure; wear resistant
Year: 2020 PMID: 32098109 PMCID: PMC7097726 DOI: 10.3390/ma13040970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Experimental parameters of the orthogonal test.
| Level | Micro arc oxidation parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Current | (B) Power frequency | (C) Duty cycle | (D) Oxidation time (min) | |
| 1 | 5/4 | 500 | 50/10 | 30 |
| 2 | 7/4 | 800 | 50/30 | 40 |
Experimental results and range analysis of the orthogonal test.
| Sample | A | B | A × B | C | A × C | B × C | D | T | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1(5/4) | 1(500) | 1 | 1(50/10) | 1 | 1 | 1(30) | 18.1 ± 1.3 | 572 ± 10 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2(50/30) | 2 | 2 | 2(40) | 21.3 ± 1.4 | 376 ± 12 |
| 3 | 1 | 2(800) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 20.5 ± 1.6 | 519 ± 9 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 15.4 ± 1.0 | 588 ± 11 |
| 5 | 2(7/4) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 26.8 ± 1.4 | 253 ± 13 |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 23.2 ± 1.2 | 302 ± 12 |
| 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 19.4 ± 1.5 | 551 ± 8 |
| 8 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 26.5 ± 1.6 | 276 ± 8 |
| Mean1/T | 18.83 | 22.10 | 21.33 | 21.20 | 22.08 | 21.70 | 19.025 | ||
| Mean 2/T | 23.98 | 20.45 | 21.48 | 21.60 | 20.73 | 21.10 | 23.775 | ||
| Range T | 5.15 | 1.65 | 0.15 | 0.40 | 1.35 | 0.60 | 4.75 | ||
| Mean1/W | 513.75 | 375.75 | 443.75 | 473.75 | 417.25 | 422.25 | 503.25 | ||
| Mean2/W | 345.50 | 483.50 | 415.50 | 385.50 | 442.00 | 437.00 | 356.00 | ||
| Range W | 168.25 | 107.75 | 28.25 | 88.25 | 24.75 | 14.75 | 147.25 | ||
| The influence of the parameters on the coating thickness: A > D > B > A × C > B × C > C > A × B | |||||||||
| The influence of the parameters on the grinding crack width: A > D > B > C > A × B > A × C > B× C | |||||||||
Figure 1Relationship between the electrical parameters and coating thickness. MAO—micro arc oxidation.
Figure 2The change of voltage with the oxidation time.
Figure 3The surface morphology and cross section of the MAO ceramic coatings: (a) surface morphology and (b) cross section.
Figure 4XRD analysis of the ceramic coatings.
Figure 5EDS analysis of the ceramic coatings.
Figure 6SEM observation of the grinding crack morphology: (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2, (c) Sample 3, (d) Sample 4, (e) Sample 5, (f) Sample 6, (g) Sample 7, and (h) Sample 8.
Figure 7Friction coefficient and microhardness of the ceramic coatings.
Figure 8EDS analysis of the grinding crack surface.
Figure 9Relationship between the electrical parameters and grinding crack width.