Page 66 - MSAM-1-2
P. 66

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing              Cold spray additive manufacturing of Cu-based materials



                         A











                        B









                        C













            Figure 12. Scanning electron microscopy micrographs and powder size distributions of (A) Cu-5CNT, (B) Cu-5CNT-10SiC, and (C) Cu-5CNT-20SiC .
                                                                                                           [45]
            (Reprinted from Ceramics International, 41(5), Pialago, E. J. T., Kwon, O. K., and Park, C. W., Cold spray deposition of mechanically alloyed ternary Cu–
            CNT–SiC composite powders, 6764 – 6775, 2015, with permission from Elsevier).
            copper coatings. The deposition efficiency decreased to   effect was not so pronounced in Cu+Al O  coating work
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                               2
            0.12 with the addition of CNT (copper 5CNT coatings).   done by Winnicki  et al. as mentioned above earlier.
            However, copper-5CNT-20AlN coatings had  slightly   However, after 18  cycles of Kesternich test in a sulfur
            better deposition efficiency than copper-5CNT-10AlN   dioxide environment, the buckling of copper-SiC coatings
            coatings. It was also reported that there were small pores   was evident. As reported, the electrolyte having the sulfate
            in copper-5CNT-10AlN and copper-10CNT-20AlN that   ions was penetrating into the coating. Furthermore, it was
            open toward the surface as compared to copper-5CNT   claimed by the author that SiC might be serving as an inert
            coatings. Furthermore, copper-5CNT-10AlN coatings   electrode, facilitating the galvanic corrosion, resulting in
            were rougher as well as porous than copper-5CNT-20AlN   the delamination of copper-SiC coatings, which is not the
            coatings.  The pore volumes and surface  roughness were   case with copper-alumina coatings. This lack of corrosion
            the least for copper-5CNT-20AlN coatings compared to   resistance also resulted in a decrease in the electrical
            the copper-5CNT-10AlN and copper coatings.         conductivity of as-sprayed copper-SiC coatings. The
                                                               reported electrical conductivity values were 49% IACS for
            4.3. Copper-silicon carbide cermet coatings        as-sprayed copper-SiC coatings and around 20% IACS for
                        [30]
            Winnicki et al.  manufactured and studied the corrosion   both cases of corrosion tests (salt spray test and Kesternich
                                                                                     [30]
            resistance of copper-SiC coatings. In their  work, after   test) for copper SiC coatings .
            18 cycles of salt spray test, the copper SiC coatings showed   Recently,  Chen  et al.   cold-sprayed  copper-SiC
                                                                                     [47]
            good  corrosion  resistance  and  the  buckling  of  coatings   coatings  along  with  pure  copper,  copper-  Al O ,  and
                                                                                                      2
                                                                                                        3
            was not so pronounced. As reported by the author, this   copper-WC coatings. The compositions made were pure
            could be because of the high amount of SiC particles in the   copper, copper-alumina (15 wt.%), copper-SiC (15 wt.%),
            coating creating a high amount of ceramic-metal interface,   and copper-WC (15 wt.%). As reported, the density of
            leading to the penetration of chloride ions in them. This   SiC·Al O , WC were 3.2 g/cm , 3.5 g/cm , and 15.63 g/cm .
                                                                                                            3
                                                                                      3
                                                                                               3
                                                                      3
                                                                    2
            Volume 1 Issue 2 (2022)                         10                    https://doi.org/10.18063/msam.v1i2.12
   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71