MP03

Effect of Spray Parameters on Stainless Steel Arc Sprayed Coating

Reungruthai Daengmool1, Sitichai Wirojanupatump2, Sukanda Jiansirisomboon1, Apichat Sopadang3
1
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, 50200, Thailand.
2
Deparment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, 50200, Thailand
3
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, 50200, Thailand
Phone 0-5394-3376, Fax 0-5335-7512, E-mail: reungruthai@hotmail.com

Abstract interlocking mechanism, which follow by cohesion

Coating microstructures and properties are dependent on between splats. In-flight particle and splat characteristics
spray conditions in arc spraying. Characteristics of in-flight will then reflect coating microstructures and properties
particle, splat and coatings were carried out in this work. [2]. Therefore, this work was aimed to investigate the
Stainless steel wire was sprayed by arc-spray process with effect of spray parameters on in-flight particles, splat,
different spray conditions. It was found that gas pressure and coating characteristics of arc sprayed stainless steel.
had insignificant effect on the average size of in-flight 2. Experimental Procedures and Methods
particles whereas spray distance had slight influence in 2.1 Preparation and characterization of in-flight particle
which longer distance produced smaller particle size. Splats and splat
obtained from all spray conditions had flower morphology Stainless steel (316LS) wire with diameter of 1.2
with a wide range of splat size distribution. Spray distance mm was sprayed by arc spray system (MEC Arcjet 95),
and gas pressure were found to have an effect on splat size using different spray parameters as shown in Table1. In-
in which shorter distance produced larger splat size while flight particles were collected by spraying into distilled
higher pressure gave smaller splat size due to more water and splats were collected by spraying onto polished
vigorous impact of particles at higher gas pressure. Coating stainless steel substrate [3]. Morphology of in-flight
thickness tended to increased with increasing gas pressure particles and splats were revealed by optical microscope
while roughness of all coatings produced were (Olympus, BX60M). Size measurement for both in-flight
insignificantly different. Hardness and porosity of coatings particles and splats were performed by optical
depended very much on gas pressure but less dependent on microscope with 100 particles and 100 splats to evaluate
spray distance. Oxide content in the coatings were more size distribution and calculate the average size.
likely to increase with an increase of spray distance and gas 2.2 Coating preparation and characterization
pressure. Stainless steel wire was sprayed onto polished mild
Keywords: Arc-spray, Coating, Splat, Stainless steel steel substrates with different spray parameters detailed
in Table 1. Number of spray passes were kept constant
1. Introduction for all samples in order to compare coating thickness
Arc spray has been known as a quick and high spraying obtained.
rate technique to produce metallic and composite coatings. Table 1. Experimental conditions for stainless steel
Coating microstructure depends very much on spray system 316LS wire arc spraying.
and parameters employed [1]. Wire arc sprayed coating Parameters C1 C2 C3 C4
principally built up from molten droplet that propelled (so- Voltage (V) 26 26 26 26
called in-flight particles) by high compressed gas onto Spray distance (mm) 200 200 300 300
substrate. In-flight particles become splat after impact onto Air pressure (kPa) 420 520 420 520
substrate. Splats adhere to substrate principally through
 MP03
Surface roughness of the as-sprayed coatings were
measured by roughness checker (Taylor Hobson,
SURTRONIC 3+). Coatings were cross-sectioned, mounted
(a) (e)
with resin, ground with SiC papers and polished with 1 μm
alumina slurry prior to characterization. Porosity and oxide
content were evaluated by image analysis (ZIEEZ, AXIO).
Vickers microhardness measurement (Toolquip, Galileo
Microscan OD) was carried out using a load of 300 g. (b) (f)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 In-flight particle and splat characterization
Spherical in-fight particles produced by stainless steel
(c) (g)
wire arc spraying (Fig.1 a-d) were obtained from all spray
parameters. Fig.2 shows size distribution of in-flight
particles with the average size of 58, 57, 45 and 46 μm
obtained from spray condition C1, C2, C3 and C4,
respectively. It was found that air pressure had no effect on (d) (h)
in-flight particle size for both at 200 and 300 mm spray
distance. This could be due to the atomizing gas pressure at Fig.1. Morphology of in-flight particles and splats produced by
different spray parameters: (a) and (e) 200 mm/ 420 kPa, (b)
420 and 520 kPa were in the same range of atomizing
and (f) 200 mm/ 520 kPa, (c) and (g) 300 mm/ 420 kPa, (d) and
power produced. Spray distance showed slight influence on
(h) 300 mm/ 520 kPa.
particle size in which longer distance (C3, C4) tended to
70
give smaller particle size (Fig.1 c and d). Morphology of
60
0-20
splat obtained from all spray conditions was principally 50
percentage (%)

20-40
40
flower shape as shown in Fig.1 e-h. These mean fully 40-60
30
60-80
melted particles splashed onto substrate with relatively high
20
80-100
velocity. Fig. 3 shows size distribution of splats with the 10

average size of 289, 220, 254, and 182 μm obtained from

0
200mm, 420kPa 200mm, 520kPa 300mm, 420kPa 300mm, 520kPa
In-flight particle siz e(μm)
condition C1, C2, C3, and C4, respectively.
Fig. 2. Size distribution of the in-flight particles.
For the splats, both spray distance and air pressure 60-80
30
80-100
were found to have an effect on splat size. It can be seen 100-120
25
120-140
that at the same pressure, shorter spray distance (C1, C2) 140-160
20
percentage (%)

160-180
produced larger splat size (Fig.1 e and h). In addition, at the 180-200
15
200-220
same distance, higher pressure gave smaller splat size as a 220-240
10
240-260
result of molten particles vigorously splash onto substrate at 5
260-280
280-300
high pressure. 0 (μm) 300-320
320-340
200mm, 420kPa 200mm, 520kPa 300mm, 420kPa 300mm, 520kPa
340-360
splat size (μm)
360-380

Fig. 3. Size distribution of splats.

 300 13

MP03 250
12

Roughness (μm)
200
3.2 Coating characterization

Thickness (μm)
150 11
Microstructure of coatings were shown in Fig. 4.
100
All coatings had generally dense structure. Thickness of 10
50
coatings were shown in Fig. 5. It was found that at the same Thickness
Roughness
0 9
gas pressure employed, spray distance showed insignificant 200 mm,420 kPa 200 mm,520 kPa 300 mm,420 kPa 300 mm,520 kPa

effect on coating thickness. In contrast, at the same spray Spray conditions

distance and passes, higher gas pressure tended to give Fig. 5. Thickness and roughness of coatings.
higher coating thickness. This could be due to, at high 35 400

350
pressure which meant higher speed of droplets, resulted in 30

percent porosity or oxide (%)

300
more droplets reached the substrate. For the roughness as 25

250

Hardness (Hv)
20
shown in Fig. 5, different spray parameters gave roughness 200

of coatings in the range of 10-12 μm which obviously was

15
150

10
100
not different. Porosity of coatings were shown in Fig.5. At Porosity
5
Oxide 50
short spray distance (200 mm), gas pressure had no effect Hardness
0 0
200 mm,420 kPa 200 mm,520 kPa 300 mm,420 kPa 300 mm,520 kPa
on porosity of coating whereas, at longer distance (300 Spray conditions

mm) higher pressure (520 kPa) gave lower porosity by 7%.
Oxide content was likely to increase with increasing gas
pressure, especially at longer spray distance (Fig. 6). This
could be explained as longer spray distance resulted in
longer time for oxygen to react with molten droplets,
together with more oxygen surrounded from higher gas
pressure used. Hardness of coatings were found to depend
very much on gas pressure as shown in Fig. 6. Coating
hardness was increased up to 40% with increasing gas
pressure by 100 kPa. It was from the fact that denser
structure (lower porosity) could be obtained from higher
speed of the in-flight particles.
Fig. 6. Porosity, oxide and hardness of coatings.
4. Conclusions
1. Spray distance showed an influence on the average
size for both in-flight particles and splats in which the
longer distance the larger size obtained.
2. Gas pressure from the range performed in this study
had an insignificant effect on size of in-flight
particles but showed slight influence on splat size by
decreasing splat size with an increas of gas pressure.
3. Only flower-shaped splat obtained from all spray
conditoins implied that solidification of in-flight
particles occured after vigorous impact.
4. Porosity and hardness of coatings were influenced by
gas pressure rather than spray distance. Higher
hardness of coating related to smaller splat size

(b) produced by higher gas pressure.

(a)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Metal and Materials
Technology Center (MTEC) for financial support of this work.
References
(c) (d)
[1] S. Dallair. Thermal Spray-Surf. Eng. Appl. Res. (2000) 575-582.
[2] J.C. Fang, W.J. Xu and Z. Y. Zhao. J. Mater Process Tech. 164-165
Fig. 4. Optical micrographs show microstructure of coatings:
(2004) 1032-1037.
(a)200mm/ 420 kPa, (b) 200mm/ 520 kPa, (c) 300 mm/ 420 kPa,
[3] M.P. Planche, H. Liao and C. Coddet. Suf. & Coat. Technol. 182
(d) 300 mm/520 kPa. (2004) 215-226.