Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270

www.elsevier.com/locate/actamat

Residual stress and thermo-mechanical properties of cold spray

metal coatings
V. Luzin a,⇑, K. Spencer b,c, M.-X. Zhang b,c
a
The Bragg Institute, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Locked Bag 2001, Kirrawee DC, NSW 2232, Australia
b
Division of Materials, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
c
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals, Australia

Received 19 May 2010; received in revised form 25 October 2010; accepted 27 October 2010
Available online 22 November 2010

Abstract

The residual stress profiles in Cu and Al coatings cold sprayed using kinetic metallization have been studied using neutron diffraction.
To interpret results and to describe them quantitatively, the measured profiles were fit to Tsui and Clyne’s progressive coating deposition
model, which demonstrated that the residual stresses are largely due to kinetic and not thermal effects. The residual stress state of the
coatings was found to depend mainly on the deformation behaviour and properties of the coating material, and the kinetic parameters
of the cold spray process. Young’s modulus and impact strain were measured and used along with published material data for Cu and Al
to approximate the residual stresses, using a model developed for shot peening. The properties of the Cu coatings such as Young’s mod-
ulus and porosity were found to be closer to their bulk values than in the case of the Al coatings, and this was related to the amount of
particle deformation on impact.
Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Acta Materialia Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cold spray; Residual stress; Neutron diffraction

1. Introduction it is suitable for depositing thermally sensitive materials,

Cold spray [1] is a rapidly developing technology for
depositing materials in the solid state. In this process the
feedstock material, which should have a metallic powder
as the principal component, is injected into a gas stream
and accelerated to speeds from 500 to 1000 m s1 and is
impacted onto a metallic substrate. If the powder reaches
a critical velocity defined by the material properties and
process conditions, then metallurgical bonding is obtained
and the properties of the deposit approach those of the
equivalent bulk material.
The primary application of cold spray coatings is for the
surface enhancement of metals to improve properties such
as wear and corrosion resistance, electrical/thermal con-
ductivity, etc. Due to the low temperature of the process
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9717 7262; fax: +61 2 9717 3606.
E-mail address: vladimir.luzin@ansto.gov.au (V. Luzin).
and little or no oxidation is thought to occur during the
spray process. The low temperature also makes this process
suitable for coatings on light metal substrates such as mag-
nesium alloys. In all such applications coating integrity is
important, which may be loosely defined as the quality of
bonding between particles within the coating, and between
the coating and the substrate. Coating integrity may be
influenced by the residual stresses present in the coating,
and in the case of thermal spray coatings residual stresses
have been shown to lead to peeling and delamination of
the coating [2]. Among other factors, understanding, pre-
diction and control of internal stress accumulation can
contribute to improved coating performance. To date there
is a limited amount of data detailing the residual stresses in
cold spray coatings [3,4]. Also, there have been no attempts
to interpret the measured values based on the kinetics of
the spray process and material properties other than
straightforward finite element calculations.

1359-6454/$36.00 Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Acta Materialia Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2010.10.058
1260 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
A distinct feature of the cold spray process is the com-
pressive residual stress that arises during the deposition
process. A state of compressive residual stress on the sur-
face is generally thought to be beneficial for fatigue resis-
tance, and several surface treatment processes are
designed to produce this state of stress such as shot peen-
ing, laser shock peening, low plasticity burnishing, ultra-
sonic impact treatment, etc. In all of these methods the
compressive stress is produced through plastic deformation
of the surface region. In a similar manner, the cold spray
process induces compressive stress by high speed impact
of the sprayed particles on the surface, causing a peening
effect. In Ref. [4] the role of the particle kinetic energy in
the accumulation of residual stress was studied, by compar-
ing the internal stress in coatings produced by “high ther-
mal impact” spray processes such as plasma spray to
those produced by “high kinetic impact” spray processes
such as cold spray or the high-velocity oxy-fuel process.
As far as experimental studies are concerned, several
experimental techniques have been used to study residual
stress in coatings and films produced by very different tech-
niques and methods. Historically, the curvature measure-
ment technique has been employed first for studying
stress in the electrolytically deposited thin metallic films
[5] and it was a major stress measurement technique in
coatings for the following decades [6]. In its original formu-
lation, the Stoney formula, the method works well for thin
films; for thicker coatings some significant corrections are
required [7]. The modern versions of this technique are still
in use and known as the continuous curvature measure-
ment [8] or in situ curvature measurement [9–12] and allow
even through-thickness stress profile reconstruction but
with some experimental and numerical difficulties. The
main drawbacks of the method are apparent – it is impos-
sible to retrace stresses in the samples with no recorded
in situ thermal/displacement history, and it works only
for samples of certain geometry and design. A group of
material removal techniques, which includes the layer
removal method [2], slitting method, hole drilling [13]
and some other variations, can overcome these problems
but at the price of sample destruction. Although these
methods have been applied successfully, extraction of the
residual stress might require considerable numerical com-
putations, especially for the samples of complex geometry,
and accuracy might suffer. The neutron diffraction tech-
nique is non-destructive and the most direct way of stress
determination in coatings thicker than 0.5 mm. Because
of their penetration power, neutrons can be used for stress
measurements in relatively thick deposits (cm) and/or with
fine resolution (better than 0.5 mm). Through-thickness
stress profiles have been experimentally determined with
success for different types of coatings nature (metals,
ceramics and composites) produced by different spraying
techniques [14,15]. Unlike the two mechanical methods
described above, the neutron diffraction technique is phase
sensitive and stresses can be assessed for each phase inde-
pendently [16]. In addition, no special sample/surface prep-
aration is required. Although laboratory X-rays do not
have the penetration power of neutrons and are not suited
for stress profiling, they are indispensable for stress mea-
surements on the surface of coatings and films [17] or the
stress measurements in individual splats [18], or they can
be adapted for the through-depth stress profiling in lm-
thin films [19].
In the present work we present the results of residual
stress measurements obtained by using all discussed advan-
tages of the neutron diffraction with the focus on stress
profiling. Cold spray coatings produced using different
coating/substrate material combinations have been stud-
ied. Through-thickness stress profiles are fit to the progres-
sive deposition model of Tsui and Clyne [20–22], which has
been used to assess the relative importance of thermal vs.
kinetic effects in the accumulation of residual stresses dur-
ing the cold spray process. Observations of the coating
microstructure are used to interpret the measured stresses,
which may be qualitatively predicted using an analogy to
shot peening. This is done using a physically based model
incorporating readily available material parameters.
2. Experimental procedures and material characterization
2.1. Materials
Copper and aluminium were selected as coating and
substrate materials. Different combinations of the substrate
and coating materials enabled an analysis of the different
factors influencing the residual stress state. Four samples
in total were produced forming a 2  2 matrix, two coating
materials vs. two substrate materials, Al/Al, Al/Cu, Cu/Cu
and Cu/Al.
The substrate materials used were electrical grade pure
copper sheet and 5xxx Al–Mg alloy sheet, chosen because
their grain size of 20–30 lm enables reasonable counting
times for the neutron diffraction stress measurements.
The thickness of the Cu and Al substrates was 3.1 mm
and 2.6 mm respectively. Before spraying they were cut into
square coupons 30  30 mm, sized to obtain a state of bal-
anced biaxial plane stress in the central part. Prior to spray-
ing the substrate surface was ground using 1200 grit SiC
paper and rinsed with ethanol.
The feedstock powders used were commercially pure
copper and aluminium powders. The particle size for each
material was measured using a laser diffraction particle
size analyser, with the volume-weighted average given in
Table 1. Both powders were produced using an atomiza-
tion process, and are almost perfectly spherical in shape.
2.2. Spraying procedure
The cold spray coatings were produced using a kinetic
metallization (KM) system, which is a commercially avail-
able cold spray variant (Inovati, Santa Barbara, CA,
USA). Whereas a conventional cold spray system uses a
convergent–divergent nozzle to accelerate the process gas
 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
Table 1
Process parameters used for cold spray experiments.
Powder Average particle size (lm) Driving pressure (kPa)
material
Al 15 620
Cu 6 620
to supersonic speeds between Mach 1 and Mach 3 [23], KM
uses a convergent barrel nozzle to accelerate the process
gas to Mach 1 [24]. In order to increase the impact veloc-
ity, helium was used as the process gas, as the speed of
sound in helium is almost three times that in nitrogen. Fur-
thermore, we have used a smaller particle size than is typ-
ical in supersonic cold spray systems. Therefore, in this
work the particle exit velocities are similar to those attained
in a conventional supersonic cold spray system. The pro-
cess conditions and resultant particle velocities are detailed
in the next section. Useful comparisons of convergent vs.
convergent–divergent nozzles in cold spray are given in
Refs. [25,26].
2.3. Spraying conditions
All coatings were sprayed using a temperature optimized
for maximum deposition efficiency while avoiding fouling
of the nozzle. The process parameters used are as follows.
The nozzle standoff distance from the substrate was 12 mm
and the nozzle traverse speed was 50 mm s1. The nozzle
temperature was measured in the mixing chamber just
upstream of the nozzle throat (Table 1). This temperature
is used to estimate the exit velocity of the particles from
the nozzle using a one-dimensional isentropic model based
on that of Dykhuizen and Smith [27]. In a simple conver-
gent barrel nozzle the gas speed through the barrel is less
than Mach 1 due to friction effects. In the KM system
the barrel of the nozzle has a slight divergence to compen-
sate for friction [28]; therefore, the velocity along the barrel
is Mach 1, which simplifies calculation of particle speed.
The gas properties are calculated assuming ideal gas behav-
iour, and the average particle size is used. The particle drag
coefficient is calculated using the correlation of Henderson
[29], based on the change in particle Reynolds number as it
accelerates through the nozzle. The process parameters are
summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the nozzle
temperature is in fact the stagnation temperature of the
mixed gas/particle stream just prior to being accelerated
through the nozzle throat.
The resultant thickness of the deposited coatings was
3 mm to enable through-thickness stress measurements
using a reasonable diffraction volume. It is typical that
thick cold spray coatings have an uneven surface, as shown
in Fig. 1. A pattern appears with streak-like features in the
direction of nozzle movement. Quantitatively, roughness
has been estimated through maximum profile height,
Rt = 1.0 mm, and average Ra = 0.2 mm. The spatial period
of the ripples is 1 mm and this conforms to the 0.5 mm step
1261
Nozzle temperature (°C) Powder feed Estimated particle
rate (g min1) exit velocity (m s1)
140 15 585
200 15 645
between horizontal nozzle movement lines of the spray
nozzle. We assume that this is due to dynamic effects of
the spraying process. At first, small surface irregularities
form because of non-uniformities in flux density across
the stream of particles. As deposition progresses, these ini-
tial undulations are amplified: hills become bigger since
they are exposed to more particle flux, but the valleys do
not fill in because they are shadowed by hills, and they
become relatively deeper. This defect is observed only in
very thick coatings; in the present case they were made
thick specifically to enable easier neutron stress measure-
ments. Usually in practical applications the coating thick-
ness is less then 0.5 mm, and this pronounced pattern is
not developed.
2.4. Neutron powder diffraction measurements
Neutron powder diffraction was used to measure the
oxide volume fraction of the sprayed coatings, to compare
it against the feedstock powder, and to confirm the chem-
ical purity of the feedstock powders. Neutron diffraction
was chosen over X-ray diffraction because the latter
method is surface quality sensitive and can bias the result
toward a higher oxide content. Also, the oxide content of
the coating surface may be different from that of the coat-
ing bulk, and neutron diffraction enables a better average
measurement. Neutron diffraction data were collected
using a wavelength of 1.622 Å from the high resolution
powder diffractometer ECHIDNA at the ANSTO OPAL
Fig. 1. General appearance of the surface of the Al/Cu cold sprayed
sample. Inset: the top coating surface profile obtained by digitizing of the
sample cross-section.
1262 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
research reactor [30]. The phase volume fraction was deter-
mined using the GSAS Rietveld refinement software [31]
with the EXPGUI front-end [32] for the Al and Cu feed-
stock powders and corresponding coatings.
2.5. Neutron diffraction stress measurements
The bulk of the neutron diffraction residual stresses
measurements have been carried out at the NIST Center
for Neutron Research using the residual stress diffractom-
eter BT8 [33]. A gauge volume 0.5  0.5  18 mm was cho-
sen as a result of the fine balance between different
competing factors: (i) it should be small enough to provide
necessary through-thickness resolution and avoid edge
effects; (ii) at the same time it should be large enough to
produce a count rate sufficiently high such that experimen-
tally determined strains can be measured with statistical
uncertainty better than 5  105, within a reasonable mea-
surement time. Since Cu is a stronger scatterer than Al the
measurement time was varied correspondingly: 10 min per
measurement point for Cu and 90 min for Al.
The measurements were done in several different
through-thickness locations to cover the entire sample thick-
ness, forming a line profile with 0.3 mm spacing between
points. In order to optimize localization of the gauge vol-
ume, the take-off angle 2hM of the Si (400) monochromator
was varied to maintain a 90° geometry (2hB  90°). The
instrument settings are summarized in Table 2.
For each measurement point, d-spacings (diffraction
peak positions) were measured in the two principle direc-
tions, normal to the surface and in-plane. From the mea-
sured d-spacings in-plane stresses were calculated using
the assumption of a balanced biaxial plane stress state fol-
lowing the procedure described in Ref. [3]. The diffraction
elastic constants used for stress calculation were computed
using the self-consistent method of Kröner [34], and are
reported in Table 2.
To separate stresses originating from the cold spray pro-
cess from pre-existing stresses (e.g. residual stress from cold
rolling of the substrate) neutron stress measurements were
done on the uncoated substrate. They were treated as sep-
arate samples and measured using the same procedure.
One sample, a Cu coating on an Al substrate, was mea-
sured on a different neutron diffractometer – the KOWARI
strain scanner at the ANSTO OPAL research reactor. The
measurement protocol was kept as close as possible to what
is described above with only one major difference: for mea-
surements in the copper coating the Cu (222) reflection was
used. Use of the appropriate diffraction elastic constants,
S1 = 1.94 and ½S2 = 8.23 TPa1, however, should ensure
there is no practical difference.
Table 2
Instrument setting and material constants for the measured reflections.
d (Å) 2hM (°) k (Å)
Cu (311) 1.10 70.0 1.55
Al (311) 1.22 79.8 1.72
2.6. Thermo-mechanical properties
The planar geometry of the coatings and their small
thickness make it difficult to obtain specimens large enough
for direct mechanical tests. However, two methods were
found to be appropriate to measure the Young’s modulus
of the coatings:
(i) Microindentation tests were performed on the pol-
ished cross-section of the specimens using a UMIS
200 universal material tester together with IBIS soft-
ware to analyse the indentation data. The Bercovich
test was employed in load control mode using a max-
imum load of 250 mN in the case of Al and 100 mN
for Cu. The Young’s modulus was extracted by ana-
lysing indentation curves (unloading–displacement).
Indents were made in several different locations to
obtain an average value and a standard deviation.
(ii) The Young’s modulus was also measured in rectan-
gular specimens (27  5  2 mm for Cu and
32  5  2 mm for Al) using the impulse excitation
technique (IET) according to the ASTM standard
E1876. The accuracy of this method is generally high
and limited in the present case by the parallelism of
the specimen faces and the uncertainty of the smallest
dimension. It was estimated that the accuracy was
better than 0.5%.
The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) was mea-
sured using a dilatometer. Samples were measured in the
temperature rage of 22–300 °C in steps of 0.5 °C with a
heating ramp rate of 5 °C min1. The CTE behaviour
above 180 °C was the most stable, so it was used to judge
the closeness of the CTE of the cold spray coatings to
the equivalent bulk value.
The rectangular specimens used to measure Young’s
modulus in (ii) were also used to calculate coating porosity
using Archimedes’ method. Bulk specimens of Cu and Al
were used to assess the accuracy of the method, and the
results are within 1% of published values.
3. Numerical modelling of the residual stress
The basis of our analysis of residual stress accumulation
is according to Tsui and Clyne’s progressive coating depo-
sition model [20]. A given spraying process such as cold or
thermal spray is complex; however, it has been demon-
strated that the model is applicable to the prediction of
the stress distribution in coatings produced by different
techniques under various spray conditions [4]. Thus, we
can consider that the progressive deposition model is ade-
2hB S1 (TPa1) ½S2 (TPa1) t (min)
89.7° 3.38 12.58 10
89.5° 5.16 19.57 90
 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
quate to physical process and it adequately describes the
elastic stress state in coatings unless stress development
during the deposition process reaches yield conditions. In
this case, plastic effects intervene and should be addressed
in a more general elasto-plastic model, see e.g. Ref. [35].
Although the model was originally developed to model
the residual stress accumulation in thermal spray coatings,
it has been found to work equally well for cold spray coat-
ings in the present work. Similar to the model applications
used before in the case of the thermal spray for separation
of quenching stress from thermal stress [12,15], in our study
we use the same model to separate the peening stress from
the thermal stress.
In the model, two components of the spray process are
accounted for separately using two different fitting
parameters:
(i) The coating deposition process is considered as the
formation of a new, nth layer on the top of the previ-
ously formed system comprising the substrate plus all
previously deposited coating layers. This new layer is
formed with a characteristic deposition stress rd. For
thermal spray coatings rd is treated as a tensile
“quench” stress originating from shrinkage of a solid-
ifying splat on the surface. For cold spray coatings
this stress is compressive, characteristic of a peening
process.
(ii) The coating process occurs at or above room tempera-
ture. If after coating deposition the substrate + coat-
ing system is cooled to room temperature, then a
thermal misfit term De is needed to account for thermal
stresses arising from a difference in thermal expansion
coefficients of the substrate and coating materials,
De = DaDT. The significance of this term depends on
the cooling range and difference in thermal expansion
coefficients of the coating and substrate materials.
Determination of the two physical parameters of the
model can be made by studying the coating formation pro-
cess on the microscopic scale. In the present case it was
found more practical to obtain rd and De from the experi-
Fig. 2. Secondary electron micrographs of the cross-section of: (a) Cu coating on a Cu substrate and (b) Al coating on an Al substrate.
1263
mentally measured stress profiles; this serves to validate the
microscopic modelling approach. The fitting process
enables the relative significance of rd and De to be deter-
mined for a given coating, and also to evaluate the signifi-
cance of these terms for different materials. This can be
used to assess the importance of the thermal vs. kinetic
components of the coating process, and the sensitivity of
a given system to accumulating residual stress.
4. Results
4.1. Microstructure
Secondary electron micrographs of a Cu coating on a
Cu substrate and an Al coating (removed from a Cu sub-
strate for etching) are shown in Fig. 2. Macroscopically,
both coatings are uniform and free of large voids or cracks.
At higher magnification some details of the microstructure
are clear: while there is some deformation of the particles
from their original spherical shape, the overall structure
is still granular, as compared to the typical splat-like micro-
structure of thermal spray coatings. There was virtually no
observable porosity in the Cu coatings, and a small amount
of porosity in the Al coatings.
The oxide content of the feedstock powders and coating
materials is given in Table 3, as measured by neutron pow-
der diffraction. The oxide content of the Al powder and
coating was below the resolution of the measurement,
0.5 vol.%.
Table 4 gives the porosity of the Cu and Al coatings esti-
mated using Archimedes’ method. The oxide content of the
coatings in Table 3 was used to correct the measurement,
and measurements of the substrate materials were done
Table 3
Results of powder diffraction phase analysis for different coating
materials.
Oxide species Oxide content (vol.%)
Cu powder vs. coating Cu2O 5 ± 0.7 vs. 4 ± 0.7
Al powder vs. coating Al2O3 <0.5 vs.<0.5
1264 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
Table 4
Porosity measurements for the cold spray coatings.
q (g/cm3) qref (g/cm3)
Cu substrate 8.951 8.954 (Cu 100%)
Cu coating 8.670 8.806 (Cu 95% + Cu2O 5%)
Al coating 2.528 2.700 (Al 100%)
to verify the accuracy of the technique. Higher porosity in
the Al coatings was expected because of the use of coarser
powder (15 lm) than for the Cu coatings (6 lm). Although
the use of a mixture of powders or finer powder can reduce
the porosity of Al coatings to the level of 1–2%, the finer
powders agglomerate and do not feed as consistently.
4.2. Thermo-mechanical properties
The Young’s modulus measurements of the cold spray
coatings are given in Table 5. They are closer to those of
a bulk material than is found in the case thermal spray
coatings. For example, a plasma sprayed Cu coating has
a typical Young’s modulus of 30–40 GPa, while it is
100 GPa in the cold spray coatings examined here. In
thermal spray coatings the deviation of mechanical proper-
ties from those of a bulk material is mainly caused by
imperfections in interparticle bonding, oxidation of the
splat surface and, to a lesser extent, coating porosity. While
the indentation test and impulse excitation test give similar
modulus values for the Cu coating, the two techniques give
significantly different modulus values for the Al coating.
Any calculations in the present work requiring Young’s
modulus were done using the values obtained from the
impulse excitation measurements, as this is generally con-
sidered the most accurate measurement of elastic constants.
The difficulty of Young’s modulus measurements in coat-
ings by indentation technique is known but with certain
precautions can be successfully employed [36–38]. Issues
such as the presence of a splat-like microstructure, the pres-
ence of porosity as well as surface preparation can impact
results. The better agreement between results obtained by
indentation and IET in the Cu coatings is in accord with
the fact that the Cu coating is denser than the Al coatings,
so for the Cu coatings porosity had a smaller influence on
the measurements. Thus, the modulus value measured by
the indentation technique can be more distorted in the case
of the Al coatings and larger measurement errors are
observed, as shown in Table 5.
The thermal expansion coefficient was measured for
both the coatings and the substrate material and a compar-
Table 5
Experimental values of the thermal and mechanical properties for coating materials.
Young’s modulus (GPa)
Indentation test Impulse excitation technique
Cu coating 98 ± 10 104.0 ± 0.5
Al coating 74 ± 20 49.4 ± 0.2
a
This value was also measured by IET on the specimen taken from the Cu substrate.
30
Vol.% 25 Al
CTE [x10 -6 1/K]
99.96 ± 0.3
98.5 ± 0.5 20
93.6 ± 0.6
Cu
15
10
200 250 300
temperature,°C
Fig. 3. Comparison of the temperature dependence of CTE of the sprayed
material (solid line) and bulk value (dashed line).
ison of expansion behaviour is given in Fig. 3. There is no
significant difference between the coating and substrate
behaviour. The thermal expansion coefficient values
obtained are summarized in Table 5, and are equivalent
to those of a bulk material.
4.3. Residual stress
The in-plane residual stress profiles determined by neu-
tron diffraction are shown in Fig. 4a–d. Both Cu coatings
show a significant compressive residual stress at the surface
50–80 MPa, while the surface residual stress of the Al
coatings is less than 10 MPa. The overall stress profile of
the two Cu coatings is similar, regardless of the substrate
material, and the same can be said of the Al coatings.
Some internal stress was measured in the freestanding Al
substrate before the cold spray coating was applied, and this
was subtracted to isolate stresses induced by the cold spray
process. There was no significant residual stress in the free-
standing Cu substrate. The error bars in Fig. 4 comprise
both neutron counting statistical error and positioning
error, and each of these gives approximately equal contribu-
tions to the total uncertainty. The achieved uncertainties of
5–10 MPa are typical of this type of experiment. In the
points close to the free surface or the coating/substrate inter-
face the measured stress values can be biased due to the edge
effect in neutron stress measurements, and it is difficult to
eliminate all of the error from this effect in the measure-
ments. With these issues in mind, the stress balance condi-
tion is fulfilled for the experimental data: the volume
integral of the residual stress adds to zero, which gives added
confidence regarding the accuracy of the stress profiles.
The stress profiles were used as an input to fit experi-
mental data with the model of Tsui and Clyne as described
CTE (106 K1)
Bulk material value Measured value Bulk material value
124a 17 17
71 22 22
 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270 1265

(a) 100 (b) 100

80 80
60 60
40 40

stress,MPa
stress,MPa
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
Cu substrate Cu coating Al substrate Cu coating
-100 -100
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1
through-thickness position,mm through-thickness position,mm

(c) 60 (d) 60

40 40
stress,MPa

stress,MPa
20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
Cu substrate Al coating Al substrate Al coating
-60 -60
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
through-thickness position,mm through-thickness position,mm

Fig. 4. Measurement (symbols) and model fit (solid lines) of the through thickness in-plane stress distributions for (a) Cu/Cu sample, (b) Cu/Al sample, (c)
Al/Cu sample and (d) Al/Al sample.

previously, using the fitting parameters rd and De, which lated peening stress from successive deposited layers that
are characteristics of the deposition stress and thermal mis- is largely responsible for the residual stress. The evidently
match respectively. All other parameters such as coating higher values of rd in the case of the Cu coatings suggest
thickness and elastic modulus were taken from measured the amount of plasticity on impact is more significant than
values. The fitting parameters are given in Table 6 and in the Al coatings, leading in part to higher residual stress
the corresponding stress profiles are shown in Fig. 4a–d accumulation.
as solid lines. The fitted stress profiles are almost entirely The thermal mismatch term De has a minimal effect on
determined by rd, with De having relatively little effect: the fitted residual stress profiles. This is due to the small
the small shift resulting from setting De to zero is less than macroscopic variation in temperature during the spray pro-
the experimental error (5 MPa) in the neutron diffraction cess of 100 °C, which is discussed in Appendix A (ii.2)
stress measurements. and this makes the thermal mismatch term De = DaDT
almost negligible. In the case of high-velocity oxy-fuel coat-
5. Discussion ings both impact and thermal effects play a role in the accu-
mulation of residual stresses. In contrast, the residual stress
5.1. Interpretation of the result in terms of empirical model accumulation in the cold spray coatings examined here is
parameters primarily a result of plastic deformation resulting from
particle impact, and thermal effects are relatively minor.
The fitted stress profiles in Fig. 4 are almost entirely Macroscopically, the residual deposition stress in the
shaped by rd. Its negative sign (compression) is indicative coatings rd is the net result of the stress resulting from
of “peening” on impact and the evidence of a certain degree shock loading, then unloading with, in general, reverse
of plastic strain of the sprayed material. It is the accumu- yielding and then possible stress relief due to recovery
and relaxation processes. The microscopic interpretation
Table 6 of rd (in terms of micromechanics, on the scale of a parti-
Fitting parameters of the model and the quality of fit of the experimental cle) is less straightforward and requires the knowledge of
data. many details of the deposition process such as non-uniform
Coating/substrate rd ± error (MPa) De ± error (l strain) v2 local deformation and recrystallization, that can be studied
Cu/Cu 41 ± 12 150 ± 200 2.0 by some experimental methods such as EBSD [39] and
Cu/Al 85 ± 20 140 ± 200 2.4 TEM [40], multiple modes of stress relaxation, etc. (see
Al/Cu 9 ± 2 140 ± 200 0.8 the Appendix A for further discussion). Such complexity
Al/Al 9 ± 2 3 ± 200 2.2
in the cold spray process makes it attractive to use finite
1266 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
element methods for numerical simulation [41,42], rather
then analytical models. The task of establishing an accurate
link between macroscopically available experimental data
and phenomena at the microscopic level may ultimately
require the use of statistically meaningful averaging proce-
dures difficult for practical applications. In the next section
an intermediate approach is described. In an attempt to
establish a link between the micro- and macro-scales we
discuss the importance of some factors and the relative
insignificance of others based on available experimental
data and easily attainable estimates.
5.2. Interpretation of the result in terms of physical process
parameters
While the fit of Tsui and Clyne’s empirical model to the
residual stress data in Fig. 4 demonstrates the relative
importance of kinetic aspects of the cold spray processes
on residual stress formation and provides quantitative
measure of the accumulative result, it would be useful to
understand why the residual stress is so much larger in
the Cu coatings, namely, why rd is larger in Cu than in
Al. Given the complexity of the cold spray process a finite
element simulation is best able to capture details the
mechanics of residual stress accumulation. Several publica-
tions detail the use of finite element simulation to calculate
the temperature and stress inside individual impacting par-
ticles [42,43], or a small number of successive impacting
particles [44,45], in order to gain an understanding of the
cold spray bonding process. Surprisingly there has been
no attempt to extract residual stress data from any of these
simulations, even though they incorporate the details of
impact pressure, stress accumulation using a rate sensitive
material model, and elastic unloading, e.g. Ref. [46]. In
principle it should be possible to calculate at least the aver-
age residual stress in the coating and substrate respectively.
While a finite element simulation should be able to pre-
dict residual stresses with reasonable accuracy, it is often dif-
ficult to extract simple predictive relationships from the
results. In the present work a physically based approach will
be used instead, incorporating data that are either measured
or easily estimated. An analogy of the cold spray process to a
Taylor impact test [47] will be used to estimate some process
parameters, combined with a model of residual stress accu-
mulation in the shot peening process, since this process has
many similarities to cold spray.
The relevant process parameters are given in Table 7.
The particle impact velocity was calculated as described
in Section 2.3. The impact strain was measured metallo-
Table 7
Estimated impact parameters based on linear momentum transfer on impact.
Material Density Particle Impact speed True impact
(kg m3) size (lm) (m s1) strain
Al 2700 15 585 0.6
Cu 8930 6 645 0.95
graphically by fitting the deformed particles to an oblate
ellipsoid, which is the closest regular shape with a reason-
able fit. The deformation from a sphere to an ellipsoid of
a given aspect ratio gives the average impact strain.
Although there is generally strain localization at the parti-
cle boundaries, for the purpose of estimating the average
residual stress it is the macroscopic particle strain that is
of interest, since strain localization occurs over a relatively
small volume of the particle. The final deformed state of
the particles in a cold spray coating is the result not just
of the initial particle impact, but also of successive particle
impacts as the coating is built up. This is a similar situation
to shot peening, where the substrate material is subject to
multiple impacts. Using the calculated particle velocity
and impact strain, the impact duration can be estimated
by assuming the impacting particle decelerates linearly, as
is done with the analysis of a Taylor impact test [47]. This
also gives the average strain rate. The average impact pres-
sure is calculated based on momentum transfer over the
calculated impact time, as done in Ref. [48].
Of interest are the short impact duration, 10–
30  109 s, and the high average strain rate of 107 s1
(local strain rates can be even higher). The other interesting
point is that the impact strain is significantly larger in the
Cu coating than in the Al coating. Papyrin et al. have
observed that the impact strain in cold spray coatings of
different materials can be fit empirically to the ratio of
the kinetic impact energy to the dynamic flow stress [49],
and this makes sense when considering dissipation of the
impact energy through plastic deformation. This ratio is
higher in the case of Cu, so a larger impact strain is
expected.
The maximum impact pressure can be roughly estimated
based on consideration of momentum transfer, by assum-
ing impact of a moving plate against a fixed, stationary
plate of the same material and size [47]. For the impact
speeds in Table 7 this gives maximum impact pressures of
12.7 GPa and 4.5 GPa for Cu and Al respectively, well
beyond the Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL) for both materi-
als, of 0.6 GPa. As a result, the impact will propagate
through the material in the form of a plastic shock wave.
It is important to note that this calculation assumes a pla-
nar geometry. Since the impacting particle is roughly
spherical during the impact process, attenuation of the
plastic shock wave will occur as it traverses the particle
[49]. As a result the pressure will rapidly drop and it is unli-
kely that the entire particle will deform plastically. How-
ever, once a given particle (now incorporated into the
coating) is impacted by another particle, complete plastic
Impact Average strain Average impact Maximum impact shock
duration (s) rate (s1) pressure (MPa) pressure (MPa)
23  109 2.7  107 680 4520
11  109 7.5  107 2020 12,730
 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
deformation is likely to result. The average impact pressure
should better incorporate these effects, and the magnitude
of the average impact pressure for Al and Cu in Table 7
are very close to the interface pressures calculated by Gru-
jicic et al. for Al and Cu using a numerical simulation [50].
The deformation in cold spray involves very high aver-
age strain rates on the order of 107–108 s1, and local strain
rates as high as 109 s1 [49]. It is interesting to compare the
strain rate in cold spray to other plastic deformation pro-
cesses such as low plasticity burnishing (101 s1), deep cold
rolling (102 s1), shot peening (104 s1), laser shock peening
(106 s1), and combustion spray (1010 s1). In spite of a
variation in strain rate of nine orders of magnitude, the
surface compressive residual stresses in all cases depend
almost entirely on the material and not the process, e.g.
Refs. [51,52]. This is because the dynamic flow stress of
metals exceeds the static yield stress by a factor 61.5–2.0
[53], due to limitations imposed by dynamic recovery at
temperatures at or above ambient. When considering the
accumulation of surface residual stresses we consider it rea-
sonable to neglect the relative rate sensitivity of materials.
With these points in mind the model of residual stress
accumulation in shot peening due to Li and co-workers is
appropriate [54], based on Hertzian contact and assuming
plastic deformation on loading–unloading developed for
the case of the shot peening. The present work uses a mod-
ified form [55,56] of the same formalism which is readily
applied to the case of cold spray coatings. This approach
assumes a material volume has been impacted with 100%
coverage, and this is analogous to the problem in cold
spray of a particle deformed partly by its own impact
energy, and partly by the impact of successive particles that
form the coating. The assumption is that the final amount
of plastic deformation is more important than the deforma-
tion sequence.
While it is not possible to make an exact analytical pre-
diction of the residual stress in the cold spray coatings, it is
at least possible to rationalize the results. The analysis can
be reduced to the prediction of the maximum residual
stress at the surface [55]:
rmax ¼  ð0:333 þ 0:286abÞð1  abÞ½ð1  2abÞrs
þ k  ab  pmax 
 1=5
2 5 4 2
pmax ¼ pE qV
p 4 
where pmax is the maximum pressure calculated in the
assumption of Hertzian contact, rs is the yield stress, q is
the density, V is the velocity of the particle upon impact,
E* is the equivalent modulus, E ¼ E=2ð1  m2 Þ, and k is
a constant close to 1. Two parameters, a and b, are coupled
Table 8
Estimated residual surface stresses with corresponding input parameters.
Material Yield strength (MPa) ab Average impact pressure (MPa)
Al 30 0.01 680
Cu 60 0.04 2020
1267
into a product that describes in simple terms the elasto-
plastic state of the deformed material: a is the ratio of
the strain hardening rate (tangent modulus) to the Young’s
modulus, and b is the ratio of the true plastic strain to the
true elastic strain.
As can be seen from Eqs. (1) and (2) the impact stress is
the result of several competing factors: spray kinetic condi-
tions (qV2), elastic material properties (E, m), and plastic
material properties (ab and rs).
The input parameters in Eqs. (1) and (2) are readily
determined. The average impact pressure from Table 7 is
used for pmax in Eq. (2) in order to roughly account for
plastic shock wave attenuation effects. With these points
in mind the following can be stated:
– Cu is more dense than Al and Cu will have a higher
impact pressure.
– The flow stress of Cu is higher than that of Al over a
wide range of strain rates [57–59].
– This higher impact pressure leads to a greater amount of
plastic strain in the case of Cu, despite its higher
dynamic flow stress.
– Al shows minimal shock hardening compared to Cu [60].
Table 8 gives the estimated residual stress from Eq. (1).
The estimated surface residual stresses for Al and Cu are
qualitatively correct compared to the measured values,
and it is thought that this analysis should hold true for
other metals.
While this is by no means an accurate quantitative pre-
diction, it provides a useful estimate of the residual stresses
when considering different coating materials, based on
readily available material property data and some simple
calculations. Even if a more accurate estimate is possible
within this approach, the practical value of it might not
be great until a degree of influence of some other factors
on the residual stress (such as dynamic and static recovery,
rate sensitivity, Bauschinger effects, the role of particle size,
etc.) is clarified as discussed in the Appendix A.
5.3. Coating quality and performance through mechanical
properties
ð1Þ
The results of the deformation modelling are relevant to
ð2Þ the porosity measurements in Table 4 and the Young’s
modulus measurements in Table 5. It is clear that the phys-
ical properties of Cu enable it to form a higher integrity
coating than Al. Compared to Al, the higher density of
Cu enables a higher impact pressure, without a correspond-
ing increase in dynamic flow stress. This enables more plas-
tic deformation on impact in the Cu coatings, and the
Estimated residual stress (MPa) Measured residual stress (MPa)
12 9
45 60
1268 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
porosity and Young’s modulus measurements for the Cu
coatings are closer to their bulk values than those of the
Al coatings. Higher deformation within the coating should
lead to better interparticle bonding arising from conformal
metal/metal contact by break-up of the particle’s external
oxide layer. The relatively poor interparticle bonding in
the Al coatings is likely why the Young’s modulus mea-
surement based on the indentation test gives results that
are so different from the impulse excitation test, with a
rather large error.
Another observation can be made on the basis of the
comparison of our results with experimental data obtained
on the thermal spray coatings and published in the litera-
ture. It has been demonstrated that, in the case of thermal
spray, there is a correlation between the coating’s Young’s
modulus and residual (quenching) stress [10–12]. The same
was also demonstrated for two phase coatings [16]. This is
not surprising considering the nature of the quenching
stress: under cooling, with a temperature drop DT quench , a
splat experiences the thermal misfit Deth ¼ acoat DT quench ,
where acoat is the thermal expansion coefficient of the coat-
ing material. If we consider the quenching temperature
drop to be from the melting point then, for any material,
the thermal misfit is Deth  1–2%. Because for thermal
spray processes the thermal misfit is so high, it exceeds
the yield strain (for metals) or the brittle fracture limit
(for ceramics) by an order of magnitude since both of these
limits have the typical value of De0  0:1–0:2%. Only this
limited strain can be preserved as the elastic strain while
the rest of the total thermal misfit is accommodated
through inelastic mechanisms (microcracking, sliding,
yielding, creeping, etc.), which eventually are reflected in
the coating microstructure. Thus, the maximum quenching
stress which a coating can withhold is rq ¼ Ecoat De0 , i.e.
proportional to the Young’s modulus of the coating mate-
rial. In case of cold spray, however, Eq. (1) suggests a dif-
ferent functional relationship between stress and Young’s
modulus than a simple linear proportion. This is the man-
ifestation of the different stress generation mechanism by
complex plastic deformation accumulated throughout the
full loading–unloading history of individual splats. The
result of that must be connected not only to elastic (e.g.
Young’s modulus) but also plastic (e.g. hardening rate)
properties of the material. For instance, for different alu-
minium alloys cold sprayed in the same conditions, the cor-
relation between the peening stress and UTS is more
plausible, while the Young’s modulus values for different
coatings are expected to cluster in a very narrow band.
Experimental verification of this prediction in the case of
cold spray coatings will require a larger series of samples
sprayed at different conditions.
6. Conclusions
The residual stresses profiles have been measured in Cu
and Al cold spray coatings in neutron diffraction stress
experiments. The experimental residual stress distributions
were treated empirically using Tsui and Clyne’s progressive
deposition model to demonstrate that the residual stresses
accumulate mainly by kinetic and not thermal effects, and
these effects were characterized quantitatively. The inter-
pretation of the measured compressive residual stresses is
that they are determined almost entirely by the plastic
deformation process (peening) of the particles of the spray
material. An attempt has been made to explain the higher
residual in-plane stress in the Cu coatings by using a phys-
ically based model of residual stress accumulation in a shot
peened surface. Calculations within this model in the case
of Al and Cu demonstrate that the balance between the
elasto-plastic properties of the material and the spraying
conditions defines the resultant residual stress. It is believed
this interpretation can be applied generally for a range of
materials providing a close numerical estimate.
The higher plastic strain on impact of the Cu particles
results in higher residual stress in the Cu coatings and bet-
ter compaction, ensuring the mechanical properties of the
Cu coatings are closer to their equivalent bulk values than
is the case with Al coatings.
Appendix A
(i) Although in the preceding arguments we neglected the
strain rate dependence of the material flow stress, at
such strain rates the effects of strain hardening, and
strain-rate-dependent hardening coupled with heat
transfer, can become important. The rate sensitivity
of Cu and Al at the strain rates found in cold spray
impact have not been measured experimentally, and
the accuracy of results based on extrapolating material
data one or several orders of magnitude in strain rate is
questionable. On the other hand, in many simulations
the Johnson–Cook or Zerilli–Armstrong material
models [61] are used up to strain rates of 109 s1, but
none of the data used for verification the model param-
eters extends beyond 105–106 s1 (achieved in the laser
peening process). Available data on strain rate sensi-
tivity show that the flow stress of Cu is roughly double
that of Al, at any strain rate lower then 105 s1 [57–59].
(ii) Some of the initial impact stress is relaxed either dur-
ing or immediately after the impact process through
recovery and recrystallization. Dynamic recovery
and recrystallization are expected to lead to stress
relaxation, probably more so in Al coatings than in
the Cu coatings. Recovery processes are poorly
understood and a quantitative description requires
knowledge of the dislocation density and spatial
arrangement, which is beyond the scope of the pres-
ent work (see, e.g. [62]). Roughly, one can estimate
the relative operation of recovery processes in the
two coatings as follows:
1. Because the thermal conductivity of Cu is higher
than that of Al, the impact conditions are expected
to be less adiabatic in the case of Cu.
 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
2. Under the impact conditions the average tempera-
ture of the Cu and Al as a fraction of the melting
temperature are estimated as 0.35 and 0.44 respec-
tively but during impact it may rise to as much as
0.9 locally, as suggested by numerical simulation
of single particle impacts [41,42,50]. This sudden
temperature rise is short, 107 s, and due to heat
conduction and dissipation this does not in
general lead to melting in Cu and Al coatings, as
confirmed by numerous detailed microscopic
examinations, e.g. Refs. [40,63,64]. The nozzle
temperatures given in Table 1 are a measure of
the gas temperature immediately before entering
the nozzle throat, where some cooling takes place.
The particle temperature will be lower than the gas
temperature, though there is general heating
resulting from plastic dissipation of the impact
energy. It was possible to hold the samples imme-
diately after spraying, which suggests that the
average temperature rise was not very high. In
the absence of detailed information on the thermal
history of the material during the cold spray pro-
cess, it can simply be stated that Al will likely be
affected more by thermally activated recovery pro-
cesses than Cu during cold spray.
(iii) A variety of experimental data shows that the flow
stress begins to increase rapidly beyond a strain rate
of 105 s1 due to a change from thermal activation
to drag-controlled motion of dislocations (e.g. Ref.
[57]); however, this point has been debated (e.g. Refs.
[47] and [58]).
(iv) The Bauschinger effect can be important because of
large plastic deformation in cold spray, and impor-
tance of yielding upon unloading process.
(v) The role of particle size on the resultant stress is
unclear. It can be speculated, however, that this role
might be significant. At a minimum it can be said that
particle size has a significant impact on the defect
microstructure and, together with particle velocity,
determines critical conditions for particle adhesion.
References
[1] Papyrin A. Adv Mater Process 2001;159:49.
[2] McGrann RTR, Greving DJ, Shadley JR, Rybicki EF, Kruecke TL,
Bodger BE. Surf Coat Technol 1998;59:108–9.
[3] Choi WB, Li L, Luzin V, Neiser R, Gnaeupel-Herold T, Prask HJ,
Sampath S, Gouldstone A. Acta Mater 2007;55:857.
[4] Luzin V, Valarezo A, Sampath S. Mater Sci Forum 2008;315:571–2.
[5] Stoney GG. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser A 1909;82:172.
[6] Brenner A, Senderoff S. J Res Nat Bur Stand 1949;42:105.
[7] Zhang XC, Xu BS, Wang HD, Wu YX. J Appl Phys 2005;98:5.
[8] Gill SC, Clyne TW. Thin Solid Films 1994;250:172.
[9] Kuroda S, Fukushima T, Kitahara S. Thin Solid Films 1988;164:157.
[10] Matejicek J, Sampath S. Acta Mater 2003;51:863.
[11] Matejicek J, Sampath S, Gilmore D, Neiser R. Acta Mater
2003;51:873.
[12] Kuroda S, Clyne TW. Thin Solid Films 1991;200:49.
1269
[13] Buchmann M, Gadow R, Tabellion J. Mater Sci Eng A 2000;288:154.
[14] Kesler O, Matejicek J, Sampath S, Suresh S, Gnaeupel-Herold T,
Brand PC, Prask HJ. Mater Sci Eng A 1998;257:215.
[15] Matejicek J, Sampath S, Brand PC, Prask HJ. Acta Mater
1999;47:607.
[16] Luzin V, Matejicek J, Gnäupel-Herold T. Mater Sci Forum
2010;50:652.
[17] Welzel U, Ligot J, Lamparter P, Vermeulen AC, Mittemeijer EJ. J
Appl Crystallogr 2005;38:1.
[18] Matejicek J, Sampath S. Acta Mater 2001;49:1993.
[19] Genzel CH. J Neutr Res 2004;12:233.
[20] Tsui YC, Clyne TW. Thin Solid Films 1997;306:23.
[21] Tsui YC, Clyne TW. Thin Solid Films 1997;306:34.
[22] Tsui YC, Clyne TW. Thin Solid Films 1997;306:52.
[23] Karthikeyan J. Adv Mater Process 2006;164:66.
[24] Gabel H. Adv Mater Process 2004;162:47.
[25] Li W-Y, Liao H, Wang H-T, Li C-J, Zhang G, Coddet C. Appl Surf
Sci 2006;253:708.
[26] Irissou E, Legoux J-G, Ryabinin A, Jodoin B, Moreau C. J Therm
Spray Technol 2008;17:495.
[27] Dykhuizen RC, Smith MF. J Therm Spray Technol 1998;7:205.
[28] Tapphorn R, Gabel H. System and process for solid state deposition
and consolidation of high velocity powder particles using thermal
plastic deformation. USA: Office USPaT; 2005.
[29] Henderson CB. AIAA J 1976;14:707.
[30] http://www.ansto.gov.au/research/bragg_institute/facilities/instru-
ments/echidna.
[31] Larson AC, Von Dreele RB. Report LAUR 86–748: Los Alamos
National Laboratory; 2004.
[32] Toby B. J Appl Crystallogr 2001;34:210.
[33] http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/instruments/darts/.
[34] Kröner E. Z Phys A: Hadrons Nucl 1958;151:504.
[35] Totemeier TC, Wright JK. Surf Coat Technol 2006;200:3955.
[36] Alcalá J, Gaudette F, Suresh S, Sampath S. Mater Sci Eng A
2001;316:1.
[37] Suresh S, Giannakopoulos AE, Alcalá J. Acta Mater 1997;45:1307.
[38] Choi WB, Prchlik L, Sampath S, Gouldstone A. J Therm Spray
Technol 2009;18:58.
[39] Zou Y, Qin W, Irissou E, Legoux J-G, Yue S, Szpunar JA. Scripta
Mater 2009;61:899.
[40] Borchers C, Gartner F, Stoltenhoff T, Assadi H, Kreye H. J Appl
Phys 2003;93:10064.
[41] Grujicic M, Zhao CL, DeRosset WS, Helfritch D. Mater Des
2004;25:681.
[42] Assadi H, Gärtner F, Stoltenhoff T, Kreye H. Acta Mater
2003;51:4379.
[43] Schmidt T, Gärtner F, Assadi H, Kreye H. Acta Mater 2006;54:729.
[44] Yin S, Wang X-F, Li W-Y, Xu B-P. J Therm Spray Technol
2009;18:686.
[45] Schmidt T, Assadi H, Gärtner F, Richter H, Stoltenhoff T, Kreye H,
Klassen T. J Therm Spray Technol 2009;18:794.
[46] Gyuyeol B, Yuming X, Kumar S, Kicheol K, Changhee L. Acta
Mater 2008;56:4858.
[47] Meyers MA. Dynamic behavior of materials. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.; 1994. p. 668.
[48] Van Steenkiste TH, Smith JR, Teets RE. Surf Coat Technol
2002;154:237.
[49] Papyrin PA, Kosarev PV, Klinkov DS, Alkimov PA, Fomin PV. Cold
spray technology. Oxford: Elsevier; 2007.
[50] Grujicic M, Saylor JR, Beasley DE, DeRosset WS, Helfritch D. Appl
Surf Sci 2003;219:211.
[51] Gabb TP, Telesman J, Kantzos P, Prevey PS. Adv Mater Process
2002;160:69.
[52] Rodopoulos CA, Kermanidis AT, Statnikov E, Vityazev V, Korolkov
O. J Mater Eng Perform 2007;16:30.
[53] Kanel GI, Razorenov SV, Fortov VE. Shock-wave phenomena and
the properties of condensed matter. New York: Springer-Verlag;
2004.
1270 V. Luzin et al. / Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1259–1270
[54] Li JK, Mei Y, Duo W, Renzhi W. Mater Sci Eng A 1991;147:167.
[55] Ogawa K, Asano T. Mater Sci Res Int 2000;6:55.
[56] Franchim AS, Campos VSd, Travessa DN, Neto CdM. Mater Des
2009;30:1556.
[57] Campbell JD. Mater Sci Eng 1973;12:3.
[58] Follansbee PS, Regazzoni G, Kocks UF. The transition to drag-
controlled deformation in copper at high strain rates. Mechanical
properties at high rates of strain. Bristol, UK: IOP; 1984.
[59] Follansbee PS. High strain-rate deformation of FCC metals and
alloys. In: Murr LE, Staudhammer KP, Meyers MA, editors.
Metallurgical applications of shock-wave and high-strain-rate phe-
nomena. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1986. p. 451.
[60] Gray III GT. Influence of shock wave deformation on the structure/
property behavior of materials. In: Asay JR, Shahinpoor M, editors.
High-pressure shock compression of solids. New York: Springer-
Verlag; 1993. p. 187.
[61] Amarchinta HK, Grandhi RV, Langer K, Stargel DS. Modell Simul
Mater Sci Eng 2009:015010.
[62] Humphreys FJ, Hatherly M. Recovery after deformation. Recrystal-
lization and related annealing phenomena. Oxford: Elsevier; 2004. p.
169.
[63] King P, Zahiri S, Jahedi M. Metall Mater Trans A 2009;40:2115.
[64] Balani K, Agarwal A, Seal S, Karthikeyan J. J Scripta Mater
2005;53:845.