See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222815204

Adhesion improvements of Thermal Barrier Coatings with HVOF thermally

sprayed bond coats

Article  in  Surface and Coatings Technology · December 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.10.005

CITATIONS READS

183 6,415

2 authors:

Carlos Roberto Camello Lima Jose Maria Guilemany

Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA-CPT / ROYAL EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF DOCTORS
122 PUBLICATIONS   951 CITATIONS    1,569 PUBLICATIONS   8,136 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thermal Barrier Coatings View project

Conference Paper View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Roberto Camello Lima on 16 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694 – 4701
www.elsevier.com/locate/surfcoat

Adhesion improvements of Thermal Barrier Coatings with HVOF

thermally sprayed bond coats
C.R.C. Lima a,⁎, J.M. Guilemany b
a
UNIMEP — Methodist University of Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
b
CPT-Thermal Spray Center, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Barcelona, Spain
Received 9 February 2006; accepted in revised form 3 October 2006
Available online 22 November 2006

Abstract

Thermal barrier coatings (TBC) are an effective engineering solution for the improvement of in service performance of gas turbines and diesel
engine components. The quality and further performance of TBC, likewise all thermally sprayed coatings or any other kind of coating, is strongly
dependent on the adhesion between the coating and the substrate as well as the adhesion (or cohesion) between the metallic bond coat and the
ceramic top coat layer. The debonding of the ceramic layer or of the bond coat layer will lead to the collapse of the overall thermal barrier system.
Though several possible problems can occur in coating application as residual stresses, local or net defects (like pores and cracks), one could say
that a satisfactory adhesion is the first and intrinsic need for a good coating. The coating adhesion is also dependent on the pair substrate-coating
materials, substrate cleaning and blasting, coating application process, coating application parameters and environmental conditions. In this work,
the general characteristics and adhesion properties of thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) having bond coats applied using High Velocity Oxygen Fuel
(HVOF) thermal spraying and plasma sprayed ceramic top coats are studied. By using HVOF technique to apply the bond coats, high adherence
and high corrosion resistance are expected. Furthermore, due to the characteristics of the spraying process, compressive stresses should be induced
to the substrate. The compressive stresses are opposed to the tensile stresses that are typical of coatings applied by plasma spraying and eventually
cause delamination of the coating in operational conditions. The evaluation of properties includes the studies of morphology, microstructure,
microhardness and adhesive/cohesive resistance. From the obtained results it can be said that the main failure location is in the bond coat/ceramic
interface corresponding to the lowest adhesion values.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adhesion; Thermal spray; Thermal barrier coating; HVOF

1. Introduction are on gas turbines in the aeronautical industry and diesel

Thermally sprayed coatings have been widely applied in
industrial components in several industries [1,2] in a wide range
of functionalities and engineering designs such as in free-
standing or near-net shape parts [3–5], environmental clean
alternative [6], protection of nuclear equipment [7] and medical
purposes [8]. One of the most important and widely used
applications of thermal spray coatings is their use as thermal
barrier coatings or TBCs. These coatings are applied for
protection of metallic components that suffer degradation due to
corrosion, oxidation or excessive heat load during service in
thermally drastic environments. Some of its main applications
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 19 3124 1785; fax: +55 19 3455 1361.
E-mail address: crclima@unimep.br (C.R.C. Lima).
0257-8972/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.10.005
motors, in the automotive industry [9–11]. Gas turbines can be
more efficient by reducing the cooling or increasing the
temperature of the gas in operation. Thus, an isolation layer
of 0.25 mm (250 μm) for TBC can reduce the temperature of
turbine components up to 170 °C [12].
1.1. Processing of thermal barrier coatings
Thermal barrier coatings consist typically of a metallic bond
coat and a ceramic top coat normally applied onto a superalloy
substrate. The metallic bond coat is normally applied using Air
Plasma Spraying (APS), Low Pressure Plasma Spraying (LPPS)
or Vacuum Plasma Spraying (VPS). More recently the High
Velocity Oxygen Fuel (HVOF) technique has been used in order
to apply denser bond coats [13–15]. Two general methods used
 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701
Fig. 1. Types of failure in the Tensile Adhesion Test ASTM-C-633.
for applying the ceramic layer are Electron Bean assisted Physical
Vapor Deposition (EB-PVD) and Air Plasma Spray (APS), the
lowest cost alternative [16]. Thus, TBCs have a highly complex
microstructure that includes bond of metallic and ceramic layers
and a complex ceramic porosity and microcrack pattern.
Nowadays, the ceramic most commonly used as a top coat is
partially stabilized zirconia (PSZ), mainly ZrO2 7–8wt.%Y2O3
[9,17,18]. There is a wide range of metallic alloys used as bond
coat, normally consisting of a MCrAlY alloy, where M stands
for Ni, Fe, Co or combination of them. Some alloys also include
other materials such as Ta or Re. Some types of bond coats are
made of electroplated Ni and Pt aluminides followed by
diffusion aluminizing [9,16]. More recently, High Velocity
Oxygen Fuel (HVOF) spraying has been used as an alternative
deposition method due to its low cost and high quality deposits
which present oxidation rates at high temperature at the same
level of similar VPS coatings, being sometimes even lower than
this one [13–15].
The quality and performance of TBCs have been system-
atically developed to face the increasing challenges of industrial
application from mechanical and environmental aspects. The
isolation capacity of a TBC is incontestable. Even so, its
durability and mechanical properties vary intensely with several
factors such as process conditions, operational conditions in
service, applied materials and pre or post-treatments. In terms of
coating structural integrity, though several possible problems
can occur in coating application such as residual stresses, local
or net defects (as pores and cracks), a major requirement for any
coating is to establish an adhesion pattern to the substrate that
permits to maintain its integrity under service conditions.
Therefore, quality and further performance of a TBC are
strongly dependent on the adhesion between the coating and the
substrate as well as on the adhesion (or cohesion) between the
metallic bond coat and the ceramic top coat layer. Debonding of
the ceramic layer or of the bond coat layer will lead to the
collapse of the overall thermal barrier system.
1.2. Adhesion of coatings
Adhesive bonding involves several processes that occur
simultaneously in a higher or a lower intensity. The main
4695
mechanisms of adhesion can be described as mechanical
keying, physical, diffusive and chemical [19,20]. According
to Sobolev et al. [20], the most important one is the mechanical
interlocking formed due to roughness of the substrate surface,
high pressures developed on the droplet impact and solidifica-
tion of the lower part of the splat. Some other important topics
have to be taken into account in the process such as the
influence of oxidation processes, splat morphology and residual
stresses [20]. The coating adhesion is also dependent on the pair
substrate-coating materials, substrate cleaning and blasting, on
the coating application process, coating application parameters
and environmental conditions. Some few adhesion tests
normally used are mainly based on tensile strength [21,22] or
resistance against shear loads [23,24] although controversies
exist about the tests and specific results of each one [25–27].
A widely used and accepted adhesion test is the tensile
adhesion test according to the ASTM-C633 standard [28]. In
this test, the coated sample (a cylinder ∅ 25.4 mm × 25.4 mm
long) is glued to an uncoated similar counterpart that is just grit
blasted and then tested in tension in an universal testing
machine. The value of the tensile load, in which the separation
of the coated–uncoated parts occurs, is registered and
transformed in an adhesion value, the bond strength, by
calculating the load/area relation. The failure region indicates
the type and characteristic of the failure, according to Fig. 1, that
shows a simple coating system. If the coating is a duplex
system, as in a TBC, the coating cohesive failure could be
located within the bond coat, within the ceramic top coating or
at the bond coat/ceramic interface. Naturally some failures
occur in a combined way, starting in a region and then
expanding to other ones.
In this work, the characteristics and adhesion properties of
eight distinctive TBC systems having bond coats applied using
High Velocity Oxygen Fuel (HVOF) thermal spraying and
Air Plasma Sprayed (APS) ceramic top coats are studied. The
systems vary in the materials used both as bond coats or top
coats.
By using HVOF technique to apply the bond coats, it is
supposed that a high adherence and a high corrosion
resistance should be reached. Furthermore, due to the
characteristics of the spraying process, compressive stresses
would be induced to the substrate in opposition to the tensile
stresses typical of coatings applied using plasma spraying,
which eventually causes delamination of the coating in
operational conditions. The evaluation of properties includes
Table 1
Matrix of studied TBC systems
Bond coat Powder Top coat 1 Top coat 2
specification
ZrO2–8wt.%Y2O3 ZrO2–20wt.%Y2O3
1: CoNiCrAlY Amdry 9951 — S-1 S-5
Sulzer Metco
2: NiCoCrAlTaY Amdry 997 — S-2 S-6
Sulzer Metco
3: NiCrAlY TAFA 343 S-3 S-7
4: NiCr TAFA 1262 S-4 S-8
4696 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701

Table 2
General thermal spraying parameters
HVOF Oxygen Propylene Air Powder feed rate Stand off
(g/min) distance (mm)
Pressure (bar) Flow rate (SLPM) Pressure (bar) Flow rate (SLPM) Pressure (bar) Flow rate (SLPM)
CoNiCrAlY 10.3 139 6.9 89 7.2 384 38 250
NiCoCrAlTaY 10.3 139 6.9 89 7.2 384 38 250
NiCrAlY 10.3 189 6.9 89 7.2 384 38 250
NiCr 10.3 189 6.9 89 7.2 384 38 250

APS Ar flow rate (l/min) H2 flow rate (l/min) Amperage (A) Voltage (V) Passes Stand off
distance (mm)
ZrO2–8%Y2O3 40 12 630 68 20 120
ZrO2–20%Y2O3 42 18 630 68 29 120

the studies of morphology, microstructure, microhardness and
adhesive/cohesive resistance.
2. Experimental procedure
Table 1 shows the matrix of TBC systems (S) applied to low
carbon steel substrates specifying the materials used as bond
coats and top coats. The ceramic top coats used were ZrO2–
8 wt.%Y2O3 (203-NS — Sulzer Metco) and ZrO2–20wt.%
Y2O3 (202-NS — Sulzer Metco). The bond coats were
produced by using an HVOF spraying system Model DJ-
2600/2700 (Sulzer Metco Inc., Westbury, NY, USA). The
ceramic top coats were applied by atmospheric plasma spray
(APS) with an F4 gun (Plasma Technik, Sulzer Metco,
Westbury, USA).
Spraying parameters are presented in Table 2 for metallic and
ceramic materials. These parameters were selected from the
conditions indicated by the manufacturers of the powders trying
to guarantee the best deposition characteristics for all the
systems as well as similar energy for the flame.
The materials were sprayed onto 100 mm × 20 mm × 5 mm
UNS G41350 steel coupons for sample characterization and ∅
25.4 mm × 25.4 mm steel cylinders for the tensile adhesion tests.
Just before spraying, the substrates were degreased with acetone
and grit blasted with white corundum at 5.6 bar, 45° blasting
incidence angle and using a blasting distance of 250 mm. The
grit blasted substrates had a mean roughness (Ra) of 5 μm. The
samples for each coating system were placed in a circular
sample holder and were simultaneously sprayed for every
material with a rotational speed producing 500 mm·s− 1 in the
substrate surface. When applying the ceramic coatings, air jet
was used as cooling media, directed to the back surface of the
substrate. The powders were characterized for particle size
distribution by Laser Scattering (Microtrac SRA150), Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM) and flow rate test (ASTM B-213-
90). X-ray diffraction (XRD) was employed to reveal phase
content of the starting powder and deposits. The diffractometer
used was a SIEMENS model D-500 with a Cu Kα = 1.5418 Å
and working power of 40 Kv–30 mA.
Samples characterization included cross-sectional Optical
Microscopy – OM – (Olympus BH-2-UMA) and Scanning
Electron Microscopy – SEM – (JEOL-JSM-5310) images, as
well as phase analysis by Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy –
EDS – (Quantum, Kevex). Cross-sectional Vickers microhard-
ness measurements were performed on polished samples
(Matsuzawa MTX-α microhardness tester) at 300-g load.
Coating surface roughness was measured for each sample
(Mitutoyo Surftest 301). Both microhardness and roughness
values quoted are an average of 20 measurements for each
coating. Adhesion of the systems was measured according the
ASTM-C-633-01 tensile adhesion test standard [28]. The
adhesive used in the adhesion test was the HTK Ultrabond
100 (HTK Hamburg, Hamburg-Sasel, Germany) cured for 1 h at
170 °C and 35 N of pressure.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. General characteristics of the coatings
The general characteristics of the powder materials used in
this investigation are presented in Table 3. It can be observed
that the bond coat powder materials have presented differences

Table 3
Characterization of metallic and ceramic powders
Powder Composition (wt.%) Particle Grain size (μm) Morphology
size (μm)
Co Ni Cr Al Ta Y ZrO2 Y2O3 x σ
Amdry 9951 38.5 32 21 8 – 0.5 – – − 37 + 5 21.5 9.2 Spheroidal
Amdry 997 23 43.9 20 8.5 4 0.6 – – − 37 27.0 11.6 Spheroidal
TAFA NI 343 – 69.2 20 10 – 0.8 – – − 45 + 10 38.2 12.8 Spheroidal
TAFA N 1262 – 80 20 – – – – – − 53 + 20 41.3 11.3 Spheroidal
203-NS – – – – – – 92 8 − 125 + 16 65.3 30.2 Spheroidal
202-NS – – – – – – 80 20 − 106 + 16 62.2 32.4 Spheroidal
x = mean value σ = standard deviation.
 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701 4697

in average grain size that reach more than 90% when comparing
CoNiCrAlY with NiCr powders. The morphology of powders is
spheroidal for the four powder materials tested with a lightly
more regular shape for CoNiCrAlY and NiCoCrAlTaY. Both
ceramic materials used are spheroidal and have very similar
average grain sizes. Typical images of the morphology of the
powders can be observed in Fig. 2.
Typical microstructure of the coating systems can be
observed in Fig. 3. A very dense and homogeneous coating
with very low oxidation was obtained for all the coating systems
at the metallic layers. Ceramic layers have a more porous
microstructure as expected for APS spraying of such materials.
X-ray diffraction results for the bond coats and for ceramic
deposits are shown in Fig. 4. X-ray diffraction results have not
evidenced relevant presence of undesirable phases as it was also
confirmed with EDS. Ceramic deposits shown to be mainly
constituted of non-transformable tetragonal zirconia phases (t′).

3.2. Microhardness and roughness

The thicknesses of all the obtained coatings as well as the

results of roughness and microhardness measurements results
are shown in Table 4. Values for bond coats alone are also

Fig. 3. Typical cross sectional optical micrographies of the coating systems with
(A) ZrO2–8wt.%Y2O3 and (B) ZrO2–20wt.%Y2O3 top coat. A general porous
ceramic microstructure can be observed in contrast to a very dense metallic
deposit.

included for comparison. It has to be observed that the initial

roughness, just after blasting, was 5 μm (Ra) in average. So,
according to the values shown in Table 4, roughness has not
increased too much after spraying. Slightly higher mean
roughness can be found from system S5 to S8 that refers to
the ceramic top coat of ZrO2–20%Y2O3. Statistically, these
values are in the range of standard deviation.
Since the hardness of the coating systems was measured in
cross section over the ceramic layer, it can be observed from
Table 4 that the highest mean hardness values are generally that
of the ZrO2–20%Y2O3, corresponding to the systems from S5
to S8. In general, it could be said that the two different zirconia
top coats have a variation of around 13% in hardness. The
hardness of the bond coats systems only, as shown in Table 4, is
about the same for BC1, BC2 and BC4, and 20% higher for
BC3 (NiCrAlY).

3.3. Adhesion of the coatings

The results of the tensile adhesion tests are graphically

Fig. 2. Typical powder morphology: metallic (A) and ceramic (B). presented in Fig. 5. Results are plotted by the mean value of four
4698 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701

Fig. 4. X-ray diffractograms of the bond coat powders (A) and the top coat ceramic deposits (B). The systems showed in (B) represent the four distinctive bond coats
applied and the two distinctive ceramic top coats.

tested samples with each respective dispersion bar. As usual, a
huge dispersion of values can be observed mainly due to the
nature of the metal-ceramic coatings. The locations of coating
failures in the test are described in Table 5 for better under-
standing of such dispersed results and for further discussion.
It can be observed from Fig. 5 and Table 5 that the mean values
are in a very good agreement for the eight tested coating systems,
except for the systems S3 and S4, that have a mean value around
30% lower than the other systems. But this simple observation
did not represent the exact behavior of each distinctive coating
system. A deep analysis can bring up much more information and
lead to a better understanding of each individual behavior.
Looking to the maximum values, highlighted in Table 5 with a
gray background, it can be observed that in general the coating
failure location is at the interface between bond coat and
substrate. This means an adhesive failure. The highest values are

Table 4
Thickness, roughness and microhardness measurements of the coating systems
Coating system S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 BC1 BC2 BC3 BC4
Thickness (SD = 30μm S1 to S8) 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 120 120 120 120
Roughness (μm) Ra (SD = 0.3 μm) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.6 7.2 7.3 7.0 5.8 6.5 5.6 8.4
HV0.3 mean (x) (SD = 36 μm) 638 650 618 624 711 692 753 683 368 369 432 337
SD = Standard Deviation.
 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701
Fig. 5. Tensile adhesion results of the coating systems from ASTM-C-633 test.
found in the systems S1 (52.8 MPa), S5 (46.6 MPa) and S2
(55.2 MPa), S6 (50.7 MPa) that correspond to the CoNiCrAlY
and NiCoCrAlTaY bond coats, respectively. The values of
13.8 MPa (S1) and 46.6 MPa (S5) were obtained due to a failure
in the glue line, meaning that a higher value could probably be
found for that specific samples. The lowest values are those of the
systems S3 (17.7 MPa), S7 (11.2 MPa) and S4 (14.2 MPa) that
correspond to NiCrAlY and NiCr, respectively. In fact, a low
value of 14.7 MPa can also be seen for sample 3 of the system S1
but the characteristic of failure has indicated a singular defect in
the bond coat/zirconia interface that have initiated the failure
process. Fig. 6 shows fracture surfaces of tested samples that are
representative of such distinctive failure behaviors.
3.4. Factors influencing true adhesion
As stated by Steffens et al. [29], basic adhesion may be
evaluated by the degree of coverage of the remaining particles
bonded after testing of bonding strength. Therefore, when
adhesion test presents a singular and partial failure like that of
Fig. 6B it means that true adhesion should be evaluated from that
area remaining on the substrate after the test, which is intact and
did not detach or fail. This kind of failure may be caused by
problems associated with spraying process (such as residual
stresses, intersplats defects) or even test procedure, as sample
alignment or traction speed. Some of the coating systems that
Table 5
Coating systems adhesion and failure location in ASTM-C-633 test
C/S = Bond coat/substrate interface (Adhesive failure); C/Z = Bond coat/ceramic
interface (Cohesive failure).
Glue = failure within the glue (poor test).
4699
have presented fracture at the bond coat/zirconia interface (C/Z)
such as sample 3 of the system S1 (14.7 MPa) and sample S2 of
system S5 (19.3 MPa) have failed as shown in Fig. 6B.
According Sobolev et al. [20], interlocking (and then adhesion)
increases with an increase in the density and the velocity of the
impinging droplet and the roughness of substrate surface, and
decreases with an increase in the surface tension at the substrate/
droplet interface. Furthermore, the authors state that at high
particle velocities, as in HVOF spraying, the particles come so
close to the substrate that interatomic bonding can occur and the
bonded area increases as the asperity on the substrate is flattened
by plastic deformation. Rebonding of partially melted particles and
stress relaxation from local plastic deformation can influence the
adhesion. This could partially explain the distinct adhesion values
found for the distinct coating systems used in the present work.
3.5. Effect of roughness
Hadad et al. [26] comparing adhesion tests found that
interfacial toughness tends to increase with Ra for thin coatings
(140 μm) and, in their experiments, an opposite trend is seen for
thicker coatings (330 μm). Since the crack propagation into a
smooth interface is easier than into a rougher one, the interfacial
toughness should increase with Ra and then they concluded that
the residual stress effect would be dominant for thicker coatings.
In the present work, all of the coating systems tested have
similar thickness values, as shown in Table 4, and they could be
considered as thick coatings. The highest roughness value is for
Fig. 6. Fracture surfaces of a TBC system after ASTM C633 tensile test showing
the bond coat ceramic interface (A) with no defects and (B) with a singular defect.
It should be noted that the ceramic remaining intact (right side of “A”) if tested
again would present an adhesion higher than that found in that specific test.
4700 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701
system S5 (7.6 μm), that also presents one of the highest
adhesion mean values (34.0 MPa). However, system S1 with an
average roughness of 6.8 μm presents a very similar mean
adhesion (33.3) and one of the three highest individual adhesion
values (52.8 MPa for sample 2). It should be observed that the
standard deviation of the roughness values shown in Table 4 is
0.3 μm thus implying a very similar roughness for all the
systems that can explain such variations in the adhesion of the
individual samples.
Another issue to be observed is that the highest roughness
(8.4 μm) just after bond coat application shown in Table 4 is that
of systems S4 and S8, corresponding to bond coat 4 (NiCr) but
showing no high adhesion values. This could be due to residual
stresses at bond coat/substrate and bond coat/ceramic interfaces.
According to Khan et al. [30] the adhesion of the coatings
increases with the increase of substrate roughness (or bond coat
surface roughness for a ceramic coating deposition) up to
certain limits (about 5 μm in their work) and then decreases.
With the increase of substrate roughness there is an increase in
interfacial toughness due to high compressive stresses associ-
ated with high rough surfaces but further temperature and
pressure from the spray process effect the residual stress profile
and thus the interfacial toughness of the coatings [30].
3.6. Effect of powder particle size
Limarga et al. [31] working with multilayered thermal barrier
coatings found adhesion strengths between 5 and 23 MPa
depending on the proportion of bond coat, Al2O3 and ZrO2 in the
coating systems. The majority of failures have occurred inside
the ceramic layer. When interfacial bond coat/ceramic failure
occurred, the highest adhesion values were registered. The used
bond coat was a 200 μm thick NiCoCrAlY. According to the
authors, the very low bond strength exhibited for some coating
systems is due to a low surface roughness of the sprayed ceramic,
where the mechanical interlocking is negligible. Furthermore,
they concluded that the low surface roughness correspond to the
small particle size of materials used for plasma spraying.
Using the same analysis for the present work and considering
just the final ceramic layer, it can be observed in Table 4 that the
highest roughness values are found in systems S5 to S8,
corresponding to powder 202-NS (ZrO2–20%Y2O3) which
have a slightly lower grain size compared with powder 203-NS
(ZrO2–8%Y2O3) that corresponds to systems S1 to S4, as it can
be seen in Table 3. This would partially confirm Limarga's
trend. In fact, those powder grain size values (65.3 and 62.2 μm)
should be taken as very similar values mainly due to their
statistical standard deviation. However, the trend of adhesion/
roughness correlation can be really observed since the highest
adhesion mean values in Table 5 are basically those of systems
S5 to S8, corresponding to ZrO2–20%Y2O3 which presents the
highest roughness.
3.7. Effect of number of spraying passes
Lima and Trevisan [32] working with graded TBCs have
found that not only increasing thickness tends to decrease
coating adhesion but also increasing the number of coating
layers for the same thickness tends to diminish coating adhesion.
In that work, increasing the number of layers indicated a greater
interruption time for the spraying of the subsequent layer due to
the necessary arrangements. In the present work, the only
difference for the tested coating systems was a greater number of
passes to deposit ZrO2–20%Y2O3 (systems S5, S6, S7 and S8)
compared with ZrO2–8%Y2O3 as shown in Table 2. That almost
fifty percent higher number of passes implies an increased
number of ceramic interfaces as well as a more homogeneous
ceramic coating with thinner subsequent layers.
3.8. Effect of thermal expansion
From the point of view of thermal expansion differences
between the four used bond coats, it has to be said that NiCrAlY
presents the lowest expansion (11.73 mm/m at 825 °C),
compared with CoNiCrAlY (13.84 mm/m at 825 °C), NiCo-
CrAlTaY (13.48 mm/m at 825 °C) and NiCr (13.42 mm/m at
825 °C). These values were found by Taylor and Walsh [33] in a
systematic study with several MCrAlY bond coats including
bond coats with the same composition of the ones used in the
present study. They stated that the expansion differences
between NiCrAlY and the other tested coatings were greater
than the standard deviation of the used method and have to be
considered as significant. Moreover the authors related
expansion to chemical composition trying to get directions for
longer life of TBCs by modifying composition for low
expansivity. According to their results, thermal expansion
mismatch at bond coat/top coat interface can be reduced from
2.2 mm/m for a CoNiCrAlY/ZrO2–7%Y2O3 pair to a 1.4 mm/m
for a NiCrAlY/ZrO2–7%Y2O3 pair mainly due to the increasing
of Al content but the strongest expansion reduction would be
obtained by increasing Cr at the expense of Ni or Co [33].
Such discussion should predict that thermal expansion
residual stresses would be higher for CoNiCrAlY, NiCoCrAlY
and NiCr, respectively. This would influence in coating
adhesion. But from the observation of the results shown in
Table 5, it can be said that the lowest adhesion values were
obtained for samples of NiCrAlY and NiCr (systems S3, S7 and
S4) that have the lowest expansion and the fracture location is at
bond coat/top coat interface. A possible explanation for this is
that some stress relaxation mechanism occurs, probably creep or
metallic yield, that are stated by Tsui and Clyne [34] as the
major stress relaxation for metallic coatings, thus modifying the
expected stress influence on adhesion, at least at the
temperatures experienced for the tested coatings which are as-
sprayed coatings without thermal cycling.
4. Conclusions
In the present work, eight distinctive TBC coating systems
have been compared. Microstructure, hardness, roughness and
adhesion were measured. For adhesion measurement, ASTM-
C633 tensile adhesion test was used and proved to be effective
for general level of comparison but deeper analysis of the
individual results has to be done in order to know specific
 C.R.C. Lima, J.M. Guilemany / Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4694–4701
characteristics of true coating adhesion. From the obtained
results it can be said that the main failure location is in the bond
coat/ceramic interface corresponding to the lowest adhesion
values. For the highest adhesion values, coating failure is
mainly located in the bond coat/substrate interface. Mean
adhesion values can be higher for systems that have higher
roughness but this trend is not always observed when analyzing
individual samples. When focusing individual sample adhesion
values, samples with the lowest roughness show the highest
adhesion values. Furthermore, thermal expansion, powder grain
size and number of spraying passes can modify the building
process of each individual coating system thus showing
different values of coating adhesion.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank M. Torrel and N. Cinca for
helping in metallographic preparation and tensile adhesion tests
and J. R. Miguel for helping in the evaluation of coatings.
Carlos Lima acknowledges the sabbatical concession of CNPq–
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnoló-
gico — Brazil. CPT thanks to Generalitat de Catalunya for the
project 2001SGR00145.
References
[1] F. Kassabji, J.P. Durand, G. Jacq, in: Christian Coddet (Ed.), Thermal
Spray: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century, ASM International,
Ohio, USES, 1998, p. 1677.
[2] W. Hangong, W. Liuying, in: E. Lugscheider (Ed.), Thermal Spray
Connects: Explore its Surface Potential, Proceedings of the International
Thermal Spray Conference ITSC, Basel, Switzerland, ASM International/
DVS, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2005, p. 29.
[3] K. Neufuss, P. Chráska, B. Kolman, S. Sampath, Z. Trávnicek, J. Therm.
Spray Technol. 6 (4) (1997) 434.
[4] J.M. Guilemany, J. Nin, J.R. Miguel, in: E. Lugscheider (Ed.), Thermal
Spray Connects: Explore its Surface Potential, Proceedings of the
International Thermal Spray Conference-ITSC, Basel, Switzerland, ASM
International/DVS, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2005, p. 36.
[5] T. Mckechnie, in: C.C. Berndt (Ed.), Thermal Spray: Surface Engineering
Through Applied Research, ASM Intl., Materials Park, OH, 2000, p. 1105.
[6] J. Streeter, E.R. Sampson, in: C.C. Berndt (Ed.), Thermal Spray: Surface
Engineering Through Applied Research, ASM Intl., Materials Park, OH,
2000, p. 1145.
[7] W. Mallèner, W. Hohenauer, D. Stover, in: C.C. Berndt (Ed.), Thermal
Spray: Practical Solutions goes Engineering Problems, ASM Intl., Ohio,
1996, p. 1.
[8] Y. Wang, K.A. Khor, P. Cheang, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 7 (1) (March
1998) 50.
View publication stats
4701
[9] N.P. Padture, M. Gell, E.H. Jordan, Science 296 (2002) 280.
[10] R.N. Katz, Ceram. Ind. 151 (4) (2001) 22.
[11] J.P. Huchin, in: C. Coddet (Ed.), Thermal Spray: Meeting the Challenges
of the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 15th International Thermal Spray
Conference, Nice, France, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, 1998,
p. 931.
[12] W.J. Brindley, R.A. Miller, Adv. Mater. Process. 136 (2) (1989) 29.
[13] Y. Itoh, M. Saitoh, M. Tamura, J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power 122 (2000) 43.
[14] P. Vuoristo, S. Ahmaniemi, S. Tuurna, T. Mantyla, E. Cordano, F. Fignino,
G.C. Gualco, Proceedings of ITSC 2002 — International Thermal Spray
Conference and Exposition, Essen, Germany, vol. 1, ASM-International/
DVS, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2002, p. 470.
[15] V.V. Sobolev, J.M. Guilemany, J. Nutting, High Velocity Oxy-fuel
Spraying: Theory, Structure–Property Relationships and Applications,
Maney Publishing, London, 2004, 397 pp.
[16] A.G. Evans, D.R. Mumm, J.W. Hutchinson, G.H. Meier, F.S. Pettit, Prog.
Mater. Sci. 46 (2001) 505.
[17] M.D. Hill, Ceram. Ind. 153 (10) (2003) 17.
[18] D. Stover, G. Pracht, H. Lehmann, M. Dietrich, J.E. Doring, R. Vaben, in:
B. Marple, C. Moureau (Eds.), Thermal Spray 2003: Advancing the
Science and Applying the Technology, ASM International, Materials Park,
Ohio, USA, 2003, p. 1455.
[19] A.W.S., Thermal Spraying: Practice, Theory and Application, American
Welding Society, Miami, FL, 1985.
[20] V.V. Sobolev, J.M. Guilemany, J. Nutting, J.R. Miguel, Int. Mater. Rev. 42
(3) (1997) 117.
[21] M.F. Bahbou, P. Nylén, J. Wigren, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 3 (4) (2004)
508.
[22] C.C. Berndt, Mater. Sci. Forum 34–36 (1988) 457.
[23] H. Era, F. Otsubo, T. Uchida, S. Fukuda, K. Kishitake, Mater. Sci. Eng., A
Struct. Mater.: Prop. Microstruct. Process. 251 (1998) 166.
[24] Y.L. Zhu, S.N. Ma, B.S. Xu, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 8 (2) (1999) 328.
[25] S. Siegman, M. Dvorak, H. Grutzner, K. Nassenstein, A. Walter, in: E.
Lugscheider (Ed.), Thermal Spray Connects: Explore its Surface Potential,
Proceedings of the International Thermal Spray Conference ITSC, Basel,
Switzerland, ASM International/DVS, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2005, p. 823.
[26] M. Hadad, G. Marot, J. Lesage, J. Michler, S. Siegmann, in: E. Lugscheider
(Ed.), Thermal Spray Connects: Explore its Surface Potential, Proceedings of
the International Thermal Spray Conference ITSC, Basel, Switzerland, ASM
International/DVS, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2005, p. 759.
[27] R.E. Trevisan, H.C. Fals, C.R.C. Lima, Inf. Tecnol., Chile 11 (4) (2000)
103.
[28] Standard test method for adhesion or cohesion strength of thermal spray
coatings, ASTM Standard C 633-01, ASTM, West Conshocken, PA, USA,
2001.
[29] H.D. Steffens, B. Wielage, J. Drozak, Surf. Coat. Technol. 45 (1991) 299.
[30] A.N. Khan, J. Lu, H. Liao, Surf. Coat. Technol. 168 (2003) 291.
[31] A.M. Limarga, S. Widjaja, T.H. Yip, Surf. Coat. Technol. 197 (2005) 93.
[32] C.R.C. Lima, R.E. Trevisan, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 6 (2) (1997) 199.
[33] T.A. Taylor, P.N. Walsh, Surf. Coat. Technol. 177–178 (2004) 24.
[34] Y.C. Tsui, T.W. Clyne, Thin Solid Films 306 (1997) 23.