MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reactive Magnetron Sputtering of ZrO2/Al2O3 Coatings: Alumina Content and Structure Stability

2015· article· en· W1941053258 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coating Science and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCavity magnetronSputteringSputter depositionContent (measure theory)Chemical engineeringMetallurgyNanotechnologyThin filmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ternary zirconia-alumina coatings with different compositional ratios, ranging from pure zirconia to 50% alumina content, were deposited by reactive sputtering from two targets, Zr and Al, in argon-oxygen mixtures. The coating composition was controlled by the Zr/Al target power ratio provided by two pulsed-DC power supplies. The coatings were ~1 µm thick and they were deposited on floating potential substrates at a temperature of 650±3K. XRD indicated that the pure zirconia coatings possessed a monoclinic structure with a grain size of 35-40 nm. Adding alumina to the zirconia coating stabilized the cubic zirconia phase and decreased the grain size to 10-15 nm. The alumina phase in the coatings remained amorphous. The hardness of the nanocomposite structure increased from 11.6±0.5 GPa to 16.1±0.5 GPa for an alumina content of 17%. At higher alumina concentrations, the zirconia phase became amorphous and the hardness decreased to 10-11 GPa. Structure stability of the zirconia-alumina coatings was studied by measuring the coating structure and hardness after annealing at temperatures up to 1173 K. Pure zirconia (m-ZrO2) coatings had low structure stability; the hardness reached a maximum value of 18±1 GPa after annealing at a temperature of 773-873K; however, at higher annealing temperatures the hardness decreased, reaching a minimum value of 12.3±0.6 GPa after annealing at 1173K. The hardness of the nanocomposite ZrO2/Al2O3 coating with various compositions increased with annealing temperature. The hardness of a coating with an alumina content of 17% reached a high value of 19.2±0.5 GPa after annealing at 1073-1173 K. Measurements of post annealing XRD analyses indicated that the stabilization of the coating structure with c-ZrO2/a-Al2O3 phases is the reason for the higher structure stability. From the analyses of phase stability and hardness before and after annealing, we conclude that adding alumina to the zirconia phase promotes the formation of nanocomposite c-ZrO2/a-Al2O3 coatings with a markedly higher stability than single-phase m-ZrO2. Highlights: 1. ZrO2/Al2O3 nanocomposite coatings were deposited by co-sputtering from Zr and Al targets. 2. Adding alumina to the zirconia coating stabilized the cubic zirconia phase. 3. ZrO2-17% Al2O3 coatings had a grain size of 10-15 nm and a hardness of 16.1±0.5 GPa. 4. ZrO2/Al2O3 coatings maintained a high hardness after annealing at 1173K with a high value of 19 GPa for alumina content of 17%. 5. The ZrO2/Al2O3 nanocomposite coatings were crack-free after annealing at 1173K.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it