In-situ SEM observations of ultrasonic cavitation erosion behavior of HVOF-sprayed coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several typical high-velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF)-sprayed coatings, including WC-10Co4Cr coatings, Co-based coatings, WC-10Co4Cr/Co-based composite coatings, and Fe-based amorphous/nanocrystalline coatings were fabricated, and their cavitation behavior was evaluated in deionized water. Further, in-situ SEM surface observations were used to understand the microstructure of tested coatings. The results show that cavitation erosion initially occurred at pre-existing defects in the coatings. Meanwhile, it was found that cavitation erosion damage of the WC-10Co4Cr/Co-based composite coating, which contained a hard reinforcing phase (WC-10Co4Cr phase) and a soft matrix phase (Co-based phase), preferentially occurred at or around pores and microcracks in the reinforcement, rather than in the defect free matrix. This suggested that defects were a critical contributing factor to cavitation damage of the composite coatings. Furthermore, a mechanism was suggested to explicate the cavitation behavior of composite coatings. The approach of using in-situ SEM surface observations proved to be useful for the analysis of the cavitation mechanism of engineering materials and protective coatings.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".