MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193548102 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2000p0909

Improved Wear Performance by the Incorporation of Solid Lubricants During Thermal Spraying

2000· article· en· W3193548102 on OpenAlexaff
Basil R. Marple, Joël Voyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLubricantCermetRaw materialTribologyPorosityDry lubricantComposite materialTungsten carbideRubbingGraphiteLubricityNatural rubberCarbon fibersMetallurgyCeramicComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For components that are required to function in sliding or rubbing contact with other parts, degradation often occurs through wear due to friction between the two contacting surfaces. Depending on the nature of the materials being used, the addition of water as a lubricant may introduce corrosion and accelerate the degradation process. To improve the performance and increase the life of these components, coatings may be applied to the regions subject to the greatest wear. These coatings may be engineered to provide internal pockets of solid lubricant in order to improve the tribological performance. In the present study, coatings containing a solid lubricant were produced by thermal spraying feedstock powders consisting of a blend of tungsten carbide-metal and a fluorinated ethylene-propylene copolymer-based material. The volume content of this Teflon-based material in the feedstock ranged from 3.5 to 36%. These feedstocks were deposited using a high velocity oxy-fuel system to produce coatings having a level of porosity below 2%. Sliding wear tests in which coated rotors were tested in contact with stationary carbon-graphite disks identified an optimum level of Teflon-based material in the feedstock formulation required to produce coatings exhibiting minimum wear. This optimum level was in the range of 7-17% by volume and depended on the composition of the cermet constituent. Reductions in mass loss for the couples on the order of 50% (an improvement in performance by a factor of approximately two) were obtained for the best-performing compositions, as compared to couples m which the coating contained no solid lubricant.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207