MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294702732 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2007p0660

Deposition and Characterization of WC–Co Coatings Prepared by Continuous- and Pulsed-Cold Spray Processes

2007· article· en· W4294702732 on OpenAlexaff
M. Yandouzi, E. Sansoucy, P. Richer, B. Jodoin, L. Ajdelsztajn

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCermetMaterials scienceNanocrystalline materialRaw materialGas dynamic cold sprayThermal sprayingMetallurgyCoatingPorosityDeposition (geology)MicrostructureCalcinationComposite materialCeramicNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Due to their mechanical properties, WC-based cermet coatings are extensively used in industrial wear-resistant applications. These coatings are usually prepared using thermal spray processes. However, due to the nature/environment of the spraying processes, the feedstock powder structure and properties suffer from severe decomposition, which subsequently degrade the performance of the coatings produced. The cold spray process appears to be a promising process alternative to preserve the properties of the feedstock powder during the coating preparation. Although, the later technique can eliminate or minimize the degradation of the material, the deposition of cermet is a complex process. In this study, nanocrystalline WC-15Co and conventional WC- 10Co4Cr coatings were deposited using both the continuous and the pulsed cold spray processes. Microstructures of the feedstock powders and the coated layers were investigated by OM, SEM and XRD. The results revealed the possibility of depositing cermet coatings onto aluminum substrates by both processes without any degradation of the phase composition of the feedstock powder. However, the continuous process experienced difficulty in depositing and building up dense coatings without major defects. Meanwhile, the new pulsed process revealed the capacity of depositing thick cermet (conventional and nanocrystalline) coatings with low porosity as long as the feedstock powder was preheated above 573 K.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
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

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207