Abrasion Behavior of Nanostructured and Conventional Titania Coatings Thermally Sprayed via APS, VPS and HVOF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nanostructured and conventional titania feedstocks were thermally sprayed using APS, VPS and HVOF techniques to study the effects of processing, microstructure and properties on the abrasion behavior. The in-flight characteristics (temperature and velocity) of the APS and HVOF-sprayed particles were also investigated. For the nanostructured coatings, a process map was developed relating the in-flight particle characteristics during coating deposition to the abrasion resistance. This map showed that the particle velocity and particle temperature had an important influence on the volume loss in abrasion tests. Coatings were characterized using SEM to investigate the microstructural features, image analysis to measure coating porosity and Vickers indentation to determine hardness. The abrasion behavior of the coatings was evaluated using the ASTM standard dry sand/rubber wheel test. The abrasion results indicated that the VPS and HVOF-sprayed nanostructured titania coatings exhibited the highest abrasion resistance among the 14 coatings studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".