Impact Deposition Behavior of Al/B4C Cold-Sprayed Composite Coatings: Understanding the Role of Porosity on Particle Retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the role of porosity in the impact deposition of a ceramic-reinforced metal-matrix (i.e., Al/B4C) composite coating fabricated via cold spraying. The Johnson-Holmquist-Beissel constitutive law and the modified Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model were used to describe the high strain-rate behavior of the boron carbide and the aluminum metal matrix during impact deposition, respectively. Within a finite element model framework, the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian technique is implemented to explore the roles of reinforcement particle size and velocity, and pore size and depth in particle retention by examining the post-impact crater morphology, penetration depth, and localized plastic deformation of the aluminum substrate. Results reveal that some degree of matrix porosity may improve particle retention. In particular, porosity near the surface facilitates particle retention at lower impact velocities, while kinetic energy dominates particle retention at higher deposition velocities. Altogether, these results provide insights into the effect of deposition variables (i.e., particle size, impact velocity, pore size, and pore depth) on particle retention that improves coating quality.
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".