MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409002167 · doi:10.3390/coatings15040405

Numerical Examination of Particle and Substrate Oxide Layer Failure and Porosity Formation in Coatings Deposited Using Liquid Cold Spray

2025· article· en· W4409002167 on OpenAlexaff
P. Khamsepour, Ali Akbarnozari, Daniel W. MacDonald, Luc Pouliot, Christian Moreau, Ali Dolatabadi

Bibliographic record

VenueCoatings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePorosityGas dynamic cold sprayLayer (electronics)Composite materialSubstrate (aquarium)Particle (ecology)Thermal sprayingOxideMetallurgyCoating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold spray (CS) uses high-velocity gas to deposit solid particles without oxidation or phase change. To make the spraying process more economical, a wider-sized cut of feedstock particles needs to be deposited. The liquid cold spray (LCS) process, which uses water as a propellant, has been developed to achieve this goal. The use of water as a propellant may adversely affect particle deformation and adhesion. In this study, numerical methods are used to analyze particle and substrate oxide failure to determine the effects of wetting on particle adhesion to a substrate. The results indicate that water on the particle surface or on substrate would reduce the deformation of both. The area in which oxide layers fail and metallurgical bonding can occur would be reduced. A portion of the water may become entrapped between the particle and the substrate, adversely affecting the bonding area. Increasing particle velocity and decreasing water thickness can reduce the volume of trapped water and improve density by increasing particle deformation and decreasing pore size.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoatingsSame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207