Metco 480
08-06-2009, 01:14 PM,
#1
Metco 480
Hello everybody;
We are using Metco 450 as a most common bond coat for our plasma spray applications.
Now we are out of Metco 450, but we have Metco 480 at our stock.
I examined the service bultens of both coating, their chemical composition and particle
size are same, so they look similiar also Metco 480 has a bond strength of 11000 psi, Metco 450
has 3000 psi. As compared with Metco 450, Metco 480 has better mechanical properties.

As a bond coat can we use Metco 480 (B50TF56 Class B) instead of Metco 450 (B50TF56 Class A)? Does anybody expreince on Metco 480
Reply
08-06-2009, 01:39 PM,
#2
RE: Metco 480
Yes you can use it in place of SM 450NS.
A while back there was a shortage of SM 450NS so we had a concession (from RR, PWA, etc) to use it. It sprays very similar to 450NS - if I remember correctly the build up was slightly slower (more cycles required) but don't take this as absolute!

SM 480NS has the same OEM Specs for RR and GE (albeit the Classes are different) but with PWA it is 1380 whereas SM 450NS is 1337.

SM 450NS does for some reason have way more approvals though?

Cheers

GlenB
Reply
08-07-2009, 01:43 PM,
#3
RE: Metco 480
As a bond coat can we use Metco 480 (B50TF56 Class B) instead of Metco 450 (B50TF56 Class A)? Does anybody expreince on Metco 480
[/quote]

Good afternoon,

The primary difference between 450NS and 480NS is the particle morphology. 450NS is a nickel core clad with aluminium, whereas 480NS is a fully alloyed powder.

Both make excellent bond coats and are often used interchangeably. There are different approvals though as Glen has pointed out (although several in common)

450NS
Canada Pratt Whitney CPW 247 GE B50A891
GE B50TF56, Class A Honeywell M3951
Honeywell Allied Signal EMS 57746, Type I Honeywell Allied Signal FP 5045, Type XV
MTU MTS 1080 Pratt Whitney PWA 1337
Rolls-Royce MSRR 9507/5 Rolls-Royce Allison EMS 56757
SNECMA DMR 33.011 Williams WIMS 64

480NS
Canada Pratt Whitney CPW 490 CFM International CP 6007
GE B50TF56, Class B Honeywell Allied Signal EMS 57746, Type I, Class 1
Pratt Whitney PWA 1380 Rolls-Royce MSRR 9507/5
Simon Hiiemae
Sulzer Metco (UK) Ltd
01633 488 091
emailaddressisSimon.Hiiemae@Sulzer.com
Reply
08-08-2009, 08:48 PM,
#4
RE: Metco 480
Quote:I examined the service bultens of both coating, their chemical composition and particle
size are same
Yes, but as pointed out by SimonH
Quote:The primary difference between 450NS and 480NS is the particle morphology. 450NS is a nickel core clad with aluminium, whereas 480NS is a fully alloyed powder.

Both make excellent bond coats and are often used interchangeably. There are different approvals though as Glen has pointed out (although several in common)

Just like to add - 450NS contains tiny aluminium particles organically glued to larger nickel particles. The constituents are separate and not alloyed as in 480NS. Although of similar chemical composition as a whole, the coatings produced are somewhat different. 450NS coatings are essentially pure nickel along with oxides of aluminium and nickel. There is little if any reaction between nickel and aluminium during spraying of 450NS (in conflict with the idea of exothermic reaction between Ni and Al forming nickel aluminides), exothermic reaction is purely aluminium burning with oxygen from air. 480NS on the other hand forms a NiAl alloy coating containing a slightly lesser amount of oxides. Both coatings make excellent bond coats and in most cases are interchangeable with no problem. Just wanted to highlight the products and coatings are different.

Quote:Metco 480 has a bond strength of 11000 psi, Metco 450
has 3000 psi. As compared with Metco 450, Metco 480 has better mechanical properties.

This may sound a significant difference, but in practice it means little. Bond coats form part of a coating system. Failure (with regard to bonding failure) is down to the "weakest link in the chain" with 450NS and 480NS this is not usually at the interface with substrate, but with the bond coat/top coat interface. I can visualise situation where 450NS may out perform 480NS due to rougher surface texture (conjecture - no evidence).
Reply
08-08-2009, 11:01 PM,
#5
RE: Metco 480
Quote:SM 450NS does for some reason have way more approvals though?

Metco 450NS is way older than 480NS, so claimed many approvals before 480NS became excepted.
Reply
08-11-2009, 08:20 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-11-2009, 08:34 AM by codep.)
#6
RE: Metco 480
(08-08-2009, 11:01 PM)Gordon Wrote:
Quote:SM 450NS does for some reason have way more approvals though?

Metco 450NS is way older than 480NS, so claimed many approvals before 480NS became excepted.

Can we say metco 480 has better bonding properties?
Reply
08-16-2009, 01:08 PM,
#7
RE: Metco 480
Hi codep

From what we read, I think we can assume 480NS has a higher tensile bond strength to steel substrates. Whether it has better bonding properties as a bond coat considering total coating system is debatable.

Similar subject in this thread difference-between-metco-450ns-and-metco
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)





Surface Engineering Forum Sponsor - Alphatek Hyperformance Coatings Ltd