Tungsten carbide coating problem
05-19-2008, 01:11 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-19-2008, 01:13 PM by ycwbycwb.)
#1
Tungsten carbide coating problem
Dear All,

Metco 73F-NS powder was plasma sprayed with 9MB. Two coating samples were checked with metallography. I had expect that coating 2 would be harder than coating 1 but the result wasn't that. I attach them here. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Coating 1

(link dead)

Coating 2

(link dead)
Reply
05-19-2008, 03:22 PM,
#2
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi ycwbycwb

My choice of coating would be No.2 even though apparent porosity appears higher, the content of primary WC is much higher. The first coating appears to have been sprayed with parameters leading to particle overheating, leading to oxidation/dissolving of WC forming a harder/brittle matrix. I would not be surprised to find that the first coating is the harder. Hardness values on WC/Co type coatings in itself is not a good indicator of wear properties.
Reply
05-19-2008, 03:39 PM,
#3
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi, Gordon,

Thanks for your comment.
Coating 1 has hardness about HV300 850 but coating 2 about 550. The hardness difference is bigger than I thought. Coating 2 seems to be more brittle than coating 1 during Vickers hardness test.
More preserved WC should result in acceptable hardness at least such as HV300 750. But what's wrong with this coating? (The hardness result was double checked.)

Regards,
Ycwbycwb
Reply
05-19-2008, 04:05 PM,
#4
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi ycwbycwb

The hardness does seem to be very low. I would expect above 750, more like 850-950 at top end. The second coating does look a little on the porous side. My experience is that using the Metco recommended parameters should give you better coating qualities than what you are getting. What parameters are you using?
Reply
05-20-2008, 01:13 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-20-2008, 01:13 AM by ycwbycwb.)
#5
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi, Gordon,

Coating 1 Coating 2
Ar: 140scfh 180scfh
H2: 7 6
Voltage: 65V 67V
Current: 450A 450A
Powder feed rate: 22g/min 22g/min
Powder gas pressure: 3.5bar 3.5bar
Powder gas flow: 9.5 9.5
Spray Distance: 60mm 60mm

----------------------------------
Regards,
Ycwbycwb
Reply
05-20-2008, 02:53 AM,
#6
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi ycwbycwb

The only Metco parameters I have for 73F-NS-1 or 2 with Ar/H2 were standard may be 10 or more years ago for 7/9MB, so they may have been revised.

GE/731A Nozzle
#2 powder port
Ar 160 FMR @ 100 psi (6.9 bar)
H2 80% (low capacity flow tube) @ 50psi (3.4 bar)
400A @ 50 - 55V
50 FMR carrier gas flow
11lb/hr (5 kg/hr) powder feed rate
3" (75 mm) spray distance

Ar 160 FMR @100 psi should roughly be 180 SCFH
H2 flow I have no conversion info, but going by voltage your flows appear higher (assuming you are using same nozzle and hardware).

These parameters should give coatings ~3% porosity and cross-sectional hardness 750 - 950 HV/0.3. If you need better coatings, you will need to use Ar only or Ar/He parameters.

You can certainly see the difference in coating structure corresponding to higher primary flow (higher velocity, lower dwell time) in coating 2. Big Grin

Hope that helps
Reply
05-20-2008, 06:41 AM,
#7
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi, Gordon,

Powder bulletin for 73F-NS is temporarily stored at here

I understand why the user manual of 9MB recommends Ar for 184 scfh.
But it also recommends 66-68V voltage. This puzzles me.

I should follow the powder bulletin or the 9MB user manual?

----------------------
Regards,
Ycwbycwb
Reply
05-20-2008, 01:10 PM,
#8
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi Ycwbycwb

Your powder bulletin is much the same as my old technical bulletin dated 1981 and the same parameters as the 9MB gun manual dated 1988 Happy0193

The newer plasma control panels now have different gas flow metering giving direct readout in SCFH which complicates the use of old parameters, particularly secondary hydrogen gas flows. Also gun voltage I believe is now measured at the gun, while all the parameters mentioned above were intended for the older consoles that measured voltage at the console and took into consideration the voltage drop along 15' cables. So you would expect the newer system to actually run on a lower indicated voltage reading (~ 2 - 3V lower) than an older system running exactly the same parameters. This makes the parameter discrepancies even more puzzling Rolleyes

I would try both parameter sets and compare. Setting the hydrogen flow in SCFH for the technical bulletin parameters will be a bit tricky as the old low capacity flow meter reading is not so easily converted as the Ar (Ar ~ 180 SCFH equiv to 160FMR @ 100psi or 180FMR @ 75psi) See https://www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion/pgcalc.htm. Though I don't like to set plasma parameters up by voltage, preferring to always set by plasma gas flows and use voltage as an indicator that the system is running ok., in this case not knowing H2 SCFH I would set voltage between 50 and 55V or try comparing at either extreme.

It would be interesting to know what Sulzer Metco think of these discrepancies in parameters Big Grin

Good luck
Reply
05-20-2008, 01:42 PM,
#9
RE: Tungsten carbide coating problem
Hi, Gordon,

Thanks a lot for guiding me out of these puzzles.

----------------------
Regards,
Ycwbycwb
Reply




Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Request for solution to reduce porosity in HVOF Tungsten Carbide Coatings sreenuvundela 7 8,753 07-22-2020, 08:01 AM
Last Post: Simon Kim
  Tungsten Carbide HVOF Removal PrecisionCarbide 9 9,121 02-24-2020, 11:17 AM
Last Post: Packiaraj Mutharasu
  Chrome-Carbide coating issue DanyGans 11 6,405 10-08-2019, 05:19 PM
Last Post: Lemster68
  remove tungsten coating gito 1 1,056 03-22-2019, 10:12 PM
Last Post: sprayloud
  roller surface high roughness Tungsten carbide coating Ra 0.15-0.3mm zhuminkun 6 2,465 02-08-2019, 04:59 AM
Last Post: Taz
  strange ring shaped grooves in carbide coating DavidH 3 1,896 08-21-2017, 02:01 PM
Last Post: DavidH
  Dark surface after grinding of plasma tungsten carbide coating Lazha 1 2,137 05-31-2017, 12:07 PM
Last Post: loriolo
  HVAF tungsten carbide to replace hard chrome - Help??!!! Adamreis 2 2,455 02-20-2017, 11:04 PM
Last Post: Vig
  Craking problem in Al2O3+ TiO2 plasma coating Hector Monjardin 4 2,899 09-22-2016, 01:33 PM
Last Post: Hector Monjardin
  Fused coating problem sprayloud 8 5,039 01-22-2016, 10:30 PM
Last Post: KevinS
  Effective Way of Testing hardness of Tungsten Carbide MANGESH 2 4,751 12-03-2015, 09:25 PM
Last Post: alaskangrown
  Tungsten Carbide coatings Sealants sorousheti 5 5,112 11-23-2015, 10:18 AM
Last Post: sorousheti
  Boron Carbide as a Surface Coating TCHP222 0 2,387 11-12-2015, 08:06 PM
Last Post: TCHP222
  Coating delamination problem texnicar 13 7,729 07-07-2015, 10:37 PM
Last Post: Johnny_Blaze
  Metco 450 coating surface problem Yaakov 2 4,572 05-06-2015, 01:54 PM
Last Post: loriolo



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)





Surface Engineering Forum Sponsor - Alphatek Hyperformance Coatings Ltd