Efficient Thermal Barrier Coating Removal by Nanosecond Laser
Source abstract
Abstract
Repair and reuse of failed thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) have a very important impact on economic efficiency and quality. In this study, a nanosecond laser-based coating removing process has been used to remove the TBCs top coating, the results showing that nanosecond laser can remove the top coating at a high speed and without affecting the bond coat. Among them, the ablation depth was related to pulse duration, laser scanning speed, and removal path. Based on the test of different process parameters, their advantages have been summarized. Furthermore, the best removal path has been designed to achieve the best removal results, and the total removal time is controlled within 45 s. In addition, based on finite element analysis, a three-dimensional model for simulation of the residual thermal and residual stress has been developed, in order to discuss the influence of the removal path and the phenomenon of thin TBC spalling in the experiment. Based on this investigation, the mechanism of residual stress in the laser spalling of TBCs is proposed. Combined with the ablation and stress spalling mechanisms of the nanosecond laser, the optimal TBC removal result was achieved with high efficiency.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: High-Temperature Coating Behaviors · Laser Material Processing Techniques · Laser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. A.G. Evans, D.R. Mumm, J.W. Hutchinsom, G.H. Heier, and F.S. Pettit, Prog. Mater. Sci. 5, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6425(00)00020-7 (2011).10.1016/S0079-6425(00)00020-7 ↗
2. G.L. Carlos, Curr. Opin. Solid. State Mater. 1, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2004.03.009 (2002).10.1016/j.cossms.2004.03.009 ↗
3. D.R. Clarke, M. Oechsner, and N.P. Padture, MRS Bull. 10, 37. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2012.232 (2012).10.1557/mrs.2012.232 ↗
4. R. Darolia, Int. Mater. Rev. 6, 58. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743280413Y.0000000019 (2013).10.1179/1743280413Y.0000000019 ↗
5. N.P. Padture, M. Gell, and E.H. Jordan, Science 5566, 296. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1068609 (2002).10.1126/science.1068609 ↗
6. M. Ranjbar-Far, J. Absi, S. Shahidi, and G. Mariaux, Mater. Des. 2, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.034 (2011).10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.034 ↗
7. M.R. Rad, G.H. Farrahi, M. Azadi, and M. Ghodrati, Ceram Int. 10, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.07.121 (2014).10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.07.121 ↗
8. L. Wu, J. Zhu, and H. Xie, J. Therm. Spray. Technol. 4, 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11666-014-0063-8 (2014).10.1007/s11666-014-0063-8 ↗
9. M.J. Lee, B.C. Lee, J.G. Lim, and M.K. Kim, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 6, 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-014-0315-z (2014).10.1007/s12206-014-0315-z ↗
10. M. Arai, J. Therm. Spray. Technol. 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11666-017-0576-z (2017).10.1007/s11666-017-0576-z ↗
11. P. Zhang, X. Zhang, F. Li, Z.H. Zhang, Y.L. Wang, L.Q. Ren, and M. Liu, J. Therm. Spray. Technol. 6, 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11666-019-00880-2 (2019).10.1007/s11666-019-00880-2 ↗
12. S. Marimuthu, A.M. Kamara, H.K. Sezer, L. Li, and G.K.L. Ng, Comput. Mater. Sci. 88, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.02.022 (2014).10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.02.022 ↗
13. S. Marimuthu, B. Smith, A. Kiely, and Y.J. Liu, Cirp. J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2019.11.004 (2019).10.1016/j.cirpj.2019.11.004 ↗
14. B.M. Warnes, and J.E. Schilbe, Surf. Coat. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0257-8972(01)01370-6 (2001).10.1016/S0257-8972(01)01370-6 ↗
15. X. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Lu, H.Y. Park, Y.G. Jung, H. Park, D.D. Koo, R. Sinatra, J. Zhang, and T.I. Met, Finish. 3, 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00202967.2020.1750204 (2020).10.1080/00202967.2020.1750204 ↗
16. S. Zhang, L. Xu, J. Wu, Y. Yang, C.X. Zhang, H.Y. Tao, J.Q. Lin, L.C. Huang, W.C. Fang, K.Y. Shi, and X.T. Dong, Nano. Res. 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-021-3811-3 (2022).10.1007/s12274-021-3811-3 ↗
17. W. Qian, Y. Hua, R. Chen, P. Xu, and J. Yang, Mater. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2020.127570 (2020).10.1016/j.matlet.2020.127570 ↗
18. A. Sassmannshausen, A. Brenner, and J. Finger, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 293, 117058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117058 (2021).10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117058 ↗
19. M. Wisse, L. Marot, R. Steiner, D. Mathys, A.A. Stumpp, and Joanny, Fus. Sci. Technol. 2, 66. https://doi.org/10.13182/FST13-771 (2014).10.13182/FST13-771 ↗
20. K.H. Leitz, B. Redlingshöfer, Y. Reg, O. Andreas, and S. Michael, Phys. Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.128 (2011).10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.128 ↗
21. H.P. Zhang, Z.Y. Cai, J.X. Chi, R.J.C. Sun, Z.G. Che, L.C. Lin, P. Peng, H.Q. Zhang, and B. Wei, Surf. Coat. Technol. 15, 437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128378 (2022).10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128378 ↗
22. W.F. Zou, Y.M. Xie, X. Xiao, and Y. Luo, Chin. Phys. B. 7, 23. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/23/7/074205 (2014).10.1088/1674-1056/23/7/074205 ↗
23. Z.H. Jin, and G.H. Paulino, Int. J. Fract. 1, 107. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026583903046 (2001).10.1023/A:1026583903046 ↗
24. Q. Li, P. Hou, and S. Shang, Int. J. Mech. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.107024 (2022).10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.107024 ↗
25. S.R. Dhineshkumar, M. Duraiselvam, and S. Natarajan, Ceram Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.03.134 (2016).10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.03.134 ↗
26. K. Yan, Y. Xiang, H. Yu, Z. Li, Y. Wu, and J. Sun, Surf. Coat. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.128038 (2022).10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.128038 ↗