Magnetic-aided electrospark deposition

  • T. M. YueEmail author
  • J. W Liu


A new electrospark deposition method (ESD), which employs a magnetized electrode to which fine powder is attracted, is proposed and studied. Unlike the traditional ESD method which employs a solid bar electrode, the electrode tip of this latest development can be regarded as a “fluidized” head formed by an assembly of coating powders. With the powder-assembled head acting like a soft brush, the electrode can closely follow the surface contours of the workpiece. For this magnetic-aided electrospark deposition method (M-ESD), the spark discharge location and the contact condition are no longer dictated by the irregular surface asperities of the solid electrode, but instead, “soft” contacts, which are self-regulating, are established between the magnetized coating powders and the workpiece surface. The experimental results showed that M-ESD was a more stable process than the traditional ESD process; moreover, the deposition weight of the former was significantly higher than that of the latter. The discharge mechanisms of these two processes were found to be different: single discharge for ESD and multiple discharges for M-ESD. This was confirmed by the discharge images captured by a high-speed camera and was supported by the results of the simulation of the electrical fields of the electrodes in the traditional ESD and M-ESD processes.


Electrospark deposition Magnetic Powder Discharge mechanism Electrical waveform 


Funding information

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. PolyU 152096/15E).


  1. 1.
    Farhat R, Brochu M (2012) Utilisation of electrospark deposition to restore local oxidation resistance properties in damaged NiCoCrAlY and CoNiCrAlY coatings. Can Metall Q 51(3):313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin D, Ucok I, Onal K (2014) Electrospark deposition process for oxidation resistant coating of cooling hole. U.S. patent 2014/0050938 A1Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richardson GY, Lei CS, Tabakoff W (2003) Erosion testing of coatings for V-22 aircraft applications. Int J Rotating Mach 9(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Champagne V, Pepi M, Edwards B (2006) Electrospark deposition for the repair of army main battle tank components. Army Research Laboratory, Maryland, USA, Report no. ARL-TR-3849Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson RN, Bailey JA, Goetz JA (2005) Electro-spark deposited coatings for replacement of chrome plating. Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, New Jersey Contractor report ARAET-CR-05002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen CJ, Wang MC, Wang DS, Liang HS, Feng P (2010) Characterisations of electrospark deposition Stellite 6 alloy coating on 316L sealed valve used in nuclear power plant. Mater Sci Technol 26(3):276–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollis KJ (2010) Zirconium diffusion barrier coatings for uranium fuel used in nuclear reactors. Adv Mater Process 168(11):57–59Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jamnapara NI, Frangini S, Avtani DU, Nayak VS, Chauhan NL, Jhala G, Mukherjee S, Khanna AS (2012) Microstructural studies of electrospark deposited aluminide coatings on 9Cr steels. Surf Eng 28(9):700–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boshitskaya NV, Podchernyaeva IA, Lavrenko VA, Uvarova IV, Yurechko DV (2014) Combined functional biocoatings on the VT-6 alloy. Powder Metall Met Ceram 52(9–10):551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li QH, Yue TM, Guo ZN, Lin X (2013) Microstructure and corrosion properties of AlCoCrFeNi high entropy alloy coatings deposited on AISI 1045 steel by the electrospark process. Metall Mater Trans A 44:1767–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reynolds JL, Holdren RL, Brown LE (2003) Electro-spark deposition. Adv Mater Process 161(3):35–37Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belik VD, Litvin RV, Koval’chenko MS (2006) Effect of pulse duration and size of interelectrode interval on electric-spark spraying. I Effect of pulse duration and size of interelectrode interval on rate of electric-spark transfer. Powder Metall Met Ceram 45(11–12):593–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belik VD, Litvin RV, Kovalchenko MS, Rogozinskaya AA (2007) Effect of pulse duration and size of interelectrode interval on electrospark spraying. II. Effect of pulse duration and size of interelectrode interval on composition and mechanical properties of coatings. Powder Metall Met Ceram 46(1–2):95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frangini S, Masci A (2010) A study on the effect of a dynamic contact force control for improving electrospark coating properties. Surf Coat Technol 204:2613–2623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Topală P, Slătineanu L, Dodun O, Coteaţă M, Pînzaru N (2010) Electrospark deposition by using powder materials. Mater Manuf Process 25:932–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burkov AA, Pyachin SA (2015) Formation of WC-Co coating by a novel technique of electrospark granules deposition. Mater Des 80:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suryanarayana C, Inoue A (2013) Iron-based bulk metallic glasses. Int Mater Rev 58(3):131–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zuo TT, Ren SB, Liaw PK, Zhang Y (2013) Processing effects on the magnetic and mechanical properties of FeCoNiAl0.2Si0.2 high entropy alloy. Int J Miner Metall Mater 20(6):549–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xia H, Kunieda M, Nishiwaki N (1994) Research on removal amount difference between anode and cathode in EDM process. Int J Jpn S Prec Eng 28(59):31–40Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Research Centre, Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong

Personalised recommendations