Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 562–565 | Cite as

Surface characteristics of 4340 steel treated by electrolytic plasma processing

  • Y. H. Cheng
  • P. Gupta
  • E. I. MeletisEmail author
Letter

Surface cleaning, a crucial pretreatment for coating processes, is routinely used to remove impurities, rust, and mill scale from steel surfaces that inadvertently affect coating adhesion. Traditional surface cleaning techniques such as acid pickling or blasting, suffer from serious environmental problems. Besides these concerns, acid pickling can introduce hydrogen into the material during cleaning, causing premature failure in high-strength steels via hydrogen embrittlement (HE).

Electrolytic plasma processing (EPP) is a newly developed environmentally friendly technique for deep and large scale metal surface cleaning and coating with high efficiency, simplicity, and high process flexibility [1, 2, 3]. In this process, an electrical potential is applied between the workpiece (cathode) and a counter electrode (anode) in the presence of an aqueous electrolyte. Above a critical voltage, electrolysis takes place followed by fine hydrogen bubble formation and continuous arcing plasma...

Keywords

Hydrogen Embrittlement Nuclear Reaction Analysis Surface Nanocrystalline Layer Film Physical Vapor Deposition Peak Center Position 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by SERDP (Strategic and Environmental Research and Development Program) Project NOO173-03-2113. The authors thank Drs. Haralabos Efstathiadis (Albany Nanotech Institute) for the Nuclear Reaction Analysis, Scott Grendahl (US Army Research Laboratory) for the hydrogen embrittlement testing and Eddie Daigle (CAP Technologies) for assisting with the electrolytic plasma processing of the samples.

References

  1. 1.
    Meletis EI, Nie X, Wang FL, Jiang JC (2002) Surf Coat Technol 150:246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schilling PJ, Herrington PD, Daigle EO, Meletis EI (2002) J Mater Eng Perform 11:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gupta P, Tenhundfeld G, Daigle EO, Schilling PJ (2005) Surf Coat Technol 200:1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klapkiv MD (1995) Mater Sci 31:494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yerokhin AL, Nie X, Leyland A, Matthews A, Dowey SJ (1999) Surf Coat Technol 122:73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cullity BD, Stock SR (2001) Elements of X-ray diffraction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 07458, p 399Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang S, Xie H, Zeng X, Hing P (1999) Surf Coat Technol 122:219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rafaja D, Valvoda V, Kuzel R, Perry AJ, Treglio JR (1999) Surf Coat Technol 86:302Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murr LE, Staudhammer KP, Meyers MA (1995) Metallurgical and materials applications of shock-wave and high-strain-rate phenomena. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, p 543Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng YH, Tay BK (2003) J Vac Sci Technol A 21(5):1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IAW ASTM E8 (Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials AASHTO No.: T68 E (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Science and Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.CAP TechnologiesBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.American Eagle Instruments, IncMissoulaUSA
  4. 4.Boston ScientificMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations