Environmental Barrier Coatings to protect Ceramic Matrix Composites in next-generation jet engines

Sammanfattning: Gas turbine engine efficiency needs to be raised in order to decrease fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and expenses. Efficiency may be improved in two ways: by reducing engine weight and raising intake temperatures. At intake temperature, conventional nickel-based alloys are already on the verge of failure, meaning there is a need and demand of materials which can withstand higher temperatures. Silicon Carbide Ceramic Matrix Composites (SiC CMCs) are being investigated as a potential replacement for superalloys due to their superior physical properties, such as their low weight and high melting point (approximately one-third of superalloys' weight). However, using SiC CMCs has a serious disadvantage. The mass recession of the SiC is caused by the volatilization of silicon hydroxide, which is caused by oxidation and reactivity with water vapor under the working conditions of gas turbine engines. Therefore, a shielding layer is used to prevent oxidation of the SiC CMCs. This protective coating (EBC) goes by the name of Environmental Barrier Coating. Thermal spray techniques such as atmospheric plasma spray and suspension plasma spray, which employ powder as the feedstock, are used to deposit EBC on SiC CMCs. For EBC to perform well, the coating must be crystalline, reasonably thick to sustain harsh environment, and devoid of cracks. EBC was deposited in order to look at how the spray parameters affected the microstructure. SEM pictures were used to quantify the coating's porosity and the severity of the cracks. To investigate the production of thermally grown oxide (TGO) in the coating and substrate and check how EBCs perform under thermal cyclic fatigue loading, a thermal cyclic fatigue test was conducted. The XRD analysis is performed to ascertain the proportion of crystalline and amorphous phases in the coating, which unfortunately is still in the process to be completed. In the as-sprayed coating samples we can see that when there are more amount and larger pores, we see less number of cracks and vice versa. The effect of spray parameters can be seen on the coatings. Comparing to SPS trial 1, the SPS trial 2 coatings are denser with less number of cracks and has good adhesion. Still the SPS trial 2 coating did not achieve better microstructure in terms of density, and cracks compared to the APS coatings but further looking into the parameters, more desirable coatings can be achieved. After TCF testing, a layer of TGO was seen at the bond coat/topcoat interface, and there was no failure of the coating seen.