Cargando…

Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach

In this work, the porosity of plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO)-based coatings on Al- and Mg-based substrates was studied by two imaging techniques—namely, SEM and computer microtomography. Two approaches for porosity determination were chosen; relatively simple and fast SEM surface and cross-sect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karlova, Polina, Serdechnova, Maria, Blawert, Carsten, Lu, Xiaopeng, Mohedano, Marta, Tolnai, Domonkos, Zeller-Plumhoff, Berit, Zheludkevich, Mikhail L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36143626
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15186315
_version_ 1784795772627189760
author Karlova, Polina
Serdechnova, Maria
Blawert, Carsten
Lu, Xiaopeng
Mohedano, Marta
Tolnai, Domonkos
Zeller-Plumhoff, Berit
Zheludkevich, Mikhail L.
author_facet Karlova, Polina
Serdechnova, Maria
Blawert, Carsten
Lu, Xiaopeng
Mohedano, Marta
Tolnai, Domonkos
Zeller-Plumhoff, Berit
Zheludkevich, Mikhail L.
author_sort Karlova, Polina
collection PubMed
description In this work, the porosity of plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO)-based coatings on Al- and Mg-based substrates was studied by two imaging techniques—namely, SEM and computer microtomography. Two approaches for porosity determination were chosen; relatively simple and fast SEM surface and cross-sectional imaging was compared with X-ray micro computed tomography (microCT) rendering. Differences between 2D and 3D porosity were demonstrated and explained. A more compact PEO coating was found on the Al substrate, with a lower porosity compared to Mg substrates under the same processing parameters. Furthermore, huge pore clusters were detected with microCT. Overall, 2D surface porosity calculations did not show sufficient accuracy for them to become the recommended method for the exact evaluation of the porosity of PEO coatings; microCT is a more appropriate method for porosity evaluation compared to SEM imaging. Moreover, the advantage of 3D microCT images clearly lies in the detection of closed and open porosity, which are important for coating properties.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9502706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95027062022-09-24 Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach Karlova, Polina Serdechnova, Maria Blawert, Carsten Lu, Xiaopeng Mohedano, Marta Tolnai, Domonkos Zeller-Plumhoff, Berit Zheludkevich, Mikhail L. Materials (Basel) Article In this work, the porosity of plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO)-based coatings on Al- and Mg-based substrates was studied by two imaging techniques—namely, SEM and computer microtomography. Two approaches for porosity determination were chosen; relatively simple and fast SEM surface and cross-sectional imaging was compared with X-ray micro computed tomography (microCT) rendering. Differences between 2D and 3D porosity were demonstrated and explained. A more compact PEO coating was found on the Al substrate, with a lower porosity compared to Mg substrates under the same processing parameters. Furthermore, huge pore clusters were detected with microCT. Overall, 2D surface porosity calculations did not show sufficient accuracy for them to become the recommended method for the exact evaluation of the porosity of PEO coatings; microCT is a more appropriate method for porosity evaluation compared to SEM imaging. Moreover, the advantage of 3D microCT images clearly lies in the detection of closed and open porosity, which are important for coating properties. MDPI 2022-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9502706/ /pubmed/36143626 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15186315 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Karlova, Polina
Serdechnova, Maria
Blawert, Carsten
Lu, Xiaopeng
Mohedano, Marta
Tolnai, Domonkos
Zeller-Plumhoff, Berit
Zheludkevich, Mikhail L.
Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach
title Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach
title_full Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach
title_fullStr Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach
title_short Comparison of 2D and 3D Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO)-Based Coating Porosity Data Obtained by X-ray Tomography Rendering and a Classical Metallographic Approach
title_sort comparison of 2d and 3d plasma electrolytic oxidation (peo)-based coating porosity data obtained by x-ray tomography rendering and a classical metallographic approach
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36143626
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15186315
work_keys_str_mv AT karlovapolina comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT serdechnovamaria comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT blawertcarsten comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT luxiaopeng comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT mohedanomarta comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT tolnaidomonkos comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT zellerplumhoffberit comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach
AT zheludkevichmikhaill comparisonof2dand3dplasmaelectrolyticoxidationpeobasedcoatingporositydataobtainedbyxraytomographyrenderingandaclassicalmetallographicapproach