From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Mesh structure and the schematic view of the FE model. Average mesh size around the impact region is dP/25.

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Adiabatic stress–strain curves for each material at ɛ· = 107 based on the JC model (model parameters are provided in Table 2)

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Deformation and plastic strain distributions for (a) copper, (b) aluminum, (c) 316 L steel, (d) titanium, (e) Cu-on-Al, and (f) Al-on-Cu at t = 200 ns for different impact velocities. Rebound/bonding behavior of the particle for σc = 200 MPa is shown. Note that simulations with different σc values show that it has no or little effect on the particle and substrate deformation patterns. Particle bonding is observed at (a-2), (a-3), (b-4), (c-4), (d-4), (f-3), and (f-4). Particle entrapment due to mechanical interlocking can be seen in (e-2) and (e-3).

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Rebound kinetic energy of the particle (KER) for different effective cohesive strength values. Critical velocity is the velocity at which KER of the particle goes to zero. Notice the scale change of vertical axis in (a) and (f).

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Calculated critical velocities (solid lines) for a dP = 25 μm particle for each particle–substrate material system along with the experimental results from literature (hollow circles). In (a), calculated critical velocities for different particles sizes are marked with solid triangles. Experimental data are taken from Refs. [5,6,23,28,50–56].

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Time evolution of the contact area at different impact velocities (a) and effective cohesive strength values (b). (c) Area in contact (shown in dark gray) at different times for impact with VP = 750 m/s and σc = 400 MPa. Bonded area is the region that stays in contact during the entire duration of rebound phase. Particle and substrate materials are titanium.

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: (a) The normalized contact area (A¯c = Ac/2πdp2) and (b) the lower bound of the interfacial bonding energy, predicted by using the results of σc = 0, as a function of the damage parameter (ρVp2/2Y). The ratio of the kinetic energy of rebound to contact area (KER/Ac) is used as the lower bound of the interfacial bonding energy. The density and the dynamic yield stress values (ρ,Y) used in this analysis are (8940 kg/m3, 401 MPa) for copper, (4500 kg/m3, 959 MPa) for titanium, (2710 kg/m3, 391 MPa) for aluminum, and (8000 kg/m3, 829 MPa) for steel.

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: The effects of COF on (a) compression ratio, (b) normalized crater depth, and (c) rebound velocity

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: The effects of COF on the total interfacial contact force due to contact pressure and frictional stresses for the cases COF = 0.1 and COF = 0.9, at 400 m/s impact

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Compression ratio (CR), normalized crater depth (CD), rebound velocity and maximum temperature for different mesh sizes

From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes Date of download: 10/8/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: A Numerical Investigation Into Cold Spray Bonding Processes J. Tribol. 2014;137(1):011102-011102-13. doi:10.1115/1.4028471 Figure Legend: Deformed mesh structure of the particle and the substrate (a), and rebound velocity as a function of particle impact velocity (b) for failure strains εf = 1, εf = 2, and no failure condition (εf = ∞). Particle and substrate are both copper.