Are you D. Durgalakshmi?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)3.33 Total impact

  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reports on the corrosion and scratch behavior of TiO2 + 50%HAp nanoceramic coated Ti–13Nb–13Zr orthopedic implant alloy. An adherent thin coating was obtained using the electrophoretic deposition (EPD) technique at 30 V and sintering at 850 °C. The microstructure of the coated surfaces was characterized by optical microscopy, AFM, and SEM, and the composition of the coating was examined using EDAX. The functional groups and formed phases analyzed using FT-IR, and XRD. Further, the adhesion strength of the coatings was evaluated using scratch tester and the corrosion behavior of all samples was tested in Simulated Body Fluid (SBF-Hank's solution) using a potentiodynamic polarization studies. The sintered coating exhibited higher adhesion, lower porosity and higher density compared to unsintered samples, and higher corrosion resistance compared to the substrate. However, the corrosion resistance of the unsintered coating was superior to that of the sintered one due to the presence of minimal interconnected porosity.
    Ceramics International 05/2012; 38(4-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2011.12.056):3435-3443. · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Implants made out of Ti alloys often fail due to their lower wear and corrosion resistance. In order to obviate this problem, submicrometric diamond films were grown on Ti–13Nb–13Zr and Ti–23Nb–0.7Ta–2Zr–O (Gum metal) using hot filament chemical vapor deposition technique. Deposited films were characterized using XRD, Raman, SEM, AFM and nanointender. The electrochemical corrosion and reciprocatory wear behavior of the coated samples were evaluated in simulated body fluid. The results demonstrate that corrosion and wear properties of the diamond coated Gum metal are far superior than Ti–13Nb–13Zr alloy, due to the presence of beta phase in the former alloy.
    Tribology International 63:132–140. · 1.54 Impact Factor