Impact of Eco-friendly and Non-Eco-friendly Thermal Barrier Coatings on the Surface Temperature of Airframes with Steel Substrates: An ANSYS APDL Simulation Study

Impact of Eco-friendly and Non-Eco-friendly Thermal Barrier Coatings on the Surface Temperature of Airframes with Steel Substrates: An ANSYS APDL Simulation Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Impact of Eco-friendly and Non-Eco-friendly Thermal Barrier Coatings on the Surface Temperature of Airframes with Steel Substrates: An ANSYS APDL Simulation Study MURI VENKATESWARA KARTHIK This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5536293/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the influence of environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) on the surface temperature of steel-based airframes subjected to high heat flux. Transient thermal simulations were conducted using ANSYS APDL to assess the thermal performance of ten TBC materials, five of which are environmentally friendly (Silicon Carbide, Titanium Nitride, Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia, Zirconia, and Alumina) and five non-environmentally friendly (Tantalum Carbide, Nickel-Chromium, Chromium Carbide, Tungsten Carbide, and Molybdenum Disilicide). The simulations applied a constant heat flux of 10,000 W/m 2 over a period of 300 seconds, with initial conditions set to 300 K. The airframe without a TBC exhibited significantly higher temperatures compared to those with coatings. Results indicate that environmentally friendly materials achieved up to 31.75% temperature reduction, while non-environmentally friendly materials showed superior performance, reducing temperatures by up to 41.98%. This research provides valuable insights into the thermal efficiency of TBCs and highlights the trade-offs between environmental sustainability and thermal performance, emphasizing the potential for eco-friendly coatings to bridge the gap with non-eco-friendly alternatives through future material innovations. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics Thermal barrier coatings environmentally friendly materials non-environmentally friendly materials steel airframes ANSYS APDL transient thermal analysis heat flux temperature reduction thermal protection sustainable materials thermal conductivity aerospace engineering surface temperature thermal management coating performance INTRODUCTION Thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) play a critical role in mitigating the effects of extreme temperatures on structural materials, particularly in high-performance applications such as aerospace, automotive, and power generation industries. These coatings enhance the thermal resistance of airframes, turbines, and other components, ensuring their durability and operational efficiency under severe thermal conditions. The advent of environmentally sustainable technologies has further amplified the need for eco-friendly alternatives to traditional thermal coatings, prompting research into materials that offer optimal thermal performance without compromising environmental safety. Steel, a widely used structural material, is prone to thermal degradation under prolonged exposure to high temperatures. In this context, the application of TBCs serves as an effective strategy to reduce surface temperatures, thereby improving the service life and reliability of steel-based systems. This research aims to compare the thermal performance of eco-friendly and non-eco-friendly TBCs applied to steel airframes under simulated high heat flux conditions. In this study, transient thermal simulations were performed using ANSYS APDL to evaluate the temperature profile of steel airframes coated with ten different TBC materials. Five of these materials—Silicon Carbide (SiC), Titanium Nitride (TiN), Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ), Zirconia (ZrO₂), and Alumina (Al₂O₃)—were selected for their environmental friendliness. The remaining five—Tantalum Carbide (TaC), Nickel-Chromium (NiCr), Chromium Carbide (Cr₃C₂), Tungsten Carbide (WC), and Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂)—were chosen for their established thermal efficiency but lack of environmental sustainability. This research adopts a structured approach to analyze and compare the temperature reductions achieved by each coating. The simulations involved subjecting the coated airframes to a constant heat flux of 10,000 W/m 2 over 300 seconds, with initial conditions set at 300 K. The study further quantifies the percentage reduction in surface temperatures achieved by the coatings compared to uncoated steel. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology and simulation parameters, including the geometry and material properties of the airframes and TBCs. Section 3 presents and discusses the results, including a detailed analysis of the temperature reduction and a comparison between environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly materials. Finally, Section 4 concludes with key insights and potential directions for future research in sustainable thermal coatings. By addressing the balance between thermal efficiency and environmental impact, this study seeks to contribute to the development of advanced, sustainable materials for thermal management in critical applications. LITERATURE SURVEY Thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) have undergone significant advancements since their initial development. They are widely utilized in various engineering applications such as internal combustion engines, gas turbine blades, and pyrochemical reprocessing units. The development of new materials and deposition techniques is crucial for enhancing the life of the substrate by improving the performance of coatings. Current research focuses on understanding the mechanical properties, high-temperature behavior, residual stresses, failure mechanisms, and life prediction models of TBCs [ 1 ]. The primary objective of TBCs is to reduce the temperature of components in high-temperature environments, thereby improving their performance and efficiency. Ceramic materials are predominantly used for TBCs due to their low thermal conductivity, excellent resistance to oxidation, corrosion, and wear. The most commonly employed coating method is thermal spray coating. TBCs act as effective thermal insulators and protective barriers in aviation and power generation sectors [ 2 ]. Modern advancements in TBCs are driven by the need to enhance the performance of gas turbines and similar high-temperature systems. TBCs typically consist of two layers: the bond coat and the top coat. The top coat, often composed of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), is known for its low thermal conductivity. However, ongoing research is exploring alternative materials like pyrochlore rare-earth zirconates and hexaaluminates to overcome the limitations of YSZ. These novel materials exhibit excellent refractory properties and thermal stability, making them promising candidates for future TBC applications [ 3 ]. The use of TBCs extends to protecting aircraft turbine blades, power plants, and components in nuclear industries from high-temperature exposure. Advanced fabrication methods such as plasma spray deposition, electron-beam physical vapor deposition (EB-PVD), and electrophoretic deposition have enhanced the structural integrity and performance of TBCs. Current research also highlights the limitations of existing systems and provides recommendations for their application in harsh environments [ 4 ]. The competition to develop better TBC materials has led to the creation of various advanced materials and coating technologies. Techniques such as atmospheric plasma spray (APS) and EB-PVD have significantly improved the microstructure and lifespan of coatings. Studies on high-temperature behavior, residual stresses, and failure modes of TBCs continue to drive innovation in this field [ 5 ]. In gas turbine engines, which operate under extreme temperatures and stresses, TBCs play a critical role in improving durability and efficiency. By forming a combination of oxidation-resistant metallic and insulating ceramic layers, TBCs enhance the performance of turbine components. Understanding the materials' failure mechanisms is essential for exploiting the full potential of TBC systems [ 6 ]. The evolution of TBCs has been closely tied to advancements in gas turbine technology. Between 1940 and 1970, improvements in superalloys and engine designs allowed for substantial gains in efficiency, durability, and performance. This period of innovation underscores the importance of material advancements in achieving higher operational temperatures and reliability in gas turbines [ 7 ]. METHODOLOGY Process of the Analysis The thermal performance of various thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) applied to a steel airframe was assessed using transient thermal analysis in ANSYS APDL. The steel airframe served as the base material, with a constant heat flux of 10,000 W/m 2 applied to the external surface of the TBC. The analysis was conducted over a simulation time of 300 seconds, with initial conditions set at 300 K to mimic typical operational startup temperatures. The geometric and material properties for the simulation are as follows: 1. Airframe Geometry: - Outer radius: 0.125m - Inner radius: 0.124m - Length: 0.3m - Element type: 8-node solid element (SOLID70) 2. TBC Geometry: - Outer radius: 0.126m - Inner radius: 0.125m - Length: 0.3m - Element type: 8-node solid element (SOLID70) 3. Simulation Setup: - Heat flux: 10,000 W/m 2 - Time duration: 300 seconds - Time step: 0.1s (total 3000 substeps) - Initial temperature: 300 K For each TBC material, the transient simulation was performed to calculate the temperature distribution within the airframe. The focus was on determining the minimum and maximum temperatures at the surface of the steel substrate, enabling an evaluation of the temperature reduction achieved by the TBC compared to uncoated steel. Explanation of Table Data The data obtained from the simulations is summarized in the table below: Material Minimum Temperature Maximum Temperature Percentage of Temperature Reduction Tantalum Carbide (TaC) 815.521 815.971 24.72341618 Silicon Carbide (SiC) 787.301 787.42 27.34281361 Titanium Nitride (TiN) 768.268 768.584 29.09007906 Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) 761.912 765.142 29.54216162 Zirconia (ZrO2) 751.318 755.309 30.48465915 Alumina (Al2O3) 739.445 739.752 31.75026462 Nickel-Chromium (NiCr) 696.656 697.278 35.6842762 Chromium Carbide (Cr3C2) 685.812 686.246 36.69362837 Tungsten Carbide (WC) 655.763 655.89 39.48069759 Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi2) 628.674 628.818 41.97967102 The results demonstrate that the addition of TBC significantly reduces the surface temperature of the airframe. Materials such as Alumina (Al₂O₃) and Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂) exhibited the highest reductions in surface temperature. Environmentally friendly materials achieved up to 31.75% reduction, while non-environmentally friendly materials performed better, achieving up to 41.98%. Explanation of Graphs The first graph compares the thermal performance of environmentally friendly materials: Silicon Carbide (SiC), Titanium Nitride (TiN), Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ), Zirconia (ZrO₂), and Alumina (Al₂O₃). The graph shows a steady improvement in temperature reduction across these materials, with Alumina achieving the maximum reduction of 31.75%. This indicates that environmentally friendly materials can provide substantial thermal protection while adhering to sustainable material standards. The second graph illustrates the thermal performance of non-environmentally friendly materials: Tantalum Carbide (TaC), Nickel-Chromium (NiCr), Chromium Carbide (Cr₃C₂), Tungsten Carbide (WC), and Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂). Non-environmentally friendly coatings consistently outperformed eco-friendly alternatives, with Molybdenum Disilicide achieving the highest reduction of 41.98%. These results reflect the trade-off between environmental impact and thermal performance, as non-environmentally friendly materials often utilize advanced compounds with superior thermal properties. By comparing these graphs, the study highlights the potential for eco-friendly coatings to approach the performance of their non-environmentally friendly counterparts, underscoring the importance of material innovation for sustainable thermal management. RESULTS Temperature Reduction Analysis The transient thermal simulations revealed a significant reduction in the surface temperature of the steel airframe with the application of thermal barrier coatings (TBCs). The following insights were drawn: 1. Uncoated Steel: The maximum temperature for the uncoated airframe reached 1083.71 K, highlighting the need for thermal protection under high heat flux conditions. 2. Environmentally Friendly TBCs: The environmentally friendly materials demonstrated substantial thermal protection, with the percentage of temperature reduction ranging from 27.34% (Silicon Carbide, SiC) to 31.75% (Alumina, Al₂O₃). Alumina exhibited the best thermal performance among eco-friendly materials, reducing the airframe's surface temperature to a minimum of 739.45 K. 3. Non-Environmentally Friendly TBCs: Non-environmentally friendly coatings outperformed their eco-friendly counterparts, achieving temperature reductions ranging from 24.72% (Tantalum Carbide, TaC) to 41.98% (Molybdenum Disilicide, MoSi₂). Molybdenum Disilicide emerged as the most effective TBC, reducing the airframe’s surface temperature to a minimum of 628.67 K. Comparative Performance of TBCs A comparative analysis of the two material categories is summarized below: 1. Environmentally Friendly Materials: - Average temperature reduction: 29.64% - Best-performing material: Alumina (Al₂O₃), with 31.75% reduction. 2. Non-Environmentally Friendly Materials: - Average temperature reduction: 35.31% - Best-performing material: Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂), with 41.98% reduction. The results demonstrate that while non-environmentally friendly materials deliver superior performance, environmentally friendly coatings achieve significant reductions, making them viable for applications prioritizing sustainability. Graphical Interpretation 1. Environmentally Friendly Coatings (Graph 1): The temperature reduction showed an incremental trend as the thermal properties of the materials improved. Alumina, the most effective material in this category, had the lowest surface temperature of 739.45 K. 2. Non-Environmentally Friendly Coatings (Graph 2): Non-environmentally friendly materials outperformed eco-friendly ones across all temperature ranges. Molybdenum Disilicide exhibited the steepest temperature reduction, with a minimum surface temperature of 628.67 K. Key Observations 1. Trade-off Between Sustainability and Performance: The results underscore the trade-off between thermal performance and environmental impact. While non-environmentally friendly materials generally performed better, the difference in performance was not drastic, suggesting a promising potential for optimization of environmentally friendly coatings. 2. Impact of Material Properties: The variation in thermal performance between materials is attributed to differences in thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and thermal expansion coefficients. Materials such as Molybdenum Disilicide and Alumina leverage their superior thermal properties to achieve higher reductions. 3. Scope for Improvement: The study highlights the need for advanced material development to bridge the performance gap between environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly coatings, paving the way for sustainable thermal management solutions. By quantifying the temperature reduction and analyzing the performance trends, this study provides a comprehensive evaluation of TBCs for steel airframes, offering actionable insights for material selection in high-temperature applications. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the thermal performance of environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) applied to steel airframes subjected to high heat flux conditions. The simulations, conducted using ANSYS APDL, demonstrated that the application of TBCs significantly reduces the surface temperature of steel substrates, thereby improving their thermal resistance and operational longevity. Key conclusions drawn from this research are as follows: 1. Thermal Performance of TBCs : Non-environmentally friendly materials outperformed environmentally friendly ones in terms of temperature reduction, with Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂) achieving the highest reduction of 41.98%. Among environmentally friendly coatings, Alumina (Al₂O₃) exhibited the best performance, reducing surface temperatures by 31.75%. 2. Sustainability vs. Performance Trade-off : While non-environmentally friendly coatings demonstrated superior thermal efficiency, environmentally friendly coatings showed competitive performance, achieving an average temperature reduction of 29.64%. This highlights the potential for sustainable materials to meet industrial demands with further optimization. 3. Material Selection for Specific Applications : Non-environmentally friendly materials are better suited for applications requiring maximum thermal protection, whereas environmentally friendly coatings are ideal for industries prioritizing sustainability without significant sacrifices in performance. 4. Future Scope : The findings emphasize the need for innovative material development to enhance the thermal properties of environmentally friendly coatings. Advances in material science, such as nanotechnology or hybrid composites, could bridge the performance gap and promote widespread adoption of sustainable solutions. In conclusion, this research underscores the importance of balancing environmental sustainability and thermal efficiency in the selection of TBCs. While non-environmentally friendly coatings remain the gold standard for high-performance applications, environmentally friendly alternatives show promising potential for sustainable engineering practices. Further research should focus on optimizing eco-friendly coatings to achieve performance parity with conventional materials, contributing to greener and more efficient thermal management systems in aerospace, automotive, and related industries. Declarations ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Not Applicable CONFLICT OF INTEREST/ COMPETING INTERESTS: The author states that there is no conflict of interest. References Thakare JG, Pandey C, Mahapatra MM et al (2021) ‘Thermal Barrier Coatings—A State of the Art Review’, Metals and Materials International, 27, pp. 1947–1968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-020-00705-w Chellaganesh D, Khan MA, Jappes JTW (2021) ‘Thermal barrier coatings for high temperature applications – A short review’, Materials Today: Proceedings, 45(2), pp. 1529–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.017 Omran K, Ahmed M, Elmeniawi M, Sallam H, Naga S (2021) ‘A Review on Thermal Barrier Coatings’, Egyptian International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Technology, 36(1), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.21608/eijest.2021.79363.1070 Mondal K, Nuñez L, Downey CM, van Rooyen IJ (2021) ‘Recent advances in the thermal barrier coatings for extreme environments’, Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 4, pp. 208–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2021.06.006 Vagge ST, Ghogare S (2022) ‘Thermal barrier coatings: Review’, Materials Today: Proceedings, 56(3), pp. 1201–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.170 Paul S (2010) ‘Thermal Barrier Coatings’, in Blockley, R. and Shyy, W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686652.eae225 Jones RL (1996) ‘Thermal barrier coatings’, in Stern, K.H. (ed.) Metallurgical and Ceramic Protective Coatings. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1501-5_8 Graphs Graphs 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Graphs.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5536293","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":383436584,"identity":"1ce4ef49-3972-40cd-8f54-252141e4c869","order_by":0,"name":"MURI VENKATESWARA KARTHIK","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2100-2103","institution":"Gayatri Vidya Parishad College of Engineering","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"MURI","middleName":"VENKATESWARA","lastName":"KARTHIK","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-27 14:38:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5536293/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5536293/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":70170634,"identity":"8a4df79a-b9dd-4f2f-918d-9b7dcd641583","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-29 06:34:15","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":421301,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5536293/v1/25e6b660-cddc-4eee-bc2e-48d9f4cfd3a5.pdf"},{"id":70168663,"identity":"2be3f83e-a9a6-48bb-977f-b616447801bc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-29 06:10:11","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":48018,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Graphs.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5536293/v1/e283b34323a45c02d36bca2f.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of Eco-friendly and Non-Eco-friendly Thermal Barrier Coatings on the Surface Temperature of Airframes with Steel Substrates: An ANSYS APDL Simulation Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThermal barrier coatings (TBCs) play a critical role in mitigating the effects of extreme temperatures on structural materials, particularly in high-performance applications such as aerospace, automotive, and power generation industries. These coatings enhance the thermal resistance of airframes, turbines, and other components, ensuring their durability and operational efficiency under severe thermal conditions. The advent of environmentally sustainable technologies has further amplified the need for eco-friendly alternatives to traditional thermal coatings, prompting research into materials that offer optimal thermal performance without compromising environmental safety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSteel, a widely used structural material, is prone to thermal degradation under prolonged exposure to high temperatures. In this context, the application of TBCs serves as an effective strategy to reduce surface temperatures, thereby improving the service life and reliability of steel-based systems. This research aims to compare the thermal performance of eco-friendly and non-eco-friendly TBCs applied to steel airframes under simulated high heat flux conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, transient thermal simulations were performed using ANSYS APDL to evaluate the temperature profile of steel airframes coated with ten different TBC materials. Five of these materials\u0026mdash;Silicon Carbide (SiC), Titanium Nitride (TiN), Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ), Zirconia (ZrO₂), and Alumina (Al₂O₃)\u0026mdash;were selected for their environmental friendliness. The remaining five\u0026mdash;Tantalum Carbide (TaC), Nickel-Chromium (NiCr), Chromium Carbide (Cr₃C₂), Tungsten Carbide (WC), and Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂)\u0026mdash;were chosen for their established thermal efficiency but lack of environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research adopts a structured approach to analyze and compare the temperature reductions achieved by each coating. The simulations involved subjecting the coated airframes to a constant heat flux of 10,000 W/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e over 300 seconds, with initial conditions set at 300 K. The study further quantifies the percentage reduction in surface temperatures achieved by the coatings compared to uncoated steel.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology and simulation parameters, including the geometry and material properties of the airframes and TBCs. Section 3 presents and discusses the results, including a detailed analysis of the temperature reduction and a comparison between environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly materials. Finally, Section 4 concludes with key insights and potential directions for future research in sustainable thermal coatings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy addressing the balance between thermal efficiency and environmental impact, this study seeks to contribute to the development of advanced, sustainable materials for thermal management in critical applications.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE SURVEY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThermal barrier coatings (TBCs) have undergone significant advancements since their initial development. They are widely utilized in various engineering applications such as internal combustion engines, gas turbine blades, and pyrochemical reprocessing units. The development of new materials and deposition techniques is crucial for enhancing the life of the substrate by improving the performance of coatings. Current research focuses on understanding the mechanical properties, high-temperature behavior, residual stresses, failure mechanisms, and life prediction models of TBCs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of TBCs is to reduce the temperature of components in high-temperature environments, thereby improving their performance and efficiency. Ceramic materials are predominantly used for TBCs due to their low thermal conductivity, excellent resistance to oxidation, corrosion, and wear. The most commonly employed coating method is thermal spray coating. TBCs act as effective thermal insulators and protective barriers in aviation and power generation sectors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModern advancements in TBCs are driven by the need to enhance the performance of gas turbines and similar high-temperature systems. TBCs typically consist of two layers: the bond coat and the top coat. The top coat, often composed of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), is known for its low thermal conductivity. However, ongoing research is exploring alternative materials like pyrochlore rare-earth zirconates and hexaaluminates to overcome the limitations of YSZ. These novel materials exhibit excellent refractory properties and thermal stability, making them promising candidates for future TBC applications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe use of TBCs extends to protecting aircraft turbine blades, power plants, and components in nuclear industries from high-temperature exposure. Advanced fabrication methods such as plasma spray deposition, electron-beam physical vapor deposition (EB-PVD), and electrophoretic deposition have enhanced the structural integrity and performance of TBCs. Current research also highlights the limitations of existing systems and provides recommendations for their application in harsh environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe competition to develop better TBC materials has led to the creation of various advanced materials and coating technologies. Techniques such as atmospheric plasma spray (APS) and EB-PVD have significantly improved the microstructure and lifespan of coatings. Studies on high-temperature behavior, residual stresses, and failure modes of TBCs continue to drive innovation in this field [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn gas turbine engines, which operate under extreme temperatures and stresses, TBCs play a critical role in improving durability and efficiency. By forming a combination of oxidation-resistant metallic and insulating ceramic layers, TBCs enhance the performance of turbine components. Understanding the materials' failure mechanisms is essential for exploiting the full potential of TBC systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evolution of TBCs has been closely tied to advancements in gas turbine technology. Between 1940 and 1970, improvements in superalloys and engine designs allowed for substantial gains in efficiency, durability, and performance. This period of innovation underscores the importance of material advancements in achieving higher operational temperatures and reliability in gas turbines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcess of the Analysis \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe thermal performance of various thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) applied to a steel airframe was assessed using transient thermal analysis in ANSYS APDL. The steel airframe served as the base material, with a constant heat flux of 10,000 W/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e applied to the external surface of the TBC. The analysis was conducted over a simulation time of 300 seconds, with initial conditions set at 300 K to mimic typical operational startup temperatures. The geometric and material properties for the simulation are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eAirframe Geometry:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Outer radius: 0.125m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Inner radius: 0.124m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Length: 0.3m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Element type: 8-node solid element (SOLID70) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eTBC Geometry:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Outer radius: 0.126m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Inner radius: 0.125m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Length: 0.3m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Element type: 8-node solid element (SOLID70)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eSimulation Setup:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Heat flux: 10,000 W/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Time duration: 300 seconds\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Time step: 0.1s (total 3000 substeps)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Initial temperature: 300 K\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor each TBC material, the transient simulation was performed to calculate the temperature distribution within the airframe. The focus was on determining the minimum and maximum temperatures at the surface of the steel substrate, enabling an evaluation of the temperature reduction achieved by the TBC compared to uncoated steel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExplanation of Table Data\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data obtained from the simulations is summarized in the table below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"602\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaterial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimum Temperature\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaximum Temperature\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage of Temperature Reduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTantalum Carbide (TaC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e815.521\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e815.971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.72341618\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSilicon Carbide (SiC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e787.301\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e787.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.34281361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTitanium Nitride (TiN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e768.268\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e768.584\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.09007906\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e761.912\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e765.142\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.54216162\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZirconia (ZrO2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e751.318\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e755.309\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.48465915\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlumina (Al2O3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e739.445\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e739.752\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.75026462\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNickel-Chromium (NiCr)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e696.656\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e697.278\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.6842762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChromium Carbide (Cr3C2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e685.812\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e686.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.69362837\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTungsten Carbide (WC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e655.763\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e655.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.48069759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMolybdenum Disilicide (MoSi2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19.9336%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e628.674\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 20.2658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e628.818\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.8937%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.97967102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrate that the addition of TBC significantly reduces the surface temperature of the airframe. Materials such as Alumina (Al₂O₃) and Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂) exhibited the highest reductions in surface temperature. Environmentally friendly materials achieved up to 31.75% reduction, while non-environmentally friendly materials performed better, achieving up to 41.98%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExplanation of Graphs \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first graph compares the thermal performance of environmentally friendly materials: Silicon Carbide (SiC), Titanium Nitride (TiN), Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ), Zirconia (ZrO₂), and Alumina (Al₂O₃). The graph shows a steady improvement in temperature reduction across these materials, with Alumina achieving the maximum reduction of 31.75%.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis indicates that environmentally friendly materials can provide substantial thermal protection while adhering to sustainable material standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second graph illustrates the thermal performance of non-environmentally friendly materials: Tantalum Carbide (TaC), Nickel-Chromium (NiCr), Chromium Carbide (Cr₃C₂), Tungsten Carbide (WC), and Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂). Non-environmentally friendly coatings consistently outperformed eco-friendly alternatives, with Molybdenum Disilicide achieving the highest reduction of 41.98%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results reflect the trade-off between environmental impact and thermal performance, as non-environmentally friendly materials often utilize advanced compounds with superior thermal properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy comparing these graphs, the study highlights the potential for eco-friendly coatings to approach the performance of their non-environmentally friendly counterparts, underscoring the importance of material innovation for sustainable thermal management.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTemperature Reduction Analysis \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe transient thermal simulations revealed a significant reduction in the surface temperature of the steel airframe with the application of thermal barrier coatings (TBCs). The following insights were drawn:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eUncoated Steel:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe maximum temperature for the uncoated airframe reached 1083.71 K, highlighting the need for thermal protection under high heat flux conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmentally Friendly TBCs:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe environmentally friendly materials demonstrated substantial thermal protection, with the percentage of temperature reduction ranging from 27.34% (Silicon Carbide, SiC) to 31.75% (Alumina, Al₂O₃). Alumina exhibited the best thermal performance among eco-friendly materials, reducing the airframe\u0026apos;s surface temperature to a minimum of 739.45 \u0026nbsp;K.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eNon-Environmentally Friendly TBCs:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNon-environmentally friendly coatings outperformed their eco-friendly counterparts, achieving temperature reductions ranging from 24.72% (Tantalum Carbide, TaC) to 41.98% (Molybdenum Disilicide, MoSi₂). Molybdenum Disilicide emerged as the most effective TBC, reducing the airframe\u0026rsquo;s surface temperature to a minimum of 628.67 K.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparative Performance of TBCs \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comparative analysis of the two material categories is summarized below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmentally Friendly Materials:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Average temperature reduction: 29.64%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Best-performing material: Alumina (Al₂O₃), with 31.75% reduction. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eNon-Environmentally Friendly Materials:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Average temperature reduction: 35.31%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;- Best-performing material: Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂), with 41.98% reduction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrate that while non-environmentally friendly materials deliver superior performance, environmentally friendly coatings achieve significant reductions, making them viable for applications prioritizing sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraphical Interpretation \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmentally Friendly Coatings (Graph 1):\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe temperature reduction showed an incremental trend as the thermal properties of the materials improved. Alumina, the most effective material in this category, had the lowest surface temperature of 739.45 K.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eNon-Environmentally Friendly Coatings (Graph 2):\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNon-environmentally friendly materials outperformed eco-friendly ones across all temperature ranges. Molybdenum Disilicide exhibited the steepest temperature reduction, with a minimum surface temperature of 628.67 K.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Observations \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eTrade-off Between Sustainability and Performance:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results underscore the trade-off between thermal performance and environmental impact. While non-environmentally friendly materials generally performed better, the difference in performance was not drastic, suggesting a promising potential for optimization of environmentally friendly coatings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eImpact of Material Properties:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe variation in thermal performance between materials is attributed to differences in thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and thermal expansion coefficients. Materials such as Molybdenum Disilicide and Alumina leverage their superior thermal properties to achieve higher reductions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eScope for Improvement:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study highlights the need for advanced material development to bridge the performance gap between environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly coatings, paving the way for sustainable thermal management solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy quantifying the temperature reduction and analyzing the performance trends, this study provides a comprehensive evaluation of TBCs for steel airframes, offering actionable insights for material selection in high-temperature applications.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the thermal performance of environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) applied to steel airframes subjected to high heat flux conditions. The simulations, conducted using ANSYS APDL, demonstrated that the application of TBCs significantly reduces the surface temperature of steel substrates, thereby improving their thermal resistance and operational longevity. Key conclusions drawn from this research are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. \u003cb\u003eThermal Performance of TBCs\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-environmentally friendly materials outperformed environmentally friendly ones in terms of temperature reduction, with Molybdenum Disilicide (MoSi₂) achieving the highest reduction of 41.98%. Among environmentally friendly coatings, Alumina (Al₂O₃) exhibited the best performance, reducing surface temperatures by 31.75%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. \u003cb\u003eSustainability vs. Performance Trade-off\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile non-environmentally friendly coatings demonstrated superior thermal efficiency, environmentally friendly coatings showed competitive performance, achieving an average temperature reduction of 29.64%. This highlights the potential for sustainable materials to meet industrial demands with further optimization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. \u003cb\u003eMaterial Selection for Specific Applications\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-environmentally friendly materials are better suited for applications requiring maximum thermal protection, whereas environmentally friendly coatings are ideal for industries prioritizing sustainability without significant sacrifices in performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. \u003cb\u003eFuture Scope\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings emphasize the need for innovative material development to enhance the thermal properties of environmentally friendly coatings. Advances in material science, such as nanotechnology or hybrid composites, could bridge the performance gap and promote widespread adoption of sustainable solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this research underscores the importance of balancing environmental sustainability and thermal efficiency in the selection of TBCs. While non-environmentally friendly coatings remain the gold standard for high-performance applications, environmentally friendly alternatives show promising potential for sustainable engineering practices. Further research should focus on optimizing eco-friendly coatings to achieve performance parity with conventional materials, contributing to greener and more efficient thermal management systems in aerospace, automotive, and related industries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCONFLICT OF INTEREST/ \u0026nbsp;COMPETING INTERESTS:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author states that there is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThakare JG, Pandey C, Mahapatra MM et al (2021) \u0026lsquo;Thermal Barrier Coatings\u0026mdash;A State of the Art Review\u0026rsquo;, Metals and Materials International, 27, pp. 1947\u0026ndash;1968. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-020-00705-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12540-020-00705-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChellaganesh D, Khan MA, Jappes JTW (2021) \u0026lsquo;Thermal barrier coatings for high temperature applications \u0026ndash; A short review\u0026rsquo;, Materials Today: Proceedings, 45(2), pp. 1529\u0026ndash;1534. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOmran K, Ahmed M, Elmeniawi M, Sallam H, Naga S (2021) \u0026lsquo;A Review on Thermal Barrier Coatings\u0026rsquo;, Egyptian International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Technology, 36(1), pp. 1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21608/eijest.2021.79363.1070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21608/eijest.2021.79363.1070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMondal K, Nu\u0026ntilde;ez L, Downey CM, van Rooyen IJ (2021) \u0026lsquo;Recent advances in the thermal barrier coatings for extreme environments\u0026rsquo;, Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 4, pp. 208\u0026ndash;210. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2021.06.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.mset.2021.06.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVagge ST, Ghogare S (2022) \u0026lsquo;Thermal barrier coatings: Review\u0026rsquo;, Materials Today: Proceedings, 56(3), pp. 1201\u0026ndash;1216. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaul S (2010) \u0026lsquo;Thermal Barrier Coatings\u0026rsquo;, in Blockley, R. and Shyy, W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686652.eae225\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9780470686652.eae225\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones RL (1996) \u0026lsquo;Thermal barrier coatings\u0026rsquo;, in Stern, K.H. (ed.) Metallurgical and Ceramic Protective Coatings. Dordrecht: Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1501-5_8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-94-009-1501-5_8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Graphs","content":"\u003cp\u003eGraphs 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Thermal barrier coatings, environmentally friendly materials, non-environmentally friendly materials, steel airframes, ANSYS APDL, transient thermal analysis, heat flux, temperature reduction, thermal protection, sustainable materials, thermal conductivity, aerospace engineering, surface temperature, thermal management, coating performance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5536293/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5536293/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the influence of environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) on the surface temperature of steel-based airframes subjected to high heat flux. Transient thermal simulations were conducted using ANSYS APDL to assess the thermal performance of ten TBC materials, five of which are environmentally friendly (Silicon Carbide, Titanium Nitride, Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia, Zirconia, and Alumina) and five non-environmentally friendly (Tantalum Carbide, Nickel-Chromium, Chromium Carbide, Tungsten Carbide, and Molybdenum Disilicide).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulations applied a constant heat flux of 10,000 W/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e over a period of 300 seconds, with initial conditions set to 300 K. The airframe without a TBC exhibited significantly higher temperatures compared to those with coatings. Results indicate that environmentally friendly materials achieved up to 31.75% temperature reduction, while non-environmentally friendly materials showed superior performance, reducing temperatures by up to 41.98%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research provides valuable insights into the thermal efficiency of TBCs and highlights the trade-offs between environmental sustainability and thermal performance, emphasizing the potential for eco-friendly coatings to bridge the gap with non-eco-friendly alternatives through future material innovations.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impact of Eco-friendly and Non-Eco-friendly Thermal Barrier Coatings on the Surface Temperature of Airframes with Steel Substrates: An ANSYS APDL Simulation Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-11-29 06:10:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5536293/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"180d0045-eaab-4fc5-ade3-32189aecd77c","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 29th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":40844000,"name":"Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-11-29T06:10:06+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-11-29 06:10:06","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5536293","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5536293","identity":"rs-5536293","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}