Influence of surface roughness of PVD coatings on tribological performance in sliding contacts

Harlin, Peter; Carlsson, Per; Bexell, Ulf; Olsson, Mikael

doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.08.103

Cited by 116 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Post-deposition polishing leads to less material transfer, especially at room temperature. Harlin et al reported similar results [13], when testing TiN coatings against 100Cr6 ball-bearing steel. In their study, post-deposition grinding and polishing also led to less ball wear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Harlin et al observed similar behavior for posttreated TiN, where also no surface roughness influence on the COF was found [13].…”

Section: Tribological Tests Against Austenitic Stainless Steelmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…In the case of austenitic stainless steel, smoothening of the tool surface prior to coating deposition can reduce material transfer to the coated surface noticeably [12]. In contrast, the effect of post-deposition polishing has been reported to be less pronounced for TiN in contact with a ball-bearing steel [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Abrasive and Adhesive Wear Behavior of Arc-Evaporated Al1−x CrxN Hard Coatings

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decade, the usage of difficult-tomachine materials such as austenitic stainless steels has increased continuously in various industrial applications. Tools such as blind hole taps, punches, or deep drawing molds are often exposed to severe wear while machining/ forming these materials, mainly due to excessive adhesion and material transfer. On combination with abrasive wear due to work-hardened wear debris, tool lifetime in these applications is often limited. In this study, ball-on-disc experiments were carried out with arc-evaporated AlCrN coatings with different Al/(Al ? Cr) ratios against Al 2 O 3 and austenitic stainless steel balls in ambient atmosphere. Test temperatures of 25, 500, and 700°C were chosen for the hard Al 2 O 3 balls simulating severe abrasive loads, whereas 25, 150, and 250°C were used for the softer stainless steel material to evaluate the adhesive wear behavior. Characterization of the wear tracks was done by scanning electron microscopy in combination with energydispersive X-ray analysis and optical profilometry. The best abrasive wear resistance during testing against Al 2 O 3 was observed for the coating with the highest Al content. In the case of the austenitic stainless steel balls, sticking of the ball material to the coating surface was the dominating wear mechanism. The influence of test temperature, chemical composition, and surface roughness was studied in detail.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Harlin et al observed similar behavior for posttreated TiN, where also no surface roughness influence on the COF was found [13].…”

Section: Tribological Tests Against Austenitic Stainless Steelmentioning

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abrasive and Adhesive Wear Behavior of Arc-Evaporated Al1−x CrxN Hard Coatings

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The high surface roughness determined in the coated conditions is assumed to result from the presence of protruding coating surface asperities (macroparticles) in the TiNcoatings. These micrometer-sized heterogeneities are typical for coatings grown by cathodic arc evaporation and they may negatively impact coating quality and surface finish [48][49][50][51]. Finally, grinding effects at the surface level are evidenced in terms of not only roughness but also texture.…”

Section: Surface Integrity Characterization: Roughness Subsurface Damentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact damage resistance of TiN-coated hardmetals: Beneficial effects associated with substrate grinding

Yang

Marro

Trifonov

et al. 2015

Surface and Coatings Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact loading is a common service condition for coated hardmetal tools and components. Substrate grinding represents a key step within the manufacturing chain of these coated systems. Within this context, the influence of surface integrity changes caused by abrasive grinding of the hardmetal substrate, prior to coating, is evaluated with respect to contact damage resistance. Three different substrate surface finish conditions are studied: ground (G), mirror-like polished (P) and ground plus heat-treated (GTT). Tests are conducted by means of spherical indentation under increasing monotonic load and the contact damage resistance is assessed. Substrate grinding enhances resistance against both crack nucleation at the coating surface and subsequent propagation into the hardmetal substrate. Hence, crack emergence and damage evolution is effectively delayed for the coated G condition, as compared to the reference P one. The observed system response is discussed on the basis of the beneficial effects associated with compressive residual stresses remnant at the subsurface level after grinding, ion-etching, and coating. The influence of the stress state is further corroborated by a lower resistance against damage for the coated GTT specimens. Finally, it is proposed and preliminary validated that substrate grinding also enhances damage tolerance of the coated system when exposed to contact loads. M.P. Johansson-Jõesaar and L. LlanesDear Professor Matthews, Please find attached electronic files corresponding to our contribution on contact damage resistance of TiN-coated hardmetals: beneficial effects associated with substrate grinding, which we (all authors do agree to the submission of the manuscript) offer for publication in Surface and Coatings Technology.I hope it is found satisfactory. (Procedia CIRP, Volume 13, 2014, Pages 257-263).(Authors) R1 is right about connection between results published in our contribution to the 2nd CIRP Conference on Surface Integrity (reference [27] in the submitted manuscript) and those presented in this paper. However, the two papers are distinctly different and cover completely different research topics and contain different data. The former focuses on "ground hardmetals" and "flexural strength/fractography", whereas the current one deals with "coated hardmetals" and "contact damage". Hence, we find R1's comment regarding "similar results" inappropriate. (Authors) Co binder effects on residual stresses are not neglected, and our writing may be blamed for such misunderstanding. Residual stresses induced by grinding are "macrostresses" evaluated in the WC phase and assumed to be representative of the whole WC-Co composite. They are different from the "microstresses" (different for each individual phase) that arise due to the difference in thermal expansion between the binder and the carbide as the material cools from liquid-or solid-phase sintering. In cemented carbides with WC as the carbide, the WC is taken as a reliable reference phase because it remains stoichiometric...

show abstract

“…The high surface roughness in the coated conditions is due to droplets (indicated by arrows) in the TiN-coatings, see Figure 1. These microstructural heterogeneities, here of sizes up to several microns, are typical in films deposited by cathodic arc evaporation [31][32][33][34][35]. They are usually weakly bonded to the bulk coating and prompted to drop out from the surface under tribomechanical service conditions [34,36,37].…”

Section: Surface Integrity Characterization: Roughness Subsurface Damentioning

confidence: 99%

Substrate surface finish effects on scratch resistance and failure mechanisms of TiN-coated hardmetals

Yang

Roa

Odén

et al. 2015

Surface and Coatings Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the influence of substrate surface finish on scratch resistance and associated failure mechanisms is investigated in the case of a TiN-coated hardmetal. Three different surface finish conditions are studied: as-sintered (AS), ground (G), and mirror-like polished (P). For G conditioned samples, scratch tests are conducted both parallel and perpendicular to the direction of the grinding grooves. It is found that coated AS, G and P samples exhibit similar critical load for initial substrate exposure and the same brittle adhesive failure mode. However, the damage scenarios are different, i.e. the substrate exposure is discrete and localized to the scratch tracks for G samples while a more pronounced and continuous exposure is seen for AS and P ones. Aiming to understand the role played by the grinding-induced compressive residual stresses, the study is extended to coated systems where ground substrates are thermal annealed (for relieving stresses) before being ion etched and coated. It yielded lower critical loads and changes in the mechanisms for the scratch-related failure; the latter depending on the relative orientation between scratching and grinding directions. Please find attached electronic files corresponding to our contribution on influence of substrate surface finish on scratch response and induced failure modes for TiN-coated hardmetals, which we (all authors do agree to the submission of the manuscript) offer for publication in Surface and Coatings Technology.I hope it is found satisfactory. Regarding reviewer 1's suggestion for improvement of the manuscript, although it seems rational and suitable, we feel that an additional figure (sketch) in a paper including already 10 other Figures (and most of them with multiple captions) may go beyond the (not written) limit associated with space limitation. Sincerely yours, Luis LlanesAnd aiming to clarify locations in the various surfaces where residual stresses occur, text has been slightly modified (Within last paragraph in section 3.1):… The coated G condition has a maximum compressive stress of about -1.0 GPa in the substrate surface (i.e. just at the coating-substrate interface). As expected, this value is one order of magnitude higher than those assessed for the coated AS and P conditions at similar substrate surface location, i.e. -0.2 and -0.1 GPa respectively. However, it should be noted that such residual stress level at the substrate surface for coated G specimen is lower ( (1) Several authors (Steinmann et. al., Thin Sol. Film., 1987; Bromark et. al., Surf. & Coat. Technol. 1992) We do have the data for plotting the requested curves but we do not see that they provide any additional useful information to the understanding of the results presented. In addition, the length of the scratch grooves is much smaller than the scratch track and sliding distance (as it may be seen in Figures 3, 4, 7 and/or 8). To provide the requested overlays would therefore require additional figures and corresponding text and consequently extend...

show abstract

Influence of surface roughness of PVD coatings on tribological performance in sliding contacts

Cited by 116 publications

References 16 publications

Abrasive and Adhesive Wear Behavior of Arc-Evaporated Al1−x CrxN Hard Coatings

Abrasive and Adhesive Wear Behavior of Arc-Evaporated Al1−x CrxN Hard Coatings

Contact damage resistance of TiN-coated hardmetals: Beneficial effects associated with substrate grinding

Substrate surface finish effects on scratch resistance and failure mechanisms of TiN-coated hardmetals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About