Wear 271 (2011) 21322143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

A systematic approach for the selection of tribological coatings

D.B. Luo a,b, , V. Fridrici b , Ph. Kapsa b
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, 610031, PR China
b
Laboratoire de Tribologie et Dynamique des Systmes, CNRS UMR 5513, cole Centrale de Lyon, 36 Avenue Guy de Collongue, Ecully 69134, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coatings are more and more used to reduce friction or resist wear of contacting surfaces. However, the
Received 1 September 2010 selection of the optimal coating from many possibilities is still difcult for a given tribological application.
Received in revised form In the present work, a systematic approach is suggested to help the selection of tribological coatings.
19 November 2010
Firstly, a pre-selection tool based on database is developed to pick out several coatings as candidates
Accepted 21 November 2010
for performing further tests. In the pre-selection tool, many industrial tribological coatings are included,
and they can be ranked according to the extent that they meet the requirements of a given tribological
application. Next, some simple evaluation techniques (nanoindentation test, scratch test, ball cratering
Keywords:
Tribological coating
test, etc.) are used to assess the properties of the candidate coatings to screen out some poor ones. Then,
Pre-selection tool the remaining coatings are tested under the relevant conditions to investigate their tribological behaviors.
Coating selection According to the test results, a dissipated energy density approach can be easily used to evaluate and
Dissipated energy compare their tribological performance, because the relationship between coating lifetime and dissipated
Polar diagram energy density can be tted as one master curve whatever the values of test parameters. Finally, in view
of non-tribological and non-functional requirements, the coatings are synthetically compared using a
exible polar diagram, and a weight point method can assist the comparison.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction process or sometimes take place simultaneously. For example,

Employing coatings is one of the most effective methods to
reduce friction and protect contacting surfaces from wear. Last
decades, many new deposition techniques were developed, and
more and more tribological coatings are available. This situation
gives rise to a problem: how to select the optimal coating from
numerous ones for a given tribological application? There is no
general rule to help the selection because of the following problems.
iii) Possibility of using literature: In literature, a coating material may
i) Effect of various parameters on tribological performance: Tri-
bological performance of a coating is not one of its intrinsic
properties, but depends on the whole system, including
parameters from counterpart, coating, substrate, application
conditions and environment (Fig. 1).
ii) Estimation of wear mechanisms: In general, it is considered
that the identication of wear mechanism is one of the most
important factors for coating selection [1]. However, in most
situations, the wear of a surface is linked to several wear
mechanisms, which transform each other during the rubbing
Farrow [2] provided a diagram about the interacting mecha-
nisms of wear during the rubbing process. Facing this situation,
Matthews et al. [3] suggested to select coatings according to dif-
ferent contact types, in order to avoid the identication of wear
mechanisms. Under each contact type, some wear mechanisms
possibly become the dominant ones, so there are some com-
mon requirements for coating properties under a given contact
type.
be deposited by different methods, deposition parameters, on
different substrates, and the coatings are tested under various
conditions (different contact congurations, application con-
ditions, running environments, counterparts, etc.). Even for a
same kind of coatings, in different papers, test results present
great difference. For example, Sedlacek et al. [4] reviewed DLC
coatings in recent literature and they got about 800 coatings,
which belong to different situations and present quite different
tribological performance. Therefore, from literature, it is impos-
sible to estimate the specic values of friction coefcient and
wear rate of a coating for a new application.

Corresponding author at: School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong

University, Chengdu, 610031, PR China. Tel.: +86 28 87634304;
fax: +86 28 87603142.
E-mail address: dbluo@swjtu.edu.cn (D.B. Luo).
In view of these problems, for a new application, some exper-
iments have to be performed to investigate the tribological
performance of coatings under the relevant running conditions.
However, it is impossible to test all available coatings. Hence, a

0043-1648/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2010.11.049
 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143
Fig. 1. Parameters of a coating system inuencing the tribological performance.
coating selection process should include two stages [3,5]. The rst
one is pre-selection, i.e., picking out several candidates from avail-
able coatings according to the requirements of the application and
the characteristics of coatings and deposition processes. The second
stage is to evaluate the candidate coatings by experiments, and then
to select the best one. Franklin [5] summarized the two stages and
provided two industrial tribological case studies involving coating
selection. For most industrial applications, candidate coatings are
often selected according to experts experience [6], which is inef-
cient and the selected coating can be not the most suitable one due
to the limitation of experts experience.
Pre-selection process of coatings, selecting several coatings
from hundreds of thousands of possibilities, is a complicated work,
so the best way is to develop some tools, like expert systems,
databases or information systems. The research group of Matthews
and co-workers [7,8] developed several knowledge-based expert
systems for tribological coating selection in their early work. A PRE-
CEPT system [9,10] was developed to assist the selection of surface
engineering during the initial stages of engineering design accord-
ing to different wear design rules. Dobrzanski and Madejski [11]
designed an expert system prototype to select coatings for met-
als, where the candidate coating was selected using a weighted
total point in the light of requirements of the application and the
extent that the coatings meet the requirements. Landru [12] devel-
oped a simple surface treatment selector in his thesis work, where
a percentage was used to express the condence level of the selec-
tion. Schiffmann et al. [13] developed a web-based information
system for coating selection, where a qualitative, fuzzy classi-
cation scale was introduced to describe material properties and
coating characteristics. The best match coating was selected by
the root-mean-square deviation between the target value and the
value of coating properties. Up to now, only PVD and CVD coatings
are included in this system. With the consideration of qualitative
properties, Athanasopoulos et al. [14] developed an expert system
model for coating selection based on fuzzy logic. Some of these
systems are behind the times, and the others are just prototype
models.
In this work, we present a coating pre-selection tool based on
database developed comprehensively using the selection strategies
in literature and including most industrial coatings. On the other
hand, some more effective and easy to use approaches for evaluat-
2133
ing and comparing the tribological performance of coatings will be
suggested based on some experimental studies.
2. Pre-selection methodology
During a coating pre-selection process, known conditions,
requirements of the application, and properties of the coatings
and deposition methods should be comprehensively considered,
and the candidate coatings will be selected based on some
appropriate criteria. Fig. 2 shows the diagram of pre-selection
process. For a given application, the application conditions (con-
tact conguration, load, kinematic, etc.), counterpart (material,
topography, geometry, mechanical and chemical properties, etc.),
substrate (material, topography, shape, size, mechanical, ther-
mal and chemical properties, etc.) and running environments
(lubrication, temperature, RH, atmosphere, etc.) should be known.
According to the known conditions, some analysis about the contact
conguration and the possible failure mechanisms of the rubbing
surface must be performed to investigate the dominant wear mech-
anisms, which induces some requirements for mechanical, physical
and chemical properties of the coatings. The known conditions also
bring some limits for coatings. On the other hand, there are also
some denite requirements for the coated surface from end users,
which include tribological functional requirements (changing or
reducing friction, prolonging service lifetime, etc.), non-tribological
functional requirements (corrosion resistance, thermal, electrical,
magnetic, biocompatible, etc.) and non-functional requirements
(cost, productive efciency, ecological, etc.)[5]. The candidate coat-
ings are selected matching the requirements and limits from the
application with characteristics of the coatings in the database.
2.1. Requirements from applications
For a given tribological application, there are many require-
ments for the coatings, including tribological performance,
non-tribological performance and non-functional requirements
[3,5], which are listed in Table 1. They come from the direct
demands of end users, or from the analysis of contact conguration
and failure mechanisms.
2134 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143

Fig. 2. Coating pre-selection process.

Table 1 conditions. According to the running conditions, the requirement

Requirements for coatings.
for wear resistance has to be transformed to some requirements
Tribological Friction for coating properties. For different wear modes, different coating
requirements Wear resistance Hardness properties are required and some possible coatings for various wear
Elastic modulus
modes can be found in literature [3,1719].
Thickness
Toughness
Roughness 2.1.2. Non-tribological performance requirements
Porosity When coatings are used, besides the tribological performances,
...
they must also meet some functional requirements from other
Non-tribological Corrosion resistance aspects, such as corrosion resistance, thermal performance, electri-
requirements Thermal performance Thermal conduction
cal performance, magnetic performance, nontoxicity and biological
Thermal expansion
Electrical performance performance.
Magnetic Performance
Biological Performance 2.1.3. Non-functional requirements
Nontoxicity
Some requirements that do not inuence the performance of the
Non-functional Cost coatings may be proposed by the end users. These requirements
requirements Deposition efcient
include low cost, high efciency of deposition, special color, low
Color
Pollution pollution, etc.
...
2.2. Limits from the tribological applications

In a specic tribological application, the running conditions, the

2.1.1. Tribological performance requirements
Tribological performance requirements mainly include two
aspects: friction reduction and wear resistance (or durability). In
most situations, friction reduction coatings are expected because a
low friction can reduce energy consumption and frictional loading,
and subsequently induce a low wear. In general, friction reduc-
tion coatings (soft metals, lamellar solids, polymers, etc.) result
in a friction coefcient about 0.10.2 in ambient air. Under some
special conditions, ultra-low friction can be obtained: for example,
sputter-deposited MoS2 coating in ultra-high vacuum [15], highly
hydrogenated DLC coating in vacuum [16]. Sometimes, a suitable
or even high friction is expected, for example, in the applications
of brakes and clutches.
The wear resistance of a coating can be expressed by wear rate,
wear volume or expected coating lifetime. However, the values in
literature are quite different due to their dependence on running
substrate and the counterpart can bring some limits for the coating
selection.
2.2.1. Limits from running conditions
The running conditions (like temperature, relative humidity,
atmosphere, loading, relative sliding speed, etc.) in the application
can prevent the use of some coatings.
2.2.1.1. Temperature. In some applications, the coated components
work in high temperature surroundings, such as piston rings in
engines, cutting tools for high speed machining or dry machining,
turbine blades in the hot sections of gas turbofan engines. There-
fore, the coatings with a low maximal service temperature cannot
suit the applications. The possible coatings must have excellent
high temperature hardness and high temperature corrosion resis-
 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143
tance, and their thermal expansion coefcient should be close to
that of the substrate to avoid the development of thermal stresses.
2.2.1.2. Atmosphere. Atmosphere means the running medium
environment of the coated components, usually including ambi-
ent air, vacuum, high vacuum, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and
inert gases. Coatings tending to be oxidized, like MoS2 , present
better tribological performance in the atmosphere without oxy-
gen [15]. a-C:H coatings have a longer lubricating lifetime in an
inert environment due to low friction coefcient and low wear
rate, while a-C coatings show lower friction coefcient in ambient
air [4]. Coated components can also work in liquid environment,
like water, seawater, lubricant and various chemical agents, where
coatings with poor corrosion resistance and cavitation resistance
should be excluded.
2.2.1.3. Relative humidity. Relative humidity can inuence friction,
wear and corrosion performance of coatings. Therefore, different
coatings will be expected for different relative humidity conditions.
For example, MoS2 and DLC (a-C:H) coatings should be used under
dry or low RH conditions; graphite, PVD TiN and DLC (a-C) coatings
are suitable for high RH conditions.
2.2.1.4. Loading. Loading, including its type (static, alternating,
impact) and value, leads to different requirements for coating prop-
erties. For example, under the alternating load, the fatigue strength
of the coatings may be important; under impact load, the toughness
of the coatings can be crucial; under high load (contact pressure),
thick coatings with high hardness will be expected.
2.2.1.5. Relative movement. Relative movement, including type
(sliding, rolling and fretting), speed (low, intermediate, high, ultra
high), amplitude and frequency (for reciprocating sliding and
fretting), results in different coating requirements from thermal
performance, mechanical properties, etc. For rolling contact, values
of contact pressure are relatively high, and the contact area often
fails by adhesive wear, abrasive wear and fatigue wear. A thin soft
coating or hard coating can improve the wear resistance, but the
coatings must be thin (<1 m) to match the deformation of the sub-
strate [20]. Under high and ultra high sliding speed, frictional heat
and ash temperature should be looked as an important factor for
coating selection.
2.2.2. Limits from the substrate
The limits from the substrate depend on its material, size and
shape. A known substrate material can limit the use of some depo-
sition methods. For example, the substrate materials with a low
maximal endurable temperature cannot be suitable for deposi-
tion methods with a high temperature, like CVD; the unsolderable
substrate materials cannot be used in welding and laser cladding
process; the dielectric substrate materials are unsuitable for the
electroplating process. The substrate material can also limit the
selection of coating material. For example, some coating materi-
als cannot achieve a high bonding strength on the given substrate
material; in high temperature applications, the coating material
should have a similar thermal expansion coefcient with that of
the substrate material.
The size and shape of the substrate can also result in some
limits for deposition methods. The size of the coated component
should be smaller than the chamber or the bath of a deposition
process. The deposition methods with a chamber include PVD, CVD
and ion implantation. Electroplating, electroless deposition and hot
dipping are usually carried out in a bath. The components with com-
plex shapes (inner surfaces, blind holes, slots, etc.) cannot be coated
by line-of-sight processes, like PVD, ion implantation and thermal
spraying. If the component includes sharp edges, like cutting tools,
2135
the selected deposition processes must ensure the coating with-
out build-ups and detachments from the substrate at the sharp
edges. For selective deposition with a large blank area, the deposi-
tion methods where the whole component is immerged in a bath or
gaseous circumstance (coating material particles) are unreasonable
because a lot of stopoff media needs to be used.
2.2.3. Limits from the counterpart
The hardness, roughness and chemical properties of the coun-
terpart can inuence the tribological performance of a coating
system. When the counterface is hard and rough, hard coatings will
be expected, in order to resist abrasive wear. For adhesive wear and
diffusion wear applications, the selected coating material should be
chemically stable, in order to reduce adhesion and diffusion with
the counterface.
2.3. Pre-selection criteria
A coating is an integration result of coating material, coating
structure and deposition method. Specic deposition parameters,
matching between the coating material and the deposition method,
are not the focus in this work. Therefore, the coatings mentioned in
the subsequent paragraphs are the common coatings in industries
expressed by deposition method plus coating material.
The pre-selection of coatings is the process of matching the char-
acteristics of coatings with the requirements and limits from the
tribological application. The following criteria should be considered
during the matching process.
2.3.1. Criteria based on deposition methods
Deposition method must suit the substrate material, like the max-
imal endurable temperature, electrical performance, etc.
Deposition method must suit the geometry of the substrate,
including the relationships between the substrate size and depo-
sition devices, between the substrate shape and throwing power
of the deposition method, etc.
Achievable coating thickness of a deposition method should meet
the relevant requirement. Every deposition method has a range
of the achievable coating thickness, which should cover the
expected coating thickness of the given application.
Deposition method should result in sufcient bonding strength
between coatings and substrates.
Coating should meet the requirements for porosity, residual
stresses and topography.
Deposition rate and investment of deposition devices (or sub-
contracting with a coating deposition company) should be
acceptable.
Pollution induced by the deposition method should accord with
relevant regulations.
2.3.2. Criteria based on coatings
The coating materials must suit the substrate material, including
the possibility of realizing a high bonding strength, similar elastic
modulus for a hard coating, similar thermal performance for a
high temperature application, etc.
The coating materials must match the counterpart, including
chemical inertia and dissimilarity with the counterface to prevent
adhesive wear, similar hardness with the counterface to prevent
abrasive wear, capability of forming a low friction transfer lm
on the counterface, etc.
The coating materials must adapt to the running conditions,
including operating temperature, relative humidity, atmosphere,
loading type, contact pressure, relative movement, sliding speed,
etc.
2136 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143

The coatings should meet the tribological requirements, includ- Table 2

Rules for automatically setting requirements.
ing friction and wear resistance, which can be transformed into
the requirements for some coating properties. Provided conditions Automatically setting requirements
The coatings should meet the non-tribological requirements. for coating properties
The coatings should meet the non-functional requirements. The maximal contact pressure  max 1. Hardness: Harder than  max
is higher than the yield limit Y of 2. Thickness: Very thick (>500 m)
3. Development of a pre-selection tool the substrate.
The maximal operating temperature Corrosion resistance: High
Tmax > 300 C temperature
According to the pre-selection methodology, the Pre-selection Atmosphere: Ambient air, dry air and Corrosion resistance: Oxidation
Tool for Tribological Coatings (PTTC) has been developed, where oxygen Corrosion resistance: Water
coatings are selected considering their tribological performance Atmosphere: Water Corrosion resistance: Seawater
Atmosphere: Seawater Corrosion resistance: Acid Solution
without lubricants and against uncoated counterparts. It includes
Atmosphere: Acid solution Corrosion resistance: Basic Solution
the common deposition methods used for tribological coatings and Atmosphere: Basic solution Corrosion resistance: Chemical
the common industrial tribological coatings. In this tool, the depo- Atmosphere: Other agent Agent
sition methods and the coatings must be reasonably described, and Loading is alternating Wear resistance: Fatigue
appropriate selection strategies should be employed. Relative movement is sliding 1. Wear resistance: Adhesion
2. Friction: Low (<0.4)
3.1. Description of deposition methods Relative movement is rolling Wear resistance: Fatigue
Relative movement is fretting 1. Wear resistance: Fretting
In order to apply the pre-selection criteria based on the depo- 2. Friction: Low (<0.4)
sition method, the deposition methods need to be described Relative movement is impact 1. Wear resistance: Impact
2. Toughness: High
correctly. The deposition methods are expressed by the character-
Roughness of the counterpart is high Hardness: Harder than Hc
istics listed in Fig. 3. Some of them can be quantitatively described and hardness of the counterpart
by a range of values (like substrate temperature, achievable coat- Hc is high
ing thickness, etc.), while the others are just qualitatively evaluated
by excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor, because it is impossible
to quantitatively describe them (like coating uniformity, thickness a requirement is Must be met, then the coatings without relevant
control, etc.) or it is difcult to obtain a specic reference value performances or lacking relevant data will be directly excluded. If
from literature. a requirement is Negotiable, its importance will be expressed by
a weight factor.
3.2. Description of coatings Finally, the remaining coatings will be evaluated and compared
by weight point and reliability. Weight point (W) is the sum of prod-
According to the pre-selection criteria, a coating is described uct of weight value (k) and weight factor (w) for each requirement
by the characteristics listed in Fig. 4, where the tribological per- (Eq. (1)):
formances (friction coefcient and wear resistance) relate to a

n
common situationrubbing against steel without lubricant in W= (ki wi ) (1)
ambient air. However, it is impossible to obtain all data of coating
i=1
characteristics for every coating due to the incomplete informa-
tion in literature. Additionally, most coating characteristics depend where n is the number of requirements, ki and wi are respectively
on the deposition parameters and running conditions, and the the weight value and the weight factor of requirement i.
values change in a wide range. Therefore, the characteristics are The weight value k can be obtained by the following two rules:
expressed by qualitative evaluation, quantitative range or qualita-
tive evaluation plus quantitative range, even by blank, which means When the relevant coating property is expressed by a quali-
unobtainable. tative description, the weight value is set as excellent = 10,
good = 7.5, fair = 5, poor = 2.5, very poor = 0. For the prop-
3.3. Pre-selection strategy erties with opposite values, the weight value will be 10 or 0.
For example, when there is a Diamagnetic magnetic perfor-
In the pre-selection process, two strategies are used. One is sim- mance requirement, the weight value of diamagnetic coatings
ple and straightforward, i.e., just searching the coatings ever used is 10, while that of paramagnetic or ferromagnetic coatings is 0.
in similar applications from the database. The other is a complex For the properties with fuzzy evaluation, the weight value will be
strategy, i.e., evaluating and comparing coatings comprehensively subjectively set. For example, when gold coatings are expected,
considering the requirements and limits of the application. In this the weight value can be set as gold = 10, yellow, bronze or
strategy, an approach combining exclusion and evaluation will be copper = 6, brown = 3, other color = 0.
used, i.e., excluding the impossible coatings, and evaluating and When the relevant coating property is expressed by a quantita-
comparing the remaining coatings by weight point and reliability, tive range, the weight value is the result of Eqs. (2)(4). When
as shown in Fig. 5. a coating with a lower value of the relevant property (like fric-
At rst, data about the substrate, the counterpart and the run- tion reduction requirement) is better, Eq. (2) will be used. When
ning conditions should be provided (Fig. 6). For a given application, a coating with a higher value of the relevant property (like high
the data can be selectively provided. The provided data necessarily hardness requirement) is better, Eq. (3) will be used. When a coat-
induce some limits for coatings. Therefore, some coatings cannot be ing with a certain value of the relevant property (like thermal
used, and they should be excluded. On the other hand, the provided expansion requirement) is expected, Eq. (4) will be used.
data can bring some requirements for coating properties, which will
be automatically set according to the rules in Table 2.

10, x x0
Then, some special requirements (Table 1) from end users need
k = f (x) = (2)
to be set for a given application. According to the importance of a 10 x0 , x > x0
requirement, it can be selected as Must be met or Negotiable. If x
 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143 2137

Fig. 3. Example of the description of deposition methods.

Fig. 4. Example of coating description.

2138 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143

Fig. 5. Diagram of the pre-selection strategy.

Fig. 6. Interface of coating pre-selection tool.

10, x x0 ments is 10, and it cannot be changed. The weight factor of the
k = f (x) = (3) Negotiable requirements can be set by end users.
10 x , x < x0 Reliability is used based on some presumption in view of the
x0
incompletion of coating data. The total reliability (R) is the product

10, |x x0 | t of the reliability for each requirement (r) (Eq. (5)).
k = f (x) = t (4) 
n
10 , |x x0 | > t R= ri (5)
|x x0 |
i=1
where x0 is the expected value of the relevant property, x is the
value of the relevant property for a coating, t is a tolerance away The reliability of each requirement, ri , can be set according to
from the certain value of the relevant property. the following rules:
The weight factor reects the importance of the relevant
requirement. It can be chosen from 1 to 10 (1least important, When the relevant coating property of a requirement is denitely
10most important). The weight factor of Must be met require- provided, the reliability of the coating equals to 100%.
 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143
Fig. 7. (a) Ball on at contact; (b) fretting rig.
When the relevant coating property of a requirement is not pro-
vided, but its parents, children or brothers are obtainable, the
reliability of the coating will be decreased. For example, for a
abrasion wear resistance requirement, if a coating is only pro-
vided general wear resistance information, then the reliability
of the coating equals to 80%; if a coating has wear resistance infor-
mation about other wear modes (like adhesion, fretting, erosion),
the reliability of the coating equals to 50%.
When the relevant coating property of a requirement is blank,
the weight value will be set as a lower middle value, 3, and the
reliability will be decreased to 30%.
After the pre-selection button is clicked, all the remaining coat-
ings will be ranked according to the weight point considering all
of the set requirements. The rst 10 coatings will be selected as
candidates, and their reliability will be provided (Fig. 6).
4. Selecting the optimal coating by experimental evaluation
The candidate coatings selected by the pre-selection tool are
just evaluated according to data in literature or provided by coat-
ing companies. The actual performances of coatings may be quite
different from the data in the database due to the deposition param-
eters and the actual running conditions. Therefore, the candidate
coatings have to be further evaluated by experiments under the
relevant conditions of the given application. In this work, 5 bonded
solid lubricant coatings [21] and a pressure sprayed MoS2 coating
[22] will be employed as example of experimental tests. Some basic
characteristics of the bonded coatings are listed in Table 3.
The 5 bonded coatings were rstly evaluated by some simple
techniques (nanoindentation, scratch and ball cratering tests), and
then they were tested under cylinder on at fretting conditions
[21]. The pressure sprayed MoS2 coating were tested under ball
on at fretting conditions (Fig. 7) and ball on disk unidirectional
sliding conditions (Fig. 8), and the detailed test conditions are listed
in Tables 4 and 5.
4.1. Screening candidate coatings
When several candidate coatings are selected from the pre-
selection tool, it is time consuming to test all of them by tribological
experiments. Some properties of the coatings (like hardness, elastic
modulus, bonding strength, thickness, etc.) are very important for
the tribological performance; so rapidly evaluating these coating
properties through some simple techniques is an efcient method
of screening the candidate coatings. According to Archard model,
there is a linear relationship between wear volume and the inverse
of hardness of a bulk material [23], and coatings with high hardness
generally present good wear resistance [2426]. Therefore, coating
2139
hardness is usually looked as the most important parameter for
wear resistance of a coating, especially for hard coatings. Nanoin-
dentation test is the common method to assess hardness and elastic
modulus of coatings. The precondition of a good wear resistance
for a coating is an adequate bonding strength between the coating
and its substrate, which is usually evaluated by scratch tests. Ball
cratering test is another simple technique for evaluating coating
properties, including thickness and abrasion resistance. Therefore,
the three techniques are employed to screen the 5 bonded coat-
ings [21]. In scratch tests, it is difcult to evaluate the bonding
strength of soft coatings, so the critical load related to an impor-
tant coating damage reveals its cohesion strength. The ductility of
the coatings can be qualitatively estimated according to the debris
and the scratch tracks. In ball cratering tests, under 1 N and 60 rpm,
the coatings were not worn through after 30 min except for K06
and U22, and their wear rate (ratio of wear volume to the product
of normal load and relative sliding distance) are shown in Fig. 9a.
Despite the low wear rate of K15, once it is worn through, there
is a severe detachment (Fig. 9b), which reveals its poor bonding
strength. According to the results in evaluating techniques, the
properties and rank of the coatings are respectively listed in Tables
6 and 7.
For soft coatings, the effect of hardness and elastic modulus on
wear resistance is relatively slight. In Table 7, according to scratch
and ball cratering tests, K06 and U22 presented poor properties, so
they should not be considered for further tribological tests. Despite
the good behaviors in the evaluation tests, K15 should also be
removed due to its poor bonding strength. Fig. 10 shows the lifetime
of the 5 coatings in fretting tests, where K39 presents the longest
lifetime, K03 and K06 have similar wear resistance, U22 and K15
are the worst. The screening results are consistent with the fretting
tests except K06. Therefore, using simple techniques is an effective
method to save time of tribological tests, but some coatings with
good tribological performance (like K06) may be missed.
In fact, the three evaluation techniques are not always neces-
sary, because in some conditions low values of coating properties
may be acceptable. In general, a high bonding strength is always
favourable for improving service lifetime of a coating. A combina-
tion of scratch test and ball cratering test can be used to nd out
whether there is a bonding problem or not. In harsh conditions
or abrasive wear conditions, hardness and elastic modulus can be
very important, so coatings should be screened by nanoindentation
test, and ball cratering can be employed to evaluate abrasive wear
resistance. In mild wear conditions, the hardness and elastic mod-
ulus can be unimportant, even for friction reduction coatings a low
value of hardness can lead to a low friction coefcient, so nanoin-
dentation test is unnecessary. Therefore, for a specic application,
at rst which evaluation techniques is necessary should be deter-
mined according to the actual running conditions, and then the
coatings are screened according to their behaviors in the evaluation
techniques.
4.2. Dissipated energy approach
In Fig. 10, the coating lifetime strongly depends on the values of
test parameters (normal load and displacement amplitude), so it is
not easy to compare coatings by changing lifetime curves, espe-
cially when a superposition of their lifetime curves occurs (like
K03 and K06). In fact, some parameters (like friction coefcient,
normal load and sliding distance) can be unied as one parame-
ter: dissipated energy. Mohrbacher et al. [27] found that there is
a linear relationship between wear volume and cumulated dissi-
pated energy. However, the most important for coating lifetime is
not wear volume but wear depth, which is linked to the cumulated
local dissipated energy (or dissipated energy density) [28]. It is dif-
cult to obtain the cumulated local dissipated energy due to the
2140 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143

Table 3
Basic characteristics of the bonded coatings [21].

Coating reference K39 K15 K03 K06 U22

Based solid lubricant PTFE PTFE PTFE MoS2 MoS2

Binding agent Organic Organic Organic Organic Inorganic
Color Black Black Black Gray-black Gray
Hardening process Thermosetting 15 min. Air hardening 24 h Thermosetting 60 min Thermosetting 30 min Air hardening 30 min
230 C in air 160 C 180 C in air
Service temperature ( C) 40 to 230 40 to 80 40 to 180 40 to 220 180 to 450

Fig. 8. (a) Ball on disk contact; (b) unidirectional sliding rig.

Table 4
Fretting test conditions.

Test type Normal load P (N) Displacement amplitude * (m) Frequency (Hz) Test duration (cycles) Temperature ( C) Relative humidity (%)

Fretting 100, 200, 400 5, 25, 40, 75 5 25,000 20 5 35 10

Table 5
Unidirectional sliding test conditions.

Test type Normal load P (N) Rotating speed Distance R (mm) Sliding speed (m/s) Test duration Temperature Relative humidity
(r/min) (cycles) ( C) (%)

Sliding 0.52,1.03,3.63,4.64, 60 15,20,25,30,35,40,45 0.09,0.13,0.16,0.190.22, Until coating 20 5 35 10

6.22 0.25,0.28 worn through

Fig. 9. (a) Wear rate of the coatings under 1 N and 60 rpm; (b) micrograph after K15 worn through.

Table 6
Properties of the coatings [21].

Coating K39 K15 K03 K06 U22

Hardness H (MPa) 180 25 105 25 150 20 110 30 170 30

Reduced elastic modulus E*(GPa) 4.6 0.5 4.9 0.8 4.0 0.5 7.0 1.5 5.8 0.5
Ratio of H/E* 0.039 0.021 0.038 0.016 0.029
Thickness (m) 20 2 18 1 11 2 10 1 91
Critical load in scratch test Lc (N) 0.90 0.59 0.34 0.18 0.26
Ductility Excellent Good Fair Poor Poor
 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143 2141

Table 7
Rank of the 5 coatings by their properties [21].

Coating H E* H/E* Lc Ductility, D Ball cratering resistance, Kb

K39 1 4 1 1 1 1
K15 5 3 4 2 2 2 (with severe detachment)
K03 3 5 2 3 3 3
K06 4 1 5 5 4 4
U22 2 2 3 4 4 5

evolution of contact area and contact pressure with rubbing pro- tion (Eq. (8)), which takes place at the dashed circle formed by the
cess. Therefore, an initial maximal dissipated energy density (Ed0 center points of the contact areas (Fig. 11).
max ini ) approach [29] is more practical for industrial applications.
Under a given contact conguration, change of test parameters in a E = 4ini 0ini pmax (6)
d0 max ini
certain range cannot usually result in change of wear mechanism, 
and the evolution trends of contact conditions with rubbing pro- x2
cess are similar for different values of test parameters. So, the initial p(x) = pmax 1 (a x +a) (7)
a2
dissipated energy density can be used to represent the cumulated
dissipated energy density. On the other hand, if the change of test 
parameters results in different wear mechanisms, this approach
+a +a
x2
can be dubious. E = ini p(x)dx = ini pmax 1 dx
d0 max ini a2
For ball on at and cylinder on at fretting congurations, Fou- a a
vry [30] provided the accurate equations of the maximal dissipated
energy density in a cycle. Fridrici et al. [29] gave a simple approxi- 1
= ini pmax a (8)
mate equation (Eq. (6)), whose results in the gross slip regime are 2
very close to those of Fouvrys equations. For ball on disk unidi- where pmax is the maximal contact pressure, ini and 0ini are
rectional sliding contact, the maximal dissipated energy density respectively the friction coefcient and actual displacement ampli-
should take place at the point related to the maximal pressure, tude in initial cycles, and a is the contact radius.
which should be the center point of the contact area according to According to Eqs.(6) and (8), the relationship between the life-
Hertzian contact pressure distribution (Eq. (7)). The relative shear time of the pressure sprayed MoS2 coating and Ed0 max ini is shown
stress distribution is obtained by multiplying the contact pressure in Fig. 12, where one master curve can be obtained for each contact
by friction coefcient (Fig. 11). In one cycle, the ball passes a point conguration whatever the values of test parameters.
of the disk once, so the maximal dissipated energy density is equal In view of this feature, the initial maximal dissipated density
to the integration of the shear stress distribution in the central sec- approach is helpful for comparing the tribological performance of

Fig. 10. Effect of test parameters on coating lifetime: (a) K03; (b) K39; (c) K06; (d) U22 and K15.
2142 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143

Fig. 11. Distribution of contact pressure and dissipated energy density for ball on disk sliding contact.

Table 8
Parameters used in the polar diagram.

Performance Parameter Note

Friction reduction 
ref Mean value of friction coefcient
P Effect of normal load on friction
coefcient
 Effect of displacement amplitude
on friction coefcient

Fretting endurance cref

N Mean value of coating lifetime
NcP Effect of normal load on coating
lifetime
Nc Effect of displacement amplitude
on coating lifetime

Behaviors in evaluation D Ductility

techniques
Lc Critical load in scratch tests
Fig. 12. Ed0 max ini Nc master curves for the pressure sprayed MoS2 coating. Kb Ball cratering resistance

Non-tribological features h Recommended thickness range

Kc Corrosion resistance
T Service temperature

Fig. 13. Ed0 max ini Nc master curves for the bonded coatings.

coatings under a given contact conguration. Fig. 13 presents the

Ed0 max ini Nc master curves of the bonded coatings with good wear
resistance in cylinder on at fretting tests. Each coating is expressed
by one master curve, which is convenient for coating selection of
industrial applications. From Fig. 13, the tribological performance
of the coatings can be intuitively evaluated. K39 obviously presents
the best wear resistance. When the value of Ed0 max ini is small, K03
has a longer lifetime than K06, or else K06 is better.
4.3. Flexible polar diagram
According to the dissipated energy density approach, the wear
resistance of coatings can be conveniently compared. However, in
some applications, there are more requirements for tribological
performance, like effect of test parameters on friction reduction
or wear resistance. Additionally, there are probably some non-
tribological and non-functional requirements. For this situation, a
comprehensive approach is necessary for intuitively comparing the
coatings from different aspects. The polar diagram proposed by Car-
ton et al. [31] is a wonderful concept. In view of the requirements of
Fig. 14. Polar diagram of the bonded coatings.
different applications, a exible polar diagram is designed to syn-
thetically evaluate coatings, i.e., the parameters in this diagram can
be replaced according to the requirements of the given application.
In this diagram, each parameter is transformed by the rule: a low
value relates to the expected result, i.e., the coating with a curve
close to the center point has a good performance.
The bonded coatings with good wear resistance (K39, K03 and
K06) are selected as an example of polar diagram. In this example,
parameters from four aspects are employed (Table 8), and the polar
diagram of the coatings is shown in Fig. 14 [21]. From the diagram,
a comprehensive evaluation for the coatings can be straightfor-
wardly obtained. K39 is the best coating almost in every aspect,
while K06 and K03 respectively have their own advantages and
disadvantages. K03 behaves better than K06 in friction reduction,
 D.B. Luo et al. / Wear 271 (2011) 21322143
Table 9
Evaluate the coatings by weight point.
Parameters
Friction reduction Fretting endurance

ref P  cref
N NcP Nc
Weight factors 1 10 10 10 5 5 5 3
Weight factors 2 5 5 5 10 10 10
ball cratering and scratch tests, and corrosion resistance, while K06
is better in fretting endurance and it can be used with a wider range
of thickness and service temperature.
Sometimes, a denite conclusion is necessary: for example, the
comparison of K03 and K06. The weight point approach described
by Eq. (1) can be used again, but here the coating with a lower
weight point is better. The value of weight factors should be set
according to the importance of the parameters in the application
(10most important, 1least important). For example, friction
reduction or fretting endurance is respectively hypothesized as
very important performance, and the setting of weight factors and
the results are shown in Table 9. When friction reduction is very
important, K03 is better than K06; when fretting endurance is very
important, K06 is better than K03. Therefore, with appropriately
setting the weight factors according to the given application, de-
nite comparison results of the coatings can be obtained.
5. Conclusions
The selection of tribological coatings for industrial applications
is still a tough task. According to the study in this work, a systemic
approach is suggested to help the selection.
A pre-selection tool based on database is developed to pick out
several candidate coatings for performing further experimental
tests.
Some simple techniques (like nanoindentation test, scratch test,
ball cratering test, etc.) can be used to rapidly screen the candidate
coatings and reduce the time for further tribological tests.
Based on the results of tribological tests, the initial dissipated
energy density approach, which is independent of the values of
test parameters, can be conveniently used to compare the wear
resistance of the coatings.
A exible polar diagram is designed to comprehensively com-
pare coatings from different aspects. Denite comparison result
of coatings can be realized combining the polar diagram with the
approach of weight point.
Acknowledgements
This work was nancially supported by China Scholarship Coun-
cil and Groupe des Ecoles Centrales, and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (no. SWJTU09CX017).
References
[1] R.F. Smart, Selection of surfacing treatments, Tribol. Int. 11 (1978) 97104.
[2] M. Farrow, Selecting wear resistance surfaces, in: International Conference on
Metallurgical coatings (ICMC 86), San Diego, USA, 1986.
[3] A. Matthews, S. Franklin, K. Holmberg, Tribological coatings: contact mecha-
nisms and selection, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 (2007) 54635475.
[4] M. Sedlacek, B. Podgornik, J. Vizintin, Tribological properties of DLC coatings
and comparison with test results: development of a database, Mater. Charact.
59 (2008) 151161.
[5] S.E. Franklin, Coating selection and tribological testing for engineering equip-
ment applications, TriboTest 14 (2008) 6380.
2143
Behaviors in evaluation Non-tribological Weight point
techniques features
D Lc Kb h Kc T K39 K03 K06
3 3 3 3 3 34.7 68.4 72.4
3 3 3 3 3 3 34.1 82.1 75.7
[6] S.J. Shaffer, M.J. Rogers, Tribological performance of various coatings in unlu-
bricated sliding for use in small arms action componentsa case study, Wear
263 (2007) 12811290.
[7] A. Matthews, K.G. Swift, Intelligent knowledge-based systems for tribological
coating selection, Thin Solid Films 109 (1983) 305311.
[8] C.S. Syan, A. Matthews, K.G. Swift, Knowledge-based expert systems in sur-
face coating and treatment selection for wear reduction, Surf. Coat. Technol. 33
(1987) 105115.
[9] P. Robinson, A. Matthews, K.G. Swift, S. Franklin, A computer knowledge-based
system for surface coating and material selection, Surf. Coat. Technol. 62 (1993)
662668.
[10] S.E. Franklin, J.A. Dijkman, The implementation of tribological principles in
an expert-system (PRECEPT) for the selection of metallic materials, sur-
face treatments and coatings in engineering design, Wear 181183 (1995)
110.
[11] L.A Dobrzanski, J. Madejski, Prototype of an expert system for selection of
coatings for metals, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 175 (2006) 163172.
[12] D. Landru, Aides informatises la slection des matriaux et des procdes dans
la conception de pices de structure, Ph.D, Institut National Polytechnique de
Grenoble, 2000.
[13] K. Schiffmann, M. Petrik, H.J. Fetzerb, S. Schwarz, A. Gemmler, M. Griepentrog, G.
Reiners, INOa WWW information system for innovative coatings and surface
technology, Surf. Coat. Technol. 153 (2002) 217224.
[14] G. Athanasopoulos, C.R. Riba, C. Athanasopoulou, A decision support system
for coating selection based on fuzzy logic and multi-criteria decision making,
Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 1084810853.
[15] C. Donnet, J.M. Martin, T. LeMogne, M. Belin, Super-low friction of MoS2 coatings
in various environments, Tribol. Int. 29 (1996) 123128.
[16] A. Vanhulsel, F. Velasco, R. Jacobs, L. Eersels, D. Havermans, E.W. Roberts, I. Sher-
rington, M.J. Anderson, L. Gaillard, DLC solid lubricant coatings on ball bearings
for space applications, Tribol. Int. 40 (2007) 11861194.
[17] ASM, Friction, lubrication, and wear technology ASM Handbook, vol.18, ASM
International, USA, 1992.
[18] P. Kulu, T. Pihl, Selection criteria for wear resistant powder coatings
under extreme erosive wear conditions, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 11 (2002)
517522.
[19] Y. Fu, J. Wei, A.W. Batchelor, Some considerations on the mitigation of fret-
ting damage by the application of surface-modication technologies, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 99 (2000) 231245.
[20] K. Holmberg, A. Matthews, Coatings tribology: properties, techniques and
applications in surface engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994.
[21] D.B. Luo, V. Fridrici, P. Kapsa, Selecting solid lubricant coatings under fretting
conditions, Wear 256 (2010) 816827.
[22] D.B. Luo, V. Fridrici, P. Kapsa, T. Murakami, Effect of contact conguration on
the durability and friction coefcient of pressure-sprayed MoS2 coatings under
fretting conditions, Lubr. Sci. 21 (2009) 193209.
[23] J.F. Archard, Contact and rubbing of at surfaces, J. Appl. Phys. 24 (1953)
981988.
[24] J.C.A. Batista, C. Godoy, G. Pintaude, A. Sinator, A. Matthews, An approach to
elucidate the different response of PVD coatings in different tribological tests,
Surf. Coat. Technol. 174175 (2003) 891898.
[25] D.H. Jeong, U. Erb, K.T. Aust, G. Palumbo, The relationship between hardness
and abrasive wear resistance of electrodeposited nanocrystalline NiP coatings,
Scripta Mater. 48 (2003) 10671072.
[26] K.-D. Bouzakis, S. Hadjiyiannis, G. Skordaris, I. Mirisidis, N. Michailidis, K. Efs-
tathiou, E. Pavlidou, G. Erkens, R. Cremer, S. Rambadt, I. Wirth, The effect of
coating thickness, mechanical strength and hardness properties on the milling
performance of PVD coated cemented carbides inserts, Surf. Coat. Technol.
177178 (2004) 657664.
[27] H. Mohrbacher, B. Blanpain, J.P. Celis, J.R. Roos, L. Stals, M.V. Stappen, Oxida-
tional wear of TiN coatings on tool steel and nitrided tool steel in unlubricated
fretting, Wear 188 (1995) 130137.
[28] S. Fouvry, P. Kapsa, L. Vincent, Quantication of fretting damage, Wear 200
(1996) 186205.
[29] V. Fridrici, S. Fouvry, P. Kapsa, P. Perruchaut, Impact of contact size and geom-
etry on the lifetime of a solid lubricant, Wear 255 (2003) 875882.
[30] S. Fouvry, Etude quantitative des degradations en fretting, Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole
Centrale de Lyon, 1997.
[31] J.-F. Carton, A.-B. Vannes, L. Vincent, Basis of a coating choice methodology in
fretting, Wear 185 (1995) 4757.