4.1 Article

A comparative study on morphological, mechanical and tribological properties of electroless NiP, NiB and NiBP coatings

Journal

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE ADVANCES
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsadv.2021.100089

Keywords

Electroless nickel coating; Nano indentation; H/E ratio; Wear resistance; Young's modulus

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [116M998]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to fabricate NiBP polyalloys coatings on aluminum substrates using electroless coating technique, and compares the morphological and hardness properties of NiP, NiB, and NiBP coatings. The results show that under As-Plated conditions, NiBP coatings exhibit the highest hardness and Young's modulus, while after heat treatment, NiB coatings show higher hardness and Young's modulus values.
The aim of this paper is to fabricate the NiBP polyalloys coatings by electroless coating technique on the aluminum substrate. A comparative investigation of morphological and hardness properties between NiP, NiB and NiBP coatings is employed. Also, the effect of heat treatment process on the nanoindentation behaviors of the electroless nickel-based alloys is studied. The highest hardness of 8.76 GPa and Young's modulus of 180.36 GPa were obtained electroless NiBP coatings in the case of as-plated conditions. After heat treatment process at 400 degrees C in an inert atmosphere, electroless NiB coatings showed the highest hardness value of 10.02 GPa and Young's modulus of 207.48 GPa when compared with NiP and NiBP coatings. Although electroless NiB coatings exhibited the highest Young's modulus and harness value, electroless NiBP coatings showed the best protection against wear in all loads of 1, 2 and 3N and all sliding velocities of 100, 200 and 400 mm/s due to showing H/E ratio of NiBP coatings comparing with NiB and NiP coatings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available