Applied Surface Science 253 (2007) 8335–8339

www.elsevier.com/locate/apsusc

Review
Friction and wear properties of the co-deposited Ni–SiC
nanocomposite coating§
Y. Zhou *, H. Zhang, B. Qian
Department of Material Science and Engineering, Heilongjiang Institute of Science and Technology, Harbin 150027, China
Received 17 September 2006; received in revised form 17 April 2007; accepted 17 April 2007
Available online 4 May 2007

Abstract
Ni–SiC nanocomposite coatings were produced by electrodeposition from a nickel sulfate bath containing SiC nanoparticles with an average
particle size of 30 nm. The characteristics of the coatings were assessed by scanning electron microscopy and microhardness test. The friction and
wear performance of Ni–SiC nanocomposite coatings and Ni film were comparatively investigated sliding against Si3N4 ceramic balls under non-
lubricated conditions. The results indicated that compared to Ni film, Ni–SiC nanocomposite coating exhibited enhanced microhardness and wear
resistance. The effect of SiC nanoparticles on the friction and wear resistance is discussed in detail.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electrodeposited; Composite coating; Microhardness; Wear

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8335
2. Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8336
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8337
4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8338
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8339

1. Introduction improved and well-controlled properties by use of micro- and

especially nanoparticles. The results exhibited that nano-
The composite electrodeposition technique is a low-cost and structured composite coatings usually exhibit enhanced
low-temperature method suitable for producing-metal matrix mechanical, tribological, anti-corrosion and anti-oxidation
composite coatings for diverse purpose such as wear and properties as compared to pure metal coatings as well as
abrasion resistance. These coatings typically contain oxide composite coatings containing micro-sized particles. The
particles or carbide particles in micrometer, such as TiO2 [1], improvement of these properties depended mainly on the size
Al2O3 [2], La2O3 [3], SiC [4–6], in an electrodeposited matrix and the percentage of the particles co-deposited as well as on
such as nickel. Recently, the ability to produce reinforcing the distribution of the particles in the metallic matrix. Due to
powders with ever decreasing particles sizes has lead their high wear resistance and the low cost of ceramic powder,
technological interest to production of new composites with Ni–SiC composites have been investigated to the greatest extent
and successfully commercialized for the protection of friction
parts, combustion engines and casting moulds. However, for
§
conventional Ni–SiC composite, the dimensions of dispersed
Foundation item: Project (06-13) supported by the Scientific Research SiC particles was in the range of micro/sub micrometers [4–10].
Startup Foundation of Heilongjiang Institute of Science and Technology.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 451 88036526.
With the increasing availability of SiC nanoparticles with the
E-mail addresses: zhouyuebo760309@163.com, ybzhou@imr.ac.cn size less than 100 nm, new Ni–SiC nanocomposite coating was
(Y. Zhou). developed by co-electrodeposition of Ni and SiC nanoparticles
0169-4332/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2007.04.047
8336 Y. Zhou et al. / Applied Surface Science 253 (2007) 8335–8339

[11–14]. However, the friction and wear resistance of Ni–SiC particles concentration and prevent sedimentation in the
nanocomposite from modified Watt’ s bath was limited [15]. In solution. For comparison, specimen of nickel with a 60 mm
the present work, Ni matrix composite coatings containing thick Ni film was also deposited using the same parameters
nano-sized SiC particles with an average particle size of 30nm and the same bath but without adding SiC nanoparticles.
were prepared from modified Watt’ s bath; the friction and wear After the deposition, the as-deposited samples were rinsed by
performance was analyzed. For comparison, the preparation using distilled water and then ultrasonically cleaned for
and wear performance of pure Ni film were also carried out analysis.
under the same conditions. The surface morphology and the composition of the
composite coatings were characterized by a scanning electron
2. Experimental microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive analyzer system
(EDX). The weight fraction of SiC was determined by the
Pure nickel specimens with the sizes of 15 mm  chemical formula of SiC. Measurements of the Vickers
10 mm  2 mm were cut from a pure electrolytic nickel plate microhardness of nickel film and Ni–SiC nanocomposites
and then were abraded by 800# grit SiC waterproof paper. After were performed on the surface at a load of 50 g and the
being ultrasonically cleaned in acetone, they were electro- corresponding final values were determined as the average of
deposited with a 60 mm-thick film of Ni–SiC nanocomposite 10 measurements. The friction and wear tests performed at
from a nickel sulfate bath containing 150 g/L NiSO4
7H2O, room temperature on a ball-on-disc type tribometer with a
15 g/L NH4Cl, 15 g/L H3BO3, 0.1 g/L C12H25NaSO4, and constant rotation speed of 200 rpm at a constant radius of
certain content of pure SiC nanoparticles (a-SiC from Alfa 2.5 mm and loads 150 N under non-lubricated conditions.
Aesar of BeiJing, spherical shape) with a average particle size Si3N4 ceramic balls of 2 mm diameter were used as the counter
of 30 nm. The suspensions were stirred for 24 h before body. Each wear test lasted for 1 h for a total distance of
deposition. The solution temperature was maintained at 35 8C 188.4 m. The friction coefficients versus times were recorded
by an automatic controller. The current density used was 3 A/ automatically during the test. All the friction pairs were cleaned
dm2, and the pH 5.5–6.0, the stirring rate 600 rpm. Before the by ultrasonically washed in acetone before and after each test.
electrodeposition, the samples was degreased in alkaline The weight loss of the samples, to an accuracy of 0.1 mg was
solution, dipped in acid (10%HCl) and finally washed with detected to evaluate the wear resistance. Three replicate tests
distilled water. The bath was stirred by a magnetic stirrer in the were carried out so as to minimize data scattering, and every
electroplating process in order to maintain the uniform value reported was an average of three measurements. After the

Fig. 1. SEM image of the surface morphologies of (a) the as-deposited Ni film and (b and c) Ni–SiC nanocomposite coating.
 Y. Zhou et al. / Applied Surface Science 253 (2007) 8335–8339 8337

wear test, the worn surfaces of the coatings were investigated

using SEM.

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 1 shows the surface morphology of the electrodeposited

Ni film and Ni–SiC nanocomposite synthesized from the bath
without and with 20 g/L SiC nanoparticles. A regular pyramidal
structure as shown in Fig. 1a is observed at the surface of the
nickel film. However, with the additions of SiC nanoparticles,
the grain size is reduced and the morphology is changed to
spherical crystal, as shown in Fig. 1b. At higher magnification,
fine surface protrusions, as indicated by the arrow, can be seen
(Fig. 1c). The change in the morphology can be associated to
the change from preferred orientation to radom oriented
composite deposits [14]. EDAX analysis showed that the Fig. 3. Typical friction coefficient curve of (a) the as-deposited Ni film and (b)
protrusions had higher SiC content than the other area, Ni–SiC nanocomposite coating.
suggesting that they were the fresh deposits enriched with the
SiC nanoparticles, while in the other areas the codeposited SiC
nanoparticles were engulfed by Ni deposits. From the cross- The microhardness and wear loss on Ni film and Ni–SiC
sectional in Fig. 2, it can be found that the dark SiC nanocomposite under the same condition were shown in Fig. 4.
nanoparticles were, in general, homogeneously dispersed in the The microhardness of Ni film is about 280 Hv. However, with
Ni–SiC nanocomposite film, although some of them formed the addition of 20 g/L SiC nanoparticles, the microhardness of
agglomerated clusters. EDAX analysis revealed that Ni–SiC the Ni–SiC nanocomposite increased significantly to 550 Hv,
nanocomposite coating contained 6 wt.% SiC. while the wear loss of the Ni–SiC nanocomposite was 0.5 mg as
Fig. 3 shows the friction coefficient of Ni film and Ni–SiC compared to1.2 mg for Ni film. The result strongly suggests
nanocomposite under non-lubricated conditions at loads 150 N. that the wear resistance increased with the increasement of the
It was found that, at the first 1200 cycles, the two coatings microhardness. The difference in the wear behavior of the Ni
exhibited a same friction coefficient about 0.15. For the Ni film, film and Ni–SiC nanocomposite can be further verified by the
it increases dramatically to 1.0 after 6000 cycles and then worn surface morphologies as shown in Fig. 5. By comparison
maintain at a constant level. However, for Ni–SiC nanocom- the low magnified images in Fig. 5a and c, it can be found that
posite, it exhibited little change and keep stable during the test. the Ni–SiC nanocomposite exhibits less abrasive width and
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the Ni–SiC nanocomposite depth. At high magnified image, as shown in Fig. 5b, the wear
exhibited a lower friction coefficient (more than four times track shows the larger extent of adhesion wear and severe
lower than the Ni film) under identical wear test condition. In deformation with large grooves in the sliding direction under
addition, the friction coefficients of Ni–SiC nanocomposite the combined stresses of compression and shear, which results
were much more stable than that of the Ni film. in larger wear loss of the Ni film. Furthermore, larger tendency

Fig. 2. The cross-sectional morphology of Ni–SiC nanocomposite clearly Fig. 4. The microhardness and wear loss of the as-deposited Ni film and Ni–SiC
showing a homogenously dispersion of SiC nanoparticle. nanocomposite.
8338 Y. Zhou et al. / Applied Surface Science 253 (2007) 8335–8339

Fig. 5. SEM worn surface of (a and b) Ni film and (c and d) Ni–SiC nanocomposite coating.

for plastic deformation of asperity junctions results in higher is characterized by a dispersion of fine particles with a particle
and unstable friction coefficient. The results suggest that, the diameter ranging from 0.01 to 1 mm through a dislocation–
wear resistance of the Ni film is rather weak. However, a particle interaction or Orowan hardening mechanism [18]. In
densification of the worn surface with slight adhesion wear, this case, the matrix carries the load and the fine particles
rather smooth surface, only some light grooves and scar seems impede the motion of dislocations [19]. A particle-reinforced
to take place on the worn surface of the Ni–SiC nanocomposite, composite contains more than 20 vol.% of particles larger than
as seen in Fig. 5d. 1 mm. The load is carried by both the matrix and the particles.
From above results, the incorporation of SiC nanoparticles Strengthening is achieved because particles restrain matrix
in the matrix can largely improve the tribological performance deformation by a mechanical constraint. Thus, for the Ni–SiC
of Ni–SiC nanocomposite coatings due to the addition of SiC nanocomposite in this experiment, the enhancement in the
nanoparticles. Gyftou et al. [15] reported that embedding of hardness is also related to the dispersion-strengthening effect
nanoparticles perturbs the crystal growth of Ni, inducing a caused by SiC particles in the composite coatings, which
reduction in the crystal size, gives deposits with significantly impede the motion of dislocations in metallic matrix [20–22].
increased hardness values. Qu et al. [16] also reported that the During the friction process, the codeposited SiC nanoparticles
existence of nano-sized CeO2 particles, as the second phase, gradually protruded out of the matrix, which carried the loads
reduces the grain size of Ni matrix. Accordingly, the higher transferred from the matrix, and as a result, the amount of
microhardness value of the Ni–SiC nanocomposites may be due thermal plastic deformation and scuffing wear at high
to the decrease of the grain size of Ni matrix of the composites, temperature caused by the heat generated in the sliding was
which is favored by the nano-sized SiC particles. With the grain reduced. That was also the reasons why the friction coefficients
refinement of Ni matrix, the load carrying ability and the of Ni–SiC nanocomposite were much more stable and more
resistance for plastic deformation [11,13–14,16–17] increase. It than four times lower than the as-deposited Ni film.
is also known that the hardness and other mechanical properties
of metal matrix composites depend in general on the amount 4. Conclusions
and size of the dispersed phase, apart from the mechanical
characteristics of the matrix. That amount and size of particles In this paper, the friction and wear behavior of the as-
define two kinds of reinforcing mechanisms in metal matrix codeposited Ni–SiC nanocomposite coating containing SiC
composite materials, namely dispersion-strengthening and nanoparticles sliding Si3N4 ball under non-lubricated conditions
particle-strengthening. A dispersion-strengthened composite were evaluated. The as-codeposited Ni–SiC nanocomposite
 Y. Zhou et al. / Applied Surface Science 253 (2007) 8335–8339 8339

coatings show lower friction coefficient and better wear [10] A.F. Zimmerman, D.G. Clark, K.T. Aust, U. Erb, Mater. Lett. 52 (2002)
85–90.
resistance compared to the as-deposited Ni film, which can be
[11] L. Benea, P.L. Bonora, A. Borello, et al. Wear 249 (2002) 995–1003.
attributed to the incorporation of nanometer SiC particles in [12] P. Gyftou, M. Stroumbouli, E.A. Pavlatou, P. Asimidis, N. Spyrellis,
the deposit greatly increasing the hardness of the composite Electrochim. Acta 50 (2005) 4544–4550.
coating through grain refinement strengthening and dispersion- [13] M. Lekka, N. Kouloumbi, M. Gajo, P.L. Bonora, Electrochim. Acta 50
strengthening. (2005) 4551–4556.
[14] M. Srivastava, V.K. William Grips, K.S. Rajam, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253
(2007) 3814–3824.
References [15] P. Gyftou, M. Stroumbouli, E.A. Pavlatou, N. Spyrellis, Trans. IMF 80
(2002) 88.
[1] N. Guglielmi, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 1009–1012. [16] N.S. Qu, D. Zhu, K.C. Chan, Scripta Mater. 54 (2006) 1421–1425.
[2] M. Verelst, J.P. Bonino, A. Rousset, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 135 (1991) 51–57. [17] W. Li-Ping, G. Yan, X. Tao, X. Quan-ji, Mater. Chem. Phys. 99 (2006) 96–
[3] X. Peng, D. Ping, T. Li, W. Wu, J. Electrochem. Soc. 145 (1998) 389–398. 103.
[4] R.P. Socha, K. Laajalehto, P. Nowak, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. [18] V.P. Greco, Plat. Surf. Finish. 7 (1989) 62.
Aspects 208 (2002) 267–275. [19] B. Muller, H. Ferkel, Nanostruct. Mater. 10 (1998) 1285.
[5] I. Garcia, A. Conde, G. Langelaan, et al. Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 1173–1189. [20] W. Gang, L. Ning, Z. Derui, M. Kurachi, Surf. Coat. Technol. 176 (2004)
[6] F.H. Stott, D.J. Ashby, Corros. Sci. 18 (1978) 183–198. 157–164.
[7] L. Lei, Z. Haijun, H. Wenbin, S. Bin, Mater. Lett. 59 (2005) 3014–3017. [21] K.H. Hou, M.D. Ger, L.M. Wang, S.T. Ke, Wear 253 (2002) 994–
[8] W. Hongzhi, Y. Suwei, M. Sowjun, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 145 (2004) 1003.
299–302. [22] X. Yu-jun, J. Xian-zhao, Z. Yan-wei, et al. Surf. Coat. Technol. 200 (20–
[9] S.K. Kim, H.J. Yoo, Surf. Coat. Technol. 108–109 (1998) 564–569. 21) (2005) 5677–5687.