Next Article in Journal
Effect of Surface Texturing Parameters on the Lubrication Characteristics of an Axial Piston Pump Valve Plate
Next Article in Special Issue
Improved Tribocorrosion Resistance of a CoCrMo Implant Material by Carburising
Previous Article in Journal
Detailed Investigations on the Oil Flow in Dip-Lubricated Gearboxes by the Finite Volume CFD Method
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tribocorrosion of Fe-Based Amorphous Coating in Simulated Body Fluids
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparison Study on Wear Behaviors of Mo and Al2O3-Mo Coatings from RT to 300 °C

1
School of Material Science and Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China
2
Hunan Provincial Key Defense Laboratory of High Temperature Wear Resisting Materials and Preparation Technology, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Lubricants 2018, 6(2), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants6020048
Submission received: 11 April 2018 / Revised: 8 May 2018 / Accepted: 8 May 2018 / Published: 11 May 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tribocorrosion of Surface Engineered Materials)

Abstract

:
Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings are fabricated on a low-carbon steel substrate using atmospheric plasma spraying. The microstructure and mechanical properties of two as-sprayed coatings, with a particular focus on the tribological behaviors from room temperature to 300 °C, are comparatively investigated in this study. Microstructural analysis of the coatings shows that the porosity of the Al2O3-Mo coating is higher than that of Mo coating. The addition of Al2O3 particles reduces the coating–substrate adhesion strength. The Al2O3-Mo coating, in comparison to the Mo coating, shows improved mechanical properties, such as hardness and wear resistance. The friction coefficients of both coatings increase with further increases in test temperatures. The friction coefficient of the Al2O3-Mo coating, tested above 100 °C, is lower than that of the Mo coating. The wear failure mechanisms of the two coatings are delamination, brittle fracture, oxidation and adhesion wear. In addition, local plastic deformation was also found in the Mo coating.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Molybdenum (Mo) coatings are used to improve underlying materials’ mechanical properties and to decrease their wear. They show excellent scuffing resistance to abrasive wear, as well as high corrosion resistance [1,2,3]. The wear resistance of hardened steel coated with a Mo coating could be enhanced by a factor of 2–18 [4]. Because of the excellent tribological properties, Mo coatings are widely used in automobile, aerospace, and pulp and paper industries to protect machine parts from wear and corrosion [5,6].
Thermal spraying is an advantageous deposition process that deposits a Mo layer on various substrate materials. Flame spraying is usually used to fabricate Mo coatings. However, it has a short service lifetime and low cohesive strength [7]. Plasma-sprayed Mo coatings have a low hardness of 300 HV, which results in very poor wear resistance [8]. To address these shortcomings, MoSi2, brass, Mo2C, NiCrBSi, and TiN were introduced into plasma-sprayed Mo coatings to improve wear resistance [5,9,10,11]. However, the wear resistance of these Mo matrix composite coatings is also very limited. In other words, new Mo matrix composite coatings, which motivate the current work, should be developed.
The atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) technique endows an Al2O3 coating with high hardness, outstanding corrosion and good wear resistance, and excellent chemical stability under critical application conditions [12]. Therefore, a plasma-sprayed Al2O3 coating on metallic substrates has been widely used as a wear-resistant coating in engineering fields [13,14]. The close coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between Mo (6.7 × 10−6/K) and Al2O3 (6.8 × 10−6/K) could reduce the thermal stress between the two phases boundaries. This leads to fewer micro cracks in the material. Meanwhile, it was reported that Al2O3/Mo composites, fabricated using powder metallurgy, have excellent toughness and wear resistance [15]. The above-mentioned studies suggested that the Al2O3-Mo coating could be a good alternative candidate in providing excellent wear resistance.
To reach a more efficient performance, modern engine pistons usually operate under higher temperatures. The temperature of the environment is an important factor in evaluating the tribological characteristics of a piston ring-coating material. However, in previous literature there is almost no research on the wear of plasma-sprayed Mo coatings integrated with Al2O3 particles, especially at room temperature (RT) to 300 °C. In the present research, Mo coatings, with and without reinforced Al2O3 dopant, were fabricated using APS, in an attempt to assess the microstructure, mechanical properties and wear behaviors (RT to 300 °C) of the two coatings.

2. Materials and Experimental Procedure

2.1. Feedstock Powders and Coatings Preparation

Commercial spray powders, i.e., Mo powder (38–75 μm) and Al2O3 powder (38–75 μm), were provided by Beijing Sunspraying Technology Co. Ltd. (Beijing, China). A monolithic Mo coating was fabricated with pure Mo powders. The mixed powders, for the spraying of the Al2O3-Mo coating, consisted of 30 wt. % Al2O3 and 70 wt. % Mo powders. The composite powders were mechanically mixed for 20 h in order to obtain a uniform composite powder.
The Q235 Low-carbon steel (C: 0.16 wt. %; Mn: 0.45 wt. %; Si: 0.28 wt. %; S: 0.038 wt. %; P: 0.035 wt. %; tensile strength: 416 MPa; yield strength: 282 MPa; elongation: 29.6%; 130 HB) was used as a substrate. The Low-carbon steel substrates were previously grit-blasted using aluminum oxide (with a grit size of 36 mesh) under 0.65 MPa pressure, resulting in a surface roughness in the order of Ra = 6 μm. Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings on the low-carbon steel substrate were fabricated using APS technology. The APS equipment (APS-2000), plasma spray gun (PQ-1S), copper anode (nozzle), and tungsten cathode were provided by Beijing Aeronautical Manufacturing Technology Research Institute Manufacturer of China. An argon–hydrogen mixture was used as the plasma-forming gas. The spraying parameters for Al2O3-Mo and Mo coatings are the same, and are listed in Table 1.

2.2. Microstructures Characterization of Coatings

The phase compositions of the coatings were characterized via X-ray diffraction (XRD) with a Cu- radiation of 0.154 nm in wavelength at a scan speed of 2°/min (D8 Discover 2500, Bruker Corporation, Karlsruhe, Germany). A scanning electron microscope (SEM, JSM-6380LV, JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) equipped with an energy dispersive spectroscope (EDS, JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) was used to analyze the microstructure, morphologies of the coatings, and the wear tracks. The porosities of the coatings were evaluated by image analysis of SEM images (at a magnification of 500×) of the cross-section of the polished samples [16]. For each cross-section, 15 images were measured for average measurement values.

2.3. Mechanical Properties Test

Micro-hardness measurements of the coatings were determined on the polished cross-sections using a Digital Micro-Vickers Hardness Tester (HVS-1000, Jinan Liangong Testing Technology Corporation of China, Jinan, China) under a normal load of 50 g and a dwell time of 15 s. Measurements were carried out for each sample at least 20 times to obtain an average value. The adhesion strengths of the coatings were measured using a direct pull-off tensile method according to ASTM C633, using an Instron 3369 electronic universal testing machine [17]. Before the tests, both sides of the coating samples were bonded to the low-carbon steel by using epoxy resin (E-7, provided by Shanghai Research Institute of Synthetic Resins, Shanghai, China). The adhesion strength of the epoxy resin in the C633 test configuration was about 65 MPa. The tensile load was applied at a constant loading rate of 1.0 mm/min until the sample was broken. Adhesion strength can be calculated by dividing the maximum force by the surface zone of the samples. The reported adhesion strength was the mean value of 5 samples sprayed with the same parameters.

2.4. Friction and Wear Test

Friction and wear tests were carried out in a ball-on-disk contact configuration tribometer (HSR-2M, Lanzhou, China) under dry conditions. The commercially available steel ball; with a diameter of 5 mm, Ra = 0.8 μm, and a hardness (HRC) of 48; was used as the upper specimen. The as-sprayed coating samples were used as the lower specimens. Prior to sliding tests, the as-sprayed coatings were mechanically ground using SiC emery papers to achieve the roughness (Ra) of 1.6 μm. The coatings surface slides against the steel ball in a linear back-and-forth sliding motion. The sliding tests were conducted under a normal load of 30 N, a sliding time of 60 min, a stroke length of 5 mm, a speed of 50 mm/s, and a stroke frequency of 5 Hz. The test temperatures were RT, 100 °C, 200 °C, and 300 °C. The friction coefficients were dynamically recorded by an online automatic measurement. The wear depths and widths as well as the wear volume loss of the coatings were analyzed using a three-dimensional surface profiler (NanoMap-500LS, AEP Technology, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). The wear rate is calculated as: K = V/SF, where K is the volume wear rate (mm3/Nm), V is the wear volume (mm3), S is the total sliding distance (m), and F is normal load (N).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructure of As-Sprayed Coatings

Figure 1a,b shows SEM micrographs of the Mo powder and Al2O3 powder, respectively. It can be seen that the Mo powder is near-spherical in shape, showing a typical morphology of agglomerating and sintering particulates. The Al2O3 powders show an irregular morphology because they were processed by sintering and crushing. Both Mo and Al2O3 powders show good fluidity. The fluidity of the mixed powders was not changed in an obvious manner when Mo powders were mixed with 30 wt. % Al2O3 powders.
XRD patterns of the raw powders, as-sprayed Mo, and Al2O3-Mo coatings, are shown in Figure 2. The Mo coating is composed of Mo and traces of MoO3 phases, and the Al2O3-Mo coating mainly consisted of Mo, Al2O3 and traces of MoO3 phases. The existence of MoO3 phase in the two coatings was caused by the oxidation of Mo particles during the APS process [18]. Metal oxides usually reside along the splat boundaries of as-sprayed Mo coatings, and could enhance the hardness and tribological properties of coatings [19].
Figure 3 shows the surface and cross-section SEM morphologies of two kinds of coatings. As shown in Figure 3a,b, it is clear that the surfaces of both the Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings consist of well-flattened splats, spherical features, insufficiently-flattened protuberances, and some pores, exhibiting the typical characteristics of plasma spray coatings. Some liquid droplets splashed when they were sprayed on the substrate surface. The splashed liquid particles subsequently changed to small spherical particles due to the effects of surface energy in the cool re-depositing process. Thus, the spherical particles were observed on the surface of the coatings. Figure 3c,d shows the cross-sectional morphologies of the Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings, respectively. It is obvious that two coatings were stably bonded to the steel substrate without an interfacial decohesion, cracks, or pores. The typical splat and lamellar microstructure, some pores, and micro-cracks were also observed in the two as-sprayed coatings. The inherent characteristics of thermal sprayed technology inevitably result in the existence of microstructure defects in the coating [20]. The porosity proportion of the Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings, estimated by the image analysis, are about (7.2 ± 0.3)% and (10.2 ± 0.5)%, respectively. This is attributed to the better spreadability of the melt Mo particles than the Al2O3 particles. The addition of Al2O3 particles increased the porosity of the as-sprayed Mo coating, which could influence the mechanical properties of the Mo coating, such as adhesion strengthen, hardness and wear resistance.

3.2. Adhesion Strength and Micro Hardness of Coatings

The adhesion strengths of the coated specimens were measured, as shown in Figure 4. The adhesion strength of the as-sprayed Mo coating is about 43.8 ± 3.2 MPa, and that of Al2O3-Mo coating is approximately 33.6 ± 2.8 MPa. The average adhesion strength of pure Al2O3 coating, with substrate prepared by APS, is 26.9 ± 1.8 MPa [14]. It is obvious that Al2O3 decreased the adhesion strength of the as-sprayed Mo coating. After the adhesion strength test, the separated surfaces of the test samples revealed that the two kinds of coatings were not cohesively separated from the boundary of the splats but rather from the boundary between the coating and substrate. This shows that the adhesion strength among splats is better than that of the boundary between the coating and substrate. The metal Mo has a good bond performance with other materials [6]. When the Mo powders are used for spraying, the particles may be sufficiently melted and will strongly adhere to the rough surface of the substrate. For the Al2O3-Mo coating, the insufficiently-flattened Al2O3 particles had an adverse influence on the mechanical interlocking between splats or between the coating and substrate. Therefore, the addition of Al2O3 decreased the adhesion strength of Mo coating.
The micro-hardness values of both coatings, measured using a standard rectangular pyramid diamond indenter (136 ± 0.5)°, are shown in Figure 5. The micro hardness of the Mo coating is about 3.12 ± 0.12 GPa (HV) and that of Al2O3-Mo coating is about 4.66 ± 0.16 GPa (HV). It is well known that Al2O3 ceramic is an attractive wear-resistant material because of its high hardness, and its elastic modulus (398.2 GPa [21]), which is much higher than that of Mo (310 GPa [22]). In general, the cracks, porosity, and poor adhesion between splats, decrease the micro hardness of the sprayed coatings [23]. However, as-sprayed pure Al2O3 coating has a hardness of about 13 GPa (HV) [14]. With the addition of 30 wt. % Al2O3 particles to the Mo coating, the micro-hardness of the as-sprayed Al2O3-Mo composite coating showed an increase of 49.5%, compared to that of the as-sprayed Mo coating.

3.3. Friction Coefficient and Wear Rate of Coatings

The relation between the friction coefficient and time, and the average friction coefficients of both coatings at different test temperatures, are presented in Figure 6. It can be seen that the coefficients of friction–time curves of two coatings have similar trends. In other words, the friction coefficients are in a relative steady-state stage after a short running-in period. To reduce the measured deviation, the friction coefficient of each specimen was tested three times. As the wear test temperatures increased from RT to 300 °C, the average values of the friction coefficient for the Mo coating increased from 0.52 to 1.14, and that of the Al2O3-Mo coating increased from 0.75 to 1.05. Interestingly, compared to the Mo coating, the Al2O3-Mo coating showed higher average friction coefficients at RT. However, the Al2O3-Mo coating exhibits lower average friction coefficients at the other test temperatures, which indicated that the Al2O3 had a lubricating effect. The lubricating effect of the ceramics was also found in the as-sprayed ZrO2-MoSi2 coating, at a high temperature of 1100 °C [24].
Figure 7 shows the two-dimensional profiles of wear tracks for the Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings at a test temperature of 300 °C. The measuring direction of the two-dimensional profile is vertical to the wear tracks. The wear profiles of the coated specimens for other test temperatures are not shown here for the sake of brevity. As shown in Figure 7, it can be seen that the width and depth of the scratches on the Mo coating are approximately 1750 μm and 110 μm, respectively. Whereas for the Al2O3-Mo coating, they are about 1250 μm and 56 μm, respectively. The profiles of these wear tracks show less wear volume for the Al2O3-reinforced Mo coating. The wear rates of both coatings at different test temperatures are shown in Figure 8. Their wear rate values at each test temperature are approximately 10−5 mm3/Nm. It can be seen that the wear rates of both coatings increase with the increase in test temperatures. As shown in Figure 8, the wear rate of the as-sprayed Mo-Al2O3 coating is less than that of the Mo coating when they were tested under the same conditions, especially in the test temperature of 100~300 °C. This indicates that the addition of 30 wt. % Al2O3 enhances the wear resistance of Mo coating from RT to 300 °C.

3.4. Wear Mechanisms of Coatings

Figure 9 presents the SEM morphologies of the worn surface of the Mo coating after RT, 100 °C, 200 °C and 300 °C wear tests. A wear scar was commonly observed on the surface of plasma sprayed Mo coating, and the width and depth of the scar increased with the increase in test temperatures. As shown in Figure 9, splat delamination, brittle fracture and local plastic deformation were typically found in all specimens, regardless of wear test temperature. When a repeated load of 30 N was applied on the Mo coating surface, surface fatigue occurred in the coating. A crack easily initiated and gradually propagated below the surface, resulting in decohesion of the splat and delamination. The abrasive wear mechanism, perhaps, occurs at the boundary between splats, where the adhesion strength is weaker than that within the splat, especially in the coating microstructure by thermal spraying [25,26]. In addition, a load applied to the steel counterpart caused an abrasive effect on the Mo coating. Therefore, plastic deformation zones also usually formed.
In addition, delamination and brittle fracture of Mo splats usually occurred in the Mo coating. Some pores and cracks existed in the as-sprayed coating. These crack-initiation regions usually endure discontinuous strain or compressive stress during wear tests. Once the stress exceeds the fatigue limit of the Mo coating, during the cyclic contact process, cracks will be nucleated and propagated. Once the cracks connected and coalesced with one another, the particles pulled-out, fatigue delamination took place in these sites, and the brittle fracture was finally developed [25]. The inner cracks within the Mo splat caused the embrittlement of Mo material, which occasionally generated brittle fracture damage. Consequently, the contribution of Mo fracture resulted in degraded tribological property. Moreover, as displayed in Figure 9, splat delamination, brittle fracture and local plastic deformation occurred more and more frequently as wear test temperatures increased.
Figure 10 shows SEM micrographs of the worn surface of the Al2O3-Mo coating after different temperature wear tests. As seen in Figure 10a–d, the wear scars widths increase with increases in the test temperature. In comparison to the Mo coating, the worn surface of the Al2O3-Mo coating shows similar characteristics, such as delamination and brittle fracture. However, plastic deformation was hardly found on the worn surface. Under the same wear test conditions, the widths and depths of the wear scar for the Al2O3-Mo coating were smaller than those observed on the worn surface of the Mo coating, indicating the Al2O3-Mo coating had a superior wear resistance.
To further illustrate the wear mechanisms of the coatings, wear tracks were investigated with EDS. The results are listed in Table 2. These results show that the worn surface of the Mo splats of two coatings contained Fe, Mo, and O elements, indicating that oxidation occurred during the wear process. The reciprocating motion caused the increase in temperature on the contact surface, which lead to the oxidation. The presence of the Fe element indicates an adhesion wear between the coating and steel ball. Oxidation and adhesion wears are the main wear mechanisms of the two coatings. Based on the EDS analysis, the adhesion wear of the Mo coating was more severe compared to that of the Al2O3-Mo coating.
In general, the friction and wear behaviors of a material depend on its microstructure, mechanical properties, and environmental conditions. During the wear test at RT, the metal oxide (MoO3), which was formed in the APS process, played an important role in reducing the friction coefficient of the Mo coating. With an increase in the test temperature from RT to 300 °C, more severe decohesion and delamination of the splats appeared on the worn surface, causing the increase in surface roughness of the Mo coating. Meanwhile, the oxidation wear and adhesion wear increased, which resulted in a lot of adhesive metastases on the worn surface. Therefore, the friction coefficients increased with the further increases in test temperature. However, the worn surface of the Al2O3-Mo coating exhibited less signs of splats delamination, adhesion wear and lower roughness, causing the lower value of the friction coefficients, compared to those of the Mo coating.
The fracture and delamination of splats varied with the wear test temperature. This largely affected the wear rate of the coating. The fracture and delamination of splats became more and more severe (Figure 9 and Figure 10), which resulted in an increase in the wear rates of the coatings. The hardness of a material also affects its wear properties. As mentioned above, strengthening with Al2O3 can provide the Mo coating with high hardness (Figure 5). The hardness of a steel counterpart is much higher than that of Mo coating. Thus, during dry sliding of the pure Mo coating, the steel counterpart will penetrate into the Mo coating. This results in a large removal of material due to plowing action. In the Al2O3-Mo coating, the contact interaction between the coating surface and the counterpart is mainly controlled by the strengthening Al2O3 particles. During the wear test, load-bearing Al2O3 particles protrude from the coating surface, which will reduce the direct contact area between the molybdenum part and steel ball and prevent a greater extent of wear.

4. Conclusions

In this work, the Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings were fabricated by APS, using commercial Mo powders and mixed Al2O3-Mo powders respectively. The microstructure, mechanical properties, as well as the tribological properties from RT to 300 °C were comparably investigated. It is found that the porosity of the Mo coating (7.2 ± 0.4)% is much lower than that of the Al2O3-Mo coating (10.2 ± 0.5)%. The adhesion strength of Al2O3-Mo coating is about 33.6 ± 2.8 MPa, which is lower than the Mo coating adhesion strength of 43.8 ± 3.2 MPa. A hardness test showed that the addition of 30 wt. % Al2O3 increased the Mo coating hardness by 49.5%. The Al2O3-added Mo plasma-sprayed coating shows a lower friction coefficient and better wear resistance compared to the Mo coating. The main wear mechanisms of the two coatings were delamination, brittle fracture, oxidation and adhesion wear, and local plastic deformation, which were especially found in the Mo coating. However, in real application, due to numerous circumstantial factors, the situation could be more complicated. Therefore, in further research, it is necessary to investigate the optimization of the amount of Al2O3 in order to maximize the mechanical properties under conditions that closely resemble real operation.

Author Contributions

J.Y. performed the experiments in addition to analyzing the data and writing the paper; Y.G. contributed the design of the experiments; Y.W. contributed the microstructure analysis of the samples; P.Z. have contributed with the revision of this paper; J.Q. conducted the analyzing of the experimental data.

Acknowledgments

This project was jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 51475161), the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department (Grant No. 15A059).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Laribi, M.; Vannes, A.B.; Treheux, D. Study of Mechanical Behavior of Molybdenum Coating Using Sliding Wear and Impact Tests. Wear 2007, 262, 1330–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Farahmand, R.; Sohrabi, B.; Ghaffarinejad, A.; Meymian, M.R.Z. Synergistic effect of molybdenum coating and SDS surfactant on corrosion inhibition of mild steel in presence of 3.5% NaCl. Corros. Sci. 2018, 136, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Osadnik, M.; Wrona, A.; Lis, M.; Kamińska, M.; Bilewska, K.; Czepelak, M.; Czechowska, K.; Moskal, M.; Więcław, G. Plasma-sprayed Mo-Re Coatings for Glass Industry Applications. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2017, 318, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, Z.; Hua, M. Wear Transition and Mechanism in Lubricated Sliding of a Molybdenum Coating. Tribol. Int. 1999, 32, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hwang, B.; Ahn, J.; Lee, S. Effects of Blending Elements on Wear Resistance of Plasma-Sprayed Molybdenum Blend Coatings Used for Automotive Synchronizer Rings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2005, 194, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, K.M.; Chang, B.H.; Chen, J.S.; Fu, H.G.; Lin, Y.H.; Lei, Y.P. Effect of Molybdenum on the Microstructures and Properties of Stainless Steel Coatings by Laser Cladding. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Modi, S.C.; Calla, E. A Study of High-Velocity Combustion Wire Molybdenum Coatings. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2001, 10, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sampath, S.; Wayne, S.F. Microstructure and Properties of Plasma-sprayed Mo-Mo2C composites. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 1994, 3, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yan, J.H.; He, Z.Y.; Wang, Y.; Qiu, J.W.; Wang, Y.M. Microstructure and Wear Resistance of Plasma-sprayed Molybdenum Coating Reinforced by MoSi2 Particles. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2016, 26, 1322–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Prchlik, L.; Gutleber, J.; Sampath, S. Deposition and Properties of High-Velocity-Oxygen-Fuel and Plasma-Sprayed Mo-Mo2C Composite Coatings. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2001, 10, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Debasish, D.; Mantry, S.; Behera, D.; Jha, B.B. Improvement of Microstructural and Mechanical Properties of Plasma Sprayed Mo Coatings Deposited on Al-Si Substrates by Premixing of Mo with TiN Powder. High Temp. 2014, 52, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Matikainen, V.; Niemi, K.; Koivuluoto, H.; Vuoristo, P. Abrasion, Erosion and Cavitation Erosion Wear Properties of Thermally Sprayed Alumina Based Coatings. Coatings 2014, 4, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Goel, S.; Björklund, S.; Curry, N. Axial Suspension Plasma Spraying of Al2O3 Coatings for Superior Tribological Properties. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2017, 315, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Deng, W.; Li, S.G.; Hou, G.L.; Liu, X.; Zhao, X.Q.; An, Y.L. Comparative study on wear behavior of plasma sprayed Al2O3 coatings sliding against different counterparts. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 6976–6986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhou, H.; Zhang, Y.P.; Hua, X.H.; Yang, Z.H.; Hou, S.Z.; Yu, Z.H. Al2O3/Mo Composite and Its Tribological Behavior Against AISI201Stainless Steel at Elevated Temperatures. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2014, 43, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ghasemi, R.; Vakilifard, H. Plasma-sprayed nanostructured YSZ thermal barrier coatings: Thermal insulation capability and adhesion strength. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 8556–8563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Davis, J.R. Hand Book of Thermal Spray Technology, 1st ed.; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yan, J.H.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L.F.; Wang, Y.M.; Chen, F. Preparation of Protective MoSi2 Coating on Niobium Substrate. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2015, 24, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Planche, M.P.; Liao, H.; Coddet, C. Oxidation Control in Atmospheric Plasma Spraying Coating. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2007, 202, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gao, P.H.; Yang, G.J.; Cao, S.T.; Li, J.P.; Yang, Z.; Guo, Y.C. Heredity and Variation of Hollow Structure from Powders to Coatings Through Atmospheric Plasma Spraying. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2016, 305, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wan, D.T.; Zhou, Y.C.; Bao, Y.W. Evaluation of the elastic modulus and strength of unsymmetrical Al2O3 coating on Ti3SiC2 substrate by a modified relative methodology. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2008, 474, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cockeram, B.V. The mechanical properties and fracture mechanisms of wrought low carbon arc cast (LCAC), molybdenum-0.5pct titanium-0.1pct zirconium (TZM), and oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) molybdenum flat products. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2006, 418, 120–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fei, X.; Niu, Y.; Ji, H.; Zheng, X.B. A Comparative Study of MoSi2 Coatings Manufactured by Atmospheric and Vacuum Plasma Spray Processes. Ceram. Int. 2011, 37, 813–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yan, J.H.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, L.F.; Xu, H.M.; Mao, Z.Y. Effect of Nano-ZrO2 on the Microstructure and High Temperature Tribological Properties of Mosi2 Coating. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2013, 22, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zha, X.M.; Jiang, F.; Xu, X.P. Investigating the high frequency fatigue failure mechanisms of mono and multilayer PVD coatings by the cyclic impact tests. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2018, 344, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hwang, B.; Lee, S.; Ahn, J. Correlation of Microstructure and Wear Resistance of Molybdenum Blends Coatings Fabricated by Atmospheric Plasma Spraying. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2004, 366, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. SEM morphologies of feedstock powders of (a) Mo powders and (b) Al2O3 powders.
Figure 1. SEM morphologies of feedstock powders of (a) Mo powders and (b) Al2O3 powders.
Lubricants 06 00048 g001
Figure 2. XRD patterns of coatings (a) Mo coating, and (b) Al2O3-Mo coating.
Figure 2. XRD patterns of coatings (a) Mo coating, and (b) Al2O3-Mo coating.
Lubricants 06 00048 g002
Figure 3. SEM microstructure of the as-sprayed coatings: (a) surface morphology of Mo; (b) surface morphology of Al2O3-Mo; (c) cross-sectional morphology of Mo; and (d) cross-sectional morphology of Al2O3-Mo.
Figure 3. SEM microstructure of the as-sprayed coatings: (a) surface morphology of Mo; (b) surface morphology of Al2O3-Mo; (c) cross-sectional morphology of Mo; and (d) cross-sectional morphology of Al2O3-Mo.
Lubricants 06 00048 g003aLubricants 06 00048 g003b
Figure 4. Adhesion strengths of the as-sprayed Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings.
Figure 4. Adhesion strengths of the as-sprayed Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings.
Lubricants 06 00048 g004
Figure 5. Micro hardness of the as-sprayed Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings.
Figure 5. Micro hardness of the as-sprayed Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings.
Lubricants 06 00048 g005
Figure 6. Friction coefficients tested at different temperatures of two coatings: (a) Mo; (b) Al2O3-Mo; (c) average friction coefficients.
Figure 6. Friction coefficients tested at different temperatures of two coatings: (a) Mo; (b) Al2O3-Mo; (c) average friction coefficients.
Lubricants 06 00048 g006
Figure 7. Two-dimensional wear scar morphologies at a test temperature of 300 °C: (a) Mo coating, and (b) Al2O3-Mo coating.
Figure 7. Two-dimensional wear scar morphologies at a test temperature of 300 °C: (a) Mo coating, and (b) Al2O3-Mo coating.
Lubricants 06 00048 g007
Figure 8. Wear rates of Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings at different test temperatures.
Figure 8. Wear rates of Mo and Al2O3-Mo coatings at different test temperatures.
Lubricants 06 00048 g008
Figure 9. SEM morphologies of worn surface for Mo coating at different temperatures: (a) RT; (b) 100 °C; (c) 200 °C; (d) 300 °C; (e) high-magnification morphology of (d).
Figure 9. SEM morphologies of worn surface for Mo coating at different temperatures: (a) RT; (b) 100 °C; (c) 200 °C; (d) 300 °C; (e) high-magnification morphology of (d).
Lubricants 06 00048 g009
Figure 10. SEM morphologies of worn surface for Al2O3-Mo coating at different temperatures: (a) RT; (b) 100 °C; (c) 200 °C; (d) 300 °C; (e) high-magnification morphology of (d).
Figure 10. SEM morphologies of worn surface for Al2O3-Mo coating at different temperatures: (a) RT; (b) 100 °C; (c) 200 °C; (d) 300 °C; (e) high-magnification morphology of (d).
Lubricants 06 00048 g010
Table 1. Atmospheric plasma spraying parameters.
Table 1. Atmospheric plasma spraying parameters.
ItemsParameters
Ar flow rate45 L/min
H2 flow rate6.5 L/min
Arc current500 A
Powder feeding rate60~65 g/min
Spraying distance110 mm
Table 2. Elemental composition of different zones in Figure 9e and Figure 10e.
Table 2. Elemental composition of different zones in Figure 9e and Figure 10e.
ZoneMo (at. %)Fe (at. %)O (at. %)
A99.200.8
B65.213.920.9
C91.23.25.6
D99.400.6

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, J.; Guo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, P.; Qiu, J. A Comparison Study on Wear Behaviors of Mo and Al2O3-Mo Coatings from RT to 300 °C. Lubricants 2018, 6, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants6020048

AMA Style

Yan J, Guo Y, Wang Y, Zhou P, Qiu J. A Comparison Study on Wear Behaviors of Mo and Al2O3-Mo Coatings from RT to 300 °C. Lubricants. 2018; 6(2):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants6020048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yan, Jianhui, Yuanjun Guo, Yi Wang, Peng Zhou, and Jingwen Qiu. 2018. "A Comparison Study on Wear Behaviors of Mo and Al2O3-Mo Coatings from RT to 300 °C" Lubricants 6, no. 2: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants6020048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop