Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: An experimental and numerical study of the scratch test on FeB/Fe2B bilayers is presented. The boride layers were
Received 1 April 2015 formed at the surface of AISI 304 steels by developing the powder-pack boriding process at temperatures of
Revised 6 June 2015 1223 K for 2, 6 and 10 h of exposure times. From the set of experimental conditions of the boriding process,
Accepted in revised form 14 June 2015
scratch tests were performed with a linearly-increasing load mode of 1 to 90 N on 7 mm in length to determinate
Available online 18 August 2015
the most effective and informative testing conditions and to estimate the critical load (Lc) at which the boride
Keywords:
layer fails. The damage in the boride layer was examined by high resolution SEM. Experiments tests indicated
Scratch test that at a critical load the boride layer fails through brittle fracture. Numerical calculations considering the residual
Boriding stress field generated by the scratch load showed that at this load the tensile stresses inside the boride layer be-
Finite element method come large enough to cause brittle failure. The residual stress fields generated by the scratch load were analyzed
and related with the failure mechanisms observed by the experimental tests.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction steel including carbon steel, low alloy steel, tool steel and stainless steel.
Borided steel components display excellent performance in several tri-
One of the most important functional requirements in the bological applications in mechanical engineering and automotive indus-
manufacturing process is the adhesive strength of the coating with tries. Borided steels exhibit high hardness (about 2000 HV), high wear
the substrate because the performance and life of the coating are limit- resistance, and improved corrosion resistance [8–10].
ed by the adhesion strength [1]. Scratch testing is a characteristic tech- Scratch tests have been carried out to evaluate the coating–substrate
nique for systems with hard coatings [2]. The test consists of drawing a system of boriding processes by different techniques [11–14]. The
hard stylus along the material surface under an increasing normal load, scratch test was applied to evaluate TiB2/TiB coatings on high speed
until coating failure. The induced normal and tangential forces as well as steel produced by physical vapor deposition (PVD) where experimental
the resulting scratch morphology are analyzed. The load at which at results showed that the failure mechanisms observed were spalling at
least one of certain failure modes occurs at the coating and/or substrate the scratch flank for a critical load of 35 N [15]. On the other hand in
is referred to as the critical load. Material with uniform cross-sectional [16] a scratch test was developed on XC38 borided steels which were
hardness shows a lineal relationship between the critical load of hard exposed to molten borax salts. The type of coating formed at the surface
coating obtained by the scratch test and the substrate hardness [3]. of the steel was a single (Fe2B) or duplex (FeB + Fe2B) boride layer ac-
The properties of both substrate and coating, the metallurgical bond- cording to different agents used (B4C, Al and SiC). Three different types
ing between coating and substrate, the thickness of the coating and the of damage were observed: cracks that propagated in depth along the
geometry of the indenter determine the type of failure. If during a scratch trails (Hertzian fracture), cracks that developed on the scratch
scratch test the coating is very soft compared to the substrate the coat- side and propagated away from the scratching zone, and cohesive scal-
ing is scraped off exposing the substrate and if indeed the coating is ing that appeared on the sides at the extreme end of the scratch zone
harder than the substrate the failure modes result in spallation and when the applied load becomes relatively high.
buckling, finally when both the coating and the substrate are hard the Because of the high number of parameter involved in the experi-
failure mode is observed to be chipping [4–6]. mental test, the scratch test becomes a complex system. In practice
Furthermore, among the processes for modifying the surface of me- the results of the scratch test are only used to rank different layer/sub-
chanical components is the boriding in which the surface of a specimen strate system. However the finite element method can be used to ex-
is saturated by boron [7]. The boriding can be applied to a wide range of tend the knowledge of the failure mechanisms that occurred on the
coating during the scratch test, based on the study of the influence of
⁎ Corresponding author. each parameter separately [17–20]. The aim of this study is to analyze
E-mail address: amenesesa@ipn.mx (A. Meneses-Amador). by the finite element method the failure mechanisms through the stress
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.06.088
0257-8972/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191 183
distribution in the boride layer from borided AISI 304 steels during the Table 1
scratch test. Thickness of FeB/Fe2B layer obtained from the experimental conditions of borided AISI 304
steel.
Fig. 1. Cross-sectional views of the borided AISI 304 steel for a boriding temperature of 1223 K and various exposure times: (a) 2 h, (b) 6 h and (c) 10 h.
184 A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191
Fig. 2. XRD pattern obtained on the surface of the borided AISI 304 steel. The exposure Fig. 4. Behavior of the Young's modulus along the depth of the boride layer.
time was 10 h.
The failure modes in the scratch tests of hard layers can be classified
into three categories: Through — thickness cracking (cracks behind the
indenter, cracks as the coating is bent into the scratch track and Hertzian
Fig. 3. Berkovich indentations performed across the boride layer with a constant load of
100 mN. The boriding temperature was 1223 K for 10 h of exposure. Fig. 5. Behavior of the hardness along the depth of the boride layer.
A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191 185
Table 2
Failure mode results for the progressive load scratch tests.
The finite element method (FEM) was used to evaluate the failure
mechanics of the boride layer from borided AISI 304 steels during the
Fig. 6. Behavior of the yield strength along the depth of the boride layer. scratch test (Fig. 8). The commercial ABAQUS 6.13 program was
employed to develop the numerical simulation of the scratch test on bo-
ride layers. The material properties of the FeB and Fe2B layers were
cracks), spallation (compressive spallation ahead of the indenter, buck- characterized by a bilinear elastic–plastic model with isotropic strain
ling spallation ahead of the indenter or elastic recovery induced spall- hardening. In addition the thermal residual stresses occurred in the bo-
ation behind the indenter) and chipping. The von Mises yield criteria ride layer were obtained by the Eq. (5) and considered in the numerical
was used to estimate the initiation of the yield which stated that yield- model.
ing begins when the distortional strain-energy density at a point equals
the distortional strain-energy density at yield in uniaxial tension or El
σ th ¼ ðα −αs ÞðTb −To Þ ð5Þ
compression. During the plastic deformation, the von Mises stress 1−vl l
(σM), is given by
Fig. 7. SEM micrographs of scratch tracks. Exposure times: a) 2 h – Lc1, b) 6 h – Lc1, c) 10 h –Lc1 and d) 2 h – Lc2.
186 A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191
Fig. 8. Numerical model of the scratch test on the borided AISI 304 steel. Fig. 9. Von Mises stress during the scratch test on the borided AISI 304 steel (2 h of treatment
time).
The simulations of the scratch test were performed for each experi-
mental condition of the borided AISI 304 steels (Fig. 9). The scratch
depth is plotted as a function of the scratch distance during the load
increment and after removing the indenter. Fig. 10 shows the elasto-
plastic deformation of the boride layer formed for 2, 6 and 10 h of expo-
sure times during the scratch test. It is observed that the scratch depth
experimental presents variation during the test while the numerical
depth is linear, this is because the numerical model is considered with
incremental linear displacement. Likewise at the beginning, the varia- Fig. 10. Scratch depth during the scratch test for different treatment times: a) 2 h, b) 6 h,
tion of the scratch depth is greater, this is because the application of and c) 10 h.
A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191 187
the load on the numerical model was by controlled displacement. How- The numerical model was considered frictionless because the
ever at the end of the test, the numerical and experimental depths pres- friction between indenter and surface has a considerable effect
ent excellent approximation for the scratch depth as the residual depth. only at the beginning of the scratch test when the indenter has not
The scratch depth was slightly higher for the thickness produced for 2 h penetrated the coating. This consideration mainly reduces both the
of treatment time (≈31 μm) and was decreasing with increasing expo- magnitude of the overall friction coefficient and the tangential
sure time which may be due to the influence of the residual thermal force in the numerical model. However, this simplification does not
stresses generated in the boride layer. For all three cases in the begin- significantly affect the results according to experimental test as
ning, the experimental scratch depth does not change significantly for seen in Figs. 11 and 12.
a distance of scratch that is in function with the layer thickness. Example The tangential force and the overall friction coefficient decreased as
for the model of 6 h of treatment time the scratch depth does not change increasing the treatment time which may be due to a shorter exposure
from the beginning to a scratch distance of approximately 1.5 mm time suggesting that for the condition of 2 h the scratch depth is greater
where the applied load exceeds the cohesive strength of the boride and therefore the resistance of the layer to be plowed is higher (Figs. 11
layer. Immediately the scratch depth presents an increase accompanied and 12). In addition the critical loads can be identified during the scratch
for a pronounced fluctuation that can be attributed to the fragility of the distance with the fluctuation of these parameters.
FeB layer, since when it reaches a scratch depth of ≈23 μm (thickness of On the other hand, the boride layer formed for 10 h of exposure time
FeB layer); at a scratch distance of ≈5 mm the scratch depth decreases exhibits the best load carrying capacity since it requires a higher maxi-
due to the compressive residual stress which is a characteristic of the mum normal load before the indenter/layer system starts to operate in
Fe2B layer then increases almost linearly indicating that the indenter the plowing mode (Fig. 10).
is in the Fe2B layer which presents a lower brittleness. Finally at a
scratch distance of ≈6.8 mm the scratch depth increases steeply sug-
gesting that the indenter is in the substrate. 4.2. Stress field at the layer-indenter contact surface
The overall friction coefficient μ in scratch test is the ratio of the max-
imum tangential force to the maximum normal force (FT/FN) and con- The stress distribution at the layer-indenter interface during the
sists of two parts: metallurgical bonding term (μa) and plowing term scratch test was represented by means of the maximum principal stress.
(μp) Eq. (6). The μa might be a function of the asperity condition and Fig. 13 shows the static mode in which only a normal load is applied by
the relative velocity between the contact surfaces while the μp reflects the indenter on the surface. The maximum principal stress is tensile in
the resistance as the indenter plows into the material. all three cases and it is located on the surface of the FeB layer outside
the contact circle. Although this stress is responsible for the formation
FT of Hertzian cone cracks, as the applied load in this step of the scratch
μ¼ ¼ μa þ μp: ð6Þ
FN test is low (≈ 1 N), the maximum principal stress is not sufficient to
Fig. 11. Tangential force during the scratch test for different treatment times: a) 2 h, b) 6 h, and c) 10 h.
188 A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191
Fig. 15 shows the distribution of the tangential stress σxx in the mid-
dle plane of the thickness of the boride layer. The distribution of the σxx
is recorded since the beginning of the test until the location of the crit-
ical loads. It is important to aim that after the first failure mechanism, an
amount of energy is dissipated for the formation of cracks, so that the
stress magnitudes will vary in relation to the stress estimated by
means of a numerical model in which the dissipation of energy is not
considered. For all three cases, the stress pattern in the location of
critical loads is similar.
4.4. Stress field in the boride layer in the direction perpendicular to the
scratching direction
During the scratch test, the boride layer is subjected to a bending de-
formation perpendicular to the scratch direction (stress component in
σzz and σyz) as consequence of the displacement of the layer from the
bottom of the scratch groove to the side of the groove indenter. Fig. 16
shows the σzz for the three layer thicknesses in the critical load. The
magnitude of the stresses for the condition of 2 h and 6 h is higher
Fig. 12. Coefficient of friction during the scratch test for different treatment times: a) 2 h,
b) 6 h, and c) 10 h. than the development for 10 h which explains the cohesive failure for
the thicknesses smallest before the adhesive failure. While for the thick-
ness greater (10 h of exposure time) the compressive stress σxx in front
of the indenter is higher than stress σzz therefore it is more likely that
cause cracking in the boride layer. Likewise stress field beneath the there is an adhesive failure for this thickness.
indenter is influenced by the thickness of the boride layer. For the
model developed for 2 h (Fig. 13a) and 6 h (Fig. 13b) of exposure 4.5. Interfacial shear stress
times, the substrate was reached by the stress field however as the
value was low (≈360 MPa) it did not cause plastic deformation. The distribution of the interfacial shear stresses σzx in the direction
During the scratching stage, for the numerical model with perpendicular to the scratch direction is shown in Figs. 17 and 18. The
the smallest thickness, the tension stresses behind the indenter σzx at the scratch distance of the first critical load for 2 h and 6 h of ex-
were formed at a lower scratch distance (≈ 0.7 mm). In addition posure times is shown in Fig. 17. It can be observed that the stress is
Fig. 14 shows the maximum principal stress to the same distance symmetric where the maximum stress is recorded for the smaller thick-
(≈ 1 mm) for the three different thicknesses of the boride layer. It ness (2 h of exposure time) which indicates that there is a greater influ-
can be observed that the magnitude of the maximum principal stress ence of substrate on the boride layer, however the magnitudes are low
decreases as the thickness of the boride layer increases, which (≈0.15 GPa) therefore it should not contribute to any damage between
suggests that the boride layer formed for 2 h of exposure time is the layer and the substrate. Fig. 18 shows the σzx at the scratch distance
more likely to suffer cracking on its surface at a lower load of scratch. of the second critical load for 2 h and 6 h of exposure times and the σzx at
Likewise the layer with the smallest thickness is most affected by the the distance of the first critical load for the condition of 10 h. The max-
deformation of the substrate. imum stress is observed for the condition of 2 h which decreases as the
A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191 189
Fig. 13. Distribution of maximum principal stresses with applied normal load for different layer thicknesses: a) 13 μm, b) 30 μm, and c) 44 μm.
treatment time is greater. For the boride layer formed for 2 h and 6 h of • The boride layer formed for 10 h of exposure time exhibited the best
exposure times the interfacial shear stress σzs contributes to the failure load carrying capacity.
of the interface because the value is high (≈1 GPa). • The magnitude of the maximum principal stress on the surface
layer decreases as the thickness of the boride layer increases,
5. Conclusions indicating that the smallest thickness is more likely to suffer
cracking on its surface at a lower load of scratch (cohesive
In this work, the behavior of an AISI 304 steel submitted to thermo- failure).
chemical treatment of boriding was evaluated by the scratch test under
incremental sliding load using the finite element method. The following
The compressive stress field σxx ahead of the indenter increases
conclusions can be drawn:
when the scratch distance is longer, while the stress σxx behind the
• The tangential force and the overall friction coefficient decreased as indenter was tensile and is higher for the smallest thickness. This
coating thickness increased. suggests that for larger thickness the cracking behind the indenter
190 A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191
Fig. 14. Distribution of maximum principal stresses with incremental sliding load for different layer thicknesses: a) 13 μm, b) 30 μm, and c) 44 μm.
did not occur, causing the failure of the layer in front of the indenter Acknowledgements
(spalling).
For the smallest thickness there is more influence of substrate This work was supported by research grants 20151312 and SIP-SNI-
according to results obtained by the interfacial shear stress σzs which 2011/15 Instituto Politécnico Nacional and CONACYT 253968 and
significantly contributes to the interfacial failure. 183836 in Mexico.
Fig. 17. Distribution of the interfacial stress σzx at the direction perpendicular to the
Fig. 15. Distribution of the stress σxx along the scratch track for different layer thicknesses scratch (cohesive failure).
according to treatment time.
Fig. 16. Distribution of the stress σzz at the direction perpendicular to the scratch for Fig. 18. Distribution of the interfacial stress σzx at the direction perpendicular to the
different layer thicknesses according to treatment time. scratch (failure of metallurgical bonding).
A. Meneses-Amador et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 284 (2015) 182–191 191
References [13] F. Bidev, O. Baran, E. Arslan, Y. Totik, I. Efeoglu, Surf. Coat. Technol. 215 (2013) 266.
[14] M. Berger, M. Larsson, Surf. Eng. 16 (2000) 122.
[1] M. Zouari, M. Kharrat, M. Dammak, M. Barletta, Surf. Coat. Technol. 263 (2015) 27. [15] P. Kaestner, J. Olfe, K.-T. Rie, Surf. Coat. Technol. 142–144 (2001) 248.
[2] S.T. Gonczy, Int. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2 (2005) 422. [16] O. Allaoui, N. Bouaouadja, G. Saindernan, Surf. Coat. Technol. 201 (2006) 3475.
[3] A. Rodrigo, P. Perillo, H. Ichimura, Surf. Coat. Technol. 124 (2000) 87. [17] J.L. Bucaille, E. Felder, G. Hochstetter, Wear 249 (2001) 422.
[4] P. Benjanim, C. Weaver, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 254 (1960) 177. [18] K. Holmberg, A. Laukkanen, H. Ronkainen, K. Wallin, S. Varjus, J. Koskinen, Surf. Coat.
[5] S.J. Bull, Surf. Coat. Technol. 50 (1991) 25. Technol. 200 (2006) 3810.
[6] S.J. Bull, Mater. High Temp. 13 (1995) 169. [19] A. Laukkanen, K. Holmberg, J. Koskinen, H. Ronkainen, K. Wallin, S. Varjus, Surf. Coat.
[7] V. Sista, O. Kahvecioglu, G. Kartal, Q.Z. Zeng, J.H. Kim, O.L. Eryilmaz, A. Erdemir, Surf. Technol. 200 (2006) 3824.
Coat. Technol. 215 (2013) 452. [20] N. Aleksy, G. Kermouche, A. Vautrin, J.M. Bergheau, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 52 (2010) 455.
[8] A.K. Sinha, Boriding (boronizing), ASM Int. Handbook, vol. 4, The Materials [21] C. Martini, G. Palombarini, M. Carbucicchio, J. Mater. Sci. 9 (2004) 933.
International Society, 1991 437–447. [22] W.C. Oliver, G.M. Pharr, J. Mater. Res. 7 (1992) 1564.
[9] M. Carbucicchio, G.P. Palombarini, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 6 (1987) 1147. [23] K.L. Jhonson, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[10] M.B. Mann, Wear 208 (1997) 125. [24] O. Casals, J. Alcalá, Acta Mater. 53 (2005) 3545.
[11] P. Sricharoenchai, N. Panich, P. Visuttipitukul, P. Wangyao, Mater. Trans. 51 (2010) [25] X. Cong-Xin, O. Meng-Lan, Wear 137 (1990) 151.
246.
[12] Y. Totik, E. Arslan, I. Efeoglu, I. Kaymaz, Surf. Rev. Lett. 16 (2009) 329.