Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823

www.elsevier.com/locate/surfcoat

Tribological contact analysis of a rigid ball sliding on a hard coated surface

Part II: Material deformations, influence of coating
thickness and Young’s modulus
Kenneth Holmberg*, Anssi Laukkanen, Helena Ronkainen, Kim Wallin,
Simo Varjus, Jari Koskinen
VTT Technical Research Centre, Espoo, Finland

Received 8 September 2004; accepted in revised form 14 March 2005

Available online 20 June 2005

Abstract

Material deformations and the influence of coating thickness and elastic modulus were analysed by three-dimensional finite element
method (FEM) modelling on microlevel, by stress, strain, and displacement computer simulations and by experimental studies with a scratch
tester. The studied tribological contact was a diamond ball sliding with increasing load on a thin titanium nitride (TiN) coating on a flat steel
substrate. The ball was modelled as rigid, the coating was linearly elastic, and the steel substrate was elastic – plastic, taking into account
strain hardening effects. It was shown that a thin TiN ceramic coating on a steel substrate has only a very slight effect on friction and on the
plastic deformations (i.e., the groove formation) in the surface, but changes considerably the stress pattern at the surface. The stress
simulations showed how a thicker hard coating on a soft substrate has a better load-carrying capacity that a thinner one. Higher tensile
stresses at the coating/substrate interface increase the risk for interface cracks and delamination of the thicker coating. A stiffer hard coating
on a soft substrate has a better load-carrying capacity than a more elastic one. The stiffer coating will accommodate higher tensile stresses
with the same indentation depth compared to a more elastic one. The results show that much more attention should be given to optimizing the
elastic properties of the coating than previously has been done. In many cases, it can be much more effective to improve the wear resistance
of the coated surface by focusing on the elastic modulus of the coating than changing the coating thickness.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Surface coatings; FEM modelling; Deformations; Scratch tester; Coating thickness; Young’s modulus

1. Introduction very complex system that is not easy to understand nor

This article is the second (Part II) in a series of three
articles describing the tribological contact analysis of a rigid
ball sliding on a hard surface by FEM modelling on
microlevel, stress and strain simulations, and scratch testing.
Coatings are today being increasingly used to improve the
tribological performance of advanced products. A tribolog-
ical contact with two loaded surfaces in relative motion is a
* Corresponding author. VTT Industrial Systems, P.O. Box 1702, FIN-
02044 Espoo, Finland. Tel.: +358 20 722 5370, +358 40 544 2285; fax:
+358 20 722 7077.
E-mail address: kenneth.holmberg@vtt.fi (K. Holmberg).
0257-8972/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.03.041
simulate or predict. The system becomes even more complex
when coatings are deposited on the surfaces. In this paper,
we will focus on the mechanical material parameters which
are crucial to tribological performance, and here there is a
considerable diversity. The importance of expressing the
material response of a coated surface in its basic material
parameters elasticity as elastic modulus, plasticity as hard-
ness or shear strength, and ductility as fracture tough-
ness has been emphasised. It has been observed that hard-
coated surfaces very often fail due to fracture. The related
state-of-art is presented in the introduction of Part I.
Numerical FEM analysis of the hardness and elastic
properties of a hard surface layer on an elastic – plastic
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823
substrate was reported by Ye and Komvopoulus [1] and
several authors have emphasized the usefulness of the H/E
relationship in assessing wear properties of coated surfaces
[2– 4]. The elastic and plastic behaviours in a scratch tester
contact have been discussed [5,6]. Hainsworth and Soh [7]
and Hainsworth et al. [8] showed the importance of
substrate hardness and elasticity on friction and surface
deformation.
The first more comprehensive three-dimensional elas-
tic – plastic model for presenting stress and strain con-
ditions in a typical sliding contact with a thin hard coating
was presented by Holmberg et al. [9]. We illustrated how
the maximum first principal stresses are generated in the
tail part of the sliding diamond sphere against TiN-coated
flat steel surface and how a tetra-armed star-shaped stress
field is generated around the contact. The stress concen-
trations were in agreement with the appearance of the first
angular crack in the coating observed in empirical scratch
testing. A method for calculating the fracture toughness for
the coating based on scratch test measurements was
presented.
The aim of this second paper (Part II) is to present the
strain distribution and displacements of deformations in a
ball on flat-coated contact and to show the influence of E-
modulus and coating thickness on stress distribution and
thus on the strength of the coated surface. In the first paper
(Part I), we analysed the tribological contact mechanisms in
detail and showed the development of the three-dimen-
sional elastic – plastic finite element model for computer
simulation of the stress distribution. We also presented the
stress simulation results both for a TiN-coated high-speed
Fig. 1. The stress field in the coated surface resulting from a sliding sphere is a result of four loading effects: friction force, geometrical deformations, bulk
plasticity concentration, and residual stresses. Illustration (a) shows the loading effects with exaggerated dimensions and deformations and (b) with correct
dimension interrelationships.
3811
steel substrate and for an uncoated substrate, and discussed
the aspects of force and displacement control in the
modelling and simulation exercise. In the third paper (Part
III), we present a method for calculating the real stress
components and fracture toughness of the coated surface
and investigate the effects of residual stresses in the
coating.
2. The tribosystem
In this work, we study the tribosystem of a sphere sliding
on a coated flat surface with increasing normal load. This
corresponds to the contact of the diamond tip against the
coating in a scratch tester, and thus there is much empirical
information available to compare with [10]. The scratch test
consists of pulling a diamond stylus over the surface of a
sample under a normal force, which is increased either
stepwise or continuously until failure is observed. It is
generally accepted that the test is suitable for coatings of
thickness ranging from 0.1 to 20 Am, and this covers a large
number of applications.
A schematic presentation of the stylus sliding on a coated
sample is shown in Fig. 1. The sliding spherical diamond tip
deforms the surface both plastically and elastically. At the
initial stage, with 5 N preload and 0.5 Am indentation depth,
a small spherical indent is formed and the plastic material
flow pushes up material around the indent in a torus-formed
shape. As the tip moves forward, a groove with increasing
depth is formed. Under the tip, there are both plastic and
elastic deformations, while in the surface behind the tip,
3812 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823

Fig. 2. Topographical maps of deformations and strains on the coating and at the symmetry plane intersection of the steel sample coated with a 2 Am thick TiN
coating and loaded by a sliding spherical diamond tip. Sliding direction is from left to right, and the sliding tip is invisible in the figure. The colour scale shows
(a and c) strain values and (b) material displacements in millimetres. (a) Strains at a preload of 5 N before sliding. (b) Displacements at the load of 5.3 N after
0.06 mm of sliding. (c) Strains at the load of 10 N after 1.2 mm of sliding.
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823
Fig. 2 (continued).
only the plastic part prevails. Another torus shape is formed
in front of the tip. The tribosystem is described in more
detail in Part I.
The stress field in the coated surface is formed as a result
of the following four effects (see Fig. 1): friction force,
geometry, bulk plasticity concentration, and residual
stresses.
3. Three-dimensional finite element model for stress and
strain presentation
A three-dimensional finite element model was developed
for calculating the stresses and strains in the coated surface
and for identifying the stress concentrations where the first
cracks of the coated surface are expected to occur. The
scratch test experiment was discretised using the inherent
symmetry of the geometry and introducing a finite element
mesh where mesh sizing is of the order of the coating
thickness (Fig. 4 of Part I). Bilinear hybrid elements were
used in Abaqus 5.8-14, 6.2-1, and Warp3D 14.2 finite
element software. The volume of the finite element slit
taken to describe the scratch test configuration was
2  4  12 mm3 (thickness, width, and length). The substrate
deformation behaviour was characterised as elastic –plastic
with isotropic hardening, while the coating was modelled to
behave in a linear – elastic manner. The sliding spherical
diamond tip was modelled as completely rigid. The FEM
model is described in detail in Part I.
3813
4. Stress and strain simulation results
4.1. Simulated contact conditions
The above described contact conditions and sliding
process were simulated by the computer model. The
following parameters (same as in Part I) were used in
the calculations of the stress and strain distributions.
Scratch test parameters: sliding distance is 10 mm, load
increases linearly from 5 N preload and 0.5 Am
indentation depth before sliding starts to 50 N and 3
Am indentation depth at 10 mm sliding distance, and the
sliding velocity is not included in the model (i.e., the
model is time-independent).
Sliding stylus (Rockwell C): the radius of the spherical
tip is 200 Am, the material is diamond, Young’s modulus
is 1140 GPa, hardness is 80 GPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.07,
and the roughness is ideally smooth.
Coating: thickness is 2 Am, the material is titanium
nitride (TiN) deposited by PVD, Young’s modulus is 300
GPa, hardness is 25 GPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.22, and the
roughness is ideally smooth.
Substrate: the geometry is an ideally smooth plate, the
material is high speed steel, Young’s modulus is 200
GPa, hardness is 7.5 GPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.29, the
yield strength is estimated from ultimate bending
strength to 4100 MPa, and the strain hardening coef-
ficient is 20.
3814 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823

Friction: The values for the coefficient of friction were a)

3.5
measured from samples corresponding to the above
material combination. The value was 0.06 after 0.1 mm 3.0
of sliding and increased linearly to 0.13 at 10 mm of

Scratch depth [µm]

sliding. In the simulations, a constant value of 0.08 2.5

was used for the coefficient of friction due to friction

2.0
from interfacial shear, which excludes the ploughing
component of friction. 1.5

4.2. Deformations, strains, and displacements 1.0

0.5 HSS
The loading conditions at the surface, caused by the TiN+HSS
sliding spherical tip, result in both plastic and elastic 0.0
deformations, as shown in Fig. 1. The surface deformations 0 2 4 6 8 10
have the shapes of spherical indentation, torus, and groove. sliding distance [mm]
The displacements and strains at the surface can be b)
110
calculated by the model and such results are shown in
Fig. 2a– c. 100
Fig. 2a shows the strain field under the preload of 5 N 90
before the sliding has started. Here both elastic and
Scratch width [µm]
plastic deformations are shown. The indentation depth is 80

0.5 Am at the centre of the tip. The extension of the 70

area increasing to 0.2% of the strain has a diameter of
60
about 50 Am and extends to 50 Am under the surface
plane. It is noteworthy that the plasticity extends far 50
deeper into the substrate than one might expect simply
40
on the basis of indentation depth. The plasticity gradient HSS
TiN+HSS
is naturally greatest near the coating substrate interface, 30

but the material volume experiencing plasticity is about 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

an order of magnitude larger than the thickness of the
coating.
Displacements both at the surface and under the
surface are shown in Fig. 2b. The red area on the left-
hand side shows the remaining plastic deformations at
the place of the first indent. The remaining displacement
of the surface at the centre of the tip is 0.5 Am. The
displacement of the surface under the moving tip after
0.06 mm of sliding is about 1 Am and a displacement
of 0.1 Am is extended down into the surface as deep as
40 Am.
After 1.2 mm of sliding, the elastic and plastic
deformations exceeding 0.2% of strain extended down
to 70 Am under the surface (Fig. 2c). The remaining
plastic deformation in the groove left behind the sliding
tip extends down to 25 Am under the surface plane level
and has a width of 40 Am. The simulated groove width
and depth values are of the same order but slightly higher
than the measured groove widths and depths shown in
Fig. 3.
4.3. First principal stresses at the surface with a thicker
coating
First principal stress fields simulated by the displacement-
controlled model were reported in Fig. 6a –d of Part I in
Section 4.3. In this section, we now compare those results
sliding distance [mm]
Fig. 3. Measured (a) groove depth and (b) groove width from scratch test
with a 0.2-mm radius spherical tip sliding with a load increasing from 5 N
to 50 N over a thin, 2 Am thick TiN-coated and uncoated high speed steel
flat sample.
with new simulations where some of the parameters have
been changed.
In the stress simulations in Fig. 6 of Part I, the used
model is the same as in Fig. 4 and also all the input
parameters are the same, with the only exception that
now the thickness of the TiN coating on the steel
surface is 5 Am instead of 2 Am. This gives the
possibility to compare effects of increased film thickness.
The variations in the stress field at the surface and at the
symmetry plane by a preload of 5 N and pure
indentation of 0.5 Am are shown in Fig. 4a. The mesh
indicating the dimensions in the figure are the same as
in Fig. 6 of Part I, with the exception that now there is
one more 3 Am TiN layer on top of the surface that
already had one 2 Am TiN layer. By this, the result is a
5 Am TiN layer on top of the steel surface. Fig. 4b
shows the stress concentrations after 0.06 mm of sliding,
Fig. 4c after 1.2 mm of sliding, and Fig. 4d after 3.3
mm of sliding.
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823 3815

Fig. 4. (a – d) Topographical stress field maps showing first principal stresses on the coating and at the symmetry plane intersection of the steel sample coated
with a 5 Mm thick TiN coating and loaded by a sliding spherical diamond tip. Sliding direction is from left to right; the sliding tip is invisible in the figure and
the contact zone is indicated by the white curve. The values on the colour scale are given as MPa. Stress field at (a) 5 N preload without sliding, (b) 5.3 N load
and 0.06 mm sliding, (c) 10 N load and 1.2 mm sliding, and (d) 20 N load and 3.3 mm sliding.
3816 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823

Fig. 4 (continued).

4.4. First principal stresses at the surface with higher
Young’s modulus
In the stress simulations in Fig. 5, the used model is
the same as in Fig. 6 of Part I and also all the input
parameters are the same, with the only exception that now
the Young’s modulus of elasticity is 540 GPa instead of
300 GPa as in Fig. 6 of Part I. This gives the possibility
to compare effects of increased elastic modulus. The
variations in the stress field at the surface and at the
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823 3817

Fig. 5. (a – d) Topographical stress field maps showing first principal stresses on the coating and at the symmetry plane intersection of the steel sample
coated with a 2 Mm thick TiN coating having a Young’s modulus of 540 GPa and loaded by a sliding spherical diamond tip. Sliding direction is from
left to right; the sliding tip is invisible in the figure and the contact zone is indicated by the white curve. The values on the colour scale are given as
MPa. Stress field at (a) 5 N preload without sliding, (b) 5.3 N load and 0.06 mm sliding, (c) 10 N load and 1.2 mm sliding, and (d) 20 N load and 3.3
mm sliding.
3818 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823

Fig. 5 (continued).

symmetry plane by a preload of 5 N and pure indentation I. Fig. 5b shows the stress concentrations after 0.06 mm
of 0.5 Am are shown in Fig. 5a. The mesh indicating the of sliding, Fig. 5c after 1.2 mm of sliding, and Fig. 5d
dimensions in the figure are the same as in Fig. 6 of Part after 3.3 mm of sliding.
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823
5. Discussion
5.1. Deformation strains and displacements in a TiN-coated
steel surface
The nucleation of a crack and its growth are related to
the stress level but also to the stage of deformation [11].
The displacements have been both simulated and meas-
ured from experimental scratch tests and the correspond-
ing strains have been calculated. We showed in a previous
article (Part I) that the best correlation for the stress and
strain simulations with the real experimental scratch test
conditions was when a displacement-controlled model was
used. This means that in the present simulations,
indentation depths of 0.5 Am at 5 N preload before
sliding and a 3 Am indentation depth after 10 mm of
sliding at 50 N normal load are used as input values to
the model. This is in correlation with the measured values
shown in Fig. 3.
At the preload of 5 N and an indentation of 0.5 Am, the
range of material displacements is exceeding 0.1 Am,
extending into the surface by forming a half sphere with a
depth of 30 Am and a radius at the surface plane of 20 Am.
The corresponding strain field from both elastic and plastic
deformations in Fig. 2a shows that the strain zone exceeding
0.2% is about twice as large in diameter. It extends to a
depth of 50 Am and with a radius at the surface of about 50
Am, and is thus about double of the contact diameter. The
spreading of plasticity during the scratch test is progressive,
but conditionally stable, due to the applied displacement
control loading. The extent of the material volume exhibit-
ing plastic straining is quite large compared to the thickness
of the coating due to the stress increase arising from the
mismatch of the elastic coating and the elastic –plastic
substrate. The local stress fields below the contact are able
to induce plastic strains within a material volume quite a bit
larger than the high-stressed material region. The behaviour
is promoted by the yielding of the substrate, i.e., due to the
extreme strength—for steel, it has a yield to tensile –strength
ratio close to unity, which in practice means that its
behaviour is close to rigid plastic. In this type of a case,
the plastic zone can extend without a remarkable increase in
applied external loading—a treat most apparent in Fig. 2.
A plastically deformed indent is left behind the moving
tip as shown in Fig. 2b. The red area on the right-hand side
in the figure shows the displacements right under the
moving tip, which are both elastic and plastic and increasing
in volume due to the growing load. The displacements are
symmetric in shape as expected.
The moving tip is leaving behind it in the groove a top
layer in the coating with high residual stresses shown after
1.2 mm of sliding in Fig. 6c of Part I. The corresponding
strain volume is shown in Fig. 2c and the region exceeding
0.2% extends 25 Am in depth and 50 Am in width. It is
interesting to observe that the strain field is not largest at
the surface right in front of the moving tip but slightly
3819
some 20– 30- on both sides. This indicates that the material
is pushed by the ploughing movement to both sides of the
tip.
The material deformations taking place are mainly
related to the behaviour of the substrate. From Fig. 3, it
can be seen that there is almost no difference at all in groove
depth and groove width from scratches performed with the
same experimental parameters, but the only difference was
that one steel sample had a 2 Am TiN coating and the other
was uncoated. We have earlier reported (Part I) that, in these
cases, coefficients of friction very close to each other are
also the measured, but due to the surface structure with the
hard layer, the stress fields are significantly different.
5.2. Influence of coating thickness on first principal stresses
in a TiN-coated steel surface
The thickness of the coating is one important parameter
when depositing tools or components with protecting
surface coatings. If there is continuous wear of the coated
surface, it would seem natural to have a coating that is as
thick as possible to allow wear without being penetrated so
that the bulk material is exposed. However, it has long
been known [12] that a hard coating deposited on a softer
substrate may cause other problems if it is too thick. The
thicker coating does not have the same flexibility to follow
surface deformations and when such are forced on it, high
stress concentrations will easily result in cracks, delami-
nations, and surface failure. Increased wear particle
generation for increasing coating thickness has recently
been reported by Wang and Kato [13] and Wang et al.
[14]. Thus, the choice of the right thickness of the coating
is always a tradeoff between wear margin and resistance to
fracture.
High stress concentrations and deformations in the
surface are the origin of cracks and fracture. It is interesting
to compare how these are formed and developed in a thicker
5 Am TiN coating on a steel surface (Fig. 4), and compare
this to the results from a 2 Am TiN coating on the same steel
surface (Fig. 6 of Part I). When a load of 5 N is pressed
against the two surfaces by a spherical tip, the result is a
very similar stress field on top of the coating with a
maximum tensional stress concentration of about 1130 MPa,
as shown in Fig. 6a of Part I and Fig. 4a of this paper. But a
clear difference can been seen when one looks carefully at
the stress field right under the loaded tip. For the 2 Am
coating, the compressional stress concentration is about
15% higher, 2080 MPa compared to 1810 MPa for the 5 Am
coating. The high compressional stress field goes right
through the coating and continues into the top part of the
substrate. The thicker 5 Am coating has a higher capacity to
carry part of the load and this can be seen as considerably
lower compressional stresses in the bottom part of the
coating under the tip (500 MPa compared to 1100 MPa for
the 2 Am coating and also tensional stresses of 250 MPa
right at the top part of the substrate).
3820 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823
It should be remembered that the model is displacement
controlled, which means that both the thicker and thinner
coatings have the same indentation depth. With the same
indentation, there will be more tensional stretching of the
coating material close to the coating/substrate interface in
the thicker coating, and this compensates the compression
coming from the normal load. It can be seen from Fig.
4b –d that maximum tensional stresses in the lower part of
the 5 Am coating are about 0 MPa at 5.3 N and 0.06 mm
of sliding, and about 500 MPa at both 10 N and 1.2 mm
and 20 N and 3.3 mm of sliding. The change of the
location of the maximum compressional stresses from the
top of the coating at 0 mm and 0.06 mm of sliding to 9
Am below the surface can bee seen from Fig. 4a– d. This
change takes place only after higher loads for a 2 Am
coating.
The stress field of both the thicker and thinner coatings is
about the same after 0.06 mm of sliding with maximum
tensional stresses of 600 MPa in front and on both sides of
the sliding tip for both coatings. However, there is a
considerably higher tensional residual stress field left behind
the moving tip in the 2 Am coating with stresses above 1800
MPa, while they are only 1000 MPa for the 5 Am coating.
The situation changes with further sliding since, after 1.2
mm sliding, the maximum tensional stresses both in front of
the tip and behind it are about 10% higher (2350 MPa
compared to 2100 MPa) for the thicker coating compared to
the thinner. After 3.3 mm of sliding, these stresses are about
the same level, whilst it can be seen that the volume of
higher stresses in the 5 Am coating clearly exceeds the
volume of the 2 Am coating. Interpreted fracture mechanics
wise, this implies a higher propensity for failure at higher
loads for the 5 Am coating.
One mechanism that may explain the observations of
higher tensional stresses in the thinner coating at lower load
after 0.06 mm of sliding while both coatings had stresses of
about the same level at higher loads after 1.2 mm and 3.3
mm of sliding may be the following. A much smaller
volume is exposed to the tension from the indent deforma-
tion at low load in the thinner coating and thus it will
respond with higher stresses. As such, the thicker coating is
able to carry the indentation loads better at low applied
loads, resulting in lower stresses. This effect is not so
dominating at higher loads since then the volume of material
exhibiting plastic deformation under the tip is much bigger
and extends far into the substrate. Thus, the influence of the
coating is no longer as dominant in responding to applied
surface loading. The situation at higher loads is, however,
different for the thicker coating. The greater stiffness of the
thicker coating causes the stresses to exceed those of the
thinner coating under monotonous loading conditions,
producing a situation favouring the thinner coating with
greater compliance and, as such, producing a lower overall
stress state.
The mechanism of the sliding tip pushing material in
front of it by the ploughing action is nicely illustrated by the
blue region of compressional stresses in the lower part of the
coating in Fig. 4c. This explains the reason for the maxima
of the tensional stress fields in front of the tip to be on both
sides of the symmetry plane. Again another maximum of the
tensional stress field is formed close to the groove edge
behind the tip after 1.2 mm of sliding in the same way as for
the 2 Am coating. The first cracks can be expected to appear
close to this location but no experiments have been carried
out to confirm this.
5.3. Influence of Young’s modulus on first principal stresses
in a TiN-coated steel surface
In the development of wear resistant surfaces and
coatings, the main focus has been on the hardness of the
surface. This is natural, since for bulk materials, it has long
been experienced that, in most cases, a higher hardness
results in a better wear resistance. This relationship is
included in the Archard’s wear law, which gives a linear
inverse relationship between wear volume and hardness.
This is still one of the most common wear laws used in
sliding contacts. It is pretty well valid in many cases, but at
the same time, it should be stated that there are as well many
cases where it is not valid at all.
The hardness of a coating is important since a harder
coating can protect the surface from plastic deformations
resulting in scratches and can reduce the ploughing
component of friction. However, for a system of a hard
coating on a softer substrate, also the elastic properties are
of importance to its tribological behavior. This aspect has
not been noticed at all in the same extent as hardness, and
has been even neglected in many studies of coating
properties.
In this work, the influence of the elastic properties of
the coating was studied by stress simulations of the 2 Am
thick TiN-coated steel surface with two different values for
the Young’s modulus of elasticity. Fig. 6 of Part I shows
the stress distributions for a relatively more elastic coating
with E = 300 GPa, and Fig. 5 in this paper shows those for
a stiffer coating with E = 540 GPa. The reason for choosing
two coatings with such large difference in elastic properties
is that also in the literature, there is a really huge variation
in the reported Young’s moduli for TiN coatings, in the
range from E = 160 GPa all the way up to E = 600 GPa
[15,16]. It is, in addition, interesting to note that the
chosen higher E value is in the range typical for
amorphous diamond-like carbon (ta-C DLC) coatings.
When comparing the tensile stress concentrations in Fig.
6 of Part I and Fig. 5 of this paper, it can be observed that
the general stress patterns during sliding from 0 to 3.3 mm
are very similar. However, there is a huge difference in the
tensile stress levels. In the studied sliding range, the
maximum tensile stress concentrations were 30 – 100%
higher for the stiffer coating (E = 540 GPa) compared to
the more elastic one (E = 300 GPa). On the other hand, the
maximum compressional stress concentrations were 5–
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823
60% lower for the stiffer coating compared to the more
elastic one.
The main difference in the stress fields at indentation
with 5 N preload is the huge difference in maximum stress
levels. The highest tensile stresses are about 2250 MPa for
the stiffer coating, while they are only 1120 MPa for the
elastic one. Also the difference in maximum compressional
stresses is considerable: 1600 MPa for the stiff one and 2100
MPa for the elastic one. With the same amount of
indentation, the stiffer coating will accommodate much
higher stress levels than the more elastic one. At the same
time, also the stiffer coating will carry a larger part of the
load and thus result in lower stress concentrations below the
sliding tip as shown by the simulations. The scaling of
tensile stress maxima with material elastic properties is
evident.
It is interesting to note that the compressional stress just
under the tip at the coating/substrate interface is constant
in the whole sliding range for both coatings. For the more
elastic coating, the compression level is about 1100 MPa,
and for the stiffer coating, it is about 600 MPa. This may
result from the state of the substrate material immediately
adjacent to the coating, i.e., it experiences the largest
plastic strains, being as such over the local limit load. This
results in a nearly deformation state-independent stress
state, where even as deformations increase the load-
carrying capacity, stresses of the material do not increase.
This leads to a situation where the stress state dominating
the limit load condition saturates, and this stress state can
be approximated to be related to the ratio of tensile
modules.
The compressional stress field increases deeper down
below the interface with increasing load. For the more
elastic coating, it has a maximum of 1750 MPa, 6 Am below
the surface after 3.3 mm of sliding, while it is 1250 MPa at
the same depth for the stiffer coating. Here again, the stiffer
coating carries a larger part of the load and results in lower
compressional stress levels in the substrate. The movement
of the maximum compressional stress peak down below the
coating/substrate interface starts earlier with the stiffer
coating compared to the more elastic one. The reason is
that the larger tensional stresses in the stiffer coating are, in
a larger extent, compensating for the compressional stress
field under the total contact.
At the starting position before sliding, the maximum
compressional stress concentration is always at the
symmetry plane, but after some sliding, it can be observed
that it also may move away slightly from the symmetry
plane as seen in Fig. 5b and d. The authors believe that
this may be due to two separate effects. On one hand, the
discretization in the model may result in a pattern where
the peak value appears at both sides of the symmetry
plane, since the degree of polynomial interpolation within
an element is strictly linear. On the other hand, there may
also be a physical effect involved. The plastic deformation
will first take place at, and start from, the symmetry plane
3821
under the contact. After this, the regions on both sides of
the contact where the yield strength is just about to be
exceeded will be the place that has the highest load-
carrying capacity and here also the highest compressional
stresses appear. This can be linked to the two distinct
curvature axes in the deformed geometry and finite strain
effects.
In general, the whole stress field pattern during the
sliding in Fig. 6 of Part I is more dominated by elastic
behaviour compared to the stress field patterns in Fig. 5 of
this paper. This is thought to be one explanation to some of
the asymmetries in the histories of the stress patterns.
Elastic modulus and coating thickness are principal
parameters affecting the magnitude of stresses in the
coating/substrate system. The results indicate that the
effect of elastic modulus exceeds that of coating thickness
as long as sliding distances lower than approximately 3–
5 mm are considered. The elastic modulus is a material
parameter increasing the overall stress field under fixed
deformation conditions, i.e., the E-ratio of coating and
substrate. The coating thickness affects via the stiffness of
system, i.e., the stiffness of the coating and substrate and
the condensed system stiffness. Elastic modulus effects
are not directly coupled to the plasticity of the substrate,
but increasing substrate plasticity does promote higher
straining in coating and, as such, higher stresses via the
elastic modulus. Thickness affects the system stiffness.
While the stiffnesses of different coating layers are of
comparable levels, with no considerable substrate plasti-
city, the coating can carry higher loads with thicker
coatings and distribute stresses more evenly, resulting in
lower overall stresses. At higher loads, however, the
thicker coating is forced to comply with the deformation
of the substrate, which has greater propensity for
plasticity. This leads to an increase of stress in
comparison to thinner coatings and results in poorer
mechanical performance. As such, one can in principle
define contact load regions, where modification to coating
thickness can produce favorable tribological response.
These effects can also be understood by the elastic
modulus-to-hardness ratio [4], but it is to be noted that
the plasticity conditions need to be taken into account at
such observations.
One important observation to note is that by changing the
thickness of the 2 Am thick and elastic (E = 300 GPa) TiN
coating to a 5 Am thick coating, the maximum tensile
stresses did increase with less than 15%. But by keeping the
thickness constant and increasing the elastic modulus to 540
GPa, the maximum tensile stresses did increase with 30–
100% in the studied sliding range. This shows that much
more attention should be given to optimizing the elastic
properties of the coating than previously done in the
literature. In many cases, it can be much more effective to
improve the fracture and wear resistance of the coated
surface by changing the elastic modulus of the coating than
changing the coating thickness.
3822 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823
6. Conclusions
The material deformation, coating thickness, and
elasticity effects in the contact system of a rigid diamond
ball sliding on a linearly elastic 2 Am thick TiN coating
on an elastic – plastic high speed steel substrate were
studied by both stress and strain 3D FEM modelling,
computer simulation, and experimentally by a scratch
tester. Based on this, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1) A thin TiN ceramic coating on a high speed steel
substrate has only a very slight effect on friction and
on the plastic deformations (i.e., the groove formation
in the surface), when exposed to a single load cycle by
a sliding sphere such as in a scratch tester. However, it
changes considerably the stress pattern at the surface.
A 2 Am TiN coating on high speed steel surface
reduced the friction only by about 10%, while the
groove depth and width were about the same as when
scratching an uncoated surface. The very small
influence on friction is thought to be due to the
similar lubricating surface layers present at the moment
of the first slide.
2) The increasing ploughing action due to increasing load in
the scratch tester increases the ploughing component of
friction, has a material pile up effect in front of the
sliding tip that results in high tensile stresses in front of
the tip, but also compresses material right in front of the
tip below the coating. The compensating effect of this
material compression can be seen as reduced first
principal stresses right in front of the tip.
3) Elastic modulus and coating thickness are principal
parameters affecting the magnitude of stresses in the
coating/substrate system. Elastic modulus effects are not
directly coupled to the plasticity of the substrate, but
increasing substrate plasticity does promote higher
straining in coating and, as such, higher stresses via
the elastic modulus. Thickness affects the system
stiffness.
4) A thicker hard coating on a soft substrate has a better
load carrying capacity than a thinner one. The computer
simulations for a 2 Am and a 5 Am TiN-coated steel
surface resulted in the same level of maximum tensional
stresses at the top of the coated surfaces, but at the lower
parts of the coating close to the coating/substrate inter-
face, the thicker coating was exposed to tensile stresses
while the thinner was still in compression. This increases
the risk for coating/substrate interface cracks and
delamination of the thicker coating. On the other hand,
the compressional stresses, at top of the substrate close to
the coating/substrate interface, are lower for the thicker
coating.
5) A stiffer hard coating on a soft substrate has a better
load carrying capacity than a more elastic one. The
computer simulations for a stiff (E = 540 GPa) TiN
coating compared to a more elastic (E = 300 GPa)
coating resulted in maximum tensile stresses during
the first 3.3 mm of sliding that were 30 –100% higher
for the stiffer coating while the maximum compres-
sional stresses under the contact were 5 –60% lower.
The stiffer coating will accommodate higher tensile
stresses with the same indentation depth compared to a
more elastic one. On the other hand, the stiffer coating
will carry a larger part of the load and result in lower
compressional stress levels in the substrate under the
contact zone.
6) One important observation is that with the change of
coating thickness of the 2 Am thick and elastic (300
GPa) TiN coating to a 5 Am thick coating, the
maximum tensile stresses did increase with less than
15%. But by keeping the thickness constant and
increasing the elastic modulus to 540 GPa, the
maximum tensile stresses did increase with 30– 100%
in the studied sliding range. This shows that much more
attention should be given to optimizing the elastic
properties of the coating than previously has been done.
In many cases, it can be much more effective to
improve the wear resistance of the coated surface by
affecting the elastic modulus of the coating rather than
changing the coating thickness.
Acknowledgement
The authors want to acknowledge the following col-
leagues for interesting and valuable discussions in relation
to this work: Philippe Kapsa, Ecole Central de Lyon,
France; Henry Haefke and Imad Ahmed, CSEM, Switzer-
land; Ali Erdemir, Argonne National Laboratory, USA; Koij
Kato, Tohoku University, Japan; and Kaj Pischow and Rosa
Aimo, Savcor Coatings.
The financial support of TEKES, the Finnish Technology
Agency; Taiho Kogyo Tribology Research Foundation,
Japan; Savcor Coatings, Finland; and the VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] N. Ye, K. Komvopoulus, J. Tribol., Trans. ASME 125 (2003) 685.
[2] P. Burnett, D. Rickerby, Thin Solid Films 148 (1987) 41.
[3] T. Tsui, G. Pharr, W. Oliver, C. Bhatia, R. White, S. Anders, A.
Anders, I. Brown, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 383 (1995) 447.
[4] A. Leyland, A. Matthews, Wear 246 (2000) 1.
[5] V. Jardet, H. Zahouani, J. Loubet, T. Mathia, Wear 218 (1998) 8.
[6] J. Malzbender, J. den Toonder, A. Balkenende, G. de With, Mater. Sci.
Eng., R 36 (2002) 47.
[7] S. Hainsworth, W. Soh, Surf. Coat. Technol. 163 – 164 (2003) 515.
[8] S. Hainsworth, M. McGurk, T. Page, Surf. Coat. Technol. 102 (1998)
97.
[9] K. Holmberg, A. Laukkanen, H. Ronkainen, K. Wallin, S. Varjus,
Wear 254 (2003) 278.
 K. Holmberg et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2006) 3810 – 3823 3823

[10] European Standard, 1999, Advanced technical ceramics—methods of [13] D. Wang, K. Kato, Tribol. Int. 36 (2003) 649.
tests for ceramic coatings. Part 3: Determination of adhesion and other [14] D. Wang, N. Hu, K. Kato, Tribol. Int. 36 (2003) 659.
mechanical failure modes by scratch test, prEN1071-3, 42 pp. [15] D.F. Diao, K. Kato, K. Hayashi, Tribol. Int. 27 (1994) 4,267.
[11] T. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics—Fundamental and Applications, [16] S. Bull, Tribol. Int. 30 (7) (1997) 491.
2nd edR, CRC Press, 1995.
[12] K. Holmberg, A. Matthews, Elsevier Tribology Series, vol. 28,
Elsevier Science BV, The Netherlands, 1994, 442 pp.