4.6 Article

Improving hardness of biomedical Co-Cr by deposition of dense and uniform TiN films using negative substrate bias during reactive sputtering

Journal

MATERIALS LETTERS
Volume 65, Issue 11, Pages 1707-1709

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2011.03.020

Keywords

Biomaterial; TiN coating; Hardness

Funding

  1. Ministry of Knowledge Economy
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea [R31-2008-000-10075-0]
  3. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [K0004129] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [R31-2011-000-10075-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reports the deposition of a fully dense and uniform TiN film to improve the surface hardness of Co-Cr, particularly, by applying a negative substrate bias during reactive direct current (DC) sputtering. As the TiN film was deposited with a negative substrate bias voltage of 150 V. the microstructure of the films was shifted from a columnar to non-columnar one that was observed to have a dense, uniform and smooth surface. In addition, the preferred orientation was the (111) plane when the films were deposited with a negative substrate bias; however, the (200) plane when they were deposited without a substrate bias. The deposition of the dense and uniform TiN film resulted in a significant increase of the hardness of the Co-Cr. The TiN-deposited Co-Cr with a negative substrate bias showed a very high hardness of 44.7 +/- 1.7 GPa, which was much higher than those of the bare Co-Cr (4.2 +/- 0.3 GPa) and TiN-deposited Co-Cr without a negative substrate bias (23.6 +/- 2.8 GPa). (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available