Comparable picture image (Samples after abrasion test)
Electroless Ni-P plating |
Electroless Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating |
|
|
Evaluation of wear resistance
| Ni-P plating | Hard chrome plating | Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating | ||
| Amount of weight loss [mg] | 1st | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| 2nd | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.2 | |
| 3rd | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| Average | 0.87 | 0.3 | 0.17 | |
These date indicate an amount of the test sample's weight loss before and after abrasion test.
The less numerical value, the better abrasion resistance.
The electroless Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating is 5.1 times better than the electroless Ni-P plating, 1.8 times better than the Hard chrome plating.
The less numerical value, the better abrasion resistance.
The electroless Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating is 5.1 times better than the electroless Ni-P plating, 1.8 times better than the Hard chrome plating.
Move to the upper part of this pageLubricity evaluation
| Ni-P plating | Hard chrome plating | Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating | ||
| Wear coefficient | 1st | 25.9 | 34.4 | 28.7 |
| 2nd | 26.6 | 45.4 | 23.1 | |
| 3rd | 29.3 | 42.1 | 22.7 | |
| Average | 27.3 | 40.6 | 24.8 | |
These date indicate a wear coefficient in the abrasion test.
The less numerical value, the better lubricity.
The electroless Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating is 1.1 times better than the electroless Ni-P plating, 1.6 times better than the Hard chrome plating.
The less numerical value, the better lubricity.
The electroless Ni-P-SiC-CNT composite plating is 1.1 times better than the electroless Ni-P plating, 1.6 times better than the Hard chrome plating.