top of page
gears.jpg
MatSight_logo.png

Unlocking the benefits of HiPIMS for coating gears

Benchmarking DC vs HiPIMS for tribological coatings

ADVANCED PVD COATINGS.png

Executive summary 

Can HiPIMS significantly improve film uniformity and properties on gear teeth? â€‹ - The question posed by a customer of PlasmaSolve and Advamat.

​

Using MatSight 3D Uniformity App, we succeeded in:

​

  1. Demonstrating that HiPIMS is the way to go for this specific use case.

  2. Identifying the working window for optimum coating coverage and smoothness using the simulation.

  3. Pilot-scale demonstration of the solution.

  4. HiPIMS deployment at the end user.

​

A targeted, physics-informed approach was needed to visualize and compare process outcomes at the simulation level – before committing to HiPIMS technology investment.

FLOW.png

Our Approach & Key Results

Process differences visualized at the simulation level

To answer whether HiPIMS can bring a significant benefit to the coating quality and uniformity, we simulated DC and HiPIMS processes in the same coating unit at equivalent pressure and power conditions. We also performed an optimization study with respect to the HiPIMS parameters.

​

The simulation was carried out in a realistic scenario, taking into account 2-axis rotation of the gear component. 

​

The primary outputs of the simulation are:​

  • Neutral and ion flux and energy fluxes, spatially resolved around the gear teeth.

  • Variations in coating thickness uniformity on gear faces and sidewalls

geom_and_mesh.png

Gear geometry and 2D slice simulation mesh.

By simulating both neutrals and ions, the MatSight 3D Uniformity App delivered a full map of particle and energy flux across the entire gear surface for both DC and HiPIMS deposition.

Particle behavior differences

  • Neutrals follow ballistic trajectories, reaching shadowed regions more easily.

  • Ions are influenced by electric fields, leading to highly directional transport.

gear_teeth_penetration.png

  • Ions are strongly drawn to the tips of the gear teeth.

  • Limited ion flux to the grooves, reducing energy delivery between the teeth.

  • Ions exhibit more isotropic distribution, reaching deep between the gear teeth.

  • More uniform energy per atom delivery across the gear surface.

1D_flux_energy_graphs.png

Normalized coating thickness is comparable between DCMS and HiPIMS, but HiPIMS offers consistent energy delivery across the entire gear surface.

HiPIMS proves the better choice for this tribological coating on the surfaces of gears, capable of uniform energy / metal atom = uniform coating density on the faces of the gear teeth.

Experimental validation

The simulation conclusion was corroborated by experimental tests - DCMS and HiPIMS were run at comparable conditions.​

coated_gears_better.png

Visual inspection of DC vs HiPIMS coating - HiPIMS produces uniform coverage around the teeth circumference.

thickness_comp.png

Predicted metal flux for DC vs HiPIMS along the surface of the gear compared to experimentally measured thickness.

SEM_modul2.png

SEM images of DC vs HiPIMS coating - HiPIMS produces a dense and homogeneous coating, DC produces a rough columnar structure.

bottom of page