The underestimated challenges of PVD Coating on metals

Why advanced technology doesn’t automatically mean simple application

Dark brown colour developed by AVALUXE

People often underestimate the problems that can occur when using Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) coatings on metals. The process and resulting thin films are perceived as highly advanced and robust And they are. However, this apparent robustness leads to a dangerous misconception: the complexity of the process and the susceptibility to critical failures are systematically underestimated.

Several critical factors and potential issues can significantly affect the performance and reliability of PVD coatings on metallic substrates. In this article, we analyze the six main problem areas, provide scientific evidence, and present concrete solutions.

Several critical factors and potential issues can significantly affect the performance and reliability of PVD coatings on metallic substrates. In this article, we analyze the six main problem areas, provide scientific evidence, and present concrete solutions.

1. Contamination and surface preparation: The invisible threat

The Problem

Contamination is the primary cause of PVD coating failure, whether from the substrate itself, from electroplated layers (such as nickel or chrome), or from the process environment. Even trace amounts of contaminants like hydrocarbons, oxygen, or foreign elements (e.g., potassium, calcium, aluminum, silicon, iron) can lead to poor adhesion, voids, or defects.

Scientific evidence:

Korvus Technology clearly documents: “Inadequate surface preparation is frequently cited as the primary cause of coating failure, regardless of how precisely the deposition parameters are controlled.” [1] Even an oxide layer just a few nanometers thick acts as a barrier.

A concrete example: Hydrocarbon outgassing from a thick chrome layer can introduce oxygen at the interface, leading to adhesion and scratch resistance failures. [2]

SIMVACO identifies a critical industrial case: “A non-uniform degreasing process has been identified as a root cause of PVD coating delamination on brake calipers where manual solvent wiping missed residues.” [3]

Concrete impact

For substrates with galvanic pre-coating, a study by Tanury Industries shows: The thicker the chrome layer, the higher the probability of coating failure. [4] GDS (Glow Discharge Spectrometer) analyses prove higher oxygen content at the ZrCN interface with thicker chrome layers, directly correlated with reduced wear resistance and increased delamination risk. [4]

Solutions

Process optimization:

- Multi-stage cleaning protocols: Ultrasonic cleaning (60°C alkaline) → electrochemical degreasing → acid rinsing → plasma activation

- Optimize plasma cleaning: Bias 200-1000 V, argon 0.1-1 Pa, etch time 5-30 min with endpoint detection

Pretreatment strategies:

- Automated ultrasonic cleaning systems instead of manual processes

- Multi-stage rinsing and drying protocols

- Vacuum bake-out at 120-300°C for moisture removal

Quality assurance measures:

- Water Contact Angle (WCA) measurement for cleanliness verification

- Process documentation and traceability

- Inline quality control

2. Layer compatibility and critical thicknesses: The balance problem

The Problem

The compatibility between the PVD layer and underlying electroplated layers is crucial. If the interlayer (such as chrome) is too thick, it increases the risk of coating failure due to enhanced outgassing and contamination.

Scientific evidence:

Studies show: Increasing the thickness of the chrome layer leads to higher oxygen content at the interface, which directly correlates with reduced wear resistance and increased delamination risk. [4]

VaporTech explains the structure of galvanic systems: The thick copper layer serves as an adhesion and brightening layer, nickel is the backbone for corrosion protection and mechanical stability. [5] The chrome layer should be only 0.25 µm thick for decorative applications. More is counterproductive. [5]

Failure mechanisms

A chromium oxide (CrₓOᵧ) layer formed on the plated chrome surface can reduce the adhesion force between PVD and electroplated layers, leading to stress and delamination. [6]

Solutions

Process Optimization:

- Limit chrome interlayers to <0.3 µm (decorative)

- Continuous thickness measurement during electroplating

- Process Control Charts for consistency monitoring

Pretreatment strategies:

- ECD nickel (ElectroChemically Deposited) as corrosion protection and leveling layer

- Copper layers for nickel-free products

Quality assurance measures:

- GDS analysis to monitor oxygen content at interfaces

- Adhesion tests (scratch tests, tape tests) before series production

- Statistical Process Control (SPC)

- Match coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) of substrate, interlayer, and PVD coating

3. Process parameters and equipment limitations: The complexity trap

The Problem

PVD processes like cathodic arc evaporation can generate macroparticles or microdroplets, which create visible defects (white spots or voids) in the coating. These defects are often linked to process parameters such as arc energy, substrate temperature, and gas ratios.

Scientific evidence:

Research shows: “The localised temperature at the cathode spot is extremely high (around 15000 °C), which results in a high velocity (10 km/s) jet of vapourised cathode material.” [7] If the cathode spot stays too long, large amounts of macroparticles can be ejected. [7]

MDPI documents: “The main contemporary drawback associated with CAE-PVD coatings is the formation of a significant amount of macroparticles (MPs) and craters during the deposition process.” [8] These particles (0.1–10 µm diameter) lead to high roughness, inhomogeneous microstructures, and voids. [9]

The Parameters

If these parameters are not carefully controlled, the resulting film may have poor density, increased porosity, or weak adhesion.

RSM studies (Response Surface Methodology) prove: Sputtering power, the interaction between sputtering power and substrate temperature, and the substrate bias quadratic term are significant process parameters that influence the roughness of deposited coatings such as TiAlN. [10]

Bias Voltage: With increasing substrate bias voltage, incident ion energy increases, which can lead to re-sputtering by heavy ion bombardment. [11]

Temperature control: Online measurement of substrate temperature is particularly challenging in industrial coating processes, vacuum technology, rotating substrates, and voltage differences between grounded chamber and substrate table complicate precise measurements. [12]

Solutions

Process optimization:

- Magnetic field steering to control cathode spot movement

- Use cylindrical cathodes, so-called rotatables

- Optimize process parameters: Arc energy 80-100 A, substrate temperature 200-500°C

- Hybrid approaches: Bimodal coating (arc for adhesion layer, then magnetron sputtering for surface refinement) → documented droplet density reduction of 84.9%

Pretreatment strategies:

- Cathode “poisoning” to reduce macroparticles

- Optimized ion bombardment (IB) as pretreatment

- Systematic DOE (Design of Experiments) to identify optimal parameter windows

Quality assurance measures:

- Filter systems: S-shaped filters, magnetic separation of ions and droplets

- Real-time monitoring: Vacuum pressure, gas flow, temperature (non-contact), plasma monitoring

- SPC with in-situ and ex-situ characterization

- Regular equipment calibration and maintenance

4. Insufficient cleaning and activation: The barrier layer

The Problem

Insufficient cleaning or surface activation before coating can leave residues or oxides on the substrate, which act as barriers to proper film adhesion.

Scientific evidence:

Korvus Technology states: “The interface between substrate and coating represents the most vulnerable region in any coated system… even minute surface contamination or inappropriate surface morphology can severely compromise the coating-substrate interface.”

A chromium oxide layer formed on the plated chrome surface can reduce the adhesion force between PVD and electroplated layers, leading to stress and delamination.

Substrate-specific challenges

Cemented Carbides: The two-phase structure (tungsten carbide particles in cobalt binder) creates preparation challenges. Cobalt can segregate to the surface or be preferentially sputtered, creating adhesion issues.

Polymers: These temperature-sensitive materials require gentler preparation methods, plasma treatment, careful solvent cleaning, and low-energy ion bombardment.

Solutions

Process Optimization:

- Multi-stage cleaning with substrate-specific protocols

- Plasma activation: Oxygen/hydrogen for polymers, argon for metals

- Parameters: Bias -100 to -300 V, duration 5-15 min, vacuum 1-10 mTorr

Pretreatment strategies:

- Ultrasonic cleaning in alkaline solutions at 60°C

- Electrochemical alkaline degreasing

- Acid etching (material-specific): HCl, H₂SO₄ or HNO₃

- Vacuum bake-out at 120-300°C for 1-4 hours

Quality assurance measures:

- Water Contact Angle (WCA) measurement

- Automated inline systems with integrated pretreatment chambers

- Endpoint detection through optical emission spectroscopy

5. Lack of Knowledge About Failure Mechanisms: The Understanding Problem

The Problem

There is sometimes a lack of awareness about the complex failure mechanisms in multilayer systems. The presence of abnormal elements from polishing, plating, or even from the target material itself can be overlooked, yet these are primary causes of voids or poor adhesion.

Scientific evidence:

SIMVACO documents: “Uncontrolled internal stress can lead to microcracks, delamination, or even substrate deformation. Poor adhesion can cause premature failure under mechanical or thermal loads.” [15]

Research identifies three main types of stress:

• Intrinsic stress from film growth dynamics [15]

• Thermal stress from CTE mismatch [15]

• External stress from mechanical loading [15]

Studies show: Relatively large residual stresses and coating cracks are normally generated near the convex asperities of the interface. Interfacial failure is more sensitive to shear traction delamination than to normal delamination. [16]

Practical Case Studies

Case 1 – High-Speed Milling: [15]

- Problem: High compressive stress caused microcracking

- Solution: Introduced Cr adhesion layer, optimized bias voltage, reduced working pressure

- Result: Tool life enhanced by >200%, reduced fracture rate

Case 2 – Salt Spray Test: [15]

- Problem: Peeling after 96-hour ASTM B117 test

- Solution: Pre-treatment with ion etching, Ti/Zr duplex interlayers

- Result: Withstood over 240 hours of corrosion testing without delamination

Solutions

Process optimization:

- Stress engineering: Adhesion layers (Ti, Cr) for stress reduction

- Graded layers for gradual adaptation of mechanical properties

- Multi-layer architectures for crack arrest

- CTE management: Choose coating materials with similar thermal expansion coefficients

Pretreatment strategies:

- Surface topography optimization: Micro-blasting, target Ra ≈ 0.1 µm

- Post-treatment: Low-temperature annealing at 150-200°C for stress relief

- Protective coatings for decorative applications

Quality assurance measures:

- Comprehensive characterization: XRD, SEM/EDS, AFM, nanoindentation

- Adhesion tests: Scratch tests, tape tests, Rockwell indentation

- Lifetime tests: Cyclic impact tests, wear tests, thermal cycling

6. Overreliance on standard recipes: The one-size-fits-all trap

The Problem

Users often assume that standard coating thicknesses and process settings will always yield optimal results. However, variations in substrate material, plating quality, and environmental conditions mean that each application may require tailored process adjustments and thorough diagnostics.

Scientific evidence:

Research on process parameters clearly shows: The interaction between sputtering power and substrate temperature indicated that at lower substrate temperature levels, changes in sputtering power resulted in insignificant changes in coating roughness. [10]

MDPI documents: Studies regarding the influence of bias voltage and gas flow showed that temperature increase in the substrate and the application of a bias voltage resulted in a decreased deposition rate. [17]

The reality of complex systems

A study on Mo-N coatings proves: Phase formation is a complex process of energy transfer between particles and ions in a solidification system. The energy of ions impinging to the coating surface and the substrate temperature affect the interactions of ions with the surface and thus the stoichiometry of the phases. [18]

At higher bias voltages, it was impossible to produce single-phase δ-MoN even at the highest nitrogen pressure, the phase changes depending on multiple parameters. [18]

Solutions

Process optimization:

- Systematic DOE (Design of Experiments) instead of trial-and-error

- Parameter window development for specific substrate-coating combinations

- Documentation of interaction effects

- Continuous process improvement based on failure analyses

Pretreatment strategies:

- Develop substrate-specific cleaning protocols

- Systematically test material compatibility

- Conduct preliminary tests before series production

Quality assurance measures:

- Comprehensive process documentation

- SPC charts for trend analysis

- Regular root cause analyses for deviations

- Know-how transfer and employee training

Summary: Overcoming the underestimation

The underestimation of problems with PVD coatings on metals often results from a lack of understanding of:

• The sensitivity of the process to contaminants - even nanometer-thick impurities can be fatal

• The importance of precise process control - interdependent parameters require holistic optimization

• The need for rigorous surface preparation - every step from substrate cleaning to layer deposition must be optimized

• The complexity of multilayer systems - failure mechanisms are often multifactorial

• The limitations of standard approaches - each application is unique

Each step, from substrate cleaning to layer deposition, must be optimized and monitored to ensure high-quality, durable coatings. Failure to address these factors can lead to adhesion failures, reduced wear resistance, and visible defects, undermining the advantages of PVD technology.

 The Path to Process Excellence

 

For successful PVD implementation, you need:

Technical expertise

- Deep understanding of process physics and chemistry

- Systematic process characterization

- Continuous education

Process infrastructure

- Real-time monitoring systems

- Statistical Process Control (SPC)

- Documented process windows

Quality Assurance

- Comprehensive characterization methods

- Regular adhesion and lifetime tests

- Root cause analysis for failures

Organizational commitment

- Investment in equipment and expertise

- Interdisciplinary collaboration

- Culture of continuous improvement

AVALUXE International: Your partner for PVD excellence

At AVALUXE International, we understand the complexity of PVD coating from three decades of practical experience. Our approach combines deep technical know-how with pragmatic solutions for the real-world challenges of industry.

Our core competencies

 

Material Expertise:

- High-quality sputtering targets and PVD coating materials

- Material selection for demanding applications

- Quality control at the highest level

Process consulting:

- Troubleshooting for coating problems

- Process optimization for maximum efficiency

- Transfer of best practices

- Quality assurance strategies

- Training and know-how transfer

Let’s PVD🌈COAT the world – with expertise, precision, and passion.

-----

References

[1] Korvus Technology (2025). “Common PVD Coating Defects and How to Prevent Them” & “Understanding Substrate Preparation for PVD Coating”. Korvus Technology Technical Publications. URL: https://korvustech.com

[2] Wang, Z. & Akkaoui, M. (2012). “How Contaminants Affect the Quality of PVD Coatings and their Effects on Process Parameters”. Society of Vacuum Coaters, 55th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings.

[3] SIMVACO (2025). “Surface Pretreatment Methods for Enhanced PVD Adhesion”. SIMVACO Technical Blog. URL: https://simvaco.com/blogs/pvd-technique/surface-pretreatment-methods-for-enhanced-pvd-adhesion

[4] Wang, Z. & Akkaoui, M., Tanury Industries (2012). “How Contaminants Affect the Quality of PVD Coatings”. Society of Vacuum Coaters. Research using Glow Discharge Spectrometer for analysis of oxygen at ZrCN interfaces.

[5] Vapor Technologies, Inc. (2023). “The Benefits of PVD Coating on Electroplated Parts”. VaporTech Technical Blog. URL: https://blog.vaportech.com/pvd-coating-on-electroplated-parts

[6] Multiple Sources: Studies on PVD over electroplated layers and chromium oxide formation. Documented in: Journal of Materials Science and Surface & Coatings Technology, various volumes.

[7] Wikipedia Contributors & Anders, A. (2024). “Cathodic Arc Deposition”. Wikipedia Technical Documentation and “Cathodic Arc Plasma Deposition” (OSTI Report 810482). Documentation of cathode spot physics.

[8] MDPI - Coatings Journal (2024). “A Comprehensive Review of Cathodic Arc Evaporation Physical Vapour Deposition (CAE-PVD) Coatings for Enhanced Tribological Performance”. Coatings 14(3):246. DOI: 10.3390/coatings14030246

[9] ScienceDirect & Multiple Authors (2008-2024). “Cathodic Arc Deposition - An Overview” & “Macrodroplet reduction and growth mechanisms in cathodic arc physical vapor deposition”. Comprehensive reviews in Materials Science Topics.

[10] Abd. Rahman, M.N., Swanson, P.T., et al. (2012). “Effect of PVD Process Parameter Interaction on the TiAlN Coating Roughness”. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(1): 283-289. Response Surface Methodology study.

[11] Frontiers in Materials (2022). “High-Throughput Screening of Optimal Process Parameters for PVD TiN Coatings”. Frontiers in Materials, 9:924294. DOI: 10.3389/fmats.2022.924294

[12] Bobzin, K., et al. (2018). “Enhanced PVD process control by online substrate temperature measurement”. Surface and Coatings Technology. DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.08.019

[13] Korvus Technology (2025). “Understanding Substrate Preparation for PVD Coating - Material-Specific Challenges”. Section on cemented carbides and polymers.

[14] Northeast Coating Technologies (2023). “Preparing For The PVD Process - Substrate Preparation Guide”. URL: https://www.northeastcoating.com/pvd/preparation-guide

[15] SIMVACO (2025). “Stress and Adhesion Management in PVD Coatings”. SIMVACO Technical Blog with documented case studies. URL: https://simvaco.com/blogs/pvd-technique/stress-and-adhesion-management-in-pvd-coatings

[16] Multiple Authors (2002-2023). “Residual Stress and Cracking in Thin PVD Coatings” & related studies. Surface and Coatings Technology, various issues. Comprehensive analyses of interfacial failure.

[17] MDPI - Coatings Journal (2018). “Sputtering Physical Vapour Deposition (PVD) Coatings: A Critical Review on Process Improvement and Market Trend Demands”. Coatings 8(11):402. DOI: 10.3390/coatings8110402

[18] Kazmanli, M.K., et al. (2003). “Effect of nitrogen pressure, bias voltage and substrate temperature on the phase structure of Mo–N coatings produced by cathodic arc PVD”. Surface and Coatings Technology, 167(1):77-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0257-8972(02)00866-6

For detailed information on specific studies or access to full texts, please contact AVALUXE International GmbH.