Test reports and documents

Document register

Nine documents from laboratories, institutes and industrial plants, from 2006 to 2016.

×4.9TsNIIMash (Central Research Institute of Machine Building)
Test report No. 14
M12x1.5 taps, HSS R18 steel, 7 µm nanocarbon chrome coating. Tool life before regrinding: 100 machined cylinder necks uncoated, 490 coated.

26 Sep 2006

10,827 MPaSt. Petersburg State Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrochemical Production
Comparative test report
Microhardness 10,827.53 MPa vs. 8,729.35 MPa for the standard electrolyte and 9,751.5 MPa for HEEF-25. Wear (mass loss) 2.2 % vs. 5.0 % and 3.9 %. Mode: 50 A/dm², 50 °C.

18 Mar 2009

4–8 nmSt. Petersburg State Institute of Technology
Comparative wear resistance test report
Nanodiamonds from four producers compared. Additives with 4–8 nm grain give 2.2–3.0× the wear resistance of plain chrome; coarse 150–200 nm particles only 1.5–1.9×.

2009

×4.45–14.45Belgorod State University, Shared Nanomaterials Diagnostics Facility
Test protocol No. 2-2010
~30 µm coating on 38KhS steel. CSM Instruments tribometer, REVETEST scratch tester. Wear rate 0.286–0.932 vs. 4.143–4.144 (×10⁻⁵ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹). Friction coefficient 6–15 % lower, cohesive strength 1.1–1.9× higher.

27 Jan 2010

+16 %Ural State University, Ural Centre for Modern Nanotechnologies
Research report
Berkovich nanoindentation, atomic force microscopy, XRD and Raman spectroscopy. Microhardness 8.2 → 9.4 GPa. Mean chromium crystallite size drops from over 150 nm to under 50 nm. Pits up to 3 µm deep, typical of plain chrome, are absent.

2009

≈80 %Ioffe Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
Particle size measurement protocol
Two independent methods: dynamic light scattering (Zetasizer Nano ZS) and laser diffraction (Mastersizer 2000, ISO 13320-1). In the two working samples the share of particles below 91 nm was 82 % and 79.6 %. The hydrosol is stable at pH 2–7 and coagulates below pH 1.85.

31 Mar 2009

0 cracksInstitute of Metal Science, Sofia (Bulgaria)
Electron microscopy study
Metallography and SEM of cross-sections and surfaces at 30 µm coating thickness. The nanodiamond coating surface is uniform and free of the fine crack network typical of hard chrome. Both coatings were deposited in maximum wear resistance modes.

annex to project materials

ID 760Scientific and Technical Council, RUSNANO State Corporation
Opinion on project ID 760 and extract from protocol No. 14
The project was found to match the global scientific and technical level, to be scientifically sound and technically feasible, and was recommended for funding. The review noted higher microhardness, 2–6× lower wear and 2–6× higher ductility.

2010

259 : 8URS-Samara LLC together with SZ Neftemash
Field trial report
P-73x73 tubing sub with diamond-cluster coating, operated by a workover crew from 1 Feb 2015 to 25 Jan 2016. 259 make-up and break-out cycles at loads up to 20 t, against 8 cycles before rejection for an analogue from another manufacturer.

approved 9 Feb 2016

One report is deliberately excluded: a threading-die test report dated 11 December 2007 attributes the coating to another company's technology. We do not present other companies' results as our own.

Document scans

Click a document to open it in full. Handwritten signatures are masked; organisation seals and document content are preserved as is.

Test report No. 14, TsNIIMash, 26 Sep 2006. Tap life increased 4.9 times

Field trial report, P-73x73 tubing sub, URS-Samara and SZ Neftemash, approved 9 Feb 2016

Test protocol No. 2-2010, Belgorod State University, 27 Jan 2010. Tribological testing

Same protocol: scratch adhesion testing and wear resistance conclusions

Comparative test report, SPbSIT, 18 Mar 2009. Table 1: microhardness, wear, corrosion

Same report: tables 2 and 3, electrolysis modes and microhardness chart

Same report: wear resistance, protective ability and conclusion

Comparative wear resistance report, SPbSIT, 2009. Nanodiamonds from four producers

Report of the Ural Centre for Modern Nanotechnologies, Ural State University, 2009

Same report: microhardness by nanoindentation, 8.2 and 9.4 GPa

Same report: conclusions on structure, crystallite size and the 16 % microhardness gain

RUSNANO Scientific and Technical Council opinion on project ID 760, working group

Same document: relevance to nanotechnology and scientific soundness

Same document: technical feasibility and conclusions

Extract from protocol No. 14 of the RUSNANO Council meeting, 20 Jul 2010

Hard chrome without nanodiamonds, 30 µm, magnification 200× and 500×

Nanodiamond chrome coating, 30 µm, magnification 200× and 500×

Combined coating: corrosion-resistant lower layer and hard upper layer

SEM of the hard chrome surface: network of shallow cracks

SEM of the nanodiamond coating surface: no crack network

How to read these figures

The honest answer to "will I get the same?" is not somebody else's protocol, but a trial on your own part.

The figures come from different substrates, thicknesses and process modes. The result on a specific part depends on material, geometry, coating thickness and service conditions.
Different methods give different microhardness numbers. 9.4 GPa is Berkovich nanoindentation (Ural State University). 10,827 MPa ≈ 10.8 GPa is diamond pyramid indentation on a PMT-3 per GOST 9.450-76 (SPbSIT). Up to 1400 kg/mm² comes from the description of RU patent No. 2404294. Values are only comparable within one method.
The RUSNANO opinion mentions microhardness up to 16 GPa. That is a generalisation across project materials, not the result of any single protocol shown here. We quote both and do not mix them.
The documents use different names for the coating: nanodiamond chrome, nanocarbon chrome, diamond-cluster, composite metal-diamond. It is one technology; the wording changed with the patent language and industry practice.
The tests span 2006 to 2016. Equipment and electrolyte formulation have changed since. For a new task, the correct answer comes from a pilot on your part.
The 2010 review also noted open questions: no data on hydrogen absorption in the coating and the substrate and none on fatigue behaviour of coated metal. If that matters for your assembly, it must be verified separately.

Full copies of protocols and reports are available on request, within the limits set by personal data rules.

Document register

Nine documents from laboratories, institutes and industrial plants, from 2006 to 2016.

26 Sep 2006

18 Mar 2009

2009

27 Jan 2010

2009

31 Mar 2009

annex to project materials

2010

approved 9 Feb 2016

One report is deliberately excluded: a threading-die test report dated 11 December 2007 attributes the coating to another company's technology. We do not present other companies' results as our own.

Document scans

Click a document to open it in full. Handwritten signatures are masked; organisation seals and document content are preserved as is.

How to read these figures

The honest answer to "will I get the same?" is not somebody else's protocol, but a trial on your own part.

The figures come from different substrates, thicknesses and process modes. The result on a specific part depends on material, geometry, coating thickness and service conditions.
Different methods give different microhardness numbers. 9.4 GPa is Berkovich nanoindentation (Ural State University). 10,827 MPa ≈ 10.8 GPa is diamond pyramid indentation on a PMT-3 per GOST 9.450-76 (SPbSIT). Up to 1400 kg/mm² comes from the description of RU patent No. 2404294. Values are only comparable within one method.
The RUSNANO opinion mentions microhardness up to 16 GPa. That is a generalisation across project materials, not the result of any single protocol shown here. We quote both and do not mix them.
The documents use different names for the coating: nanodiamond chrome, nanocarbon chrome, diamond-cluster, composite metal-diamond. It is one technology; the wording changed with the patent language and industry practice.
The tests span 2006 to 2016. Equipment and electrolyte formulation have changed since. For a new task, the correct answer comes from a pilot on your part.
The 2010 review also noted open questions: no data on hydrogen absorption in the coating and the substrate and none on fatigue behaviour of coated metal. If that matters for your assembly, it must be verified separately.

Full copies of protocols and reports are available on request, within the limits set by personal data rules.

Document register

Document scans

How to read these figures

Let us test your part

Test reports and documents

Document register

Document scans

How to read these figures

Let us test your part