4.6 Article

On the Importance of Combined Scratch/Acoustic Emission Test Evaluation: SiC and SiCN Thin Films Case Study

期刊

COATINGS
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/coatings8050196

关键词

scratch test; acoustic emission; thin films; silicon carbide

资金

  1. Operational Programme Research, Development and Education-European Regional Development Fund of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000754]
  2. Technology Agency of the Czech Republic [TH03020245]
  3. Internal Grant of Palacky University [IGA_PrF_2018_009]
  4. Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports [LM2015087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The scratch test, as probably the most widespread technique for assessment of the adhesive/cohesive properties of a film-substrate system, fully depends on reliable evaluation based on assessment of critical loads for systems' failures. Traditionally used evaluation methods (depth change record and visual observation) may sometimes give misleading conclusions about the failure dynamics, especially in the case of opaque films. Therefore, there is a need for another independent evaluation technique with the potential to complete the existing approaches. The nondestructive method of acoustic emission, which detects the elastic waves emitted during film cracking and delamination, can be regarded as a convenient candidate for such a role even at nano/micro scale. The strength of the combination of microscopic observation of the residual groove and depth change record with the acoustic emission detection system proved to be a robust and reliable approach in analyzing adhesion/cohesion properties of thin films. The dynamics of the gradual damage taking place during the nano/micro scratch test revealed by the combined approach is presented for SiC and SiCN thin films. Comparison of critical load values clearly reflects the higher ability of the AE approach in detecting the initial material failure compared to the visual observation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据