Scratch Testing | Cohesive Failure Application Notes - NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing

Scratch Resistance Testing of Phone Screen Protectors

Andrew Shore — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 17:42:04 +0000

Scratch Resistance Testing of Phone Screen Protectors

Prepared by

Stacey Pereira, Jocelyn Esparza, and Pierre Leroux

Understanding Scratch Resistance in Phone Screen Protectors

Protective coatings on phone screens play a critical role in scratch resistance, adhesion strength, and long-term durability. Over time, scratches, micro-cracks, and coating delamination can reduce optical clarity and reliability — especially in high-use environments. To evaluate how different screen protectors resist mechanical damage, instrumented scratch testing provides quantifiable insight into coating failure mechanisms, including adhesion, cohesion, and fracture behavior.

In this study, NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester is used to compare TPU vs. tempered-glass screen protectors under controlled progressive loading. Using precise acoustic emission detection, we identify critical failure loads and characterize how each material responds to increasing mechanical stress.

Why Scratch Resistance Testing Matters for Screen Protectors

Many users assume that thicker or harder protectors automatically perform better, but real durability depends on how the material behaves under progressive load, surface deformation, and localized stress. Instrumented scratch testing allows engineers to measure coating adhesion, cohesive strength, surface wear resistance, and the exact loads at which failures initiate or propagate.

By analyzing crack initiation points, delamination behavior, and failure modes, manufacturers can validate screen-protector performance for R&D, quality control, or comparative benchmarking. Nano- and micro-scratch testing offer repeatable, data-driven insight into real-world durability far beyond traditional hardness ratings.

ℹ️ Learn more about scratch and adhesion testing services for coatings and screen protectors.

Scratch Testing Objective:
Measuring Failure Loads in Screen Protectors

The objective of this study is to demonstrate how the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester performs repeatable, standardized scratch resistance testing on both polymeric and glass screen protectors. By progressively increasing the applied load, the system detects critical loads for cohesive and adhesive failure, captures acoustic emission signals, and correlates these events with scratch depth, friction force, and surface deformation.

This methodology provides a complete mechanical profile of each protective coating, allowing manufacturers and R&D teams to evaluate material formulations, coating adhesion strength, surface durability, and optimal coating thickness for improved product performance. These scratch evaluations are part of NANOVEA’s broader suite of mechanical testing solutions used to characterize coatings, films, and substrates across R&D, quality control, and production environments.

NANOVEA PB1000 Large-Platform
Mechanical Tester

Scratch Test Parameters and Instrument Setup

The scratch resistance evaluation of TPU and tempered-glass screen protectors was conducted under controlled conditions to ensure repeatability and accurate failure-load detection. The following parameters define the progressive-load scratch testing setup used on the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester.

LOAD TYPE	PROGRESSIVE
INITIAL LOAD	0.1 N
FINAL LOAD	12 N
SLIDING SPEED	3.025 mm/min
SLIDING DISTANCE	3 mm
INDENTER GEOMETRY	ROCKWELL (120° CONE)
INDENTER MATERIAL (TIP)	DIAMOND
INDENTER TIP RADIUS	50 µm
ATMOSPHERE	AIR
TEMPERATURE	24 °C (ROOM TEMP)

TABLE 1: Test parameters used for scratch testing

Screen protector sample mounted on the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester during progressive-load scratch measurement.

Screen Protector Samples Used for Scratch Resistance Testing

Two commercially available screen protector materials were selected to compare differences in scratch resistance, failure behavior, and mechanical durability. Both samples were mounted securely on the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester and evaluated under identical progressive-load conditions to ensure a consistent and unbiased comparison.

The TPU screen protector represents a flexible polymeric film with high elasticity but lower abrasion resistance, while the tempered-glass protector represents a rigid, brittle material designed for high hardness and enhanced impact protection. Testing both materials under the same load profile allows a clear assessment of how material composition, elasticity, and hardness influence scratch failure modes.

TPU Screen Protector

Tempered Glass

FIGURE 1: TPU and tempered-glass screen protectors prepared for scratch resistance testing.

Scratch Test Results: Failure Modes in TPU vs. Tempered Glass Screen Protectors

TYPE OF SCREEN PROTECTOR	CRITICAL LOAD #1 (N)	CRITICAL LOAD #2 (N)
TPU	n/a	2.004 ± 0.063
TEMPERED GLASS	3.608 ± 0.281	7.44 ± 0.995

TABLE 2: Summary of critical loads for each screen protector sample.

Because TPU and tempered-glass screen protectors have fundamentally different mechanical properties, each sample exhibited distinct failure modes and critical load thresholds during progressive-load scratch testing. Table 2 summarizes the measured critical loads for each material.

Critical Load #1 represents the first observable point of cohesive failure under optical microscopy, such as crack initiation or radial fracture.

Critical Load #2 corresponds to the first major event detected through acoustic emission (AE) monitoring, typically representing a larger structural failure or penetration event.

TPU Screen Protector — Flexible Polymer Behavior

The TPU screen protector exhibited only one significant critical event (Critical Load #2). This load corresponds to the point along the scratch track where the film began to lift, peel, or delaminate from the phone screen surface.

Once Critical Load #2 (≈2.00 N) was exceeded, the indenter penetrated sufficiently to cause a visible scratch directly on the phone screen for the remainder of the test. No separate Critical Load #1 event was detectable, consistent with the material’s high elasticity and lower cohesive strength.

Tempered Glass Screen Protector — Brittle Failure Behavior

The tempered-glass screen protector showed two distinct critical loads, characteristic of brittle materials:

Critical Load #1 (≈3.61 N): Radial fractures and crack initiation were observed under the microscope, indicating early cohesive failure of the glass layer.
Critical Load #2 (≈7.44 N): A large AE spike and a sharp increase in scratch depth indicated protector penetration at higher loads.

Although the AE magnitude was higher than TPU, no damage was transferred to the phone screen, demonstrating the tempered-glass protector’s ability to absorb and distribute load before catastrophic failure.

In both materials, Critical Load #2 corresponded to the moment when the indenter broke through the screen protector, confirming the protective limit of each sample.

TPU Screen Protector: Scratch Test Data and Failure Analysis

SCRATCH	CRITICAL LOAD #2 (N)
1	2.033
2	2.047
3	1.931
AVERAGE	2.003
STANDARD DEVIATION	0.052

TABLE 3: Critical loads measured during TPU screen protector scratch testing.

FIGURE 2: Friction force, normal load, acoustic emission (AE), and scratch depth vs. scratch length for the TPU screen protector. (B) Critical Load #2

FIGURE 3: Optical microscopy image of the TPU screen protector at Critical Load #2 (5× magnification; image width 0.8934 mm).

FIGURE 4: Full-length post-scratch image of the TPU screen protector showing the complete scratch track following progressive-load testing.

Tempered Glass Screen Protector: Critical Load Data and Fracture Behavior

SCRATCH	CRITICAL LOAD #1 (N)	CRITICAL LOAD #2 (N)
1	3.923	7.366
2	3.382	6.483
3	3.519	8.468
AVERAGE	3.653	6.925
STANDARD DEVIATION	0.383	0.624

TABLE 4: Critical loads measured during tempered-glass screen protector scratch testing.

ℹ️ For comparison with non-silicate polymer coatings, see our study on PTFE coating wear testing, which highlights failure behavior in low-friction polymer films under similar progressive-load conditions.

FIGURE 5: Friction force, normal load, acoustic emission (AE), and scratch depth vs. scratch length for the tempered-glass screen protector. (A) Critical Load #1 (B) Critical Load #2

FIGURE 6: Optical microscopy images showing the failure locations for Critical Load #1 (left) and Critical Load #2 (right) at 5× magnification (image width: 0.8934 mm).

FIGURE 7: Post-test optical microscopy image of the tempered-glass scratch track, highlighting fracture initiation (CL#1) and the final penetration zone (CL#2) following progressive-load testing.

Conclusion: Scratch Performance Comparison of TPU vs. Tempered Glass Screen Protectors

This study demonstrates how the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester delivers controlled, repeatable, and highly sensitive scratch resistance measurements using progressive loading and acoustic emission (AE) detection. By precisely capturing both cohesive and adhesive failure events, the system enables a clear comparison of how TPU and tempered-glass screen protectors behave under increasing mechanical stress.

The experimental results confirm that tempered glass exhibits significantly higher critical loads than TPU, providing superior scratch resistance, delayed fracture initiation, and reliable protection against indenter penetration. TPU’s lower cohesive strength and earlier delamination highlight its limitations in high-stress environments.

After identifying failure loads, the resulting scratch tracks can also be analyzed using a non-contact 3D optical profilometer to measure groove depth, residual deformation, and post-scratch topography. This helps complete the mechanical profile of each material.

The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester is engineered for accurate and repeatable indentation, scratch, and wear testing, and supports ISO- and ASTM-compliant nano and micro modules. Its versatility makes it an ideal solution for evaluating the full mechanical profile of thin films, coatings, polymers, glasses, and substrates across R&D, production, and quality control.

Frequently Asked Questions
About Scratch Resistance Testing

What is scratch resistance testing?

Scratch resistance testing evaluates how a material or coating responds when a diamond stylus applies a progressively increasing load. The test identifies the critical loads where cohesive or adhesive failures occur, providing a quantifiable measure of durability, adhesion strength, and resistance to surface damage.

What’s the difference between cohesive and adhesive failure?

Cohesive failure occurs within the coating or material, such as cracking, tearing, or internal fracture.
Adhesive failure happens when the coating detaches from the substrate, indicating insufficient bonding strength.

The NANOVEA PB1000 detects both using synchronized acoustic emission monitoring, scratch depth tracking, and friction analysis.

Why use a mechanical tester instead of manual methods?

A mechanical tester like the NANOVEA PB1000 provides precise, repeatable, and standardized measurements, ensuring reliable data for R&D, production validation, and quality control. It also offers advanced features, such as acoustic emission detection and real-time depth monitoring, that manual methods cannot deliver.

Need Reliable Scratch Testing for Your Materials?

The post Scratch Resistance Testing of Phone Screen Protectors appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

PTFE Coating Wear Test

nanovea — Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:11:39 +0000

PTFE COATING WEAR TEST

USING TRIBOMETER AND MECHANICAL TESTER

Prepared by

DUANJIE LI, PhD

INTRODUCTION

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), commonly known as Teflon, is a polymer with an exceptionally low coefficient of friction (COF) and excellent wear resistance, depending on the applied loads. PTFE exhibits superior chemical inertness, high melting point of 327°C (620°F), and maintains high strength, toughness, and self-lubrication at low temperatures. The exceptional wear resistance of PTFE coatings makes them highly sought-after in a wide range of industrial applications, such as automotive, aerospace, medical, and, notably, cookware.

IMPORTANCE OF QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF PTFE COATINGS

The combination of a super low coeﬃcient of friction (COF), excellent wear resistance, and exceptional chemical inert- ness at high temperatures makes PTFE an ideal choice for non-stick pan coatings. To further enhance its mechanical processes during R&D, as well as ensure optimal control over malfunction prevention and safety measures in the Quality Control process, it is crucial to have a reliable technique for quantity evaluating the tribomechanical processes of PTFE coatings. Precise control over surface friction, wear, and adhesion of the coatings is essential to ensure their intended performance.

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

In this application, the wear process of a PTFE coating for a non-stick pan is simulated using NANOVEA Tribometer in linear reciprocating mode.

NANOVEA T50 Compact
Free Weight Tribometer

In addition, the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester was used to perform a micro scratch adhesion test to determine the critical load of the PTFE coating adhesion failure.

NANOVEA PB1000 Large Platform Mechanical Tester

TEST PROCEDURE

WEAR TEST

LINEAR RECIPROCATING WEAR USING A TRIBOMETER

The tribological behavior of the PTFE coating sample, including the coeﬃcient of friction (COF) and wear resistance, was evaluated using the NANOVEA Tribometer in linear reciprocating mode. A Stainless Steel 440 ball tip with a diameter of 3 mm (Grade 100) was used against the coating. The COF was continuously monitored during the PTFE coating wear test.

The wear rate, K, was calculated using the formula K=V/(F×s)=A/(F×n), where V represents the worn volume, F is the normal load, s is the sliding distance, A is the cross-sectional area of the wear track, and n is the number of strokes. The wear track proﬁles were evaluated using the NANOVEA Optical Proﬁlometer, and the wear track morphology was examined using an optical microscope.

WEAR TEST PARAMETERS

LOAD	30 N
TEST DURATION	5 min
SLIDING RATE	80 rpm
AMPLITUDE OF TRACK	8 mm
REVOLUTIONS	300
BALL DIAMETER	3 mm
BALL MATERIAL	Stainless Steel 440
LUBRICANT	None
ATMOSPHERE	Air
TEMPERATURE	230C (RT)
HUMIDITY	43%

TEST PROCEDURE

SCRATCH TEST

MICRO SCRATCH ADHESION TEST USING MECHANICAL TESTER

The PTFE scratch adhesion measurement was conducted using the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester with a 1200 Rockwell C diamond stylus (200 μm radius) in the Micro Scratch Tester Mode.

To ensure the reproducibility of the results, three tests were performed under identical testing conditions.

SCRATCH TEST PARAMETERS

LOAD TYPE	Progressive
INITIAL LOAD	0.01 mN
FINAL LOAD	20 mN
LOADING RATE	40 mN/min
SCRATCH LENGTH	3 mm
SCRATCHING SPEED, dx/dt	6.0 mm/min
INDENTER GEOMETRY	120o Rockwell C
INDENTER MATERIAL (tip)	Diamond
INDENTER TIP RADIUS	200 μm

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

LINEAR RECIPROCATING WEAR USING A TRIBOMETER

The COF recorded in situ is shown in FIGURE 1. The test sample exhibited a COF of ~0.18 during the ﬁrst 130 revolutions, due to the low stickiness of PTFE. However, there was a sudden increase in COF to ~1 once the coating broke through, revealing the substrate underneath. Following the linear reciprocating tests, the wear track proﬁle was measured using the NANOVEA Non-Contact Optical Proﬁlometer, as shown in FIGURE 2. From the data obtained, the corresponding wear rate was calculated to be ~2.78 × 10-3 mm3/Nm, while the depth of the wear track was determined to be 44.94 µm.

PTFE coating wear test setup on the NANOVEA T50 Tribometer.

FIGURE 1: Evolution of COF during the PTFE coating wear test.

FIGURE 2: Proﬁle extraction of wear track PTFE.

PTFE Before breakthrough

Max COF	0.217
Min COF	0.125
Average COF	0.177

PTFE After breakthrough

Max COF	0.217
Min COF	0.125
Average COF	0.177

TABLE 1: COF before and after breakthrough during the wear test.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

MICRO SCRATCH ADHESION TEST USING MECHANICAL TESTER

The adhesion of the PTFE coating to the substrate is measured using scratch tests with a 200 µm diamond stylus. The micrograph is shown in FIGURE 3 and FIGURE 4, Evolution of COF, and penetration depth in FIGURE 5. The PTFE coating scratch test results are summarized in TABLE 4. As the load on the diamond stylus increased, it progressively penetrated into the coating, resulting in an increase in the COF. When a load of ~8.5 N was reached, the breakthrough of the coating and exposure of the substrate occurred under high pressure, leading to a high COF of ~0.3. The low St Dev shown in TABLE 2 demonstrates the repeatability of the PTFE coating scratch test conducted using the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester.

FIGURE 3: Micrograph of the full scratch on PTFE (10X).

FIGURE 4: Micrograph of the full scratch on PTFE (10X).

FIGURE 5: Friction graph showing the line of the critical point of failure for PTFE.

*Scratch*	*Point of Failure [N]*	*Frictional Force [N]*	*COF*
1	0.335	0.124	0.285
2	0.337	0.207	0.310
3	0.380	0.229	0.295
Average	8.52	2.47	0.297
St dev	0.17	0.16	0.012

TABLE 2: Summary of Critical Load, Frictional Force, and COF during the scratch test.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we conducted a simulation of the wear process of a PTFE coating for non-stick pans using the NANOVEA T50 Tribometer in linear reciprocating mode. The PTFE coating exhibited a low COF of ~0.18 the coating experienced a breakthrough at around 130 revolutions. The quantitative evaluation of the PTFE coating adhesion to the metal substrate was performed using the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester which determined the critical load of the coating adhesion failure to be ~8.5 N in this test.

The NANOVEA Tribometers oﬀer precise and repeatable wear and friction testing capabilities using ISO and ASTM-compliant rotary and linear modes. They provide optional modules for high-temperature wear, lubrication, and tribocorrosion, all integrated into a single system. This versatility allows users to simulate real-world application environments more accurately and gain a beer understanding of the wear mechanisms and tribological properties of diﬀerent materials.

The NANOVEA Mechanical Testers oﬀer Nano, Micro, and Macro modules, each of which includes ISO and ASTM compliant indentation, scratch, and wear testing modes, providing the widest and most user-friendly range of testing capabilities available in a single system.

Got a similar application?

The post PTFE Coating Wear Test appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Nano Scratch & Mar Testing of Paint on Metal Substrate

nanovea — Tue, 02 May 2023 15:12:43 +0000

Nano Scratch & Mar Testing

of Paint on Metal Substrate

Prepared by

SUSANA CABELLO

INTRODUCTION

Paint with or without hard coat is one of the most commonly used coatings. We see it on cars, on walls, on appliances and virtually anything that needs some protective coatings or simply for aesthetic purposes. The paints that are meant for the protection of the underlying substrate often have chemicals that prevent the paint from catching on fire or simply that prevent it from losing its color or cracking. Often the paint used for aesthetic purposes comes in various colors, but may not be necessarily meant for the protection of its substrate or for a long lifetime.

Nevertheless, all paint suﬀers some weathering over time. Weathering on paint can often change the properties from what the makers intended it to have. It can chip quicker, peel oﬀ with heat, loose color or crack. The diﬀerent property changes of paint over time is why makers oﬀer such a wide selection. Paints are tailored to meet diﬀerent requirements for individual clients.

IMPORTANCE OF NANO SCRATCH TESTING FOR QUALITY CONTROL

A major concern for paint makers is the ability for their product to withstand cracking. Once paint begins to crack, it fails to protect the substrate that it was applied on; therefore, failing to satisfy their client. For example, if a branch happens to stroke the side of a car and immediately after the paint begins to chip oﬀ the makers of the paint would lose business due to their poor quality of paint. The quality of the paint is very important because if the metal under the paint becomes exposed it may begin to rust or corrode due to its new exposure.

Reasons like this apply to several other spectrums such as household and office supplies and electronics, toys, research tools and more. Although the paint may be resistant to cracking when they first apply it to metal coatings, the properties may change over time when some weathering has occurred on the sample. This is why it’s very important to have the paint samples tested at their weathered stage. Although cracking under a high load of stress may be inevitable, the maker must predict how weakening the changes may be over time and how deep the aﬀecting scratch must be in order to provide their consumers with the best possible products.

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

We must simulate the process of scratching in a controlled and monitored manner to observe sample behavior eﬀects. In this application, the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester in Nano Scratch Testing mode is used to measure the load required to cause failure to an approximately 7 year old 30-50 μm thick paint sample on a metal substrate.

A 2 μm diamond tipped stylus is used at a progressive load ranging from 0.015 mN to 20.00 mN to scratch the coating. We performed a pre and post scan of the paint with 0.2 mN load in order to determine the value for the true depth of the scratch. The true depth analyzes the plastic and elastic deformation of the sample during testing; whereas, the post-scan only analyzes the plastic deformation of the scratch. The point where the coating fails by cracking is taken as the point of failure. We used the ASTMD7187 as a guide to determine our testing parameters.

We can conclude that having used a weathered sample; therefore, testing a paint sample at its weaker stage, presented us with lower points of failure.

Five tests were performed on this sample in order to

determine the exact failure critical loads.

NANOVEA

PB1000

TEST PARAMETERS

following ASTM D7027

The surface of a Roughness Standard was scanned using a NANOVEA ST400 equipped with a high-speed sensor that generates a bright line of 192 points, as shown in FIGURE 1. These 192 points scan the sample surface at the same time, leading to significantly increased scan speed.

LOAD TYPE	Progressive
INITIAL LOAD	0.015 mN
FINAL LOAD	20 mN
LOADING RATE	20 mN/min
SCRATCH LENGTH	1.6 mm
SCRATCH SPEED, dx/dt	1.601 mm/min
PRE-SCAN LOAD	0.2 mN
POST-SCAN LOAD	0.2 mN

indenter type

Conical

Diamond 90° Cone

2 µm tip radius

RESULTS

This section presents the data collected on the failures during the scratch test. The first section describes the failures observed in the scratch and defines the critical loads that were reported. The next part contains a summary table of the critical loads for all samples, and a graphical representation. The last part presents detailed results for each sample: the critical loads for each scratch, micrographs of each failure, and the graph of the test.

FAILURES OBSERVED AND DEFINITION OF CRITICAL LOADS

CRITICAL FAILURE:

INITIAL DAMAGE

This is the first point at which the damage is observed along the scratch track.

CRITICAL FAILURE:

COMPLETE DAMAGE

At this point, the damage is more significant where the paint is chipping and cracking along the scratch track.

DETAILED RESULTS

* Failure values taken at point of substrate cracking.

CRITICAL LOADS
SCRATCH	INITIAL DAMAGE [mN]	COMPLETE DAMAGE [µm]
1	14.513	4.932
2	3.895	4.838
3	3.917	4.930

AVERAGE	3.988	4.900
STD DEV	0.143	0.054

FIGURE 2: Micrograph of Full Scratch (1000x magniﬁcation).

FIGURE 3: Micrograph of Initial Damage (1000x magniﬁcation).

FIGURE 4: Micrograph of Complete Damage (1000x magniﬁcation).

FIGURE 5: Friction Force and Coeﬃcient of Friction.

FIGURE 6: Surface Profile.

FIGURE 7: True Depth and Residual Depth.

CONCLUSION

The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester in the Nano Scratch Tester mode allows the simulation of many real-life failures of paint coatings and hard coats. By applying increasing loads in a controlled and closely monitored manner, the instrument allows to identify at what load failures occur. This can then be used as a way to determine quantitative values for scratch resistance. The coating tested, with no weathering, is known to have a first crack at about 22 mN. With values closer to 5 mN, it is clear that the 7 year lap has degraded the paint.

Compensating for the original profile allows obtaining corrected depth during the scratch and measuring the residual depth after the scratch. This gives extra information on the plastic versus elastic behavior of the coating under increasing load. Both cracking and the information on deformation can be of great use for improving the hard coat. The very small standard deviations also show the reproducibility of the instrument’s technique which can help manufacturers improve the quality of their hard coat/paint and study weathering eﬀects.

Got a similar application?

The post Nano Scratch & Mar Testing of Paint on Metal Substrate appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Industrial Coatings Scratch and Wear Evaluation

nanovea — Fri, 27 May 2022 22:23:41 +0000

INDUSTRIAL COATING

SCRATCH AND WEAR EVALUATION USING A TRIBOMETER

Prepared by

DUANJIE LI, PhD & ANDREA HERRMANN

INTRODUCTION

Acrylic urethane paint is a type of fast-dry protective coating widely used in a variety of industrial applications, such as floor paint, auto paint, and others. When used as floor paint, it can serve areas with heavy foot and rubber-wheel traffic, such as walkways, curbs and parking lots.

IMPORTANCE OF SCRATCH AND WEAR TESTING FOR QUALITY CONTROL

Traditionally, Taber abrasion tests were carried out to evaluate the wear resistance of acrylic urethane floor paint according to the ASTM D4060 standard. However, as mentioned in the standard, “For some materials, abrasion tests utilizing the Taber Abraser may be subject to variation due to changes in the abrasive characteristics of the wheel during testing.”1 This may result in poor reproducibility of test results and create difficulty in comparing values reported from different laboratories. Moreover, in Taber abrasion tests, abrasion resistance is calculated as loss in weight at a specified number of abrasion cycles. However, acrylic urethane floor paints have a recommended dry film thickness of 37.5-50 μm2.

The aggressive abrasion process by Taber Abraser can quickly wear through the acrylic urethane coating and create mass loss to the substrate leading to substantial errors in the calculation of the paint weight loss. The implant of abrasive particles in the paint during the abrasion test also contributes to errors. Therefore, a well-controlled quantifiable and reliable measurement is crucial to ensure reproducible wear evaluation of the paint. In addition, the scratch test allows users to detect premature adhesive/cohesive failures in real-life applications.

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

In this study, we showcase that NANOVEA Tribometers and Mechanical Testers are ideal for evaluation and quality control of industrial coatings.

The wear process of acrylic urethane floor paints with different topcoats is simulated in a controlled and monitored manner using the NANOVEA Tribometer. Micro scratch testing is used to measure the load required to cause cohesive or adhesive failure to the paint.

NANOVEA T100

The Compact Pneumatic Tribometer

NANOVEA PB1000

The Large Platform Mechanical Tester

TEST PROCEDURE

This study evaluates four commercially available water-based acrylic floor coatings that have the same primer (basecoat) and different topcoats of the same formula with a small alternation in the additive blends for the purpose of enhancing durability. These four coatings are identified as Samples A, B, C and D.

WEAR TEST

The NANOVEA Tribometer was applied to evaluate the tribological behavior, e.g. coefficient of friction, COF, and wear resistance. A SS440 ball tip (6 mm dia., Grade 100) was applied against the tested paints. The COF was recorded in situ. The wear rate, K, was evaluated using the formula K=V/(F×s)=A/(F×n), where V is the worn volume, F is the normal load, s is the sliding distance, A is the cross-sectional area of the wear track, and n is the number of revolution. Surface roughness and wear track profiles were evaluated by the NANOVEA Optical Profilometer, and the wear track morphology was examined using optical microscope.

WEAR TEST PARAMETERS

NORMAL FORCE

20 N

SPEED

15 m/min

DURATION OF TEST

100, 150, 300 & 800 cycles

SCRATCH TEST

The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester equipped with a Rockwell C diamond stylus (200 μm radius) was used to perform progressive load scratch tests on the paint samples using the Micro Scratch Tester Mode. Two final loads were used: 5 N final load for investigating paint delamination from the primer, and 35 N for investigating primer delamination from the metal substrates. Three tests were repeated at the same testing conditions on each sample to ensure reproducibility of the results.

Panoramic images of the whole scratch lengths were automatically generated and their critical failure locations were correlated with the applied loads by the system software. This software feature facilitates users to perform analysis on the scratch tracks any time, rather than having to determine the critical load under the microscope immediately after the scratch tests.

SCRATCH TEST PARAMETERS

LOAD TYPE	Progressive
INITIAL LOAD	0.01 mN
FINAL LOAD	5 N / 35 N
LOADING RATE	10 / 70 N/min
SCRATCH LENGTH	3 mm
SCRATCHING SPEED, dx/dt	6.0 mm/min
INDENTER GEOMETRY	120º cone
INDENTER MATERIAL (tip)	Diamond
INDENTER TIP RADIUS	200 μm

WEAR TEST RESULTS

Four pin-on-disk wear tests at different number of revolutions (100, 150, 300 and 800 cycles) were performed on each sample in order to monitor the evolution of wear. The surface morphology of the samples were measured with a NANOVEA 3D Non-Contact Profiler to quantify the surface roughness prior to conducting wear testing. All samples had a comparable surface roughness of approximately 1 μm as displayed in FIGURE 1. The COF was recorded in situ during the wear tests as shown in FIGURE 2. FIGURE 4 presents the evolution of wear tracks after 100, 150, 300 and 800 cycles, and FIGURE 3 summarized the average wear rate of different samples at different stages of the wear process.

Compared with a COF value of ~0.07 for the other three samples, Sample A exhibits a much higher COF of ~0.15 at the beginning, which gradually increases and gets stable at ~0.3 after 300 wear cycles. Such a high COF accelerates the wear process and creates a substantial amount of paint debris as indicated in FIGURE 4 – the topcoat of Sample A has started to be removed in the first 100 revolutions. As shown in FIGURE 3, Sample A exhibits the highest wear rate of ~5 μm2/N in the first 300 cycles, which slightly decreases to ~3.5 μm2/N due to the better wear resistance of the metal substrate. The topcoat of Sample C starts to fail after 150 wear cycles as shown in FIGURE 4, which is also indicated by the increase of COF in FIGURE 2.

In comparison, Sample B and Sample D show enhanced tribological properties. Sample B maintains a low COF throughout the whole test – the COF slightly increases from~0.05 to ~0.1. Such a lubricating effect substantially enhances its wear resistance – the topcoat still provides superior protection to the primer underneath after 800 wear cycles. The lowest average wear rate of only ~0.77 μm2/N is measured for Sample B at 800 cycles. The topcoat of Sample D starts to delaminate after 375 cycles, as reflected by the abrupt increase of COF in FIGURE 2. The average wear rate of Sample D is ~1.1 μm2/N at 800 cycles.

Compared to the conventional Taber abrasion measurements, NANOVEA Tribometer provides well-controlled quantifiable and reliable wear assessments that ensure reproducible evaluations and quality control of commercial floor/auto paints. Moreover, the capacity of in situ COF measurements allow users to correlate the different stages of a wear process with the evolution of COF, which is critical in improving fundamental understanding of the wear mechanism and tribological characteristics of various paint coatings.

FIGURE 1: 3D morphology and roughness of the paint samples.

FIGURE 2: COF during pin-on-disk tests.

FIGURE 3: Evolution of wear rate of different paints.

FIGURE 4: Evolution of wear tracks during the pin-on-disk tests.

SCRATCH TEST RESULTS

FIGURE 5 shows the plot of normal force, frictional force and true depth as a function of scratch length for Sample A as an example. An optional acoustic emission module can be installed to provide more information. As the normal load linearly increases, the indentation tip gradually sinks into the tested sample as reflected by the progressive increase of true depth. The variation in the slopes of frictional force and true depth curves can be used as one of the implications that coating failures start to occur.

FIGURE 5: Normal force, frictional force and true depth as a function of scratch length for scratch test of Sample A with a maximum load of 5 N.

FIGURE 6 and FIGURE 7 show the full scratches of all four paint samples tested with a maximum load of 5 N and 35 N, respectively. Sample D required a higher load of 50 N to delaminate the primer. Scratch tests at 5 N final load (FIGURE 6) evaluate the cohesive/adhesive failure of the top paint, while the ones at 35 N (FIGURE 7) assess the delamination of the primer. The arrows in the micrographs indicate the point at which the top coating or the primer start to be completely removed from the primer or the substrate. The load at this point, so called Critical Load, Lc, is used to compare the cohesive or adhesive properties of the paint as summarized in Table 1.

It is evident that the paint Sample D has the best interfacial adhesion – exhibiting the highest Lc values of 4.04 N at paint delamination and 36.61 N at primer delamination. Sample B shows the second best scratch resistance. From the scratch analysis, we show that optimization of the paint formula is critical to the mechanical behaviors, or more specifically, scratch resistance and adhesion property of acrylic floor paints.

Table 1: Summary of critical loads.

FIGURE 6: Micrographs of full scratch with 5 N maximum load.

FIGURE 7: Micrographs of full scratch with 35 N maximum load.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the conventional Taber abrasion measurements, the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester and Tribometer are superior tools for evaluation and quality control of commercial floor and automotive coatings. The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester in Scratch mode can detect adhesion/cohesion problems in a coating system. The NANOVEA Tribometer provides well-controlled quantifiable and repeatable tribological analysis on wear resistance and coefficient of friction of the paints.

Based on the comprehensive tribological and mechanical analyses on the water based acrylic floor coatings tested in this study, we show that Sample B possesses the lowest COF and wear rate and the second best scratch resistance, while Sample D exhibits the best scratch resistance and second best wear resistance. This assessment allows us to evaluate and select the best candidate targeting the needs in different application environments.

The Nano and Micro modules of the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester all include ISO and ASTM compliant indentation, scratch and wear tester modes, providing the widest range of testing available for paint evaluation on a single module. The NANOVEA Tribometer offers precise and repeatable wear and friction testing using ISO and ASTM compliant rotative and linear modes, with optional high temperature wear, lubrication and tribo-corrosion modules available in one pre-integrated system. NANOVEA’s unmatched range is an ideal solution for determining the full range of mechanical/tribological properties of thin or thick, soft or hard coatings, films and substrates, including hardness, Young’s modulus, fracture toughness, adhesion, wear resistance and many others. Optional NANOVEA Non-Contact Optical Profilers are available for high resolution 3D imaging of scratchs and wear tracks in addition to other surface measurements such as roughness.

NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION

The post Industrial Coatings Scratch and Wear Evaluation appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Titanium Nitride Coating Scratch Test

nanovea — Tue, 05 Apr 2022 20:35:46 +0000

TITANIUM NITRIDE COATING SCRATCH TEST

QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION

Prepared by

DUANJIE LI, PhD

INTRODUCTION

The combination of high hardness, excellent wear resistance, corrosion resistance and inertness makes titanium nitride (TiN) an ideal protective coating for metal components in various industries. For example, the edge retention and corrosion resistance of a TiN coating can substantially increase the work efficiency and extend the service life of machine tooling such as razor blades, metal cutters, injection molds and saws. Its high hardness, inertness and non-toxicity make TiN a great candidate for applications in medical devices including implants and surgical instruments.

IMPORTANCE OF TiN COATING SCRATCH TESTING

Residual stress in protective PVD/CVD coatings plays a critical role in the performance and mechanical integrity of the coated component. The residual stress derives from several major sources, including growth stress, thermal gradients, geometric constraints and service stress¹. The thermal expansion mismatch between the coating and the substrate created during coating deposition at elevated temperatures leads to high thermal residual stress. Moreover, TiN coated tools are often used under very high concentrated stresses, e.g. drill bits and bearings. It is critical to developing a reliable quality control process to quantitatively inspect the cohesive and adhesive strength of protective functional coatings.

[1] V. Teixeira, Vacuum 64 (2002) 393–399.

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

In this study, we showcase that the NANOVEA Mechanical Testers in Scratch Mode are ideal for assessing the cohesive/adhesive strength of protective TiN coatings in a controlled and quantitative manner.

NANOVEA

PB1000

TEST CONDITIONS

The NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester was used to perform coating scratch tests on three TiN coatings using the same test parameters as summarized below:

LOADING MODE: Progressive Linear

INITIAL LOAD

0.02 N

FINAL LOAD

10 N

LOADING RATE

20 N/min

SCRATCH LENGTH

5 mm

INDENTER TYPE

Sphero-Conical

Diamond, 20 μm radius

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

FIGURE 1 shows the recorded evolution of penetration depth, coefficient of friction (COF) and acoustic emission during the test. The full micro scratch tracks on the TiN samples are shown in FIGURE 2. The failure behaviors at different critical loads are displayed in FIGURE 3, where critical load Lc1 is defined as the load at which the first sign of cohesive crack occurs in the scratch track, Lc2 is the load after which repeated spallation failures take place, and Lc3 is the load at which the coating is completely removed from the substrate. The critical load (Lc) values for the TiN coatings are summarized in FIGURE 4.

The evolution of penetration depth, COF and acoustic emission provides insight into the mechanism of the coating failure at different stages, which are represented by the critical loads in this study. It can be observed that Sample A and Sample B exhibit comparable behavior during the scratch test. The stylus progressively penetrates into the sample to a depth of ~0.06 mm and the COF gradually increases to ~0.3 as the normal load increases linearly at the beginning of the coating scratch test. When the Lc1 of ~3.3 N is reached, the first sign of chipping failure occurs. This is also reflected in the first large spikes in the plot of penetration depth, COF and acoustic emission. As the load continues to increase to Lc2 of ~3.8 N, further fluctuation of the penetration depth, COF and acoustic emission takes place. We can observe continuous spallation failure present on both sides of the scratch track. At the Lc3, the coating completely delaminates from the metal substrate under the high pressure applied by the stylus, leaving the substrate exposed and unprotected.

In comparison, Sample C exhibits lower critical loads at different stages of the coating scratch tests, which is also reflected in the evolution of penetration depth, coefficient of friction (COF) and acoustic emission during the coating scratch test. Sample C possesses an adhesion interlayer with lower hardness and higher stress at the interface between the top TiN coating and the metal substrate compared to Sample A and Sample B.

This study demonstrates the importance of proper substrate support and coating architecture to the quality of the coating system. A stronger interlayer can better resist deformation under a high external load and concentration stress, and thus enhance the cohesive and adhesive strength of the coating/substrate system.

FIGURE 1: Evolution of penetration depth, COF and acoustic emission of the TiN samples.

FIGURE 2: Full scratch track of the TiN coatings after the tests.

FIGURE 3: TiN coating failures under different critical loads, Lc.

FIGURE 4: Summary of critical load (Lc) values for the TiN coatings.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we showcased that the NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester performs reliable and accurate scratch tests on TiN-coated samples in a controlled and closely monitored manner. Scratch measurements allow users to quickly identify the critical load at which typical cohesive and adhesive coating failures occur. Our instruments are superior quality control tools that can quantitatively inspect and compare the intrinsic quality of a coating and the interfacial integrity of a coating/substrate system. A coating with a proper interlayer can resist large deformation under a high external load and concentration stress, and enhance the cohesive and adhesive strength of a coating/substrate system.

The Nano and Micro modules of a NANOVEA Mechanical Tester all include ISO and ASTM compliant indentation, scratch and wear tester modes, providing the widest and most user-friendly range of testing available in a single system. NANOVEA’s unmatched range is an ideal solution for determining the full range of mechanical properties of thin or thick, soft or hard coatings, films and substrates, including hardness, Young’s modulus, fracture toughness, adhesion, wear-resistance and many others.

Got a similar application?

The post Titanium Nitride Coating Scratch Test appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Adhesion Properties of Gold Coating on Quartz Crystal Substrate

nanovea — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 17:51:03 +0000

Adhesion Properties of Gold Coating

on Quartz Crystal Substrate

Prepared by

DUANJIE LI, PhD

INTRODUCTION

The Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM) is an extremely sensitive mass sensor capable of making precise measurements of small mass in the nanogram range. QCM measures the mass change on the surface through detecting variations in resonance frequency of the quartz crystal with two electrodes affixed to each side of the plate. The capacity of measuring extreme small weight makes it a key component in a variety of research and industrial instruments to detect and monitor the variation of mass, adsorption, density, and corrosion, etc.

IMPORTANCE OF SCRATCH TEST FOR QCM

As an extremely accurate device, the QCM measures the mass change down to 0.1 nanogram. Any mass loss or delamination of the electrodes on the quartz plate will be detected by the quartz crystal and cause significant measurement errors. As a result, the intrinsic quality of the electrode coating and the interfacial integrity of the coating/substrate system play an essential role in performing accurate and repeatable mass measurement. The Micro scratch test is a widely used comparative measurement to evaluate the relative cohesion or adhesion properties of coatings based on comparison of the critical loads at which failures appear. It is a superior tool for reliable quality control of QCMs.

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

In this application, the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester, in Micro Scratch Mode, is used to evaluate the cohesive & adhesive strength of the gold coating on the quartz substrate of a QCM sample. We would like to showcase the capacity of the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester in performing micro scratch tests on a delicate sample with high precision and repeatability.

NANOVEA

PB1000

TEST CONDITIONS

The NANOVEA PB1000 Mechanical Tester was used to perform the micro scratch tests on a QCM sample using the test parameters summarized below. Three scratches were performed to ensure reproducibility of the results.

LOAD TYPE: Progressive

INITIAL LOAD

0.01 N

FINAL LOAD

30 N

ATMOSPHERE: Air 24°C

SLIDING SPEED

2 mm/min

SLIDING DISTANCE

2 mm

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The full micro scratch track on the QCM sample is shown in FIGURE 1. The failure behaviors at different critical loads are displayed in FIGURE 2, where critical load, LC1 is defined as the load at which the first sign of adhesive failure occurs in the scratch track, LC2 is the load after which repetitive adhesive failures take place, and LC3 is the load at which the coating is completely removed from the substrate. It can be observed that little chipping takes place at LC1 of 11.15 N, the first sign of coating failure.

As the normal load continues to increase during the micro scratch test, repetitive adhesive failures occur after LC2 of 16.29 N. When LC3 of 19.09 N is reached, the coating completely delaminates from the quartz substrate. Such critical loads can be used to quantitatively compare the cohesive and adhesive strength of the coating and select the best candidate for targeted applications.

FIGURE 1: Full micro scratch track on the QCM sample.

FIGURE 2: Micro scratch track at different critical loads.

FIGURE 3 plots the evolution of friction coefficient and depth that may provide more insight in the progression of coating failures during the micro scratch test.

FIGURE 3: Evolution of COF and Depth during the micro scratch test.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we showcased that the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester performs reliable and accurate micro scratch tests on a QCM sample. By applying linearly increased loads in a controlled and closely monitored fashion, the scratch measurement allows users to identify the critical load at which typical cohesive and adhesive coating failure occurs. It provides a superior tool to quantitatively evaluate and compare the intrinsic quality of the coating and the interfacial integrity of the coating/substrate system for QCM.

The Nano, Micro or Macro modules of the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester all include ISO and ASTM compliant indentation, scratch and wear tester modes, providing the widest and most user friendly range of testing available in a single system. NANOVEA‘s unmatched range is an ideal solution for determining the full range of mechanical properties of thin or thick, soft or hard coatings, films and substrates, including hardness, Young’s modulus, fracture toughness, adhesion, wear resistance and many others.

In addition, an optional 3D non-contact profiler and AFM module are available for high resolution 3D imaging of indentation, scratch and wear track in addition to other surface measurements, such as roughness and warpage.

Got a similar application?

The post Adhesion Properties of Gold Coating on Quartz Crystal Substrate appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Wear and Scratch Evaluation of Surface Treated Copper Wire

nanovea — Wed, 08 Apr 2020 15:27:56 +0000

Importance of Wear and Scratch Evaluation of Copper Wire

Copper has a long history of use in electric wiring since the invention of the electromagnet and telegraph. Copper wires are applied in a wide range of electronic equipment such as panels, meters, computers, business machines, and appliances thanks to its corrosion resistance, solderability, and performance at elevated temperatures up to 150°C. Approximately half of all mined copper is used for manufacturing electrical wire and cable conductors.

Copper wire surface quality is critical to application service performance and lifetime. Micro defects in wires may lead to excessive wear, crack initiation and propagation, decreased conductivity, and inadequate solderability. Proper surface treatment of copper wires removes surface defects generated during wire drawing improving corrosion, scratch, and wear resistance. Many aerospace applications with copper wires require controlled behavior to prevent unexpected equipment failure. Quantifiable and reliable measurements are needed to properly evaluate the wear and scratch resistance of the copper wire surface.

Measurement Objective

In this application we simulate a controlled wear process of different copper wire surface treatments. Scratch testing measures the load required to cause failure on the treated surface layer. This study showcases the Nanovea Tribometer and Mechanical Tester as ideal tools for evaluation and quality control of electric wires.

Test Procedure and Procedures

Coefficient of friction (COF) and wear resistance of two different surface treatments on copper wires (Wire A and Wire B) were evaluated by the Nanovea tribometer using a linear reciprocating wear module. An Al₂O₃ ball (6 mm diameter) is the counter material used in this application. The wear track was examined using Nanovea’s 3D non-contact profilometer. Test parameters are summarized in Table 1.

A smooth Al₂O₃ ball as a counter material was used as an example in this study. Any solid material with different shape and surface finish can be applied using a custom fixture to simulate the actual application situation.

Nanovea’s mechanical tester equipped with a Rockwell C diamond stylus (100 μm radius) performed progressive load scratch tests on the coated wires using micro scratch mode. Scratch test parameters and tip geometry are shown in Table 2.

Results and Discussion

Wear of copper wire:

Figure 2 shows COF evolution of the copper wires during wear tests. Wire A shows a stable COF of ~0.4 throughout the wear test while wire B exhibits a COF of ~0.35 in the first 100 revolutions and progressively increases to ~0.4.

Figure 3 compares wear tracks of the copper wires after tests. Nanovea’s 3D non-contact profilometer offered superior analysis of the detailed morphology of wear tracks. It allows direct and accurate determination of the wear track volume by providing a fundamental understanding of the wear mechanism. Wire B’s surface has signi¬ficant wear track damage after a 600-revolution wear test. The profilometer 3D view shows the surface treated layer of Wire B removed completely which substantially accelerated the wear process. This left a flattened wear track on Wire B where copper substrate is exposed. This may result in significantly shortened lifespan of electrical equipment where Wire B is used. In comparison, Wire A exhibits relatively mild wear shown by a shallow wear track on the surface. The surface treated layer on Wire A did not remove like the layer on Wire B under the same conditions.

Scratch resistance of the copper wire surface:

Figure 4 shows the scratch tracks on the wires after testing. The protective layer of Wire A exhibits very good scratch resistance. It delaminates at a load of ~12.6 N. In comparison, the protective layer of Wire B failed at a load of ~1.0 N. Such a significant difference in scratch resistance for these wires contributes to their wear performance, where Wire A possesses substantially enhanced wear resistance. The evolution of normal force, COF, and depth during the scratch tests shown in Fig. 5 provides more insight on coating failure during tests.

Conclusion

In this controlled study we showcased the Nanovea’s tribometer conducting quantitative evaluation of wear resistance for surface treated copper wires and Nanovea’s mechanical tester providing reliable assessment of copper wire scratch resistance. Wire surface treatment plays a critical role in the tribo-mechanical properties during their lifetime. Proper surface treatment on Wire A significantly enhanced wear and scratch resistance, critical in the performance and lifespan of electrical wires in rough environments.

Nanovea’s tribometer offers precise and repeatable wear and friction testing using ISO and ASTM compliant rotative and linear modes, with optional high temperature wear, lubrication, and tribo-corrosion modules available in one pre-integrated system. Nanovea’s unmatched range is an ideal solution for determining the full range of tribological properties of thin or thick, soft or hard coatings, films, and substrates.

Got a similar application?

The post Wear and Scratch Evaluation of Surface Treated Copper Wire appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Understanding Coating Failures using Scratch Testing

nanovea — Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:42:45 +0000

Introduction:

Surface engineering of materials plays a significant role in a variety of functional applications, ranging from decorative appearance to protecting the substrates from wear, corrosion and other forms of attacks. An important and overriding factor that determines the quality and service lifetime of the coatings is their cohesive and adhesive strength.

Click here to read!

The post Understanding Coating Failures using Scratch Testing appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Multi Scratch Automation of Similar Samples using the PB1000 Mechanical Tester

nanovea — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:12:24 +0000

Introduction :

Coatings are widely used in various industries because of their functional properties. A coating’s hardness, erosion resistance, low friction, and high wear resistance are just some of the many properties that make coatings important. A commonly used method to quantify these properties is scratch testing, this allows for a repeatable measurement of a coating’s adhesive and/or cohesive properties. By comparing the critical loads at which failure occurs, the intrinsic properties of a coating can be evaluated.

Click to learn more!

The post Multi Scratch Automation of Similar Samples using the PB1000 Mechanical Tester appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

A BETTER Look at Polycarbonate Lens

nanovea — Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:14:37 +0000

A BETTER Look at Polycarbonate Lens Learn more

Polycarbonate lenses are commonly used in many optical applications. Their high impact resistance, low weight, and cheap cost of high-volume production makes them more practical than traditional glass in various applications [1]. Some of these applications require safety (e.g. safety eyewear), complexity (e.g. Fresnel lens) or durability (e.g. traffic light lens) criteria that are difficult to meet without the use of plastics. Its ability to cheaply meet many requirements while maintaining sufficient optical qualities makes plastic lenses stand out in its field. Polycarbonate lenses also have limitations. The main concern for consumers is the ease at which they can be scratched. To compensate for this, extra processes can be carried out to apply an anti-scratch coating. Nanovea takes a look into some important properties of plastic lens by utilizing our three metrology instruments: Profilometer, Tribometer, and Mechanical Tester. Click to Read More!

The post A BETTER Look at Polycarbonate Lens appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Scratch Testing | Cohesive Failure Application Notes - NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing

Scratch Resistance Testing of Phone Screen Protectors

Scratch Resistance Testing of Phone Screen Protectors

Understanding Scratch Resistance in Phone Screen Protectors

Why Scratch Resistance Testing Matters for Screen Protectors

Scratch Testing Objective: Measuring Failure Loads in Screen Protectors

Scratch Test Parameters and Instrument Setup

Screen Protector Samples Used for Scratch Resistance Testing

Scratch Test Results: Failure Modes in TPU vs. Tempered Glass Screen Protectors

TPU Screen Protector — Flexible Polymer Behavior

Tempered Glass Screen Protector — Brittle Failure Behavior

TPU Screen Protector: Scratch Test Data and Failure Analysis

Tempered Glass Screen Protector: Critical Load Data and Fracture Behavior

Conclusion: Scratch Performance Comparison of TPU vs. Tempered Glass Screen Protectors

Frequently Asked Questions About Scratch Resistance Testing

What is scratch resistance testing?

What’s the difference between cohesive and adhesive failure?

Why use a mechanical tester instead of manual methods?

Need Reliable Scratch Testing for Your Materials?

PTFE Coating Wear Test

PTFE COATING WEAR TEST

USING TRIBOMETER AND MECHANICAL TESTER

INTRODUCTION

IMPORTANCE OF QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF PTFE COATINGS

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

TEST PROCEDURE

WEAR TEST

LINEAR RECIPROCATING WEAR USING A TRIBOMETER

WEAR TEST PARAMETERS

TEST PROCEDURE

SCRATCH TEST

MICRO SCRATCH ADHESION TEST USING MECHANICAL TESTER

SCRATCH TEST PARAMETERS

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

LINEAR RECIPROCATING WEAR USING A TRIBOMETER

PTFE Before breakthrough

PTFE After breakthrough

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

MICRO SCRATCH ADHESION TEST USING MECHANICAL TESTER

CONCLUSION

Got a similar application?

Nano Scratch & Mar Testing of Paint on Metal Substrate

Nano Scratch & Mar Testing

of Paint on Metal Substrate

Prepared by

SUSANA CABELLO

INTRODUCTION

IMPORTANCE OF NANO SCRATCH TESTING FOR QUALITY CONTROL

TEST PARAMETERS

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

Got a similar application?

Industrial Coatings Scratch and Wear Evaluation

INDUSTRIAL COATING

SCRATCH AND WEAR EVALUATION USING A TRIBOMETER

Prepared by

DUANJIE LI, PhD & ANDREA HERRMANN

INTRODUCTION

IMPORTANCE OF SCRATCH AND WEAR TESTING FOR QUALITY CONTROL

MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE

TEST PROCEDURE

WEAR TEST

WEAR TEST PARAMETERS

SCRATCH TEST

SCRATCH TEST PARAMETERS

WEAR TEST RESULTS

SCRATCH TEST RESULTS

CONCLUSION

NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION

Titanium Nitride Coating Scratch Test

TITANIUM NITRIDE COATING SCRATCH TEST

QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION

Prepared by

DUANJIE LI, PhD

INTRODUCTION

IMPORTANCE OF TiN COATING SCRATCH TESTING

TEST CONDITIONS

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Got a similar application?

Scratch Testing Objective:
Measuring Failure Loads in Screen Protectors

Frequently Asked Questions
About Scratch Resistance Testing