实验室测试应用说明 - NANOVEA：用于材料测试的先进轮廓仪、摩擦磨损仪、纳米压痕仪和划痕测试仪

Humidity-Controlled Nanoindentation of Polymer Materials

Andrew Shore — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:48:17 +0000

Application Note | Environmental Nanoindentation

Humidity-Controlled Nanoindentation of Polymer Films

Measuring Hardness and Creep Under Controlled Relative Humidity

Research & Experimental Testing

Duanjie Li, PhD & Andrea Novitsky

Visual Design & Editorial

安德鲁-肖尔

简介

Polymers are viscoelastic materials, meaning their mechanical response can change with time and environmental conditions. Under sustained loading, they can gradually deform through creep, with the rate of deformation influenced by factors such as material properties, exposure time, temperature, and humidity.

As environmental humidity changes, the mechanical behavior of polymer materials can change as well. Measuring hardness and creep under controlled relative humidity provides a quantitative way to evaluate how moisture exposure affects polymer performance.

Why Humidity-Controlled Nanoindentation Matters

The mechanical properties of polymers can change as environmental humidity increases. As moisture is absorbed, polymers may exhibit mechano-sorptive effects, including accelerated creep and changes in deformation behavior under load.

Reliable characterization therefore requires more than measuring the material at a single ambient condition. Humidity-controlled nanoindentation enables hardness and creep to be measured while both the sample and indenter are maintained in a uniform controlled environment.

The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester uses an isolated humidity enclosure around the indentation tip and sample surface to maintain consistent relative humidity during testing. This helps minimize measurement drift caused by humidity gradients and provides a quantitative way to evaluate moisture-dependent mechanical behavior.

测量目标

The objective of this study was to evaluate how controlled relative humidity influences the hardness and creep behavior of a polymer film using 纳米压痕.

The polymer film was tested in an isolated environment with uniform humidity surrounding both the sample and indenter, allowing its mechanical response to be measured under controlled moisture conditions.

NANOVEA PB1000 Advanced

机械测试仪

测试条件

A polymer film was tested by nanoindentation at 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75% relative humidity. Both the sample and indenter were maintained inside an isolated enclosure with uniform humidity controlled throughout the test.

Polymer film sample used for humidity-controlled nanoindentation testing.

A Berkovich diamond indenter was used with a maximum load of 10 mN. The load was applied and removed at 20 mN/min, and creep was measured from the change in indentation depth during a 10 s hold at maximum load.

Hardness was calculated using ASTM E2546 and the Oliver & Pharr method. The test conditions are summarized below.

Humidity (%)	25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75
Maximum load	10 mN
装载率	20 mN/min
Unloading rate	20 mN/min
Creep time	10 s
Computation method	ASTM E2546 & Oliver & Pharr
Indenter type	Berkovich diamond

结果和讨论

The load-displacement curves show a progressive increase in penetration depth as relative humidity rises, indicating that the polymer film becomes more susceptible to deformation under the same applied load.

Between 25% and 55% relative humidity, hardness decreased gradually from approximately 0.60 to 0.54 GPa, while creep depth increased from 36 to 48 nm. At higher humidity, the changes became substantially more pronounced. Hardness decreased to 0.46 GPa at 65% RH and 0.31 GPa at 75% RH, while creep depth increased to 80 nm and 105 nm, respectively.

The original study attributes this stronger response at elevated humidity to moisture absorption and swelling of the polymer film. It identifies the transition between 55% and 65% RH as the range where swelling becomes significant, corresponding with the sharp increase in creep observed during indentation.

These results demonstrate why humidity can be an important test variable when evaluating polymers intended for moisture-rich environments. Measuring both hardness and creep across controlled humidity levels provides a more complete view of how the material responds mechanically as environmental conditions change.

Nanoindentation load-displacement curves at relative humidity levels from 25% to 75%.

Polymer hardness decreases while creep depth increases as relative humidity rises from 25% to 75%.

总结

Humidity-controlled nanoindentation revealed a clear change in the mechanical response of the polymer film as relative humidity increased. Across the tested range from 25% to 75% RH, hardness progressively decreased while creep increased.

At 65% RH and above, the polymer exhibited substantially greater creep deformation during the hold at maximum load, corresponding with the sharper reduction in hardness observed at higher humidity.

By maintaining both the sample and indenter within an isolated environment of uniform relative humidity, the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester enables hardness and creep to be measured while minimizing the influence of humidity-gradient drift. This provides a quantitative method for evaluating the moisture-dependent mechanical behavior of polymer materials under controlled environmental conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions About Humidity-Controlled Nanoindentation

Why does humidity affect polymer hardness and creep?

Polymers can absorb moisture from the surrounding environment, which can alter their mechanical response. Depending on the material, increased moisture can reduce resistance to deformation and increase time-dependent creep. In this study, increasing relative humidity corresponded with decreasing hardness and increasing creep depth.

Can nanoindentation be performed under controlled humidity?

Yes. Nanoindentation can be performed inside a controlled environmental enclosure so that both the sample and indenter are exposed to a defined relative humidity during testing. This makes it possible to compare mechanical properties under different moisture conditions rather than relying solely on uncontrolled ambient laboratory conditions.

Why test polymers at controlled relative humidity instead of ambient conditions?

Ambient humidity can vary and may not represent the conditions a polymer experiences during storage, processing, or use. Controlling relative humidity allows the environmental condition to become a defined test variable, making it possible to determine whether changes in hardness, creep, or deformation behavior are associated with moisture exposure.

What mechanical properties can be measured under controlled humidity?

Depending on the test method, nanoindentation can evaluate properties including hardness, elastic modulus, and time-dependent creep behavior under controlled environmental conditions. In this study, hardness and creep were measured as relative humidity changed.

What materials can benefit from humidity-controlled nanoindentation?

Humidity-controlled testing can be particularly useful for polymers, thin films, coatings, and other materials whose mechanical behavior may be influenced by moisture absorption. The appropriate humidity range and indentation conditions depend on the material and application.

How can humidity-controlled nanoindentation support material development?

Testing across multiple relative humidity levels can reveal whether a material maintains its mechanical properties as environmental moisture changes. This can support material comparison, formulation development, coating evaluation, failure investigation, and the assessment of materials intended for humidity-sensitive applications.

Can NANOVEA perform humidity-controlled nanoindentation as a laboratory service?

Yes. NANOVEA can perform nanoindentation testing under controlled environmental conditions to evaluate properties such as hardness and creep as humidity changes. Test parameters can be selected according to the material, expected service conditions, and the specific engineering question being investigated.

Need Humidity-Controlled Nanoindentation for Your Material?

The post Humidity-Controlled Nanoindentation of Polymer Materials appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

High Temperature Brinell Hardness Testing

Andrew Shore — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 23:22:06 +0000

Application Note | High Temperature Mechanical Testing

High Temperature Hardness Testing of Steel Using Brinell Indentation

Mapping Steel Hardness Loss from Room Temperature to 925°C with NANOVEA T2000 Tribometer

Research & Experimental Testing

Frank Liu

Visual Design & Editorial

安德鲁-肖尔

简介

High temperature hardness testing provides insight into how the mechanical behavior of metals changes as temperature increases. Materials that exhibit high hardness at room temperature can soften significantly when exposed to elevated temperatures, making temperature-dependent hardness an important consideration when selecting materials for applications such as jet engines, high-temperature processing equipment, and other thermally demanding environments.

In this study, a steel sample was evaluated using Brinell indentation with the NANOVEA T2000 Tribometer. Hardness measurements were performed at 25, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 925°C to map the change in steel hardness with temperature. The results show a gradual reduction in hardness through approximately 600°C, followed by a much sharper decline at higher temperatures, resulting in an 84% decrease in hardness between room temperature and 925°C.

Why High Temperature Hardness Testing Matters

Hardness is a mechanical property that describes a material’s resistance to localized deformation. Higher hardness generally corresponds to greater resistance to indentation and permanent surface deformation.

Temperature can significantly alter this behavior. A material that remains hard at room temperature may soften as temperature increases, changing its mechanical response under elevated-temperature conditions. For materials intended for high-temperature applications, understanding these changes is important when evaluating their mechanical limits.

High temperature hardness testing makes it possible to measure these changes directly as temperature increases rather than relying only on room-temperature properties. In this study, the steel sample provides a clear example of how hardness can remain relatively stable over part of the temperature range before declining rapidly at higher temperatures.

测量目标

The objective of this study was to evaluate how the Brinell hardness of steel changes as temperature increases from room temperature to 925°C.

Using a 10 mm tungsten carbide (WC) ball, a load of 1000 N (~100 kgf) was applied to the steel sample at 25, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 925°C. The resulting indentations were measured using NANOVEA’s 3D Line Sensor to determine their diameter for Brinell hardness calculation.

NANOVEA T2000 高负荷

气动摩擦磨损试验机

测试程序

High temperature Brinell hardness testing was performed with the steel sample mounted inside the NANOVEA T2000 heated chamber. The sample was tested at six temperatures from 25°C to 925°C using a 10 mm tungsten carbide (WC) ball with an applied test force of 1000 N (~100 kgf).

The test parameters used throughout the study are summarized below.

Steel sample mounted in the NANOVEA T2000 high temperature chamber for Brinell hardness testing from 25°C to 925°C.

测试参数

Test Parameter	High Temperature Brinell Hardness Setup
温度	25, 200, 400, 600, 800, 925°C
Test force	1000 N (~100 kgf)
Force-diameter ratio	1
Ball material	Tungsten carbide (WC)
Ball diameter	10毫米

Steel samples used in the high temperature Brinell hardness study from room temperature to 925°C.

结果和讨论

Brinell hardness was calculated from the applied force, ball diameter, and measured indentation diameter using the equation below:

Where F (kgf) is the applied force expressed in kilogram-force, D is the ball diameter, and d is the measured indentation diameter. Two diameter measurements were taken for each indent and averaged to determine the value of d used in the hardness calculation.

Load vs. time profile for the 1000 N Brinell indentations performed during high temperature hardness testing.

The loading curve shows the applied load profile used during indentation. A consistent 1000 N (~100 kgf) test force was used throughout the temperature series so that the resulting indentation dimensions and calculated hardness values could be compared across each test condition.

距离	Unit	A	B
HDist	毫米	1.807	1.830

Brinell indentation measured at 800°C. Two diameter measurements of 1.807 mm and 1.830 mm were averaged to determine the indentation diameter used for hardness calculation.

At 800°C, the measured indentation diameters were 1.807 mm and 1.830 mm, producing an average diameter of approximately 1.819 mm. The indentation diameter increased substantially at the higher test temperatures as the steel became softer under the same applied load.

The measured indentation diameters were then used to calculate Brinell hardness at each temperature. The results show a relatively gradual decrease from 96.12 HBW at 25°C to 79.69 HBW at 600°C, followed by a much sharper decrease to 38.18 HBW at 800°C and 15.40 HBW at 925°C.

Brinell Hardness Results

Temperature (°C)	Diameter 1 (mm)	Diameter 2 (mm)	Average Diameter (mm)	HBW (10/100)
High Temperature Brinell Hardness Results
25	1.153	1.145	1.149	96.12
200	1.150	1.201	1.176	91.82
400	1.165	1.261	1.213	86.21
600	1.265	1.258	1.262	79.69
800	1.807	1.830	1.819	38.18
925	2.858	2.833	2.846	15.40

The temperature-dependent trend is clear. Steel hardness decreased moderately between room temperature and 600°C, then declined rapidly at higher temperatures. Between 25°C and 925°C, the measured Brinell hardness decreased from 96.12 to 15.40 HBW, representing an overall hardness loss of approximately 84%.

These results demonstrate why hardness measured at room temperature alone may not fully represent material behavior in high-temperature applications. For this steel sample, the most substantial loss in hardness occurred above approximately 600°C.

总结

High temperature hardness testing revealed a strong temperature-dependent change in the Brinell hardness of the steel sample. Hardness decreased gradually as temperature increased from 25°C to 600°C, then declined much more sharply at higher temperatures. By 925°C, the measured hardness had fallen from 96.12 HBW to 15.40 HBW, representing an overall decrease of approximately 84%.

The study demonstrates the ability of the NANOVEA T2000 Tribometer to perform Brinell hardness measurements under elevated-temperature conditions. Using a 1000 N (~100 kgf) test force, the steel sample was evaluated from 25°C to 925°C, allowing its change in hardness to be measured directly across the tested temperature range.

The results also highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate force-diameter ratio across a wide temperature range. Because of the large difference in hardness between room temperature and high temperature, the study recommends a force-diameter ratio of 5 or 10 at lower temperatures, while a ratio of 1 is suitable above 900°C.

Frequently Asked Questions About High Temperature Hardness Testing

What is high temperature hardness testing used for?

High temperature hardness testing evaluates how a material’s resistance to indentation changes as temperature increases. It is useful for materials intended for thermally demanding applications where room-temperature hardness may not represent mechanical behavior at operating temperature.

Can Brinell hardness be measured at elevated temperatures?

Yes. Elevated-temperature Brinell hardness testing applies a controlled force using a ball of known diameter while the specimen is heated to the required test temperature. In this study, steel was tested from 25°C to 925°C using a 10 mm tungsten carbide ball and a 1000 N test force.

Why measure hardness while the material is hot?

Testing at temperature measures hardness under the thermal condition of interest rather than only after the specimen returns to room temperature. This makes it possible to directly characterize temperature-dependent softening and identify changes that may not be represented by room-temperature hardness values.

What equipment is used for high temperature hardness testing?

High temperature hardness testing requires controlled specimen heating, precise mechanical loading and measurement of the resulting indentation. The NANOVEA T2000 can integrate high-temperature environmental control with mechanical testing for evaluating material behavior under elevated-temperature conditions.

Can high temperature hardness testing be used for aerospace materials?

Yes. Elevated-temperature hardness measurements are relevant when evaluating materials intended for thermally demanding aerospace environments, including jet-engine and other high-temperature components. Testing helps characterize how hardness changes as exposure temperature increases.

Can NANOVEA perform high temperature hardness testing as a laboratory service?

NANOVEA provides materials testing services using its mechanical testing and tribology platforms. Application requirements, temperature range, load, specimen geometry and measurement method can be reviewed with a NANOVEA applications engineer to determine an appropriate high-temperature testing approach.

Need High Temperature Hardness Testing for Your Material?

The post High Temperature Brinell Hardness Testing appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Pacing Lead Insulation Wear Testing in Hanks’ Solution

Andrew Shore — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:55:24 +0000

Application Note | Medical Device Tribology

Nano-Friction and Wear Testing of Pacing Lead Insulation in Hanks’ Solution

Tribological analysis of silicone and polyether-polyurethane endocardial lead materials

Research & Experimental Testing

李端杰，博士

Visual Design & Editorial

安德鲁-肖尔

简介

A pacemaker is a medical device used to regulate heart rhythm and maintain an adequate heart rate. It is typically implanted in the chest or abdomen and sends electrical impulses to the heart muscle through endocardial pacing leads.

As pacemakers remain a widely used treatment for cardiac rhythm disorders, the quality and service life of pacing leads are critical to long-term device performance. Lead failures can create serious risks for patients and may require surgical replacement, making pacing lead insulation wear testing an important part of material evaluation for implantable cardiac devices.^1–5

Endocardial pacing leads transmit electrical impulses from a pacemaker to the heart while operating in a dynamic body-fluid environment.

Why Friction and Wear Matter for Endocardial Lead Insulation

The outer insulation material of an endocardial lead requires several key properties, including biological inertness, high flexibility, fracture toughness, and long service life. Low friction can reduce interaction between the lead and the blood vessel, helping minimize vessel irritation during implantation and movement.

Wear resistance is also critical. Endocardial leads experience continuous movement from the heart and surrounding body structures, while operating in a body-fluid environment that can influence friction, wear, and material response.

Because of this complex environment, endocardial lead insulation should be evaluated using controlled tribological methods that simulate relevant contact conditions. Testing in Hanks’ solution allows the friction and wear behavior of lead insulation materials to be compared under a simulated body-fluid condition rather than relying only on dry testing.

Nano-friction test setup used to evaluate endocardial pacing lead insulation materials under low-load contact conditions.

测量目标

This study compares the nano-friction and wear behavior of endocardial pacing lead insulation materials in Hanks’ solution. Silicone and polyether-polyurethane lead materials were evaluated to determine how each material responds under simulated body-fluid conditions.

Low-load nano-friction testing was performed using the Nano Module of the NANOVEA机械测试仪 to measure coefficient of friction at controlled contact force. Reciprocating wear testing was then performed using a NANOVEA Tribometer to compare wear resistance under linear sliding contact.

NANOVEA T50 紧凑型
自由重量摩擦磨损测试仪

NANOVEA PB1000 大型平台机械测试仪

Measurement Principle

Nano-Friction Measurement Principle

Nano-friction testing measures the coefficient of friction (COF) between the test surface and a controlled counter material under very low applied load. In this study, the indenter made contact with the pacing lead insulation surface while the Nano Module maintained a constant load throughout the measurement.

The Nano Module uses a fast piezoelectric system and load cell to adjust the ball position and keep the applied load stable during sliding. The sample is moved at a controlled speed while lateral force is measured and plotted against displacement.

A stainless steel ball with a 6 mm diameter is commonly used for this type of measurement, although other counter materials, shapes, and sizes can be selected to simulate different contact conditions. This allows pacing lead insulation materials to be evaluated under controlled low-load friction conditions relevant to biomedical device applications.

Nano-friction measurement schematic showing controlled low-load sliding contact and lateral force measurement during reciprocating motion.

Reciprocating Wear Principle

Reciprocating wear testing evaluates material response under repeated linear sliding contact. A flat or spherical counter material is loaded against the test sample with a precisely known force, while the sample moves back and forth in a controlled reciprocating motion.

The counter material, such as a pin or ball, is mounted on a stiff lever that functions as a low-friction force transducer. As the sample moves, frictional forces between the counter material and the sample are measured using a strain gauge sensor on the tribometer arm.

After the test, the resulting wear track can be examined to compare material damage, wear scar geometry, and surface response. This method allows friction and wear behavior to be studied under controlled conditions, including variations in time, contact pressure, sliding speed, temperature, humidity, and lubrication environment.

Linear reciprocating wear schematic showing a pin or ball counterface sliding across the sample to generate a wear track under controlled load.

测试程序

The coefficient of friction (COF) of the pacing lead materials was measured against a stainless steel 440 ball with a 6 mm diameter. Testing was performed using the Nano Module of the Nanovea Mechanical Tester.

The sample was immersed in Hanks’ solution to simulate a body-fluid environment. A low applied load of 50 mN was maintained throughout the test, while the ball slid against the lead surface at a constant speed of 20 mm/min over a total sliding distance of 10 mm.

Wear resistance was evaluated using a Nanovea Tribometer with the Linear Reciprocating Wear Module. During the wear test, a stainless steel 303 block measuring 10 × 10 mm² was used as the counter material, and the coefficient of friction was recorded in situ at 0.1 s intervals.

After testing, the resulting wear tracks were examined under an optical microscope to compare surface damage on the silicone and polyether-polyurethane lead materials. Stainless steel was used as the counter material in this study; however, custom fixtures and alternative counter materials can be used to simulate specific application conditions.

Parameter	Value
Sample	Leads made of silicone or polyether-polyurethane (PP)
Normal force	1 N
速度	200 cycles/min
Duration of test	5 h
环境	Hanks’ solution

Wear test parameters used to evaluate silicone and polyether-polyurethane pacing lead materials in Hanks’ solution.

结果和讨论

Nano-Friction Test

The nano-friction behavior of the silicone and polyether-polyurethane (PP) pacing lead materials was first evaluated using the Nano Module of the Nanovea Mechanical Tester. The coefficient of friction was measured in both dry conditions and Hanks’ solution to compare material response under ambient and simulated body-fluid environments.

Both materials showed significantly lower coefficient of friction in Hanks’ solution than under dry conditions. In Hanks’ solution, the silicone lead exhibited a COF of approximately 0.15, while the polyether-polyurethane lead exhibited a lower COF of approximately 0.05. Under dry conditions, the values were substantially higher, at approximately 0.6 for silicone and 0.5 for polyether-polyurethane.

These results demonstrate the importance of testing pacing lead insulation materials under application-relevant environmental conditions. Hanks’ solution had a strong effect on the measured friction behavior, showing that dry testing alone may not represent the tribological response of lead insulation materials in a simulated body-fluid environment.

The low-load control of the Nano Module allowed the applied force to remain constant at 50 mN during the measurement. This enabled controlled simulation of low-contact-force interaction between the lead material and surrounding biological structures.

Coefficient of friction comparison for silicone and polyether-polyurethane pacing lead materials in dry conditions and Hanks’ solution.

Wear Test

Wear resistance was evaluated using a Nanovea Tribometer to compare the silicone and polyether-polyurethane pacing lead materials in Hanks’ solution. After testing, the lead surfaces were examined visually and under optical microscopy to compare the extent of wear damage.

The silicone lead showed a large wear scar with a width of approximately 1.2 mm. Microscopic observation indicated severe wear on the silicone lead, with parallel deep grooves formed along the movement direction of the rubbing block.

In comparison, the polyether-polyurethane lead showed a narrower wear scar of approximately 0.6 mm. The observed wear was milder, with only several small scratches visible on the shallow surface.

Wear of the lead outer insulation can contribute to pacing and sensing abnormalities, making wear resistance an important factor in endocardial lead material selection.⁶ These results indicate that polyether-polyurethane provided lower friction and better wear resistance than silicone under the tested conditions.

Before-and-after wear comparison of silicone and polyether-polyurethane pacing lead surfaces, including 400x microscope images showing more severe wear on silicone and milder wear on polyether-polyurethane.

Silicone pacing lead surface before reciprocating wear testing.

Polyether-polyurethane pacing lead surface before reciprocating wear testing.

Silicone pacing lead surface after wear testing, showing a pronounced wear scar.

Polyether-polyurethane pacing lead surface after reciprocating wear testing.

400x microscope image of the silicone pacing lead after wear testing, showing deep parallel wear grooves.

400x microscope image of the polyether-polyurethane pacing lead after wear testing, showing comparatively mild surface wear.

总结

This study demonstrated the use of low-load nano-friction testing and reciprocating wear testing to evaluate endocardial pacing lead insulation materials in Hanks’ solution. The Nano Module of the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester measured coefficient of friction under controlled low-load contact, while the NANOVEA Tribometer simulated wear behavior under reciprocating sliding motion.

Testing in Hanks’ solution showed a clear difference between silicone and polyether-polyurethane lead materials. Polyether-polyurethane exhibited lower coefficient of friction and better wear resistance than silicone under the tested conditions, making it the stronger candidate for the outer insulation material of endocardial pacing leads in this study.

These results highlight the importance of evaluating biomedical materials under application-relevant environments rather than relying only on dry testing. Controlled nano-friction and tribology testing can help compare candidate materials, quantify friction response, and evaluate wear resistance for implantable medical device components.

The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester’s Nano, Micro, and Macro modules operate within a single ISO and ASTM compliant platform, enabling consistent evaluation of hardness, elastic modulus, fracture toughness, and wear from a single system. The NANOVEA Tribometer similarly supports rotative and linear wear modes with optional high-temperature, corrosion, and liquid environment modules.

参考文献

[1] Magney JE, Flynn DM, Parsons JA, Staplin DH, Chin-Purcell MV, Milstein S, Hunter DW. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1993; 16:445–457.
[2] Jacobs DM, Fink AS, Miller RP, Anderson WR, McVenes RD, Lessar JF, Cobian KE, et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1993; 16:434–444.
[3] Gupta K, Villareal RP, Rasekh A, Massumi A. Tex Heart Inst J. 2003; 30:84–85.
[4] Magney JE, Parsons JA, Flynn DM, Hunter DW. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1995; 18:1509–1517.
[5] Kazama S, Nishiyama K, Machii M, Tanaka K, Amano T, Nomura T, Ohuchi M, et al. Jpn Heart J. 1993; 34:193–200.
[6] Andrzej K, Barbara M, Agnieszka K, Marcin G. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013; 36(12):1503–1511.

Frequently Asked Questions About Pacing Lead Insulation Wear Testing

How do you evaluate friction and wear behavior of pacing lead insulation?

Pacing lead insulation can be evaluated using low-load friction testing and reciprocating wear testing. These methods measure coefficient of friction, wear scar formation, and surface damage under controlled load, motion, and environmental conditions.

Why is low-load friction testing important for endocardial leads?

Endocardial leads operate under relatively low contact forces while interacting with blood vessels, tissue, and surrounding structures. Low-load friction testing helps evaluate how insulation materials behave under contact conditions that are closer to the application than high-force mechanical testing alone.

What does coefficient of friction indicate in pacing lead material testing?

Coefficient of friction indicates how much resistance occurs during sliding contact between the lead insulation and a counter material. In this study, lower COF values in Hanks’ solution showed that the test environment had a strong effect on the measured friction behavior of silicone and polyether-polyurethane materials.

Why compare silicone and polyether-polyurethane lead insulation materials?

Silicone and polyether-polyurethane are commonly considered for flexible biomedical insulation applications because they can provide different combinations of flexibility, durability, and surface response. Comparing them under the same test conditions helps identify which material provides lower friction and better wear resistance for the intended application.

Which NANOVEA instruments are used for low-load friction and wear testing?

Low-load coefficient of friction can be measured using the Nano Module of a NANOVEA Mechanical Tester, while reciprocating wear behavior can be evaluated using a NANOVEA Tribometer. Together, these systems allow controlled evaluation of friction, wear, and material response for biomedical components.

How is reciprocating wear testing used for pacing lead materials?

Reciprocating wear testing repeatedly slides a counter material across the sample surface under controlled load to create and evaluate a wear track. For pacing lead insulation materials, this allows comparison of wear scar width, surface damage, and material durability under simulated sliding contact.

Need Reliable Medical Device Friction and Wear Testing?

The post Pacing Lead Insulation Wear Testing in Hanks’ Solution appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Climbing Hold Surface Roughness Analysis

Andrew Shore — Thu, 28 May 2026 20:27:37 +0000

Application Note | 3D Optical Profilometry

Climbing Hold Surface Roughness Analysis Using 3D Optical Profilometry

Measuring Texture, Porosity, and Topography on Bouldering Holds

Research & Experimental Testing

Walter Alabiso, PhD

Visual Design & Editorial

安德鲁-肖尔

简介

Bouldering is a demanding discipline that combines physical strength, precise body positioning, and an understanding of how the human body interacts with climbing surfaces. On slab routes, where the wall is angled below vertical and positive holds are limited or absent, a climber’s stability depends almost entirely on the tribological interaction between the body and the climbing hold surface.

Climbing hold surface roughness plays a central role in this contact. Roughness provides the microtexture needed for smearing, a technique where high-friction rubber soles are pressed firmly against the surface to expand the effective contact area and generate adherence. A similar mechanism occurs at the fingers, where the ridges of fingerprints and the pliability of skin deform slightly against the hold’s surface features, creating grip through microscopic interlocking.

Porosity contributes to grip performance by absorbing moisture, sweat, or chalk at the contact interface, preventing the formation of a thin lubricating film that would reduce friction. Micro-cracks and surface flaws act as additional friction points, helping the climber maintain lateral tension against the hold surface. Because these features (roughness, porosity, and surface morphology) operate at different scales and interact differently depending on the hold, quantitative 3D surface measurement is essential for comparing how different climbing hold textures perform under real contact conditions.

Bouldering grips used to compare surface roughness, pore morphology, and grip-related topography.

Why Use Non-Contact Profilometry for Climbing Hold Surface Analysis

Climbing holds and rock-like surfaces can include deep pores, steep asperities, sharp valleys, and irregular texture. These features are difficult to measure accurately with contact-based profilometry because a physical stylus can lose contact, deform local surface features, or fail to reach narrow cavities.

NANOVEA’s non-contact optical profilometry uses chromatic light technology to capture surface height data without touching the sample. This makes it suitable for reconstructing complex climbing hold topography, including deep nooks, pores, and surface flaws, while avoiding measurement artifacts caused by local plastic deformation.

In this study, the NANOVEA JR25 Optical Profiler was used to measure two bouldering grips: a yellow block with a smoother, flatter surface and a green block with a rougher tactile texture. Both samples were scanned using a PS4-MG35 single-point optical sensor with a 3000 µm Z-range and a 4 µm acquisition step in X and Y.

Dual-frequency acquisition was used to reduce light sensor saturation from localized bright spots on the grip surfaces, allowing the profiler to capture roughness and pore morphology across the scanned areas.

测量目标

The objective of this study was to demonstrate how non-contact 3D optical profilometry can be used to reconstruct and compare the surface roughness, topography, and pore morphology of climbing holds.

Two bouldering grip samples were analyzed: a yellow hold with a smoother, flatter surface and a blue hold with a rougher tactile texture and sharper grip features. The analysis focused on surface height variation, areal roughness parameters, pore coverage, pore size, pore depth, and functional surface behavior.

The NANOVEA JR25 Optical Profilometer measuring the climbing hold samples using an optical sensor.

Measurement Method

The NANOVEA JR25 Optical Profiler was used to measure the yellow and blue bouldering grip samples. Each surface was scanned with a PS4-MG35 single-point optical sensor with an enhanced 3000 µm Z-range, allowing the system to capture deep pores, sharp valleys, and irregular surface texture while maintaining a 4 µm acquisition step in X and Y.

Dual-frequency acquisition was used to reduce light sensor saturation from localized bright spots on the grip surfaces, improving data capture across rough, porous, and uneven areas.

NANOVEA JR25 Portable

光学轮廓仪

测试参数

Measurement Setting	Optical Profilometry Setup
Samples measured	Yellow and blue bouldering grip samples
Optical pen	PS4-MG35
Z-range	3000 µm
Scan area	5.00 mm × 5.00 mm
X-step size	4.00 µm
Y-step size	4.00 µm
Averaging	1
Measurement type	Direct
Acquisition mode	Dual frequency
Acquisition rate	100–400 Hz
Light intensity	100%

Optical profilometry test conditions used to measure the bouldering grip samples.

Optical Profilometry Results

Yellow Grip Sample

Surface Roughness Analysis

The 3D rendering below shows the reconstructed surface topography of the yellow climbing grip sample.

A total least-squares plane was removed to study surface properties. The roughness filters S-Gaussian 2.5 µm was applied following ISO 25178 (1/2 cut-off removed at each side). However, the sharp density of pores and asperities and the elevated average roughness make the use of a Gaussian L-filter (8 mm cut off) inapplicable. Therefore, the primary surface was considered, and the roughness parameters are listed in the table below, alongside the 2D false-color map of the filtered surface.

ISO 25178-2 – Primary Surface
S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm, 1/2 cut-off
F-operation: [Workflow] Leveled (TLSPL)
Height Parameters
规模	168.970	µm	均方根高度
スクリート	-0.927		倾斜度
价格	4.117		峰度
ǞǞǞ	320.530	µm	最大峰高
ǞǞǞ	868.116	µm	Maximum pit depth
仕	1188.645	µm	最大高度
萨	132.953	µm	算术平均身高

The average surface roughness 萨 is 132.953 µm, whereas the peak-to-valley roughness, 仕 amounts to 1188.645 µm. The surface morphology is skewed towards deep valleys (スクリート < 0, ǞǞǞ > ǞǞǞ), with a leptokurtotic (价格 > 3) distribution of peaks and valleys relative to the average plane.

The following picture shows a 2D photo-simulation of the area under artificial lighting, highlighting the region’s morphology.

Pore Morphology Analysis

A pore analysis was performed across the full scanned area using a semi-automated edge-detection algorithm. The analysis identified recessed surface features to quantify pore coverage, pore density, radius, void volume, and maximum depth.

The detected pore locations were then mapped across the scanned 5 mm × 5 mm area to evaluate pore coverage, density, and size distribution.

Information
Method	Circle detection
Features detected	Pores, recessed objects
Minimum detection diameter	0.150 mm
Maximum detection diameter	2.000 mm
Number of detected pores	206
Surface coverage	47.395%
Pore density	8.203 particles/mm²

Parameter	Unit	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Global Statistics
半径	毫米	0.127	0.049	0.076	0.275
Void volume	µm³	4,724,770.705	6,748,143.925	23,594.172	4.422 × 10⁷
Maximum depth	µm	173.729	94.942	28.153	716.480

Pores covered nearly half of the yellow grip’s scanned surface, with a measured coverage of 47.395% and a pore density of 8.203 particles/mm². The detected pores and cracks were highly heterogeneous in size, volume, and depth, ranging from large crater-like features with a maximum radius of 0.275 mm and void volume above 4.4 × 10⁷ µm³ to smaller pores with a minimum radius of 0.076 mm and void volume of 23,594.172 µm³. This uneven pore distribution is reflected in the large standard deviation measured for void volume and maximum depth.

Functional Surface Parameters (Abbott-Firestone curve)

The Abbott-Firestone curve shows the cumulative areal material distribution of the yellow climbing grip sample. This analysis defines functional surface parameters including Sk, Spk, and Svk according to ISO 25178-2.

Information
标准	ISO 25178-2
Parameter	Value	Unit
Sk	409.738	µm
Spk	45.480	µm
斯沃克	233.446	µm
Smrk1	3.976	%
Smrk2	85.005	%

The chart below shows the peak-valley distribution from the mean plane based on the functional parameters derived from the Abbott-Firestone curve. Valleys are shown in purple, the mean plane in green, and peaks in orange.

Information
1st threshold	Height – c1: 229.209 µm
2nd threshold	Height – c2: -180.424 µm
Parameters	Unit
Projected area (in %)	%	14.995	81.029	3.976
Projected area	mm²	3.772	20.381	1.000
Volume of material (in %)	%	97.451	48.100	0.973
Volume of material	µm³	1.684 × 10¹⁰	4.956 × 10⁹	2.275 × 10⁷

The yellow grip sample shows a dominant mean-plane region with scattered recessed pores and a smaller population of raised peaks. This indicates a surface texture characterized mainly by average-sized pores distributed across the scanned area.

Blue Grip Sample

Surface Roughness Analysis

The 3D rendering below shows the reconstructed surface topography of the blue climbing grip sample.

A total least-squares plane was removed to evaluate the blue grip’s surface properties. An S-Gaussian 2.5 µm roughness filter was applied following ISO 25178, with 1/2 cut-off removed at each side.

Because of the dense pores, asperities, and elevated average roughness, a Gaussian L-filter with an 8 mm cut-off was not applied. The primary surface was used for roughness analysis, with the roughness parameters listed alongside the 2D false-color map of the filtered surface.

ISO 25178-2 – Primary Surface
S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm, 1/2 cut-off
F-operation: [Workflow] Leveled (TLSPL)
Height Parameters
规模	211.440	µm	均方根高度
スクリート	-0.682		倾斜度
价格	3.672		峰度
ǞǞǞ	522.404	µm	最大峰高
ǞǞǞ	720.164	µm	Maximum pit depth
仕	1242.568	µm	最大高度
萨	166.719	µm	算术平均身高

The blue grip sample had an average surface roughness, Sa, of 166.719 µm and a peak-to-valley roughness, Sz, of 1242.568 µm. The negative skewness value, Ssk < 0, indicates that the surface morphology is skewed toward deep valleys, while Sv > Sp shows that the maximum pit depth exceeded the maximum peak height.

The kurtosis value, Sku > 3, indicates a leptokurtotic height distribution, meaning the blue grip surface contains sharper or more extreme peaks and valleys relative to the average plane.

The 2D photo simulation below highlights the blue climbing grip’s surface morphology under artificial lighting.

Pore Morphology Analysis

The detected pore locations were mapped across the scanned 5 mm × 5 mm area to evaluate pore coverage, density, and size distribution.

Information
Method	Circle detection
Features detected	Pores, recessed objects
Minimum detection diameter	0.040 mm
Maximum detection diameter	2.000 mm
Number of detected pores	794
Surface coverage	24.208%
Pore density	31.355 particles/mm²

Parameter	Unit	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Global Statistics
半径	毫米	0.035	0.035	0.020	0.218
Void volume	µm³	821,872.849	2,495,310.021	11,009.819	2.929 × 10⁷
Maximum depth	µm	476.053	305.830	16.132	1044.045

Pores covered 24.208% of the blue grip’s scanned surface, with a pore density of 31.355 particles/mm². The detected pores and cracks were highly heterogeneous in size, volume, and depth, ranging from large crater-like features with a maximum radius of 0.218 mm and void volume greater than 2.9 × 10⁷ µm³ to small pores with a minimum radius of 0.020 mm and void volume of approximately 1.1 × 10⁴ µm³.

This uneven distribution is reflected in the large standard deviation measured for void volume and maximum depth. The pore distribution is bimodal, with one population of fine, deep pores and another population of larger crater-like valleys.

Functional Surface Parameters (Abbott-Firestone curve)

The Abbott-Firestone curve shows the cumulative areal material distribution of the blue climbing grip sample. This analysis defines functional surface parameters including Sk, Spk, and Svk according to ISO 25178-2.

Information
标准	ISO 25178-2
Parameter	Value	Unit
Sk	522.359	µm
Spk	117.670	µm
斯沃克	295.209	µm
Smrk1	6.122	%
Smrk2	87.456	%

Information
1st threshold	Height – c1: 283.646 µm
2nd threshold	Height – c2: -238.619 µm
Parameters	Unit
Projected area (in %)	%	12.544	81.334	6.122
Projected area	mm²	3.182	20.629	1.553
Volume of material (in %)	%	96.079	48.546	1.514
Volume of material	µm³	1.151 × 10¹⁰	6.431 × 10⁹	9.142 × 10⁷

The blue grip sample shows a dominant mean-plane region with fine, deep pores distributed across the surface and localized peak features. Compared with the yellow grip, the blue grip contains a higher projected peak area and a bimodal pore structure, combining fine recessed pores with larger crater-like valleys.

总结

In this application, the NANOVEA JR25 Non-Contact Optical Profiler was used to measure the surface roughness, topography, and pore morphology of yellow and blue bouldering grip samples.

Topographic analysis showed that both grip samples had high surface roughness, with Sa values above 100 µm and Sz values above 1000 µm. Both surfaces also showed an asymmetric height distribution skewed toward valleys, indicating that recessed features played a major role in the measured surface morphology.

The yellow grip sample showed higher pore coverage, with pores covering 47.395% of the scanned surface. Its surface was mainly characterized by average-sized pores distributed across the measured area.

The blue grip sample showed lower pore coverage at 24.208%, but a much higher pore density of 31.355 particles/mm². Its pore distribution was bimodal, with a population of fine, deep pores and a separate population of larger crater-like valleys.

These results show how non-contact 3D optical profilometry can quantify climbing hold surface features that are difficult to evaluate from visual inspection alone, including roughness, pore coverage, pore depth, surface height distribution, and functional topography. The blue grip’s higher porosity and bimodal pore structure make it more likely to absorb moisture and chalk at the contact interface, while its elevated roughness and surface morphology support stable friction for shoe rubber and finger contact. The yellow grip’s lower roughness and flatter profile suggest it is better suited for use as a foothold in slab climbing, where broad surface contact matters more than deep textural engagement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Climbing Hold Surface Roughness

What is climbing hold surface roughness?

Climbing hold surface roughness describes the height variation, texture, pores, asperities, and valleys present on the surface of a climbing grip. These features can influence contact behavior between the hold, shoe rubber, skin, chalk, and moisture.

How can climbing hold surface roughness be measured?

Climbing hold surface roughness can be measured using non-contact 3D optical profilometry. This method reconstructs the surface topography and calculates areal roughness parameters such as Sa, Sz, Sp, Sv, Ssk, and Sku without touching or deforming the sample.

Why use non-contact optical profilometry for climbing hold analysis?

Non-contact optical profilometry is useful for climbing hold analysis because climbing grips can contain deep pores, sharp valleys, rough asperities, and irregular surface texture. A contact stylus may lose contact, fail to reach recessed features, or introduce artifacts on complex surfaces.

What does Sa mean in surface roughness analysis?

Sa is the arithmetic mean height of a surface and is commonly used to describe average areal surface roughness. In this app note, both climbing grip samples showed high Sa values above 100 µm, indicating strongly textured surfaces.

What does Sz mean in optical profilometry results?

Sz is the maximum height of the measured surface, calculated from the highest peak to the deepest valley. In climbing hold surface roughness analysis, Sz helps describe the full vertical range of the grip’s surface texture.

Why is pore morphology important for climbing grips?

Pore morphology can affect how a climbing grip interacts with chalk, sweat, humidity, skin, and shoe rubber. Measuring pore coverage, density, depth, and volume helps quantify surface features that are difficult to evaluate by visual inspection alone.

Need Reliable Surface Roughness Analysis?

The post Climbing Hold Surface Roughness Analysis appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Stent Coating Adhesion and Delamination Analysis Using Nano Scratch Testing

Andrew Shore — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 20:57:16 +0000

Application Note | Stent Coating Adhesion Testing

Stent Coating Adhesion and Delamination Analysis Using Nano Scratch Testing

Quantifying Coating Failure and Adhesion Performance on Drug-Eluting Stents

Research & Experimental Testing

李端杰，博士

Visual Design & Editorial

安德鲁-肖尔

简介

Blood is carried through arteries from the heart to the rest of the body. Any weakening or blockage of these vessels can pose significant health risks and may become life-threatening. A stent is a small mesh tube inserted into the lumen of a blood vessel to treat narrowed or weakened arteries. Stent implantation is now a widely used procedure to support the arterial wall and restore blood flowᶦ.

Metal stent mesh geometry illustrating the structural complexity of vascular implant design.

Why coating adhesion matters in drug-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents represent a major advancement in stent technology. They incorporate a biodegradable, biocompatible polymer coating that enables controlled drug release at the arterial site, helping to inhibit intimal thickening and reduce the risk of restenosisᶦᶦ.

A critical concern in these systems is the delamination of the polymer coating from the metallic stent substrate. This coating carries the drug-eluting layer, and its adhesion directly impacts device performance and reliability.

To improve coating adhesion, stents are often designed with complex geometries. In this study, the polymer coating is located at the bottom of grooves within the stent mesh. This configuration presents a significant challenge for adhesion measurement.

A reliable method is required to quantitatively evaluate the interfacial strength between the polymer coating and the metal substrate. The small diameter of the stent mesh, comparable to a human hair, combined with its three-dimensional geometry, requires:

ultrafine X-Y positioning accuracy
precise control of applied load
accurate depth measurement during testing

Measurement Method

Nano scratch testing is performed using the 纳诺维亚 PB1000 机械测试仪, in Nano Scratch Mode, to evaluate the cohesive and adhesive strength of the polymer coating on the metal mesh of stent samples.

Controlled scratch measurements are carried out on stent geometries with dimensions comparable to a human hair, enabling precise evaluation of coating adhesion on complex stent structures.

NANOVEA PB1000 Advanced

机械测试仪

测试条件

1. Regular Stent Samples

The stent is fixed on the sample stage, with a support wire inserted inside the stent tube to ensure stability during nano scratch testing. The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester is used to perform nano scratch measurements using the parameters summarized in Table 1, to evaluate the cohesive and adhesive strength of the polymer coating on the metal substrate.

Parameter	Value
Load type	渐进的
Initial load	0.05 mN
Final load	300 and 100 mN
Sliding speed	0.5 mm/min
Sliding distance	0.5 mm
Indenter geometry	锥形
Indenter material (tip)	钻石
压头尖端半径	20 µm
温度	24°C (room)

表1: Test parameters for nano scratch measurements on regular stent samples

2. Grooved Stent Samples

The SEM image in Fig. 1 shows the cross-section of the stent sample. The stent features a groove with a depth of approximately 30 µm. The polymer coating, with a thickness of 10.8 µm, is located at the bottom of the groove.

Standard 60° conical diamond tips are not sharp enough to reach the bottom of the groove without contacting the sidewalls. Therefore, a sharper 40° conical diamond tip is used in this study (Fig. 2).

Nano scratch measurements are performed using the parameters summarized in Table 2.

Parameter	Value
Load type	渐进的
Initial load	0.1 mN
Final load	300 mN
装载率	300 mN/min
Scratch length	0.25 mm
Scratch speed	0.25 mm/min
Indenter geometry	40° cone
Indenter material (tip)	钻石
压头尖端半径	5 µm

Table 2: Test parameters for nano scratch measurements on grooved stent samples

Fig. 1: SEM cross-section of a grooved stent showing polymer coating located at the bottom of the groove, highlighting the challenge of coating adhesion measurement in recessed geometries.

Fig. 2: Schematic of a 40° conical diamond tip designed for nano scratch testing inside stent grooves, enabling accurate adhesion measurement without sidewall interference.

结果和讨论

The stent mesh has a diameter of approximately 100 μm, comparable to a human hair. Precise positioning is therefore critical to ensure the scratch test is performed at the center of the stent mesh. The NANOVEA Mechanical Tester provides X–Y positioning accuracy down to 0.25 μm, enabling accurate test placement under the integrated optical microscope.

1. Regular Stent Samples

Nano scratch testing is performed with a progressively increasing load up to 300 mN. The full scratch track on the stent is shown in Fig. 3a, while failure behavior at different stages is presented in Fig. 3b and 3c.

Two critical loads are identified:

Lc1: the load at which the first visible damage appears on the coating
Lc2: the load at which the coating is fully removed and the substrate is exposed

The evolution of coefficient of friction (COF) and penetration depth is shown in Fig. 4, providing insight into the progression of coating failure during the test.

The first signs of coating damage appear at Lc1 ≈ 14.5 mN. As the applied load increases, the diamond tip progressively penetrates the polymer coating, resulting in a wider and deeper scratch track. During this phase, the COF increases from approximately 0.05 to 0.7.

At Lc2 ≈ 78.1 mN, the coating is fully delaminated from the metal substrate. Beyond this point, as the load continues to increase, both COF and penetration depth remain relatively stable due to the mechanical support of the underlying metal substrate.

(a) Full Scratch Track

(b) Lc1 ≈ 14.5 mN

Fig. 3: Nano scratch track on a stent coating under progressively increasing load, showing (a) full scratch path, (b) initial coating failure at Lc1 ≈ 14.5 mN, and (c) complete coating delamination at Lc2 ≈ 78.1 mN.

Fig. 4: Evolution of coefficient of friction (COF) and penetration depth during nano scratch testing of a stent coating under progressively increasing load, showing the progression of coating failure and transition to substrate support.

Failures during nano scratch testing up to a maximum load of 300 mN occur at critical loads below 100 mN. To enable a more quantitative comparison of coating performance, additional tests are performed with a maximum load of 100 mN on two stent samples, referred to as Sample 1 and Sample 2.

Fig. 5 compares the scratch tracks of Sample 1 and Sample 2 after nano scratch testing. Sample 1 exhibits the first sign of coating damage at a critical load of Lc1 ≈ 13.2 mN, while Sample 2 shows initial failure at a higher load of Lc1 ≈ 21.1 mN.

Coating delamination occurs at 62.5 mN for Sample 1. In contrast, the coating on Sample 2 remains intact throughout the test, continuing to protect the metal substrate under the same loading conditions.

This behavior is further reflected in the evolution of coefficient of friction (COF) and penetration depth, as shown in Fig. 6. When the diamond tip penetrates through the coating and contacts the metal substrate in Sample 1, the COF reaches a peak while the penetration depth decreases due to the increased stiffness of the underlying substrate.

(a) Sample 1 – Early Coating Failure

(b) Sample 2 – Improved Coating Integrity

Fig. 5: Comparison of nano scratch tracks for two stent coatings, showing (a) early coating failure and delamination in Sample 1, and (b) improved coating integrity in Sample 2 under the same loading conditions.

Fig. 6: Comparison of coefficient of friction (COF) and penetration depth for Sample 1 and Sample 2 during nano scratch testing, showing earlier substrate contact and higher friction response in Sample 1, indicating weaker coating adhesion.

2. Grooved Stent Samples

As shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7, the grooved stent mesh has a diameter of approximately 90 μm, comparable to a human hair. The groove has a width of ~50 μm and a depth of 30 μm. This geometry presents a significant challenge for nano scratch testing, particularly for evaluating coating adhesion at the bottom of the groove.

Precise positioning is critical to locate the scratch test within the groove. The nano scratch test is performed with a progressively increasing load up to 300 mN. The full scratch tracks of grooved stent Samples 3 and 4 are compared in Fig. 7.

The critical load Lc is defined as the load at which the coating fails and the substrate becomes exposed. The evolution of normal load and penetration depth, shown in Fig. 8, provides further insight into the progression of coating failure during testing.

As the applied load increases, the diamond tip progressively penetrates the polymer coating, resulting in a deeper scratch track. When the critical load Lc is reached, the coating delaminates from the metal substrate.

Sample 3 exhibits coating failure at Lc ≈ 126 mN, while Sample 4 fails at a higher load of Lc ≈ 173 mN. This difference indicates stronger adhesion of the coating in Sample 4.

The measured critical loads enable quantitative comparison of coating adhesion performance. Under the same testing conditions, the coating on Sample 4 demonstrates higher resistance to delamination, making it the better-performing candidate in this study.

(d) Sample 4 – Higher Adhesion in Groove (Lc ≈ 173 mN)

Fig. 7: Nano scratch tracks inside stent grooves for Samples 3 and 4, showing (c) coating failure at Lc ≈ 126 mN in Sample 3 and (d) higher adhesion with delayed failure at Lc ≈ 173 mN in Sample 4.

(a) Sample 3 – Earlier Coating Failure (Lc ≈ 126 mN)

(b) Sample 4 – Delayed Failure and Higher Adhesion (Lc ≈ 173 mN)

Fig. 8: Evolution of normal load and penetration depth during nano scratch testing inside stent grooves for Samples 3 and 4, showing earlier coating failure in Sample 3 and delayed failure at higher load in Sample 4. The vertical green line indicates the critical load (Lc) where coating delamination occurs.

总结

This study demonstrates the ability of the NANOVEA Mechanical Tester to quantitatively evaluate the cohesive and adhesive strength of polymer coatings on both regular and grooved stent geometries using nano scratch testing.

The recessed geometry of the stent grooves, approximately 50 μm wide and 30 μm deep, presents a significant challenge for coating adhesion measurement. The high X–Y positioning accuracy of 0.25 μm enables precise placement of the scratch test within these confined regions, allowing direct evaluation of coating performance where failure is most critical.

By applying a controlled, progressively increasing load, critical loads associated with coating failure can be identified and compared across samples. This approach enables reliable differentiation of coating adhesion performance and interfacial integrity, even on small, complex stent structures.

参考文献

[I] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/stents
[II] http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-99402006000300008

Frequently Asked Questions About Stent Coating Adhesion Testing

What is stent coating adhesion testing?

Stent coating adhesion testing evaluates how strongly a polymer coating is bonded to the metal substrate of a stent. Techniques such as nano scratch testing quantify the load at which coating damage and delamination occur, providing measurable indicators of adhesion strength.

What is critical load (Lc) in nano scratch testing?

Critical load (Lc) is the applied load at which a coating fails during a scratch test.

Lc1 corresponds to the first visible damage in the coating
Lc2 indicates complete coating removal and exposure of the substrate

These values are used to quantify and compare coating adhesion performance.

Why is coating adhesion important in drug-eluting stents?

Coating adhesion directly affects the reliability of drug-eluting stents. Poor adhesion can lead to coating delamination, which may compromise controlled drug release and increase the risk of device failure.

How do you measure coating adhesion inside stent grooves?

Measuring adhesion inside stent grooves requires high positioning accuracy and appropriate indenter geometry. Nano scratch testing with sharp diamond tips allows access to recessed coating regions, enabling direct evaluation of adhesion within complex stent geometries.

What does coefficient of friction (COF) indicate in scratch testing?

The coefficient of friction (COF) reflects changes in surface interaction during the scratch test. A sudden increase in COF often indicates coating failure and contact between the indenter and the underlying metal substrate.

How can nano scratch testing compare different coating formulations?

Nano scratch testing enables direct comparison of coatings by measuring critical loads under controlled conditions. Higher critical loads indicate stronger adhesion and improved resistance to delamination, allowing selection of better-performing coating systems.

Need Reliable Stent Coating Adhesion Testing?

The post Stent Coating Adhesion and Delamination Analysis Using Nano Scratch Testing appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

Dental Surface Roughness Measurement & 3D Tooth Topography

Andrew Shore — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:02:01 +0000

Application Note | Dental Surface Characterization

Dental Surface Roughness Measurement and Full 3D Tooth Topography

Surface Roughness Analysis Using Non-Contact Optical Profilometry

编写者

Walter Alabiso, PhD; Davide Morrone, MPhys; Andrew Shore, MA

简介

The ability to accurately characterize tooth surfaces, including micro-roughness and 3D surface topography at the nanometer scale, enables advanced research and applications in orthodontics and dental materials science. Non-contact optical profilometry provides a precise method for measuring dental surface roughness and analyzing tooth surface morphology without damaging delicate structures. These measurements support the development of composite dental materials that replicate the natural surface roughness of enamel, as well as the design and fabrication of patient-specific dental casts and restorative components.

Low surface roughness plays a primary role in limiting bacterial adhesion and plaque formation, thereby reducing the risk of cavities. An increase in average roughness (Ra) above 2 µm leads to a steep increase in biofilm formation in vivo.¹ An Ra of 0.2 µm is considered the threshold value below which no further reduction in bacterial adhesion can be expected.²

Reconstruction of the tooth’s 3D surface topography enables the fabrication of dental casts, which are essential for accurate diagnosis, treatment planning, and the fabrication of dental appliances.

Non-Contact Optical Profilometry for Dental Surface Analysis

The present study illustrates the potential of NANOVEA’s high-precision non-contact optical profilometers for dental surface roughness measurement and 3D tooth topography analysis. Chromatic Light technology offers significant advantages over classical touch probe techniques. It acquires data points from deep crevices and complex geometries without introducing measurement errors or artifacts caused by local plastic deformation and without requiring extensive data manipulation.

Compared to focus variation systems, single-point optical sensing provides superior lateral and height accuracy, with X/Y resolution below 0.5 µm, maximum vertical resolution of 1.9 nm, and the ability to measure surface angles up to 87°. The technique is effective on transparent, opaque, specular, diffusive, polished, and rough dental surfaces, making it well suited for comprehensive dental surface characterization.

Measurement Method

在这个应用中， NANOVEA JR25 Non-Contact Optical Profiler was used to analyze the surface roughness and 3D surface topography of an adult human molar previously affected by tooth decay. The side of the tooth was scanned using a PS2–MG140 single-point optical sensor to measure surface roughness parameters over a defined region of interest and along multiple line profiles.

The crown of the tooth was then scanned and reconstructed using a PS5–MG35 single-point optical sensor, which is suited for larger-area acquisition and full 3D tooth topography measurement.

NANOVEA JR25 Portable
光学轮廓仪

Surface Measurement Using NANOVEA Optical Profilometer

Surface roughness measurements were performed on the lateral side of the molar crown, followed by full 3D reconstruction of the crown surface. Separate single-point optical sensors were used to optimize measurement accuracy for both localized roughness analysis and large-area surface topography acquisition.

PS2 – MG140

Surface roughness analysis by area and parallel line profiles on the side of the tooth’s crown.

PS5 – MG35

Full 3D surface reconstruction of the tooth’s crown.

测量参数

The following measurement parameters were used for localized surface roughness analysis and full 3D surface reconstruction of the molar crown using NANOVEA single-point optical sensors.

Parameter	Roughness Analysis (Area)	Roughness Analysis (Profiles)	Full 3D Reconstruction
Optical Pen	PS2-MG140	PS2-MG140	PS5-MG35
Z-Range [µm]	300	300	10000
X-Distance [mm]	2.00	3.00	7.50
X-Step Size [µm]	1.70	1.70	10.00
Y-Distance [mm]	2.00	1.00	7.00
Y-Step Size [µm]	1.70	100.00	10.00
Averaging (Avg)	1	1	1
Measurement Type	Direct	Direct	Direct
Acquisition Mode	Single Frequency	Single Frequency	Dual Frequency
Acquisition Rate [Hz]	200	200	100–400
Light Intensity [%]	100	100	100

Optical Profilometry Results

Yellow Grip Sample

Surface Roughness Analysis

The image below shows a full 3D rendering of the yellow block’s surface.

A least-squares degree-8 polynomial form removal was applied to isolate the surface roughness component. The roughness filters S-Gaussian 2.5 µm and L-Gaussian 0.8 mm were then applied according to ISO 25178. The resulting filtered surface and corresponding roughness parameters are presented below.

ISO 25178 – Roughness (S-L)
S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm
F: [Workflow] Form removed (LS-poly 8)
L-filter (λc): Gaussian, 0.8 mm
Height Parameters
规模	2.433	µm	均方根高度
スクリート	-0.102		倾斜度
价格	3.715		峰度
ǞǞǞ	18.861	µm	最大峰高
ǞǞǞ	16.553	µm	Maximum pit depth
仕	35.414	µm	最大高度
萨	1.888	µm	算术平均身高

The average surface roughness Sa is 1.888 µm, while the peak-to-valley height Sz reaches 35.414 µm.

A 3D surface rendering of the filtered area is shown below for visualization.

Roughness Analysis (Profiles)

Surface roughness profiles were measured using a series of 11 parallel line scans along the X direction on the side of the tooth. The false-color 2D surface map of the raw scan is shown below.

The surface form was removed using a least-squares 8-degree polynomial prior to applying the metrological filters, leaving the residual surface shown below.

A statistical analysis of the measured surface roughness profiles reveals the following line roughness parameters.

		Description	Mean	Std dev	Min	Max
ISO 4287 – Roughness (S-L)
F: 无
S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm
L-filter (λc): Gaussian, 0.8 mm
Evaluation length: All λc (3)
Amplitude Parameters – Roughness Profile
Rp	µm	Maximum peak height of the roughness profile	5.683	0.761	4.315	6.610
Rv	µm	Maximum valley depth of the roughness profile	6.242	1.009	4.701	8.438
Rz	µm	Maximum height of roughness profile	11.925	1.676	9.123	15.048
Ra	µm	Arithmetic mean deviation of the roughness profile	2.063	0.297	1.710	2.629
Rq	µm	Root-mean-square (RMS) deviation of the roughness profile	2.523	0.361	2.057	3.175

F: 无

S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm

L-filter (λc): Gaussian, 0.8 mm

Evaluation length: All λc (3)

The value of Ra is consistent with the Sa value extracted from the surface area measurement.

Different metrological filters can be applied to distinguish between macroscopic waviness and microscopic surface roughness. For example, a coarser filter cut-off, such as the 8 mm cut-off used with the Robust Gaussian order-2 filter, produces a smoother waviness profile (red) that is less sensitive to sharp local variations and follows the original surface profile more loosely.

Alternatively, a finer cut-off (e.g., 0.08 mm) enables the analysis of micro-roughness by removing the waviness component that follows the original profile at a larger scale, leaving the finer surface roughness features of the tooth visible.

The microroughness analysis obtained using a 0.08 mm L-Gaussian filter is presented below.

		Description	Mean	Std dev	Min	Max
ISO 4287 – Roughness (S-L)
F: 无
S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm
L-filter (λc): Gaussian, 0.08 mm
Evaluation length: All λc (37)
Amplitude Parameters – Roughness Profile
Rp	µm	Maximum peak height of the roughness profile	1.582	0.122	1.342	1.748
Rv	µm	Maximum valley depth of the roughness profile	1.466	0.119	1.254	1.661
Rz	µm	Maximum height of roughness profile	3.049	0.196	2.820	3.409
Ra	µm	Arithmetic mean deviation of the roughness profile	0.495	0.047	0.423	0.597
Rq	µm	Root-mean-square (RMS) deviation of the roughness profile	0.643	0.056	0.562	0.762

F: 无

S-filter (λs): Gaussian, 2.5 µm

L-filter (λc): Gaussian, 0.8 mm

Evaluation length: All λc (3)

Full 3D Tooth Surface Topography Reconstruction

The extended Z-scan range of the PS5 optical sensor enables high-fidelity scanning of the entire tooth crown surface. The resulting 3D surface topography is shown below.

2D VIEW: 2D surface map of the tooth crown measured with optical profilometry

3D VIEW: High-fidelity 3D rendering of the molar crown surface obtained with optical profilometry

总结

In this application, the NANOVEA JR25 Non-Contact Optical Profiler was used to measure the surface roughness and 3D surface topography of an adult human molar.

Both the area scan and the line profile analysis revealed a roughness Rq of approximately 2.5 µm and an Ra of about 1.9–2.0 µm. These values are consistent with results reported in the literature.³ The use of a narrower L-Gaussian filter with an 80 µm cut-off enabled further investigation of micro-roughness, revealing an Rq of 0.643 µm and an Ra of 0.495 µm.

The full 3D surface topography of the molar crown was reconstructed with high fidelity. The high measurement resolution allows detection of fine surface features and crevices. The resulting surface data can be easily processed and exported as STL files, enabling the design and fabrication of customized dental devices and restorative components.

参考文献

[1] Shin, B.W., et al. Surface Roughness of Prefabricated Pediatric Zirconia Crowns Following Simulated Toothbrushing. Pediatric Dentistry 44.5 (2022): 363–367.
[2] Bollen, C.M.L., Paul Lambrechts, and Marc Quirynen. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dental Materials 13.4 (1997): 258–269.
[3] Suputtamongkol, K., et al. Surface roughness resulting from wear of lithia-disilicate-based posterior crowns. Wear 269.3–4 (2010): 317–322.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dental Surface Roughness Measurement

What is dental surface roughness measurement?

Dental surface roughness measurement quantifies the microscopic texture of tooth surfaces using parameters such as Ra, Rq, and Sa. Optical profilometers measure these features without contacting the surface, allowing accurate analysis of enamel, restorative materials, and dental crowns.

Why use optical profilometry to measure tooth roughness?

Optical profilometry provides non-contact surface measurement with nanometer-scale vertical resolution. It captures 2D surface maps and full 3D surface topography of dental structures without damaging soft or polished surfaces.

What roughness parameters are used for dental surface analysis?

Common roughness parameters include Ra (arithmetic mean roughness), Rq (root mean square roughness), Sa (areal roughness), and Sz (maximum surface height). These parameters help evaluate enamel wear, plaque adhesion risk, and the performance of restorative materials.

Why is surface roughness important in dentistry?

Surface roughness affects plaque retention, wear resistance, and the long-term performance of dental restorations. Controlling micro-roughness can reduce bacterial adhesion and improve the durability of dental materials.

Need Reliable Surface Roughness Measurement for Dental Materials?

The post Dental Surface Roughness Measurement & 3D Tooth Topography appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

手机屏幕保护膜的抗划伤测试

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

手机屏幕保护膜的抗划伤测试

编写者

斯泰西-佩雷拉、乔塞琳-埃斯帕萨和皮埃尔-勒鲁

了解手机屏幕保护膜的抗划性

手机屏幕上的保护涂层在抗划伤性、附着强度和长期耐用性方面起着至关重要的作用。随着时间的推移，划痕、微裂纹和涂层分层会降低光学清晰度和可靠性，尤其是在高使用率的环境中。为了评估不同的屏幕保护膜如何抵御机械损伤，仪器划痕测试提供了对涂层失效机制（包括附着力、内聚力和断裂行为）的量化了解。.

在这项研究中, 纳诺维亚 PB1000 机械测试仪用于在受控渐进加载条件下比较热塑性聚氨酯和钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜。通过精确的声发射检测，我们确定了临界失效载荷，并描述了每种材料如何对不断增加的机械应力做出反应。.

屏幕保护膜的防刮测试为何重要

许多用户认为，保护层越厚或越硬，性能就越好，但真正的耐用性取决于材料在渐进载荷、表面变形和局部应力作用下的表现。通过仪器划痕测试，工程师可以测量涂层附着力、内聚强度、表面耐磨性，以及失效发生或扩展的确切载荷。.

通过分析裂纹起始点、分层行为和失效模式，制造商可以验证屏幕保护膜的性能，用于研发、质量控制或比较基准。纳米和微小划痕测试提供了可重复的、数据驱动的实际耐用性洞察力，远远超出了传统的硬度评级。.

ℹ️ 了解更多涂层和屏幕保护膜的划痕和附着力测试服务。.

划痕测试目标
测量屏幕保护膜的失效载荷

本研究的目的是展示 NANOVEA PB1000 机械测试仪如何对聚合物和玻璃屏幕保护膜进行可重复的标准化抗划伤测试。通过逐步增加施加的负载，该系统可检测到内聚力和粘合力失效的临界负载，捕捉声发射信号，并将这些事件与划痕深度、摩擦力和表面变形相关联。.

这种方法提供了每种保护涂层的完整机械性能曲线，使制造商和研发团队能够评估材料配方、涂层附着强度、表面耐久性和最佳涂层厚度，从而提高产品性能。这些划痕评估是 NANOVEA 更广泛的产品系列的一部分。机械测试解决方案用于表征研发、质量控制和生产环境中的涂层、薄膜和基材。.

NANOVEA PB1000 大型平台
机械测试仪

划痕测试参数和仪器设置

TPU 和钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜的抗划伤性评估是在受控条件下进行的，以确保可重复性和准确的失效负载检测。以下参数定义了在 NANOVEA PB1000 机械测试仪上使用的渐进加载划痕测试装置。.

装载类型	进步
初始负载	0.1 N
终极装载	12 N
滑动速度	3.025 毫米/分钟
划痕长度	3毫米
压头的几何形状	岩井（120° 锥形）
压头材料（尖端）	钻石
压头半径	50 微米
气体环境	空气
温度	24 °C（室温）

表1: 划痕测试使用的测试参数

在渐进加载划痕测量过程中将屏幕保护膜样品安装在 NANOVEA PB1000 机械测试仪上。.

用于耐刮擦测试的屏幕保护膜样品

我们选择了两种市售的屏幕保护膜材料，以比较它们在抗划伤性、失效行为和机械耐久性方面的差异。两种样品都牢固地安装在 NANOVEA PB1000 机械测试仪上，并在相同的渐进加载条件下进行评估，以确保比较结果的一致性和公正性。.

TPU 屏幕保护膜是一种柔性聚合物薄膜，具有高弹性和较低的耐磨性，而钢化玻璃保护膜则是一种刚性脆性材料，具有高硬度和更强的冲击保护能力。在相同的负载条件下测试这两种材料，可以清楚地评估材料成分、弹性和硬度对划痕失效模式的影响。.

TPU 屏幕保护膜

钢化玻璃

图1: 为抗划伤测试准备的 TPU 和钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜。.

划痕测试结果：热塑性聚氨酯与钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜的失效模式对比

屏幕保护膜类型	临界负荷 #1 (n)	临界负荷 #2 (n)
热塑性聚氨酯	不适用	2.004 ± 0.063
钢化玻璃	3.608 ± 0.281	7.44 ± 0.995

表2: 每个屏幕保护膜样本的关键负载汇总。.

由于热塑性聚氨酯和钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜具有根本不同的机械特性，因此在渐进载荷划痕测试中，每种样品都表现出不同的失效模式和临界载荷阈值。表 2 总结了每种材料测得的临界载荷。.

临界载荷 #1 代表光学显微镜下第一个可观察到的内聚失效点，如裂纹开始或径向断裂。.

临界载荷 #2 相当于通过声发射（AE）监测检测到的第一个重大事件，通常代表较大的结构故障或穿透事件。.

TPU 屏幕保护膜 - 柔性聚合物特性

热塑性聚氨酯（TPU）屏幕保护膜只出现了一次重大临界事件（临界载荷 #2）。该载荷对应于划痕轨迹上薄膜开始从手机屏幕表面翘起、剥离或分层的点。.

一旦超过临界载荷 #2（≈2.00 N），压头的穿透力足以在测试的剩余时间内直接在手机屏幕上造成可见划痕。没有检测到单独的临界载荷 #1，这与材料的高弹性和较低的内聚强度相符。.

钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜 - 脆性失效行为

钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜显示出两种不同的临界载荷，这是脆性材料的特征：

临界载荷 #1（≈3.61 N）：显微镜下观察到径向断裂和裂纹萌生，表明玻璃层的早期内聚失效。.
临界载荷 #2（≈7.44 N）：较大的 AE 峰值和划痕深度的急剧增加表明保护器在较高负载下会穿透。.

虽然 AE 值高于热塑性聚氨酯，但手机屏幕没有受到任何损坏，这表明钢化玻璃保护层有能力在发生灾难性故障之前吸收和分散负载。.

在这两种材料中，临界载荷 #2 与压头击穿屏幕保护膜的瞬间相对应，从而确认了每种样品的保护极限。.

TPU 屏幕保护膜：划痕测试数据和故障分析

划痕模块	临界负荷 #2 (n)
1	2.033
2	2.047
3	1.931
平均数	2.003
标准差	0.052

表 3： TPU 屏幕保护膜划痕测试中测得的临界负荷。.

图2: TPU 屏幕保护膜的摩擦力、法向载荷、声发射（AE）和划痕深度与划痕长度的关系。. (B) 临界载荷 #2

图3: 临界负荷 #2 时 TPU 屏幕保护膜的光学显微镜图像（放大 5 倍；图像宽度 0.8934 毫米）。.

图4: TPU 屏幕保护膜划痕后的全长图像，显示逐步加载测试后的完整划痕轨迹。.

钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜：临界载荷数据和断裂行为

划痕模块	临界负荷 #1 (n)	临界负荷 #2 (n)
1	3.923	7.366
2	3.382	6.483
3	3.519	8.468
平均数	3.653	6.925
标准差	0.383	0.624

表 4：在钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜划痕测试中测得的临界载荷。.

ℹ️ 与非硅酸盐聚合物涂层的比较，请参阅我们关于聚四氟乙烯涂层磨损测试, ，突出了低摩擦聚合物薄膜在类似渐进加载条件下的失效行为。.

图5: 钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜的摩擦力、法向载荷、声发射（AE）和划痕深度与划痕长度的关系。. (A) 临界载荷 #1 (B) 临界载荷 #2

图6: 光学显微镜图像，以 5 倍放大率显示临界载荷 #1（左）和临界载荷 #2（右）的失效位置（图像宽度：0.8934 毫米）。.

图7: 测试后钢化玻璃划痕轨迹的光学显微镜图像，突出显示了渐进加载测试后的断裂起始点（CL#1）和最终穿透区（CL#2）。.

结论TPU 与钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜的划痕性能比较

这项研究展示了 NANOVEA PB1000 机械测试仪如何利用渐进加载和声发射 (AE) 检测技术提供受控、可重复和高灵敏度的抗划伤性测量。通过精确捕捉内聚和粘合失效事件，该系统能够清晰地比较热塑性聚氨酯和钢化玻璃屏幕保护膜在机械应力增加时的表现。.

实验结果证实，钢化玻璃的临界载荷明显高于热塑性聚氨酯，具有卓越的抗划伤性、延迟断裂的起始时间以及可靠的抗压头穿透保护。热塑性聚氨酯较低的内聚强度和较早的分层突出了其在高应力环境中的局限性。.

在确定失效载荷后，还可以使用一个分析仪对产生的划痕轨迹进行分析。非接触式 3D 光学轮廓仪测量沟槽深度、残余变形和划痕后形貌。这有助于完成每种材料的机械剖面图。.

NANOVEA 机械测试仪专为精确和可重复的压痕、划痕和磨损测试而设计，支持符合 ISO 和 ASTM 标准的纳米和微米模块。它的多功能性使其成为评估薄膜、涂层、聚合物、玻璃和基材在研发、生产和质量控制过程中的全部机械性能的理想解决方案。.

常见问题
关于耐刮擦测试

什么是耐刮擦测试？

耐刮擦测试评估材料或涂层在金刚石测针施加逐渐增加的负载时的反应。该测试可确定发生内聚或粘合失效的临界载荷，为耐用性、粘合强度和抗表面损伤能力提供可量化的衡量标准。.

内聚性失效和粘性失效有何区别？

发生内聚失效内涂层或材料，如开裂、撕裂或内部断裂。.
粘合剂失效发生在涂层从底层脱落时，表明粘合强度不足。.

NANOVEA PB1000 通过同步声发射监测、划痕深度跟踪和摩擦分析来检测这两种情况。.

为什么使用机械测试仪而不是手动方法？

像 NANOVEA PB1000 这样的机械测试仪可提供精确、可重复和标准化的测量，确保为研发、生产验证和质量控制提供可靠的数据。它还具有人工方法无法提供的先进功能，例如声发射检测和实时深度监测。.

您的材料需要可靠的划痕测试吗？

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

使用 NANOVEA 摩擦仪测试岩石磨蚀性

nanovea — 2023 年 9 月 13 日星期三 17:07:17 +0000

岩石摩擦学：使用纳米凹凸磨耗测试仪进行岩石磨蚀性测试

编写者

李端杰，博士

简介

岩石由矿物颗粒组成。这些矿物的类型和丰度，以及矿物颗粒之间的化学键合强度，决定了岩石的机械和摩擦学特性。根据地质岩石循环，岩石可以发生转变，通常分为三种主要类型：火成岩、沉积岩和变质岩。这些岩石表现出不同的矿物和化学成分、渗透性和颗粒尺寸，这些特性导致了它们不同的耐磨性。岩石摩擦学研究岩石在各种地质和环境条件下的磨损和摩擦行为。

岩石磨料检测的重要性

在钻井过程中，岩石会发生各种类型的磨损，包括擦伤和摩擦，导致钻头和切削工具的维修和更换造成重大的直接和间接损失。因此，岩石的可钻性、可钻性、可切削性和磨蚀性的研究在石油、天然气和采矿业中至关重要。岩石摩擦学研究在选择最有效和最具成本效益的钻井策略方面发挥着关键作用，从而提高整体效率并有助于保护材料、能源和环境。此外，最大限度地减少表面摩擦对于减少钻头和岩石之间的相互作用非常有利，从而减少工具磨损并提高钻孔/切割效率。

测量目标

在这项研究中，我们对两种岩石的摩擦学特性进行了模拟和比较，以展示纳诺维亚 T50 摩擦磨损测试仪以受控和监测的方式测量岩石的摩擦系数和磨损率。

NANOVEA T50 紧凑型
自由重量摩擦磨损测试仪

样品

测试程序

使用 Pin-on-Disc 磨损模块的 NANOVEA T50 摩擦磨损试验机评估了两个岩石样品的摩擦系数、COF 和耐磨性。 Al2O3 球（直径 6 mm）用作计数器材料。测试后使用 NANOVEA 非接触式轮廓仪检查磨损轨迹。测试参数总结如下。

磨损率K的计算公式为K=V/(F×s)=A/(F×n)，其中V为磨损体积，F为法向载荷，s为滑动距离，A为磨损轨迹的横截面积，n 是转数。使用 NANOVEA 光学轮廓仪评估表面粗糙度和磨损轨迹轮廓，并使用光学显微镜检查磨损轨迹形态。

请注意，本研究中以 Al2O3 球作为计数器材料为例。任何不同形状的固体材料都可以使用定制夹具来模拟实际应用情况。

测试参数

样本	石灰石、大理石
耐磨环半径	5毫米
常态力	10 N
测试时间	10分钟
速度	100转/分

结果与讨论

图 1 使用 NANOVEA 机械测试仪的微压痕模块对石灰石和大理石样品的硬度 (H) 和弹性模量 (E) 进行了比较。石灰岩样品表现出较低的 H 和 E 值，分别为 0.53 和 25.9 GPa，而大理石样品的 H 值为 1.07，E 值为 49.6 GPa。石灰石样品可归因于其较大的表面不均匀性，这源于其颗粒状和多孔特性。

图 2 描绘了两个岩石样品磨损测试期间 COF 的演变。在磨损测试开始时，石灰石的 COF 最初快速增加至约 0.8，并在整个测试期间保持该值。 COF 的这种突然变化可归因于 Al2O3 球渗透到岩石样品中，这是由于磨损轨迹内接触面发生的快速磨损和粗糙化过程造成的。相比之下，在滑动距离约 5 米后，大理石样品的 COF 显着增加至更高的值，这表明与石灰石相比，其耐磨性更优异。

图1: 石灰石和大理石样品的硬度和杨氏模量比较。.

图2: 磨损测试过程中石灰石和大理石样品的摩擦系数 (COF) 的演变。

图 3 比较了磨损测试后石灰石和大理石样品的横截面轮廓，表 1 总结了磨损轨迹分析的结果。图 4 显示了光学显微镜下样品的磨损痕迹。磨损轨迹评估与 COF 演变观察一致：大理石样品在较长时间内保持较低的 COF，其磨损率较低，为 0.0046 mm3/N m，而石灰石的磨损率为 0.0353 mm3/N m。大理石优越的机械性能使其比石灰石具有更好的耐磨性。

图3: 磨损轨迹的横截面轮廓。

表1: 磨损轨迹分析结果总结。

图4: 光学显微镜下的磨损痕迹。

结论

在这项研究中，我们展示了 NANOVEA 摩擦磨损试验机以受控和监测的方式评估两种岩石样品（即大理石和石灰石）的摩擦系数和耐磨性的能力。大理石卓越的机械性能有助于其卓越的耐磨性。这种特性使得石油和天然气行业的钻探或切割变得具有挑战性。相反，当用作高质量建筑材料（例如地砖）时，它的使用寿命会显着延长。

NANOVEA 摩擦磨损试验机提供精确且可重复的磨损和摩擦测试功能，在旋转和线性模式下均符合 ISO 和 ASTM 标准。此外，它还提供用于高温磨损、润滑和摩擦腐蚀的可选模块，所有这些模块都无缝集成到一个系统中。 NANOVEA 无与伦比的系列是确定薄或厚、软或硬涂层、薄膜、基材和岩石摩擦学的全方位摩擦学特性的理想解决方案。

有类似的应用程序吗？

The post Rock Abrasivity Testing with NANOVEA Tribometer appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

喷丸表面分析

nanovea — 2023 年 8 月 16 日星期三 14:19:21 +0000

喷丸表面分析

使用 3D 非接触式轮廓仪

编写者

CRAIG LEISING

简介

喷丸是用球形金属、玻璃或陶瓷珠（通常称为“喷丸”）轰击基材的过程，其作用力旨在诱导表面塑性。分析喷丸前后的特征为增强过程理解和控制提供了重要的见解。射击留下的凹痕的表面粗糙度和覆盖面积是特别值得注意的方面。

3D 非接触式轮廓仪对于喷丸表面分析的重要性

与传统上用于喷丸表面分析的传统接触式轮廓仪不同，3D 非接触式测量可提供完整的 3D 图像，从而更全面地了解覆盖区域和表面形貌。如果没有 3D 功能，检查将仅依赖 2D 信息，这不足以表征表面。了解 3D 中的形貌、覆盖区域和粗糙度是控制或改进喷丸过程的最佳方法。纳诺维娅的 3D 非接触式轮廓仪利用具有独特功能的色光技术来测量机加工和喷丸表面上的陡峭角度。此外，当其他技术由于探头接触、表面变化、角度或反射率而无法提供可靠数据时，NANOVEA 轮廓仪可以成功。

测量目标

在此应用中，NANOVEA ST400 非接触式轮廓仪用于测量原材料和两个不同喷丸表面，以进行比较审查。 3D 表面扫描后可以自动计算出无数的表面参数。在这里，我们将检查 3D 表面并选择感兴趣的区域进行进一步分析，包括量化和研究粗糙度、凹坑和表面积。

NANOVEA ST400 标准
光学 3D 轮廓仪

例子

结果

钢表面

ISO 25178 3D 粗糙度参数

SA	0.399微米	平均粗糙度
规模	0.516微米	均方根粗糙度
仕	5.686微米	最大峰谷值
ǞǞǞ	2.976微米	最大峰值高度
ǞǞǞ	2.711微米	最大凹坑深度
价格	3.9344	峰度
スクリート	-0.0113	倾斜度
萨尔	0.0028毫米	自相关长度
斯特	0.0613	纹理纵横比
斯达尔	26.539 平方毫米	表面积
斯沃克	0.589微米	减少谷深

结果

喷丸表面 1

表面覆盖率 98.105%

ISO 25178 3D 粗糙度参数

萨	4.102微米	平均粗糙度
规模	5.153微米	均方根粗糙度
仕	44.975微米	最大峰谷值
ǞǞǞ	24.332微米	最大峰值高度
ǞǞǞ	20.644微米	最大凹坑深度
价格	3.0187	峰度
スクリート	0.0625	倾斜度
萨尔	0.0976毫米	自相关长度
斯特	0.9278	纹理纵横比
斯达尔	29.451 平方毫米	表面积
斯沃克	5.008微米	减少谷深

结果

喷丸表面 2

表面覆盖率 97.366%

ISO 25178 3D 粗糙度参数

萨	4.330微米	平均粗糙度
规模	5.455微米	均方根粗糙度
仕	54.013微米	最大峰谷值
ǞǞǞ	25.908微米	最大峰值高度
ǞǞǞ	28.105微米	最大凹坑深度
价格	3.0642	峰度
スクリート	0.1108	倾斜度
萨尔	0.1034毫米	自相关长度
斯特	0.9733	纹理纵横比
斯达尔	29.623 平方毫米	表面积
斯沃克	5.167微米	减少谷深

结论

在此喷丸表面分析应用中，我们演示了 NANOVEA ST400 3D 非接触式轮廓仪如何精确表征喷丸表面的形貌和纳米细节。显然，与原材料相比，表面 1 和表面 2 对此处报告的所有参数都有显着影响。对图像进行简单的目视检查即可发现表面之间的差异。通过观察覆盖区域和列出的参数进一步证实了这一点。与表面 2 相比，表面 1 表现出较低的平均粗糙度 (Sa)、较浅的凹痕 (Sv) 和较小的表面积 (Sdar)，但覆盖面积稍高。

通过这些 3D 表面测量，可以轻松识别感兴趣的区域并进行全面的测量，包括粗糙度、光洁度、纹理、形状、形貌、平整度、翘曲、平面度、体积、台阶高度等。可以快速选择二维横截面进行详细分析。该信息允许利用全套表面测量资源对喷丸表面进行全面调查。可以使用集成的 AFM 模块进一步检查感兴趣的特定区域。 NANOVEA 3D 轮廓仪的速度高达 200 毫米/秒。它们可以在尺寸、速度、扫描功能方面进行定制，甚至可以符合 1 级洁净室标准。还提供索引传送带和内联或在线使用集成等选项。

特别感谢IMF的Hayden先生提供本文所示样品。工业金属表面处理有限公司 | indmetfin.com

有类似的应用程序吗？

The post Shot Peened Surface Analysis appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.

涂料表面形态

nanovea — 2023 年 8 月 4 日星期五 16:44:00 +0000

涂料表面形态

自动实时进化监测
使用纳诺维三维轮廓仪

编写者

李端杰，博士

简介

涂料的保护和装饰特性在汽车、船舶、军事和建筑等多个行业中发挥着重要作用。为了获得理想的性能，如防腐蚀、防紫外线和耐磨性，涂料配方和结构需要经过仔细分析、修改和优化。

三维非接触式轮廓仪对干燥涂料表面形态分析的重要性

油漆通常以液态形式涂刷，并经历一个干燥过程，包括溶剂的蒸发和液态油漆转变为固态漆膜。在干燥过程中，油漆表面会逐渐改变形状和质地。通过使用添加剂来改变涂料的表面张力和流动特性，可以形成不同的表面效果和质感。但是，如果涂料配方不当或表面处理不当，可能会出现不理想的涂料表面失效现象。

在干燥期间对涂料表面形态进行准确的原位监测可以直接了解干燥机理。此外，表面形态的实时演化在各种应用（例如 3D 打印）中是非常有用的信息。纳诺维娅 3D 非接触式轮廓仪在不接触样品的情况下测量材料的油漆表面形态，避免滑动触笔等接触技术可能导致的任何形状改变。

测量目标

在这一应用中，配备了高速线光学传感器的 NANOVEA ST500 非接触式轮廓仪用于监测涂料在 1 小时干燥期内的表面形态。我们展示了 NANOVEA 非接触式轮廓仪对形状不断变化的材料进行自动实时三维轮廓测量的能力。

NANOVEA ST500 大面积
光学 3D 轮廓仪

结果与讨论

将涂料涂抹在金属板表面，然后立即使用配备高速线传感器的 NANOVEA ST500 非接触式轮廓仪对干燥涂料的原位形态演变进行自动测量。宏编程可在特定时间间隔内自动测量和记录三维表面形态：0、5、10、20、30、40、50 和 60 分钟。与手动测试或重复扫描相比，这种自动扫描程序可使用户通过依次运行设定程序来自动执行扫描任务，大大减少了工作量、时间和可能出现的用户错误。事实证明，这种自动化对涉及不同时间间隔多次扫描的长期测量极为有用。

如图 1 所示，光学线条传感器会产生一条由 192 个点组成的亮线。这 192 个光点同时扫描样品表面，大大提高了扫描速度。这可确保快速完成每次三维扫描，避免在每次扫描过程中发生重大表面变化。

图1: 光学线传感器扫描正在干燥的涂料表面。

图 2、图 3 和图 4 分别显示了代表性时间的假色视图、三维视图和干燥油漆形貌的二维剖面图。图像中的假色有助于检测不易辨认的特征。不同的颜色代表样品表面不同区域的高度变化。三维视图为用户提供了从不同角度观察油漆表面的理想工具。在测试的前 30 分钟，油漆表面的假色逐渐从暖色调变为冷色调，表明在此期间高度随时间逐渐降低。这一过程会减慢，正如在 30 分钟和 60 分钟时比较油漆的颜色变化轻微所显示的那样。

样品的平均高度和粗糙度 Sa 值与涂料干燥时间的函数关系如图 5 所示。表 1 列出了干燥 0、30 和 60 分钟后涂料的完整粗糙度分析。可以看出，在干燥时间的前 30 分钟内，油漆表面的平均高度从 471 微米迅速下降到 329 微米。溶剂汽化的同时，表面纹理也随之形成，导致粗糙度 Sa 值从 7.19 微米增加到 22.6 微米。此后，涂料干燥过程减慢，导致样品高度和 Sa 值逐渐下降，在 60 分钟时分别降至 317 微米和 19.6 微米。

这项研究强调了 NANOVEA 3D 非接触式轮廓仪在实时监测干燥涂料的 3D 表面变化方面的能力，为了解涂料干燥过程提供了宝贵的资料。通过在不接触样品的情况下测量表面形态，轮廓仪避免了滑动测针等接触式技术可能对未干涂料造成的形状改变。这种非接触式方法可确保对干燥涂料表面形态进行准确可靠的分析。

图2: 不同时间干燥涂料表面形态的变化。

图3: 不同干燥时间涂料表面演变的三维视图。

图4: 不同干燥时间后油漆样品的二维剖面图。

图5: 样品平均高度和粗糙度值 Sa 随涂料干燥时间的变化情况。

ISO 25178 - 表面纹理参数

干燥时间（分钟）	0	5	10	20	30	40	50	60
平方米（微米）	7.91	9.4	10.8	20.9	22.6	20.6	19.9	19.6
价格	26.3	19.8	14.6	11.9	10.5	9.87	9.83	9.82
Sp (µm)	97.4	105	108	116	125	118	114	112
Sv (µm)	127	70.2	116	164	168	138	130	128
Sz (µm)	224	175	224	280	294	256	244	241
Sa (µm)	4.4	5.44	6.42	12.2	13.3	12.2	11.9	11.8

表1: 不同干燥时间的涂料粗糙度。

结论

在这一应用中，我们展示了 NANOVEA ST500 3D 非接触式轮廓仪在监测干燥过程中涂料表面形态演变方面的能力。高速光学线传感器可产生一条由 192 个光点组成的线，同时扫描样品表面，从而在确保无与伦比的精确度的同时提高了研究的时间效率。

采集软件的宏功能可对三维表面形态进行编程自动测量，特别适用于在特定目标时间间隔内进行多次扫描的长期测量。它大大减少了时间、精力和用户出错的可能性。在涂料干燥的过程中，表面形态的渐进变化会被持续监测和实时记录，为了解涂料的干燥机理提供有价值的信息。

此处显示的数据仅代表分析软件中可用计算的一小部分。NANOVEA 轮廓仪几乎能够测量任何表面，无论是透明表面、暗表面、反射表面还是不透明表面。

有类似的应用程序吗？

The post Paint Surface Morphology appeared first on NANOVEA: Advanced Profilometers, Tribometers, Nanoindenters, and Scratch Testers for Materials Testing.