Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:14:30.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microscratching of Pmma on Flexible Substrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

J. S. Sedita ,
A. H. Tsou ,
C. C. Anderson  and
B. A. Wohlschlegel
J. S. Sedita
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Research and Engineering, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY 14652-3701
A. H. Tsou
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Research and Engineering, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY 14652-3701
C. C. Anderson
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Research and Engineering, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY 14652-3701
B. A. Wohlschlegel
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Research and Engineering, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY 14652-3701
Get access

Abstract

The microscratch behavior of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) coatings on flexible substrates of cellulose acetate (CA) and poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) was evaluated using the NanoTest 550 microscratch device with a 3-micron radius, 60-degree conical-angle diamond stylus in ramped load from 0.3 to 10 mN. Tensile surface cracking was observed within 6–8 mN for all coatings regardless of coating thickness (from 0.2 to 3 microns). For the same coating thickness, PMMA on PET cracked at lower loads than PMMA on CA because of PET substrate deformation. Coating removal of PMMA was also found, but at higher loads following the tensile cracking. Onset of severe coating damage/removal in PMMA coatings was found to be dependent on coating thickness. The ranking of various PMMA coatings in terms of their extent of microscratching damage was comparable to their rankings based on Taber abrasion results. This suggested that only the severe coating damage on PMMA could be detected by the Taber abrasion test.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 522: Symposium T – Fundamentals of Nanoindentation & Nanotribology , 1998 , 353
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pethica, J., Hutchings, R., and Oliver, W. C., Philos. Mag., A48, 593 (1983).Google Scholar
2. Frolich, F., Grau, P., and Grellmann, W., Phys. Stat. Solids, A42, 79 (1977).Google Scholar
3. Newey, D., Wilkins, M. A., and Pollock, H. M., J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum., 15, 119 (1982).Google Scholar
4. Wu, T. W., J. Mater. Res., 6, 407 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Wu, T. W., Mater. Chem. Phys., 33, 15 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Sekler, J., Steinmann, P. A., and Hintermann, H. E., Surf. Coat. Technol., 36, 519 (1988).Google Scholar
7. O'Sullivan, T. C. and King, R. B., Tribology, J., 110, 235 (1988).Google Scholar
8. Burnett, P. J. and Rickerby, D. S., Thin Solid Films, 154, 403 (1987).Google Scholar
9. Hedenqvist, P., Olsson, M., and Jacobson, S., Surf. Coat. Technol., 41, 31 (1990).Google Scholar
10. Bull, S. J., Surf. Coat. Technol., 50, 25 (1991).Google Scholar
11. Ni, B. Y. and LeFaou, A., J. Mater. Sci., 31, 3955 (1996).Google Scholar