Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:52:21.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The determination of film hardness from the composite response of film and substrate to nanometer scale indentations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

B.D. Fabes
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721
W.C. Oliver
Affiliation:
Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
R.A. McKee
Affiliation:
Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
F.J. Walker
Affiliation:
Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Get access

Abstract

Two equations for determining the hardness of thin films from depth-sensing indentation data are examined. The first equation is based on an empirical fit of hardness versus indenter displacement data obtained from finite element calculations on a variety of hypothetical films. The second equation is based on a model which assumes that measured hardness is determined by the weighted average of the volume of plastically deformed material in the coating and that in the substrate. The equations are evaluated by fitting the predicted hardness versus contact depth to data obtained from titanium coatings on a sapphire substrate. Only the volume fractions model allows the data to be fitted with a single adjustable parameter, the film hardness; the finite element equation requires two thickness-dependent parameters to obtain acceptable fits. It is argued that the difficulty in applying the finite element model lies in the use of an unrealistic area function for the indenter. For real indenters, which have finite radii, the area function must appear explicitly in the final equation. This is difficult to do with the finite element approach, but is naturally incorporated into the volume fractions equation. Finally, using the volume fractions approach the hardnesses of the titanium films are found to be relatively insensitive to film thickness. Thus, the apparent increase in hardness with decreasing film thickness for the titanium films is most likely due to increased interactions between the film and substrate for the thinner films rather than to a change in the basic structure of the titanium films.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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

1Battacharya, A. K. and Nix, W. D., Int. J. Solids Structures 24 (12), 12871298 (1988).Google Scholar
2Sargent, P. M., in Microindentation Techniques in Materials Science and Engineering, edited by Blau, P.J. and Lawn, B. R. (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986).Google Scholar
3Burnett, P.J. and Page, T.F., J. Mater. Sci. 19, 845860 (1984).Google Scholar
4Burnett, P.J. and Rickerby, D.S., Thin Solid Films 148, 41–50 (1987).Google Scholar
5Burnett, P.J. and Rickerby, D.S., Thin Solid Films 148, 51–65 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Lawn, B. R., Evans, A. G., and Marshall, D. B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 63, 574581 (1980).Google Scholar
7Hill, R., The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity (Oxford University Press, London, 1950), Chap. 5.Google Scholar
8Bull, S.J. and Rickerby, D.S., Br. Ceram. Trans. J. 88, 177183 (1989).Google Scholar
9Fabes, B. D. and Oliver, W. C., in Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties II, edited by Doerner, M. F., Oliver, W. C., Pharr, G. M., and Brotzen, F. R. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 188, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990), pp. 127132.Google Scholar
10Pethica, J. B., Hutchings, R., and Oliver, W. C., Philos. Mag. A48, 593 (1983).Google Scholar
11Pethica, J.B. and Oliver, W. C., in Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties, edited by Bravman, J. C., Nix, W. D., Barnett, D. M., and Smith, D.A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 130, Pittsburgh, PA, 1989), pp. 1323.Google Scholar
12Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G. M., J. Mater. Res. 7, 15641583 (1992).Google Scholar
13McClintock, F. A. and Argon, A. S., Mechanical Behavior of Materials (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1966).Google Scholar
14Marsh, D. M., Proc. R. Soc. A 279, 420435 (1964).Google Scholar