Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:48:03.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of implantation of heavy metallic ions on the mechanical properties of two polymers, polystyrene and polyethylene terephthalate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Michael V. Swain ,
Anthony J. Perry ,
James R. Treglio ,
Alex Elkind  and
J. Derek Demaree
Michael V. Swain
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Applied Physics, Lindfield, New South Wales 2070, and Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
Anthony J. Perry
Affiliation:
ISM Technologies Inc., 9965 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, California 92131
James R. Treglio
Affiliation:
ISM Technologies Inc., 9965 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, California 92131
Alex Elkind
Affiliation:
ISM Technologies Inc., 9965 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, California 92131
J. Derek Demaree
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Materials Directorate, Watertown, Massachusetts 02172–0001
Get access

Abstract

Ion implantation of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polystyrene (PS) with various high energy metallic ions at 70 kV and a dose of 3 × 1016 ions/cm2 has been made. Measurements of the mechanical properties of the polymers before and after implantation have been made with an ultra microindentation system using both pointed and a small (2 μm) radius spherical-tipped indenter. The surface regions were also investigated by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and Rutherford backscattering (RBS). Significant differences have been observed between the Ti–B dual-implanted surfaces and those of the Au and W implanted surfaces. For both the PET and PS, the resistance to indenter penetration at very low loads was much greater for the Ti–B dual-implanted surfaces. The estimated maximum hardness and modulus of the implanted materials were 0.3 and 8 GPa for the PET material and 1.4 and 16 GPa for the PS material. The results obtained with the spherical indenter show a gradual decline in effective modulus of the surface with penetration depth, whereas the hardness or contact pressure goes through a maximum before declining asymptotically to the bulk values. The values of hardness estimated for the spherical-tipped indenter are somewhat more conservative than the optimistic estimates with the Berkovich indenter. The improved increase in hardness for the Ti–B dual-implanted PET material scales with the RBS measured increased depth of implantation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 12 , Issue 7 , July 1997 , pp. 1917 - 1926
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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

REFERENCES

1.Liu, S., Liu, Z., Zhai, B., and Wang, Z., Vacuum 39, 271 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Ueno, K., Matsumoto, Y., Nishimiya, N., Noshiro, M., and Satou, M., Nucl. Instrum. Methods, Phys. Res. B 59/60, 1263 and 1276 (1991).Google Scholar
3.Xu, X. L., Yu, Y., Chen, L., Fang, F., Zhou, Z., and Zou, S., unpublished work.Google Scholar
4.Lee, Y., Lee, E. H., and Mansur, L. K., Surf. Coatings Technol. 51, 267 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Rao, G. R., Wang, Z. L., and Lee, E. H., J. Mater. Res. 8, 927 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Rao, G. R., Lee, E. H., and Treglio, J. R., Surf. Coatings Technol. (in press).Google Scholar
7.Nishiyama, N., Ueno, K., Noshiro, M., and Satou, M., Nucl. Instrum. Methods, Phys. Res. B 59/60, 1276 (1991).Google Scholar
8.Rao, G. R., Lee, E. H., Bhattacharya, R., and McCormick, A. W., J. Mater. Res. 10, 190 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Bull, S. J., McCabe, A. R., and Jones, A. M., Surf. Coatings Technol. 64, 87–91 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Pivin, J. C., Nucl. Instrum. Methods, B 24, 484 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Pivin, J. C., Thin Solid Films 263, 185 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Ziegler, J. F., Biersack, J. P., and Littmark, U., The Stopping Range of Ions in Solids (Pergamon, New York), p. 198.Google Scholar
13.Doernier, M. F. and Nix, W. D., J. Mater. Res. 1, 601 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Gao, H., Chiu, C. H., and Lee, J., Int. J. Sol. Struct. 29, 2471 (1992).Google Scholar
15.King, R. B., Int. J. Sol. Struct. 23, 1657 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Mencik, J. and Swain, M. V., Materials Forum 18, 277 (1994).Google Scholar
17.Oliver, W. C. and Pharr, G. H., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Field, J. S. and Swain, M. V., J. Mater. Res. 8, 297 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Brown, I. G., Dickinson, M. R., Galvin, J. E., Godechot, X., and MacGill, R. A., Surf. Coatings Technol. 51, 529 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Treglio, J. R., Magnuson, G. D., and Tooker, R. J., Surf. Coatings Technol. 51, 546 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Doolittle, L. R., Nuclear Instrum. Methods, B 15, 227 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Sneddon, I. N., Int. J. Engng. Sci. 3, 47 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Bushby, A. J., Bell, T. J., and Swain, M. V., unpublished.Google Scholar
24.McCulloch, D., Yap, E., Swain, M. V., and Perry, A. J., unpublished.Google Scholar