2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.10.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Buried interfaces – A systematic study to characterize an adhesive interface at multiple scales

Abstract: A comparative study of a model adhesive interface formed between laser-pretreated Ti15-3-3-3 and the thermoplastic polymer PEEK has been carried out in order to characterize the interfaces' structural details and the infiltration of the surface nano-oxide by the polymer at multiple scales. Destructive approaches such as scanning and transmission electron microscopy of microsections prepared by focused ion beam, and non-destructive imaging approaches including laser scanning and scanning electron microscopy of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(77 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although in several cases the aluminum specimen broke during the LSS test, overall, the used functionalized propylene terpolymers show a lower adhesive strength to aluminum than to steel. Most likely, differences in morphology and polarity might play an important role. , Initial surface analyses show that the polarity of the aluminum surface is higher than of the steel surface (Table S5, Table S6). More detailed studies need to be performed to elucidate the cause of this difference.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although in several cases the aluminum specimen broke during the LSS test, overall, the used functionalized propylene terpolymers show a lower adhesive strength to aluminum than to steel. Most likely, differences in morphology and polarity might play an important role. , Initial surface analyses show that the polarity of the aluminum surface is higher than of the steel surface (Table S5, Table S6). More detailed studies need to be performed to elucidate the cause of this difference.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most likely, differences in morphology and polarity might play an important role. 61,62 Initial surface analyses show that the polarity of the aluminum surface is higher than of the steel surface (Table S5, Table S6). More detailed studies need to be performed to elucidate the cause of this difference.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 d) presents its characteristic structure of ridges and valleys (Fig. 4 e) known for instance also from laser pretreated titanium surfaces [21]. The high roughness and functionalization, i.e., the oxide surface layers formed by laser treatment on air, leads to a dull grey shine of the treated area on the specimens.…”
Section: Two-dimensional-characterization Of Aluminum Surfacementioning
confidence: 91%
“…The selected energies, 17 keV and 33.6 keV, are well suited for applications in biomedicine, materials science and nanotechnology. Two coherent imaging techniques, X-ray holographic [16] and ptychographic [17] tomography, provide the distribution of the electron density through phase contrast at length scales ranging from ~130 nm down to ~10 nm, while keeping a relatively large field of view. Complementary, X-ray fluorescence microscopy delivers label-free, highly efficient trace element quantification with detection limits down to subppm level [18].…”
Section: Experimental Techniques and Nanopositioning Specificationsmentioning
confidence: 99%