JP7084579B2 - Material adhesion evaluation method - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to a material adhesion evaluation method for evaluating the adhesion of a material having an interface.

Conventionally, for example, Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 have been proposed as an interface evaluation method. The interface evaluation method disclosed in Patent Document 1 is a method for evaluating the interface between the base material and the film in a subject having a film formed on the surface of the base material such as a metal material or a synthetic resin material. Spherical abrasive grains were sprayed onto the subject together with compressed air to reduce the subject, and based on the causal relationship between the amount of reduction of the subject and the amount or time of the abrasive grains required for the reduction. Equation 1; (Strength of interface (wear rate ratio)) = (wear rate near the interface) ÷ (the one with the larger wear rate of the base material and the film), so the strength of the interface between the base material and the film And evaluate the interface. The method disclosed in Patent Document 2 injects an injection material in which abrasive grains are mixed in a liquid onto a subject together with compressed air to reduce the amount of the subject, and graphs the relationship between wear time and wear depth. .. Then, in the paragraph [0049] of Patent Document 2, "There was a case where a vertical straight line portion was present at the connecting portion between the gentle slope and the steep slope (FIGS. 4, 4, 5). It is considered that when the film becomes thin due to the wear caused by the film, the film is dropped off at once. Therefore, if the length of the vertical straight line portion is short, the layer thickness of the portion that can be dropped off at once is thin. It is considered that the adhesion between the film and the base material is high. Furthermore, if there is no vertical straight line portion (Fig. 6), the adhesion between the film and the base material is extremely strong or a clear interface. Is considered to be nonexistent. "

JP-A-2015-14503 Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 2001-183279 (Patent No. 3356415)

By the way, since the interface evaluation method disclosed in Patent Document 1 is evaluated by the above formula 1, the case where the wear rate of the film is smaller than the wear rate of the base material (that is, the wear rate of the base material is adopted). Case), it is inappropriate because it is not the evaluation of the film but the evaluation of the base material. Further, since the wear rate in the vicinity of the interface may not be clearly evaluated, it is not sufficient to evaluate the strength of the interface by the interface evaluation method disclosed in Patent Document 1. On the other hand, in Patent Document 2, since the abrasive grains of # 8000 (average particle size 1.2 μm) are used according to FIGS. 4 to 6, the peel film thickness is small and the difference is difficult to understand. When the wear time and the wear depth are equivalent to those of the base material, the vertical straight line portion becomes extremely difficult to understand.

The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to provide a material adhesion evaluation method capable of more appropriately evaluating the adhesion of an interface.

As a result of various studies, the present inventor wears (erosion) the material as before when the size of the particles (abrasive grains) is changed, but when the wear depth reaches a certain wear depth, the material suddenly appears on the surface side of the interface. We found a phenomenon that the material peels off. For example, when the material A made of a combination of the material A and the material B is worn from the surface of the material A toward the interface between the material A and the material B, the material A has a remaining thickness. Nevertheless, the material A suddenly peels off from the material B. As a result of investigating the relationship between the remaining thickness of the material A (peeling start thickness) at the time of this peeling and the material B, it was found that the peeling start thickness of the material A changes depending on the type of the material B, and at the interface. It was found that the degree of adhesion, which indicates the degree of adhesion, can be evaluated by the peeling start thickness. Based on this finding, it has been found that the above object can be achieved by the following invention. That is, the material adhesion evaluation method according to one aspect of the present invention includes an injection step of injecting a liquid material containing abrasive grains onto the surface of the material to be evaluated having at least an interface between the first portion and the second portion. The present invention comprises a measuring step of measuring the peeling start thickness, which is the remaining thickness of the first portion when the peeling at the interface starts, as the degree of adhesion indicating the degree of adhesion at the interface. Preferably, in the above-mentioned material adhesion evaluation method, the peeling start thickness is the case where the base material as the second portion and the film formed on the surface of the base material as the first portion are formed. It is a value obtained by subtracting the depth of weight loss due to the abrasive grains when the film is peeled off from the substrate from the initial thickness of the film. Preferably, in the above-mentioned, the depth of weight loss by the abrasive grains when the film is peeled from the substrate is the injection step carried out for a predetermined time and the injection step carried out for a predetermined time. After that, when the wear depth measuring step of measuring the weight loss depth (wear depth) by the abrasive grains is repeatedly performed, the wear depth measuring step determined to have reached the base material in the injection step. It is the depth of weight loss (wear depth) by the abrasive grains measured in the wear depth measuring step carried out immediately before (previous). Preferably, in the above, the depth of weight loss due to the abrasive grains when the film is peeled from the substrate is a value estimated based on a graph showing the relationship between the elapsed time from the start of wear and the wear depth. There is .

In such a material adhesion evaluation method, a liquid material containing abrasive grains is used for weight reduction of a material having at least an interface between a first portion and a second portion, and the first method when peeling at the interface starts. Since the peeling start thickness, which is the remaining thickness of the portion, is used as an index of the degree of adhesion, the degree of adhesion at the interface can be evaluated more appropriately.

In the above-mentioned material adhesion evaluation method, the abrasive grains are hard particles having an average particle size of 40 μm or more.

According to this, it is possible to provide a material adhesion evaluation method using hard particles having an average particle size of 40 μm or more as the abrasive grains .

Further , in the above -mentioned material adhesion evaluation method, the abrasive particles are hard particles having an HV of 1500 or more.

According to this, it is possible to provide a material adhesion evaluation method using hard particles having HV1500 (Vickers hardness 1500) or more as the abrasive grains .

The material adhesion evaluation method according to the present invention can more appropriately evaluate the adhesion at the interface.

It is a figure for demonstrating the material adhesion degree evaluation method in an embodiment. It is a figure which shows the measurement result of Example 1 and Comparative Example 1. It is a figure which showed the measurement result near the interface in the comparative example 1 shown in FIG. 2, which was partially enlarged, and the measured cross-sectional shape. It is a partially enlarged figure which shows the measurement result near the interface in Example 1 shown in FIG. 2, and the measured cross-sectional shape. It is a figure for demonstrating the relationship between a carotest mark and a film thickness in a carotest. It is a figure for demonstrating the relationship between Example 2 or Example 8 and a scratch test result.

Hereinafter, one or more embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. However, the scope of the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments. It should be noted that the configurations with the same reference numerals in the respective drawings indicate the same configurations, and the description thereof will be omitted as appropriate. In the present specification, when they are generically referred to, they are indicated by reference numerals without subscripts, and when they refer to individual configurations, they are indicated by reference numerals with subscripts.

The material adhesion evaluation method in the embodiment includes an injection step of injecting a liquid material containing polygonal particles onto the surface of the material to be evaluated having at least an interface between the first portion and the second portion, and an injection step at the interface. The present invention comprises a measuring step of measuring the peeling start thickness, which is the remaining thickness of the first portion when the peeling starts, as the degree of adhesion indicating the degree of adhesion at the interface. According to this, the degree of adhesion of the interface can be evaluated more appropriately. Hereinafter, a more specific description will be given with reference to Examples and Comparative Examples.

(Example 1 and Comparative Example 1)
FIG. 1 is a diagram for explaining a material adhesion evaluation method in an embodiment. 1A shows the initial state, FIG. 1B shows the injection process, FIG. 1C shows the measurement process, and FIG. 1D shows the peeling start thickness. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the measurement results of Example 1 and Comparative Example 1. The horizontal axis in FIG. 2 is the test time expressed in minutes (min) (elapsed time from the start of test (start of wear, start of weight loss)), and the vertical axis thereof is the depth of erosion expressed in micrometer (μm). (Weared depth (wear depth)). FIG. 3 is a partially enlarged view showing the measurement result near the interface in Comparative Example 1 shown in FIG. 2 and the measured cross-sectional shape. FIG. 3A is a partially enlarged view of the measurement result near the interface in Comparative Example 1 shown in FIG. 2, and FIG. 3B shows the measured cross-sectional shape shown every 50 minutes from the start of the test. FIG. 4 is a partially enlarged view showing the measurement result near the interface in Example 1 shown in FIG. 2 and the measured cross-sectional shape. FIG. 4A is a partially enlarged view of the measurement result near the interface in Example 1 shown in FIG. 2, and FIG. 4B shows the measured cross-sectional shape shown every 30 minutes from the start of the test. FIG. 5 is a diagram for explaining the relationship between the carotest mark and the film thickness in the carotest.

In Example 1 and Comparative Example 1, the injection step and the measurement step were carried out by changing the liquid material containing the polygonal particles.

As shown in FIG. 1A, the test piece SP may be any material as long as it has at least the interface SF between the first portion PT1 and the second portion PT2, and is preferably surface-treated or surface-modified. The material used is, for example, a member in which a film is formed as the first portion PT1 on the surface of a base material such as metal or synthetic resin as the second portion PT2 by surface treatment such as plating or vapor deposition, or the first portion. It is a member or the like in which a bulk-shaped first member as a partial PT1 and a bulk-shaped second member as the second partial PT2 are joined or bonded. As an example, in Examples 1 and Comparative Example 1, a film of AlCrN is formed on the surface of a cemented carbide (class P) substrate by a PVD (physical vapor deposition) method (physical vapor deposition method). As a result, the test piece was prepared.

In the injection step, for example, as shown in FIG. 1B, a slurry in which a predetermined amount of polygonal particles PK are dispersed in a liquid LD is used as the liquid JS, and the slurry is tested by an injector. It was sprayed on the body SP. The polygonal shape (indefinite shape) means a solid having at least an angle, and the polygonal shape excludes a solid having no an angle such as a sphere or an ellipsoid. The particle PK may be as long as it is hard enough to erode the test piece in the injection step, and is, for example, ceramics such as alumina (Al ₂ O ₃ ) and zirconia (ZrO ₂ ). The Vickers hardness of alumina is generally about HV1500 to HV1600, and the particle PK is preferably HV1500 (1500 in Vickers hardness) or more. The Vickers hardness of zirconia is generally about HV1200 to HV1300. The injector may be any device as long as the test piece SP can be eroded from the surface by a mixture of the liquid LD and the particles PK.

More specifically, a circulation type MSE (Micro Slurry-jet Erosion) tester manufactured by Macoho Co., Ltd. was used, and the slurry was injected at a projection distance of 10 mm and a projection angle of 90 degrees. The liquid JS of Example 1 is a slurry in which amorphous alumina of WA # 320 (average particle size 41 μm) is dispersed in water at 0.3 mass%. The liquid material of Comparative Example 1 is a slurry in which amorphous alumina of WA # 8000 (average particle size 1.2 μm) is dispersed in water at a ratio of 3 mass%. The average particle size is represented by the median diameter (particle size with a cumulative height of 50%) using the particle size distribution of particles measured by Fujimi Incorated Co., Ltd. (volume-based particle size distribution measured by the electric resistance method). Particle size. If the slurry concentration is too high, erosion may proceed quickly and the peeling start thickness may not be evaluated (measured). Therefore, the slurry concentration is preferably 3 mass% or less.

In the measurement step, for example, as shown in FIGS. 1C and 1D, the peeling start thickness T2, which is the remaining thickness T2 of the first portion PT1 when the peeling at the interface SF starts, is set to the interface SF. First, the depth of weight loss (erosion depth, wear depth) T (i) by the particle PK is measured at predetermined predetermined time intervals in order to measure the degree of adhesion indicating the degree of adhesion in the above. Was done. That is, the injection step is carried out for a predetermined predetermined time, and then a wear depth measuring step for measuring the wear depth T (i) is carried out, and the injection step and the wear depth measuring step are described. The film was repeatedly scraped (reduced) by spraying a slurry until the substrate was first scraped (i is the number of measurement steps, and i = 0 is the thickness of the first portion PT1 in the initial state. (Initial thickness) T0). The predetermined predetermined time may be arbitrary, and in the case of more detailed evaluation, it is preferable that the predetermined time is as short as, for example, 1 minute or 2 minutes. Further, since the wear rate (erosion speed) differs depending on the type of the film, it is preferable to adjust the wear rate according to the wear rate of the film. Further, the predetermined predetermined time is preferably constant during the test, but may be changed, and may be changed short, particularly in the vicinity of the expected peeling start thickness. In the wear depth measuring step, in Examples 1 and Comparative Example 1, in order to measure the wear depth, the cross-sectional shape of the erosion mark is measured, and the depth at the center thereof is measured as the wear depth. This is a shape measurement process. Next, secondly, the initial thickness of the film was measured (film initial thickness measuring step). Then, thirdly, the peeling start thickness was obtained by the following equation A (peeling start thickness calculation step, adhesion calculation step).
Formula A; (peeling start thickness T2) = (initial thickness T0 of the film)-(depth of weight loss due to the particles when the film is peeled from the substrate (when the film is peeled from the substrate) Wear depth in) T1)

More specifically, in the cross-sectional shape measuring step, the cross-sectional shape of the erosion mark is measured by a surface roughness meter, for example, a stylus type two-dimensional roughness meter, SURFCOM 1400D manufactured by Tokyo Seimitsu Co., Ltd. rice field. The inclination correction is both end correction, the measurement length is 6 mm, the measurement speed is 0.3 mm / s, and the stylus tip radius is 2 μm. The wear depth was measured by reading from a curve obtained by visually averaging the unevenness of the cross-sectional shape curve in the central portion of the erosion mark. Then, when the erosion reaches the substrate, the shape of the central portion in the measured cross-sectional shape changes from the tendency of the shape before that, so that the injection step and the wear depth measuring step (here, the cross-sectional shape measuring step). ) And the case where the film is peeled off from the base material by the wear depth read from the cross-sectional shape measured immediately before (previously) the measurement of the cross-sectional shape in which the shape of the central portion is changed. The depth of weight loss due to the particles (wear depth when the film was peeled off from the substrate) T1 was determined. That is, the wear depth measured in the wear depth measurement step immediately before (previous) the wear depth measurement step determined to have reached the base material in the injection step is the wear depth measured from the base material to the film. It is the wear depth T1 in the case of peeling.

In the film initial thickness measuring step, the film initial thickness T0 was measured by a film thickness measuring method such as a carotest or a fluorescent X-ray film thickness meter.

More specifically, the carotest was used. In this carotest, a compact type carotest (CATc) manufactured by Anton Paar Japan Co., Ltd. is used, and as shown in FIG. 5, it corresponds to a film in a recess (carotest mark) formed by the carotest. The length X (μm) of the portion and the length Y (μm) of the portion corresponding to the film and the base material in the carotest scar are measured, and the radius of the steel ball used for the carotest is R (μm). , The film thickness t is obtained by the following equation B.
Equation B; t = XY / (2R)

In Example 1 and Comparative Example 1, the carotest was carried out at two healthy non-eroded sites sandwiching the erosion scar, and the average value was taken as the thickness of the film in the test piece. Here, the thickness of the film was obtained by the formula B at two points rotated 90 degrees with respect to one carotest mark, and the average value was taken as the thickness of the film with respect to the one carotest mark. Therefore, from the measured values of the four sets of XY, the average value of the film thickness obtained by the formula B was taken as the initial film thickness T0 in the test piece.

The measurement results of Example 1 and Comparative Example 1 carried out in this way are shown in FIGS. 2 to 4 and Table 1. In addition, Comparative Example 1 is a particle (WA # 8000) of the same size described in Patent Document 2.

As can be seen from FIGS. 2 to 4, the wear depth (wear rate, slope of the graph) per unit time is substantially constant while the film is eroded, and even while the substrate is eroded. Although the numerical values are different, the wear depth per unit time is almost constant. In the actual test, the predetermined specified time is set to 25 minutes in the test using WA # 8000 and 10 minutes in the test using WA # 320, and in the vicinity of the expected peeling start thickness. It has been changed to 5 minutes. For convenience of illustration, in Comparative Example 1, in FIGS. 2 and 3A, the wear depth on the film is indicated by ▲ and the wear depth on the substrate is indicated by Δ every 25 minutes, and in FIG. 3B, the wear depth is indicated by Δ. The cross-sectional shapes at 0 minutes, 50 minutes, 100 minutes, 150 minutes, 200 minutes, 250 minutes, 300 minutes and 325 minutes are shown. In Example 1, in FIGS. 2 and 4A, the wear depth on the film is indicated by ◆, the wear depth on the substrate is indicated by ◇, and in FIG. 4B, 0 minutes and 30 minutes. The cross-sectional shapes at minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes, 120 minutes, 130 minutes and 135 minutes are shown. Then, as shown by the cross-sectional shape 325 minutes after the start of the test shown in FIG. 3B and the cross-sectional shape 135 minutes after the start of the test shown in FIG. 4B, the shape of the central portion in the cross-sectional shape is earlier than that. The cross-sectional shape is measured by changing from the tendency of the shape (for example, in FIG. 4B, the tendency of the arc shape changes to the uneven shape), and the erosion of the film reaches the base material and changes to the erosion of the base material. Is understood from.

From such measurement results, as shown in Table 1, in Comparative Example 1, the thickness of the film was 6.39 μm, and the wear depth when the film was peeled off from the substrate (here, it reached the substrate). The wear depth measured immediately before the coating (the depth before reaching the substrate in Table 1) was 5.86 μm, and the peeling start thickness S2 was 0.53 μm (= 6.39-5.86). I was asked. In Example 1, the thickness of the film is 5.42 μm, and the wear depth when the film is peeled off from the base material (here, the wear depth measured immediately before reaching the base material) is 4. It was 54 μm, and the peeling start thickness T2 was determined to be 0.88 μm (= 5.42-4.54).

On the other hand, the wear depth measured immediately before reaching the base material may be the wear depth when the film is peeled off from the base material, but the wear depth when the film is peeled off from this base material is , There is a concern that it may change depending on the experimental conditions (slurry concentration, erosion time, etc.), and the wear depth measurement step (here, the cross-sectional shape measurement step) that was first performed after reaching the substrate and immediately before this. In some cases, there may be a true wear depth when the film is peeled off from the substrate between the wear depth measuring step (here, the cross-sectional shape measuring step) performed. Therefore, the true wear depth when the film was peeled off from the substrate was estimated based on the graph showing the relationship between the elapsed time from the start of wear and the wear depth shown in FIGS. 2, 3A and 4A. .. More specifically, in Comparative Example 1 and Example 1, the first approximate straight line (for example, the straight line obtained by the minimum square method) that approximates the wear depths Δ and ◇ on the base material is the film thickness in the test piece. Test time (elapsed time from the start of wear) that is extended to the position of the base (that is, the position of the interface between the film and the base material, the position of the surface of the base material) and the first approximate straight line intersects the position of the film thickness. ) Is calculated as the estimated base material arrival time, and the film is peeled off from the base material by the wear depth at the estimated base material arrival time from the second approximate straight line that approximates each wear depth ▲, ◆ in the film. It is sought as the true wear depth in the case. Then, the estimated peeling start thickness can be obtained by using the obtained true wear depth when the film is peeled from the substrate in the above formula A. As described above, the peeling start thickness St2 of Comparative Example 1 estimated from the slope of the graph is 0.28 μm, and the peeling start thickness Tt2 of Example 1 estimated from the slope of the graph is 0.77 μm. Met. For example, in the case of Comparative Example 1 shown in FIGS. 2 and 3A, when the test time is x and the wear depth is y, the first approximate straight line is y = 0.0216x-0.5007. The second approximate straight line is y = 0.0194x-0.0795, and the estimated base material arrival time obtained by substituting y = 6.39 for the first approximate straight line is x = 319.01. By substituting this into the second approximate straight line, the true wear depth can be obtained as y = 6.11. Therefore, as described above, the peeling start thickness St2 of Comparative Example 1 estimated from the slope of the graph is 6.39-6.11 = 0.28 μm.

In the above, since the wear (erosion) due to the particles (abrasive particles) is essentially controlled by the projection amount of the polygonal particles contained in the liquid material, the elapsed time is the projection of the particles. It may be an amount. The projection amount is the total mass of the projected particles, and is obtained by measuring the slurry flow rate during projection and multiplying the measured slurry flow rate by the slurry concentration and the projection time. The projection time required for the total projection amount differs depending on the slurry flow rate and the slurry concentration. Further, the test time can be shortened by changing the slurry flow rate and the slurry concentration, and it is preferable to change the slurry flow rate and the slurry concentration depending on the film thickness and the erosion rate (wear rate) of the target film.

From these, in Comparative Example 1, the peeling start thickness S2 obtained by using the wear depth measured immediately before reaching the substrate is 0.53 μm, and the peeling start thickness estimated from the inclination of the graph is estimated. Since the thickness St2 is 0.28 μm, the error is about + 89% (≈((0.53-0.28 / 0.28) × 100), which is very large. On the other hand, Examples. In No. 1, the peeling start thickness T2 obtained by using the wear depth measured immediately before reaching the substrate is 0.88 μm, and the peeling start thickness Tt2 estimated from the inclination of the graph is Since it is 0.77 μm, the error is about + 14% (≈((0.88-0.77 / 0.77) × 100), which is superior to Comparative Example 1. From the comparison of such errors, as described above, the evaluation with the particles of # 320 is sufficient with the wear depth measured immediately before reaching the substrate without obtaining the true wear depth. It is also understood that the degree of adhesion can be evaluated.

Further, in Comparative Example 1, it took 300 minutes to reach the substrate due to the erosion of the film, which was more than twice as long as the 130 minutes of Example 1, and therefore WA # 8000. Comparative Example 1 using the particles of WA # 320 is not realistic, and in comparison with this, Example 1 using the particles of WA # 320 can perform the measurement quickly and stably.

(Examples 2 to 8)
Examples 2 to 8 are examples in which the type of the base material is changed and the present evaluation method and the conventional evaluation method are compared.

More specifically, as shown in Table 2, the base material of the test body in Examples 2 and 7 is a super hard alloy (class P), and the base material of the test body in Example 3 is high. It is speed tool steel (SKH51), the base material of the test piece in Example 4 is a titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), and the base material of the test piece in Examples 5 and 8 is pure copper. The base material of the test piece in Example 6 is pure titanium. Each film of each test piece in Examples 2 to 8 was AlCrN and was formed by the PVD method. Examples 2 to 6, Example 7 and Example 8 were formed in two batches. The conditions other than the film forming time are all the same, and only the batches of Example 7 and Example 8 are set to have a long film forming time in order to increase the film thickness. There is no difference in nature.

The present evaluation method for each test piece in Examples 2 to 8 is the same as that in Example 1. On the other hand, the conventional evaluation method is a scratch test generally used as an evaluation method for close contact.

In the scratch test for each of the test pieces in Examples 2 to 8, a scratch tester (CSEM REVETEST SCRATCH TESTER) was used, and the scratch test was carried out at a load of 0 N to 100 N and a test distance of 10 mm. From the state of the scratch marks after the scratch test, the load at the point where the partial film peeling started was Lc2, and the load at the point where all the film at the contact site started peeling was Lc3. In the test piece of Example 7, peeling was not observed even when the load reached 100N in the scratch test, so Lc2 and Lc3 are set to 100N for convenience.

Table 2 and FIG. 6 show the results of the present evaluation method and the conventional evaluation method for each of the test pieces in Examples 2 to 8. FIG. 6 is a diagram for explaining the relationship between Examples 2 to 8 and the scratch test results. FIG. 6A shows the relationship between the peeling start thickness and the peeling load Lc2, the horizontal axis thereof is the peeling start thickness expressed in μm, and the vertical axis thereof is the peeling load Lc2 expressed in N units. FIG. 6B shows the relationship between the peeling start thickness and the peeling load Lc3, the horizontal axis thereof is the peeling start thickness expressed in μm, and the vertical axis thereof is the peeling load Lc3 expressed in N units. For Example 7 in which the peeling loads Lc2 and Lc3 exceed 100 N, the plot is provided with an upward arrow indicating that the peel load exceeds 100 N.

As can be seen from Table 2 and FIG. 6, this evaluation method correlates with the conventional evaluation method, and peeling is likely to occur in the conventional evaluation method, that is, in a test piece having a small load Lc2, this evaluation method is used. On the other hand, in a test piece in which peeling is unlikely to occur by the conventional evaluation method, that is, a load Lc2 is large, the peeling start thickness by this evaluation method is small. Further, even with a test piece having good adhesion as in Example 7 which could not be evaluated by the scratch tester of the conventional evaluation method (= test piece having a peeling load Lc2 or a peeling load Lc3 exceeding 100 N), the peeling start thickness. Can be measured and evaluated by this evaluation method.

As described above, in the material adhesion evaluation method, a liquid material containing polygonal particles is used for weight loss of a material having at least an interface between the first portion and the second portion, and peeling at the interface is started. Since the peeling start thickness, which is the remaining thickness of the first portion at that time, is used as an index of the degree of adhesion, the degree of adhesion at the interface can be evaluated more appropriately.

In order to express the present invention, the present invention has been appropriately and sufficiently described through the embodiments with reference to the drawings described above, but those skilled in the art can easily change and / or improve the above-described embodiments. It should be recognized that it is possible. Therefore, unless the modified or improved form implemented by a person skilled in the art is at a level that deviates from the scope of rights of the claims stated in the claims, the modified form or the improved form is the scope of rights of the claims. It is interpreted to be included in.

Claims (1)

An injection step of injecting a liquid material containing abrasive grains onto the surface of the material to be evaluated having at least an interface between the first portion and the second portion.
The present invention comprises a measuring step of measuring the peeling start thickness, which is the remaining thickness of the first portion when the peeling at the interface is started, as the degree of adhesion indicating the degree of adhesion at the interface.
The abrasive grains are hard particles having an average particle size of 40 μm or more and an HV of 1500 or more .
Material adhesion evaluation method.

Images