Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of tensile, shear and

interfacial indentation methods

M. Hadad1, G. Marot2, Ph. Dmarcaux2, J. Lesage3, J. Michler1, S. Siegmann1
1

EMPA, Swiss Institute for Material Science and Technology, 3602 Thun, Switzerland.

HEI, Laboratoire de Science des Matriaux, Lille, France.

Laboratoire de Mcanique de Lille, UMR CNRS 8107, U.S.T. Lille, IUT A GMP, Villeneuve dAscq, France

Abstract
Three adhesion measurement methods for thermal spray coatings, namely tensile adhesive strength (according to
EN 582), interfacial indentation and in-plane tensile tests were investigated in terms of accuracy of the results and
application potential for different coating / substrate conditions. Whereas the tensile adhesive strength test is widely
used in industry, the other two methods are still under development in research laboratories and therefore only few
experimental data on the accuracy of the methods and on the potential in an industrial context are available. For
that reason, dissimilar coating-substrate combinations covering a wide range of types of thermal spray coatingsubstrate systems were tested using all these methods. Ceramic (Al2O3) and metallic (NiCr 80-20) coatings were
thermally sprayed by flame spraying with two different thickness on titanium alloy and steel substrates exhibiting
each two distinct roughness levels. The distinguished coating properties include the coating toughness, shear
strength, interfacial toughness, and adhesive strength. Thermally sprayed coatings do not only show an interfacial
complexity, but also the integrity of the interface of substrate and coating has to be considered, as well as porosity,
cracks and residual stresses. In this paper, each measurement method was found to be related to certain type of
loading conditions and fracture mode. The results of the different methods are compared and the limits of
applicability of the different methods are discussed.
1. Introduction
Many methods have been developed for evaluating
the coating-substrate adhesion. Among them, a
significant number is based on the linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach [1-3]. However,
there are no universal tests for measuring coatings
adhesion. Each method is related to a certain type of
coating, loading condition, application of the coating
etc. This can be explained by the variety of coatings
systems which represent different types of dissimilar
material interfaces that are present in many industrial
applications
(metal/metal,
metal/ceramic,
polymer/metal, polymer/ceramic, etc). The tests that
work with one coating system may not necessarily
work with another [4-6]. Though, there is no standard
adhesion test for coating system which can suite all
materials. Among the most widespread methods
used are indentation tests [7, 8], shear tests [9-13],
tensile adhesive strength like ASTM C633, ASTM
F1147, ISO 14916, EN 582 [14-16] and double
cantilever beam (DCB), where a large scatter of the
results was observed and must be viewed
quantitatively even the test system was very sensitive
[5, [17]. The best test method often becomes the one
that simulates practical stress condition [18-20]. We
should also note that adhesion is not a constant in
practical applications, but rather a complicated
property that depends on loading conditions on
coating thickness [14] and on different parameters
such as grit blasting to roughen the substrate surface
[21-25]. Furthermore, the residual stresses due to the
mismatch in thermal and mechanical properties

between coatings and substrate are of importance

[26-30].
The primary objective of this study is to compare
methods for the determination of coatings adhesion
and fracture properties of thermal spray coatings
based on the observed failure modes. Therefore
three common adhesion tests were applied to
ceramic (Al2O3) and metallic (NiCr 80-20) thermal
sprayed coatings with different thickness on
substrates of titanium alloy and steel with different
roughness.
2. Materials and experimental procedure
NiCr 80-20 and Al2O3 coatings were deposited by
flame spraying on substrates St 52-3 and TiAl6V4.
The substrates exhibit two different roughness
produced by grit blasting (Ra 2.7 and 5.2 m). The
average coatings thicknesses were 140 m and 330
m. In total 16 combinations were performed and
summarized in table 1.
In order to scan the applicability of tests for a broad
range of coatings, three main tests were performed:
Tensile adhesive strength, tensile tests and interfacial
indentation tests (figure 1).
The mechanical properties of the coatings such as
hardness and Youngs modulus have been
determined by low-load indentation techniques [31,
32], the Youngs modulus of coatings Al2O3, NiCr 8020 were measured to be 49.5 and 97.3 kN/mm2,
respectively. Whereas the Youngs Modulus of the
substrates TiAl6V4 alloy and Steel St 52-3 were
determined by tensile tests as 151 and 214 kN/mm2
respectively.

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5

Table N1:
Nomenclature and combinations of
materials and coating-substrate systems:

2.1 Tensile adhesive strength experiments

According to the standard test EN 582, test
specimens of 25 mm diameter were joined with the
cylindrical counter parts using an adhesive agent.
Then they have been cured at elevated temperature
(210C). The tensile load was applied with an
Universal Epprecht-Multitest tensile machine. The
mean adhesive strength values were calculated from
three tests performed under the same conditions.
The tensile adhesive strength was calculated by:
(1)
max = F/A [MPa]
Where F is the maximum load at rupture, and A is the
normal section of specimen. The sample geometry is
shown in figure 1-a.

Al 140. 5.6 /St

Substrat
Material
St 52-3

Coating
material
Al2O3

Ra
m
5.6

Thickness
m
140

Al 330. 5.6 /St

St 52-3

Al2O3

5.6

330

Al 140. 2.7 /St

St 52-3

Al2O3

2.7

140

Al 330 2.7 /St

St 52-3

Al2O3

2.7

330

M 140. 5.6 /St

St 52-3

NiCr 80-20

5.6

140

M 330. 5.6 /St

St 52-3

NiCr 80-20

5.6

330

M 140. 2.7 /St

St 52-3

NiCr 80-20

2.7

140

M 330. 2.7 /St

St 52-3

NiCr 80-20

2.7

330

Al 140. 5.6 /Ti

TiAl6V4

Al2O3

5.6

140

2.2 Tensile experiments

Al 330. 5.6 /Ti

TiAl6V4

Al2O3

5.6

330

Al 140. 2.7 /Ti

TiAl6V4

Al2O3

2.7

140

Al 330. 2.7 /Ti

TiAl6V4

Al2O3

2.7

330

M 140. 5.6 /Ti

TiAl6V4

NiCr 80-20

5.6

140

M 330. 5.6 /Ti

TiAl6V4

NiCr 80-20

5.6

330

M 140. 2.7 /Ti

TiAl6V4

NiCr 80-20

2.7

140

M 330. 2.7 /Ti

TiAl6V4

NiCr 80-20

2.7

330

The geometry of the specimen is shown

schematically in fig. 1-b. The specimens were loaded
along their longitudinal axis. The displacement rate
was 8 m/s measured using an extensometer. The
span of displacement measured was 21 mm. Videos
of the specimen surface were captured during tensile
testing from frontal and upper sides to gain a
fundamental understanding the fracture mechanisms.
The Youngs Modulus of the titanium alloy and steel
substrate were measured using the extensometer.
The average value found was 151, and 214 [GPa].
The energy release rate due to the crack channelling
was estimated using and expression developed by
Beuth [12].

Nomenclature

Where Al and M are the ceramic Al2O3 and metallic

NiCr 80-20 coatings, respectively, 140 and 330 are
the coating thicknesses, 2.7 and 5.7 m are the Ra
values as an interfacial roughnesses, /St and /Ti are
the substrates of steel and of titanium alloy
respectively.
F

Gc =

2 max .hC
2

Ec

.g ( , )

(2)

where E c = Ec /(1 2 ) is the material plane strain

Coating

tensile modulus, g(,) is the Dundurs parameters

and is the ultimate stress of coating, hc is the
coating thickness.
F

(a)

Coating

Substrate
Cross A-A

(b)
F

Brittle coating fracture (Al2O3) and data

evaluation
In our experiments, the coatings delamination took
place after first crack is produced perpendicularly to
the coating/substrate interface. In this case, the
coating strength is bigger than the interfacial strength
(GCoating>GInterface) (figure 2- a, c).
Therefore, the total energy release rate G total is
described in [7, 16] and given by:
G total = G c G residual
(3)

G residual =
(C)
Coating

Figure (1): Schematic presentation of test methods

employed a) tensile adhesive test, b) tensile test with
one side coating system c) interfacial indentation test.

2
res

2 EC

. h c . g ( , )

(4)

This results in a coating toughness of:

K IC =

Ec .GTotal
(1 c2 )

(5)

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5

Ductile coating fracture (NiCr 80-20) and data

evaluation
The ductile coatings fracture mode dominated by
cracks fragmentation as shown in figure (2, b &c). The
coating strength is smaller than the interfacial strength
(GCoating<GInterface). The interface strength may be
assessed in this case via a statistical analysis of the
interfacial shear strength (IFSS) described by Y.
Leterrier [10, 33].

N
.(1 + plastic )

= 1.34.hC . max .

(6)

Crack

(a)

(b)

(c)

2 mm

(d)

2 mm

Figure 2: Coatings failure in tensile test, a & b)

schematic presentation of coating delamination and
failure by cracks fragmentation respectively. c) Upper
view- micrograph of coating failure by delamination
(ceramic coating) d) Micrograph of coating failure by
cracks fragmentation (metallic coating).
2.3. Interfacial indentation experiments
The approach involves a direct measurement of the
length of a radial crack initiated by Vickers indentation
at the interface of a coated material in a cross section
(figure 1-d). The measured crack length at the
interface is used to calculate the interfacial toughness
using a recently developed method by Chicot,
Dmarecaux and Lesage [36, 37]. The interfacial
toughness is expressed by:

PC

aC3 / 2

1/ 2

E

H i

(7)

PC and aC denote load and crack length, respectively.

The square root of the ratio of the elastic modulus (E)
divided by the Vickers hardness (H) at the interface is
expressed by:

(E H )

(E H)

1/ 2

1/ 2

Where hC is the coating thickness, max is the ultimate

tensile strength of coating which is similar magnitude
to those occurring at the deformation of coating
caused by hardness indenter [34, 35], N/L is crack
density per length unite, plastic is the plastic strain. The
energy release rate in relation (2) was estimated with
the ultimate max in coating in term of the measured
coating hardness max = 3.2Hv.
Coating delamination

K IC = 0.015

1/ 2

1+ S

HC

(E H)

1/ 2

1+ C

HS

1/ 2

(8)

Where the subscripts i, s and c stand for interface,

substrate and coating, respectively.
3.1 Results of tensile adhesive strength
Coating thickness effect: the bond strength data in
table 2 show that the bond strength of thermal spray
coatings decreases with increasing coating thickness.
This may be related to the residual stresses that
produce more driving force for interface crack
propagation in thicker coatings [14]. Another
explication is that the adhesive used in the test could
penetrate the porous thin coating more easily than a
thicker one and subsequently, the adhesive may
increase the adhesion of thinner coating.
Interfacial roughness effect: the bond strength of
Al2O3 coatings on steel substrate and NiCr 80-20
coatings TiAl6V4 substrate both show a general
tendency to increase with increasing Ra value. Within
the experimental scatter, the interfacial roughness
doesnt show significant influence on the other
combinations. As Ra is the representation of the
average roughness and since it is unable to take into
account the true area of contact between substrate
and coating, it cannot explain accurately the impact of
interface roughness on adhesion [24, 25].
As mentioned above, the bonding agent tends to
penetrate the pores of the coating and modify its
behaviour. This invalidates the results (as e.g. for
Al2O3 on TiAl6V4 substrate) unless the coatings are
thick and tight enough to prevent penetration. Tensile
adhesive tests involve a complex mixture of tensile
and shear forces which render difficult the
interpretation of the results [38]. Moreover, it has been
discussed extensively in the literature that this test
can not be related to fracture mechanic properties like
toughness, as the crack propagation is spontaneous
and depends on the critical flaw size at the interface
[2, 4].

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5

Roughness Ra m

Substrate

Table 2: The summary results of all test methods:

Steel

5.6
2.7
5.6
2.7

Titanium alloy

5.6
2.7
5.6
2.7

Tensile adhesive

Tensile test

Interfacial

Test methods
strength

Ductile coatings

Coatings
and thickness

[MPa]

(IFSS)

and SDEV

[GPa]

Al 140

91 7

Al 330
Al 140
Al 330
M 140
M 330
M 140
M 330
Al 140
Al 330
Al 140
Al 330
M 140
M 330
M 140
M 330

Brittle coatings

KIC

[MPa.m

68 9
90 6
42 8
70 7
51 4
82 4

54 14

KIC

[MPa.m

9.4

1.9

16.2

0.7

13.3

1.3

6.5

1.6

0.36

15.3

2.1

0.16

8.2

1.7

0.21

14.8

41 19

90 6

0.5

1.6

105 29

68 9

KIC

[MPa.m

7.1

78 8

91 7

0.2

100 4

61 9

0.5

indentation

0.5

2.3
13.9

3.9

8.2

0.8

8.3

8.1

0.81

7.7

3.2

0.24

13.7

0.25

8.1

1.4

0.11

12.6

1.4

3.2 Results of tensile test:

3.3 Results of interfacial indentation

Brittle coating fracture (Al2O3): Table 2 shows the

calculated coating fracture toughness (see formula 2
and 5). An impact of interfacial roughness and
coatings thickness on the coating toughness was not
observed.
Ductile coating fracture (NiCr 80-20): The adhesion
in this tensile test is presented by the interfacial shear
strength (IFFS) which is related to the density of
coatings cracks measured in saturation stage of the
cracks fragmentation. As general trend, the interfacial
shear strength (IFSS) was observed to increase with
increasing Ra roughness values.
The fracture toughness of ductile coatings was
observed to increase with coatings thickness
increase, whereas the impact of interfacial roughness
was not evidenced. The fracture toughness was
calculated based on the estimated energy release rate
due to crack channelling using Dundurs parameters
with the pre-existing crack tip in the theoretical model
of calculation (formula 2), but in our case we dont
know crack tip dimension on the coating,
subsequently the results revealed a high toughness
values comparing to interfacial toughness.
However, the upper limit of energy release rate has
been estimated.

Coating thickness effect: The interfacial toughness

showed a decrease in increasing coating thickness for
the TiAl6V4 substrate, on the other hand, for the steel
substrate shows lower if not reverse effect of the
coating thickness on the interfacial toughness. This
can be explained by the presence of different residual
stress states which may differ from the Titanium alloy
substrate to the steel substrate [39].
Interfacial roughness effect: From table 2, it is seen
for the coating with thickness 140 m that the
interfacial toughness tends to increase with Ra. In
contrast, for the coating thickness of 330 m, the
interfacial toughness increases with decreasing Ra
values. The crack propagation into the smooth
interface is easier than into the rougher one,
subsequently, the interfacial toughness should
increase with Ra. Since the behaviours are opposite
in the two situations, it means that the residual stress
effect may be dominant.
The coating fracture toughness values obtained by
tensile tests are in some case about ten times of the
interfacial toughness values obtained by interfacial
indentation tests. These high values were due to our
calculation of the energy release rate as an upper
limit.

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5

to the bonding across the interface, it is certainly a

more fundamental measure of adhesion than the bond
strength which is the result of a combination of
fracture resistance and size distribution of defects.
However, a general trend has been found between
interfacial toughness and bond strength (figure 3).
Only the full squared points were taken in
consideration in this tendency because we considered
that the other points (empty squared) are influenced
by the penetration of the adhesive agent into the
pores of the coatings. In particular, the porosity in the
ceramic coating was found to be up to 7% and the
adhesive resistance to tensile strength was found to
be ~100 MPa. Therefore, the trend should be
considered for the metallic coatings rather than for the
ceramic coatings.

3.4 Correlation between adhesive strength and

interfacial toughness
Only interfacial indentation tests and adhesive
strength test allowed to asses adhesion of metallic
coating on substrates combinations. Therefore, a
correlation between the measured values is discussed
in the following. For the indentation test, a
mechanically stable crack is introduced into the
coating-substrate interface using conventional Vickers
indentation. The resistance to crack propagation at
the interface is then used as a measure of adhesion,
by analogy with the fracture of homogeneous brittle
solids, this may be characterized by a fracture
resistance parameter or strength parameter. Since
this fracture resistance parameter is related uniquely
120

Bonding strength (EN 582) [MPa]

100

y = 7.57x + 36.28

80

R = 0.46
60

M 140 2.7/Ti

M 140 5.6/Ti

M 330 5.6/St
M 330 2.7/St

M 330 5.6/Ti
Al 330 2.7/St

40

Al 330 2.7/Ti

M 330 2.7/Ti

20

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0,5

4.5

Kc interfacial toughness by indentation [MPa.m ]

Figure 3: Correlation diagram of bond strength and interfacial toughness

4. Conclusion
Based on the results of this experimental study, the
following general conclusions can be drawn:
1. The mechanism of coating fracture of each test
method was understood and the impacts of interfacial
roughness and coatings thickness on bond strength,
interfacial toughness, coating toughness have been
reported. Each method employed showed a different
tendency because of different loading conditions of
the coating substrate systems.
2. In-plane tensile test with one side coating, the
results should be developed much further with
statistical models, in particular, the theory governing
the development of crack patterns under axial and
shear stresses in order to give quantitative results.
3. As the stress intensity and loading systems are
different in interfacial indentations and in-plane

tensile tests, the coating toughness values were ten

times factor of the interfacial toughness values. This
fact due to highly estimated energy release rate as
the upper limit.
4. It was shown that the two tests, bond strength and
interfacial toughness, give the same general trends
for the different situations of coatings and substrates.
Moreover, a correlation between the results of both
tests could be drawn.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ph. Schneider, B. von
Gunten, G. Brki, H. B. Mosimann and
metallography-team for their help in the framework in
this project, as well as, Wissenschaft und
Technologie of Armasuisse for their financial support
also A. Meier for the video image treatments.

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5

References
[1] Cheng, Y. S, et al., Analytical study on a new
bond test method for measuring adhesion.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1999. 64(1):
p. 117-123.
[2] Menningen, M. and H. Weiss, Application of
fracture mechanics to the adhesion of metal
coatings on CFRP. Surface and Coatings
Technology, 1995. 76-77(2): p. 835-840.
[3] Y.-H, Lai, A. Dillard, Using the fracture efficiency
to compare adhesion tests. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 1997. 34(4): p. 509525.
[4] Berndt, C.C. and C.K. Lin, Measurement of
Adhesion for Thermally Sprayed Materials.
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology,
1993. 7(12): p. 1235-1264.
[5] Piggott, M.R., Why interface testing by singlefibre methods can be misleading. Composites
Science and Technology, 1997. 57(8): p. 965974.
[6] Volinsky, A. A, N.R. Moody, and W.W.
Gerberich, Interfacial toughness measurements
for thin films on substrates. Acta materialia,
2002. 50(3): p. 441-466.
[7] Drory. M. D, Hutchinson. H.W Measurement of
the adhesion of a brittle film on a ductile
substrate by indentation, Proc. R. Soc. Lond A
(1996), pp. 452, 2319.
[8] Vasinonta, A. and J.L. Beuth, Measurement of
interfacial toughness in thermal barrier coating
systems by indentation. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 2001. 68(7): p. 843-860.
[9] Agrawal, D.C. and R. Raj, Measurement of the
ultimate shear strength of a metal-ceramic
interface. Acta metallurgica, 1989. 37(4): p.
1265-1270.
[10] Leterrier, Y, Durability of nanosized oxygenbarrier coatings on polymers. Progress in
Materials Science, 2003. 48(1). pp. 1-55.
[11] Shieu, F.S, H. Shiao, Measurement of the
interfacial mechanical properties of a thin
ceramic coating on ductile substrates. Thin
Solid Films, 1997. 306(1): pp.124-129.
[12] J. L. Beuth, Cracking of thin bonded films in
residual tension, In. J. Solids Structures Vol. 29,
No. 13, (1992), pp. 1657-1675.
[13] Era, H., et al., A Modified Shear Test for
Adhesion Evaluation of Thermal Sprayed
Coating. Materials Science and Engineering: A,
1998. 251, pp. 166-172.
[14] Greving, D. J, J.R. Shadley, and E.F. Rybicki,
Effects of Coating Thickness and Residual
Stresses on the Bond Strength of ASTM C63379 Thermal Spray Coating Test Specimens.
Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, 1994.
3(4): p. 371-378.
[15] Han, W, E.F. Rybicki, and J.R. Shadley,
Application of Fracture Mechanics to the
Interpretation of Bond Strength Data from ASTM
Standard C633-79. Journal of Thermal Spray
Technology, 1993. 2(3): p. 235-241.

[16] Menck, J., Mechanics of Components with

Treated or Coated Sufaces. Solid Mechanics
and its Applications, ed. G.M.L. Gladwell. Vol.
42. 1995: Kluwer Academic Publisher, P.O.
Box17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, Netherlands. 366.
[17] J. Y. Sener, Th. Ferracin, L. Caussin, F.
Delannay, On the precision of the wedgeopened double cantilever beam method for
measuringthe
debondingtoug
hness
of
adhesively bonded plates, International Journal
of Adhesion & Adhesives. (2002), 22,pp.129
137.
[18] Gan, L, B. Ben-Nissan, and A. Ben-David,
Modelling and finite element analysis of ultramicrohardness indentation of thin films. Thin
Solid Films, 1996. 290-291(1): p. 362-366.
[19] Klingbeil, N.W. and J.L. Beuth, Interfacial
fracture testing of deposited metal layers under
four-point bending. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 1997. 56(1): p. 113-126.
[20] Li, H.Q, X. Cai, and Q.L. Cheng, Interfacial
fracture property determination of coated
systems: A finite element study. Journal of
Materials Science Letters, 2001. 20(23): p.
2167-2171.
[21] Amada, S. and T. Hirose, Influence of grit
blasting pre-treatment on the adhesion strength
of plasma sprayed coatings: fractal analysis of
roughness. Surface and Coatings Technology,
1998. 102(1-2): p. 132-137.
[22] Siegmann, S., Investigations on the Substrate
Surface Morphology for Thermal Sprayed
Coatings, in 17th International SAMPE Europe
Conference:
Success
of
Materials
by
Combination. 1996, SAMPE Europe: Basel, CH.
[23] Harris, A. F. and A. Beewers, The effects of gritblasting on surface properties for adhesion.
International Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives, 1999. 19(6): p. 445-452.
[24] Siegmann, S. and C.A. Brown. Surface Texture
Correlations with Tensile Adhesive Strength of
Thermally Sprayed Coatings Using Area-Scale
Fractal Analysis. in 2nd United Thermal Spray
Conference. 1999. Dsseldorf, D: DVS Verlag,
Dsseldorf.
[25] Siegmann, S, Scale-Sensitive Fractal Analysis
for Understanding the Influence of Substrate
Roughness in Thermal Spraying, in 1st United
Thermal Spray Conference, C.C. Berndt, Editor.
1997, ASM International, Materials Park, OH
44073-0002: Indianapolis, Indiana.
[26] Keller, T., et al., Residual stress determination in
thermally sprayed metallic deposits by neutron
diffraction. Materials Science and Engineering:
A, 2004. 373(1-2): p. 33-44.
[27] nal, . and D.J. Sordelet, In-Plane Tensile
Strength and Residual Stress in Thick Al2O3
Coatings on Aluminum Alloy. Scripta Materialia,
2000. 42(7): p. 631-636.
[28] Kesler, O, et al., Determination of ProcessingInduced Stresses and Properties of Layered
and Graded Coatings: Experimental Method

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5

and Results for Plasma-Sprayed Ni-Al2O3. Acta

materialia, 1997. 45(8): p. 3123-3134.
[29] Kesler, O, et al, Measurement of Residual
Stress in Plasma-Sprayed Metallic, Ceramic
and Composite Coatings. Materials Science and
Engineering: A, 1998. 257(2): p. 215-224.
[30] Drory, M.D, M.D. Thouless, and A.G. Evans, On
the decohesion of residually stressed thin films.
Acta metallurgica, 1998. 36(8): p. 2019-2028.
[31] Ohmura, T. and S. Matsuoka, Evaluation of
mechanical properties of ceramic coatings on a
metal substrate. Surface and Coatings
Technology, (2003). 169-170(1). pp. 728-731.
[32] EN ISO-14577-1, Instrumented indentation test
for hardness and materials parameters - Part 1:
Test method.
[33] Leterrier, Y, et al, Biaxial fragmentation of thin
silicon oxide coatings on poly (ethylene
terephthalate). Journal of Materials Science,
2001. 36(9): pp. 2213-2225.

[34] Norman E. Dowling, Mechanical behaviour of

materials,
Engineering
Methods
for
Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue, Prentice
Hall international- (1999), ISBN: 0-13-026956-5.
[35] Hardness conversion table, DIN 50-150.
[36] Lesage. J, et al. Adhesion of Thermal Sprayed
Coatings: A Model for the Interface Indentation
Test. in 14th International Thermal Spray
Conference: Thermal Spraying-Current Status
and Future Trends. 1995. Kobe, Japan: High
Temperature Society of Japan.
[37] Lesage. J, Interface Indentation Test to
Determine Adhesion of Coatings (F). Revue de
Mtallurgie, 1993. 90(12): p. 1655-1663.
[38] Staia, M.H, et al., Effect of Substrate Roughness
Induced by Grit Blasting upon Adhesion of WC17% Co Thermal Sprayed Coatings. Thin Solid
Films, 2000. 377-378, pp. 657-664.
[39] D. Chicot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, Apparent
interface toughness of substrate and coating
couples from indentation tests, Thin Solid Films
283 (1996), pp.151-157.

Hadad, M., G. Marot, P. Dmarcaux, J. Lesage, J. Michler and S. Siegmann: Adhesion tests for thermal spray coatings: Application range of
tensile, shear and interfacial indentation methods, Proceedings of ITSC 2005 Thermal Spray connects: Explore its surfacing potential! (2005),
p. 759-764, ISBN 3-87155-793-5