Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in

polypropylene
A. Dasari, S. J. Duncan, and R. D. K. Misra
Atomic force microscopy (AFM) in tapping mode has been used to characterise surface damage on deformed
polypropylenes induced during a scratch test. Atomic force micrographs revealed differences in microstructures that
could be used to predict the deformation resistance of two different types of polypropylene. The undeformed surface
of the two types of polypropylene (identi ed as polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R) was characterised by
differences in arrangement (regular or irregular) of brils depending on their melt ow conditions. Polypropylene-L
is a polymer with longer chains and with restricted ow, whereas polypropylene-R has shorter chains obtained by
controlled rheology. The micro brils in undeformed polypropylene-L bend, forming raised surface features of height
in the region of 10 50 nm. In comparison to polypropylene-L, the micro brils in undeformed polypropylene-R
exhibited surface features of relatively lower height (10 20 nm). 30630 nm scan AFM images provided details
of micro brils containing chains of molecules of ~ 0.5 nm wide. Surface deformation induced by the scratch resulted
in the formation of scratch tracks characterised by regions of quasi-periodic (consecutive) cracking. This type
of deformation is attributed to higher applied loads or to higher contact strains. This is particularly important
in semicrystalline polymers, where there is partial reorganisation of microstructure on the application of
surface stresses because of their viscoelastic properties. Atomic force micrographs of mechanically deformed
polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R at a scan size of 161 l m indicated a lesser amount of reorganisation of
microstructure in polypropylene-L as compared with polypropylene-R. Surface pro les and section analysis of the
AFM micrographs suggested that polypropylene-R is more scratch resistant in comparison to polypropylene-L
under identical scratch test conditions, consistent with Raman spectroscopy observations of tensile deformed
polypropylene.
MST/5253
Mr Dasari and Professor Misra (dmisra@louisiana.edu) are in the Department of Chemical Engineering, University of
Louisiana at Lafayette, PO Box 44130, Lafayette, LA 70504 4130, USA and Dr Duncan is with Basell Polyole ns, Bramley
Road, Mount Farm, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LZ, UK. Manuscript received 8 October 2001; accepted 8 January 2002.
# 2002 IoM Communications Ltd. Published by Maney for the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.

Introduction
Polymers are substituting for traditional engineering
materials in automotive applications, while metals are continuing to advance, but at a far slower rate than polymers. 1
The growth of polymers is driven by a deliberate effort to
meet human requirements by engineering design, reduced
cost, and increase in recyclability.
Thermoplastic ole ns (TPO), polypropylene (PP) and
polyethylene (PE) are emerging as primary materials in
automotive systems because of relatively low cost and ready
availability. However, it is important that they are manufactured with durable, low gloss rst surfaces, and are
pleasing aesthetically.2 6 To maintain a good appearance,
it is desirable that polymeric materials exhibit minimal
susceptibility for mechanically induced surface damage (e.g.
good scratch resistance) and do not stress whiten to any
signi cant extent when scratched. Stress whitening of polymers is aesthetically undesirable because the white marks
are in prominent contrast to the colour of the article. This
characteristic is also important for tribological applications. Surface damage induced by scratching or mechanical
deformation processes detracts the user from the subjective
perception of quality of the product and limits the applicability of polymeric material. Additionally, mechanically
induced surface damage undermines the longevity of polymeric components and restricts the usage of polymers for
automotive applications, such as for instrument panels.4 6
Scratches may also induce stress raisers and can reduce the
mechanical strength of materials.
Since the introduction of thermoplastic ole ns in the
automotive industry in the early 1990 s, a scratch test was
introduced to evaluate the scratch resistance of automotive
DOI 10.1179/026708302225005945

polymeric materials 6 ,7 and quantitatively characterise the

mechanically induced surface damage that can be inadvertently introduced in polymeric materials. The understanding of scratch and mar resistance has accelerated as a result
of durability issues involving intermaterial substitution.8
The quantitative evaluation of scratch behaviour of
polymers5 ,8 ,9 involved characterisation of the change in the
optical property (such as colour, grey level) as a consequence of surface deformation after scratching. Generally,
materials with a higher scratch hardness showed lower
scratch visibility, and since smooth surfaces have high gloss
levels, a simple relationship has been proposed5 ,6 ,1 0 ,1 1
Surface roughness

Gloss level

Scratch Visibility

In the recent past, a few studies were directed towards the

quantitative characterisation of scratching of polymers with
the emphasis on the microdeformation mechanism. Yang
et al.4 ,1 2 ,1 3 investigated the microscale scratching of glassy
polymers by examining scratch tracks by scanning electron
microscopy (SEM). Briscoe et al.1 4 developed scratch maps
that showed a wide range of scratch deformation characteristics within a modest range of strain, strain rate, and
temperature. The primary parameters that in uenced the
scratch test were strain (cone angle), normal load under
which the indenter is moved, the bulk temperature of the
samples, and the sliding or scratching velocity. On the basis
of the scratch test, polymeric materials were developed to
produce the lowest scratch damage.
Efforts are currently under way to re ne the mechanically
induced surface damage test for the evaluation of current
materials and one that could assist in the technological
development of futuristic materials.4 ,5 ,8 In the endeavour
to develop improved polymeric materials characterised by

Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18 1227

1228 Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene

1 Schematic of the scratch test, W is the normal applied

load, V is the scratching velocity, and d is the scratch
width

high resistance to mechanically induced surface damage,

it is important to understand the events that occur at the
micro- and nano-scale ranges.1 5 ,1 6 In the present paper,
two polypropylene materials subjected to a scratch test
(Fig. 1) under identical load conditions have been examined
by atomic force microscopy (AFM) to study the microand nano-scale events that occur in polymeric materials.
The observations are correlated with Raman spectroscopy samples deformed in tension to different amounts of
strain.

Experimental procedure
Two polypropylene samples conforming to ISO R527
geometry were cast by the injection moulding process
with the longitudinal axis of tensile specimen corresponding to the direction of extrusion; the rst designated as
polypropylene-L and the second, polypropylene-R. The
mechanical and physical properties are summarised in
Table 1. In polypropylene-L the ow was restricted and
polypropylene-R is controlled rheology ( see Table 2 for
melt ow rates).
The scratch test machine was a conventional lever type
machine with a conical indenter attached to the lever arm.
The samples were xed on a levelling platform that was
attached to a displacement stage. The stage provided scratch
velocities in the range of 0 .001 40 mm s 1 . The indenter
holder was connected to a piezoelectric force transducer
to record the scratch (frictional) force. Normal load was
applied by placing dead weights upon the indenter holder.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the scratch test. The two
polypropylene samples identi ed as L and R were scratched
using a load of 7 N.
Table 1 Mechanical
and
physical
properties
polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R

of

Polypropylene-L Polypropylene-R
Melting point
obtained using DSC
Tensile modulus
at displacement
rate of 1 mm min 1
Tensile yield stress
at displacement
rate of 50 mm min 1
Tensile yield strain
at displacement
rate of 50 mm min 1
Charpy notch impact strength
Izod notch impact strength

163C

163C

1500 MPa

1500 MPa

34 MPa

34 MPa

9%

18%

1.5 kJ m 2
1.3 kJ m 2

1.5 kJ m 2
1.3 kJ m 2

Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) has emerged as an

important technique for characterisation of surface morphological features and generating three-dimensional images of
surface topography with nanometre resolution.1 7 2 2 The
operation of AFM used in the study is as follows. Topographical images were generated by bringing a sharp probe
tip close to the surface and rastering across it using x and y
piezoelectric scanners. This tip was held on the underside of
the cantilever. As the tip rasters the surface, the cantilever
bends because of intersurface forces caused by changes in
microroughness of the surface. The bending or de ection of
the cantilever causes the laser beam on the position sensitive
photodetector to shift. As a result of the ratio of the path
length of the cantilever itself, a mechanical ampli cation
results. Thus, small cantilever movement results in larger
shifts in the laser position on the position sensitive photodetector. These shifts are capable of detecting vertical
cantilever tip de ections in the sub-angstrom range.
There are three conventional methods of scanning over
the surface to determine the surface characteristics.2 2 2 4
These include contact mode, non-contact mode (low amplitude resonance), and tapping or intermittent contact mode
(high amplitude resonance). In contact mode AFM, the
tip and the sample remain in close contact as the scanning proceeds, creating large forces on the sample. This
mode damages the delicate surface structure and yields a
smoother microroughness result than is actually present.
In the non-contact operation, the probe is held at a small
distance away from the surface and the cantilever is
oscillated above the surface of the sample. To obtain
quality images, it is important that the microscope tip does
not damage the surface being scanned but that it contacts
the surface to obtain high resolution measurements. This is
where tapping mode has the advantage over the contact
mode. Tapping mode or intermittent contact AFM allows
high resolution topographic imaging of sample surfaces that
are easily damaged, loosely held to the substrate, or dif cult
to image by other AFM methods.
Atomic force microscopy was carried out using Nanoscope III (Digital Instruments, Santa Barbara, CA, USA)
in the tapping mode. The tapping mode was preferred to
prevent possible surface damage due to continuous contact.
All the scans were made in air and the tip used for the study
of the samples was `tapping mode etched silicon probe
(TESP). The length of the tip was 125 mm. The number
of data points used for each image is 256 with 256 points
per line. Larger scans were performed at a scan rate of
around 0 .5 Hz. The smaller scans were performed at a scan
rate of around 15 Hz, to minimise external noise. The scan
parameters and the AFM scan levelling procedures were
identical for the samples investigated to allow for direct
comparison of images. Multiple images were taken at a
number of locations on each sample to ensure that the
results were indeed typical of the samples. AFM images
were obtained with the same kind of tip, and a number of
images were recorded for each test condition to con rm that
the images were a true representative of the topography of
the surface, and were not characteristic of the tip surface
interactions. Also, in a few instances, images of the same
area were obtained with the scan direction rotated by 90 ;
the topography of the surface was found to be similar. The
polypropylene samples were examined in the unscratched
Table 2 Melt ow rates
polypropylene-R

Melt ow rate
at 230/2. 16
Melt volume
rate at 230/2.16

of

polypropylene-L

Polypropylene-L

Polypropylene-R

6 g/10 min

23 g/10 min

8 cm /10 min

31 cm3 /10 min

and

Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene 1229

and scratched condition by AFM to study the micro- and

nano-scale events that occur during the scratch deformation
process.

Results and discussion

To describe the AFM observations of surface damage
induced by a scratch on the two different types of polypropylene (L and R), it would be appropriate to rst brie y
review the semicrystalline structure of polypropylene and
introduce the terminology used here to describe the observations. It is known that many semicrystalline polymers
in bulk form possess a spherulitic structure, and each
spherulite consists of numerous chain folded lamellae, that
radiate outward from the centre. Separating these chain
folded lamellae are the interlamellar areas of amorphous
regions, adjacent lamellae are connected by tie chains that
pass through these amorphous regions. We de ne a bril
as an aggregate of micro brils, and micro bril as one that
contains a bundle of lamellae crystallites. 1 5 ,1 6
Atomic force micrographs of as received undeformed
polypropylene (L and R) at three different scan sizes are
presented in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Using the earlier
terminology, the large scan of 4 64 mm for polypropylene-L
(Fig. 2a) shows that the brils are ~ 0 .25 mm wide and
are fairly uniform in thickness. The surface height of the
brils is similar and is ~ 25 nm. Figure 2 b shows that the
brils are comprised of micro brils, that bend upwards
forming raised surface features of height in the region of
10 50 nm. The AFM nanoscale image (30 630 nm scan)
of polypropylene-L (Fig. 2 c) indicates that the micro brils
are comprised of lamellae consisting chains of molecules
probably coiled around a central axis and ~ 0 .5 nm wide.
The 4 64 mm scan for polypropylene-R (Fig. 3a) indicates
that the brils are characterised by a somewhat irregular
arrangement and possess shorter chains as compared to
polypropylene-L, consistent with the melt ow rates. The
micro brils (Fig. 3 b) are about 0. 03 0 .04 mm wide and
bend upwards forming less raised surface features (10
20 nm) in comparison to polypropylene-L (10 50 nm). The
30 630 nm scale scan for polypropylene-R shows the
basic molecular structural unit of polypropylene. Figures 2c
(polypropylene-L) and 3c (polypropylene-R) seem to suggest
that polypropylene-L has a relatively large molecular unit
in comparison to polypropylene-R. The height of the
surface features observed in as received undeformed polypropylene is of a similar order to that observed in the
study of surface topographical studies of liquid crystallites
using AFM in tapping mode and contact mode.2 1 The melt
ow rate at 230/2 .16 was 6 g/10 min for polypropylene-L
and 23 g/10 min for polypropylene-R; the melt volume
rate at 230/2.16 for polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R
were 8 cm3 /10 min and 31 cm 3 /10 min, respectively. Thus,
polypropylene-L is a polymer with longer chains having
undergone restricted ow, and polypropylene-R has shorter
chains obtained by controlled rheology. As a consequence of differences in melt ow rate, the bril morphology
for polypropylene-R was not well developed in comparison
to polypropylene-L. The AFM images of undeformed
polypropylene-L (Fig. 2 a and b) and polypropylene-R
(Fig. 3a and b) illustrates this behaviour.
The scratch may be of any size and length and the perceiving, or assessment, of the scratch is usually correlated
with its appearance. In scratch deformation, where a signi cant amount of plastic deformation occurs, the indenter is
only fully supported by the specimen in the front or leading
part, while the material behind the indenter may only partly
support the indenter in the rear half.2 In Figs. 4 and 5
the top views of the AFM images are presented of surface
damage introduced within a scratch in polypropylene-L and

c
a scan size 464 mm; b scan size 161 mm; c scan size 306
30 nm

Atomic force microscopy tapping mode image of as

received undeformed polypropylene-L: X direction is
moulding direction; Y direction is AFM scan direction

polypropylene-R samples, respectively, at a scan size of

50 650 mm showing scratch tracks (scratch tracks are more
apparent in the top view when compared with a 3-D view).
The scratch tracks exhibit a region of quasi-periodic
(consecutive) cracking. Figure 6 shows schematically that
during the scratch deformation process tracks are formed
perpendicular to the direction of movement of the indenter
because of sequential accumulation and plastic ow of
material around the indenter. In the case of amorphous
polymers exhibiting relatively brittle mechanical characteristics, cracks on the edge of the track or within the track can
be expected.2 However, in the case of ductile semicrystalline
Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

1230 Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene

Atomic force microscopy tapping mode top view

image of mechanically deformed polypropylene-L
induced by scratch test at scan size of 50650 l m: X
direction is scan direction; Y direction is direction of
movement of indenter and also moulding direction

of the more pronounced viscoelastic properties of semicrystalline polymers such as polypropylene. This type of
deformation can be attributed to the higher applied loads
(7 N in the present study) or due to highly localised strains
produced during the scratch deformation process. If the
applied normal load is less, or at lower contact strains, a
different kind of deformation process, namely, viscoelastic
ploughing, can be expected within the scratch because of a
signi cant viscoelastic recovery at the rear of the contact.
This may occur without any evidence of discrete failure
and the formation of well de ned edges on the sides of the
scratch grooves.2 Quantitatively, the depth of the scratch
track and the density of scratch tracks per unit area should
be indicative of the resistance of a material to mechanical
deformation.
The surface pro le and section analysis plots for
polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R are presented in
Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Figure 7 a shows that the average

c
a scan size 464 mm; b scan size 161 mm; c scan size 306
30 nm

3 Atomic force microscopy tapping mode image of as

received undeformed polypropylene-R: X direction is
moulding direction; Y direction is AFM scan direction

polymers such as polypropylenes, the cracking results in

sequential accumulation and release of tangential force.2
This is a consequence of the repeated effect of the squeezing
of the material which accumulates in front of the indenter
until it reaches the elastic limit. It is important to mention
here that the observed topographical features are a true
representative of the events occurring in deformation
process and this was con rmed by taking images of the
same area, and changing the scan direction to 90 . The
peculiar consecutive crack formation within the scratch
when subjected to surface stresses is a consequence of partial reorganisation of microstructure, particularly because
Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

Atomic force microscopy tapping mode top view

image of mechanically deformed polypropylene-R
induced by scratch test at scan size of 50650 l m: X
direction is scan direction; Y direction is direction of
movement of indenter and also moulding direction

Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene 1231

6 Schematic depiction of scratch tracks exhibiting

regions of quasi-periodic (consecutive) cracking in
polypropylene: The tracks are formed perpendicular
to direction of movement of indenter because of
sequential accumulation and plastic ow of material
around the indenter

surface pro le height of polypropylene-L was 65 nm within

the scratch, whereas, for polypropylene-R (Fig. 7 b) it was
28 nm. Thus, the resistance of polypropylene-L to scratch
deformation is less compared with polypropylene-R.
Figure 8a represents a section analysis of polypropylene-L
on a scratch track. The peak to valley height was measured
to be 442 nm and can be considered to be a measure of the
depth of induced scratch. In the case of polypropylene-R
this was 187 nm (Fig. 8 b). These differences in measured
values are indicative of the deformation resistance of the
polymeric material, and imply that polypropylene-L is less
resistant to mechanical deformation (in the present case,
scratch deformation) compared with polypropylene-R.
Also, the observed higher density of scratch tracks per unit
area in polypropylene-L as compared to polypropylene-R
(Figs. 4 and 5) is consistent with the above conclusion.

b
a polypropylene-L; b polypropylene-R

b
a polypropylene-L; b polypropylene-R

7 Surface pro le analysis of mechanically induced deformation within scratch

Section analysis of surface of mechanically induced

deformation within scratch

Atomic force micrographs of polypropylene-L and

polypropylene-R at a scan size of 1 61 mm are presented
in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. In polypropylene-L (Fig. 9),
the morphology of the micro bril is not regained, i.e. there
is less amount of reorganisation of microstructure. Also, it
represents a distortion of the microstructure that has taken
place during the scratch process. Polypropylene-R (Fig. 10)
shows that a partial reorganisation of the microstructure
has taken place and also indicates the splitting of brils
in the direction of the scratch track. The polypropylenes
(L and R) studied here when subjected to tensile deformation at different strain rates, exhibited distinct stretching
of brils and micro brils.2 5 Also, the analysis of the tensile
data showed that the stress required to produce a particular
amount of strain is higher in the case of polypropylene-R as
compared to polypropylene-L at constant strain rates (e.g.
at a displacement rate of 15 in/min, the stress required for
polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R to produce a strain
of 0 .413 were 9 .74 and 31.8 MPa, respectively). This behaviour was true at all strain rates investigated. It may be
noted that, although the scratch speed may be such as to
suggest the low strain rates employed are valid, in the case
Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

1232 Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene

9 Atomic force microscopy tapping mode image of

mechanically deformed polypropylene-L induced by
scratch test at scan size of 161 l m: X direction is
moulding direction; Y direction is AFM scan direction

11

Atomic force microscopy tapping mode image of

mechanically deformed polypropylene-L induced by the
scratch test at scan size of 30630 nm: X direction is
moulding direction; Y direction is AFM scan direction

of indenting and scratching, the local strain rates can be of

many orders of magnitude greater. In the AFM analysis at
ne length scale, it is these local effects that are important.
In the scratch test, the deformation behaviour of the polymers clearly indicates that the material is forced by the
sliding indenter into more localised stress elds and the
deformation is obviously plastic in nature. The behaviour
presented in Figs. 9 and 10 was observed by the authors
at higher strain rates during the tensile deformation of
polyethylene 1 5 and polypropylene,2 5 implying that the behaviour of polymeric materials at high strain rates can be
considered to be analogous to that of a scratch test, where
the contact strain rates are high. Atomic force micrographs
(Figs. 9 and 10) suggest that a partial viscoelastic recovery
or reorganisation of the microstructure has taken place in
polypropylene-L as compared to polypropylene-R.
Atomic force micrographs of polypropylene-L and
polypropylene-R at a scan size of 30 630 nm are presented
in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. The micrographs indicate
unfolding and alignment of molecular chains. The stretching process at the microstructural level is expected to rst
involve tie chains that hold the lamellar ribbons, whereby
they slip past each other and align in the direction of the
scratch track. Figures 11 and 12 show no evidence of

splitting and insigni cant differences in the deformation

process at the nanoscale range. However, splitting of
molecular chains has been observed at low strain rates in
polyethylene 1 5 and polypropylene.2 5 At high strain rates,
there was no evidence of splitting of molecular chains, but
stretching of molecular units occurred. With increasing
strain rate, the chains of molecules unfold and align to produce an oriented and elongated structure. Also, the ability
of the ribbonlike surface brils and micro brils to stretch,
merge, and acquire an oriented and at structure increased
with increase in strain rate of the uniaxial tensile test.1 5
Raman spectroscopy, that provides insight into the response of molecules to mechanical deformation of polymeric
materials in terms of Raman bands (frequency of load
bearing bonds) indicated that the rate of shift/percentage
strain ( Dc /de , cm 1 , where Dc is the shift in the frequency
of the load bearing bond and de is the applied strain) was
~ 0 .02 cm 1 for polypropylene-L and ~ 0 .0055 cm 1 for
polypropylene-R (Fig. 13). 2 5 Figure 13 again suggests that
polypropylene-R is more resistant to mechanical deformation. Raman spectroscopy observations are consistent with
the AFM study of the mechanical deformation induced
by scratch test presented here. The observed response to the
mechanical deformation behaviour of the two polymeric
materials considered here, can be attributed to differences

10

12

Atomic force microscopy tapping mode image of

mechanically deformed polypropylene-R induced by
the scratch test at scan size of 161 l m: X direction
is moulding direction; Y direction is AFM scan direction

Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

Atomic force microscopy tapping mode image of

mechanically deformed polypropylene-R induced by the
scratch test at scan size of 30630 nm: X direction is
moulding direction; Y direction is AFM scan direction

Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene 1233

13

Shift in Raman frequency asymmetric load bearing

band of polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R as
function of tensile strain

in melt ow rates. The authors currently believe that the

presence of short chains in PP-R obtained by controlled
rheology are responsible for a higher resistance to
mechanically induced surface damage. It is likely that the
shorter chains do not unravel and separate less easily than
longer chains.
The micromechanisms of deformation are currently being
investigated using scanning electron microscopy and will
be presented elsewhere. It is pertinent to mention here
that there has been no evidence of a scratch resulting in
mechanical failure. However, in theory, surface gouges or
scratches could lead to mechanical failure, although there
has been no experience or report of this in the literature.

Conclusion s
1. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) operated in tapping mode revealed differences in microstructure (up to the
microlevel) of the surface damage induced during the
scratch test in two different grades of polypropylene with
different melt ow rates. The mechanically induced surface
damage could be predicted by comparing with AFM images
of undeformed polypropylene. However, at the molecular
level, no signi cant differences in the microstructure of the
surface damaged polypropylenes was observed by the AFM
technique.
2. The microtopography of the two types of undeformed
polypropylene is characterised by differences in arrangement (regular or irregular) of brils depending on their
melt ow conditions. The micro brils in undeformed
polypropylene-L bend upwards forming raised surface
features of height in the region of 10 50 nm. In comparison to polypropylene-L, the micro brils in undeformed
polypropylene-R are characterised by surface features of
lesser height (10 20 nm). AFM molecular scale images
at a 30 630 nm scan size provided details of micro brils
containing chains of molecules ~ 0.5 nm wide.
3. Surface deformation induced by the scratch test on the
two polypropylenes involved the formation of scratch
tracks that exhibited regions of quasi-periodic (consecutive)
cracking.
4. From the surface pro le and section analysis of AFM
micrographs of mechanically deformed polypropylene-L
and polypropylene-R, the average surface height and the
peak to valley height (considered to be a measure of the
depth of induced scratch) were 65 and 442 nm; and 28 and
187 nm, respectively, implying that polypropylene-L is less

resistant to mechanical deformation (in the present case,

scratch deformation) in comparison to polypropylene-R.
5. Atomic force micrographs of mechanically deformed
polypropylene-L and polypropylene-R at a scan size of
1 61 mm indicated that the morphology of the micro bril in
polypropylene-L is not regained, i.e. there is less reorganisation of microstructure as compared with polypropylene-R.
6. The investigated polypropylene (L and R) when
subjected to tensile deformation at different strain rates,
exhibited distinct stretching of brils and micro brils and
the behaviour presented in atomic force micrographs of
mechanically deformed (induced by the scratch test) polypropylene (L and R) at a scan size of 1 61 mm was observed
at high displacement rates (crosshead speed) of 50 cm min 1
during the tensile deformation of polyethylene and polypropylene, implying that the behaviour of a polymer at
high strain rates can be considered to be analogous to that
of a scratch test where the contact strain rates are high.
7. Atomic force microscopy observations were consistent
with Raman spectroscopy observations, which indicated
that the rate of shift of frequency of the Raman band per
percentage strain is greater for polypropylene-L and less
for polypropylene-R, suggesting that polypropylene-L
experiences higher scratch deformation in comparison to
polypropylene-R.
8. The observed response to the mechanical deformation behaviour of the two polymeric materials considered
here, can be attributed to differences in melt ow rates.
Polypropylene-L is a polymer with longer chains and
restricted ow, whereas polypropylene-R has shorter chains
obtained by controlled rheology.

References
1. m. f. ashby: Acta Mater., 2000, 48, 359.
2. b. j. briscoe, p. d. evans, e. pelillo, and s. k. sinha: Wear,
1996, 200, 137.
3. p. z. wang, i. m. hutchings, s. j. duncan, and l. jenkins: Proc.
SPE Automotive Global TPO Conf., Dearborn, MI, USA,
October 2001, Society of Plastics Engineers, 201.
4. p. z. wang, i. m. hutchings, s. j. duncan, and l. jenkins:
SAE Vol. 99M 28, Tech. Paper 1999 01 0243, Society of
Automotive Enginers, Warrendale, PA, USA, 1999.
5. p. z. wang, i. m. hutchings, s. j. duncan, and l. jenkins:
Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on `Thermoplastic ole ns in automotive ,
Novi, MI, USA, October 1999, Society of Plastics Engineers,
107.
6. s. duncan: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on `Thermoplastic ole ns in
automotive , Novi, MI, USA, October 1998, Society of Plastics
Engineers, 106.
7. j. chu: Proc. Int. SAMPE Symp., 1998, 43, 1149.
8. t. traugott, l. novak, and g. meyers: Proc. 6th Int. Conf.
on `Thermoplastic ole ns in automotive , Novi, MI, USA,
October 1999, Society of Plastics Engineers, 89.
9. b. y. ni and a. le faou: J. Mater. Sci., 1996, 31, 3955.
10. p. z. wang, i. m. hutchings, s. j. duncan, and l. jenkins: Proc.
SPE Automotive Global TPO Conf., Dearborn, MI, USA,
October 2000, Society of Plastics Engineers, 107.
11. c. xiang, h.-j. sue, j. chu, and k. masuda: Polym. Eng. Sci.,
2001, 41, 23.
12. a. c. m. yang and t. w. wu: J. Mater. Sci., 1993, 28, 955.
13. a. c. m. yang and t. w. wu: J. of Polymer Sci. Part B-Polymer
Physics, 1997, 35, 1295.
14. b. j. briscoe, e. pelillo, and s. k. sinha: Polym. Eng. Sci., 1996,
36, 2996.
15. a. dasari, s. j. duncan, and r. d. k. misra: Mater. Sci.
Technol., 2002, 18, 685 690.
16. a. dasari, s. j. duncan, and r. d. k. misra: Mater. Sci.
Technol., to be published.
17. s. m. opalka, l. g. hector, jr, r. a. reich, j. zhong, l. cai, and
j. adams: J. Tribol., 1998, 121, 384.
18. t. r. albrecht: Polym. Sci., 1999, 74, 2243.
19. d. trifoneva, p. drouillon, a. ghanen, and g. j. vansco:
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 1997, 66, 515.

Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

1234 Dasari et al. Atomic force microscopy of scratch damage in polypropylene

20. c. makovicika, g. gartner, a. hardt, w. hermann, and
d. u. wiechert: Appl. Surf. Sci., 1970, 111, 70.
21. s. a. c. gould, j. b. shulman, d. a. schiraldi, and m. l. occeli:
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 1999, 74, 2243.
22. b. d. beake, g. j. leggett, and p. h. shipway: Surf. Interface
Anal., 2001, 31, 39.

Materials Science and Technology

October 2002 Vol. 18

23. r. wiesendanger: `Scanning probe microscopy and spectroscopy: methods and applications ; 1994, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
24. s. n. maganov and m.-huan whangbo: Adv. Mater., 1994, 6, 355.
25. a. dasari, s. j. duncan, and r. d. k. misra: Mater. Sci.
Technol., to be published.