Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 1815–1820 | Cite as

Adhesion of chromium metallization on alumina surfaces prepared by sol-gel techniques

  • H. Kanai
  • G. J. Demott
  • D. L. Kohlstedt


The adhesion of a sputter-deposited Cr metallization layer to alumina films prepared by a solution-gelation method has been investigated using a pull test. Alumina films with a range of thicknesses (1 to 6 Μm) were prepared by dipping commercially available polycrystalline alumina substrates into hydrolysed aluminium butoxide sols and fired for 1 h at 500, 900, or 1200 ‡C. Monolithic, crack-free films resulted both from pure alumina and Ti-doped alumina sols. The adhesion strength was dependent on the thickness of the alumina films, as well as on the temperature of the heat treatment. Failure occurred in part between the alumina film and the substrate and in part between the alumina film and the chromium layer. For alumina films fired at 500 ‡C, the adhesion strengths of 1 Μm thick films were greater than those measured for 3 and 6 Μm thick films because of the formation of greater mechanical bonds between alumina films and the substrate. The adhesion strength of the chromium layers was greatly improved by firing at 1200 ‡C. This increase in adhesion strength was attributed to an increase in the surface roughness of these specimens, which occurred due to crystallization of the sol layer. The adhesion strengths of films doped with Ti was not significantly different from those of the undoped films.


Adhesion Strength Alumina Substrate Alumina Surface Alumina Film Metallization Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. G. Bhatgadde and S. Mahapatra, Met. Finishing (1987) 55–57.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. H. Holloway, Gold Bulletin 12 (1979) 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Strong, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 6 (1935) 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Holland, in “Vacuum deposition of thin films” (Wiley, New York, 1956) p. 102.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Benjamin and C. Weaver, Proc. R. Soc. A254 (1960) 163.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Benjamin and C. Weaver, ibid. A274 (1963) 267.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. M. Karnowski and W. B. Estill, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 35 (1964) 1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. L. Chopra, in “Thin film phenomena” (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969) p. 321.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Caulton, W. L. Sked and F. S. Wozniak, RCA Rev. 40 (1979) 115.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. W. Pierce and J. G. Vaughan, IEEE Trans. on Comp., Hybrids, and Manuf. Tech. 6 (1983) 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. E. Yoldas, Amer. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 54 (1975) 289.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. C. Pierre and D. R. Uhlmann, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 70 (1987) 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. K. Dwivedi and G. Gowda, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 4 (1985) 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. M. Levin, C. R. Robbins and H. F. McMurdie, (eds) in “Phase diagrams for ceramists” (The American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1964) p. 123.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. E. Yoldas, Amer. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 54 (1975) 286.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. E. Clark and J. J. Lannutti, in “Ultrastructure Processing of Ceramics, Glass, and Composites” (John Wiley, New York, 1984) pp. 126–141.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. W. Dynys and J. W. Holloran, in “Ulltrastructre Processing of Ceramics, Glass, and Composites” (John Wiley, New York, 1984) pp. 142–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Kanai
    • 1
  • G. J. Demott
    • 1
  • D. L. Kohlstedt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations