Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:16:13.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crack penetration and deflection at a bimaterial interface in a four-point bend test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

Sassan Roham ,
Kedar Hardikar  and
Peter Woytowitz
Sassan Roham
Affiliation:
Novellus Systems, Inc., San Jose, California 94853
Kedar Hardikar
Affiliation:
Novellus Systems, Inc., San Jose, California 94853
Peter Woytowitz
Affiliation:
Novellus Systems, Inc., San Jose, California 94853
Get access

Abstract

The four-point bend (4PB) test is an industry standard in assessment of adhesion in thin films. Obtaining crack propagation along the desired interface plays a cardinal role in the success of this test. Crack penetration and deflection at a bimaterial interface has been extensively studied in the past. Most general results are based on asymptotic analyses involving the interface between two semi-infinite media. The results of these analyses cannot be directly used in case of the 4PB test since the boundary conditions and finite size effects in actual test specimen geometry are not accounted for. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first to develop a simple methodology to understand the preferred failure mode in a 4PB test and gain insight into the factors governing its success; second to examine the extent to which the results can be reconciled with those reported previously based on analysis of a crack in two semi-infinite media bonded together at the interface.

Keywords

AdhesionFractureThin film
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 19 , Issue 10 , October 2004 , pp. 3019 - 3027
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 ASTM D3359-97, Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test (American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998)Google Scholar
2Marshall, D.B. and Evans, A.G.: Measurement of adherence of residually stressed thin films by indentation. I. Mechanics of interface delamination. J. Appl. Phys. 56, 2632 (1984).Google Scholar
3Rossington, C., Evans, A.G., Marshall, D.B. and Khuriyakub, B.T.: Measurement of adherence of residually stressed thin films by indentation. II. Experiments with ZnO/Si. J. Appl. Phys. 56, 2639 (1984).Google Scholar
4Begley, M.R., Mumm, D.R., Evans, A.G. and Hutchinson, J.W.: Analysis of a wedge impression test for measuring the interface toughness between films/coatings and ductile substrate. Acta Mater. 48, 3211 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Volinsky, A.A., Vella, J.B. and Gerberich, W.W.: Fracture toughness, adhesion and mechanical properties of low-K dielectric thin films measured by nanoindentation. Thin Solid Films 429, 201 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Volinsky, A.A. and Gerberich, W.W.: Nanoindentation techniques for assessing mechanical reliability at the nanoscale. Microelectron. Eng. 69, 519 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Wu, T.W.: Microscratch and load relaxation tests for ultrathin films. J. Mater. Res. 6, 407 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Kim, J., Kim, K.S. and Kim, Y.H.: Mechanical effects of peel adhesion test. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 3, 175 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Kim, Y.S. and Aravas, N.: Elastoplastic analysis of the peel test. Int. J. Solids Structure 24, 417 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Jensen, H.M. and Thouless, M.D.: Effect of residual stresses in the blister test. Int. J. Solids Struct. 30, 779 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Hohlfelder, R.J., Vlassak, J.J., Nix, W.D., Luo, H., and Chidsey, C.E.D.: Blister test analysis methods, in Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties V, edited by Baker, S.P., Ross, C.A., Townsend, P.H., Volkert, C.A., and Børgensen, P.. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 356, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995), pp. 585–590.Google Scholar
12Hohlfelder, R.J., Vlassak, J.J., Nix, W.D., Luo, H., and Chidsey, C.E.D.: Measuring interfacial toughness with the blister test, in Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties VI, edited by Gerberich, W.W., Gao, H., Sundgren, J-E., and Baker, S.P. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 436, 1996), pp. 115–120.Google Scholar
13Hay, J.C., Liniger, E.G. and Liu, Xiao Hu: Evaluation of the modified edge lift-off test for adhesion characterization in microelectronic multifilm applications. J. Mater. Res. 16, 385 (2001).Google Scholar
14Dauskardt, R.H., Lane, M., Ma, Q. and Krishna, N.: Adhesion and debonding of multi-layer thin film structures. Engr. Fract. Mech. 61, 141 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Volinsky, A.A., Moody, N.R. and Gerberich, W.W.: Interfacial toughness measurement for thin films on substrate. Acta Mater . 50, 441 (2003).Google Scholar
16Bagchi, A. and Evans, A.G.: The mechanics and physics of thin film decohesion and its measurement. Interface Sci . 3, 169 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Scherban, T., Sun, B., Blaine, J., Block, C., Jin, B. and Andideh, E.: Interfacial adhesion of copper-low k interconnects (IEEE Interconnect Conference, San Francisco, CA, 2001)Google Scholar
18Roham, S., Hardikar, K., and Woytowitz, P.: Stress analysis of 4-point bend test for thin film adhesion, in Mechanical Properties Derived from Nanostructuring Materials, edited by Bahr, D.F., Kung, H., Moody, N.R., and Wahl, K.J. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 778, Warrendale, PA, 2003), pp. 73–78.Google Scholar
19Rice, J.R.: A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J. App. Mech. 35, 379 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Charalambides, P.G., Lund, J., Evans, A.G. and McMeeking, R.M.: A test specimen for determining the fracture resistance of bimaterial interfaces. J. Appl. Mech. 56, 77 (1989).Google Scholar
21Hutchinson, J.W. and He, M.Y.: Crack deflection at an interface between dissimilar elastic materials. Int. J. Solids Struct . 25, 1053 (1989).Google Scholar
22Hutchinson, J.W., He, M.Y. and Evans, A.G.: Crack deflection at an interface between dissimilar elastic materials: Role of residual stress. Int. J. Solids Struct. 31, 3443 (1994).Google Scholar
23Dundurs, J.: Edge-bonded dissimilar orthogonal elastic wedges. J. Appl. Mech. 36, 650 (1969).Google Scholar
24Irwin, G.R. Fracture Dynamics, In Fracturing of Metals, edited by Jonassen, F. et al. (Am. Soc. Metals, Cleveland, OH, 1948), pp. 147–166Google Scholar
25solver, ABAQUS Structural (Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI, 2003).Google Scholar