Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T16:50:24.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Interface Nonplanarity on the Interface Fracture Energy of the TiN/SiO2System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Michael Lane ,
Winnie Ni ,
Reiner Dauskardt ,
Qing Ma ,
Harry Fujimoto  and
Nety Krishna
Michael Lane
Affiliation:
Department of Meterials Science and Engineering, Stanford University
Winnie Ni
Affiliation:
Department of Meterials Science and Engineering, Stanford University
Reiner Dauskardt
Affiliation:
Department of Meterials Science and Engineering, Stanford University
Qing Ma
Affiliation:
Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA
Harry Fujimoto
Affiliation:
Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA
Nety Krishna
Affiliation:
Applied Meterials, Santa Clara, CA
Get access

Abstract

Fracture mechanics models indicate that nonplanarity of the interface should have a significant effect on the measured fracture energy [1–5]. Previous work on a typical interconnect structure (Fig 1) has demonstrated that two thin film systems with nominally the same composition, but processed under different conditions exhibited different SiO2/TiN interface fracture energies [6,7]. pon investigation via crosssectional TEM, it was found that the stronger interface was significantly rougher than the weaker interface. These results indicate that small changes in processing conditions can significantly effect both interface morphology and adhesion. Accordingly, in this study, samples differing in the flow rate of Ar to a plasma arc during deposition of a TIN layer were chosen in order to investigate the effects on the interface morphology and the resulting interface fracture energy.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 505 , 1997 , 357
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

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]Lawn, B.R., Fracture of Brittle Solids, Cambridge University Press, 2 nd ed., 1993.Google Scholar
[2]Erdogan, F. and Sih, G.C., “On the Crack Extension in Plates under Plane Loading and Transverse Shear. Journal of Basic Engineering, 1963, 85, 519–527.Google Scholar
[3]Williams, J.G. and Ewing, P.D., “Fracture under Complex Stress-The Angled Crack Problem.”; International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, 1972, 8, 441–446.Google Scholar
[4]Cottrell, B. and Rice, J.R., “Slightly Curved or Kinked Cracks.”; International Journal of Fracture, 1980, 16, 155–169.Google Scholar
[5]Evans, A. G. and Hutchinson, J. W., “Effects of Non-Planarity on the Mixed Mode Fracture Resistance of Bimaterial Interfaces,”; Acta. Metall., 1989, 37 [3], 909–16.Google Scholar
[6]Ma, Q., Fujimoto, H., Flinn, P., Jain, V., Adibi-Rizi, F., and Dauskardt, R. H., “Quantitative Measurement of Interface Fracture Energy in Multi-Layer Thin Film Structures,” in Proc. MRS Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 1995.Google Scholar
[7]Dauskardt, R.H., Lane, M., and Ma, Q., “Adhesion and Debonding of Multi-layer Thin Film Structures,” Submitted Engineering Fracture Mechanics August 1997.Google Scholar
[8]Ma, Q., Bumgarner, J., Fujimoto, H., Lane, M. and Dauskardt, R. H., “Adhesion Measurement of Interfaces in Multilayer Interconnect Structures,” in Proc. MRS Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
[9]Lane, M., Dauskardt, R. H., Ware, R., Ma, Q. and Fujimoto, H., “Progressive Debonding of Multi-Layer Interconnect Structures,” in Proc. MRS Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 1997.Google Scholar