Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T18:23:31.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An experimental fracture mechanics study of a strong interface: The silicon/glass anodic bond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

D.S. Hurd ,
R. Caretta  and
W.W. Gerberich
D.S. Hurd
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0132
R. Caretta
Affiliation:
Regional NSF Facility for Surface Analysis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0132
W.W. Gerberich
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0132
Get access

Abstract

The fracture behavior of the silicon/Pyrex glass anodic bond was investigated using the methods of linear elastic bimaterial fracture mechanics. Due to the high bond strength, interfacial cracks were invariably observed to kink away from the interface into the more compliant glass under approximately mode I remote tensile loading. Kink angles measured by profilometry increased from 14 to 28°as bonding temperature increased from 300 to 450 °C. A regime of stable cracking accompanied penetration of cracks into the glass, with maximum load and corresponding fracture toughness measurement occurring at a location significantly removed from the interface. Approximately mode I, near-interface, plane-strain fracture toughness values (KIC) measured by rising load testing of chevron-notched and straight-thru-cracked compact-tension specimens increased from 0.63 to 0.68 MPa-m1/2 and 0.66 to 0.75 MPa-m1/2, respectively, as bonding temperature increased from 300 to 450 °C. In addition, XPS measurements revealed a sodium depletion zone of decreasing size and depletion magnitude with increasing bonding temperature over the same range. The near-interface region of the glass also experiences compressive residual stresses which decrease linearly with distance from the interface according to linear elastic computations. These stresses increase in magnitude with increasing bonding temperature due to enhanced differential thermal contraction upon cooling to room temperature. It is proposed that the trends in toughness and in kink angle with bonding temperature can be at least partially accounted for by variation of crack-tip shielding with compressive residual stress magnitude, the effects of interfacial. crack-tip shear stresses induced by the thermal mismatch, and by an increase in Young's modulus of the near-interface glass accompanying sodium depletion.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 1995 , pp. 387 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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

1Wallis, G. and Pomerantz, D. I., J. Appl. Phys. 40, 3946 (1969).Google Scholar
2Pomerantz, D. I., U. S. Patent 3 397278, Aug. 13 (1968).Google Scholar
3Albaugh, K. B., Ph.D. Thesis, Clarkson University (1987).Google Scholar
4Spangler, L. J., Ph.D. Thesis, April (1988).Google Scholar
5Anthony, T. R., J. Appl. Phys. 54, 2419 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Carlson, D. E., Hang, K. W., and Stockdale, G. F., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 55, 337 (1972).Google Scholar
7Younger, P. R., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 38–39, 909 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Borom, M. P., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 56, 254–257 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Carlson, D. E., Hang, K. W., and Stockdale, G. F., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 57, 295–300 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Brownlow, J. M., IBM Technical Report RC 7101, May 3, 1978.Google Scholar
11Barker, L. M., in Fracture Mechanics Applied to Brittle Materials, ASTM STP 678, edited by Freiman, S.W. (ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1979), pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
12Wiederhorn, S. M., Shorb, A. M., and Moses, R. L., J. Appl. Phys. 39, 1569–1572 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Munz, D., Bubsey, R. T., and Srawley, J. E., Int. J. Fracture 16, 359–374 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Shannon, J. L., Bubsey, R. T., Munz, D., and Pierce, W. S., Advances in Fracture Research, edited by Francois, D. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1981), Vol. 2, pp. 1127–1141.Google Scholar
15Irwin, G. R. and Kies, J. A., Weld. J. Res. Suppl. 33 (1954).Google Scholar
16Hutchinson, J. W. and Suo, Z., Adv. Appl. Mech. 29, 63–191 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Rice, J. R., J. Appl. Mech. 55, 98–103 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Suo, Z. and Hutchinson, J. W., Mater. Sci. and Eng. A107, 135–143 (1989).Google Scholar
19He, M-Y. and Hutchinson, J. W., J. Appl. Mech. 56, 270–278 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Hutchinson, J. W., Mear, M. E., and Rice, J. R., J. Appl. Mech. 54, 828–832 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Handbook of Materials Science, edited by Lynch, C. T. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1974), Vol. 2, p. 328.Google Scholar
22Pantano, C. G., Ceram. Bull. 60, 1154–1167 (1980).Google Scholar
23Pantano, C. G., Dove, D. B., and Onoda, G. Y., Appl. Phys. Lett. 26, 601–602 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Malm, D. L., Dove, D. B., Vasile, M. J., Pantano, C. G., and Padden, F. J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 15, 35–38 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Escard, J. H. and Brion, D. J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 58, 296 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Johansson, S., Gustafsson, K., and Schweitz, J. A., Sensors and Materials 4, 209–221 (1988).Google Scholar
27Hsueh, C. H. and Evans, A. G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 68, 241–248 (1985).Google Scholar
28Dreier, G., Meyer, M., Schmauder, S., and Elssner, G., Acta Metall. Mater. 40 (Suppl.), S345–S353 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Eagan, R. J. and Swearengen, J. C., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 61, 27–30 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Selcuk, S., Hurd, D. S., Crouch, S. L., and Gerberich, W. W., Int. J. Fracture (1994, in press).Google Scholar
31Ceramic Source (The American Ceramic Society, Inc., Westerville, OH, 1986), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
32Evans, A. G. and Charles, E. A., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 59, 371–372 (1976).Google Scholar