Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:41:48.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Measurements of Subcritical Debonding of Cu Films from Glass Substrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

Mengzhi Pang  and
Shefford P. Baker
Mengzhi Pang
Affiliation:
Cornell University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ithaca, New York 14853-1501
Shefford P. Baker*
Affiliation:
Cornell University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ithaca, New York 14853-1501
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: shefford.baker@cornell.edu
Get access

Abstract

A driver film method, in which a highly stressed overlayer is deposited to de-adhere a target film from a substrate, was developed to study the subcritical debonding behavior of Cu films from glass substrates. The driving force for debonding along Cu/glass interfaces was varied by depositing Cr overlayers to a range of thicknesses. One-dimensional crack growth was achieved by using C release layers and cutting strips from blanket films. Crack velocities, v, were measured and a wide strip solution was developed to obtain strain energy release rates, G. The Cu/Cr strips delaminated in a highly reproducible way, generating v–G plots similar to those seen in stress-corrosion cracking of bulk glass. Small variations in the amount of oxygen incorporated into the films during deposition strongly affected delamination rates. A reaction rate model for subcritical cracking by hydroxylation of the surfaces suggests that changes in oxygen content change the density of strong Cu–O–Si bonds across the interface.

Keywords

AdhesionBondingThin film
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 20 , Issue 9 , September 2005 , pp. 2420 - 2431
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

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

1Ruhle, M., Evans, A.G., Ashby, M.F. and Hirth, J.P.: Metal–Ceramic Interfaces: Proceedings of an International Workshop Santa Barbara, CA, 16–18 January 1989 (Acta Scripta Metall. Proc. Ser. 4, 1990).Google Scholar
2Clare, A.G.: Photonics: A light introduction. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 82, 17 (2003).Google Scholar
3Seward, T.P.: Glass plays critical role in the telecommunications revolution. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 82, 21 (2003).Google Scholar
4Goldstein, A.H.: Glass—The engine block of the biotechnology revolution. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 82, 9201 (2003).Google Scholar
5Volinsky, A.A., Moody, N.R. and Gerberich, W.W.: Interfacial toughness measurements for thin films on substrates. Acta Mater. 50, 441 (2002).Google Scholar
6Nagao, K., Neaton, J.B. and Ashcroft, N.W.: First-principles study of adhesion at Cu/SiO2 interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 68, 125403 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Backhaus-Ricoult, M., Samet, L., Thomas, M., Trichet, M-F. and Imhoff, D.: Changes in Cu–silica interfacial chemistry with oxygen chemical potential. Acta Mater. 50, 4191 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Lane, M.W., Snodgrass, J.M. and Dauskardt, R.H.: Environmental effects on interfacial adhesion. Microelectron. Reliab. 41, 1615 (2001).Google Scholar
9Tae, S.O., Cannon, R.M. and Ritchie, R.O.: Subcritical crack growth along ceramic–metal interfaces. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 70, C352 (1987).Google Scholar
10Card, J.C., Cannon, R.M., Dauskardt, R.H. and Ritchie, R.O. Stress-corrosion cracking at ceramic-metal interfaces, in Joining and Adhesion of Advanced Inorganic Materials, edited by Carim, A.H., Schwartz, D.S., and Silberglitt, R.S. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 314, Pittsburgh, PA, 1993), p. 109.Google Scholar
11Hughey, M.P., Morris, D.J., Cook, R.F., Bozeman, S.P., Kelly, B.L., Chakravarty, S.L.N., Harkens, D.P. and Stearns, L.C.: Four-point bend adhesion measurements of copper and permalloy systems. Eng. Fract. Mech. 71, 245 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Pang, M. and Baker, S.P. Quantitative measurements of subcritical debonding of Cu films from glass substrates, in Materials, Technology and Reliability for Advanced Interconnects and Low-k Dielectrics—2003, edited by McKerrow, A.J., Leu, J.J., Kraft, O., and Kikkawa, T. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 766, Warrendale, PA, 2003), E2.8, p. 183.Google Scholar
13Lane, M.: Interface fracture. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 33, 29 (2003).Google Scholar
14Dauskardt, R.H., Lane, M., Ma, Q. and Krishna, N.: Adhesion and debonding of multi-layer thin film structures. Eng. Fract. Mech. 61, 141 (1998).Google Scholar
15Xu, G., He, M-Y. and Clarke, D.R.: The effect of moisture on the fracture energy of TiN/SiO2 interfaces in multi-layer thin films. Acta Mater. 47, 4131 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Suo, Z. Reliability of interconnect structures, in Comprehensive Structural Integrity, edited by Milne, I., Ritchie, R.O., and Karihaloo, B. (Elsevier, New York, 2003), p. 265.Google Scholar
17Wiederhorn, S.M., Freiman, S.W., Fuller, E.R. and Simmons, C.J.: Effects of water and other dielectrics on crack growth. J. Mater. Sci. 17, 3460 (1982).Google Scholar
18Hutchinson, J.W. and Suo, Z.: Mixed mode cracking in layered materials. Adv. Appl. Mech. 29, 64 (1992).Google Scholar
19Bagchi, A., Lucas, G.E., Suo, Z. and Evans, A.G.: A new procedure for measuring the decohesion energy for thin ductile films on substrates. J. Mater. Res. 9, 1734 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Pang, M., Backhaus-Ricoult, M. and Baker, S.P. The effect of oxygen on adhesion of thin copper films to silicon nitride, in Thin Films—Stresses and Mechanical Properties X, edited by Corcoran, S.G., Joo, Y.-C., Moody, N.R., and Suo, Z. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 795, Warrendale, PA, 2004), U3.6, p. 75.Google Scholar
21Ma, Q.: A four-point bending technique for studying subcritical crack growth in thin films and at interfaces. J. Mater. Res. 12, 840 (1997).Google Scholar
22Lane, M., Dauskardt, R.H., Vainchtein, A. and Gao, H.: Plasticity contributions to interface adhesion in thin-film interconnect structures. J. Mater. Res. 15, 2758 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Backhaus-Ricoult, M.: Modelling of the Gibbs adsorption at transition-metal–oxide interfaces: Effect of the oxygen chemical potential on interfacial bonding, interfacial energy and equilibrium precipitate shape. Philos. Mag. A 81, 1759 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Bagchi, A. and Evans, A.G.: The mechanics and physics of thin film decohesion and its measurement. Interface Sci. 3, 169 (1996).Google Scholar
25Baker, S.P., Wang, X. and Hui, C-Y.: Effect of nonlinear elastic behavior on bilayer decohesion of thin metal films from nonmetal substrates. J. Appl. Mech. 69, 407 (2002).Google Scholar
26de Boer, M., Kriese, M. and Gerberich, W.W.: Investigation of a new fracture mechanics specimen for thin film adhesion measurement. J. Mater. Res. 12, 2673 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Bagchi, A. and Evans, A.G.: Measurements of the debond energy for thin metallization lines on dielectrics. Thin Solid Films 286, 203 (1996).Google Scholar
28Davis, G.: Contamination on surfaces: Origin, detection and effect on adhesion. Surf Interface Anal. 20, 368 (1993).Google Scholar
29Kruger, P., Knes, R. and Friedrich, J.: Surface cleaning by plasma-enhanced desorption of contaminants (PEDC). Surf. Coat. Technol. 112, 240 (1999).Google Scholar
30Ohring, M.: Materials Science of Thin Films, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2002).Google Scholar
31Zehnder, A.T. and Hui, C.Y.: A simple model relating crack growth resistance to fracture process parameters in elastic–plastic solids. Scripta Mater. 42, 1001 (2000).Google Scholar
32Tvergaard, V. and Hutchinson, J.W.: The influence of plasticity on mixed mode interface toughness. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41, 1119 (1993).Google Scholar
33Nagao, K. and Ashcroft, N.W.: Private communication. (2004).Google Scholar
34Keller, R.M., Baker, S.P. and Arzt, E.: Quantitative analysis of strengthening mechanisms in thin Cu films: Effects of film thickness, grain size and passivation. J. Mater. Res. 13, 1307 (1998).Google Scholar
35Suo, Z. and Hutchinson, J.W.: Interface crack between two elastic layers. Int. J. Fract. 43, 1 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Nieh, T.G. and Nix, W.D.: Metall. Trans. 12A, 893 (1981).Google Scholar
37Benndorf, C., Egert, B., Keller, G., Seidel, H. and Thieme, F.: Oxygen adsorption on polycrystalline Cu films studied by means of gravimetric uptake and work function change. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 15(1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Vinci, R.P., Forrest, S.A. and Bravman, J.C.: Effect of interface conditions on yield behavior of passivated copper thin films. J. Mater. Res. 17, 1863 (2002).Google Scholar
39Cook, R.F. and Liniger, E.G.: Kinetics of indentation cracking in glass. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 75, 1096 (1993).Google Scholar
40Chatain, D., Chabert, F., Ghetta, V. and Fouletier, J.: New experimental setup for wettability characterization under monitored oxygen activity: II. Wettability of sapphire by silver–oxygen melts. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 77, 197 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar