Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T09:54:16.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of film residual stress on a of 4-point bend test for thin film adhesion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Sassan Roham  and
Timothy Hight
Sassan Roham
Affiliation:
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.
Timothy Hight
Affiliation:
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.
Get access

Abstract

The four-point bend (4PB) test has emerged as a method of choice in semiconductor industry for obtaining bimaterial interface adhesion data. When measuring the interface adhesion using 4PB test, it is essential to obtain a crack through the interface of interest. The deposited films, however, posses intrinsic and extrinsic stresses which affect the ratio between energy release rates for interface cracking and crack penetration. Crack penetration and deflection at a bimaterial interface and the role of residual stress has been broadly studied before. However, the results are based on asymptotic analysis regarding interface between two semi-infinite half spaces, where the results do not directly account for boundary conditions and finite size effects of an actual test specimen. In this paper, we look at the role these residual stresses play on the competition between deflection and penetration energy release rates of a bimaterial interface and the extent of which the previous assumption of two semi-infinite media can be accepted.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 875: Symposium O – Thin Films - Stresses and Mechanical Properties XI , 2005 , O4.18
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

1. Volinsky, A.A. Moody, N.R. Gerberich, W.W. Acta Materialia Vol. 50, pp. 441–466, 2002.Google Scholar
2. Bagchi, A, Evans, A.G. Interface Science Vol. 3, pp. 169–193, 1996.Google Scholar
3. Rice, J.R. J. App. Mech., Vol. 35, pp. 379–386, 1968.Google Scholar
4. Roham, S. Hardikar, K. Woytowitz, P. Material Research Society Symposium Proceeding, Vol. 778, pp. 73–78, ©2003 Materials Research Society.Google Scholar
5. Roham, S. Hardikar, K. Woytowitz, P. Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 3019–3027, 2004.Google Scholar
6. Hutchinson, J.W. He, M.Y. Evans, A.G. Int. Journal of Solids Structures, Vol. 31, No. 24, pp. 3443–3455, 1994.Google Scholar
7. Dundurs, J. J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 36, pp. 650–652, 1969.Google Scholar
8. Charalambides, P.G. Lund, J. Evans, A. G. McMeeking, R.M. J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 56, pp. 77–82, 1989.Google Scholar
9. Ballarini, R. Luo, H.A. International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 50, pp. 239–262, 1991.Google Scholar
10. Tada, H. Paris, P.C. Irwin, G.R. Third Edition, ASME, N.Y. N.Y., ©2000 Google Scholar
11. Irwin, G.R. “Fracture Dynamics,” in Fracturing of Metals, edited by Jonassen, F. et al. , American Soc. Of Metals, Cleveland, OH, pp. 147–166, 1948.Google Scholar
12. ABAQUS Structural solver, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI 02860.Google Scholar