Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T23:34:28.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Film Thickness on the Yielding Behavior of Polycrystalline Gold Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

H.D. Espinosa  and
B.C. Prorok
H.D. Espinosa
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208-3111, USA
B.C. Prorok
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208-3111, USA
Get access

Abstract

A Membrane Deflection Experiment was used to test the mechanical response of freestanding thin film gold specimens. We present stress-strain curves obtained on films 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 μm thick. Elastic modulus was consistently measured in the range of 53-55 GPa. Several size effects on the mecha nical properties were observed including yield stress variations with membrane width and film thickness. It was observed that thickness plays a key role in deformation behavior with a major transition in the material inelastic response occurring between a thickness of 0.5 and 1.0 μm. The size effects here reported are the first of their kind in the sense that the measurements were performed under a macroscopically homogeneous axial deformation, i.e., in the absence of macroscopic deformation gradients.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 695: Symposium L – Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties IX , 2001 , L8.3.1
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

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. Chasiotis, I. and Knauss, W., Proc. of SPIE - The Int. Soc. for Optical Eng. 3512, 66 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Drory, M. and Hutchinson, J., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 383, 173 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Evans, A G., He, M. Y., and Hutchinson, J. W., Acta Mater., 45 (9), 3543 (1997).Google Scholar
4. Huang, H. and Spaepen, F., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 405, 501 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Fischer, M., Master Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (1999).Google Scholar
6. Espinosa, H.D., Fischer, M., Zhu, Y., and Lee, S., Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Modeling and Simulation of Microsystems, Laudon, M. and Romanowicz, B. editors, 402 (2001).Google Scholar
7. Espinosa, H.D., Prorok, B.C., and Fischer, M., Proc. of the SEM Ann. Conf. on Experimental and Applied Mechanics, June 4-6, 2001, Portland, Oregon, 446 (2001).Google Scholar
8. Espinosa, H.D. and Prorok, B.C., submitted to J. Mech. Phys. Solids. (2001).Google Scholar
9. Espinosa, H.D. and Prorok, B.C., Proc. of the Symp. on Mech. Prop. of MEMS Structures, the 2001 Int. Mech. Eng. Congress in New York, New York, November 11-16 (2001).Google Scholar
10. Sanchez, J.E. and Arzt, E., Scripta Metall. Mater. 27, 285 (1992).Google Scholar
11. Thompson, C.V., J. Mater. Res. 8 (2). 237 (1993).Google Scholar
12. Nix, W., Met. Trans. A 20A, 2217 (1989).Google Scholar
13 Weihs, T.P., Hong, S., Bravman, J.C., and Niz, W.D., J. Mater. Res. 3 (5), 931 (1988).Google Scholar
14 Schaefer, D.M., Patil, A. and Reifenberger, R., Appl. Phys. Lett. 63 (11), 1492 (1993).Google Scholar
15. Okuda, S., Kobiyama, M., and Inami, T., Mater. Trans., JIM 40 (5), 412 (1999).Google Scholar