Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
THIN-FILM STRUCTURES
Haixia Mei, Shravan Gowrishankar, Kenneth M. Liechti, Rui Huang
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station, C0600
Austin, Texas 78712
Phone: (512) 471-7558
Fax: (512) 471-5500
Email: ruihuang@mail.utexas.edu
unifying theory for fracture at various length scales, from For brittle fracture, 0 is roughly one order of magnitude lower
atomic bond breaking in monolithic ceramics to fiber pull-out 10 2
in composite materials. In each case, the microscopic than the elastic modulus (0 ~ 10 N/m ) and c is comparable
-10
mechanism of fracture and associated inelastic processes are to the interatomic distance (~10 m). Thus, an order-of-
represented by a bridging law that relates the face tractions in 2
the bridging zone (or cohesive zone) to the relative separation magnitude estimate gives that ~ 1 J/m , which is essentially
displacements, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The essential features of the surface energy per unit area of the solid. For metals, 0
8 2
crack bridging were reviewed by Bao and Suo [9], corresponds to the yield stress (~10 N/m ) and c is typically
-6
emphasizing their implications for strength and fracture
in the order of 10 m (depending on the microstructures),
resistance of ceramic matrix composites. The concept has also 2 2
been widely used for modeling interfaces between elastic- which lead to a fracture energy, ~ 10 J/m , much higher
than the surface energy. extension, in which G increases from 0 to GSS (Fig. 2). To
determine the R-curve and the steady state cohesive zone size,
Cohesive zone modeling is particularly suitable for
a boundary value problem has to be solved. Within the
adhesion and debonding of interfaces between two dissimilar
cohesive zone, the face traction is related to the opening
materials [10], where the constituent materials can be either
displacement by the traction-separation law. The outer
linear elastic or elastic-plastic. Depending on the material
boundary condition is given by the K field corresponding to
systems, the maximum stress of the interfacial bridging law 0
the applied energy release rate G, under the condition of
can be either small or large compared to the yield stresses of
small-scale bridging. A dimensional analysis [9] leads to a
the constituent materials. When 0 is greater than the yield
scaling law for the steady-state cohesive zone size:
stress, plastic deformation in the constituent material occurs
during interfacial fracture, and the total energy of fracture is EGSS
greater than the intrinsic fracture energy of the interface ( ~ LSS ~ . (4)
02
0c). Therefore, the effect of plasticity can be analyzed by
coupling the bridging law for the interface with continuum The small scale bridging condition is satisfied when the crack
elastic-plastic models for the constituent materials [15]. size a >> LSS.
Eq. (6) applies for both loading and unloading. During where n and s are normal and shear displacement,
loading, max = , and thus the damage parameter D respectively. The damage parameter is then determined by an
increases as the opening displacement increases. Combining evolution rule similar to Eq. (5):
Eq. (5) and (6) gives that the stress decreases linearly with the
mc ( max m 0 ) ,
displacement ( 0 c ): D= (13)
max ( mc m 0 )
c .
= 0 (7) where mc is the critical effective displacement, depending on
c 0
the mode mix and the final failure criterion. In the present
When c , D = 1 and = 0 , indicating that the interface study, we adopt the energy-based failure criterion:
element is fully fractured. During unloading (e.g., from B in GI GII
+ =1, (14)
Fig. 3), max remains as a constant and so does D. Therefore, I II
the stress decreases linearly as the opening displacement
where I and II are the fracture toughness under pure mode
decreases, with the slope K = (1 D ) K 0 as illustrated by the
I (opening) and mode II (shearing) conditions, respectively,
dashed line in Fig. 3.
For interfacial delamination between two dissimilar
GI and G II are the work done by the tractions in normal and
materials, mode mix is commonly observed. In ABAQUS, the shear directions, namely
traction-separation laws for the opening and shearing fracture n
modes (modes I, II, and III) can be defined separately, each GI = d n , (15)
0
with a set of similar parameters as the opening mode. Under a
s
mixed mode condition, however, the criteria for damage GII = d s . (16)
initiation and final failure must be specified taking into 0
account the effect of mode mix. Several different criteria have
Similar to Eq. (6) for the opening mode, the shear traction
been implemented in ABAQUS. For the present study, we
is related to the shear displacement as
adopt an elliptic form for the damage initiation criterion,
namely = (1 D) K 0 s , (17)
2 2
+ = 1
, (8) where the initial stiffness (K0) is assumed to be identical for
0 0 the normal and shear deformation [14]. Thus, the ratio
between the two tractions is identical to the corresponding
where 0 is the shear strength of the interface, = if
ratio between the two displacements, and by Eq. (12) we have
> 0 (tension) and = 0 otherwise. By using the n
m = = s . (18)
Macauley bracket we assume that compression does not cause cos sin
damage. As a result of the mixed-mode damage initiation
criterion, the critical magnitude of the traction vector depends Substitution of Eq. (18) into Eq. (13) leads to
mc ( n m 0 cos ) mc ( s m 0 sin ) interface element the local mode mix and the mode mix by
D= = . (19) LEFM the global mode mix.
( mc m 0 ) n ( mc m 0 ) s
Inserting Eq. (19) into Eq. (6) and Eq. (17), we obtain the
tractions
K 0 m 0
= ( cos n ) , (20)
mc m 0 mc
K 0 m 0
= ( sin s ) , (21) Fig. 4: (a) A channel crack with no interfacial
mc m 0 mc
delamination; (b) A channel crack with stable
both of which decrease linearly with the corresponding interfacial delamination of width d on both sides.
displacement components. At the point of final failure,
n = mc cos and s = mc sin . Moreover, the work
CHANNEL CRACKING WITH DELAMINATION
done by the tractions are simply
As illustrated in Fig. 4a, assuming no interfacial delamination,
1 the energy release rate for steady-state growth of a channel
GI = m 0 mc cos2 , (22)
2 crack in an elastic film bonded to a thick elastic substrate is
2f h f
1 Gss = Z ( , ) , (26)
GII = m 0 mc sin 2 . (23) Ef
2
where f is the tensile stress in the film, h f is the film
By the mixed-mode failure criterion in (14), we obtain that
1 thickness, and E f = E f / (1 2f ) is the plane-strain modulus of
mc = m 0 cos 2 + m 0 sin 2 the film with Youngs modulus E f and Poissons ratio f .
2I 2II .
1 1/ 2 The dimensionless coefficient Z depends on the elastic
2 2 mismatch between the film and the substrate, through the
= nc cos 2 + I sin 2 cos + 20 sin 2
II 0 Dundurs parameters
(24)
The total mixed-mode fracture energy (per unit area) is then E f Es
= ,
1 E f + Es
1
= GI + GII = m 0 mc = I cos 2 + I sin 2 . (25) E (1 f )(1 2 s ) Es (1 s )(1 2 f )
2 II = f . (27)
2(1 f )(1 s )(E f + Es )
Therefore, under a mixed-mode loading, both the strength
(Eq. 11) and toughness (Eq. 25) depend on the phase angle of When the film and the substrate have identical elastic
mode mix. In addition, the mixed-mode interface strength moduli, we have = = 0 and Z = 1.976 . The value of Z
depends on the normal and shear strength, and the mixed- increases rapidly for a stiff film on a relatively compliant
mode interface toughness depends on the mode-I and mode-II substrate ( E f > Es and > 0 ). For a SiN film ( E f = 310
toughness. Together, at least five parameters are needed to
describe the interfacial fracture: one stiffness (K0), two GPa, f = 0.27 ) on Kapton ( Es = 5 GPa, s = 0.32 ), we
strengths ( 0 and 0 ), and two toughnesses ( I and II ). have = 0.9672 and Z = 17.64 . Consequently, the driving
It shall be noted that the phase angle for mode mix as force for channel cracking can be significantly higher when
defined in Eq. (9) can be different from the phase angle the film is bonded to a more compliant substrate.
defined in LEFM. In particular, for an interfacial crack in Now consider an interfacial crack emanating from the
LEFM, due to the oscillatory singularity at the crack tip, an root of a channel crack, as shown in Fig. 4b. For a long,
arbitrary length scale must be specified to define the phase straight channel crack, we assume a steady state far behind the
angle [17, 18], except for the cases when the index of channel front, where the interfacial crack has a finite width d .
oscillatory singularity is zero (e.g., when the two materials The energy release rate for the interfacial crack takes the form
across the interface have identical elastic properties). In the
cohesive zone model, the phase angle is defined locally at d 2f h f
Gd = Z d , , , (28)
each point or for each interface element in the finite element h E
f f
analysis. Therefore, the mode mix may vary along the
interface (from element to element) and may change during where Zd is a dimensionless function that can be determined
the loading process. For clarity, we call the mode mix of each
from a two-dimensional finite element model [19,20].
Depending on the elastic mismatch and the interface Specifically, for a SiN film deposited on Kapton, Fig. 5a
toughness, there can be no interfacial delamination, stable plots the normalized energy release rate Z d as a function of
delamination or unstable delamination, which has been the delamination width, and Fig. 5b plots the normalized
summarized in a diagram [20]. For a stiff film on a compliant effective energy release rate, Z eff Z ( , ) , as a function of
substrate, it was found that delamination always occurs by the
LEFM criterion. Stable delamination with a finite width d is the normalized interface toughness. The effective driving
predicted when the interface toughness is greater than a force increases as the normalized interface toughness
critical value, i > 2f h f 2 E f (
. With the stable ) deceases. At the limit of high interface toughness ( i ),
delamination, the effective driving force for the growth of the delamination width d 0 and Z eff / Z 1 , recovering
channel cracks is further enhanced. To account for the the case of channel cracking with no delamination.
influence of interfacial delamination on both the fracture
driving force and the fracture resistance, an effective energy
release rate for channel cracking is defined as [20] channel crack
face Y
2f h f
Gsseff = Z eff (i , , ) cohesive Z
, (29)
X
Ef interface
5 3
x 10
8
4
i/Efhf = 1e5
3 7 i/Efhf = 2e5
i/Efhf = 4e5
2
6
1
5
0
f
0 2 4 6 8 10
/E
di/hf 4
cr
3
4
2
3.5
SiN/Kapton
1
3 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0/Ef x 10
3
Z* /Z
i
eff
2.5
6
di/hf
3
0
i /Ef = 1e3
2
1 0/E = 0.5e3
i f
0
0 1 2 3 4 4.5
/Ef 3
x 10
SUMMARY
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial support by
Semiconductor Research Corporation.
References
[1] P.S. Ho, G. Wang, M. Ding, J.H. Zhao, X. Dai,
Microelectronics Reliability 44, 719-737 (2004).
[2] X.H. Liu, M.W. Lane, T.M. Shaw, E. Simonyi, Int. J.
Solids and structures 44, 1706-1718 (2007).
[3] I. Mohammed and K.M. Liechti, J. Mechanics and
Physics of Solids 48, 735-764 (2000).
[4] A.V. Mello, K.M. Liechti, J. Applied Mechanics 73,
860-870 (2006).
[5] Y. Zhu, K.M. Liechti, K. Ravi-Chandar, Int. J. Solids
and Structures 46, 31-51 (2009).
[6] D.S. Dugdale, J. Appl. Mech. 8, 100-104 (1960).
[7] G.I. Barenblatt, Adv. Appl. Mech. 7, 55-129 (1962).
[8] A.H. Cottrell, Tewksbury Symposium on Fracture, 1-27
(1963).
[9] G. Bao and Z. Suo, Appl. Mech. Rev. 45, 355-366
(1992).
[10] J.W. Hutchinson and A.G. Evans, Acta Mater. 48, 125-
135 (2000).
[11] B.N. Cox and D.B. Marshall, Int. J. Fracture 49, 159-176
(1991).
[12] B.F. Sorensen, T.K. Jacobsen, Eng. Fracture Mech. 70,
1841-1858 (2003).
[13] J.P. Parmigiani and M.D. Thouless, Eng. Fracture Mech.
74, 2675-2699 (2007).
[14] C.G. Davila, P.P. Camanho, M.F. de Moura, AIAA-01-
1486 (2001)