Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:17:11.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of residual stress and adhesion on the hardness of copper films deposited on silicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

W. R. LaFontaine ,
B. Yost  and
Che-Yu Li
W. R. LaFontaine
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
B. Yost
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Che-Yu Li
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Get access

Abstract

Continuous indentation testing was used to measure the hardness as a function of indentation depth, of three micron thick copper films deposited on silicon with an intermediate layer of 20 nm thick chromium or titanium. Three different indenters, a nearly perfect Vickers, a Vickers with a 1.2 μm2 flat, and a Pyramid with a 25 μm2 flat were employed. The hardness data suggest that the titanium interlayer produced significantly greater film/substrate adhesion than the chromium interlayer. A compressive residual stress, which relaxed with time, was detected in the samples with the titanium interlayer.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , April 1990 , pp. 776 - 783
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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

1Korhonen, M. A. and Paszkiet, C. A., Scripta Metall. 23 (8), 1449 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Doerner, M. F., Gardner, D.S., andNix, W.D., Journal of Materials Research 1, 845 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Stone, D., LaFontaine, W. R., Alexopoulos, P., Wu, T-W., andLi, Che-Yu, Journal of Materials Research 3 (1), 141 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Doerner, M.F. and Nix, W.D., Journal of Materials Research 1, 601 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Hannula, S-P., Stone, D, andLi, Che-Yu, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 40, 217 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Stone, D., LaFontaine, W., Ruoff, S., Hannula, S-P., Yost, B., and Li, Che-Yu, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 72, 127 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Loubet, J.L., Georges, J.M., andMeille, G., in ASTM STP 889, edited by Blau, P. J. and Lawn, B.(ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1985), p. 73.Google Scholar
8Tabor, D., The Hardness of Metals (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1951).Google Scholar
9Johnson, K. L., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 18, 115–126 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Dieter, G. E., Mechanical Metallurgy (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976), 2nd ed., p. 565.Google Scholar
11Engel, P. A. and Roshon, D. D., J. Adhes. 10, 237 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Kingery, W. D., Bowen, H. K., andUhlmann, D. R., Introduction to Ceramics (Wiley, New York, 1975), 2nd ed., p. 66.Google Scholar