Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:21:03.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Microscale Test Methods of Peeling and Splitting along Surface of Thin-Film/Substrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Y. Wei
Y. Wei*
Affiliation:
LNM, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, P.R. China
Get access

Abstract

Peel test methods are assessed through being applied to a peeling analysis of the ductile film/ceramic substrate system. Through computing the fracture work of the system using the either beam bend model (BB model) or the general plane analysis model (GPA model), surprisingly, a big difference between both model results is found. Although the BB model can capture the plastic dissipation phenomenon for the ductile film case as the GPA model can, it is much sensitive to the choice of the peeling criterion parameters, and it overestimates the plastic bending effect unable to capture crack tip constraint plasticity. In view of the difficulty of measuring interfacial toughness using peel test method when film is the ductile material, a new test method, split test, is recommended and analyzed using the GPA model. The prediction is applied to a wedge-loaded experiment for Al-alloy double-cantilever beam in literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 697: Symposium P – Surface Engineering 2001--Fundamentals and Applications , January 2001 , P8.8
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

1. Asai, H., Iwase, N., and Suga, T., IEEE Trans. on Adv. Packaging. 24, 104 (2001).Google Scholar
2. Feliu-Baez, R., Lockhart, H. E. and Burgess, G., Packaging Tech. Sci., 14, 63 (2001).Google Scholar
3. Kim, K.S. and Aravas, N., Int. J. Solids Struct., 24, 417 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Wei, Y. and Hutchinson, J. W., Int. J. Fracture, 93, 315 (1998).Google Scholar
5. Kinloch, A. J., Lau, C. C. and Williams, J. G., Int. J. Fracture, 66, 45 (1994).Google Scholar
6. Moidu, A. K., Sinclair, A. N. and Spelt, J. K., J. Testing Evaluation, 23, 241 (1995).Google Scholar
7. Park, Y. B., Park, I. S. and Yu, J., Mater. Sci. Eng., A266, 261 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Yang, Q. D., Thouless, M. D. and Word, S. M., J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 47, 1337 (1999).Google Scholar
9. Dean, R. H. and Hutchinson, J. W., Quasi-static steady crack growth in small scale yielding. In Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 700, American Society for Testing Materials, 383 (1980).Google Scholar
10. Wei, Y. and Hutchinson, J. W., Int. J. Fracture, 95, 1 (1999).Google Scholar