Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:23:46.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Edge Delamination Test: Measuring the Critical Adhesion Energy of Thin-Film Coatings, Part II: Mode Mixity & Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

Edward O. Shaffer II ,
Scott A. Sikorski  and
Frederick J. McGarry
Edward O. Shaffer II
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MA 02139
Scott A. Sikorski
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MA 02139
Frederick J. McGarry
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MA 02139
Get access

Abstract

The edge delamination test (EDT) is being developed to measure the critical energy required to cause a thin film, under biaxial tensile stress, to debond from a rigid substrate[1]. The test uses circular features etched through biaxially stressed films adhered to a rigid substrate. If the stress is large enough, a stable debond ring grows radially about the feature. We use a finite element analysis to model the test, solving for the applied strain energy release rate as a function of crack length, feature hole radius and other geometrical parameters. The model identifies both mode I and mode II components of the strain energy release rate, and agrees with previous analytical solutions for the total debond energy. However, the model predicts, with a very refined mesh at the crack tip, the fracture process is pure mode I. To explore this result, critical strain energy release rates from the EDT and the island blister test (IBT) are compared. This agreement supports the model prediction that the failure process in the EDT is modeI peeling.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 338: Symposium – Materials Reliability in Microelectronics IV , 1994 , 541
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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. Shaffer, E. O. II, Trusell, F. and McGarry, F. J., Proc. of the Mater. Res.Soc., 308, 535 (1992).Google Scholar
2. Jensen, H. M., Hutchinson, J. W. and Kim, K. S., Int. J. Solids Structures, 26 (9,10), 1099 (1990).Google Scholar
3. Thouless, M.. D., Acta Metall., 36 (12), 3131 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Evans, A. G., Drory, M. D., Hu, M. S., J. Mater. Res., 3 (5), 1043 (1988).Google Scholar
5. Suo, Z. and Hutchinson, J. W., Int. Journal of Fracture, 43, 1 (1990).Google Scholar
6.Abaqus Software, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., Version 4.9, (1990)Google Scholar
7. Margaritis, G., Sikorski, S. A. and McGarry, F. J., J. Adh. Sci.& Tech., 8 (3), 1 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Margaritis, G., Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (1993).Google Scholar
9. Stoney, G. G., Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A82, 172 (1909).Google Scholar
10.“EPP Data Handbook: A Compendium of Research Results of the MIT Electronics Packaging Program (EPP) for the Years 1991-1993” ed. Shaffer, E. O. II and Senturia, S. D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (1993).Google Scholar