Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:40:45.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Residual Stress on Modulus Measurements by Indentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

D. F. Bahr ,
D. A. Crowson ,
J. S. Robach  and
W. W. Gerberich
D. F. Bahr
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164
D. A. Crowson
Affiliation:
Nanomechanics Research Laboratory, Hysitron, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 55413
J. S. Robach
Affiliation:
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
W. W. Gerberich
Affiliation:
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Get access

Abstract

Continuous indentation has been used to evaluate the mechanical response of chromium and platinum films deposited on silicon and glass substrates. The traditional method of analysis of indentation data to determine modulus and hardness is sensitive to residual stress in the film, thereby suggesting that modulus measurements may be used to gauge residual stresses. Evaporated metal films, which are under residual tension, tend to show a lower modulus (using standard calculation methods) than the bulk materials. However, a sputtered platinum film exhibits an apparently higher modulus than the bulk material. These data suggest that differences between the calculated and expected modulus using indentation tests cannot be used to unequivocally determine the stress state in a thin film.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 505 , 1997 , 85
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

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.Sines, G. and Carlson, R., ASTM Bull., 180, 35 (1952).Google Scholar
2.Tsui, T. Y., Oliver, W. C., and Pharr, G. M., J. Mater. Res., 11, 752 (1996).Google Scholar
3.LaFontaine, W. R., Paszkiet, C. A., Korhonen, M. A., and Li, C. H., J. Mater. Res., 6, 2084 (1991).Google Scholar
4.Rangyunyoung, P., Thomas, R. C., Houston, J. E., Michalske, T. A., Crooks, R. M., and Howard, A. J., J. Adhesion Sci. Tech., 8, 897 (1994).Google Scholar
5.Houston, J. E. and Michalske, T. A., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 435, 3 (1997).Google Scholar
6.Noyan, I. C., Huang, T. C., and York, B. R., Crit. Rev. in Solid State and Mater. Sci., 20, 125 (1995).Google Scholar
7.Oliver, W. C. and Pharr, G. M., J. Mater. Res., 7, 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
8.King, R. B., Int. J. Solids Structures, 231657 (1987).Google Scholar
9.Meyers, M. A. and Chawla, K. K., Mechanical Metallurgy, Prentice Hall, p. 58 (1984).Google Scholar
10.Bahr, D. F., to be published.Google Scholar
11.Jankowski, A. F. and Tsakalakos, T., J. Phys. F, 15, 1279 (1985).Google Scholar
12.Cammarata, R. C., Prog. Surf. Sci., 46, 1 (1994).Google Scholar
13.Tabor, D., Hardness of Metals, Oxford Press, (1951).Google Scholar