Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:04:26.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of patterned nanoscale interfacial roughness on interfacial toughness: A finite element analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

E.D. Reedy Jr.
E.D. Reedy Jr.*
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0346
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A finite element analysis was used to determine how patterned, nanoscale interfacial roughness could potentially increase the apparent interfacial toughness of brittle, thin-film material systems. The pattern analyzed was composed of parallel channels with either a rectangular-toothed or a rippled cross-section. Results are presented for a thin, linear elastic, bimaterial strip loaded by displacing the top edge relative to the bottom edge. The finite element calculations indicate that the interface does not unzip in a steady, continuous manner. Instead, the crack tip stalls as it tries to kink in a direction that is offset from its original path. The apparent interfacial toughness is found to depend on the intrinsic interfacial toughness, the ratio of real-to-nominal interfacial area, the extent of ligament, tooth-tip damage that occurs before crack propagation, strain energy locked in by persistent contact, and the level of energy dissipation associated with dynamic fracture.

Keywords

FractureNanoscaleToughness
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 23 , Issue 11 , November 2008 , pp. 3056 - 3065
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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

1Emerson, J.A., Guess, T.R., Adkins, C., Curro, J.G., Reedy, E.D. Jr., Lopez, E.P., Lemke, P.: Investigation of the impact of cleaning on the adhesive bond and the process implications, SAND2000-1042. Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Packham, D.E.: Surface energy, surface topography and adhesion. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 23, 437 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Pocius, A.V.: Adhesion and Adhesives Technology Hanser Gardner Publications Inc., Cincinnati 1997Google Scholar
4Rider, A.N., Arnott, D.R.: The influence of adherend topography on the fracture toughness of aluminum-epoxy adhesive joints in humid environments. J. Adhes. 75, 203 2001Google Scholar
5Zhang, S., Panat, R., Hsia, K.J.: Influence of surface morphology on the adhesion strength of epoxy-aluminum interfaces. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 17, 1685 2003Google Scholar
6Reedy, E.D. Jr, Moody, N.R., Zimmerman, J.A., Zhou, X., Kennedy, M.S., Mook, W.M., Bahr, D.F.: Effect of nanoscale patterned interfacial roughness on interfacial toughness, SAND2007-5990. Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 2007Google Scholar
7Hutchinson, J.W., Suo, Z.: Mixed mode cracking in layered materials in Advances in Applied Mechanics edited by J.W. Hutchinson and T.Y. Wu Academic Press New York 1992 63Google Scholar
8Tvergaard, V., Hutchinson, J.W.: The influence of plasticity on mixed mode interface toughness. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41, 1119 1993Google Scholar
9Liechti, K.M., Chai, Y.S.: Asymmetric shielding in interfacial fracture under in-plane shear. J. Appl. Mech. 59, 295 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Swadener, J.G., Liechti, K.M.: Asymmetric shielding mechanisms in the mixed-mode fracture of a glass/epoxy interface. J. Appl. Mech. 65, 25 1998Google Scholar
11Evans, A.G., Hutchinson, J.W.: Effects of non-planarity on the mixed-mode fracture resistance of bimaterial interfaces. Acta Metall. 37, 909 1989Google Scholar
12Zavattieri, P.D., Hector, L.G. Jr, Bower, A.F.: Determination of the effective mode-I toughness of a sinusoidal interface between two elastic solids. Int. J. Fracture 145, 167 2007Google Scholar
13Yao, Q., Qu, J.: Interfacial versus cohesive failure on polymer-metal interfaces in electronic packaging: effects of interface roughness. J. Electron. Packag. 124, 127 2002Google Scholar
14Ghatak, A., Mahadevan, L., Chung, J.Y., Chaudhury, M.K., Shenoy, V.: Peeling from a biomimetically patterened thin elastic film. Proc. R. Soc. London A 460, 2725 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Crosby, A.J., Hageman, M., Duncan, A.: Controlling polymer adhesion with “Pancakes”. Langmuir 21, 11738 2005Google Scholar
16Koteras, J.R., Gullerud, A.S.: Presto User’s Guide Version 1.05 Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Cordill, M.J., Bahr, D.F., Moody, N.R., Gerberich, W.W.: Recent developments in thin film adhesion measurement. IEEE Trans. Dev. Mater. Reliab. 4, 163 2004Google Scholar
18Klein, P.A.: Tahoe User Guide Sandia National Laboratories Livermore, CA 2003Google Scholar
19Zhou, X., Zimmerman, J.A., Reedy, E.D. Jr, Moody, N.R.: Molecular dynamics simulation based cohesive zone representation of mixed-mode fracture. Mech. Mater. 40, 832 2008Google Scholar