Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:32:23.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Brittle to Ductile Transition (BDT) in Adhered Thin Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

W. W. Gerberich ,
A. A. Volinsky ,
N. I. Tymiak  and
N. R. Moody
W. W. Gerberich
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
A. A. Volinsky
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
N. I. Tymiak
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
N. R. Moody
Affiliation:
Sandia National Lab, Livermore, CA 94551
Get access

Abstract

It has been long recognized that the BDT in bulk materials may be associated with enhanced plastic energy dissipation. This can be achieved by either changing the state of stress (plane strain to plane stress) or by raising the test temperature (lowering the yield stress). The situation is somewhat different in thin films where the BDT can be achieved by increasing film thickness or perhaps, even in a limited temperature range, by raising the test temperature. To study the latter we use a superlayer technique with a 1 μm tungsten film on top of thin copper films bonded to SiO2/Si wafers. This involves indenting into the superlayer which stores and then releases large amounts of elastic energy into the thin film/substrate interface. Here, preliminary data on 500 nm thick Cu demonstrates more than an order of magnitude increase in fracture energy from about 10 to 200 J/m2 as the test temperature is raised from 20°C to 130°C. As the amount of plastic energy absorption would appear to be limited by film thickness, this relatively large value was unanticipated. This interfacial fracture energy translates to a stress intensity of 5 MPa-m1/2. In context of the highest possible nanocrystalline Cu yield strength, this still represents a plastic zone of nearly 30 μm. This illustrates the quandary associated with explaining such high apparent toughness values as one generally expects plasticity to be truncated by film thickness. Is this associated with:

–some artifact of assessing local stresses during nanoindentation at elevated temperature:

–extending the plastic zone in the direction of crack growth much further than the film thickness;

–a shielding mechanism from an organized dislocation array in a ductile film sandwiched between a brittle substrate and a higher yield strength superlayer;

–some plastic energy dissipation in the superlayer;

–or by enhanced mode II at higher temperatures?

A few of these will be addressed in some detail with a goal of narrowing the field of the most promising candidates.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 594: Symposium V – Thin Films - Stresses & Mechanical Properties VIII , 1999 , 351
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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. Russell, S.W., Rafalski, S.A., Spreitzer, R.L., Li, J., Mainpour, M., Moghadam, F. and Alford, T.L.. Thin Solid Films 262 (1995) 154.Google Scholar
2. Bagchi, A. and Evans, A.G., Thin Solid Films 286 (1996) 203.Google Scholar
3. Kriese, M.D., Moody, N.R. and Gerberich, W.W., Acta Mater. 46 (1998) 6623.Google Scholar
4. Kriese, M.D., Moody, N.R. and Gerberich, W.W.. J. Mater. Res. 14 (1999) Part I. 3007; Part II, 3019.Google Scholar
5. Tvmiak, N.I.. Volinsky, A.A., Kriese, M.D.. Downs, S.A. and Gerberich, W.W., Metall. and Mat'ls. Trans., accepted (1999).Google Scholar
6. Volinsky, A.A.. Tymiak, N.I., Kriese, M.D., Gerberich, W.W. and Hutchinson, J.W., Mat'l. Res. Soc. Symp. Vol. 539, (1999) 277.Google Scholar
7. Gerberich, W.W., Kramer, D.E., Tymiak, N.I., Volinsky, A.A., Bahr, D.F. and Kriese, M.D., Acta Mater. 47 #15/16 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Dauskardt, R., private communication (1999).Google Scholar
9. Wei, Y. and Hutchinson, J.W., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45 (1997) 1137.Google Scholar
10. Thomson, R., Scripta Metall. 20 (1986) 1473;Google Scholar
Lin, I.H. and Thomson, R., Acta Metall. Mater. 34 (1986) 187.Google Scholar
11. Rice, J.R. and Thomson, R., Philos. Mag 29 (1974) p. 73.Google Scholar
12. Lii, M.J., Chen, X.F., Katz, Y. and Gerberich, W.W., Acta Metall. 38 (1990) 2435.Google Scholar
13. Vinci, R.P., Zielinski, E.M. and Bravman, J.C., Thin Solid Films 262 (1995) 142.Google Scholar
14. Kramer, D., Huang, H., Kriese, M., Robach, J., Nelson, J., Wright, A., Bahr, D. and Gerberich, W.W., Acta Mater. 47 (1999) 333.Google Scholar
15. Zielinski, W., Lii, M.J., Huang, H., Marsh, P.G. and Gerberich, W.W., Acta Metall. Mater. 40 (1992) Parts I, II and III, 2861, 2873, 2883.Google Scholar
16. Gerberich, W.W., Huang, H., Zielinski, W. and Marsh, P., Metall. Trans. A 24A (1993) 535.Google Scholar
17. Huang, H. and Gerberich, W.W., Acta Metall. Mater. 42 (1994) 639; P.G. Marsh and W.W. Gerberich, 42 (1994) 613.Google Scholar
18. Jiang, H.G., Zhu, Y.T., Alexandrov, I.V., Lowe, T.C. and Valev, R.Z., “Characterization of SPTS-Processed Ultrafine Grained Cu,” this Proceedings (2000).Google Scholar
19. Kriese, M.D., PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota (1998).Google Scholar
20. Klein, P., Gao, H., Vainchtein, A., Fujimoto, H., Ma, Q. and Lee, J., “Micromechanics- Based Modelling of Interfacial Debonding in Multilayer Structures,” this Proceedings (2000).Google Scholar
21. Vlassak, J.J., Drory, M.D., Nix, W.D., J. Mater. Res. 12 (1997) 1900.Google Scholar