Interfacial Fracture Toughness Measurement of a Ti/Si Interface

[+] Author and Article Information
Mitul Modi, Suresh K. Sitaraman

Computer-Aided Simulation of Packaging Reliability (CASPaR) Laboratory, The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405e-mail: suresh.sitaraman@me.gatech.edu http:://www.me.gatech/caspar

J. Electron. Packag 126(3), 301-307 (Oct 06, 2004) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1772410 History: Received February 01, 2003; Revised February 01, 2004; Online October 06, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Charalambides,  P. G., Lund,  J., Evans,  A. G., and McMeeking,  R. M., 1989, “A Test Specimen for Determining the Fracture Resistance of Bimaterial Interfaces,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 56, pp. 77–82.
Venkatraman,  S. K., Kohlstedt,  D. L., and Gerberich,  W. W., 1993, “Metal-Ceramic Interfacial Fracture Resistance Using the Continuous Microscratch Technique,” Thin Solid Films, 223, pp. 269–275.
Hohlfelder, R. J., Luo, H., Vlassak, J. J., Chidsey, C. E. D., and Nix, W. D., 1997, “Measuring Interfacial Fracture Toughness with the Blister Test,” Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 436, pp. 115–120.
Shaffer, E. O., McGarry, F. J., and Trussel, F., 1994, “The Edge Delamination Test: Measuring the Critical Adhesion Energy of Thin-Film Coatings. II. Mode Mixity and Application,” Material Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 338, pp. 541–551.
Kim, K.-S., 1988, “Mechanics of the Peel Test for Thin Film Adhesion,” Material Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 119, pp. 31–41.
Bagchi,  A., Lucas,  G. E., Suo,  Z., and Evans,  A. G., 1994, “A New Procedure for Measuring the Decohesion Energy for Thin Ductile Films on Substrates,” J. Mater. Res., 9(7), pp. 1734–1741.
Modi, M., and Sitaraman, S. K., 2002, “Modified Decohesion Test (MDT) for Interfacial Fracture Toughness Measurement in Microelectronics/MEMS Applications,” Proceedings of 2002 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Orleans, LA.
Smith, D. L., Fork, D. K., Thornton, R. L., and Alimonda, A. S., Chua, C. L., Dunnrowicz, C., and Ho, J., 1998, “Flip-Chip Bonding on 6-μm Pitch using Thin-Film Microspring Technology,” Proceedings of the 48th Electronics Components and Technology Conference (ECTC), Seattle, Washington, pp. 325–329.
Aksyuk, V. A., et al., 2000, “Lucent MicrostarTM Micromirror Array Technology for Large Optical Crossconnects,” Proceedings of MOEMS and Miniaturized Systems, SPIE Vol. 4178, Santa Clara, CA, pp. 320–4.
Modi, M., Sitaraman, S. K., and Fork, D. K., 2001, “Numerical Approximation of the ERR in Intrinsically Stressed Micro-Springs,” Proceedings of IPACK’01, Kauai, Hawaii.
Masters,  C. B., and Salamon,  N. J., 1993, “Geometrically Nonlinear Stress-Deflection Relations for Thin Film/Substrate Systems,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 31(6), pp. 915–925.
Hutchinson,  J. W., and Suo,  Z., 1992, “Mixed Mode Cracking in Layered Materials,” Adv. Appl. Mech., 29, pp. 63–189.
Sou,  Z., and Hutchinson,  J. W., 1990, “Interface Crack Between Two Elastic Layers,” Int. J. Fract., 43, pp. 1–18.
Evans,  A. G., Ruhle,  M., Dalgeish,  B. J., and Charalambides,  P. G., 1990, “The Fracture Energy of Bimaterial Interfaces,” Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 126, pp. 53–64.


Grahic Jump Location
MDT process steps. Step1—deposit and pattern the non-adhesive layer (varying widths allows for different dA). Step2—deposit and pattern the interface and super layer. Step3—use a wet etch to initiate the crack.
Grahic Jump Location
SEM of a test strip after the crack initiation step—a precrack is created
Grahic Jump Location
(a) MDT Mask Set—two of the masks are shown. The mask on the left is the nonadhesive layer mask and the one on the right is the interface/super layer mask. The crack initiation mask has not been shown. (b) One sample site from each of the three masks are shown in greater detail. (Four columns in each sample before crack initiation cut and eight test site columns after crack initiation cut and establishment of a precrack.)
Grahic Jump Location
Optical microscope pictures of a 19 deg mode mix sample—(a) columns C and D and (b) columns E and F
Grahic Jump Location
Optical microscope pictures of a 30 deg mode mix sample—(a) columns A through D and (b) columns F through G
Grahic Jump Location
Interfacial fracture toughness results for a Ti/Si interface at mode mixes of 19.5 deg, 23 deg, and 30 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Pictures of a 23 deg mode mix sample—(a) optical microscope picture of columns E and F, (b) optical microscope picture of columns G and H, and (c) SEM picture of columns E through H.
Grahic Jump Location
Variation of the G0 multiplier (M) versus test strip column line number. ξ, ratio of the non-adhesive strip width to the interface strip width is plotted on the right.
Grahic Jump Location
Visual inspection process to determine the bounds using an MDT sample
Grahic Jump Location
Labeling system for a MDT sample. Test site columns are labeled from A to H starting from the left to right. Line numbers are 1 to 27 going from top to bottom. Line 1 provides the largest G0 multiplier.
Grahic Jump Location
Response of test strips when they delaminate—(a) three test strips which when they delaminated curled about their centerline and (b) three test strips which while curling they deviated off the centerline (because of how the photoresist was stripped).




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In