Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:30:48.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Interfacial Fracture Toughness With The Blister Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

R. J. Hohlfelder ,
H. Luo ,
J. J. Vlassak ,
C. E. D Chidsey  and
W. D. Nix
R. J. Hohlfelder
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
H. Luo
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
J. J. Vlassak
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
C. E. D Chidsey
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
W. D. Nix
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Get access

Abstract

The adhesion of thin films to substrates can be quantified using the blister test, which measures the crack extension force (G) required to propagate a crack along the film/substrate interface. We summarize the derivation of crack extension force for the blister test, and discuss how blister tests can be conducted by measuring only the pressure and volume of liquid injected into the test system. We describe a way to calculate the velocity of the interface crack front.

Data from blister tests of acrylate films (14 μm thick) on nitride substrates are analyzed. The critical crack extension forces (GC) measured were 25 − 34 J/m2 for samples which had a commercial adhesion promoter at the interface, and 0.5 − 2.0 J/m2 without the adhesion promoter. GC was observed to increase with the velocity of the interface crack, and the dependence appears to obey a power-law.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 436: Symposium CC – Thin Films Stresses and Mechanical Properties VI , 1996 , 115
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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

1. Gent, A. N., Lewandowski, L. H., J. App. Polymer Sci., 33, pp. 1567–1577 (1987).Google Scholar
2. Jensen, H. M., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 40, pp. 475–486 (1991).Google Scholar
3. Allen, M. G., Senturia, S. D., J. Adhesion, 25, pp. 303–315 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Chu, Y. Z., Jeong, H. S., White, R. C., Durning, C. J., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 276, pp. 209–220 (1992).Google Scholar
5. Beams, J. W., Structure and Properties of Thin Films, Neugebauer, C.A., Newkirk, J. B., and Vermilyea, D.A., Eds., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959, p. 183.Google Scholar
6. Small, M. K., Nix, W. D., J. Mater. Res., Vol.7, 1553–1563 (1992).Google Scholar
7. Vlassak, J. J., Nix, W. D., J. Mater. Res., Vol.7, 3242–3249 (1992).Google Scholar
8. Small, M. K., Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University, 1992.Google Scholar
9. Vlassak, J. J., Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University, 1994.Google Scholar
10. Vlassak, J. J., Hohlfelder, R. J., unpublished.Google Scholar
11. Hohlfelder, R.J., Vlassak, J. J., Nix, W. D., Luo, H., Chidsey, C.E.D., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 356, (1995).Google Scholar
12. Briscoe, B. J., Panesar, S. S., Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A 433, pp. 23–43 (1991).Google Scholar