An Easy Way to Quantify the Adhesion Energy of Nanostructured Cu/X (X = Cr, Ta, Mo, Nb, Zr) Multilayer Films Adherent to Polyimide Substrates

doi:10.1007/s40195-016-0375-4

Abstract

Abstract:

An approach based on film buckling under simple uniaxial tensile testing was utilized in this paper to quantitatively estimate the interfacial energy of the nanostructured multilayer films (NMFs) adherent to flexible substrates. The interfacial energies of polyimide-supported NMFs are determined to be ~5.0 J/m² for Cu/Cr, ~4.1 J/m² for Cu/Ta, ~2.8 J/m² for Cu/Mo, ~1.1 J/m² for Cu/Nb, and ~1.2 J/m² for Cu/Zr NMFs. Furthermore, a linear relationship between the adhesion energy and the interfacial shear strength is clearly demonstrated for the Cu-based NMFs, which is highly indicative of the applicability and reliability of the modified models.

Key words: niaxial, tensile, testing, Nanostructured, multilayer, films, Flexible, substrates, Buckling, behaviors, Adhesion, energy

Kai Wu, Jin-Yu Zhang, Gang Liu, Jiao Li, Guo-Jun Zhang, Jun Sun. An Easy Way to Quantify the Adhesion Energy of Nanostructured Cu/X (X = Cr, Ta, Mo, Nb, Zr) Multilayer Films Adherent to Polyimide Substrates[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2016, 29(2): 181-187.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig. 1 Bright-field cross-sectional TEM micrographs showing typical the modulation structure of the Cu/Cr NMFs a, Cu/Mo NMFs b, Cu/Zr NMFs c, Cu/Nb NMFs d with λ = 50 nm

Fig. 2 SEM images showing the microcracks evolution for Cu/Cr NMFs with λ = 50 nm with different strains of 5%a, 10% b, 20% c, cracks and buckles can be seen and marked by open and filled arrows, respectively, and the S - ε curve of Cu/Cr NMFs with λ = 50 nm d

Fig. 3 AFM height images of a buckle with three measurements and the corresponding buckle profiles for different NMFs: a, b Cu/Cr; c, d Cu/Ta; e, f Cu/Mo; g, h Cu/Nb; i, j Cu/Zr

Fig. 4 Buckle dimensional data for Cu/Cr a, Cu/Ta b, Cu/Mo c, Cu/Nb d, Cu/Zr e NMFs fitted to the modified model, respectively

Table 1 Summary of results for elastic modulus E f , average buckles height δ, average buckles width 2l, minimum κand adhesion energy Γ

Materials	E _f (GPa)	δ (μm)	2l (μm)	κ	Γ (J/m²)
Cu/Cr	170	3.11	10.54	4.0 × 10^-4	5.0
Cu/Ta	165	2.38	13.34	3.0 × 10^-4	4.1
Cu/Mo	205	2.48	19.09	1.7 × 10^-5	2.8
Cu/Nb	147	1.18	7.08	1.0 × 10^-4	1.1
Cu/Zr	145	2.23	20.75	9.0 × 10^-5	1.2

Fig. 5 Average fragment size as a function of the applied strain in the Cu/Cr a, Cu/Ta b, Cu/Mo c, Cu/Nb d, Cu/Zr eNMFs, the dash line in each graph is a linear fitting for the data in the stage I

Table 2 Summary of results for Weibull exponent α, Weibull scale factor γ, gamma function γ and interfacial shear strength τ

Materials	α	β (MPa)	L _c (μm)	γ	τ (MPa)
Cu/Cr	5.70	1495	33.29	0.93	45.04
Cu/Ta	5.34	1450	37.65	0.92	35.96
Cu/Mo	4.95	1335	39.30	0.92	29.70
Cu/Nb	4.85	1100	42.75	0.92	21.75
Cu/Zr	3.00	1050	50.25	0.91	10.27

Fig. 6 Correlation of the IFSS and the adhesion energy for X (X = Nb, Zr, Mo, Ta and Cr)/PI interfaces, the dash line is a linear fitting for data

References 32

[1]	O. Kraft, C.A. Volkert, Adv. Eng. Mater. 3, 99(2001)
[2]	J.A. Rogers, T. Someya, Y. Huang, Science 327, 1603 (2010)
[3]	D.H. Kim, J.A. Rogers, Adv. Mater. 20, 4887(2008)
[4]	Y. Xiang, T. Li, Z. Suo, J.J. Vlassak, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87,161910(2005)
[5]	T. Li, Z. Suo, Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 1696(2007)
[6]	A.A. Volinsky, N.R. Moody, W.W. Gerberich, Acta Mater. 50,441(2002)
[7]	N. Lambricht, T. Pardoen, S. Yunus, Acta Mater. 61, 540(2013)
[8]	C.J. Lee, C.H. Hsieh, H.S. Huang, J.C. Huang, Scr. Mater. 69, 5(2013)
[9]	N. Lu, X. Wang, Z. Suo, J. Vlassak, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91,221909(2007)
[10]	M.J. Cordill, F.D. Fischer, F.G. Rammerstorfer, G. Dehm, Acta Mater. 58, 5520(2010)
[11]	M.A. Phillips, B.M. Clemens, W.D. Nix, Acta Mater. 51, 3157(2003)
[12]	A. Misra, J.P. Hirth, R.G. Hoagland, Acta Mater. 53, 4817(2005)
[13]	J. Wang, A. Misra, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 15, 20(2011)
[14]	J.Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, R.H. Wang, S.Y. Lei, P. Zhang, J.J. Niu,G. Liu, G.J. Zhang, J. Sun, Acta Mater. 59, 7368(2011)
[15]	J.Y. Zhang, S. Lei, J. Niu, Y. Liu, G. Liu, X. Zhang, J. Sun, Acta Mater. 60, 4054(2012)
[16]	J.J. Niu, J.Y. Zhang, G. Liu, P. Zhang, S.Y. Lei, G.J. Zhang, J.Sun, Acta Mater. 60, 3677(2012)
[17]	K. Wu, J.Y. Zhang, J. Li, Y.Q. Wang, G. Liu, J. Sun, Acta Mater. 100, 344(2015)
[18]	N. Jia, M.-W. Zhu, Y.-R. Zheng, T. He, X. Zhao, Acta Metall.Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 28, 600(2015)
[19]	R. Whiting, M.A. Angadi, Meas. Sci. Technol. 2, 879(1991)
[20]	K. Nallamshetty, M.A. Angadi, Phys. Status Solidi A 132, 397(1992)
[21]	A. Misra, M.F. Hundley, D. Hristova, H. Kung, T.E. Mitchell,M. Nastasi, J.D. Embury, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 302(1999)
[22]	X. Zhang, A. Misra, J. Appl. Phys. 96, 7173(2004)
[23]	L.B. Freund, S. Suresh, Thin Film Materials: Stress, Defect Formation and Surface Evolution (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2004)
[24]	A. Misra, H. Kung, T.E. Mitchell, M. Nastasi, J. Mater. Res. 15,756(2000)
[25]	K. Wu, J.Y. Zhang, G. Liu, P. Zhang, P.M. Cheng, J. Li, G.J.Zhang, J. Sun, Acta Mater. 61, 7889(2013)
[26]	K. Wu, J.Y. Zhang, P. Zhang, Y.Q. Wang, G. Liu, G.J. Zhang, J.Sun, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 613, 130 (2014)
[27]	A. Pundt, E. Nikitin, P. Pekarski, R. Kirchheim, Acta Mater. 52,1579(2004)
[28]	H. Jin, W.Y. Lu, M.J. Cordill, K. Schmidegg, Exp. Mech. 51,219(2011)
[29]	Y. Leterrier, Prog. Mater Sci. 48, 1(2003)
[30]	A. Kelly, W.R. Tyson, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13, 329 (1965)
[31]	M.S. Hu, A.G. Evans, Acta Metall. 37, 917(1989)
[32]	Y. Leterrier, L. Boogh, J. Andersons, J.A. Ma°nson, J. Polym.Sci. B 35, 1449 (1997)