Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr

Thin lm/substrate systems featuring arbitrary lm


thickness and mist strain distributions. Part I: Analysis
for obtaining lm stress from non-local curvature information
D. Ngo a, X. Feng
a

a,*

, Y. Huang a, A.J. Rosakis b, M.A. Brown

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Graduate Aeronautical Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

Received 20 July 2006; received in revised form 10 October 2006


Available online 20 October 2006

Abstract
Current methodologies used for the inference of thin lm stress through curvature measurements are strictly restricted
to stress and curvature states which are assumed to remain uniform over the entire lm/substrate system. Recently Huang,
Rosakis and co-workers [Huang, Y., Ngo, D., Rosakis, A.J., 2005. Non-uniform, axisymmetric mist strain: in thin lms
bonded on plate substrates/substrate systems: the relation between non-uniform lm stresses and system curvatures. Acta
Mech. Sin. 21, 362370; Huang, Y., Rosakis A.J., 2005. Extension of Stoneys Formula to non-uniform temperature distributions in thin lm/substrate systems. The case of radial symmetry. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 53, 24832500; Ngo, D.,
Huang, Y., Rosakis, A. J., Feng, X. 2006. Spatially non-uniform, isotropic mist strain in thin lms bonded on plate substrates: the relation between non-uniform lm stresses and system curvatures. Thin Solid Films (in press)] established
methods for lm/substrate system subject to non-uniform mist strain and temperature changes. The lm stresses were
found to depend non-locally on system curvatures (i.e., depend on the full-eld curvatures). The existing methods, however, all assume uniform lm thickness which is often violated in the thin lm/substrate system. We extend these methods
to arbitrarily non-uniform lm thickness for the thin lm/substrate system subject to non-uniform mist strain. Remarkably the stress-curvature relation for uniform lm thickness still holds if the lm thickness is replaced by its local value at
the point where the stress is evaluated. This result has been experimentally validated in Part II of this paper.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thin lms; Non-uniform mist strain; Non-uniform lm thickness; Non-local stress-curvature relations; Interfacial shears

1. Introduction
Stoney (1909) used a plate system composed of a stress bearing thin lm, of uniform thickness hf, deposited
on a relatively thick substrate, of uniform thickness hs, and derived a simple relation between the curvature, j,
of the system and the stress, r(f), of the lm as follows:
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 2173335993.


E-mail address: xuefeng@uiuc.edu (X. Feng).

0020-7683/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.10.016

1746

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

rf

Es h2s j
:
6hf 1  ms

1:1

In the above the subscripts f and s denote the thin lm and substrate, respectively, and E and m are the
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. Eq. (1.1) is called the Stoney formula, and it has been extensively used
in the literature to infer lm stress changes from experimental measurement of system curvature changes (e.g.,
Freund and Suresh, 2004).
Stoney formula involve the following assumptions:
(i) Both the lm thickness hf and substrate thickness hs are uniform, the lm and substrate have the same
radius R, and hf  hs  R;
(ii) The strains and rotations of the plate system are innitesimal;
(iii) Both the lm and substrate are homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic;
(iv) The lm stress states are in-plane isotropic or equi-biaxial (two equal stress components in any two,
mutually orthogonal in-plane directions) while the out-of-plane direct stress and all shear stresses vanish;
(v) The systems curvature components are equi-biaxial (two equal direct curvatures) while the twist curvature vanishes in all directions; and
(vi) All surviving stress and curvature components are spatially constant over the plate systems surface, a
situation which is often violated in practice.
Despite the explicitly stated assumptions, the Stoney formula is often arbitrarily applied to cases of practical interest where these assumptions are violated. This is typically done by applying Stoneys formula pointwise and thus extracting a local value of stress from a local measurement of the system curvature. This
approach of inferring lm stress clearly violates the uniformity assumptions of the analysis and, as such, its
accuracy as an approximation is expected to deteriorate as the levels of curvature non-uniformity become
more severe.
Following the initial formulation by Stoney, a number of extensions have been derived to relax some
assumptions. Such extensions of the initial formulation include relaxation of the assumption of equi-biaxiality
as well as the assumption of small deformations/deections. A biaxial form of Stoney formula (with dierent
direct stress values and non-zero in-plane shear stress) was derived by relaxing the assumption (v) of curvature
equi-biaxiality (e.g., Freund and Suresh, 2004). Related analyses treating discontinuous lms in the form of
bare periodic lines (Wikstrom et al., 1999a) or composite lms with periodic line structures (e.g., bare or
encapsulated periodic lines) have also been derived (Shen et al., 1996; Wikstrom et al., 1999b; Park and Suresh, 2000). These latter analyses have removed the assumptions (iv) and (v) of equi-biaxiality and have allowed
the existence of three independent curvature and stress components in the form of two, non-equal, direct components and one shear or twist component. However, the uniformity assumption (vi) of all of these quantities
over the entire plate system was retained. In addition to the above, single, multiple and graded lms and substrates have been treated in various large deformation analyses (Masters and Salamon, 1993; Salamon and
Masters, 1995; Finot et al., 1997; Freund, 2000). These analyses have removed both the restrictions of an equibiaxial curvature state as well as the assumption (ii) of innitesimal deformations. They have allowed for the
prediction of kinematically nonlinear behavior and bifurcations in curvature states that have also been
observed experimentally (Lee et al., 2001; Park and Suresh, 2000). These bifurcations are transformations
from an initially equi-biaxial to a subsequently biaxial curvature state that may be induced by an increase
in lm stress beyond a critical level. This critical level is intimately related to the systems aspect ratio, i.e.,
the ratio of in-plane to thickness dimension and the elastic stiness. These analyses also retain the assumption
(vi) of spatial curvature and stress uniformity across the system. However, they allow for deformations to
evolve from an initially spherical shape to an energetically favored shape (e.g., ellipsoidal, cylindrical or saddle
shapes) that features three dierent, still spatially constant, curvature components (Lee et al., 2001; Park and
Suresh, 2000).
The above-discussed extensions of Stoneys methodology have not relaxed the most restrictive of Stoneys
original assumption (vi) of spatial uniformity which does not allow either lm stress and curvature components to vary across the plate surface. This crucial assumption is often violated in practice since lm stresses

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

1747

and the associated system curvatures are non-uniformly distributed over the plate area. Recently, Huang et al.
(2005) and Huang and Rosakis (2005) relaxed the assumption (vi) [and also (iv) and (v)] to study the thin lm/
substrate system subject to non-uniform, axisymmetric mist strain (in thin lm) and temperature change (in
both thin lm and substrate), respectively, while Ngo et al. (2006) studied the thin lm/substrate system subject to arbitrarily non-uniform (e.g., non-axisymmetric) mist strain and temperature. The most important
result is that the lm stresses depend non-locally on the substrate curvatures, i.e., they depend on curvatures
of the entire substrate. The relations between lm stresses and substrate curvatures are established for arbitrarily non-uniform mist strain and temperature change, and such relations degenerate to Stoney formula
for uniform, equi-biaxial stresses and curvatures.
Feng et al. (2006) relaxed part of the assumption (i) to study the thin lm and substrate of dierent radii.
The main purpose of the present paper is to further relax the assumption (i) to study arbitrarily non-uniform
thickness of the thin lm. To do so we consider the case of non-uniform lm thickness and the thin lm/substrate system subject to arbitrary mist strain eld in the thin lm. Our goal is to relate lm stresses and system
curvatures to the mist strain distribution for arbitrarily non-uniform lm thickness, and to ultimately derive
a relation between the lm stresses and the system curvatures that would allow for the accurate experimental
inference of lm stress from full-eld and real-time curvature measurements.
2. Governing equations
Consider a thin lm of non-uniform thickness hf(r, h) which is deposited on a circular substrate of constant
thickness hs and radius R, where r and h are the polar coordinates (Fig. 1). The lm is very thin, hf  hs, such
that it is modeled as a membrane, and is subject to arbitrary mist strain distribution em(r, h). The substrate is
modeled as a plate since hs  R. The Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio of the lm and substrate are denoted by Ef, mf, Es and ms, respectively.
f
s
Let urf , uh , us
r and uh denote the in-plane displacements in the thin lm and substrate along the radial (r)
and circumferential (h) directions, respectively. The in-plane membrane strains are obtained from
z
hf
hs

r
2R

r
q

Fig. 1. A schematic diagram of a thin lm/substrate system with the cylindrical coordinates (r, h, z).

1748

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

e = [$u + ($u)T]/2 for innitesimal deformation and rotation, where a, b = r, h. The linear elastic constitutive
model, together with the vanishing out-of-plane stress rzz = 0, give the in-plane stresses as
E
m
rab 1m
2 1  meab mejj dab  1 me dab , where E, m = Ef, mf in the thin lm and Es, ms in the substrate,
m
and the mist strain e is only in the thin lm. The axial forces in the thin lm and substrate are




Eh our
ur 1 ouh
m

Nr
;

1

me
1  m2 or
r r oh


Eh
our ur 1 ouh
m


1

me
m
;
2:1
Nh
1  m2
or
r r oh


Eh
1 our ouh uh


N rh
;
21 m r oh
or
r
where h = hf in the thin lm and hs in the substrate, and once again the mist strain em is only in the thin lm.
Let w denote the lateral displacement in the normal (z) direction. The curvatures are given by j = $$w. The
bending moments in the substrates are
 2


Es h3s
ow
1 ow 1 o2 w

Mr
ms
;
r or r2 oh2
121  m2s or2
 2

Es h3s
o w 1 ow 1 o2 w

;
2:2
Mh
s
or2 r or r2 oh2
121  m2s


Es h3s
o 1 ow
M rh
:
121 ms or r oh
For non-uniform mist strain distribution em = em(r, h), the shear stresses at the lm/substrate interface do not
vanish, and are denoted by sr and sh. The in-plane force equilibrium equations for the thin lm and substrate,
accounting for the eect of interface shear stresses sr and sh, become
oN r N r  N h 1 oN rh

 sr 0;
r oh
or
r
oN rh 2
1 oN h
N rh
 sh 0;
r
r oh
or

2:3

where the minus sign in front of the interface shear stresses is for the thin lm, and the plus sign is for the
substrate. The moment and out-of-plane force equilibrium equations for the substrate are
oM r M r  M h 1 oM rh
hs

Qr  sr 0;
r oh
or
r
2
oM rh 2
1 oM h
hs
M rh
Qh  sh 0;
r
r oh
or
2
oQr Qr 1 oQh

0;
r oh
or
r

2:4
2:5

where Qr and Qh are the shear forces normal to the neutral axis.
The substitution of Eqs. (2.1)(2.3) yields the governing equations for ur, uh, sr and sh
( "
#)
(
"
#)
f
f
o
ourf uf
1 ouh
1  mf hf o2 urf o
ouh
r
hf
r

or
r oh
or
or
r
2 r2 oh2
oh
*
( " #
)
"
#+
f
f
1  mf ohf o uh
1 ourf
2 ohf f ouh
ur

2

r oh
r or
2
oh or r
oh

1  m2f
ohf em
;
sr 1 mf
or
Ef

2:6a

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

1749

( "
#)





f
1 o
ourf uf
1 ouh
1  mf
o 1 ourf
o 1 o h f i
r
hf
ruh

hf 

r oh
r oh
or r oh
or r or
or
r
2
* (
" #)
+
f
1  mf ohf 1 ourf
o uh
2 ohf ourf

r

or r
r oh or
2
or r oh
1  m2f
1 ohf em
;
sh 1 mf
r oh
Ef
"
#
(
"
#)
s
s
o ous
us
1 ouh
1  ms 1 o2 us
o
ouh
1  m2s
r
r
r
r


sr ;


or or
r oh
or
r
2 r2 oh2
oh
E s hs
"
#





s
1 o ous
us
1 ouh
1  ms
o 1 ous
o 1 o h s i
1  m2s
r
r
r
ruh


sh :


r oh or
r oh
or r oh
or r or
r
2
E s hs

2:6b

2:7a

2:7b

Elimination of Qr and Qh from Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5), together with Eq. (2.2), give the governing equation for w,
sr and sh


61  m2s osr sr 1 osh

r2 r2 w
;
2:8
or
r r oh
Es h2s
o2 1 o
1 o2
2 2.
where r2 2
r or r oh
or
The continuity of displacements across the lm/substrate interface requires
s
uf
r ur 

hs ow
;
2 or

uh u h 

hs 1 ow
:
2 r oh

2:9
f

Eqs. (2.6)(2.9) constitute seven ordinary dierential equations for seven variables, namely urf , uh , us
r , uh , w,
s
sr and sh. For the limit hf/hs  1, these equations are decoupled such that we can solve us
,
u
rst,
then w,
h
r
f
followed by uf
and
u
,
and
nally
s
and
s
.
r
h
h
r
f

s
(i) Elimination of sr and sh from Eqs. (2.6) and (2.7) for the substrate yields two equations for uf
r , u h , ur ,
s
f
f
and uh . For hf/hs  1, ur and uh disappear in these two equations, which give the governing equations
s
for us
r and uh
"
#
(
"
#)
s
s
o ous
us
1 ouh
1  ms 1 o2 us
o
ouh
Ef 1  m2s o
r
r
r
r
hf em ;


2:10a

or or
r oh
or
r
2 r2 oh2
oh
1  mf Es hs or
"
#





s
1 o ous
us
1 ouh
1  ms
o 1 ous
o 1 o
s
r
r
r
ru 

r oh or
r oh
or r oh
or r or h
r
2

Ef 1  m2s 1 o
hf em :
1  mf Es hs r oh

2:10b

m
s
(ii) Elimination of uf
r and uh from Eqs. (2.6) and (2.9) gives sr and sh in terms of ur , uh and w (and e ).
Substitution of sr and sh into Eq. 2.8 yields the following governing equation for w

r2 r2 w 6

Ef 1  m2s 2
r hf em :
1  mf Es h2s

2:11
f

(iii) The continuity condition Eq. 2.9 gives urf and uh . The leading terms of the interface shear stresses sr
and sh are then obtained from Eqs. 2.6 as
sr 

Ef ohf em
;
or
1  mf

sh 

Ef 1 ohf em
:
1  mf r oh

2:12

1750

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

Eqs. (2.10)(2.12) show that the lm thickness hf always appears together with the mist strain em. The interface shear stresses are proportional to the gradients of hfem, and they vanish only for uniform mist strain and
uniform lm thickness. The boundary conditions at the free edge r = R require that the net forces and net moments vanish,
s
N f
r Nr 0

Mr 

hs f
N
2 r

N rh N rh 0;


1 o
hs f
M rh  N rh 0:
0 and Qr 
r oh
2
and

2:13
2:14

3. Thin-lm stresses and substrate curvatures


Eqs. (2.10)(2.12) and boundary conditions Eqs. (2.13) and (2.14) can be solved in the same way as that for
the uniform lm thickness but non-uniform mist strain (Ngo et al., 2006) by replacing the mist strain em
with hfem, where hf is the lm thickness. We expand hfem to the Fourier series as
hf e m

1
1
X
X
n
n
hf em c rcosnh
hf em s r sin nh;
n0

3:1

n1

R 2p m
R 2p
0
n
1
hf e dh,
hf em c r p1 0 hf em cos nhdh n P 1
and
where
hf em c r 2p
0
R
1 2p
m n
m
hf e s r p 0 hf e sin nhdhn P 1.
2
2
r12 oohw2 and jrh oro 1r ow
are related to hfem by
The substrate curvatures jrr oorw2 , jhh 1r ow
or
oh
9
8
s
>
>
hf em  1m
hf em  hf em
>
>
2
=
"
#
R R n1
E f 1  ms <
m n
1
;
3:2a
jrr jhh 12

cos
nh
g
h
e

gdg
P
2
f
n
c
1ms
0
r
>
1  mf Es h2s >
>
>
R R n1
;
: 3ms n1n 1 R2n2
m n
sin nh 0 g hf e s gdg
9
8
R
r
0
hf em  r22 0 ghf em c dg
>
>
>
>
>
>
"
#
>
>
R
>
>
R
n
n1
m
h
i
>
>
1
g
h
e

dg
cos
nh
>
>
P
f
n
n2
c
>
>
0
1ms
n1
r
r
>
>

n
n  n  1 n2
>
>
R
n2
3m
R
R n1
R
R
>
>
s
n
m
=
<
n1
sin nh 0 g hf e s dg
Ef 1  m2s
;
jrr  jhh 6

h
i
1
R r n1
R r n1
P
>
1  mf Es h2s >
n1
m n
m n
>
>
cos
nh
g
h
e

dg

sin
nh
g
h
e

dg

>
>
f
f
n2
c
s
0
0
r
>
>
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
>
>
h
i
1
>
> P
R
R
>
>
R
R
n2
1n
m n
1n
m n
>
;
:  n  1r
cos nh r g hf e c dg sin nh r g hf e s dg >
n1

3:2b
"
#
9
8
h
i sin nh R R gn1 hf em n dg
1
>
>
P
n
n2
c
>
>
0
1m
x1
r
r
s
>
>
>
>
R R n1
x2 n Rn  n  1 Rn2
3ms
R
>
>
n
m
>
>
n1
 cos nh 0 g hf e s dg
>
>
>
>
=
<
2
h
i
E f 1  ms
1
R
R
P
r
r
n
n
n1
n1
m
n1
m
jrh 3
;

sin nh 0 g hf e c dg  cos nh 0 g hf e s dg

>
rn2
1  mf Es h2s >
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
>
h
i>
1
>
>
>
>
>  P n  1rn2 sin nh R R g1n hf em n dg  cos nh R R g1n hf em n dg >
;
:
c
s
r
r
n1

3:2c
where hf em pR1 2
ed to

0
hf em c
f

RR

by

rf
rr rhh

h em dA is the average of hfem over the entire


A f
RR
0
hf em R22 0 ghf em c gdg.The stresses in the

Ef
2em ;
1  mf

area A of the thin lm, and hf em is also relatthin lm are related to hfem by
3:3a

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

rf
rr  rhh

rrh

1751

9
8
Rr
dg
hf em  r22 0 ghf em 0
>
>
c
>
>
>
>
>
>
h
i
1
>
>
R
R
P
>
>
r
r
n
n
n1
n1
m
n1
m
>
>
>
>
cos
nh
g
h
e

dg

sin
nh
g
h
e

dg

f
f
n2
>
>
c
s
0
0
r
>
>
>
>
n1
=
<
2
h
i
Ef 1  ms
1
R
R
P
R 1n
R 1n
n
n
4Ef

n2
m
m
 n  1r
cos nh r g hf e c dg sin nh r g hf e s dg >;
1  m2f Es hs >
>
>
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
"
#
R
>
>
R
n
>
>
n1
m
h
i
1
>
>
g
h
e

dg
cos
nh
P
f
>
>
n
n2
c
0
ms
n1
r
r
>
>
>
>
n

n

1
n
R
n2
n2
;
:  3ms
R
R n1
R
R
n
m
n1
sin nh 0 g hf e s dg

3:3b
9
8 P
h
i
1
Rr
Rr
n
n
n1
>
>
>
>
sin nh 0 gn1 hf em c dg  cos nh 0 gn1 hf em s dg
>
>
rn2
>
>
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
h
i
>
>
1
R
R
P
=
<
2
R
R
n
n
n2
1n
m
1n
m
E f 1  ms

n

1r
sin
nh
g
h
e

dg

cos
nh
g
h
e

dg
f
f
c
s
r
r
:
2Ef

n1
>
1  m2f Es hs >
>
>
"
#
R
>
>
R
n
>
>
h
i sin nh gn1 hf em dg
1
>
>
P
>
>
c
0
ms
n1
rn
rn2
>
>
>
> 3m
n
n  n  1 n2
R
n2
;
:
R
R n1
R
R
s
n
m
n1
 cos nh 0 g hf e s dg

3:3c
For uniform mist strain distribution em = constant and uniform lm thickness hf = constant, the interface
shear stresses in Eq. (2.12) vanish. The curvatures in Eqs. (3.2) become
j jrr jhh 6

E f hf 1  m s m
e ;
1  mf Es h2s

jrh 0:

The stresses in the thin lm in Eqs. (3.3) become


f

f
rhh
rf rrr

Ef
em ;
1  mf

rrh 0:

For this special case only, both stress and curvature states become equi-biaxial. The elimination of mist strain
Es h2s
em and lm thickness hf from the above two equations yields a simple relation rf 61m
j, which is exactly
s hf
the Stoney formula in Eq. (1.1), and it has been used to estimate the thin-lm stress r(f) from the substrate
curvature j, if the mist strain, lm thickness, stress and curvature are all constant and if the plate system
shape is spherical. In the following, we extend such a relation for arbitrary non-uniform mist strain distribution and non-uniform lm thickness.
4. Extension of Stoney formula for non-uniform mist strain distribution and non-uniform lm thickness
The stresses and curvatures are all given in terms of mist strain in the previous section. We extend the
Stoney formula for arbitrary non-uniform mist strain distribution and non-uniform lm thickness in this section by establishing the direct relation between the thin-lm stresses and substrate curvatures.
Following Ngo et al. (2006), we rst dene the coecients Cn and Sn related to the substrate curvatures by
Z Z

g n
1
Cn 2
jrr jhh
cos nudA;
R
pR
Z ZA

g n
1
jrr jhh
sin nudA;
4:1
Sn 2
R
pR
A
where the integration is over the entire area A of the thin lm, and dA = gdgdu. Since both the substrate curvatures and lm stresses depend on the mist strain em and lm thickness hf, elimination of hfem gives the lm
stress in terms of substrate curvatures by

1752

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

rf
rr

f
rhh

(
)


1

r n2 
X
E f hs
r n
C n cos nh S n sin nh ;
4jrr  jhh 

n 1 n
 n  1
R
R
61 mf
n1
(

)


r n2 
E f hs
1
r n
f
4jrh
n 1 n
 n  1
rrh 
C n sin nh  S n cos nh ;
2 n1
R
R
61 mf
2
3
s
jrr jhh 1m
jrr jhh  jrr jhh
2
1ms
E s hs
6
7
f
1
r n
rf
P
4
5;
rr rhh
s
6hf 1  ms  1m
n

1
C
cos
nh

S
sin
nh
n
n
R
1ms
1
X

4:2a
4:2b

4:2c

n1

1
pR2

RR

where jrr jhh C 0


jrr jhh dA is the average curvature over entire area A of the thin lm. Eqs.
A
(4.2) provides direct relations between individual lm stresses and substrate curvatures. It is important to note
that stresses at a point in the thin lm depend not only on curvatures at the same point (local dependence), but
also on the curvatures in the entire substrate (non-local dependence) via the coecients Cn and Sn. It is also
f
f
important to note that Eq. 4.2b for shear stress rrh and Eq. 4.2a for the dierence in normal stresses rf
rr  rhh
f
f
are independent of the thin lm thickness hf, but Eq. 4.2c for the sum of normal stresses rrr rhh is inversely
proportional to the local lm thickness hf at the same point.
The interface shear stresses sr and sh can also be directly related to substrate curvatures via
"
#
1

r n1
Es h2s
o
1  ms X
jrr jhh 
nn 1C n cos nh S n sin nh
sr
;
4:3a
R
61  m2s or
2R n1
"
#
1

r n1
Es h2s
1 o
1  ms X
jrr jhh
nn 1C n sin nh  S n cos nh
;
4:3b
sh
R
61  m2s r oh
2R n1
which is also independent of the lm thickness hf. Eq. (4.3) provides a way to determine the interface shear
stresses from the gradients of substrate curvatures, and it also displays a non-local dependence via the coefcients Cn and Sn.
Since interfacial shear stresses are responsible for promoting system failures through delamination of the
thin lm from the substrate, Eq. (4.3) has particular signicance. It shows that such stresses are related to
the gradients of jrr + jhh and not to its magnitude as might have been expected of a local, Stoney-like formulation. Eq. (4.3) provides an easy way of inferring these special interfacial shear stresses once the full-eld curvature information is available. As a result, the methodology also provides a way to evaluate the risk of and to
mitigate such important forms of failure.
It can be shown that the relations between the lm stresses and substrate curvatures given in the form of
innite series in Eqs. (4.2) and (4.3) can be equivalently expressed in the form of integration as (Ngo et al.,
2006)
9
8
r g

>
>
Z Z
g
=
<
F
; ;u  h
E f hs
1
f
R minus R R
;
4:4a
rf
4j

r



j


j

dA
i
rr
hh
rr
hh h
hh
rr
2
3
>
61 mf >
pR
gr
g2 r2
A
;
:
1  2 R2 cosu  h R4
9
8
r g

>
>
Z Z
g
=
<
F
; ;u  h
E f hs
1 1
f
R shear R R
4:4b
rrh 
4jrh 
jrr jhh h
dA ;
i
2
3
2 2
>
2 pR
61 mf >
A
;
:
1  2 Rgr2 cosu  h gRr4
9
8
s
jrr jhh 1m
jrr jhh  jrr jhh
>
>
>
>
1m
s
=
<
Es h2s
g
g
f
r
f
R
R
RF plus R;R;uh
;
4:4c
rrr rhh
  1ms r
h
i
j

dA
rr
hh
2
>
6hf 1  ms >
A
1ms pR3
>
>
gr
g2 r 2
;
:
12 cosuh
R2

where functions Fminus, Fshear and Fplus are given by

R4

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

1753

F minus r1 ; g1 ; u1 r21 g1 6 9g21 r21 g41 r1 2 9g21 6r21 g21 6r21 g41 cos u1
 g1 3 3r21 g21 2r41 g21 cos 2u1 r1 g21 cos 3u1 ;
F shear r1 ; g1 ; u1 r1 2 9g21  6r21 g21 sin u1  g1 3 3r21 g21  2r41 g21 sin 2u1 r1 g21 sin 3u1 ;
F plus r1 ; g1 ; u1 21 2r21 g21 cos u1  r1 g1 cos 2u1  r1 g1 4 r21 g21 :
The interface shear stresses can also be related to substrate curvatures via integrals as
9
8
r g

>
>
Z Z
g
=
<
2
F
; ;u  h
E s hs
o
1  ms
R radial R R
;
j
sr


j

dA
h
i
rr
hh
rr
hh
3
2 2
>
61  m2s >
pR3
A
;
:or
1  2 Rgr2 cosu  h gRr4
9
8
r g

>
>
Z Z
g
=
<
2
F
; ;u  h
E s hs
1 o
1  ms
R circumferential R R
sh
;
j


j

dA
h
i
rr
hh
rr
hh
3
2 2
>
61  m2s >
pR3
A
;
: r oh
1  2 Rgr2 cosu  h gRr4

4:5

4:6a

4:6b

where
F radial r1 ; g1 ; u1 1 3r21 g21 cos u1  r1 g1 3 r21 g21 cos 2u1 ;
F circumferantial r1 ; g1 ; u1 1  3r21 g21 sin u1 r31 g31 sin 2u1 :

4:7

5. Discussion and conclusions


The Stoney formula Eq. (1.1) has been extended for non-uniform but axisymmetric temperature (Huang
and Rosakis, 2005) and mist strain (Huang et al., 2005) as well as for arbitrarily non-uniform (e.g., non-axisymmetric) temperature and mist strain (Ngo et al., 2006). The dependence of lm stresses on substrate curvatures is non-local, i.e., the stress components at a point on the lm depend on both the curvature
components at the same point and on the curvatures of all other points on the plate system. The presence
of non-local contributions in such relations also has implications regarding the nature of diagnostic methods
needed to perform wafer-level lm stress measurements. Notably the existence of non-local terms necessitates
the use of full-eld methods capable of measuring curvature components over the entire surface of the plate
system (or wafer). Furthermore, measurement of all independent components of the curvature eld is necessary because the stress state at a point depends on curvature contributions (from jrr, jhh and jrh) from the
entire plate surface.
The non-uniformities also result in the shear stresses along the thin lm/substrate interface. Such interface
shear stresses vanish for the special case of uniform jrr + jhh in the Stoney formula and its various extensions.
Since lm delamination is a commonly encountered form of failure during wafer manufacturing, the ability to
estimate the level and distribution of such stresses from wafer-level metrology might prove to be invaluable in
enhancing the reliability of such systems.
The present analysis provides a very simple way to account for the eect of non-uniform lm thickness on
the Stoney formula. The most remarkable result is that, for arbitrarily non-uniform lm thickness, the stresscurvature relations are identical to their counterparts for uniform lm thickness (Huang and Rosakis, 2005;
Huang et al., 2005; Ngo et al., 2006) except that thickness is replaced by its local value. For example, the sum
f
of normal stresses rf
rr rhh at a point on the lm is inversely proportional to the local lm thickness at the
same point. Part II of this paper provides the experimental validation of this result. Feng et al. (2006) extended
the Stoney formula for a thin lm with uniform thickness and a radius that is smaller than the substrate radius.
This can be considered as a special case of the present analysis with the lm thickness being a constant in the
thin lm and zero (outside the lm).
There may exist mist or threading dislocations on the lm/substrate interfaces at large mist strains (e.g.,
Freund, 1990; Gillard et al., 1994). The results in this paper are based on linear elasticity for both the thin lm
and substrate, and have not accounted for the eects of mist or threading dislocations.

1754

D. Ngo et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 17451754

References
Feng, X., Huang, Y., Jiang, H., Ngo, D., Rosakis, A.J., 2006. The eect of thin lm/substrate radii on the Stoney formula for thin lm/
substrate subjected to non-uniform axisymmetric mist strain and temperature. J. Mech. Mater. Struct. (in press).
Finot, M., Blech, I.A., Suresh, S., Fijimoto, H., 1997. Large deformation and geometric instability of substrates with thin-lm deposits. J.
Appl. Phys. 81, 34573464.
Freund, L.B., 1990. A criterion for arrest of a threading dislocation in a strained epitaxial layer due to an interface mist dislocation in its
path. J. Appl. Phys. 68, 20732080.
Freund, L.B., 2000. Substrate curvature due to thin lm mismatch strain in the nonlinear deformation range. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48,
1159.
Freund, L.B., Suresh, S., 2004. Thin Film Materials; Stress, Defect Formation and Surface Evolution. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Gillard, V.T., Nix, W.D., Freund, L.B., 1994. Role of dislocation blocking in limiting strain relaxation in heteroepitaxial lms. J. Appl.
Phys. 76, 72807287.
Huang, Y., Rosakis, A.J., 2005. Extension of Stoneys Formula to non-uniform temperature distributions in thin lm/substrate systems.
The case of radial symmetry. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 53, 24832500.
Huang, Y., Ngo, D., Rosakis, A.J., 2005. Non-uniform, axisymmetric mist strain: in thin lms bonded on plate substrates/substrate
systems: the relation between non-uniform lm stresses and system curvatures. Acta. Mech. Sin. 21, 362370.
Lee, H., Rosakis, A.J., Freund, L.B., 2001. Full eld optical measurement of curvatures in ultra-thin lm/substrate systems in the range of
geometrically nonlinear deformations. J. Appl. Phys. 89, 61166129.
Masters, C.B., Salamon, N.J., 1993. Geometrically nonlinear stressdeection relations for thin lm/substrate systems. Int. J. Eng. Sci.
31, 915925.
Ngo, D., Huang, Y., Rosakis, A.J., Feng, X. 2006. Spatially non-uniform, isotropic mist strain in thin lms bonded on plate substrates:
the relation between non-uniform lm stresses and system curvatures. Thin Solid Films (in press).
Park, T.S., Suresh, S., 2000. Eects of line and passivation geometry on curvature evolution during processing and thermal cycling in
copper interconnect lines. Acta Mater. 48, 31693175.
Salamon, N.J., Masters, C.B., 1995. Bifurcation in isotropic thin lm/substrate plates. Int. J. Solids Struct. 32, 473481.
Shen, Y.L., Suresh, S., Blech, I.A., 1996. Stresses, curvatures, and shape changes arising from patterned lines on silicon wafers. J. Appl.
Phys. 80, 13881398.
Stoney, G.G., 1909. tension of metallic lms deposited by electrolysis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A82, 172175.
Wikstrom, A., Gudmundson, P., Suresh, S., 1999a. Thermoelastic analysis of periodic thin lines deposited on a substrate. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 47, 11131130.
Wikstrom, A., Gudmundson, P., Suresh, S., 1999b. Analysis of average thermal stresses in passivated metal interconnects. J. Appl. Phys.
86, 60886095.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen