Cross comparison of thin-film tensile-testing methods examined using single-crystal silicon, polysilicon, nickel, and titanium films

Abstract

This paper reports on the results of comparing different types of tensile testing methods that are used to evaluate thin-film properties. We tested the same material fabricated on a single wafer using different testing techniques at five different research institutions. The testing methods were different in the way the specimen was gripped. Materials tested were single-crystal silicon (SCS), polysilicon, nickel, and titanium films. Specimens with three different shapes were processed through the same fabrication steps. The tensile strength, fracture strain, and Young's modulus of the films were measured and compared. The measured values of the mechanical properties of all the testing methods were in good agreement with each other, thus demonstrating their accuracy.[1123]

Failure of metals III: Fracture and fatigue of nanostructured metallic materials

“…[305,306], with potential negative impact on stretchability. For instance, based on a round robin performed by five different research teams, Tsuchiya et al report average fracture strains in 500 nm thick freestanding Ti films varying between 0.4% and 2% depending on the group performing the measurements [307]. Results on freestanding Ni films vary between 0.9% and 2.3% [307].…”

“…For instance, based on a round robin performed by five different research teams, Tsuchiya et al report average fracture strains in 500 nm thick freestanding Ti films varying between 0.4% and 2% depending on the group performing the measurements [307]. Results on freestanding Ni films vary between 0.9% and 2.3% [307]. Au films with thickness varying between 0.3 lm and 1 lm show fracture strains smaller than 1% [308].…”

Strain Measurement of Micrometre-Sized Structures under Tensile Loading by Using Scanning White-Light Interferometry

“…Therefore, the contributions of the individual microconstituents to the deformation process can be revealed. The strain in the mesoscale specimen has been principally measured by image analyses [11][12][13][14][15] , whereas a strain gauge attached to the specimen surface has been employed for the bulk specimens. In the case of the micro-tensile test, gauge marks have been occasionally made on the specimen surface, e.g., by using vapour deposition and precision fabrication techniques; these gauge marks may affect the deformation and fracture behaviours of the micrometre-sized structures.…”

Martensite Formation in Hydrogen-Containing Metastable Austenitic Stainless Steel During Micro-Tension Testing

“…[13,14] Micro-mechanical testing techniques have developed rapidly along with MEMS technology, and microtension testing has been applied to the analyses of mechanical characteristics on the scale of a few tens of micrometers. [15][16][17][18] If the specimen size is reduced to the scale of the region that the martensite covers entirely, i.e., a few tens of micrometers, the effects of the martensite formation on the strain hardening behavior can be revealed. Experimental investigation of the stressstrain behavior of micrometer-sized specimens of type 304 steel has revealed prominent two-step strain hardening, even at room temperature.…”

“…The saturated hydrogen content was measured to be 25.1 mass ppm. [13] A tensile test with a micro-gluing grip [15] was conducted at a crosshead speed of 10 nm s À1 equivalent to a strain rate of 2 9 10 À4 s À1 at room temperature in laboratory air. The details regarding the specimen preparation and micro-tension test are described elsewhere.…”