See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223269026

Vapor pressure and residual stress effects

on the toughness of polymeric adhesive
joints

Article in Engineering Fracture Mechanics · November 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.01.005

CITATIONS READS

11 102

3 authors, including:

Tianfu Guo Lingyan Cheng

Institute Of High Performance Computing National University of Singapore
80 PUBLICATIONS 943 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 599 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tianfu Guo on 18 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448
www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Vapor pressure and residual stress effects on the

toughness of polymeric adhesive joints
H.B. Chew, T.F. Guo, L. Cheng *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117576, Singapore

Received 17 June 2003; received in revised form 29 October 2003; accepted 7 January 2004

Abstract
Parallel debonding along the two interfaces formed by a ductile polymeric film joining elastic substrates is studied.
The film is taken to be elastic–plastic. The film–substrate interface is modeled by a strip of cells that incorporates vapor
pressure effects on void growth and coalescence through a Gurson porous material relation. Thermal expansion mis-
match between the film and the substrates is treated as an initial residual stress in the film. When residual stress is
combined with high vapor pressure, interface cracking of the joint exhibits brittle-like characteristics with joint
toughness reduced significantly. Other factors affecting joint toughness, such as initial porosity of the interface as well as
strain hardening and thickness of the film are also discussed.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fracture toughness; Crack growth; Void growth; Adhesive; Debonding

1. Introduction

Adhesive joints comprising elastic substrates joined by metallic or polymeric films are increasingly found
in applications such as electronic packing, integrated circuits and high-performance power propulsion
systems. Cracking of such adhesive joints related to the thermal expansion mismatch between the film and
the substrates has become a pressing reliability problem. Various aspects of interface cracking and de-
bonding in a multilayer structure are addressed in an overview article by Evans and Hutchinson [1]. Suo [2]
noted that laminated structures subjected to high residual stress could simultaneously debond along both
interfaces. This phenomenon of parallel debonding was observed in preparing Al2 O3 –SiC–Al2 O3 laminate.
The laminates were diffusion bonded at an elevated temperature but debonded into three separate pieces
during the cool-down. 1 Similar failures have also been reported in experimental studies on laminates with
center notches or matrix cracks [3,4]. Likewise, failures in electronic packages attributable to residual

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-6874-6888; fax: +65-6779-1459.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Cheng).
1
Private communication between Suo and Evans reported in [2].

0013-7944/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.01.005
2436 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

stresses induced by thermal expansion mismatch between polymer, metal and silicon during the reflow
process are discussed in [5,6].
Crack propagation along an interface between a ductile film and an elastic substrate has been studied by
Tvergaard and Hutchinson [7]. Among other things, they examined the effects of residual stress and film–
substrate modulus mismatch on crack growth resistance. This work as well as related earlier studies [8,9]
have contributed to the present understanding of the contributions of the interface adhesion energy as well
as the plastic dissipation in the material surrounding the interface to the crack growth resistance and the
steady-state toughness, also referred to as the joint toughness. In focusing on cavitation aspects of crack
growth, Tvergaard [10] analysed void growth in a thin metallic layer to determine the full traction-sepa-
ration law relevant to ductile fracture. This was also studied by Zhang and co-workers [11,12] via a different
approach. Void size was found to affect void growth rate. Liu et al. [13] further showed that micron- and
sub-micron-sized voids tend to grow at a slower rate than large sized voids, and the void growth rate
deviates from void growth models derived from phenomenological plasticity.
A closely related problem is interface cracking in electronic packaging by vapor pressure assisted void
growth mechanism. This can occur during the surface mounting of electronic packages onto the printed
circuit board under high temperatures. The polymeric adhesives used in such packages are hygroscopic in
nature. When these plastic packages encounter a humid environment, water vapor is absorbed into pores
and cavities of the polymeric adhesives. During the reflow process, the moisture rapidly vaporizes into
steam inducing stresses that can be greater than the adhesion strength of the interface [14]. This can cause
interface debonding and possibly catastrophic failure, e.g. popcorn cracking [15–17]. Attempting to shed
some light on popcorn cracking, Liu et al. [18] and Guo and Cheng [19] and Cheng and Guo [20] found that
high vapor pressure introduces two effects––strong Mode I loading component (to an otherwise shear-
dominated interface loading) as well as high crack driving force thereby causing interface debonding with
brittle-like characteristics.
In this work, we study the phenomenon of parallel debonding along the interfaces of a polymeric film
joining elastic substrates. A crack growth model proposed by Xia and Shih [21] is employed. The interface
is modeled by a narrow strip of porous material of initial thickness D; interface debonding occurs by a void
growth and coalescence mechanism. Vapor pressure and residual stress effects on crack growth resistance
and the toughness of the joint are examined. Other factors affecting joint toughness, such as the porosity of
the film–substrate interface as well as strain hardening and thickness of the film are also discussed.

2. Problem formulation

This work addresses symmetrically loaded joints containing interface cracks that are long compared to
the thickness of the adhesive film as well as the extent of the plastic zone that develops in the film. Under
these conditions, the asymptotic problem shown in Fig. 1a is applicable. The interface cracks are taken to
be semi-infinite and are loaded remotely by the symmetric Mode I K-field. Under this loading, the upper
and lower interface cracks advance simultaneously.

2.1. Material model

At reflow temperatures, attachment materials (such as Ag-filled epoxy) exhibit extensive ductility
associated with strain hardening. Steenbrink et al. [22] have investigated void growth in glassy polymers
that exhibit intrinsic softening and progressive strain hardening at large strains. Other studies [23,24] have
also highlighted the important role of pressure sensitivity on interfacial crack growth. This is an important
aspect for a future study. In the present work, we assume that the matrix material at reflow conditions can
be described by an elastic–plastic solid with power-law hardening.
 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448 2437

Fig. 1. Schematic of asymptotic crack problem. (a) Parallel debonding of interfaces between a ductile film and the elastic substrates it
joins; (b) cell element model of film–substrate interface.

The joint comprises a ductile film of thickness h joining two elastic substrates. The film is elastically
isotropic with YoungÕs modulus E and PoissonÕs ratio m. The plastic response of the film is characterized by
J2 flow theory (isotropic hardening based on Mises yield condition). The uniaxial tensile stress–strain
behavior of the undamaged film is described by a true stress–logarithmic strain relation
r
e¼ r < r0 ;
E

1=N ð2:1Þ
r0 r
e¼ r P r0 ;
E r0
where r0 is the initial yield stress in tension, and N the strain hardening exponent.
The two substrates have identical properties. They are elastic isotropic materials with YoungÕs modulus,
Es , and PoissonÕs ratio, ms .
Crack advance along the interfaces is modeled using Xia and ShihÕs cell element approach [21]. A strip of
void-containing cell elements is embedded at the upper film–substrate interface ahead of the crack tip (see
Fig. 1b) and at the lower interface. The behavior of these cell elements is described by the Gurson flow
potential U [25,26], extended to take account of vapor pressure p [27]. It has the form:

2

re 3q2 ðrm þ pÞ 2
U¼ þ 2q1 f cosh
½1 þ ðq1 f Þ  ¼ 0; ð2:2Þ
rM 2rM
2438 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

where re denotes the equivalent macroscopic stress, rm the mean macroscopic stress and rM the flow stress
of the matrix as determined by Eq. (2.1), and f the current void volume fraction. The micromechanics
parameters q1 and q2 were introduced by Tvergaard [26] to improve model predictions for periodic arrays of
cylindrical and spherical voids.
In a recent study, Fleck et al. [28] suggest that elastic–plastic constitutive relations can be used for
metallic as well as polymeric foams. These constitutive relations for ductile foams capture the dependence
of yielding on hydrostatic pressure as foam materials undergo volumetric plastic flow and shear flow
governed by a non-associative flow potential in terms of hydrostatic and deviatoric effective stresses [29].
The above studies provide indirect support for using the Gurson model (2.2) for the problem at hand.
The Gurson flow potential has two internal variables, rM and f . The extended form introduces a new
internal variable p, which is a function of temperature T , and porosity f . The relationship for fully
vaporized moisture is given by
p T f0 1
f
3aDT
¼ e ; ð2:3Þ
p0 T0 f 1
f0

where a is the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), DT is the temperature rise relative to the reference
temperature T0 . Eq. (2.3) is the equation of state for an ideal gas in an incompressible, thermally expanded,
spherical shell. The reference state is given by p0 , f0 , T0 .
The void growth rate f_ obeys the volumetric plastic strain rate relation

f_ ¼ ð1
f Þtrdp : ð2:4Þ

The extended Gurson relation (2.2) together with (2.3) and (2.4) describe the process of void growth. The
adjustment parameters in (2.2) are set to be q1 ¼ 1:5 and q2 ¼ 1 [30].

2.2. Boundary value problem

By exploiting the symmetry of the crack geometry and the loading, we model only the upper half of the
geometry shown in Fig. 1a. Fig. 2 displays the finite element model. The finite element mesh consists of 2257
three-dimensional, 8-noded linear elements including 120 cell elements. The computations are carried out
using a three-dimensional finite element program WARP3D [31]. Plane strain conditions are achieved by
imposing zero out-of-plane displacements on all the nodes. A single row of 120 uniformly sized void-
containing Gurson cell elements, each of dimensions D by D, is embedded in the highly refined mesh region
ahead of the crack tip (Fig. 2c).
The initial crack tip is taken to be a notch with a wedge-shaped tip instead of a sharp crack tip to reduce
mesh dependence in the initial stage of the resistance curves [21]. Unless otherwise stated, the film thickness
h is taken to be 20D; film thicknesses of 10D, 40D, and 80D are also considered. Along the remote circular
boundary, R ¼ 1000h, the elastic asymptotic Mode I displacement fields
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ ms r h
u1 ðr; hÞ ¼ KI ð3
4ms
cos hÞ cos ;
Es 2p 2
rffiffiffiffiffiffi ð2:5Þ
1 þ ms r h
u2 ðr; hÞ ¼ KI ð3
4ms
cos hÞ sin
Es 2p 2

are prescribed. Here r2 ¼ x21 þ x22 and h ¼ tan
1 ðx2 =x1 Þ for points on the remote boundary. Edge loads at the
ends of the ductile film are neglected since the error introduced is small [7].
For the crack geometry depicted in Fig. 1a, IrwinÕs relation between the stress intensity factor KI and the
energy release rate G for a plane strain crack in an elastic solid is
 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448 2439

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 2. Finite element mesh for small-scale yielding analysis. (a) Mesh showing remote boundary; (b) refined mesh of inner region;
(c) close-up view of crack tip and void-containing cell elements ðh=D ¼ 20Þ.

1
m2s 2
G¼ KI : ð2:6Þ
Es
Small-scale yielding conditions prevail when the plastic zone size in the film is small compared to the
distance to the remote boundary R. In this case, the J -integral can be interpreted as the remote, or applied,
energy release rate G. The crack growth resistance C is identified with J under conditions of crack advance.
That is
J ¼ C: ð2:7Þ

2.3. Crack growth resistance

From dimensional considerations, the crack growth resistance C depends on the following dimensionless
geometric-material parameters:


C Da h r0 Es p0 rR
¼F ; ; ; ; N ; m; ms ; f0 ; ; : ð2:8Þ
r0 D D D E E r0 r0
We direct attention to the model parameters of
rR p0 h
; ; f0 ; N ; ; ð2:9Þ
r0 r0 D
2440 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

where rR =r0 is the normalized residual stress, p0 =r0 the normalized initial void vapor pressure, f0 the initial
void volume fraction, N the strain hardening parameter, and h=D the normalized film thickness. Estimates
of f0 for typical IC polymeric materials, based on moisture analyses, range from 1% to 5% [17]. The length,
D, is related to the mean spacing between voids [21]. Vapor pressure p0 during the reflow process, inferred
from studies by Liu and Mei [32] (see the steam table [33]), can reach levels comparable to the yield stresses
of polymers used in packaging [34]. In plastic encapsulated packages, a typical die attach is about 40 lm
thick, while the average spacing between voids is on the order of microns. Hence, the ratio, h=D ¼ 20 can be
regarded as representative of some adhesive joints in IC packages. Guided by this observation, results
presented in Figs. 3–7 is based on h=D ¼ 20. An evaluation of thickness effects is presented in Fig. 8.
When the void in a cell grows and reaches a critical size, the load-carrying capacity of the cell element
rapidly drops to zero. Failure of the cell element occurs when the average void volume fraction over the cell
reaches fE ¼ 0:2, whereupon the cell is rendered extinct by a linear traction-separation law [31]. The cell
with the average void volume fraction, ftip ¼ 0:15, is taken as the location of the effective crack tip. This
computational cell element approach of Xia and Shih has also proven successful in quantifying material
failure in large-scale, 3D applications [35]. More details on the numerical aspects of ductile crack growth
using computational cells can be found in [36].

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Crack growth induced by cool-down process for three levels of CTE mismatch. (a) Temperature drop vs. crack growth along
film–substrate interface of the joint; (b) crack growth resistance of the joint.
 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448 2441

Fig. 4. Residual stress effect on crack growth along joint interface. (a) Crack growth resistance of the joint; (b) steady-state toughness
of the joint; (c) plastic zone shape and size.

3. Results and discussion

For most of the computations, the properties of the elastic–plastic film are specified by the parameters
r0 =E ¼ 0:01, N ¼ 0:1 and m ¼ 0:4. The level of elastic modulus mismatch between the film and the substrate
considered is Es =E ¼ 5, with ms ¼ 0:3. The thermal cooling problem is dealt with first to ascertain the effects
of film–substrate CTE mismatch on parallel debonding. This is followed by a more systematic study of
residual stress and vapor pressure effects on interface toughness.

3.1. Film–substrate CTE mismatch

To gain some understanding of CTE mismatch effects during the cool-down process, we set KI ¼ 0 in Eq.
(2.5) by prescribing vanishing displacements at the remote boundary, i.e. the silicon substrates are rigidly
constrained. A temperature change, DT ¼ T
T0 , will induce stresses in both the film and substrate which
can be calculated from the objective Cauchy stress rate
r
r ¼ L : ðd
dp
dth Þ; ð3:1Þ
p
where L is an isotropic fourth-order elasticity tensor, d is the total strain rate, d the plastic strain rate (for
aT_ 1 is the thermal strain rate, with
a denoting the CTE of the film, a,
the elastic substrate dp ¼ 0), and dth ¼

2442 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

Fig. 5. Vapor pressure effect at film–substrate interface on crack growth resistance of the joint. (a) rR =r0 ¼ 0; (b) rR =r0 ¼ 1; (c) and (d)
plastic zones corresponding to three cases considered in (a) and (b), respectively.

or substrate, as . At the reflow temperature, T0 ¼ 220 C, both film and substrates are assumed to be stress
free.
Fig. 3a shows the temperature drop DT vs. crack extension Da=D for three levels of film–substrate CTE
mismatch, a=as ¼ 10, 30, and 60 (as for the silicon substrate is 2.8 · 10
6 /C). This range of a=as encom-
passes adhesive joints found in flip-chip solder die and IC packaging. Observe that crack growth at the
interface is negligible when the temperature drop is less than about 50 C from the solder reflow temper-
ature. Further cooling results in rapid crack propagation. Qualitatively, temperature change induces near
uniform stresses along the film–substrate interfaces. A threshold temperature is required for interfacial void
growth to undergo cavitation instability, resulting in rapid delamination. When a=as is large, the temper-
ature drop associated with interface cracking is smaller. In contrast, a low a=as requires a higher threshold
temperature for failure.
Fig. 3b shows the computed crack growth resistance curves, C=ðr0 DÞ vs. Da=D, for the three cases
a=as ¼ 10, 30, and 60. Here C is given by the J -integral computed on a number of contours enclosing the
damage process zone (ranging from 6 to 1000h from the crack tip) using the domain integral method [37].
The computed J -integrals are independent of the domain size. The R-curves display these trends––initial
crack growth is characterized by rapid increase in C. The rate of increase of C slows down significantly for
crack growth beyond about 10D. One can see the three-fold drop in the crack growth resistance when a=as
increases from 10 to 60.
It should be noted that the boundary conditions imposed in the above model problem are considerably
more severe than those that exist during the solder reflow process. Moreover, the yield strength of the
polymer is a function of the temperature. This notwithstanding, the R-curves in Fig. 3b provide (i) some
quantitative indication of how the level of film–substrate CTE mismatch affects the toughness of the joint
 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448 2443

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. Effect of film–substrate porosity on crack growth resistance of the joint. (a) rR =r0 ¼ 1; p0 =r0 ¼ 0; (b) rR =r0 ¼ 1; p0 =r0 ¼ 1.

and (ii) toughness values for comparison with those obtained by isothermal analysis incorporating initial
residual stress rR =r0 induced by CTE mismatch. This is addressed in the next few sections.

3.2. Residual stress in film

In this and subsequent sections, the stresses at the interface and the resulting crack growth are brought
about by gradually increasing the remote KI displacement field given in Eq. (2.5). As a check that small-
scale yielding conditions are met, the J -integral is computed for several outer annular spatial domains at
every stage of the analysis. The computed J -values and the prescribed K values were found to be consistent
with (2.6).
The initial residual stress in the ductile film is prescribed through an inelastic strain, e0 , in the film. This
induces an in-plane, biaxial residual stress
E
rR ¼
e0 : ð3:2Þ
1
m
Fig. 4a shows the effect of different levels of residual stress on crack growth at the interface. An increase
in residual tensile stress rR =r0 lowers the rate of increase of C, as well as reduces the steady-state toughness
2444 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. Effect of strain hardening of film on crack growth resistance of the joint. (a) rR =r0 ¼ 1; p0 =r0 ¼ 0; (b) rR =r0 ¼ 1; p0 =r0 ¼ 1.

Css . As in [7], the toughness of the joint is given by Css , the asymptotic value where C is effectively inde-
pendent of Da. For our simulations, Css is operationally defined by the near plateau levels of C observed
after some amount of transient crack growth. It can be seen that Css is reached after growth ranging from
about 10D to about 15D. A plot of Css =ðr0 DÞ as a function of rR =r0 is provided in Fig. 4b. Residual
compressive stress increases the fracture toughness slightly, while a residual tensile stress of rR =r0 ¼ 0:4 can
lower the fracture toughness by about 40%. Beyond about rR =r0 ¼ 0:4, further reduction in fraction
toughness is minimal. Residual stress of these levels are not uncommon in technological applications.
Qualitatively a residual tensile stress, acting in conjunction with remotely applied Mode I loading, increases
the hydrostatic stresses ahead of the crack which in turn accelerates void growth and coalescence. The
behavior of toughness vs. residual stress under parallel debonding, shown in Fig. 4b, is similar to that
reported for the interface crack problem [7]. The rising R-curves in the transient crack growth plots in Fig.
4a are associated with plastic dissipation in the ductile film (observe advance of plastic zone). A study of the
evolution of plastic zones in the film can give further insights into the fracture toughness of the film–
substrate interface.
Fig. 4c displays the plastic zones for four residual stress levels, rR =r0 ¼ 0:0, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.0. In these
plots, the crack has grown a distance of 2h. The plastic zones are operationally defined by
ep > 0:001, where
 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448 2445

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 8. Effect of thickness of film on crack growth resistance of the joint. (a) rR =r0 ¼ 0; p0 =r0 ¼ 0; (b) rR =r0 ¼ 1; p0 =r0 ¼ 0;
(c) rR =r0 ¼ 0; p0 =r0 ¼ 1.

ep is the accumulated plastic strain. The actual plasticity that develops in the film occupies a much larger
region since onset of plasticity occurs when
ep > 0. Observe two features. Initially, the plastic zone,

ep > 0:001, spreads out across the full width of the film. As the cracks grow, the plastic zone changes its
shape––the new growth of the plastic zone is confined to the vicinity of the interface. It may also be noted
that the overall size of the plastic zone decreases with increase of rR =r0 . This behavior is consistent with the
results shown in Fig. 4b.

3.3. Vapor pressure at film–substrate interface

Pores and cavities form at filler particle–polymer matrix interfaces, at polymer film–silicon substrate
interfaces as well as in molding compounds of IC packages. In a humid environment, moisture diffuses to
these voids. During reflow soldering, surface mount plastic encapsulated devices are exposed to tempera-
tures between 210 and 260 C. At these temperatures, the condensed moisture vaporizes. The rapidly
expanding water vapor exerts internal pressures on the voids that could reach 3–6 MPa. Such stress levels
are comparable to the yield strengths of epoxy molding compounds and epoxy adhesives whose glass
transition temperatures Tg range between 150 and 300 C.
Fig. 5a shows how crack growth resistance is affected by the presence of vapor pressure at the interface.
Vapor pressure reduces both the rate of increase of C as well as the steady-state toughness Css . High vapor
2446 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

pressure, p0 =r0 ¼ 1:5, can reduce fracture toughness by a factor of 2, all other parameters remaining the
same. The combined effect of vapor pressure and residual tensile stress on crack growth resistance is shown
in Fig. 5b.
Fig. 5c displays plastic zone sizes corresponding to three cases (p0 =r0 ¼ 0:5, 1.0, and 1.5) considered in
Fig. 5a. The cracks have grown by 2h and one can see that the plastic zones associated high vapor pressure
(p0 =r0 P 1) are effectively confined to the vicinity of the interface. Fig. 5d displays plastic zones that develop
under the combined action of vapor pressure and residual tensile stress (three cases considered in Fig. 5b).
The plastic zones are narrow and are confined to the vicinity of the interface. These results suggest the joint
toughness of the interface to be significantly reduced under the combined action of thermal stress and vapor
pressure.

3.4. Porosity of film–substrate interface

We have noted that estimates of porosity f0 based on moisture analyses range from 1% to 5% [17]. Fig.
6a shows the interface R-curves for several values of f0 , with rR =r0 ¼ 1; Fig. 6b includes vapor pressure
effects p0 =r0 ¼ 1. One can see the strong effect of porosity on crack growth resistance. For example, Css for
f0 ¼ 0:05 is about 50% lower than that for f0 ¼ 0:005. Moreover high vapor pressure, comparable to the
materialÕs yield stress, can reduce Css by as much as 30% (compare Fig. 6a and b).

3.5. Strain hardening of film

Zhang et al. [11,12] showed the interfacial fracture energy can be a strong function of both the initial
porosity and the strain hardening exponent. Fig. 7a shows the interface R-curves for several values of N ,
with rR =r0 ¼ 1; Fig. 7b includes vapor pressure effects p0 =r0 ¼ 1. One can see that a higher film hardening
parameter gives rise to a larger work of separation in the process zone. The plastic dissipation surrounding
the background material also increases, resulting in higher joint toughness. Thus materials with higher
strain hardening should be considered for plastic packages which are particularly susceptible to adverse
effects stemming from moisture and vapor pressure (compare Fig. 7a and b).

3.6. Thickness of film

In plastic encapsulated packages, a typical die attach is about 40 lm thick, while the average spacing
between voids is on the order of microns. Fig. 8a displays the crack growth resistance curves for several h=D
)10, 20, 40, and 80. These values can be regarded as representative of adhesive joints in packaging material.
Results are generated using a modified mesh of Fig. 2, where the number of elements in the film is cor-
respondingly altered with the film thickness. In the absence of vapor pressure and residual stress, the effect
of h=D on joint toughness is substantial. An increase in h=D from 10 to 20 raises the Css by about 50%. The
limit of fracture toughness enhancement with film thickness appears to be reached when h=D ¼ 80. By
contrast, under high residual stress rR =r0 ¼ 1, increasing h=D from 10 to 20 raises the Css by about 30%
(Fig. 8b). Smaller enhancement in joint toughness for h=D of 40 and 80 can be seen. A similar behavior is
observed under high vapor pressure p0 =r0 ¼ 1 (Fig. 8c). The behavior under combined residual stress and
vapor pressure follows closely that displayed in Fig. 8c. In other words, when both residual stress and vapor
pressure are present, vapor pressure effects are dominant. These observations could be explained by the
plastic zone patterns shown in Figs. 4c and 5c and d.
We note in Fig. 4c that in the absence of vapor pressure and residual stress, initial plastic zone spreads
out across the full width of the film. An increase h=D would permit greater plastic dissipation in the ductile
film, thereby enhancing the joint toughness. When the extent of the plastic zone is smaller than the
thickness of the film, the effect of h=D will diminish. With pre-existing residual stress or vapor pressure in
 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448 2447

the film, the plastic zone is confined to the vicinity of the interface (Figs. 4c and 5c and d). As such, increase
in the film thickness will produce smaller enhancement on the joint toughness.

4. Concluding remarks

Plastic encapsulated microcircuits are susceptible to interface cracking during solder reflow that could
possibly lead to popcorn cracking. The analysis of crack growth during the cool-down process (following
solder reflow) provides some estimates of the reduction in joint toughness related to film–substrate CTE
mismatch. These estimated joint toughness values are comparable to those obtained from isothermal
analyses where the CTE mismatch is treated by introducing an initial residual stress. Crack growth com-
putations show that residual stress in the film combined with vapor pressure enhance brittle-like cracking
characteristics, bringing about severe reduction in toughness of the joint. The reduction in joint toughness
can be compounded when the porosity of the material near the interface is high.
Attention in this work is directed at residual stress and vapor pressure effects on cracking and toughness
of joints formed by a ductile polymeric film and its elastic substrates. Residual stresses are induced by the
CTE mismatch between the film and substrates it joins. Tensile residual stress reduces joint toughness. The
effects of rapid moisture vaporization are manifested in several ways. High vapor pressure within cavities
accelerates void growth and coalescence. As a result, the toughness of the joint is reduced significantly.
When both residual stress and vapor pressure are present, vapor pressure effects are dominant. It has also
been observed that vapor pressure exerts tractions on crack faces contributing to an additional driving force
as well as mode mixity shift (from shear-dominated to tension-dominated) both of which are increasing
functions of the crack size. The combination of accelerated void growth, increased driving force and
tension-dominant mode mixity enhances the prospects of brittle-like debonding. A discussion of these
aspects can be found in [18,20].

Acknowledgements

The support of this work by the National University of Singapore (Grant no. R-265-000-136-112) is
gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Evans AG, Hutchinson JW. The thermomechanical integrity of thin films and multilayers. Acta Metall Mater 1995;43(7):2507–30.
[2] Suo Z. Failure of brittle adhesive joints. Appl Mech Rev 1990;43(5):S276–279.
[3] OÕBrien TK. Generic aspects of delamination in fatigue of composite materials. J Am Helicopter Soc 1987;32(1):13–8.
[4] Spearing M, Beaumont PWR, Ashby MF. Fatigue damage mechanics of notched graphite–epoxy laminates. ASTM Special
Technical Publication, 1991. p. 617–37.
[5] Huang Y, Hu KX, Yeh CP, Li NY, Hwang KC. A model study of thermal stress-induced voiding in electronic packages.
J Electron Packaging 1996;118:229–34.
[6] Guo TF, Cheng L. Thermal and vapor pressure effects on cavitation and void growth. J Mater Sci 2001;36(24):5871–9.
[7] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. On the toughness of ductile adhesive joints. J Mech Phys Solids 1996;44(5):789–800.
[8] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elastic–plastic
solids. J Mech Phys Solids 1992;40(6):1377–97.
[9] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. Toughness of an interface along a thin ductile layer joining elastic solids. Philos Mag A
1994;70(4):641–56.
[10] Tvergaard V. Studies of void growth in a thin ductile layer between ceramics. Comput Mech 1997;20:186–91.
[11] Zhang S, Hsia KJ. Modeling the fracture of a sandwich structure due to cavitation in a ductile adhesive layer. J Appl Mech
2001;68:93–100.
2448 H.B. Chew et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 2435–2448

[12] Zhang S, Hsia KJ, Pearlstein AJ. Potential flow model of cavitation-induced interfacial fracture in a confined ductile layer. J Mech
Phys Solids 2002;50:549–69.
[13] Liu B, Qiu X, Huang Y, Hwang KC, Li M, Liu C. The size effect on void growth in ductile materials. J Mech Phys Solids
2003;51:1171–87.
[14] Tummala RR, Rymaszewski EJ, Klopfenstein AG. Microelectronics packaging handbook: Part II. Semiconductor packaging;
Part III. Subsystem packaging. New York: Champman & Hall; 1997.
[15] Fukuzawa I, Ishiguro S, Nanbu S. Moisture resistance degradation of plastic LSIs by reflow soldering. In: IEEE/IRPS
International Reliability of Physics Symposium, Orlando, FL, 1995. p. 192–7.
[16] Gallo AA, Munamarty R. Popcorning: a failure mechanism in plastic-encapsulated microcircuits. IEEE Trans Reliab
1995;44(3):362–7.
[17] Galloway JE, Miles BM. Moisture absorption and desorption predictions for plastic ball grid array packages. IEEE Trans
Compon Packaging Manuf Technol Part A 1997;20(3):274–9.
[18] Liu P, Cheng L, Zhang YW. Interface delamination in plastic IC packages induced by thermal loading and vapor pressure––a
micromechanics model. IEEE Trans Adv Packaging 2003;26(1):1–9.
[19] Guo TF, Cheng L. Vapor pressure and void size effects on failure of a constrained ductile film. J Mech Phys Solids 2003;51:993–
1014.
[20] Cheng L, Guo TF. Vapor pressure assisted void growth and cracking of polymeric films and interfaces. Interf Sci 2003;11:277–90.
[21] Xia L, Shih CF. Ductile crack growth––I. A numerical study using computational cells with microstructurally-based length scales.
J Mech Phys Solids 1995;43(2):233–59.
[22] Steenbrink AC, Van der Giessen E, Wu PD. Void growth in glassy polymers. J Mech Phys Solids 1997;45:405–37.
[23] Chiang MYM, Chai H. Plastic deformation analysis of cracked adhesive bonds loaded in shear. Int J Solids Struct 1994;31:2477–
90.
[24] Madhusudhana KS, Narasimhan R. Experimental and numerical investigations of mixed mode crack growth resistance of a
ductile adhesive joint. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:865–83.
[25] Gurson AL. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: Part I––Yield criteria and flow rules for porous
ductile media. Trans J Engng Mater Tech 1977;99:2–15.
[26] Tvergaard V. Material failure by void growth to coalescence. Adv Appl Mech 1990;27:83–151.
[27] Guo TF, Cheng L. Modeling vapor pressure effects on void rupture and crack growth resistance. Acta Mater 2002;50(13):3487–
500.
[28] Fleck NA, Olurin OB, Chen C, Ashby MF. The effect of hole size upon the strength of metallic and polymeric foams. J Mech Phys
Solids 2001;49:2015–30.
[29] Zhang J, Lin Z, Wong A, Li VC, Yee AF, Nushholtz GS. Constitutive modeling and material characterization of polymeric
foams. Trans J Engng Mater Tech 1997;119:284–91.
[30] Faleskog J, Gao X, Shih CF. Cell model for non-linear fracture analysis––I. Micromechanics calibration. Int J Fract 1998;89:355–
73.
[31] Gullerud AS, Koppenhoefer KC, Ruggieri C, Dodds Jr RH. WARP3D: 3-D dynamic nonlinear fracture analysis of solids using
parallel computers and workstations. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series no. 607, UILU-ENG-95-2012,
University of Illinois at Urbrana-Champaign, 2002.
[32] Liu S, Mei Y. Behavior of delaminated plastic IC packages subjected to encapsulation cooling, moisture absorption, and wave
soldering. IEEE Trans Compon Packaging Manuf Technol Part A 1995;18(3):634–45.
[33] Keenan JH, Keyes FG, Hill PG, Moore JG. Steam tables: thermodynamic properties of water including vapor, liquid, and solid
phases. New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
[34] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and properties. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
[35] Ruggieri C, Panontin TL, Dodds Jr RH. Numerical modeling of ductile crack growth in 3-D using computational cell elements.
Int J Fract 1996;82(1):67–95.
[36] Gullerud AS, Gao X, Dodds Jr RH, Haj-Ali R. Simulation of ductile crack growth using computational cells: numerical aspects.
Engng Fract Mech 2000;66:65–92.
[37] Moran B, Shih CF. A general treatment of crack tip contour integrals. Int J Fract 1987;35:363–71.

View publication stats