cu etal, Vol. 37, No 12.99. 3259-3254, 1989 rime in Grst Bria All hs xen ON CRACK PATH SELECTION AND THE INTERFACE FRACTURE ENERGY IN BIMATERIAL SYSTEMS A. G. EVANS! B, J. DALGLEISH!, M. HE! and J. W, HUTCHINSON? "Materials Department, College of Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 and "pivision of Applied Selenees. Harvard Universi, Cambadge, MA 02138, USA, (Received 10 May 1989) Abstract—The intent of this article to apply resent solutions forthe mechanics of eracks at and near ‘binateril interfaces to rationale crack trajcetories observed by experiment and (0 provide basi Tor interpcting measurements ofthe interface fracture energy. Wi Jemonstate thatthe choke of lest, Speciman governs the tendency of eracks to cir remain at interfaces or deviate away. based on considerations ofthe phase ane of loading, pT further eeveale that the measured nterTace fracture “nergy may be sironelysnluenced by the erek teajctry. ay governed by J through eack shieding and piiaticity eects Consoquenty, interfaces do not typically have unique facture energies, bu instead) ‘Sepends on yy which. in turn, Influenced by the test method. Résumé Le but de ct article est ¢apliquer des solutions eécentes a (tude de mécanisme des fasures sur et prés des interfaes entre deux materia afin de rtionliser les tajetores den fsures observes txpérimentlement et de fourir une base a Fiterrstaion des mesures ce Fenerpe de rutured'ntetface 1 On démontre que le chow du type dessal gowverne le tendance dex fsuree soi Teter AUX Inerfaces soit sn Garter suivant dophasage de charge gDe plus on monte que Téneraie de rupture ) prohibits propagation of the crack ‘out of the interfce, Then, one of two possibilities occurs, depending upon the yield strength of the ductile member. For a low yield strength material plastic blunting of the interface crack is observed [Fig 6(a)] and failure often occurs by ductile mech- anisms (Fig, 6(6)] involving hole nucleation at the Fig 3. Film decohosion by subatrate cracking indicating the ‘preted crack location tuned in Ky —0 and experimental ‘data ablained for {80 material vombinaionsEVANS erat Relave Toughness, Phase Angie of Loacng, v, of imertace cracking parameter Post rows athe inset digzam, Fig. 4. map represnting the for the values of the casi W is defined by the mode I imerface [3]. Alternatively, the stress field of the interace crack interacts with preexisting Aaws in the prittle material, causing cracks to grow from these flaws buck towaed the interface, resulting in a serrated fracture with “chips” of britle material attached to the fracture surface (Figs 1 and 5). This ‘behavior can be understood by noting that the flaws in the brittle material are subject to subvtentiat mode 2 jouding having sign that leads to crack extension toward the interface, veo tk Tp ly eee Ce tee yoo 7 ‘Substrate 24 tnvertace bos rocking Seas ale ae Prase Angie o!Lootng 5. The region of interface fracture for a bimaterial sm when one material F has a much higher facture fnerty than the other, § (=F). The result potted for the et, r= 8D. Now dha when ¥ <0, Fracture at the Interface can inconporate segments of adjoining material "detached at Raw. INTERFACE PRACTURE IN BIMATERIAL SYSTEMS mst 3. THE INTERFACE FRACTURE ENERGY The above discussion eoncerning crack paths has important implications for measuring and interpret- ing information relating to the “fracture energy of interfaces". Most importantly, the test configuration ‘determines the sign end the magnitude of ¥, which in turn governs the crack path und thus, the mechanisms that contribute to F,. Several examples are used 10 illustrate the salient features: “mode 1" sandwich specimens [4,13] (Fig. 7a), peel tests [5] [Fig. 1b)] and film decohesion tests [14] [Fig. (|. In all cases, residual stress contributes substantially to the ob- served hehavior and in the interpretation of the results. JL. Sandwich tests ‘The interpretation of fracture tests performed on sandwich specimens is. relatively. straightforward ‘when the precrack length, a, is very large compared with the bond layer thickness, h(a 2 30h). Then, the residual strain does not contribute to the energy release rate G, because the bond layer remains at- tached to one side of the specimen and thus, retains its state of residual strain [15]. When this erack length ‘condition is satisfied, the only other significant con- sideration is the influence of the bond layer on the ‘magnitude of G and y. When h is small compared withthe specimen thickness, the energy release rate ‘s unaffected by the layer [13]. However, the presence of the layer causes y to deviate from zero, For the typical case, p = 0, y is governed solely by 2, with the ‘rend {13] plotted on Fig. 8. While the range in Wis small, it is often sufficient to influence the crack trajectory. Specifically, in most cass, the shear mod= ulus of the bond layer isles than that of the honded ‘member, whereupon the sign of directs the erack toward the interface. Consequently, when the bond ‘material is ductile, the erack tends to either remain at the interface or Follow a serrated path near the Interface. In either case, plasticity in the bond layer ‘can contribute to F,. causing the measured fractare ‘energy 10 be substantially greater than I, even though the crack remains near the interface ‘When the eruck is not long compared with the layer thickness, residual stress influences both Kj and Ky tand must be taken into account [15]. Most signtie cantly, when the bond layer has the larger thermal expansion coellcient, the sign of y tends to divert the crack away from the interface and furthermore, is sufficiently large (= 45°) {15] that it can dominate the overall phase angle at the fracture criticality. In this case, cracks are often diverted into the brittle ‘material, outside the bond [2]. The nominal fracture energy measured in such cases can havea broad range ff values that depend on che erack fength and the residual strain [16]. However. the actual fracture energy can be deduced if the residual strain contri- bution to G is properly taken into account.3282 EVANS er al twats |_aluminum | INTERFACE FRACTURE IN BIMATERIAL SYSTEMS HOLE NUCLEATION at INTERFACE Fig. 6, (a) Plastic blunting atthe imerface: a erack in the ALO,/Al system. (b) Ductile fracture surface: Tailre adjacent to the imerfae in the ALO,/Al system, Bond layers having a lower thermal expansion coeflcient invariably generaie a phase angle that die verts cracks toward the interface. Then, the measured fracture energy can either be larger or smaller than TT, depending upon the residual strain contribution 0 G, the influence of plasticity, roughness, et 3.2. Film decohesion Films and coatings with interface edge eracks that cause decohesion experience mixed mode conditions. with g dependent largely on the sign of the residual stress [17], Films in tension give J 45° with sign that tends 10 deflect the erack away from the inte: face. Consequently, when the substrate is brittle and the interface fracture energy is relatively high. the decohesion process proceeds in the substrate by cracking at a characteristic depth beneath the inter- face [9-11], The substrate fracture energy , thenEVANS er al: INTERFACE PRACTURE IN BIMATERIAL SYSTEMS Geopert on nan inet wena reey Fig. 7. A sehematic indicating the various tots used 10 reise the interface Iracture energy becomes the relevant quantity. When the substeate is duotile, the incidence of decohesion is governed by T, which may be influenced by piasticty in Fig 8. The phase angle shift fora sandwich specimen as su Tunction of the elasie mismatch aerons the interlace, ‘expressed through the Dundurs” parameter the substrate, ete. When decohesion does occur at the intezace (Fig. 9). the decohesion analysis [11] may be used to measure I, Residual compression in the film subjects edge cracks 10 mode Il conditions, plus compression normal to the interfyee. As’ yet, there is no understanding of interface fracture in such cizcum-post EVANS or ul: 33. Peel tests ‘The peel testis generally used for measuring the fracture energy of ductile compliant films on sub- strates [S]. The phase angle has a negative sign that ‘causes substrate cracks to deviate into the interface. ‘The test thus encourages the modes of interface fracture depicted on the left side of Fig. 6. The measured fracture energy can be appreciably less than the substrate value F,and include contributions from crack tip plasticity in the film material, One eompli- cation with this testis that the peel load is sensitive to non-linear deformation in the film, such that deconvolution to obtain I) requires knowledge of the plastic flow stress of the film [5]. However. when this effect is taken into account, valid F, measurements are certainly possible and indeed, can be large compared with I, 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS A rational mechanics basis for predicting and interpreting crack trajectories in bimaterial systems has been proposed, based on knowledge of the phase angle of loading, Y. In particular. the siga and ‘magnitude of y dictate whether cracks either propa gate along an interface or deviate into the adjoining ‘material and extend parallel to the interface. More importantly, phase angle conditions that motivate ‘racks to remain at the interface can, in some cases, vield interface Fracture energies Pin excess ofthat for the brittle member even though the crack propagates ‘atthe interface. Such high fracture energies contain contributions ffom plasticity. roughness-induced crack shielding, ee The phase angle of loading is strongly influenced by the choice of test specimen and thus, Fexperimen- tally determined on the same bimaterial interface can ‘vary appreciably between test specimens. However, it is belicved that a unigue relationship exists between 1, and y for a given interface, It is thus emphasized that test specimens must be characterized oth in terms of an energy release rate and a phase angle of loading. AS more data on Fy(p) are generated, the INTERFACE FRACTURE IN BIMATERIAL SYSTEMS mechanisms that contribute to 1 can be addressed, tnd allow the development of a fundamental evalu: ation of interface fracture. ‘An important corollary of the above conclusion is that the prediction of such events as fiber debonding in composites, film decohesion and bond fracture require that both G and y be evaluated for the problem. Then, provided that I has been measured in the appropriate range of , prediction can be made, This point is emphasized because is typically much more difficult to calculate than G, and its evaluation is essential if imerface cracking problems are to be adequately understood. Furthermore, schemes for calculating y using cither integral equations or finite elements have been developed. REFERENCES, |. B.A Dalgleish, M.C. Luand A. G. Evans, deta metal, 36, 2029:1988), 2K Burges, D. Brenner and G. Petzow, 2 Zahn Implant. My $47 (1987) 3, BJ. Dalgleish, K.P. Trumble and A. G, Evans, Acta mall. 37, 1923 (1989) 4. T5.Oh, J. Rodel, RO. Ritchie and R. M. Cannon, deta metal 36, 2083 (1985), SKS Kim and N. Aravas, It J Solid Struct. 24,417 oss), 6. RF. Pabst and G. Elsner, J. Mater. Sch 15, 188 (1K, 7. M, He and J. W. Hutchinson, J. appl. Mech. $6, 270 (1989) 1K. M.D. Thouless, A. G. Evans, MF. Ashby and J. W. Hluchinson, deta metall 35, 1333 (1989) 9. M.S. HU M.D. Thoules and A, G, Evans, Aca metal 6, 130, (1988), 0. M.D. Drory and A. G, Evans, J. Am. Coram. Soc Submited 1, Z. Suo and J. W. Hutchinson, Jt J. Solids Strut. to ress. 12. 1. R. Rice, J. appl, Mech $5, 98 (1988). 13. Z,Suo and J. W. Hutchinson, Mater. Sci Engng A1OT, 135 (1989). 14, M.S. Hu and A. G, Evans, Ata metall 37, 917 (1989), 1S HG Cao, M.'D. Thouless and’ AG. Evans, acta metal. 36,2037 (1988). 16, H. P Kirchner J.C, Conway and A. FE, Seg Ceram. Soe. 0, 108 (1987) 19. Z.'Suo and J. W. Hutehinson, Jn. J. Fact bn pres dt Am.