Engineering Fracture Mechanics: Takayuki Kitamura, Takashi Sumigawa, Takahiro Shimada, Le Van Lich

Engineering Fracture Mechanics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
Review
Challenge toward nanometer scale fracture mechanics

Takayuki Kitamura ⇑, Takashi Sumigawa, Takahiro Shimada, Le Van Lich
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Science, Kyoto University, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto 615-8540, Japan
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: For the past several decades, fracture mechanics concept and theories have been success-
Received 29 September 2017 fully developed and advanced in the engineering field as here we celebrate 50th anniver-
Accepted 10 October 2017 sary of Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Fracture mechanics has now been expanded
Available online xxxx
rapidly to the interdisciplinary including physics, materials science, biology and geo-
physics, etc., and is expected to advance further beyond the anniversary; such future
advancement includes fracture mechanics in nanometer scales, where discreteness of
atoms become dominant and the continuum-based conventional fracture mechanics might
break down, in contrast to the great success of fracture mechanics in macroscale. This arti-
cle thus aims to review experimental and combined with theoretical challenges of fracture
mechanics toward nanometer scale, and discuss the future direction of fracture mechanics.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1. Simplest fracture target for challenge in nanometer scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2. Experimental challenge on applicability of fracture mechanics to nanoscale silicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.3. Prediction by atomic simulation on the application limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.4. Beyond the applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.5. Future direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Nano-interface fracture mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1. Experimental difficulty on interface cracking investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2. Experimental challenge using nano-cantilever specimens with interface edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.3. Future direction - further experimental quest on nano-interface cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4. Summary next door to ‘‘atomic fracture mechanics”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.1. Unification of fracture at atomic scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2. Experimental advances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kitamura@kues.kyoto-u.ac.jp (T. Kitamura).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.10.009
0013-7944/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Kitamura T et al. Challenge toward nanometer scale fracture mechanics. Engng Fract Mech (2017),
2 T. Kitamura et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of K-dominant region and the characterized dimension of dimension of the singular stress field K in the vicinity of crack tip.
1. Introduction
The conventional fracture mechanics [1,2] aims to study fracture from a crack on mechanical parameter of ‘‘stress” or
‘‘strain”. For an example, it has been well-known that the stress concentrates near a crack tip [3–6], and forms a singular
field of
KI
rij ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi f ij ðhÞ ði; j ¼ x; yÞ; ð1:1Þ
2pr
for a linear elastic material regardless of the size and shape of components under a crack-opening mode (Mode I) as schemat-
ically illustrated in Fig. 1, where KI is the stress intensity factor representing the strength of singular stress field, r is distance
from a crack tip, and fij (h) is the non-dimensional angular function [2]. Fracture phenomena occurred at crack-tip local area
can be well described by KI [2]. This means that conventional fracture mechanics is based on the concept that fracture takes
place within this area of singular stress field, K. The size of singular stress field K is approximately 1/10–1/100 of crack
length in a usual body. As the component size becomes smaller (i.e., a crack length in the component becomes smaller),
K also becomes shorter proportionally [7–12]. When we study the applicability of the conventional fracture mechanics in
micrometer- or nanometer-scale components such as sensors or micro-electromechanical systems in recent devices, we
should pay special attention to the fact that fracture takes place within the several to several-tens nano-meter singular stress
field [11,12].
‘‘Stress” is a fundamental mechanical parameter defined based for a continuum media. This means that aforementioned
discussion on conventional fracture mechanics postulates the existence of sufficient number of atoms to regard even a local
area of crack tip as the assumption of continuity. On the other hand, interatomic distance or lattice spacing are on the order
of 0.2–0.3 nm, in general. Considering this fact, K in nanometer-scale components corresponds to merely 10–100 lattice
spacing of atoms. If crack or imperfection are further smaller, K is the same of atomic scale. (We note that the situation
might be same when we consider the nanoscale crack length in macroscale components.) This leads to fundamental but crit-
ical questions ‘‘Is fracture phenomenon in such nano-components still governed by K of nano- or atomic scales?” and ‘‘Is the
continuum-based stress concept can be still applicable to such nanoscales?”. This implies that there might be a lower appli-
cable limit for conventional fracture mechanics, which is of scientific and practical importance to study. Due to numerous
difficulties in experiments toward fracture from such nanometer-scale singular stress field, there has been no reports.
We have studied fracture mechanics at nanoscale [11,12]. With the aim to show the possibilities of future development of
fracture mechanics, this article introduces a series of experimental and theoretical challenges toward the lower limit of con-
tinuum fracture mechanics, and discusses the next door to atomic-level fracture mechanics beyond the conventional one.
2. Applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics concept
2.1. Simplest fracture target for challenge in nanometer scale
Fracture mechanics covers numerous fracture (crack-propagation) phenomena of different type of mechanism, including
fracture toughness [13–17], fatigue [18–26], and creep [27–36]. The size where fracture progresses is expected to depend on
such mechanism. Among them, the most fundamental and simplest fracture phenomena may be brittle (cleavage) fracture,
where crack becomes mechanically unstable and propagates under elastic deformation. It is well known that, the onset of
crack propagation in a brittle material can be well described by the stress intensity factor K. The critical magnitude is inde-
pendent of geometric size of component and crack and external loading, and the fracture-governing stress intensity factor is
defined as the fracture toughness KIC (i.e., under Mode I in a linear-elastic body) [2,11,12]. In metallic materials exhibiting
plastic behaviors, on the other hand, fracture toughness should become complicated because of its micro-mechanism caused
T. Kitamura et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3
by numerous dislocations, e.g., fracture toughness under in-plane strain/stress conditions [37–42], small-scale/large-scale
yielding [43–50], etc. Since the brittle (cleavage) fracture is simply brought by a series of bond breaking of atoms on a plane
of crystal, it is the most fundamental and essential research target on fracture toughness from a viewpoint of nanomechan-
ics. Moreover, the simplest atomic fracture event at the crack tip makes it relatively easy to identify critical fracture point
during nano-mechanical experiments, which may motivate experimental researchers to fracture toughness in nanometer-
and atomic-scales.
Here, we mainly introduce recent experimental challenges on fracture toughness in single crystalline silicon nano-
components and the lower applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics. We then discuss the possible future direc-
tions via the extension of conventional fracture mechanics concept to fracture nanomechanics or atomic-scale fracture
mechanics.
2.2. Experimental challenge on applicability of fracture mechanics to nanoscale silicon
Direct observation of nanocracking and measurement of its fracture toughness from experimental approach have been a
major and long-term challenge [51–53]. A key yet difficult step in nanoscale experiments is to fabricate and manipulate
specimens with designed features at nanometer resolution. To alleviate this issue, focused ion beam (FIB) milling has been
emerged as a promising method [54,55]. The benefits of this approach are that small-volume specimens can be extracted out
of almost any material with a well-controlled specimen geometry and size [56–58]. However, such method causes an amor-
phous layer to crystalline specimen due to damage induced by the incident ions [59–61]. In addition, for toughness measure-
ment, essential prerequisite is put on the control of a pre-introduced sharp crack that is well-defined to a nanometer scale.
Although numerous difficulties for precise control of brittle cracking, including the crack path, velocity, and length, have
been overcome with the use of designed specimens/loadings [62–66] and/or indentation tests [67,68], they are still limited
to a micrometer scale. Direct fabrication approaches, such as chemical etching and FIB, are potential alternative. However,
such methods introduce a notch to the specimen instead of a sharp crack [69–71], and thereby, prevent intrinsic fracture
toughness of materials to be explored. Therefore, intrinsic fracture toughness at nanoscale remains elusive with current
techniques, which urgently requires for development of a new testing method.
To overcome these challenges, we developed an approach of precrack introduction with a controlled propagation length
using a designed specimen, i.e., a tapered double cantilever beam (TDCB) specimen. Fig. 2 shows the TDCB specimen that is
fabricated from a single-crystal Si (1 0 0) plate by the FIB processing [72]. The front side surface of the specimen is coincident
with the (1 0 0) plane, while the cleavage plane (0 1 1) is vertical and perpendicular to the front side surface. To make in-situ
observations by transmission electron microscope (TEM), the testing section must be thinned to below 200 nm [73]. A
damage-recovery protocol is employed by annealing the specimen in a vacuum condition to fully re-crystallize after the
FIB processing. Thus, the nano-precrack is a natural crack introduced by pre-loading.
The in-situ TEM observation images at the crack propagation from the nanoscale precrack is shown in Fig. 3 [72]. The pre-
crack is opened under the application of opening displacement d, then starts to propagate precisely along the (0 1 1) plane as
d reaches the critical opening displacement, dC. Regarding the specimens as continuum media, the stress intensity factor KI at
the critical point can be analysed using the finite element method. As summarized in [72], the critical values of KI are evenly
distributed around the average of 0.95 MPam1/2 with a standard deviation of 0.07 MPam1/2. Because of such small deviation,
the measured critical KI can be approximately regarded as a constant. Therefore, our experiments provide direct validation
for the applicability of fracture mechanics to nanocracking in silicon. The fracture toughness of nanocracking KIC = 0.95 ±
0.07 MPam1/2 is even consistent as that of micrometer and macroscale cracks [67,68,74,75]. Fracture toughness is thus inde-
pendent of geometric size and an inherent fracture property. More interestingly, the analyses show that the nanocracking is
surprisingly well-dominated by a quite small singular zone of 4.5 nm, despite of its continuum mechanics base (Fig. 4(a))
[72].
To comprehend the experimental results from the atomic viewpoint, the mechanical behavior of a Si(0 1 1) crack tip in
the tested specimens is further simulated by using first-principles density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Under the
gradual increase of applied opening displacement d (i.e., increasing KI), the crack is continuously opened. Simultaneously,
the silicon covalent bond crack the tip is stretched, as shown in Fig. 4(b) [72]. At the critical dC, when the applied KI reaches
1.08 MPam1/2, the silicon covalent bond crack the tip is broken, and thereby, the crack propagates along the cleavage (0 1 1)
plane. The same value KDFTIC = 1.08 MPam
1/2
is also obtained for different nanoscale specimen models (Fig. 4(a)) [72].
2.3. Prediction by atomic simulation on the application limit
To further investigate the lower limit of fracture mechanics, additional DFT and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for
precracked nanoscale silicon specimens under tension and bending are performed, as shown in Fig. 5(a) [10]. For a system-
atic investigation, several tens of models are prepared with the same shape yet different sizes, where the width 2W ranges
from 2.1 to 276 nm.
The stress distributions and SIF in the simulated models under the critical loads are analysed by using a FEM. For model
with W = 104 nm, the critical SIF at fracture is evaluated to be KfI = 1.08 MPam1/2, which is in perfect agreement with KIC =
1.08 MPam1/2 in a macro-component, and thereby, the fracture mechanics criterion is applicable. Despite of different far
stress field, the bending test also yields a consistent result. The size of the K-dominant region is evaluated to be K = 5.1
Fig. 2. (a) SEM image of Si specimen fabricated by the FIB processing. Reprinted with permission from [72]. Copyright 2017 by American Chemical Society.
Fig. 3. (a) Crack nanopropagation in brittle silicon specimen. Reprinted with permission from [72]. Copyright 2017 by American Chemical Society.
Fig. 4. (a) Fracture toughness for silicon as a function of singular stress field size KK. (b) DFT calculations of nanocracking. Reprinted with permission from
[72]. Copyright 2017 by American Chemical Society.
and 4.1 nm for the tensile and bending tests, respectively. However, the inconsistency between KfI and KIC is observed when
the size of the singular stress field is further confined (Fig. 5(b)) [10]. For example, in a smaller model of W = 16 nm, where K
= 0.8 nm, the critical SIF at fracture is evaluated to be KfI = 0.96 MPam1/2, which clearly deviates from the fracture toughness.
The deviation suggests that the fracture mechanics loses validity for extremely small specimen of W = 16 nm. Noted that
such deviation does not mean that the fracture toughness itself decreases in the small models, since a contrast tendency
Fig. 5. (a) Geometry and loading conditions of precracked nanoscale specimens for tensile tests (top) and bending tests (bottom). (b) Critical SIF at fracture
KfI as a function of K-dominant region KK obtained by fracture tests for different size of specimens. The horizontal dotted line indicates the fracture
toughness KIC = 1.08 MPam1/2 of the corresponding crack system (1 1 0)[0 0 1]. (c) Critical ERR at fracture GfATOM based on discrete fracture mechanics (DFM)
proposed here as a function of specimen size W. Reprinted with permission from [10].
is observed in the bending tests, as shown in Fig. 5(b) [10]. Thus, continuum fracture mechanics fails to describe the actual
stress near the crack tip in the extremely small specimens (W = 16 nm). The critical dimension of the singular stress field KC,
where fracture mechanics breaks down, is determined to be 2–3 nm (W = 40–80 nm) (Fig. 5(b)) [10].
2.4. Beyond the applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics
In addition to the SIFs, the energy release rate (EER), GLEFM, has been frequently used in the conventional fracture mechan-
ics as a global fracture characterizing parameter. The EER is defined as the released energy from the body during the crack
propagation by an infinitesimal increment of crack cross-section, DA, and is expressed as [1,2]:
dPcont ðAÞ Pcont ðA þ DAÞ Pcont ðAÞ

GLEFM ¼ ¼ lim ð2:1Þ
dA DA!0 DA
where Pcont is potential energy of linear-elastic cracked body (continuum media) supplied by the internal strain energy and
external load. Under general loading conditions, GLEFM correlates with the SIFs [2].
Given the lower limit of fracture mechanics, we attempt to propose an alternative principle that governs fracture below
such a critical dimension or, if possible, governs universally. As a straightforward extension of the fracture mechanics con-
cept to the atomic scale, we here introduce the following ERR, GATOM, where the discreteness of atoms at the crack tip is taken
into account,
DPatom ðAÞ Patom ðA þ DAÞ Patom ðAÞ

GATOM ¼ ¼ ð2:2Þ
DA DA
where Patom(A) is the potential energy of the simulated atomic specimen. DA is the finite change of the crack cross-section at
the onset of fracture when a single bond at the crack-tip breaks. Fig. 5(c) [10] shows the GfATOM at the onset of fracture as a
function of specimen size W. The GfATOM remains a constant of 5.2 J/m2 with the change of W. This means that the fracture
event always occurs as GfATOM reaches the critical constant value regardless the model size, even below critical size from
LEFM, W = 40–80 nm. The GATOM therefore successfully describes the onset of fracture in nanoscale specimens. On the other
hand, as the specimen size approaches the macroscale, the finite DA becomes extremely small in comparison with the spec-
imen size, and can be consider as infinitesimal value (DA ? 0). In such a case, the strain energy is well approximated by con-
tinuum assumption, as Patom(A) Pcont(A), and thereby, GATOM is identical to GLEFM at the macroscale. Therefore, GATOM is an
effective parameter that can successfully describe brittle fracture at all scales.
2.5. Future direction
Here, we introduced an example of challenges on nanoscale fracture mechanics with the simplest fracture. Even when
limited to such simple cleavage fracture toughness in brittle materials, problems such as in-plane shear (Mode II), out-of-
plane shear (Mode III), mix-modes, and dynamic loading, still remain.
In addition, for the exploration of applicable limit for the materials with plastic behaviors, there should exits a lot of
experimental difficulties in observation. The applicable lower limit of K should be larger than the one in cleavage fracture,
because the entanglement of numerous dislocations may disturb the stress distribution ahead of crack tip and may require
large scale fracture area in ductile materials.
We should discuss the definition of fracture in terms of the mechanical instabilities. At the atomic scale in a crack body,
since the nucleation and emission of a dislocation from a crack tip is one of atomic-level instabilities. The ductile fracture
toughness is brought by the numerous such instabilities. In other words, the atomic-level instabilities are the elementary
process of the fracture. As Rice proposed [76], the dislocation emission from a crack tip can be described by the stress inten-
sity factor, suggesting that it may be reasonable to regard the dislocation emission as an ‘‘elementary fracture toughness” in
nanoscale cracked system of metals. Of course, mechanical instabilities of entire component structure resulted from sever
plastic deformation can be understood as the multiplication of numerous elementary fracture toughness. The experimental
and analytical challenge toward different fracture mechanism and processes could be one of important future directions.
As mentioned in Section 2.1, fracture phenomenon is generally diverse and complicated. A crack can growth under much
lower load than the fracture toughness when fatigue, creep, and a corrosive environment are factors. Therefore, the appli-
cability of fracture mechanics to the nanomaterials that take into account these phenomena has a great important yet much
less understood.
3. Nano-interface fracture mechanics
3.1. Experimental difficulty on interface cracking investigation
Since electronic device, MEMS/NEMS, and sensor, which are widely used in various industrial fields, are consisted of many
dissimilar materials, they include numerous interfaces in nano-meter scale. Deformation mismatch due to the modulus dif-
ference of constituent materials brings about stress concentration near the interface. Especially, stress singular field often
appears near a junction between interfaces or between interface/surface, which is called the interface edge effect. The elastic
asymptotic stress field around the interface edge is usually expressed by the following equation [77,78],
H
rij ¼ f ðhÞ ði; j ¼ x; yÞ ð3:1Þ
r k ij
where k represents the stress singularity depending on the material combination and the interface edge geometry, H is the
intensity of singular stress field, and fij (h) is the nondimensional angular function. Thus, the interface edge is a preferential
site for crack initiation in a device. It should be noted that the size of singular field in a micro- or nano-components becomes
in nanometer scale as pointed out in the previous section.
Interface toughness of bulk materials, which is the critical magnitude of H at the crack initiation from the interface edge,
has been investigated on the basis of the fracture mechanics concept. However, even in the macroscopic scale, it is not so
easy to conduct experiments on the interface fracture toughness in laboratories [79–81]. This is because specific arrange-
ments are required not only for the specimen shape but also for the grip of constituent materials in order to apply an appro-
priate controlled stress near the interface edge. This is one of the most difficult experiments in the conventional fracture
mechanics.
As shown in Section 2, in comparison with the macroscopic experiment, numerous special techniques are inevitable for
the investigation of fracture at nanometer scale. Thus there are further fundamental difficulties in the experimental explo-
ration of nano-interface fracture mechanics. For example, in order to determine accurately H and k, it is necessary to prepare
a specimen having a precisely controlled geometry of interface edge at nanometer level. Again, the FIB is the most appropri-
ate method for processing the dissimilar interface edge with high precision [24,82]. Of course, there are peculiar difficulties
in each processes such as specimen handling, grip, loading, observation of cracking. This section introduces experimental
trials on the toughness of interface edge in nanometer scale challenging toward the lower limit of conventional fracture
mechanics.
Fig. 6. (a) Schematic illustration of a nanocantilever specimen and (b) in-situ observation image during experiment [82]. Reprinted with permission from
[82]. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier.
Fig. 7. Distribution of normal stress along the Cu/SiN interface edge at crack initiation [82]. Reprinted with permission from [82]. Copyright 2014 by
Elsevier.
3.2. Experimental challenge using nano-cantilever specimens with interface edge
Various nano-/micro-scale specimens such as compression-type [83,84], bending-type [85,86], and tensile-type
[83,87,88] are widely used for evaluating the material strength in small scales. We have proposed that cantilever-type
(bending-type) has benefits in the nanometer scale experiment to examine the cracking from interface edge.
Fig. 6 shows a nano-cantilever specimen consisting of silicon (Si), copper (Cu), and silicon nitride (SiN) [82] used for eval-
uating the crack initiation from the interface edge in a nanocomponent. The specimen is cut from a multilayered plate by
means of a FIB. The main advantages of cantilever specimen are summarized as follows.
(1) As the shape is simple, FIB forming is easy.

(2) As the specimen is directly made on a substrate, the handling of specimen is easy.
(3) One end of the specimen is the substrate (Si) and the other does not require gripping under the loading. Thus, spec-
imen grip and loading alignment are not serious issue.
(4) As the maximum tensile stress appears on the top surface, the in-situ observation area of crack initiation site is clearly
targeted by means of an electron microscope. The opening mode makes the observation of fracture process easier.
(5) Since the stress distribution near the contact point is complex in general, the stress analysis in the bending-beam near
the loading point is usually difficult. However, we can make enough distance between the loading point and the inter-
face edge in the cantilever-specimen by extending the arm and the Saint-Venent’s principle gives us clean stress dis-
tribution at the cracking area.
Fig. 8. Application examples for the nano-cantilever specimen. Reprinted with permission from [92,73,89,93]. Copyright 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015 by
Elsevier.
(6) We can design the stress state at the fracture area changing the shape of cantilever.
As shown in Fig. 6, a crack is initiated at the targeted 90°/90° interface edge between Cu and SiN by applying a load to the
SiN layer using a diamond loading tip. In-situ observation enables us to specify the process of deformation before the crack-
ing and interfacial fracture in the nanocomponent. Fig. 7 shows the distribution of normal stress near the interface edge at
the crack initiation evaluated by an elastoplastic three-dimensional finite element method. Four experiments are conducted
for the nano-cantilevers with different sizes. The analysis takes into account the residual stress introduced during fabrication
process of multi-layer and the elasto-plastic constitutive equation of the Cu in this scale which is evaluated by different
experiment beforehand. It should be careful that since the thicknesses of the Cu layer is in two hundred nanometer, its basic
mechanical properties (e.g., yield stress and fracture strength) are different from counterpart of the bulk. The critical stress
intensities agree well in the singular stress region of r < 25 nm among all specimens. This indicates that the crack initiation is
dominated by the stress intensity and the conventional fracture mechanics concept is still valid even though the size of sin-
gular stress field K is about 25 nm.
Changing the height of the cantilever part, we can conduct experiments under different K, for the same material combi-
nation. The results suggest that the conventional fracture mechanics concept is applicable even on the order of 10 nm of K,
Fig. 9. Future work: interface edge composed of films composed of (a) atomic thin layers, and (b) nano-springs.
similar to the results in Section 2. However, taking into account the complexity of interfacial fracture and the diversity of
combinations of materials, continued investigation is necessary in the future. This is still under discussion.
There are several experiments on interface edges of submicron-thick films having different stress singularities [7,89] and
piezoelectric films [90,91] to support the discussion in this section.
3.3. Future direction - further experimental quest on nano-interface cracking
As pointed out above, the mechanical complexities and diversity in fracture mechanism due to material combination
must be important in future experimental quest. Fig. 8 shows examples of nano-cantilever specimens for examining various
factors on the crack initiation at the nano-interface edge. With bent arm (Fig. 8(a)), shear mode (torsion) and mixed-mode
(tension/torsion) experiment can be easily realized [92]. Thinning the interface edge area until 100 nm or less (Fig. 8(b)) [73],
the direct observation by means of a TEM enables the plastic deformation at the stress concentrated region near the edge in
detail prior to the fracture. In addition, it is possible to create an intentional stress concentration at any part in a cantilever by
designing specimen shape or introducing crack as shown in Fig. 8(c) [89] and (d) [93]. Of course, it is possible to prepare the
specimen with different angle of interface edge or with interface crack as illustrated in Fig. 8(e)–(g).
Recently, atomic thin layers with a thickness of several Angstrom can be made [94,95] (Fig. 9(a)). In such case, since the
discreteness originated from atoms definitely affects the fracture process at the stress concentrated region of interface edge,
the criterion for the crack initiation might not be discussed on the basis of the conventional fracture mechanics (continuum
assumption). We may need to extend the fracture mechanics concept at the atomic level as discussed in the previous section.
Moreover, it has become possible to produce metamaterial-like thin films (Fig. 9(b)), where numerous nano-elements are
aligned on the interface between dissimilar materials by CVD [96,97], nanolithography method [98] and glancing angle
deposition method [99–101] and so on. Since the mechanical property is exotic in comparison with homogeneous conven-
tional layers, characteristic feature is expected at the interface edge. For example, the singular stress field often disappears
near the edge [102,103].
4. Summary next door to ‘‘atomic fracture mechanics
4.1. Unification of fracture at atomic scale
Conventional fracture mechanics describes the fracture (crack propagation) due to singular stress field formed near the
crack tip. On the other hand, non-crack system such as a notch does not form the singular stress field but just the stress con-
centration, so that we cannot define the stress intensity factor due to the absence of singular field. Since the energy release
rate GLEFM (Eq. (2.1)) becomes zero at the notch, GLEFM cannot be an effective mechanical parameter to describe the fracture
from the notch root. On the other hand, GATOM (Eq. (2.2)) represent the energy release rate for breaking of single atomic bond.
Because one can define the change of potential energy with respect to this finite advance of crack (corresponding to the
atomic distance), GATOM can be defined and evaluated even for notch root in contrast to GLEFM. In fact, the critical GfATOM at
which a crack nucleates and propagates from a notch root in Si single crystal is equal to fracture toughness for crack
[104]. This indicates that a crack can be regarded as one kind of notches in terms of GATOM, and the critical GfATOM can be a
universal quantity for brittle fracture in Si. This suggests a possibility that fracture, which has been discussed at macroscales,
can be universally understood by considering discreteness of atoms and bond breaking, i.e., atomic fracture mechanics.
The universality in atomic fracture mechanics also suggests the importance of elementary process of fracture in atomic
scales (i.e., mechanical instabilities of atomic structures). For example, the mechanical instabilities near the crack due to
opening mode (Mode I) correspond to cleavage fracture via atomic bond breaking. The instabilities due to in-plane shear
(Mode II) and out-of-plane shear (Mode III) correspond to the emission of edge and screw dislocations from the crack tip,
respectively. In metals, the nucleation and multiplication of dislocations is the elementary process of fracture due to sever
plastic deformations and fatigues, which means that atomic fracture mechanics has a potential to universally describe both
of different fracture.
4.2. Experimental advances
In order to elucidate the mechanism of the elementary process in the previous section, ultimately, we need to conduct
atomic-level fracture mechanics experiments with in-situ observation. Although the experiments require high-resolution
microscopes that can specify the precise positions of atoms, it cannot be achieved only by the capability of conventional
imaging apparatus. For eliminating the thermal/mechanical drift and vibration problems during atomic-level observation,
the performance of the whole experimental system including a loading device has to be further advanced drastically. More-
over, in order to prevent the introduction of atomic-scale defects to specimen during the observation, we cannot use an elec-
tron beam with a high acceleration voltage. On the other hand, high spatial resolution is required to measure the
deformation distribution at the atomic level. Since the resolution of electron microscope image increases with increasing
acceleration voltage, we need a way to solve this confliction. Fast frame rate is necessary to monitor the fracture process.
Even in the specimen preparation, we have to establish a new method for preventing the introduction of atomic-scale dam-
aged layer. So and so, there are eminent difficulties in each step of atomic scale challenge, and all experimental equipment
and techniques have to be fundamentally reconsidered.
The atomic fracture mechanics might bring us not only an industrial usefulness in miniaturized and multifunctional
future devices but also great academic fields including the multi-physics caused by the quantum mechanics effect. We sin-
cerely hope that many researchers comes in the challenge with great interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support from JSPS KAKENHI (25000012).
References
[1] Liebowitz H. Fracture. New York: Academic; 1968.

[2] Anderson TL. Fracture mechanics: fundamental and applications. 2nd ed. London: CRC Press LLC; 1995.
[3] Westergaard HM. Bearing pressures and cracks. J Appl Mech 1939;6:49–53.
[4] Irwin GR. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of crack traversing a plate. J Appl Mech 1957;24:361–4.
[5] Sneddon IN. The distribution of stress in the neighbourhood of a crack in an elastic solid. Proc Roy Soc 1946;A-187:229–60.
[6] Williams ML. On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack. J Appl Mech 1957;24:109–14.
[7] Kitamura T, Shibutani T, Ueno T. Crack initiation at free edge of interface between thin films in advanced LSI. Eng Fract Mech 2002;69:1289–99.
[8] Kitamura T, Hirakata H, Itsuji T. Effect of residual stress on delamination from interface edge between nano-films. Eng Fract Mech 2003;70:2089–101.
[9] Hirakata H, Takahashi Y, Truong DV, Kitamura T. Role of plasticity on interface crack initiation from a free edge and propagation in a nano-component.
Int J Fract 2007;145:261–71.
[10] Shimada T, Ouchi K, Chihara Y, Kitamura T. Breakdown of continuum fracture mechanics at the nanoscale. Sci Rep 2015;5:1–6.
[11] Kitamura T, Hirakata H, Sumigawa T, Shimada T. Fracture nanomechanics. 1st ed. Pan Stanford Publishing; 2011.
[12] Kitamura T, Hirakata H, Sumigawa T, Shimada T. Fracture nanomechanics. 2nd ed. Pan Stanford Publishing; 2016.
[13] Anstis G, Chantikul P, Lawn B, Marshall D. A critical evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring fracture toughness: I Direct crack
measurements. J Am Ceram Soc 1981;46:533–8.
[14] Chantikul P, Anstis GR, Lawn BR, Marshall DB. A critical evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring fracture toughness: II strength method. J
Am Ceram Soc 1981;64:539–43.
[15] Kamat S, Su X, Ballarini R, Heuer AH. Structural basis for the fracture toughness of the shell of the conch Strombus gigas. Nature 2000;405:1036–40.
[16] Sumigawa T, Ashida S, Tanaka S, Sanada K, Kitamura T. Fracture toughness of silicon in nanometer-scale singular stress field. Eng Fract Mech
2015;150:161–7.
[17] Gludovatz B, Hohenwarter A, Catoor D, Chang EH, George EP, Ritchie RO. A fracture-resistant high-entropy alloy for cryogenic applications. Science
2014;345:1153–8.
[18] Rafiee MA, Rafiee J, Srivastava I, Wang Z, Song H, Yu Z-Z, et al. Fracture and fatigue in graphene nanocomposites. Small 2010;6:179–83.
[19] Ritchie RO. Mechanisms of fatigue-crack propagation in ductile and brittle solids. Int J Fract 1999;100:55–83.
[20] Thompson N, Wadsworth N, Louat N. The origin of fatigue fracture in copper. Philos Mag 1956;1:113–26.
[21] Murakami Y, Nomoto T, Ueda T. Factors influencing the mechanism of superlong fatigue failure in steels. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
1999;22:581–90.
[22] Sumigawa T, Kitamura T, Ohishi K. Slip behaviour near a grain boundary in high-cycle fatigue of poly-crystal copper. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2004;27:495–503.
[23] Sumigawa T, Shiohara R, Matsumoto K, Kitamura T. Characteristic features of slip bands in submicron single-crystal gold component produced by
fatigue. Acta Mater 2013;61:2692–700.
[24] Sumigawa T, Matsumoto K, Fang H, Kitamura T. Formation of slip bands in poly-crystalline nano-copper under high-cycle fatigue of fully-reversed
loading. Mater Sci Eng A 2014;608:221–8.
[25] Fang H, Shiohara R, Sumigawa T, Kitamura T. Size dependence of fatigue damage in sub-micrometer single crystal gold. Mater Sci Eng A
2014;618:416–23.
[26] Sumigawa T, Matsumoto K, Tsuchiya T, Kitamura T. Fatigue of 1 lm-scale gold by vibration with reduced resonant frequency. Mater Sci Eng A
2012;556:429–36.
[27] Cocks ACF, Ashby MF. On creep fracture by void growth. Prog Mater Sci 1982;27:189–244.
[28] Pandey AB, Mishra RS, Mahajan YR. Steady state creep behavior of silicon carbide particulate reinforced aluminum composites. Acta Metall Mater
1992;40:2045–52.
[29] Taneike M, Abe F, Sawada K. Creep-strengthening of steel at high temperatures using nano-sized carbonitride dispersions. Nature 2003;424:294–6.
[30] Beddoes J, Wallace W, Zhao L. Current understanding of creep behaviour of near c-titanium aluminides. Int Mater Rev 1995;40:197–217.
[31] Kassner ME, Hayes TA. Creep cavitation in metals. Int J Plast 2003;19:1715–48.
[32] Cinibulk MK, Thomas G, Johnson SM. Strength and creep behavior of rare-earth disilicate silicon nitride ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 1992;5:2050–5.
[33] Lehockey EM, Palumbo G. On the creep behaviour of grain boundary engineered nickel. Mater Sci Eng A 1997;237:168–72.
[34] Fusseis F, Regenauer-Lieb K, Liu J, Hough RM, De Carlo F. Creep cavitation can establish a dynamic granular fluid pump in ductile shear zones. Nature
2009;459:974–7.
[35] Andreikiv OE, Lesiv RM, Levyts’ka NM. Crack growth in structural materials under the combined action of fatigue and creep (review). Mater Sci
2009;45:1–17.
[36] Holdsworth S. Creep-fatigue failure diagnosis. Materials 2015;8:7757–69.
[37] Yang J, Wang GZ, Xuan FZ, Tu ST. Unified correlation of in-plane and out-of-plane constraint with fracture toughness. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2013;37:132–45.
[38] Li C-Q, Fu G, Yang W, Yang S. Derivation of elastic fracture toughness for ductile metal pipes with circumferential external cracks under combined
tension and bending. Eng Fract Mech 2017;178:39–49.
[39] Pippan R, Hohenwarter A. The importance of fracture toughness in ultrafine and nanocrystalline bulk materials. Mater Res Lett 2016;4:127–36.
[40] Luo SS, You ZS, Lu L. Intrinsic fracture toughness of bulk nanostructured Cu with nanoscale deformation twins. Scr Mater 2017;133:1–4.
[41] Yang J, Wang GZ, Xuan FZ, Tu ST. Unified characterisation of in-plane and out-of-plane constraint based on crack-tip equivalent plastic strain. Fatigue
Fract Eng Mater Struct 2013;36:504–14.
[42] Silva M, Isik K, Tekkaya A, Atkins A, Martins P. Fracture toughness and failure limits in sheet metal forming. J Mater Process Technol
2016;234:249–58.
[43] Hutchinson JW. Singular behaviour at the end of a tensile crack in a hardening material. J Mech Phys Solids 1968;16:13–31.
[44] Rice JR, Rosengren G. Plane strain deformation near a crack tip in a power-law hardening material. J Mech Phys Solids 1968;16:1–12.
[45] Fan Z. The grain size dependence of ductile fracture toughness of polycrystalline metals and alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 1995;191:73–83.
[46] Preiß EI, Merle B, Göken M. Understanding the extremely low fracture toughness of freestanding gold thin films by in-situ bulge testing in an AFM.
Mater Sci Eng A 2017;691:218–25.
[47] Shimada T, Lich LV, Ouchi K, Chihara Y, Kitamura T. Critical dimensional limit of continuum fracture mechanics for dislocation emission. Eng Fract
Mech 2016;163:108–16.
[48] Wang Y-J, Tsuchiy K, Dai LH. Size-dependent plastic deformation and failure mechanisms of nanotwinned Ni3Al: insights from an atomistic cracking
model. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;649:449–60.
[49] Hohenwarter A, Pippan R. Fracture and fracture toughness of nanopolycrystalline metals produced by severe plastic deformation. Philos Trans Royal
Soc of London A: Math Phys Eng Sci 2015;373.
[50] Pineau A, Benzerga AA, Pardoen T. Failure of metals I: brittle and ductile fracture. Acta Mater 2016;107:424–83.
[51] Jaya BN, Jayaram V. Fracture testing at small-length scales: from plasticity in Si to brittleness in Pt. JOM 2016;68:94–108.
[52] Jaya BN, Kirchlechner C, Dehm G. Can microscale fracture tests provide reliable fracture toughness values? A case study in silicon. J Mater Res
2015;30:686–98.
[53] Livne A, Bouchbinder E, Svetlizky I, Fineberg J. The near tip fields of fast cracks. Science 2010;327:1359–63.
[54] Melngailis J. Focused ion-beam technology and applications. J Vac Sci Technol B 1987;5:469–95.
[55] Volkert CA, Minor AM. Focused ion beam microscopy and micromachining. MRS Bull 2007;32:389–99.
[56] Gierak J et al. Exploration of the ultimate patterning potential of focused ion beams. J Microlith Microfabr Microsyst 2006;5:011011.
[57] Langford RM, Petford-Long AK, Rommeswinkle M, Egelkamp S. Application of a focused ion beam system to micro and nanoengineering. Mater Sci
Technol 2002;18:743–8.
[58] Nellen PM, Bronnimann R. Milling micro-structures using focused ion beams and its application to photonic components. Meas Sci Technol
2006;17:943–8.
[59] Utke I, Hoffmann P, Melngailis J. Gas-assisted focused electron beam and ion beam processing and fabrication. J Vac Sci Technol B 2008;26:1197–276.
[60] Sugiyama M, Sigesato G. A review of focused ion beam technology and its applications in transmission electron microscopy. J Electr Microsc
2004;53:527–36.
[61] Kato NI. Reducing focused ion beam damage to transmission electron microscopy samples. J Electr Microsc 2004;53:451–8.
[62] Nam KH, Park IH, Ko SH. Patterning by controlled cracking. Nature 2012;485:221–4.
[63] Leung K-T, Jozsa L, Ravasz M, Neda Z. Pattern formation: spiral cracks without twisting. Nature 2001;410:166.
[64] Yuse A, Sano M. Transition between crack patterns in quenched glass plates. Nature 1993;362:329–31.
[65] Skjeltorp AT, Meakin P. Fracture in microsphere monolayers studied by experiment and computer simulation. Nature 1988;335:424–6.
[66] Kermode JR, Albaret T, Sherman D, Bernstein N, Gumbsch P, Payne MC, et al. Low-speed fracture instabilities in a brittle crystal. Nature
2008;455:1224–7.
[67] Tanaka M, Higashida K, Nakashima H, Takagi H, Fujiwara M. Fracture toughness evaluated by indentation methods and its relation to surface energy
in silicon single crystals. Mater Trans 2003;44:681–4.
[68] Yasutake K, Iwata M, Yoshii K, Umeno M, Kawabe H. Crack healing and fracture strength of silicon crystals. J Mater Sci 1986;21:2185–92.
[69] Fitzgerald AM, Dauskardt RH, Kenny TW. Fracture toughness and crack growth phenomena of plasma-etched single crystal silicon. Sens Actuators A
2000;83:194–9.
[70] Li X, Kasai T, Nakao S, Ando T, Shikida M, Sato K. Influence of sub-micrometer notches on the fracture of single crystal silicon thin films. Fatigue Fract
Eng Mater Struct 2007;30:1172–81.
[71] Zhang P, Ma L, Fan F, Zeng Z, Peng C, Loya PE, et al. Fracture toughness of graphene. Nat Commun 2014;5:3782.
[72] Sumigawa T, Shimada T, Tanaka S, Unno H, Ozaki N, Ashida S, et al. Griffith criterion for nanoscale stress singularity in brittle silicon. ACS Nano
2017;11:6271–6.
[73] Sumigawa T, Nakano T, Kitamura T. Effect of microscopic structure on deformation in nano-sized copper and Cu/Si interfacial cracking. Thin Solid
Films 2013;531:362–72.
[74] DelRio FW, Cook RF, Boyce BL. Fracture strength of micro- nano-scale silicon components. Appl Phys Rev 2015;2:021303.
[75] Lawn B. Fracture of brittle solids. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
[76] Rice JR. Dislocation nucleation from a crack tip: an analysis based on the Peierls concept. J Mech Phys Solids 1992;40:239–71.
[77] Bogy DB. Edge-bonded dissimilar orthogonal elastic wedges under normal and shear loading. J Appl Mech 1968;35:460–6.
[78] Bogy DB. Two edge-bonded elastic wedges of different materials and wedge angles under surface tractions. J Appl Mech 1971;38:377–86.
[79] Rice JR. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 1968;35:379–86.
[80] Hutchinson JW, Suo Z. Mixed mode fracture criterion of interface crack between dissimilar materials. Adv Appl Mech 1992;29:63–191.
[81] Evans AG, Dalgleish BJ. The fracture resistance of metal-ceramic interfaces. Acta Metall Mater 1992;40:S295–306.
[82] Kawai E, Sanada K, Sumigawa T, Kitamura T. Delamination crack initiation from copper/silicon nitride interface edge with nano-scaled stress singular
field. Eng Fract Mech 2014;120:60–6.
[83] Dimiduk DM, Uchic MD, Parthasarathy TA. Size-affected single-slip behavior of pure nickel microcrystals. Acta Mater 2005;53:4065–77.
[84] Kim J-Y, Greer JR. Tensile and compressive behavior of gold and molybdenum single crystals at the nano-scale. Acta Mater 2009;57:5245–53.
[85] Motz C, Schoberl T, Pippan R. Mechanical properties of micro-sized copper bending beams machined by the focused ion beam technique. Acta Mater
2005;3:4269–79.
[86] Demir E, Raabe D. Mechanical and microstructural single-crystal Bauschinger effects: observation of reversible plasticity in copper during bending.
Acta Mater 2010;58:6055–63.
[87] Kiener D, Grosinger W, Dehm G, Pippan R. A further step towards an understanding of size-dependent crystal plasticity: in situ tension experiments of
miniaturized single-crystal copper samples. Acta Mater 2008;56:580–92.
[88] Ganesan Y, Lu Y, Peng C, Lu H, Ballarini R, Lou J. Development and application of a novel microfabricated device for the in situ tensile testing of 1-D
nanomaterials. J Microelectromech Syst 2010;19:675–82.
[89] Sumigawa T, Shishido T, Murakami T, Kitamura T. Interface crack initiation due to nanoscale stress concentration. Mater Sci Eng A
2010;527:4796–803.
[90] Shang F, Kitamura T, Hirakata H, Kannno I, Kotera H, Terada T. Experimental and theoretical investigations of delamination at free edge of interface
between piezoelectric thin films on a substrate. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42:1729–41.
[91] Shang F, Kitamura T, Hirakata H. Delamination test and the effect of free edge on interface strength of PZT thin films. Integr Ferroelectr
2005;73:67–74.
[92] Kishimoto K, Yan Y, Sumigawa T, Kitamura T. Mixed-mode crack initiation at the edge of Cu/Si interface due to nanoscale stress concentration. Eng
Fract Mech 2012;96:72–81.
[93] Guo L, Kitamura T, Yan Y, Sumigawa T, Huang K. Fracture mechanics investigation on crack propagation in the nano-multilayered materials. Int J
Solids Struct 2015;64–65:208–20.
[94] Reina A, Son HB, Jiao LY, Fan B, Dresselhaus MS, Liu ZF, et al. Transferring and identification of single- and few-layer graphene on arbitrary substrates. J
Phys Chem 2008;112:17741–4.
[95] Liu DF, Zhang WH, Mou DX, He JF, Ou YB, Wang QY, et al. Electronic origin of high-temperature superconductivity in single-layer FeSe
superconductor. Nat Commun 2012;3:931.
[96] Meyyappan M, Delzeit L, Cassell A, Hash D. Carbon nanotube growth by PECVD: a review. Plasma Sources Sci Technol 2003;12:205–16.
[97] Mekechko AV, Merkulov VI, McKnight TE, Cuillon MA, Klein KL, Lowndes DH, et al. Vertically aligned carbon nanofibers and related sutructures:
controlled synthesis and directed assembly. J Appl Phys 2005;97:041301.
[98] Abdi Y, Mohajerzadeh S, Hoseinzadegan H, Koohsorkhi J. Carbon nanostructures on silicon substrates suitable for nanolithography. Appl Phys Lett
2006;8:053124.
[99] Robbie K, Brett MJ, Lakhtakia A. First thin film realization of a helicoidal bianisotropic medium. J Vac Sci Technol 1995;A13:2991.
[100] Suzuki M, Taga Y. Integrated sculptured thin films. Jpn J Appl Phys 2001;40:L358–9.
[101] Sumigawa T, Tanie H, Sakurai A, Iwata K, Chen S, Kitamura T. Substrate temperature control for the formation of metal nano-helices by glancing angle
deposition. J Vac Sci Technol A 2015;33:060609.
[102] Sumigawa T, Hirakata H, Takemura M, Matsumoto S, Suzuki M, Kitamura T. Disappearance of stress singularity at interface edge due to
nanostructured thin film. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:3073–83.
[103] Sumigawa T, Sueda T, Futamura Y, Suzuki M, Kitamura T. Effect of interface layer consisting of nanosprings on stress field near interface edge. Eng
Fract Mech 2009;76:1336–44.
[104] Huang K, Shimada T, Ozaki N, Hagiwara Y, Sumigawa T, Guo L, et al. A unified and universal griffith-based criterion for brittle fracture. Int J Solids
Struct, in press.

Engineering Fracture Mechanics: Takayuki Kitamura, Takashi Sumigawa, Takahiro Shimada, Le Van Lich

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Fracture Mechanics: Takayuki Kitamura, Takashi Sumigawa, Takahiro Shimada, Le Van Lich

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Fracture Mechanics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

Challenge toward nanometer scale fracture mechanics

2. Applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics concept

2.1. Simplest fracture target for challenge in nanometer scale

2.2. Experimental challenge on applicability of fracture mechanics to nanoscale silicon

2.3. Prediction by atomic simulation on the application limit

2.4. Beyond the applicable limit of conventional fracture mechanics

dPcont ðAÞ Pcont ðA þ DAÞ Pcont ðAÞ

DPatom ðAÞ Patom ðA þ DAÞ Patom ðAÞ

2.5. Future direction

3. Nano-interface fracture mechanics

3.1. Experimental difficulty on interface cracking investigation

3.2. Experimental challenge using nano-cantilever specimens with interface edge

(1) As the shape is simple, FIB forming is easy.

3.3. Future direction - further experimental quest on nano-interface cracking

4. Summary next door to ‘‘atomic fracture mechanics

4.1. Unification of fracture at atomic scale

4.2. Experimental advances

The authors acknowledge financial support from JSPS KAKENHI (25000012).

[1] Liebowitz H. Fracture. New York: Academic; 1968.

You might also like