Use of self-assembled monolayers at variable coverage to control interface bonding in a model study of interfacial fracture: Pure shear loading

Journal of Adhesion

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 267-298

  Kent, M S ^a   Yim, H ^a   Matheson, A ^a   Cogdill, C ^a   Nelson, G ^a   Reedy, E D ^a  

^a SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Failure criteria; Fracture mechanisms; Fundamental interactions; Interface strength; Interfacial fracture; Self assembling monolayers; Structural adhesive

Indexed keywords

BONDING; ENERGY DISSIPATION; FRACTURE; MONOLAYERS; PLASTIC DEFORMATION; SELF ASSEMBLY; SILICON WAFERS; THERMOSETS;

FRACTURE ENERGY; INTERFACE BONDING;

INTERFACES (MATERIALS);

EID: 0035761318     PISSN: 00218464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00218460108029605     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Pocius, A.V., Adhesion and Adhesives Technology (Hanser, Cincinnati, OH, 1997).
2. Lee, L.H. Ed., Fundamentals of Adhesion (Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1991).
3. Wu, S., Polymer Interface and Adhesion (Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, 1982).
4. Kinloch, A.J. and Young, R.J., Fracture Behavior of Polymers (Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY, 1983).
5. Cave, N.G. and Kinloch, A.J., Polymer 33, 1162 (1992).
6. Zhuk, A.V., Evans, A.G., Hutchinson, J.W. and Whitesides, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 13, 3555 (1998).
7. Mittal, K.L., In: Adhesion Science and Technology, Lee, L.H. Ed. (Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1975).
8. Gent, A.N. and Schultz, J., J. Adhesion 3, 281 (1972).
9. Andrews, E.H. and Kinloch, A.J., Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 332, 385 (1973); Andrews, E.H. and Kinloch, A.J., Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 332, 401 (1973).
10. Andrews, E.H. and Kinloch, A.J., Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 332, 385 (1973); Andrews, E.H. and Kinloch, A.J., Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 332, 401 (1973).
11. Kim, S., Choi, G.Y., Ulman, A. and Fleischer, C., Langmuir 13, 6850 (1997).
12. Brown, H.R., Macromolecules 24, 2752 (1991).
13. Creton, C. and Kramer, E., Macromolecules 25, 3075 (1992).
14. Washiyama, J., Kramer, E.J. and Hui, C.Y., Macromolecules 26, 2928 (1993).
15. Washiyama, J., Kramer, E.J., Creton, C.F. and Hui, C.Y., Macromolecules 27, 2019 (1994).
16. Gutowski, W., In: Fundamentals of Adhesion, Lee, L.H. Ed. (Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1991).
17. Wasserman, S.R., Whitesides, G.M., Tidswell, I.M., Ocko, B.M., Pershan, P.S. and Axe, J.D., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 111, 5852 (1989).
18. Carraro, C., Yauw, O., Sung, M.M. and Maboudian, R., J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 4441 (1998).
19. Bierbaum, K., Grunze, M., Baski, A.A., Chi, L.F., Schrepp, W. and Fuchs, H., Langmuir 11, 2143 (1995).
20. Banga, R., Yarwood, J., Morgan, A.M., Evans, B. and Kells, J., Langmuir 11, 4393 (1995).
21. Kent, M.S., McNamara, W.F., Baca, P.M., Wright, W., Domeier, L.A., Wong, A.P.Y. and Wu, W.L., J. Adhesion 69, 139 (1999).
22. Russell, T.P., Mater. Sci. Rep. 5, 171 (1990).
23. Adams, R.D. and Wake, W.C., Structural Adhesive Joints In Engineering (Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY, 1984).
24. Adamson, A.W. and Gast, A.P., Physical Chemistry of Surfaces (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1997).
25. Allara, D., Parikh, A.N. and Judge, E., J. Chem. Phys. 100, 1761 (1994).
26. Yamada, S. and Israelachvili, J., J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 234 (1998).
27. Yoshizawa, H., McGuiggan, P. and Israelachvili, J., J. Science 259, 1305 (1993).
28. -9 torr) for 16 hours. No loss of mass was detected upon evacuation.
29. y, comp /√3. The factor of √3 comes from assuming a von Mises yield surface, and relates a uniaxial yield strength to a shear yield strength. The factor of (8/9) reflects the reduction in yield when there is no pressure.
30. Gersappe, D. and Robbins, M.O., Europhys. Lett. 48, 150 (1999).
31. Thomas, R.C., Houston, J.E., Crooks, R.M., Kim, T. and Michalske, T.A., J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 117, 3830 (1995).
32. 2. Taking the larger number, the ratio of the areas per molecule for the two cases is 21. There is uncertainty regarding the number of bonds between the crosslinker and the substrate surface. There are six reactive protons per T403 molecule, but it seems unlikely for geometrical reasons that all would interact with the substrate. For this estimate we assume two bonds to the substrate per T403 molecule. This is an assumption that needs to be examined experimentally. With this assumption, the ratio of the number of interfacial bonds per area for the SAM and epoxy cases is 10.5. This value is believed to be an upper limit. Preferential segregation of the crosslinker to the interface would result in a lower factor. A lower factor will also result if the average number of bonds to the substrate per T403 molecule in the surface layer is greater than two.
33. Kent, M.S., Reedy, E.D. and Stevens, M.J. (2000). Sandia internal report: SAND2000-0026.
34. Yim, H., Kent, M., McNamara, W.F., Ivkov, R., Satija, S. and Majewski, J., Macromolecules 32, 7932 (1999).