J O U R N A L O F M AT E R I A L S S C I E N C E : M AT E R I A L S I N E L E C T RO N I C S 1 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) 2 9 1 ± 3 0 3

Probabilistic strength of {1 1 1} n-type silicon

A. A. WERESZCZAK*, A. S. BARNES 1 , K. BREDER**
Mechanical Characterization and Analysis Group, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN 37831-6069, USA
E-mail: awerzak@arl.mil
SUKHMINDER BINAPAL
Gennum Corporation, Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R 3Y3

The two-parameter Weibull strength distribution of {1 1 1} n-type silicon prismatic bars was
determined in four-point bending and analyzed as a function of specimen size (width),
loading rate, two different crystallographic orientations, and specimen orientation ( polished
or etched surface in tension). 100% fractography was performed to classify strength-limiting
¯aw types and to censor the strength data. All ¯aw types were extrinsic. Machining or cutting
damage in the form of chipped edges (an edge-type ¯aw) was the dominant strength-limiting
¯aw when the polished surface was subjected to tensile stress, while a ¯at-bottomed etch pit
(a surface-type ¯aw) was the dominant strength-limiting ¯aw when the etched surface was
subjected to tensile stress. The censored Weibull strength distribution was independent of
specimen width, loading rate (indicative of slow crack growth insusceptibility), and the two
crystallographic orientations; however, it was dependent on specimen orientation. Pooling
of the strength data was employed to tighten the con®dence intervals about the censored
parameters. The results from this study indicate that different extrinsic strength-limiting
¯aws and strength distributions will be operative depending on the manner in which a silicon
component is stressed.

1. Introduction process involves Au-Au thermo-compression bonding

The mechanical reliability of silicon and silicon devices
may be problematic during both device fabrication and
service. Silicon is a classic brittle material (i.e., has a low
fracture toughness), meaning it is linear elastic until
catastrophic fracture, and its fracture is not determinis-
tically predictable. During fabrication or service, if the
applied tensile stresses exceed the probabilistic tensile
strength of silicon (limited by the presence of pre-
existing ¯aws), then failure will occur [1]. It is desirable
to be able to design for allowable stresses or to predict
service mechanical reliability by taking into account the
probabilistic nature of silicon's strength.
Failure can occur in the silicon during its wafering, cell
processing, or module preparation [1±2]. For example,
silicon chip cracking is sometimes observed during the
``die preparation process''. This process involves
mounting processed silicon wafers on a slice frame and
then dicing them into individual chips. Cracking is
sometimes observed during the process of picking up the
diced chip from the slice frame tape and placing it into a
waf¯e pack. It is assumed that chips fracture when the
pick-up vacuum tip and poking pins on the bottom apply
contact or tensile stress in excess of the probabilistic
tensile strength. Silicon chip cracking has also been
reported during the re¯ow process of ¯ip chip assemblies
due to chip edge ¯aws [3].
Typical applications for diced silicon chips are chip on
board (¯ip chip/wire bonding), inner lead tab bonding
(ILB), and wire bonding for standard packages. The ILB
0957±4522 # 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers
while the wire bonding process typically involves
thermo-compression or thermo-sonic methods. Both
these processes exert a combination of compressive
and tensile stresses on the silicon chip. Obviously it is
highly desirable that the bonding stresses do not exceed
silicon's probabilistic tensile strength to avoid damaging
the bulk or the underlying thin ®lm structures.
Most of the silicon packages require mechanical and
environmental prsotection, so molding or encapsulating
polymers are often used. Typical molding and encapsula-
tion processing involves applying the polymer materials
on the assemblies then curing at elevated temperatures,
typically around 160±175  C. The molded or encapsu-
lated silicon chips and other components of the assembly
are exposed to thermally induced stresses due to thermal
expansion coef®cient mismatches between the molding
compound, silicon, and carrier substrates. Consequently,
the thermal stresses must not exceed the strength of
packaged components for reliable assemblies.
Concerns have increased as integrated circuits have
become larger in size with higher component densities
and device complexity and are utilized in harsher
thermo-mechanically demanding service conditions [2±
4]. Cracking or mechanical failure of the silicon can lead
to modi®cation of the device's electrical response or
even the complete loss of electrical function [5]. Chip
cracking and crating has been reported during the ILB
process due to excessive temperature settings and/or
thermode force settings.
291
 Service mechanical reliability of silicon devices is also
of interest in enabling applications in the ®eld of
microsystems technology (MST). Micromachined
silicon devices can be subjected to complex service
stresses which can cause their fracture and loss of
component functionality. It is very desirable to under-
stand the mechanical limits and strengths of silicon as an
engineering material [6] as applications for MST become
more diverse and complex, including temperature
transducers, microphones, stress sensors, and chemical
sensors.
The intrinsic fracture of single crystal silicon is
controled by the cleavage of preferred crystallographic
planes. Improvements in technology have created a
®nished wafer which is virtually free of dislocations. The
intrinsic strength of the crystallographic planes in such a
single crystal is proportional to their respective surface
energies, with the preferred plane of fracture (i.e., the
weakest) having the fewest number of bonds per unit
area. The preferred cleavage plane in silicon is {1 1 1},
which has a surface energy of 1:23610ÿ4 J cmÿ2 [7].
Interest existed in the present study to determine if, and
how, the strength of the {1 1 1} affected the failure event
and subsequent strength distribution.
The goal of the present study was to determine the
two-parameter Weibull strength distribution of post-
processed silicon wafers. Such an extreme-valued
distribution is typically used to represent the strength
of classic brittle materials (i.e., low fracture toughness)
such as monolithic ceramics and silicon. Additionally,
fractography was performed to identify and classify the
strength-limiting ¯aws which cause fracture in the
silicon, and to censor the strength data. Several articles
have been published concerning the strength of silicon
wafers after various chemical or thermal treatments
[2, 8, 11]; however, fewer articles are available which
investigate silicon's post-processing strength [12±13].
The present study examined the effects of specimen size,
loading rate, crystallographic orientation, and surface
condition on the tensile surface (etched or polished side
in tension) strength. These results are amenable for use
by package designers and end-users to optimize or
predict the pre-service and service probabilistic mechan-
ical reliability of silicon devices.
2. Procedure
Bend bar specimens were sectioned from {1 1 1} n-type
silicon wafers in a manner to facilitate the analyses of
strength dependence on three of the four independent
parameters studied: specimen width, crystallographic
orientation, and specimen orientation. One side of the
wafer was polished while the other was etched (and
contained ¯at-bottomed pits). The strength character-
istics of both surfaces were examined in tension via
¯exure testing (i.e., strength examined as a function of
specimen orientation). A nickel-bonded diamond blade
was used for the specimen dicing or sectioning. It had a
40 mm width, was 108 mm in diameter with an arbor
diameter of 76.2 mm, and contained a diamond grit size
of 3±6 mm. The feed rate during specimen cutting was
5 cm min ÿ 1 and a spindle speed of 30 000 r.p.m. was
used. The edges were not rounded or chamfered.2 Bend
292
bar specimens were nominally 25 mm in length and were
machined to one of three widths: 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 mm
(i.e., strength examined as a function of specimen width).
The thickness of all wafers or specimens was 0.53 mm.
Prior to the bend bar cutting, an adhesive sheet was
mounted on the polished surface; this facilitated keeping
specimens in place during their sectioning, and also
protected them from pre-testing handling damage. Bend
bar specimens were cut from wafers in one of two
crystallographic orientations; the long dimension of the
bend bar perpendicular or parallel to 51 1 24. The
crystallographic orientations were veri®ed using the
Laue technique [14]. The bend bar specimen widths and
crystallographic orientation with respect to the original
wafer are illustrated in Fig. 1.
All strength testing was performed in four-point
uniaxial ¯exure in ambient air (25  C, 50±60% RH)
using a universal test machine3 and adhered to ASTM
C1161 [15] with the exception of specimen size and span
width. Each specimen was carefully placed in the ®xture
with tweezers (which gripped their end outside of the
specimen's test area). Cloth gloves were used at all times
during specimen handling to minimize the likelihood of
any handling damage and skin-oil contamination. The
four-point bend ®xture had an upper and lower span of
3.0 and 6.0 mm, respectively. The measured maximum
load P†, span dimensions for the upper LU † and lower
LL † ®xture spans, and the dimensions of the specimen
width b† and height h† were combined to calculate
fracture strength S† using the classical beam bending
equation for four-point loading,
3P LLÿLU
Sˆ 1†
2 bh2
The loading rollers had a diameter of 0.78 mm (i.e., 50%
larger than the thickness of the silicon specimens), and
were free to rotate during testing.
The measurement of strength as a function of test rate
was the fourth independent parameter examined. The
Figure 1 Schematic drawing showing bend bar specimen widths and
orientations with respect to the silicon wafer.
inert (or ``fast-fracture'') strength testing was performed
in displacement control using a test displacement rate of
0.5 mm min ÿ 1. To examine the activity of any time-
dependent loss of strength, the strength of the silicon
specimens was also measured at two slower rates: 0.05
and 0.005 mm min ÿ 1. Loss in strength with decreasing
test or stressing rate is indicative of slow crack growth
susceptibility (i.e., time-dependent loss in strength), and
an established strength analysis and data reduction
procedure was utilized to examine this [16].
A summary of the specimen and test conditions is
shown in Table I. Sixteen different test conditions were
examined and a minimum of thirty specimens were
tested for each.4 Strength was measured as a function of
specimen width, test rate, crystallographic orientation,
and specimen orientation via these conditions. A
minimum of thirty specimens per condition was chosen
because this number yields acceptable statistical con-
®dence estimates of the Weibull distribution parameters
[17].
The fracture surfaces of each specimen (472 total)
were examined using optical microscopy to identify the
fracture location and its strength-limiting ¯aw.
Fractography and ¯aw identi®cation guidelines speci®ed
in ASTM C1322 were adhered to [18]. Possible failure
locations were sought within the specimen volume, on its
tensile surface, or along one of the two cut edges
subjected to tensile stress. Due to the small size of many
of the strength-limiting ¯aws, numerous fractured
samples were additionally examined at higher magni®ca-
tions with a scanning electron microscope.
The two-parameter Weibull distribution ( parameters:
Weibull modulus and scaling parameter) for both
uncensored and censored strengths were determined
using the CERAMIC computer program [19] which
calculates the distribution parameters along with their
con®dence intervals using maximum likelihood estima-
tion. These strength distributions were then compared as
a function of width, test rate, crystallographic orienta-
tion, and specimen orientation.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Validity of strength testing
The cumulative experimental error associated with the
utilized test ®xture was analyzed and deemed to be 2% or
less based on issues of de¯ections due to the used span,
friction, wedging stresses, and contact point tangency
shifts [15, 20, 21]. If the ratio of the lower to upper span
LL =LU † ®xture dimensions is too low, then loading point
stresses increase and localized contact-crushing can
occur and produce an invalid fracture strength event
and value. If LL =LU is too high, then excessive de¯ection
can occur at the moment of fracture, and result in errors
associated with non-linearity being introduced into the
calculation of strength. The use of the 3:6 mm span
dimensions resulted in the maintenance of elastic beam
bending and the avoidance of specimen/roller contact-
crushing.
Other mechanical tests were considered prior to the
employment of four-point-¯exure testing. Standard test
methods, such as ASTM F417 three-point [22] and
ASTM F394 biaxial ¯exure [23], exist for the strength
testing of brittle electronic grade materials. For the
present study, four-point-¯exure was preferred over
three-point-¯exure because it inherently subjects a
larger volume, surface area, and edge length to the
maximum outer ®ber tensile stress. The biaxial ¯exure
strength testing (a ``ring-on-ring'' con®guration) of
uncut silicon wafers was attempted after careful design
considerations of the ring-on-ring ®xture dimensions.5
However, when the polished surface was tested in biaxial
¯exure, the wafer was so strong that excessive
de¯ections occurred and the top ring eventually
``punched'' through the silicon specimen resulting in
the production of many dozens, if not hundreds, of
silicon fragments. Adhesive tape was then mounted on
one surface of several additional wafers in an effort to
retain the fragmented pieces of wafer after its fracture.
After these additional biaxial tests, this tape-retainment
procedure exhibited a ring-oriented pattern of fragments
whose diameter was the same as the upper ring's

T A B L E I Summary of the specimen and test conditions examined to measure strength.

Specimen width (mm) Testing rate (mm min ÿ 1) Orientation Surface tested in tension No. of samples

2 0.5 h 1 1 0 i* Etched 32
2 0.5 h110i Polished 32
2 0.05 h110i Polished 30
2 0.005 h110i Polished 31
3 0.5 h110i Etched 30
3 0.5 h110i Polished 30
3 0.05 h110i Polished 24
3 0.005 h110i Polished 24
5 0.5 h110i Etched 33
5 0.5 h110i Polished 31
5 0.05 h110i Polished 31
5 0.005 h110i Polished 30
5 0.5 h 1 1 2 i{ Etched 30
5 0.5 h112i Polished 33
5 0.05 h112i Polished 31
5 0.005 h112i Polished 30

*h 1 1 0 i orientation denotes samples with their longer dimension cut parallel to h 1 1 0 i or perpendicular to the wafer's primary ¯at.
{h 1 1 2 i orientation denotes samples with their longer dimension cut parallel to h 1 1 2 i or parallel to the wafer's primary ¯at.

293
diameter; thus, the biaxial ¯exure strength test was concern that the contacting points, and the consequential
concluded to be an invalid test type for these silicon localized stresses they produced, may have been the
wafers because the ring itself caused the fracture, not a source of fracture initiation which would have produced
strength-limiting ¯aw in or on the specimen. a misleading strength distribution. The authors avoided
Others have employed biaxial ¯exure testing for these potential problems by appropriately employing
strength testing of silicon; however, many of the results four-point-¯exure in the present study.
were insuf®ciently reported, so it is dif®cult to interpret
or accept their validity. McLaughlin and Willoughby's
[8] biaxial ¯exure testing of (1 0 0) p-type silicon
3.2. Flaw-types and surface and edge
produced hundreds of fragments which creates concern
characteristics
that linear elasticity or contact-crushing-avoidance or
A signi®cant portion of the discussion of the uncensored
both were violated (similar to what the present authors
and censored strength distribution results relies on the
experienced). Chen and Leipold [12] and Chen [24]
untested silicon's surface and edge characteristics, as
performed biaxial ¯exure prooftesting on silicon wafers
well as the identity of the extrinsic strength limiting
using ASTM F394 and determined an uncensored
¯aws. Consequently, the discussions of these character-
Weibull strength distribution. However, it is unclear
istics, ¯aw-types, and correspondingly used designations
whether the strengths were valid because no fractography
are presented prior to the strength distribution results.
was conducted, and there was no mention of the ratio of
de¯ection at fracture to the specimen width (desired to be
less than 1/2 to maintain linear elasticity). Additionally,
there was no supplemental report of the wafer's surface 3.2.1. Intrinsic and extrinsic ¯aws
roughness with the reported estimated critical ¯aw sizes Although both intrinsic and extrinsic ¯aws limit the
( & 2±5 mm). The authors in the present study have strength of all polycrystalline brittle or ceramic materials

Figure 2 Examples showing the edge where (a) the polished surface and (b) the etched surface intersects the cut surface. A comparison (c) of the
surface roughness of the polished and etched surface and (d) the surface roughness of the polished surface at a ®ner scale.

294
and components, extrinsic ¯aws usually limit the
strength of single crystal brittle materials. Intrinsic
¯aws are inherent to brittle materials, are typically
volume-based, and may be volume-, or surface-, or edge-
located. Examples of intrinsic ¯aws in polycrystalline
brittle materials are pores and relatively large grains.
Extrinsic ¯aws are extraneous to the material, and may
be volume-, surface-, or edge-located (usually, the latter
two locations). Examples of extrinsic ¯aws are foreign
body inclusions in the volume, machining damage or
grinding grooves on the surfaces, and machining-induced
edge chips on the edges. Flaws which are a consequence
of the act of mechanical testing itself (e.g., contact
damage from a bend ®xture's roller or loading ball) are
also extrinsic ¯aws. For defect-free single crystal brittle
materials such as silicon, extrinsic ¯aws such as
machining damage or edge chipping (i.e., surface- or
edge-located ¯aws) will limit its strength. For surface-
located ¯aws which limit the material's strength,
the local uniaxial stress state is inversely related
to the square of the ¯aw size according to the Grif®th
equation,
K strength of these specimens). The edges where the
s ˆ pIc 2†
Y c
where s is the applied maximum tensile stress or
strength, KIc is the material's fracture toughness, Y is a
crack geometry factor (Y ˆ 29 for a surface-located,
semi-circular ¯aw), and c is the ¯aw depth in this
context. Literature reports the fracture toughness of
silicon to be a function of crystallographic orientation but
in the range of &1:0+0:2 MPaHm [25±26]. The
strength of silicon wafers or components will then
depend on their surface or edge conditions; a ®nely
polished surface which is ¯exed will produce a higher
strength than a coarser polished surface because c will be
lower.
The intrinsic strength of defect-free single crystal
silicon is high (bulk strength due to dislocations & 3±
4 GPa and theoretical strength & 32 GPa [27]), and is
almost impossible to measure using conventional
specimen preparation and strength-testing techniques
due to its high value. The intrinsic defects are typically
much smaller than extrinsic defects (which are
typically a consequence of the specimen preparation
process or mechanical testing). Furthermore, the test
®xture used to apply the failure stress to the specimen
must not produce strength-limiting damage (e.g.,
contact-crushing, scratching from contacting friction
of the loading rollers, etc.). Wilson et al., [13]
performed an interesting and unique fracture testing
examination of silicon microcantilever beams; although
surface roughness and fracture markings were exam-
ined, no ¯aw identi®cation fractography results were
reported, so the reader is unable to conclude if the
surface or edge characteristics or intrinsic ¯aws limited
the strength. Fractography is the only way to
unequivocally identify intrinsic or extrinsic ¯aws; if
not conducted or reported, then one should conserva-
tively assume that unidenti®ed extrinsic ¯aws are
limiting the silicon's strength.
The exploitation of the strength-limiting ¯aw(s) of the
silicon wafer in service, and its associated strength
distributions, of course, is of paramount interest for
probabilistic design and mechanical reliability analysis:
if these ¯aws are extrinsic, then the exploitation of
intrinsic ¯aws and the determination of their associated
strength distributions are actually not required. For
example, if the failure of silicon wafers in service
originates from stresses applied to edge-¯aws, then the
strength distribution dictated by those edge ¯aws needs
to be determined. Although the determination of strength
distributions for intrinsic ¯aws in silicon would be of
academic interest, they are not applicable for service
mechanical reliability analysis because extrinsic ¯aws
are likely to be larger and would limit the silicon's
mechanical performance.
3.2.2. Surface and edge characteristics of
as-received silicon
The condition of the silicon wafer's surfaces was the
source of the extrinsic strength limiting ¯aws (there were
no operative intrinsic or volume ¯aws limiting the
polished and etched surfaces intersect the cut surface are
shown in Figs 2a and b, respectively. The qualitative
surface roughness of the polished and etched surfaces
was measured using a surface pro®lometer6 over a
scanned distance of 1.2 mm. The qualitative differences
in the roughness of the two surfaces are shown in Fig. 2c
which shows the roughness of the polished surface is
signi®cantly less than that for the etched surface. A ®ner
scale of the roughness of the polished surface is shown in
Fig. 3d. The depth of the etch pits is approximately 5 m
while the depth of the roughness on the polished surface
is two orders of magnitude ®ner at approximately 50 nm.
Using these values as examples of strength-limiting ¯aw
sizes in Equation 2 results in strengths of approximately
350 MPa and 3500 MPa for etched and polished surfaces,
respectively, for a KIc ˆ 1:0 MPa Hm (latter strength
value approaching that of dislocation-limited strength
[27]).7 Although the latter strength is an order of
magnitude larger, it is still a strength value which is
limited by an extrinsic ¯aw. The authors recognize that
different ¯aw geometries will affect the value of Y in
Equation 2 and the above discussion of calculated
strengths from the pro®lometry data. However, the
strengths when considering a very severe case such as
a long elliptical ¯aw (Y ˆ 1:99 [18] instead of 1.29)
decreases the above calculated strengths to approxi-
mately 225 and 2250 MPa for etched and polished
surfaces, respectively.
The chipping on edges (which resulted from the bend
bar machining) was the source of a strength-limiting
¯aw. An example of the chipping is evident on the
specimen edge shown in Fig. 2a. The size of these
chips on the specimen edges was much larger than the
& 50 nm surface roughness of the polished surface, so
they limited the strength when the polished surface was
tested in tension. Such chipping of (1 1 0) and (1 0 0)
silicon wafers occurs more readily than for (1 1 1) silicon
wafers [4], so it may be argued that increased dominance
of the edge ¯aw in (1 1 0) and (1 0 0) silicon wafers would
295
Figure 3 Four distinct ¯aw types limited the strength of the silicon: (a) edge, (b) surface 1, (c) surface 2, and (d) surface 3. The dominant ¯aw types
when the polished and etched surfaces were tested in tension were edge and surface 1 ¯aws, respectively.

be expected over its dominance with the (1 1 1) silicon

wafers in the present study.
The dominance of one strength-limiting ¯aw over
others was a consequence of the differences in the
surface roughness of both sides, and their relative
severity compared to that of the depth of the chips on
the silicon bend bar edges.

3.2.3. Strength-limiting ¯aw types

Four distinct strength-limiting ¯aw types were observed
during fractography of the 472 silicon bend specimens
and all were extrinsic ¯aws; one was a corner ¯aw, and
the remaining three were different surface-type ¯aws.
These four ¯aw types were de®ned in the present study as
``edge,'' ``surface 1,'' ``surface 2,'' and ``surface 3''
¯aws, and representative examples of each are shown in
Figs 3a to d, respectively. The edge ¯aw was the result of Figure 4 A representative example showing the trends that uncensored
machining or cutting damage in the form of chipped Weibull modulus and characteristic strength was lower and higher,
edges; it was the dominant ¯aw when the polished respectively, for the polished surface than the etched surface.

296
surface was tested in tension. An oblique perspective of
these chips or edge ¯aws is also shown on the edge in
Fig. 2a. The surface 1 ¯aw was a ¯at-bottomed etch pit
which initiated fracture; it was the dominant ¯aw when
the etched surface was tested in tension. The surface 2
¯aw was due to contacting damage caused by one of the
loading rollers; it was rarely active (caused fracture in
only 4 of the 472 specimens). The surface 3 ¯aw was
located on the cut surface; it also was rarely active
(caused fracture in only 9 of the 472 specimens). The
strengths were censored with respect to these four ¯aw
types.
3.3. Uncensored statistics
Uncensored statistical results provided insights into the
trends in strength; however, they inherently did not
acknowledge specimen size and dominant ¯aw type
differences among the 16 test conditions, so only
qualitative judgments were allowed from their examina-
tions and comparisons. The uncensored two-parameter
Weibull distribution for each test condition was
represented by,
m
Pf ˆ 17 exp‰7 S=sy † Š; 3†
where Pf is the probability of failure, S is the fracture
stress from Equation 1, sy is the characteristic strength,
and m is the Weibull modulus. There is no account of
how the specimen was mechanically loaded, what its size
was, or what its strength-limiting ¯aw was in the form of
Equation 3; consequently, extreme caution must be made
when comparing or interpreting uncensored statistics if
strength distributions were generated using different
loading scenarios, specimen sizes, or if more than one
strength-limiting ¯aw type was operative.
The uncensored Weibull modulus was conclusively
lower and the uncensored characteristic strength was
subtly higher for the polished surface tested in tension
than the etched surface tested in tension. Listings of the
uncensored statistical results are shown in Tables II and
III for the polished and etched surfaces tested in tension,
respectively. A representative example of these trends in
uncensored Weibull modulus and characteristic strength
is illustrated in Fig. 4, which shows existing differences
between the strength distributions for polished and
etched 2 mm h1 1 0i conditions. These trends in the two
parameters were independent of the investigated
specimen widths and crystallographic orientations.
3.4. Censored statistics
The concurrent activity of strength-limiting ¯aws
required strength data censoring in order to validly
compare the strength distributions among the 16 test
conditions. The concurrence of the four identi®ed ¯aw
types is illustrated in the graphical examples in Figs 5a
and b. The non-dominant strength-limiting ¯aw in any
given set did not necessarily account for the weakest
strengths. Edge, surface 2, and surface 3 ¯aws were
concurrent ¯aws when the polished surface was tested in
tension, while surface 1 and edge ¯aws were concurrent
¯aws when the etched surface was tested in tension. The
activity or dependence of a single ¯aw type (i.e.,
censored strength) was analyzed as a function of
specimen size (width), test rate, crystallographic orienta-
tion and specimen orientation.
Parameters may be added to Equation 3 to yield a
censored Weibull distribution representation which
accounts for how the specimen was loaded, what its
size was, and whether an edge-, surface-, or volume-¯aw
caused the specimen's failure. The two-parameter
Weibull distribution representation for specimen
strengths limited by edge-¯aws is:
Pf ˆ 17 exp‰7kL L S=sOL †m Š 4†
where kL is an edge multiaxial and stress gradient factor,
L is the specimen's total edge length, and sOL is a scaling
parameter for edge ¯aws. The nature of edge loading, its
subsequent stresses, and their dependence on the Weibull
modulus are accounted for in kL . The Weibull distribu-
tion for the edge ¯aw shown in Fig. 3a is represented by
Equation 4. The two-parameter Weibull distribution
representation for strengths limited by surface-¯aws is:
Pf ˆ 17 exp‰7kA A S=sOA †m Š 5†
where kA is a surface multiaxial and stress gradient
factor, A is the specimen's total surface area, and sOA is a
scaling parameter for surface ¯aws. The nature of surface
area loading, its subsequent stresses, and its dependence
on the Weibull modulus are accounted for in kA . The
Weibull distributions for the three different surface ¯aw
types shown in Fig. 3b to d are represented by Equation
5, but were analyzed separately. Lastly, the two-
parameter Weibull distribution representation for
strengths limited by volume-¯aws is:
m
Pf ˆ 17 exp‰7kV V S=sOV † Š 6†
where kV is a volume multiaxial and stress gradient
factor, V is the specimen's total volume, and sOV is a
scaling parameter for volume ¯aws. The nature of
volume loading, its subsequent stresses, and its depend-
ence on the Weibull modulus are accounted for in kV .
None of the bend bars failed from volume ¯aws so the
use of Equation 6 was not required in any of the analyses,
however, it was included in this discussion for the sake of
completeness.
The censored strength distributions were determined
using a Weibull distribution statistics computer program
called CERAMIC which considered their concurrent
activity and accounted for how each specimen was
mechanically loaded, what its size was, and whether an
edge-, surface-, or volume-¯aw caused its failure. The
total probability of failure Pft † when concurrent
individual ¯aw populations (for example, Pfa and Pfb
functions representing ¯aw populations ``a'' and ``b,''
respectively) are limiting strength is represented by [28],
17Pft ˆ 17Pfa † 17Pfb † 7†
or
Pft ˆ 17 17Pfa † 17Pfb † 8†
A third term would exist in the right-hand-side of
Equations 7 and 8 if three concurrent ¯aw populations
were limiting strength (etc. for four or more concurrent
¯aws). The probability of failure expressions in
297
T A B L E I I Summary of the uncensored and censored Weibull distributions for the test conditions involving the silicon's polished surface being
testing in tension.

Specimen Test Censored statistics Censored statistics Censored statistics

rate Uncensored statistics ``surface 2'' ¯aw type ``surface 3'' ¯aw type ``edge'' ¯aw type
(mm min) ÿ 1
Weibull Characteristic Weibull Scaling Weibull Scaling Weibull Scaling
modulus strength modulus parameter modulus parameter modulus parameter
m sy m soA m soA m soL
(MPa) MPa mm2=m † MPa mm2=m † MPa mm1=m †

2 mm 2.8 305 2.8 622

h1 1 0i 0.5 (2.2, 3.6) (266, 348) (2.2, 3.6) (530, 799)
n ˆ 32 n ˆ 32 n ˆ 32 n ˆ 32
3 mm 4.5 262 2.7 1515 4.6 404
h1 1 0i 0.5 (3.4, 5.9) (240, 285) (*,9 3) (415, *) (3.4, 6.0) (364, 478)
n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 nˆ1 nˆ1 n ˆ 29 n ˆ 29
5 mm 2.9 302 5.2 871 2.9 612
h1 1 0i 0.5 (2.2, 3.7) (264, 343) (0.8, 14.0) (564, *) (2.2, 3.7) (522, 789)
n ˆ 31 n ˆ 31 nˆ1 nˆ1 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30
5 mm 3.5 359 2.6 2699 3.6 635
h1 1 2i 0.5 (2.7, 4.5) (323, 398) (0.2, 8.4) (681, *) (2.7, 4.5) (559, 776)
n ˆ 33 n ˆ 33 nˆ1 nˆ1 n ˆ 32 n ˆ 32
2 mm 2.6 300 2.6 654
h1 1 0i 0.05 (2.0, 3.3) (257, 347) (2.0, 3.3) (549, 860)
n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30
3 mm 3.8 261 3.8 439
h110i 0.05 (2.7, 5.1) (232, 292) (2.7, 5.1) (383, 552)
n ˆ 24 n ˆ 24 n ˆ 24 n ˆ 24
5 mm 4.3 406 3.8 1141 4.3 654
h110i 0.05 (3.2, 5.6) (370, 423) (1.2, 8.1) (649, *) (3.1, 5.7) (483, 794)
n ˆ 31 n ˆ 31 nˆ3 nˆ3 n ˆ 28 n ˆ 28
5 mm 3.2 355 13 * 3.5 644
h112i 0.05 (2.4, 4.2) (315, 400) (0.2, 3.5) (2.6, 4.5) (564, 797)
n ˆ 31 n ˆ 31 nˆ2 nˆ2 n ˆ 29 n ˆ 29
2 mm 5.1 269 14.7 374 5.0 400
h110i 0.005 (3.8, 6.6) (249, 289) (2.0, *) (332, *) (3.7, 6.5) (363, 466)
n ˆ 31 n ˆ 31 nˆ1 nˆ1 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30
3 mm 3.5 272 3.5 484
h110i 0.005 (2 5, 4 6) (239, 308) (2.5, 4.6) (418, 620)
n ˆ 24 n ˆ 24 n ˆ 24 n ˆ 24
5 mm 44 411 2.6 3130 2.0 4117 4.8 636
h110i 0.005 (3.3, 57) (376, 449) (*, 8.6) (723, *) (0.4, 5.4) (866, *) (3.6, 6.2) (577, 743)
n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 nˆ1 nˆ1 nˆ2 nˆ2 n ˆ 27 n ˆ 27
5 mm 3.6 330 5.3 865 3.5 587
h112i 0.005 (2.6, 4.6) (295, 377) (0.6, 15.0) (523, *) (2.6, 4.6) 510, 738)
n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 nˆ1 nˆ1 n ˆ 29 n ˆ 29
3.9 1216 2.2 3183 31 634
Pooled data Not applicable (1.6, 7.1) (721, *) (1.1, 3.6) (1263, *) (2.8, 3.3) (602, 674)
nˆ4 nˆ4 nˆ9 nˆ9 n ˆ 344 n ˆ 344

Note: Values in parenthesis constitute a 95% con®dence interval; n is the number of specimens in that distribution; and * represents an undetermined
result due to an insuf®cient number of data points and the inability of the statistical analysis software to obtain a convergent solution.

Equations 3 to 5 represent the probability of failure terms
on the right-hand-side of Equations 7 and 8, and were
computed as such by the CERAMIC program using
maximum likelihood analysis. The censored results for
the 16 test conditions are listed in Tables II and III. These
quantitative results facilitated the strength dependence
examination on the various independent parameters.
3.4.1. Strength as a function of specimen
size (width)
3.4.1.1. Polished side in tension: h 1 1 0i and h1 1 2i
orientations. The edge ¯aw was the primary strength-
limiting ¯aw and its censored Weibull modulus and
scaling parameter (Equation 4) were statistically equiva-
lent for all specimen widths (see Table II). This result is
298
logical because the specimen widths varied from 2.0, 3.0,
and 5.0 mm, however, the edge lengths and edge-length-
stress-gradients did not vary among these differing
widths because the same 3 mm/6 mm ®xture was used
for all tests. Consequently, strength was not a function of
specimen size (width) in this case because specimen size
(i.e., edge length where the edge ¯aw type was operative
and dominant) was not changing between test conditions.
If strength indeed were dependent on edge length, then
additional and different ®xture sizes other than the 3 mm/
6 mm ®xture used in the present study would have been
required to exploit it.
The observed censored strength distribution independ-
ence on specimen width is consistent with results from a
recently conducted study involving micro-tensile testing
of polycrystalline silicon. Tsuchiya et al. [29] performed
T A B L E I I I Summary of the uncensored and censored Weibull distributions for the test conditions involving the silicon's etched surface being
testing in tension.

Specimen Test Censored statistics Censored statistics

rate Uncensored statistics ``surface 1'' ¯aw type ``edge'' ¯aw type

(mm min) ÿ 1 Weibull Characteristic Weibull Scaling Weibull Scaling

modulus strength modulus parameter modulus parameter
m sy m soA m soL
(MPa) MPa mm2=m † MPa mm1=m †

2 mm 5.2 292 4.9 340 7.0 514

h1 1 0i 0.5 (3.8, 6.7) (271, 303) (3.5, 6.5) (314, 388) (3.2, 12.2) (420, 972)
n ˆ 32 n ˆ 32 n ˆ 27 n ˆ 27 nˆ5 nˆ5
3 mm 7.2 282 7.1 304 14.0 413
h1 1 0i 0.5 (5.3, 9.5) (257, 287) (5.2, 9.4) (288, 331) 1.6, 43.2) (338, *)
n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 29 n ˆ 29 nˆ1 nˆ1
5 mm 6.3 284 6.3 351
h1 1 0i 0.5 (408, 8.0) (267, 300) (4.8, 8.0) (329, 389)
n ˆ 33 n ˆ 33 n ˆ 33 n ˆ 33
5 mm 5.9 261 5.9 330
h1 1 2i 0.5 (4.4, 7.6) (244, 278) (4.4, 7.6) (306, 372)
n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30 n ˆ 30
5.8 336 8.1 491
Pooled data Not applicable (5.1, 6.7) (323, 353) (4.2, 13.1) (415, 783)
n ˆ 119 n ˆ 119 nˆ6 nˆ6

Note: Values in parenthesis constitute a 95% con®dence interval; n is the number of specimens in that distribution; and * represents an undetermined
result due to an insuf®cient number of data points and the inability of the statistical analysis software to obtain a convergent solution.

tensile testing on specimens having different gage
section widths and lengths, and observed that the
measured strength was a function of specimen length
and not width. This result is consistent with the results of
the present study described in the preceding paragraph.
More quantitative comparisons cannot be made between
these two studies because Tsuchiya et al. did not
represent their tensile strengths using Equation 4 (for
fracture limited by edge ¯aws) nor scaled them to a unit
length. This is unfortunate because it would have been
the appropriate distributions to use, and it also would
have been interesting to compare scaling parameters and
interpret differences or similarities between the study's
two silicon materials tested. Tsuchiya et al. instead used
Equation 5 and 6 to show that distributions representing
surface area and volume strength-limiting ¯aws did not
represent their strengths.
3.4.1.2. Etched side in tension: h1 1 0i orientation. The
surface 1 ¯aw was the primary strength-limiting ¯aw for
these differing specimen widths (see Table III).
According to Equation 5, the strength of bend bars
with a larger surface area (e.g., 5 mm wide specimens)
should be lower than for bend bars with a smaller surface
area (e.g., 2 mm wide specimens) for equal probabilities
of failure. The anticipated ratio of strength differences
are represented by8
1=m
S2 mm =S5 mm ˆ A5 mm =A2 mm †
ˆ 15 mm2 =6 mm2 †1=6:1 ˆ 1:16 9†
where S5 mm and S2 mm are characteristic strengths of the
5 and 2 mm wide specimens, and A5 mm and A2 mm are
areas subjected to tensile stress for the 5 and 2 mm wide
specimens.9 This example involving these two extreme
specimen sizes indicates that the strength of the 2 mm
wide specimens should be approximately 16% greater
than the 5 mm wide specimens when a surface-¯aw is the

(a) (b)

Figure 5 Examples showing the concurrent activity of different strength-limiting ¯aw populations. Concurrent populations when the (a) polished and
(b) etched surfaces were tested in tension.

299
strength-limiting ¯aw (similarly, the characteristic
strength of the 2 mm wide specimen is anticipated to
be approximately 7% larger than that for the 3 mm wide
specimens according to Equation 9). Although there is a
slight indication that the characteristic strengths are
decreasing (see Table III) with increase in specimen size,
this indication cannot be statistically concluded within
95% con®dence. Therefore, the characteristic strengths
for these three sets were deemed statistically equivalent.
The censored Weibull modulus and scaling parameter for
the dominant surface 1 ¯aw was statistically equivalent
for all sets (see Table III).
The effect of size on silicon strength is rarely
presented in the literature. In one study conducted by
Pearson et al. [30] a decrease in strength for increasing
silicon rod sizes up to 100 mm on a side tested in bending
was reported, and above that size the strength was
independent of specimen size. However, the usefulness
and interpretation of these results is limited because no
fractographical examinations or strength-limiting ¯aw
discussions were presented.
3.4.2. Strength as a function of test loading
rate
The scaling parameter of the Weibull distribution did not
change and was independent of the test loading rate
within 95% con®dence. This independence of loading
rate is evident by the equivalently valued censored
scaling parameters listed in Table II. This indicates that
the silicon was not susceptible to slow crack growth (i.e.,
fatigue, or time-dependent loss in strength) over the
examined loading rates [16]. This is a signi®cant
observation because it indicates that the same silicon
strength data generated using relatively fast test loading
Figure 6 Different crystallographic orientations produced different fracture orientation. Schematics of the preferred fracture orientations for the (a)
h1 1 2i and (b) h1 1 0i specimens are indicated, along with examples of (c) h1 1 2i and (d) h1 1 0i fractured specimens.
300
rates may be used for the design of silicon components
subjected to long-term tensile stress ®elds. Additionally,
the slow crack growth insusceptibility of the silicon
permits the application of proof testing to ®lter out the
weakest wafers without the concern that the actual act of
proof testing would in itself weaken the survivors. Note
that this result was independent of specimen size and
only applied when the silicon's polished side was
subjected to tensile stress.10 Lastly, the edge ¯aw type
was the primary strength-limiting ¯aw type for all these
test cases.
The identi®cation in the present study of silicon slow
crack growth insusceptibility is consistent with results
from previous studies. Chen and Liepold [31] observed
no subcritical crack growth in the {1 1 1} plane of silicon
using the double torsion test method, and the same
authors in other studies [1±12] reported similar results,
including no change in strength with stressing rate of
f1 0 0g p-type silicon wafers tested in pin on three pin
biaxial ¯exure. Slow crack growth insusceptibility has
also been identi®ed in silicon at temperatures above
ambient [32].
Although its existence is infrequent, some evidence
exists in the literature that contradicts the above ®ndings
of slow crack growth insusceptibility in silicon. Bharduri
and Wang [33] identi®ed slow crack growth suscept-
ibility using the double torsion test technique, however,
Chen and Liepold [31] were not able to replicate the
®nding using the same technique. Connally and Brown
[34] reported slow crack growth susceptibility using a
resonated cantilever beam silicon specimen, but their
®nding was based on only one specimen and the
possibility of a reverse cyclic fatigue effect [35] as a
contribution to their result was not accounted for in their
analysis.
3.4.3. Crystallographic orientation
The censored strength distributions were equivalent for
both examined crystallographic orientations independ-
ent of specimen orientation. The censored Weibull
parameters for the dominant edge ¯aw (i.e., polished
surface tested in tension) were statistically equivalent
for the h1 1 0i and h1 1 2i orientations independent of
test rate. Additionally, the censored Weibull parameters
for the dominant surface 1 ¯aw (i.e., etched surface
tested in tension) were also equivalent for both
orientations.
The two crystallographic orientations examined
produced differing fracture orientations. This was the
result of the preferential fracture plane {1 1 1} having
differing orientations (see Figs 6a and b) with respect to
the long axis of the h1 1 2i or h1 1 0i bend bars. As
discussed earlier, the preferred cleavage plane of silicon
is {1 1 1}, which has the lowest surface energy of any
plane in the structure. Fracture in both orientations
followed the {1 1 1} set of planes, with preference
towards the primary fracture surface 1 1 1† of bend bars
having their length parallel to h1 1 2i, or perpendicular to
the tensile axis as shown in Fig. 6c. However, the fracture
surfaces of bend bars having their length parallel to
h1 1 0i were serrated in appearance ( planes 1 1 1† and
Figure 7 Example of ``cathedral-like'' fracture markings observed in many h1 1 0i specimens whose etched surface was tested in tension.
(1 1 1) and often branched as shown in Fig. 6d. This
difference in fracture orientation was independent of the
loading rate and specimen orientation.
3.4.4. Specimen orientation
The censored distributions for the polished and etched
surfaces were different because each had different
dominant strength-limiting ¯aws (edge versus surface 1
¯aw), and this observation was independent of specimen
width and crystallographic orientation. This indicates
that different strength-limiting ¯aws and strength
distributions will be operative depending on the
manner in which a silicon specimen (or component) is
stressed. Because of this difference in activity of
dominant ¯aw type, a direct comparison of the censored
scaling parameter cannot be made as a function of
specimen orientation (analogous to trying to compare a
length to an area). However, the censored Weibull
modulus of each ¯aw type may be compared as they
represent how scattered the strengths were for each
distribution. The average censored Weibull modulus for
the four sets tested at 0.5 mm min ÿ 1 and with their
polished side loaded in tension was 3.5, while that for the
four sets tested at the same rate but with their etched side
301
loaded in tension was 6.2. The larger-valued censored
Weibull modulus for the surface 1 ¯aw indicates that it
produced less scatter in strength than the edge ¯aw (or
that the size of the etch-pits had a narrower size
distribution).
Fractography revealed the presence of unique fracture
markings associated only with the h1 1 0i specimens
whose etched surface was tested in tension (Table III). A
typical fracture surface of such a specimen is shown in
Fig. 7. Rice [36] described such a fracture surface as
having a ``cathedral-like'' mirror followed by ``whisker-
lance mist hackle,'' which then branched onto a more
preferred plane of crack propagation. No ``cathedral-
like'' patterns were identi®ed on the h1 1 2i specimens
whose etched surface was tested in tension. The fracture
surface of such h1 1 2i specimens typically only
contained a long parallel series of ``whisker-lance''
lines (e.g., Fig. 3b).
3.4.5. Pooled censored statistics
Pooling fracture strengths from multiple specimen types
may be used to validate size-scaling, calculate parameter
estimates with smaller con®dence intervals, combine
data that was generated with different specimen sizes and
geometries, and initial component test data may be
combined with laboratory specimen fracture data to
determine self-consistency [37]. The intent of pooling
the censored data in the present study was to lessen the
con®dence intervals of the censored Weibull parameters.
The CERAMIC computer program was used to calculate
the pooled censored statistics.
The edge ¯aw was the dominant strength-limiting ¯aw
when the polished surface was loaded in tension for all
test specimen widths, loading rates, and crystallographic
orientations investigated. As a consequence of this, the
strengths which were limited by the edge ¯aw were
pooled, and the Weibull modulus and scaling parameter
were determined to be 3.1 and 634 MPa mm1/m,
respectively (344 of 357 specimens). The 95% con-
®dence intervals for these censored parameters were 2.8±
3.3 and 602±674 MPa mm1/m. These pooled statistical
values are recommended for use in the design and
mechanical reliability analysis of silicon components in
service.
The surface 1 ¯aw was the dominant strength-limiting
¯aw when the etched surface was loaded in tension for all
test specimen widths and crystallographic orientations
investigated. As a consequence of this, the strengths that
were limited by the surface 1 ¯aw were pooled, and the
Weibull modulus and scaling parameter were deter-
mined to be 5.8 and 336 MPa mm2/m, respectively (119
of 125 specimens). The 95% con®dence intervals for
these censored parameters were 5.1±6.7 and 323±
353 MPa mm2/m. Likewise, these pooled statistical
values are recommended for use in the design and
mechanical reliability analysis of silicon components in
service.
4. Conclusions
Extrinsic ¯aws limited the strength of the f1 1 1g n-type
silicon examined. The presence of these ¯aws was a
302
consequence of the silicon wafer's preparation (etch pits),
the cutting of the specimens (edge and surface chips), and
from test-®xture-induced damage. Intrinsic ¯aws did not
limit the strength because their size (if present) was much
smaller than any of the extrinsic ¯aw sizes.
The uncensored Weibull modulus was conclusively
lower and the uncensored characteristic strength was
subtly higher for the polished surface tested in tension
than the etched surface tested in tension. These trends
were independent of specimen widths and crystallo-
graphic orientations investigated.
The censored results from the polished surface being
tested in tension yielded several conclusions. Machining
or cutting damage in the form of chipped edges (edge-
type-¯aw) was the dominant strength-limiting ¯aw. It
was the dominant ¯aw for all test specimen widths,
loading rates, and investigated crystallographic orienta-
tions. The censored Weibull modulus and scaling
parameter were independent of crystallographic orienta-
tion. All bend specimens had the same edge length, so
strength-dependence on specimen width was not
expected and the strength results con®rmed this. The
Weibull modulus and scaling parameter for the pooled
censored machining chip edge ¯aw were 3.1 and
634 MPa mm1/m, respectively (344 of 357 specimens).
The 95% con®dence intervals for these censored
parameters were 2.8±3.3 and 602±674 MPa mm1/m.
Lastly, the silicon was not susceptible to slow crack
growth (i.e., fatigue or time-dependent loss in strength).
The censored results from the etched surface being
tested in tension also yielded several conclusions. A ¯at-
bottomed etch pit (surface-type-¯aw) was the dominant
strength-limiting ¯aw. It was the dominant ¯aw type for
all test specimen widths and investigated crystal-
lographic orientations. The censored Weibull modulus
and scaling parameter were independent of crystal-
lographic orientation. The strength of the silicon was
independent of specimen width; however, the surface
area differences among the 2, 3, and 5 mm wide
specimens may not be suf®cient to exploit any existence
of size-dependent strength. The Weibull modulus and
scaling parameter for the pooled censored etch pit
¯aw were 5.8 and 336 MPa mm2/m, respectively (119 of
125 specimens). The 95% con®dence intervals for
these censored parameters were 5.1±6.7 and 323±
353 MPa mm2/m.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank G. R. Romanoski and J. H.
Schneibel for their review and their helpful comments
and suggestions. Additionally, gratitude is expressed for
the pro®lometry results generated by R. J. Parten.
Research sponsored by the US Department of Energy,
Assistant Secretary for Energy Ef®ciency and Renewable
Energy, Of®ce of Transportation Technologies, as part of
the Advanced Automotive Materials Program, under
contract DE-AC05-00OR72564 with UT-Battelle, LLC.
Notes
* Currently with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD.
** Currently with Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Worcester, MA.
1. Currently with the Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
2. The data generated in this study are in reference to this sectioning
procedure and the possible strength-limiting ¯aws it produces; their
extension for use with silicon machined by differing procedures is
cautioned because there is no guarantee that the same operative
strength-limiting ¯aws would exist.
3. Model 1605, Applied Test Systems, Butler, PA.
4. Only twenty-four specimens were tested in two of the test sets due
to limited numbers of specimens.
5. The analysis and choice of the two ring diameters was analogous to
the choice of the 3 mm/6 mm span dimensions being used for the
uniaxial four-point-¯exure testing; namely, the required main-
tenance of linear elasticity and avoidance of contact-crushing
during biaxial ¯exure testing.
6. Form Talysurf 120, Rank Taylor Hobson Limited, Leicester, UK.
7. This qualitative analysis assumed a uniaxial stress state, which is
what largely exists with a ¯exure test. In service though, multiaxial
stresses at the surface may be present, so Equation 2 cannot be
strictly used in its form. Probabilistic design and life prediction
codes can input the uniaxially generated data and combine it with a
multiaxial fracture criterion to analyze multiaxial fracture, so this
issue is not problematic to design.
8. This is achieved by dividing Equation 5 for a 2 mm wide specimen
by Equation 5 for a 5 mm wide specimen.
9. For this illustration, m ˆ 6:1 was used, and was an average value of
the censored moduli for the 2 mm h1 1 0i, 3 mm h1 1 0i and 5 mm
h1 1 0i test conditions.
10. Etched surface strength as a function of test loading rate was not
examined due to lack of specimens.
References
1. M. H . L E I P O L D and C . P. C H E N , Proceedings of the
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference (Athens, Greece, 1984)
p. 1014.
2. S . - M . L E E , S . - M . S I M , Y. - W. C H U N G , Y. - K . J A N G and
H . - K . C H O , Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 36 (1997) 3374.
3. K . X . H U , C . - P. Y E H , B . D O O T, A . F. S K I P O R and K . W.
W Y AT T, Proceedings of the Forty-®ve Electronic Components
And Technology Conference (1995) 293.
4. F. S H I M U R A , ``Semiconductor Silicon Crystal Technology''
(Academic Press, San Diego, 1989).
5. B . R . L AW N , D . B . M A R S H A L L and P. C H A N T I K U L , J. Mater.
Sci. 16 (1981) 1769.
6. K . E . P E T E R S E N , Proc. IEEE 70 (1982) 75.
7. R . J . J AC CO D I N E , J. Electrochem. Soc 110 (1963) 524.
8. J . C . M C L A U G H L I N and A . F. W. W I L LO U G H B Y , J. Cryst.
Growth 85 (1987) 83.
9. K . Y A S U TA K E , M . I WATA , K . YO S H I , M . U M E N O and H .
K AWA B E , J. Mater. Sci 21 (1986) 2185.
10. S . M . G A S A N L I , N . M . G A S A N LY and A . K . S T Y R E LT S O V,
Phys. Status Solidi A 127 (1991) 127.
11. K . S U E O K A , M . A K AT S U K A , H . K ATA H A M A and N .
A D AC H I , J. Electrochem. Soc. 144 (1997) 1111.
12. C . P. C H E N and M . H . L E I P O L D , Commun. Am. Cer. Soc. 68
(1985) .
13. C . J . W I L S O N , A . O R M E G G I and M . N A R B U T OV S K I H ,
J. Appl. Phys. 79 (1996) 2386.
14. C . K I T T E L , ``Introduction to Solid State Physics'' 4th edn (John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1971).
15. ``Test Method for Flexure Strength of Advanced Ceramics at
Ambient Temperatures,'' ASTM C1161, ``Annual Book Of
ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.01,'' (American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998).
16. ``Test Method for Determination of Slow Crack Growth
Parameters of Advanced Ceramics by Constant Stress-Rate
Flexural Testing at Ambient Temperatures,'' ASTM C1368
``Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.01,'' (American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
1998).
17. ``Practice for Reporting Uniaxial Strength Data and Estimating
Weibull Distribution Parameters for Advanced Ceramics,'' ASTM
C1239 ``Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.01,''
(American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1998).
18. ``Standard Practice for Fractography and Characterization of
Fracture Origins in Advanced Ceramics,'' ASTM C1322,
``Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.01,'' (American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
1998).
19. ``Life Prediction Methodology for Ceramic Components of
Advanced Heat Engines, Phase 1,'' Prepared By AlliedSignal
Engines, Phoenix, AZ, ORNL/sub/89-SC674/1±2 (DOE Of®ce of
Transportation Technologies, 1995).
20. F. I . B A R AT TA , W. T. M AT T H E W S and G . D . Q U I N N , ``Errors
Associated with Flexure Testing of Brittle Materials,'' ``U.S.
Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Report Mtl Tr 87-35,''
(Watertown, MA, 1987).
21. T. L U B E , M . M A N N E R and R . D A N Z E R , Fatigue Fract. Eng
Mater. Struct. 20 (1997) 1605.
22. ``Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength (Modulus of
Rupture) of Electronic-Grade Ceramics,'' ASTM F417,
``Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 10.04,'' (American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
1998).
23. ``Standard Test Method for Biaxial Flexure Strength (Modulus of
Rupture) of Ceramic Substrates,'' ASTM F394, ``Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Vol. 10.04,'' (American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA 1998).
24. C . P. C H E N , ``Fracture Strength of Silicon Solar Cells,'' ``Jet
Propulsion Lab Report 79±102'' (U.S. DOE, 1979).
25. C . P. C H E N and M . H . L E I P O L D , Ceram. Bull. 59 (1980) 469.
26. Y. L . T S A I and J . J . M E C H O L S K Y , Jr, J. Mater. Res. 6 (1991)
1248.
27. A . K E L LY and N . H . M AC M I L L A N , ``Strong Solids,'' 3rd Edn
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
28. C . A . J O H N S O N , ``Fracture Statistics in Design and
Application,'' (General Electric Report No. 79CRD212,
Schenectady, NY, 1979).
29. T. T S U C H I Y A , O . TA B ATA , J . S A K ATA and Y. TA G A ,
J. Microelectromech. Sys. 7 (1998) 106.
30. G . L . P E A R S O N Jr. W. T. R E A D , and W. L . F E L D M A N N , Acta
Metall. 5 (1957) 181.
31. C . P. C H E N and M . H . L E I P O L D , ``Crack Growth in Single-
Crystal Silicon,'' ``Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics,'' Vol. 8,
edited by R . C . B R A D T, A . G . E VA N S , D . P. H . H A S S E L M A N ,
and F. F. L A N G E (Plenum Press, New York, 1986), p. 285.
32. B . W O N G and R . J . H O L B R O O K , J. Electrochem. Soc. 134
(1987) 2254.
33. S . B . B H A D U R I and F. F. Y. WA N G , ``Fracture Mechanics of
Ceramics Vol. 5,'' edited by R . C . B R A D T, A . G . E VA N S , D . P. H .
H A S S E L M A N , and F. F L A N G E (Plenum Press, 1983) 327.
34. J . A . CO N N A L LY and S . B . B R O W N , Science 256 (1992) 1537.
35. K . B R E D E R and A . A . W E R E S Z C Z A K , ``Fatigue and Slow
Crack Growth'' in ``Mechanical Testing Methodology for
Ceramic Design and Reliability'' edited by D . C . C R A N M E R
and D . W. R I C H E R S O N (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1998).
36. R . W. R I C E , ``Ceramic Failures'' ``Fractography of Ceramic and
Metal Failures, ASTM STP 827,'' edited by J . J . M E C H O L S K Y,
Jr and S . R . P O W E L L , Jr, (1982) 35.
37. C . A . J O H N S O N and W. T. T U C K E R , ``Life Prediction
Methodologies and Data for Ceramic Materials,'' ASTM STP
1201, edited by C . R . B R I N K M A N and S . F. D U F F Y (American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994) p. 250.
Received 20 October 1999
and accepted 27 January 2000
303