Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T23:18:24.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polylmide Adhesion as a Function of Substrate Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Jan Van Mil and
Aubrey Helms Jr
Jan Van Mil
Affiliation:
AT&T Laboratories, P.O.Box 900 Princeton NJ 08540
Aubrey Helms Jr
Affiliation:
AT&T Laboratories, P.O.Box 900 Princeton NJ 08540
Get access

Abstract

We have investigated the effect of different inorganic substrates on the adhesion of polymer films. We have used crystalline surfaces in an effort to “map” the adhesive interactions that take place through the interface between substrate and polyimide (-arnic acid). Significant differences were found in the adhesion of polyimide films (as measured by peel tests) on substrates varying only in crystalline orientation. Detailed analytical investigations are reported of the interfaces of these substrates after peeling of the film, using angular dependent ESCA. A correlation was found between the chemical nature of the substrate and the adhesion quality. This correlation involves the crystalline matrix of the substrate surface.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 119: Symposium F – Adhesions in Solids , 1988, 247
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Leary, H. J. Jr. and Campbell, D. S., Surf. Interf. Anal. 1, 75 (1979)Google Scholar
2. Buchwalter, P. L. and Baise, A. I., in Polyimides: Synthesis, Characterization and Applications, edited by Mittal, K. L. (Plenum Press NY & London, 1984) p. 537 Google Scholar
3. Buchwalter, L. P. and Greenblatt, J., J. Adhesion, 19, 257 (1986)Google Scholar
4. Chauvin, C., Sacher, E. and Yelon, A., J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 31, 583 (1986)Google Scholar
5. Ho, P. S., Hahn, P. O., Bartha, J. W., Rubloff, G. W., LeGoues, F. K. and Silverman, B. D., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 3, 739 (1985); J. W. Bartha, P. O. Hahn, F. Legoues and P. S. Ho, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 3, 1390 (1985); P. N. Sanda, J. W. Bartha, B. D. Silverman, P. S. Ho, A. R. Rossi, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. 40, 283 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Takahashi, N., Yoon, D. Y. and Parrish, W., Macromolecules 17, 2583 (1984)Google Scholar
7. Russell, T. P., Gugger, H. and Swalen, J. D., J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Phys. Ed., 21, 1745 (1983)Google Scholar
8. Grunze, M. and Lamb, R. N., Chem. Phys. Lett., 133, 283 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. If the surfaces reconstruct as a result of the etching procedure, the most likely arrangement to be obtained is a 7×7 matrix for the Si(111) and a (2×1) structure for the Si(100). the differences in density between the two surfaces would still be of the same order.Google Scholar
10. Grunthaner, P. J., Hecht, M. H. and Grunthaner, F. J., J. Appl. Phys., 61, 629 (1987)Google Scholar