PSI - Issue 43

Wilfried Becker et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 43 (2023) 77–82 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

81

5

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Influence of the interphase thickness on the ISS (a) and on the IPS (b) in the interphase layer.

It has turned out, that after 25 nm the increase of h a leads to a decrease in the ISS maximal value. For IPS, the increasing in h a leads to slight increasing in IPS maximal values in the boundary between polymer and interface (Fig. 3 (b)). The influence of h a could be explained with the presence of h a in Eq. (2) for IPS. For ISS, the influence of the interphase thickness h a is due to the relationship between the roots λ i in Eq. (1-2) – according to Petrova et al. (2022), they depend on the thickness of the structure layers. Finally, in Fig. 4 (a) and 4 (b), the influence of the interphase length on the ISS and IPS is shown. It could be concluded, that with an increase of the interphase length after 50 nm, the ISS and IPS maximal values near the ends of the structure length also increased.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4 Influence of the interphase length on the ISS (a) and on the IPS (b) in the interphase layer.

Again, for better visibility, an embedded plot at l=50 nm for IPS is shown in blue (in the whole plot it is seen as a plane, because of the different range in IPS values). In fine, it has to be mentioned, that obtained results for the interphase length and thickness influence on the stresses in the interphase layer are in qualitative agreement with the conclusions of Zare and Rhee (2020), namely: the interphase length and especially its thickness are among the factors,