4.5 Article

All-Optical Blister Test of Suspended Graphene Using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW APPLIED
Volume 2, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.2.054008

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Universite de Strasbourg
  2. Agence Nationale de Recherche (ANR) [QuandDoGra 12 JS10-00101]
  3. C'Nano GE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report a comprehensive micro-Raman study of a pressurized suspended graphene membrane that hermetically seals a circular pit, etched in a Si/SiO2 substrate. Placing the sample under a uniform pressure load results in bulging of the graphene membrane and subsequent softening of the main Raman features, due to tensile strain. In such a microcavity, the intensity of the Raman features depends very sensitively on the distance between the graphene membrane and the Si substrate, which acts as the bottom mirror of the cavity. Thus, a spatially resolved analysis of the intensity of the G- and 2D-mode features as a function of the pressure load permits a direct reconstruction of the blister profile. An average strain is then deduced at each pressure load, and Gruneisen parameter of 1.8 +/- 0.2 and 2.4 +/- 0.2 are determined for the Raman G and 2D modes, respectively. In addition, the measured blister height is proportional to the cubic root of the pressure load, as predicted theoretically. The validation of this scaling provides a direct and accurate determination of the Young's modulus of graphene with a purely optical, hence contactless and minimally invasive, approach. We find a Young's modulus of (1.05 +/- 0.10) TPa for monolayer graphene, in a perfect match with previous nanoindentation measurements. This all-optical methodology opens avenues for pressure sensing using graphene and could readily be adapted to other emerging two-dimensional materials and to nanoresonators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available