4.6 Article

Leakage current characteristics and dielectric breakdown of antiferroelectric Pb0.92La0.08Zr0.95Ti0.05O3 film capacitors grown on metal foils

期刊

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/41/20/205003

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies Program [DE-AC020-6CH11357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have grown crack-free antiferroelectric (AFE) Pb0.92La0.08Zr0.95Ti0.05O3 (PLZT) films on nickel foils by chemical solution deposition. To eliminate the parasitic effect caused by the formation of a low-permittivity interfacial oxide, we applied a conductive buffer layer of lanthanum nickel oxide (LNO) on the nickel foil by chemical solution deposition prior to the PLZT deposition. Use of the LNO buffer allowed high-quality film-on-foil capacitors to be prepared at high temperatures in air. With the AFE PLZT deposited on LNO-buffered Ni foils, we observed field-induced phase transformations of AFE to ferroelectric (FE). The AFE-to-FE phase transition field, E-AF = 260 kV cm(-1), and the reverse phase transition field, E-FA = 220 kVcm(-1), were measured at room temperature on a similar to 1.15 mu m thick PLZT film grown on LNO-buffered Ni foils. The relative permittivities of the AFE and FE states were similar to 530 and similar to 740, respectively, with dielectric loss < 0.05 at room temperature. P-E hysteresis loop measured at room temperature confirmed the field-induced phase transition. The time-relaxation current density was investigated under various applied electric fields. The leakage current density of a 1.15 mu m thick AFE PLZT film-on-foil capacitor was 5 x 10(-9) Acm(-2) at room temperature under 87 kV cm(-1) applied field. The breakdown behaviour of the AFE PLZT film-on-foil capacitors was studied by Weibull analysis. The mean breakdown time decreased exponentially with increasing applied field. The mean breakdown time was over 610 s when a field of 1.26MVcm(-1) was applied to a 1.15 mu m thick AFE PLZT film-on-foil capacitor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据