4.4 Article

Mitigating the geometrical limitations of conventional sputtering by controlling the ion-to-neutral ratio during high power pulsed magnetron sputtering

期刊

THIN SOLID FILMS
卷 519, 期 19, 页码 6354-6361

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsf.2011.04.031

关键词

High power impulse magnetron sputtering; High power pulsed magnetron sputtering; Chromium; Ionized physical vapor deposition

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High power pulsed magnetron sputtering has been used to grow thin chromium layers on substrates facing and orthogonal to the target. It is demonstrated that at low peak target current density, j(T)<0.6 A/cm(2) corresponding to a low ion-to-neutral flux ratio, films grown on substrates facing the target exhibit in-plane alignment. This is due to the rectangular shape of the target that yields an asymmetry in the off-normal flux of sputtered species. With increasing j(T) the biaxial alignment degrades, as the major portion of the incoming flux (ions) can be effectively steered by the electric field of the substrate to remove asymmetry imposed by geometrical restrictions. Eventually, at j(T)=1.7 A/cm(2) a fiber texture is obtained. For films grown on substrates orthogonal to the target, the large column tilt characteristic for growth at low j(T), decreases with increasing ion content in the flux and almost disappears at the highest value of j(T). The latter indicates that material flux to the substrate is highly ionized so that deposition takes place along substrate normal despite the high nominal inclination angle. Thus, in the limit of high j(T) the artifacts of conventional physical vapor deposition, resulting from the line-of-sight deposition, are effectively eliminated and the film growth proceeds more or less unaffected by the substrate orientation. Samples mounted orthogonally thus possess a similar texture, morphology, and topography as those facing the target. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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