4.6 Article

Time and energy resolved ion mass spectroscopy studies of the ion flux during high power pulsed magnetron sputtering of Cr in Ar and Ar/N2 atmospheres

期刊

VACUUM
卷 84, 期 9, 页码 1159-1170

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2010.01.055

关键词

High power pulsed magnetron sputtering, HPPMS; High power impulse magnetron sputtering, HIPIMS; Ion mass spectroscopy; Ion energy distribution; Plasma diagnostics; Ion flux

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mass spectroscopy was used to analyze the energy and composition of the ion flux during high power pulsed magnetron sputtering (HIPIMS/HPPMS) of a Cr target in an industrial deposition system. The ion energy distribution functions were recorded in the time-averaged and time-resolved mode for Ar+, Ar2+, Cr+, Cr2+, N-2(+) and N+ ions. In the metallic mode the dependence on pulse energy (equivalent of peak target current) was studied. In the case of reactive sputtering in an Ar/N-2 atmosphere, variations in ion flux composition were investigated for varying N-2-to-Ar flow ratio at constant pressure and HIPIMS power settings. The number of doubly charged Cr ions is found to increase linearly with increasing pulse energy. An intense flux of energetic N+ ions was observed during deposition in the reactive mode. The time evolution of ion flux composition is analyzed in detail and related to the film growth process. The ionization of working gas mixture is hampered during the most energetic phase of discharge by a high flux of sputter-ejected species entering the plasma, causing both gas rarefaction and quenching of the electron energy distribution function. It is suggested that the properties (composition and energy) of the ion flux incident on the substrate can be intentionally adjusted not only by varying the pulse energy (discharge peak current), but also by taking advantage of the observed time variations in the composition of ion flux. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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