Thickness and density evaluation for nanostructured thin films by glancing angle deposition

Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 2545-2552

  Buzea, Cristina ^a   Kaminska, Kate ^a   Beydaghyan, Gisia ^a   Brown, Tim ^a   Elliott, Chelsea ^a   Dean, Cory ^a   Robbie, Kevin ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; POROSITY; SAMPLING; SENSORS; SUBSTRATES; VAPORS;

DENSITY EVALUATION; IN SITU THICKNESS; SOURCE GEOMETRY; SUBSTRATE TILTS;

THIN FILMS;

EID: 29044438017     PISSN: 10711023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1116/1.2131079     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. C. Buzea and K. Robbie, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 385 (2005).
2. T. Karabacak, J. P. Singh, Y. P. Zhao, G. C. Wang, and M. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 68, 125408 (2003).
3. S. Vauth, C. Streng, S. G. Mayr, and K. Samwer, Phys. Rev. B 68, 205425 (2003).
4. K. Kaminska, M. Suzuki, K. Kimura, Y. Taga, and K. Robbie, J. Appl. Phys. 95, 3055 (2004).
5. R. Messier, T. Gehrke, C. Frankel, V. C. Venugopal, W. Otano, and A. Lakhtakia, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 15, 2148 (1997).
6. K. Robbie, M. J. Brett, and A. Lakhtakia, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 13, 2991 (1995).
7. K. Robbie, G. Beydaghyan, T. Brown, C. Dean, J. Adams, and C. Buzea, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75, 1089 (2004).
8. K. Robbie and M. J. Brett, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 15, 1460 (1997).
9. K. Robbie, J. C. Sit, and M. J. Brett, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16, 1115 (1998).
10. K. Kaminska, T. Brown, G. Beydaghyan, and K. Robbie, Appl. Opt. 42, 4212 (2003).
11. K. Robbie, D. J. Broer, and M. J. Brett, Nature (London) 399, 764 (1999).
12. X. Y. Liu, M. S. Daw, J. D. Kress, D. E. Hanson, V. Arunchalam, D. G. Coronell, C. L. Liu, and A. F. Voter, Thin Solid Films 422, 141 (2002).
13. D. G. Coronell, D. E. Hansen, A. F. Voter, C. L. Liu, X. Y. Liu, and J. D. Kress, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3860 (1998). For the molecular dynamics simulation an embedded atom interatomic potential was used in which a pair potential is augmented with a local density-dependent term.
14. D. E. Hanson, J. D. Kress, A. F. Voter, and X. Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 60, 11723 (1999).
15. C. F. Abrams and D. B. Graves, J. Appl. Phys. 86, 2263 (1999).
16. M. Suzuki and Y. Taga, J. Appl. Phys. 90, 5599 (2001).
17. A value of y=20 corresponds to a particle energy of 20 eV, as deduced from the molecular dynamic simulations of Cu. We could not deduce the value for silicon, since, to our knowledge, no literature has been published regarding molecular dynamic simulations for this material. We believe that the particle energy for silicon to be somehow smaller, in the order of a few electron volts, due to the reduced mobility of silicon as compared to copper, as deduced from the lateral size of the column under the same deposition conditions. The smaller parallel component of the kinetic energy for silicon leads to thinner columns than that of copper. More information on oblique evaporation and surface diffusiuon can be found in L. Abelman and C. Lodder, Thin Solid Films 305, 1 (1997).