Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:56:29.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combined surface characterization and tribological (friction and wear) studies of CVD diamond films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

Scott S. Perry ,
Joel W. Ager III  and
Gabor A. Somorjai
Scott S. Perry
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
Joel W. Ager III
Affiliation:
Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
Gabor A. Somorjai
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
Get access

Abstract

The tribological properties of polycrystalline chemically vapor deposited (CVD) diamond films grown on silicon substrates and containing varying amounts of amorphous carbon impurities were investigated. Films were characterized by secondary electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) for surface morphology and roughness and by spatially resolved Raman spectroscopy for amorphous carbon (a-C) content. Friction measurements were performed with a Rockwell C hemispherical diamond tip in ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) and in ambient air. In vacuum, the friction coefficient rises monotonically from 0.6 in a region with substantial a-C to 0.85 in a region with pure diamond. Under ambient conditions, the friction coefficient is substantially lower than that in vacuum and deceases slightly (from ∼0.19 to ∼0.16) with the decreasing a-C content. Under both vacuum and ambient conditions, the friction coefficient was observed to be independent of load over the range of 0.1–0.5 N. The friction values are discussed in terms of adhesion between the diamond tip and the film. Qualitative scratch hardness measurements were performed in UHV by measuring the minimum load at which plastic deformation occurs for a single traversal of the tip. Scratch hardness is found to increase with increasing diamond content of the films. The wear mechanism of the pure diamond regions was evaluated by examining wear tracks with SEM and AFM. The wear tracks showed evidence of spalling, buckling, and grain pull-out indicative of a cohesive mode of failure (failure at grain boundaries). A decrease in surface roughness in the wear tracks indicates asperity wear. Adhesive failure at the Si substrate interface or of a phase transformation of the diamond film was not observed in this load regime.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 1993 , pp. 2577 - 2586
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Deryagin, B. V. and Fedoseen, D. V., Nauka (Moscow, USSR, 1977).Google Scholar
2Yarbrough, W. A., Inspektor, A., and Messier, R., Mater. Sci. Forums 52&53, 151 (1989).Google Scholar
3Yarbrough, W. A. and Messier, R., Science 247, 688 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Spear, K. E., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 72 (2), 171 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Geiger, G., Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 71, 1470 (1992).Google Scholar
6Peebles, D. E. and Pope, L. E., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2589 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Kuo, C-T., Yen, T-Y., Huang, T-H., and Hsu, S. E., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2515 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Kohzaki, M., Higuchi, K., Noda, S., and Uchida, K., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1769 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Pepper, S. V., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 20, 643 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Bowden, F. P. and Tabor, D., in Physical Properties of Diamond, edited by Berman, R. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965), p. 184.Google Scholar
11Tabor, D., in The Properties of Diamond, edited by Field, J. E. (Academic Press, London, 1979), Chap. 10, p. 325.Google Scholar
12Samuels, B. and Wilks, J., J. Mater. Sci. 23, 2846 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Kamo, M., Sato, Y., Matsumoto, S., and Setaka, N., J. Cryst. Growth 62, 642 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Veirs, D. K., AgerüI, J.W., Loucks, E. T., and Rosenblatt, G. M., Appl. Opt. 29, 4969 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Knight, D. S. and White, W. B., J. Mater. Res. 4, 385 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Wada, N. and Solin, S. A., Physica 105B, 353 (1981).Google Scholar
17Shroder, R. E., Nemanich, R. J., and Glass, J. T., Phys. Rev. B 41 (6), 3738 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Ravi, K. V., Koch, C. A., Hu, H. S., and Joshi, A., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2356 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Feng, Z., Tzeng, Y., and Field, J. E., unpublished.Google Scholar
20Gardos, M. N. and Soriano, B. L., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2599 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Goddard üI, W. A., Eng. & Sci. (Caltech) XLIV, 2 (1985).Google Scholar
22Hayward, I. P. and Field, J. E., Proc. Int. Conf. Tüb., London 1, 205 (1987).Google Scholar
23Feng, Z. and Field, J. E., Surf. Coatings Technol. 47, 631 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Perry, S. S., Batteas, J. D., and Somorjai, G. A., unpublished.Google Scholar
25Bowden, F. P. and Tabor, D., The Friction andLubrication of Solids (Oxford University Press, London, 1964).Google Scholar
26Beetz, C. P. Jr., Cooper, C. V., and Perry, T. A., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2555 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar