Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:42:21.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of oxide and adsorbates on the nanomechanical response of silicon surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

S. A. Syed Asif ,
K. J. Wahl  and
R. J. Colton
S. A. Syed Asif
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
K. J. Wahl
Affiliation:
Code 6170, Chemistry Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375-5342
R. J. Colton
Affiliation:
Code 6170, Chemistry Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375-5342
Get access

Abstract

In this article we report the influence of surface oxides and relative humidity on the nanomechanical response of hydrophobic and hydrophilic Si surfaces. Depth-sensing nanoindentation combined with force modulation enabled measurement of surface forces, surface energy, and interaction stiffness prior to contact. Several regimes of contact were investigated: pre-contact, apparent contact, elastic contact, and elasto-plastic contact. Both humidity and surface preparation influenced the surface mechanical properties in the pre- and apparent-contact regimes. Meniscus formation was observed for both hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces at high humidity. Influence of humidity was much less pronounced on hydrophobic surfaces and was fully reversible. In the elastic and elasto-plastic regimes, the mechanical response was dependent on oxide layer thickness. Irreversibility at small loads (300 nN) was due to the deformation of the surface oxide. Above 1 μN, the deformation was elastic until the mean contact pressure reached 11 GPa, whereby Si underwent a pressure-induced phase transformation resulting in oxide layer pop-in and breakthrough. The critical load required for pop-in was dependent on oxide thickness and tip radius. For thicker oxide layers, substrate influence was reduced and plastic deformation occurred within the oxide film itself without pop-in. Elastic modulus and hardness of both the oxide layer and Si substrate were measured quantitatively for depths <5 nm.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , February 2000 , pp. 546 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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

1.Pethica, J.B., Hutchings, R., and Oliver, W.C., Philos. Mag. A 48, 593 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Binnig, G., Quate, C.F., and Gerber, Ch., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 930 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Burnham, N.A. and Colton, R.J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 7, 2906 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Burnham, N.A., Colton, R.J., and Pollock, H.M., Nanotechnology 4, 64 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.VanLandingham, M.R., McKnight, S.H., Palmese, G.R., Elings, J.R., Huang, X., Bogetti, T.A., Eduljee, R.F., and Gillespie, J.W. Jr, J. Adhesion 64, 31 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Syed Asif, S.A., Wahl, K.J., and Colton, R.J., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70, 2408 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Petersen, K.E., Proc. IEEE 70, 420 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Houston, M.R., Howe, R.T., and Maboudian, R., J. Appl. Phys. 81, 3474 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Behrend, O.P., Oulevey, F., Gourdon, D., Dupas, E., Kulik, A.J., Gremaud, G., and Burnham, N.A., Appl. Phys. A. 66, S219 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Israelachvili, J.N. and Tabor, D., Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 331, 19 (1972).Google Scholar
12.Binggeli, M. and Mate, C.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 65, 415 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Hu, J., Xiao, X-D., Ogletree, D.F., and Salmeron, M., Science 268, 267 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Syed Asif, S.A. and Pethica, J.B., Philos. Mag. A 76, 1105 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Corcoran, S.G., Colton, R.J., Lilleodden, E.T., and Gerberich, W.W., Phys. Rev. B 55, R16057 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Mann, A.B. and Pethica, J.B., Philos. Mag. A 79, 577 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Minomura, H. and Drickamer, H.G., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 23, 451 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Gupta, M.C. and Ruoff, A.L., J. Appl. Phys. 51, 1072 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Hu, J.Z., Merkle, L.D., Menoni, C.S., and Spain, I.L., Phys. Rev. B 34, 4679 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Gerk, A.P. and Tabor, D., Nature 271, 732 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Clarke, D.R., Kroll, M.C., Kirchner, P.D., Cook, R.F., and Hockey, B.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2156 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Pharr, G.M., Oliver, W.C., and Harding, D.S., J. Mater. Res. 6, 1129 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Smithells, C.J., Smithells Metal Reference Book, 6th ed., edited by Brandes, E.A. (Butterworths, London, 1983), p. 15.Google Scholar