Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:32:12.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Texture Evolution and Stress in Silver Thin Films on Different Substrates Using X-ray Diffraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Yeongseok Zoo  and
Terry L. Alford
Yeongseok Zoo
Affiliation:
[email protected], Arizona State University, School of Materials, university drive and mill avenue, tempe, AZ, 85287, United States
Terry L. Alford
Affiliation:
[email protected], Arizona State University, School of Materials, tempe, AZ, 85287-8706, United States
Get access

Abstract

Substrate surface roughness effects on Ag film texture were investigated using pole figure analysis. X-ray diffraction results confirmed that Ag thin films on smooth SiO2 substrates had strong {111} texture when compared with Ag films on PEN. It was noted that the difference of strain energy density (δEε) in Ag film on PEN (0.039 MPa) was almost 5 times greater than that on SiO2 (0.0084 MPa). The comparison between surface and strain energies revealed that the {111} texture of Ag thin film on SiO2 was explained by minimization of the surface energy and the weaker {111} texture of Ag on PEN was a result of reduced diffusion length of Ag adatoms on the rough PEN surface.

Keywords

x-ray diffraction (XRD)texturediffusion
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 990: Symposium B – Materials, Processes, Integration and Reliability in Advanced Interconnects for Micro- and Nanoelectronics , 2007 , 0990-B08-07
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

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 Vlassak, J.J., Nix, W.D., J. Mater. Res. 7, 3242 (1992).Google Scholar
2 Harper, J.M.E., Rodbell, K.P., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 15, 763 (1997).Google Scholar
3 Yu, L.S., Harper, J.M.E., Cuomo, J.J., Smith, D.A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 47, 932 (1985).Google Scholar
4 Jung, Y.S., Appl. Surf. Sci. 221, 281 (2004).Google Scholar
5 Zhang, J.M., Xu, K.W., Ji, V., Appl. Surf. Sci. 187, 60 (2002).Google Scholar
6 Li, T.Q., Noda, S., Tsuji, Y., Ohsawa, T., Komiyama, H., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 20, 583 (2002).Google Scholar
7 Patsalas, P., Charitidis, C., Logothetidis, S., Surf. Coat. Technol. 125, 335 (2000).Google Scholar
8 Zeng, Y., Zou, Y.L., Alford, T.L., Deng, F., Lau, S.S., Laursen, T., Ullrich, B.M., J. Appl. Phys. 81, 7773 (1997).Google Scholar
9 Kim, H.C., Theodore, N.D., Alford, T.L., J. Appl. Phys. 95, 5180 (2004).Google Scholar
10 Klemmer, T.J., Inturi, V.R., Barnard, J.A., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 15, 1190 (1997).Google Scholar
11 Thompson, C.V., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 30, 159 (2000).Google Scholar
12 Zeng, Y., Alford, T.L., Zou, Y.L., Amali, A., Ullrich, B.M., Deng, F., Lau, S.S., J. Appl. Phys. 83, 779 (1998).Google Scholar
13 Thompson, C.V., J. Mater. Res. 14, 3164 (1999).Google Scholar
14 Hoffman, R.W., Surf. Interface Anal. 3, 62 (1981).Google Scholar