Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T14:21:04.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homoepitaxial Growth Rate Studies on Diamond (110), (111), and (100) Surfaces in a Hot-Filament Reactor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

C. Judith Chu ,
Benjamin J. Bai ,
Norma J. Komplin ,
Donald E. Patterson ,
Mark P. D'evelyn ,
Robert H. Hauge  and
John L. Margrave
C. Judith Chu
Affiliation:
also affiliated with Houston Advanced Research Center, 4802 Research Forest Dr., The Woodlands, TX 77381
Benjamin J. Bai
Affiliation:
Rice University, Department of Chemistry, P. 0. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251
Norma J. Komplin
Affiliation:
Rice University, Department of Chemistry, P. 0. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251
Donald E. Patterson
Affiliation:
also affiliated with Houston Advanced Research Center, 4802 Research Forest Dr., The Woodlands, TX 77381
Mark P. D'evelyn
Affiliation:
Rice University, Department of Chemistry, P. 0. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251
Robert H. Hauge
Affiliation:
Rice University, Department of Chemistry, P. 0. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251
John L. Margrave
Affiliation:
also affiliated with Houston Advanced Research Center, 4802 Research Forest Dr., The Woodlands, TX 77381
Get access

Abstract

Growth rates of homoepitaxial (110), (111), and (100) diamond films were experimentally determined, for the first time, in a hot filament reactor using methane and carbon tetrachloride as the carbon source. Methane concentrations from 0.07 % to 1.03 % in H2 were studied at a substrate temperature of 970°C. Growth rates were found to be crystal-face dependent with respect to methane concentration, being linear or first order for the (100)-orientation, sublinear for (110), and sigmoidal for (111). The observed growth kinetics of (111) suggest the viability of an acetylene mechanism for (111), along with the methyl radical mechanism at methane concentrations above 0.73%. CC14 concentrations from 0.06% to 0.69% in H2 were also investigated at a substrate temperature of 970°C. Growth rate behavior was similar to that of methane for all three crystal faces.

The temperature dependence of the growth rates was also crystal-orientation dependent. At substrate temperatures above 730°C, growth rates are thought to be mainly transport limited, yielding effective activation energies of 8±3, 18±2, and 12±4 kcal/mole for (100), (110), and (111) orientations, respectively. At substrate temperatures below 730°C, growth rates are thought to be surface reaction rate-limited, with an overall effective activation energy of 50±19 kcal/mole for the three crystal-orientations studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 270: Symposium M – Novel Forms of Carbon , 1992 , 341
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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. Spitsyn, B.V. and Bouilov, L. L., Diamond and Diamond-Like Materials Synthesis, MRS Extended Abstracts, EA-15, edited by Johnson, G.H., Badzian, A.R., Geis, M.N. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1988) pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
2. Zhu, W., Messier, R., Badzian, A.R., Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Diamond and Diamond-Like Films, edited by Dismukes, J.P. et al. (The Electrochemical Society, Los Angeles, 1989) pp. 61–79.Google Scholar
3. Matsumoto, S., Sato, Y., Tsutsumi, M., and Setaka, N., J. Mater. Sci. 17, 3106, (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Kobashi, K., Nishimura, K., Kawate, Y., and Horuchi, T., Phy. Rev. B38, 4067, (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Sato, Y., Hata, C., Kamo, M., First International Conference on the New Diamond Science and Technology Program and Abstr., 50–51 (JNDF, Tokyo, 1988)Google Scholar
6. Yarbrough, W.A. and Messier, R., Science 247, 688–696 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Yarbrough, W.A., Diamond Optics IV. SPIE Proc. 1534, edited by Holly, S. and Feldman, A., 1991) p. 90.Google Scholar
8. Frenklach, M. and Spear, K.E., J. Mater. Res. 3, 133, (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Huang, D., Frenklach, M., and Maroncelli, M., J. Phys. Chem. 92, 6379, (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Harris, S.J., Belton, D.N., and Blint, R.J., J. Appl. Phys. 70, 2654 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Harris, S. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 2298, (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Goodwin, D.G., Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, 277, (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Chu, C.J., D'Evelyn, M.P., Hauge, R.H., and Margrave, J.L., J. Appl. Phys. 70, 1695, (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. D'Evelyn, M.P., Chu, C.J., Hauge, R.H., and Margrave, J.L., J. Appl. Phys. 71, 1528, (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Chu, C.J., D'Evelyn, M.P., Hauge, R.H., and Margrave, J.L., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2405, (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Valone, S.M., Trkula, M., and Laia, J.R., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2296(1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Jasinski, J.M., Meyerson, B.S., and Scott, B.A., Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 38, 109–40 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar