Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T19:06:24.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Imaging Mechanism and Quantification of Scanning Probe Microscopies on Ferroelectric Surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Sergei V. Kalinin
Affiliation:
Dept. Mat. Sci. Eng., University of Pennsylvania, 3231 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Dawn A. Bonnell
Affiliation:
Dept. Mat. Sci. Eng., University of Pennsylvania, 3231 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Get access

Abstract

In the last few years a wide spectrum of non-contact, intermittent contact and contact scanning probe microscopies have been applied to imaging ferroelectric surfaces. The imaging mechanism in non-contact SPM is ultimately related to the total charge distribution on the ferroelectric surface, including both polarization and screening charges. Contact voltage modulation (piezoresponse) force microscopy (PFM) is sensitive to both local polarization via electromechanical coupling and surface charge via capacitive interactions. In the present research we analyze the electrostatic and electromechanical contrast in PFM using analytical solutions for the electrostatic sphere-dielectric plane problem and for the piezoelectric indentation problem. The contribution of electrostatic forces to the image is estimated. Variable-temperature PRI imaging of domain structures in BaTiO3 is performed and the temperature dependence of the piezoresponse is compared with the Ginzburg - Devonshire theory.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

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

1. Gruverman, A., Auciello, O., and Tokumoto, H., Annu. Rev. Mat. Sci. 28, 101 (1998).10.1146/annurev.matsci.28.1.101Google Scholar
2. Kalinin, S.V. and Bonnell, D.A., Phys. Rev. B, in press.Google Scholar
3. Durkan, C., Welland, M.E., Chu, D.P., and Migliorato, P., Phys. Rev. B 60, 16198 (1999).10.1103/PhysRevB.60.16198Google Scholar
4. Lee, K., Shin, H., Moon, W.K., Jeon, J.U., and Pak, Y.E., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 38, L264 (1999).Google Scholar
5. Ganpule, C.S., Nagarjan, V., Li, H., Ogale, A.S., Steinhauer, D.E., Aggarwal, S., Williams, E., Ramesh, R., and DeWolf, P., Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 292 (2000).10.1063/1.126954Google Scholar
6. Gruverman, A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 1452 (1999).10.1063/1.124722Google Scholar
7. Luo, E.Z., Xie, Z., Xu, J.B., Wilson, I.H., and Zhao, L.H., Phys. Rev. B 61, 203 (2000).10.1103/PhysRevB.61.203Google Scholar
8. Hong, J.W., Noh, K.H., Park, S.I., Kwun, S.I., and Kim, Z.G., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70, 1735 (1999).10.1063/1.1149660Google Scholar
9. Hong, J.W., Noh, K.H., Park, S.I., Kwun, S.I., and Kim, Z.G., Phys. Rev. B. 58, 5078 (1998).10.1103/PhysRevB.58.5078Google Scholar
10. Trenkler, T., Wolf, P. De, Vandervorst, W., Hellemans, L., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16, 367 (1998).10.1116/1.589812Google Scholar
11. Eng, L.M., Guntherodt, H.-J., Schneider, G.A., Kopke, U., Saldana, J. Munoz, Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 233 (1999).10.1063/1.123266Google Scholar
12. Likodimos, V., Orlik, X.K., Pardi, L., Labardi, M., and Allegrini, M., J. Appl. Phys. 87, 443 (2000).10.1063/1.371882Google Scholar
13. Kalinin, S.V. and Dawn Bonnell, A., Appl. Phys. Lett., in pressGoogle Scholar
14. Borisevich, A.Y., Kalinin, S.V., Bonnell, D.A., and Davies, P.K., J. Mat. Res, in pressGoogle Scholar
15. Tybell, T., Ahn, C.H., Triscone, J.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 856 (1999).Google Scholar
16. Smythe, W.R., Static and Dynamic Electricity (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968)Google Scholar
17. Shaw, T. M., Trolier-McKinstry, S., and McIntyre, P. C., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 30, 263 (2000).10.1146/annurev.matsci.30.1.263Google Scholar
18. Timoshenko, S. and Goodier, J.N., Theory of Elasticity (McGraw Hill, New York, 1951)Google Scholar
19. Parton, V.Z., Kudryavtsev, B.A., Electromagnetoelasticity (Gordon and Breach, 1988).Google Scholar
20. Giannakopoulos, A.E., Suresh, S., Acta mater. 47, 2153 (1999).10.1016/S1359-6454(99)00076-2Google Scholar
21. Karapetian, E., Sevostianov, I., and Kachanov, M., Phil. Mag. B 80, 331 (2000).10.1080/13642810008208596Google Scholar
22. Devonshire, A.F., Phil. Mag. 40, 1040 (1949).Google Scholar