Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T18:22:46.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On The Role of Penetration Twins in The Morphological Development of Vapor-Grown Diamond Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

Michael A. Tamor  and
Mark P. Everson
Michael A. Tamor
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory, Ford Motor Company, SRL/MD3028, Dearborn MI, 48121-2053
Mark P. Everson
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory, Ford Motor Company, SRL/MD3028, Dearborn MI, 48121-2053
Get access

Abstract

By control of deposition conditions, the morphologies of vapor-deposited polycrystalline diamond films may be varied deliberately from clean multi-micron crystallites to nanocrystalline ‘cauliflower’ nodules. Most attempts to connect diamond film ‘quality’ to growth conditions focus on competitive growth of non-diamond phases. In contrast, we propose that twinning is potentially the dominant factor. We develop a geometric parameterization of growth conditions to define conditions under which a common type of twin - the < 111> penetration twin - can outgrow and potentially bury the parent face on which it originated. We then show how the full range of CVD diamond crystal and film morphologies might be explained entirely in terms of penetration twins. This explanation does not entail reference to the actual mechanism of diamond growth. The geometric parameterization also suggests a ‘reactor map’ which serves as a powerful tool in process development and control.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 349: Symposium T – Novel Forms of Carbon II , 1994 , 391
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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. Angus, J. C. and Hayman, C. C., Science 241, 913 (1988).Google Scholar
2. Yarbrough, W. A. and Messier, R., Science 247, 688 (1990); W. Piekarczyk and W. A. Yarbrough, J. Crystal Growth 108 583 (1991).Google Scholar
3. Butler, J. E. and Woodin, R. L., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 342 209 (1993).Google Scholar
4. Wild, Ch., Herres, N. and Koidl, P., J. Appl. Phys. 68, 973 (1990); Ch. Wild et al., Diamond Relat. Mater. 2, 158 (1993). In later work, the authors used computer simulations of the growth of twinned diamonds to arrive at most of the conclusions we draw from our analytic treatment. See Ch. Wild, R. Kohl, N. Herres, W. MullerSebert and P. Koidl, Proceedings of Diamonds-'93, Albuferia, Portugal, August 1993 (Diamond Relat. Mater., in press).Google Scholar
5. Clausing, R. E. et al. , Diamond Relat. Mater. 1, 411 (1992). This twin was only recently conclusively confirmed as a < 111 > twin by topographic imaging in M. P. Everson, M. A. Tamor, D. Scholl, B. R. Stoner, S. R. Sahaida, and J. P. Bade, J. Appl. Phys., 75, 169 (1994).+twin+by+topographic+imaging+in+M.+P.+Everson,+M.+A.+Tamor,+D.+Scholl,+B.+R.+Stoner,+S.+R.+Sahaida,+and+J.+P.+Bade,+J.+Appl.+Phys.,+75,+169+(1994).>Google Scholar
6. Angus, J. C., Li, Z., Sunkara, M., Gat, R., Anderson, A. B., Mehandru, S. P. and Geis, M. W., Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Diamond Materials, Washington, DC, May 5-10, 1991 (Electrochemical Soc., Pennington, NJ, 1991), vol. 91–8, pp. 125–141.Google Scholar
7. Angus, J. C., Sunkara, M., Sahaida, S. R. and Glass, J. T., J. Mater. Res. 7, 3001 (1992).Google Scholar
8. Although there are numerous discussions of penetration twins in the literature, the associated definitions of a penetration twin (usually based on the nature of the grain boundary separating the two members of the twin pair) are not always identical. For example, see Cody, A. M. and Cody, R. D., J. Crystal Growth 83. 485 (1987) or Y. Takano and T. Nishida, Acta Crystal. A2,8 s119 (1972).Google Scholar
9. Features that in retrospect can be identified as penetration twins do appear in the literature. For example, see Clausing, R. E., Heatherly, L., More, K. L. and Begun, G. M., Surf. Coat. Tech. 39/40. 199 (1989).Google Scholar
10. Because the behavior of each reactor design is unique and there are several other less influential variables (such as gas pressure and flow rate, filament or plasma temperatures and various geometric effects) quantifying these variables would be of use only to operators of reactors exactly identical to ours.Google Scholar
11. Drift, A. van der, Philips Res. Repts. 22, R626 (1967).Google Scholar
12. Stoner, B. R., Sahaida, S., Bade, J. P., Southworth, P. and Ellis, P. J., J. Mater. Res. 8, 1993; B. R. Stoner, C.-t. Kao, D. M. Matta and R. C. Glass, Appl. Phys. Lett. 62 (1993).Google Scholar
13. Ravi, K. V. and Joshi, A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 246 (1991).Google Scholar
14. Okada, K., Komatsu, S., Ishigaki, T., Matsumoto, S. and Moriyoshi, Y., J. Appl. Phys. 71. 4920 (1992).Google Scholar
15. Everson, M. P. and Tamor, M. A., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1438 (1992).Google Scholar
16. In their pioneering work on molecular beam epitaxy of GaAs, Holloway and Bobb do show micrographs of strikingly similar twins [Holloway, H. and Bobb, L. C., J. Appl. Phys. 3, 2893 (1967)]. The protruding twin is usually buried by what is commonly referred to as a hillock - a completed ziggurat (see Fig. 6b and Ref. 15). The tendency to entomb the twin in a properly oriented hillock may have long concealed the effect of penetration twins on morphology in many materials.Google Scholar