Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T09:54:44.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Piezoresistivity in ruthenium-based metal–insulator– metal structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Ahmed Amin
Ahmed Amin
Affiliation:
Naval Sea Systems Command, Newport, Rhode Island 02841–1708
Get access

Abstract

The resistance change with applied stress was measured for ruthenium-based metal–insulator–metal thick films under tensile and hydrostatic pressures over the temperature range −25 to +135 °C. The derived longitudinal, transverse, and hydrostatic piezoresistivity coefficients were corrected for elastic effects to yield the corresponding piezoresistivity coefficients and their temperature dependencies. The results clearly demonstrate for the first time a hydrostatic piezoresistivity coefficient that is sevenfold larger than the longitudinal component. Symmetry analysis is used to explain this phenomenon and to deduce additional piezoresistivity matrix elements and their degeneracy. In addition, pressure effects on electrical transport support a tunneling mechanism.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 16 , Issue 8 , August 2001 , pp. 2239 - 2243
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

REFERENCES

1Smith, C.S., Phys. Rev. 94, 42 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Carmona, F., Canet, R., and Delhaes, P., J. Appl. Phys. 61, 2550 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Canali, C., Malavasi, D., Morten, B., Prudenziati, M., and Taroni, A., J. Appl. Phys. 51, 3282 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Kennedy, R.J., Jenks, W.G., and Testardi, L.R., Phys. Rev. B 40, 11313 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Rajanna, K., Mohan, S., Nayak, M.M., and Gunasekaran, N., Sens. Actuators A24, 35 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Herring, C. and Vogt, E., Phys. Rev. 101, 944 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Amin, A., Phys. Rev. B 40, 11603 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Alles, A., Murphy, M.W., Christine, J.S., Temper, L., and Schulze, W.A., J. Appl. Phys. 77, 5322 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Peters, R., Liaw, B.Y., Jackson, S., and Stacy, T., presented at the American Physical Society meeting (March 1996), H31.04.Google Scholar
10Abe, O., Taketa, Y., and Haradome, M., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 59, 1349 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Cattaneo, A., Dell'Acqua, R., Forlani, F., and Pirozzi, L., SAE paper 800023 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Mason, W.P. and Thurston, R.W., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 10, 1096 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Vest, R.W., Chitale, S.M., and Kollipara, A.K., Proceedings of the 5th European Hybrid Microelectronics Conference (International Society of Hybrid Microelectronics, Stresa, Italy, 1985).Google Scholar
14 Electroscience Laboratories, Inc., King of Prussia, PA 19406.Google Scholar
15Amin, A., Rev.Sci. Instrum. 60, 3812 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Amin, A., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 58, 1514 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Amin, A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 1446 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Chitale, S.M., Huang, C.Y., Stein, S.J., and Wada, T., Proceedings of the 7th International Microelectronics Conference, Yokohama, Japan (1985).Google Scholar
19Mimelick, J.M., Conduction Mechanisms in Thick Film Resistors, Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (1980).Google Scholar