Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T18:57:40.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Epitaxial Al and Cu films grown on CaF2/Si(111)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Yuriy V. Shusterman
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Physics, Applied Physics and Astronomy, Troy, NY 12180, U.S.A.
Nikolai L. Yakovlev
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Physics, Applied Physics and Astronomy, Troy, NY 12180, U.S.A.
Katharine Dovidenko
Affiliation:
UAlbany Institute for Materials, University at Albany SUNY, Albany, NY 12203, U.S.A.
Leo J. Schowalter
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Physics, Applied Physics and Astronomy, Troy, NY 12180, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

The ability to grow single-crystalline Al and Cu films is of significance for several areas of materials research, such as the resistivity size effect in thin metal films, electromigration failure of interconnects, and magneto-resistance studies. Here, we explore the microstructure and resistivity of thin Al and Cu films grown on CaF2/Si(111). A three-step technique of CaF2 growth is described that permits deposition under imperfect vacuum conditions and promotes smoothness of subsequent thin metal films. Reflection high-energy electron diffraction shows that epitaxial Al(111) is obtained directly on CaF2, while epitaxial Cu(111) is obtained only by growing on a 1 nm thick Al seed layer pre-deposited on CaF2. Transmission electron microscopy reveals that 75 nm thick Al films have 150 nm wide sub-grains misoriented by less than 1 degree. For 75 nm thick Cu, the grains are only 30 nm wide and are misoriented by as much as 10 degrees. Room temperature resistivity measurements of the 10-300 nm thick Al films agree with the Fuchs-Sondheimer model in which conduction electrons scatter totally diffusely at the film interfaces. For 50-1000 nm thick Cu films, the resistivity size effect is substantially greater than the prediction of this model, which may be explained in terms of grain boundary scattering.

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.Gogl, J., Vancea, J. and Hoffmann, H., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2, 1795 (1990).Google Scholar
2.Dobierzewska-Mozrzymas, E. and Warkusz, F., Thin Solid Films 43, 267 (1977).Google Scholar
3.Schowalter, L.J. and Fathauer, R.W., CRC Crit. Rev. Sol. St. Mat. Sci. 15, 367 (1989).Google Scholar
4.Cho, C.-C., Liu, H.-Y. and Tsai, H.-L., Appl. Phys. Lett. 61, 270 (1992).Google Scholar
5.Mattoso, N., Mosca, D.H., Mazzaro, I., Teixeira, S.R. and Schreiner, W.H., J. Appl. Phys. 77, 2831 (1995).Google Scholar
6.Kawasaki, K. and Tsutsui, K., Appl. Surf. Sci. 130–132, 464 (1998).Google Scholar
7.Shusterman, Y.V., Yakovlev, N.L. and Schowalter, L.J., to be published in Appl. Surf. Sci. in proceedings of the ICSFS-10 conference, Princeton NJ, July 2000.Google Scholar
8.Barnes, C.J., Asonen, H., Salokatve, A. and Pessa, M., Surface Science 184, 163 (1987).Google Scholar
9.In CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 78th edition, edited by Lide, D.R. (CRC Press, New York 1997), chapter 5 on standard thermodynamic properties of chemical substances.Google Scholar
10.Ashcroft, N.W. and Mermin, N.D., Solid State Physics (Harcourt College Publishers, New York 1976), chapter 2.Google Scholar
11.Lagrange, S., Brongersma, S.H. and Judelewicz, M., Saerens, A., Vervoort, I., Richard, E., Palmans, R. and Maex, K., Microelectron. Eng. 50, 449 (2000).Google Scholar
12.Sondheimer, E.H., Adv. Phys. 1, 1 (1952).Google Scholar
13.Warkusz, F., Progress in Surf. Sci. 10, 287 (1980).Google Scholar