|
1.2.4 Example: Thermal barrier coatings: Q# ]3 D# u7 t. z; {5 V5 V Z
The thermal barrier coating (TBC) system is a multilayer arrangement introduced$ R0 h3 ?+ @# Z+ U6 o
to thermally insulate metallic structural components from the combustion gases in
* f/ D! ?. L0 U5 C0 ^' X5 ^gas turbine engines. The design of TBCs along with appropriate internal cooling
$ V( r* j+ Z& S$ hof the high-temperature metallic components has facilitated the operation of gas! h2 ~% O# `, z# a' @0 f' {
turbine engines at gas temperatures well in excess of the melting temperature of
9 z$ [4 V2 c2 e0 {, y. Jthe turbine blade alloy. This thermal protection system, which reduces the surface
L9 Y; D5 d! l1 U6 ptemperature of the alloy by as much as 300 ±C, leads to better engine e±ciency,3 z6 U& ]9 Y. Q2 o I
performance, durability and environmental characteristics.! z, m2 U4 `, Z/ R2 }2 R
The performance requirements for TBCs are stringent. The selection of' r, `# n, C. C3 h
materials for TBCs and the design of the layered coating structure inevitably requires4 h9 w; [! o0 f9 f) D9 E
consideration of highly complicated interactions among such phenomena and! I4 M+ `2 Z+ O( G; H
processes as phase transformation, microstructural stability, thermal conduction,1 u/ A- B4 t3 W( d. F: G, e
di®usion, oxidation, thermal expansion mismatch between adjoining materials, radiation,
: Q; u" z0 I4 a) J7 \) s7 das well as damage and failure arising from interface delamination, ¯lm
; {! \9 t6 `9 n3 e* @$ q. Hbuckling, subcritical fracture, foreign-object impact, erosion, thermal and mechanical
& ^, f9 i4 c8 t% B/ @9 ]6 }fatigue, inelastic deformation and creep. Summaries and reviews of such issues' p5 P* ~2 {/ n& v" a
for TBCs have been reported by Evans et al. (2001) and Padture et al. (2002).
2 ~( S8 ?; m$ uA representative TBC system for a gas turbine engine comprises four layers:
) i- Y: Z" c! F$ ~/ Q(a) a metallic substrate, that is, the turbine blade itself, (b) a metallic interlayer or5 E( V9 R# q4 D) M$ P, F
bondcoat, (c) a thermally grown oxide (TGO), and (d) a ceramic outerlayer or topcoat.& M9 V$ M3 d3 |" c
A schematic of the turbine blade along with a scanning electron micrograph K( C9 g" a! y6 h8 w I6 m T
of the cross-section of a layered TBC coating is shown in Figure 1.7.9 U7 f& \" s: q: k/ E/ u6 e
The turbine blade is commonly made of a nickel-base or cobalt-base super1.29 g2 U% i7 G( T: Z' J6 a. j$ \
Film deposition methods 15% A, ~! |9 {" _) k
Fig. 1.7. Illustration of the thermal-barrier coated turbine blade which is air-cooled
. @. _5 ?2 T6 |internally along hollow channels. The outer surface of the blade is coated for _3 `& O5 h5 M& v# g
thermal protection from the hot gases so that there exists a temperature gradient
) }4 g5 F. Q/ W; c, }( \through the cross-section of the TBC. Also shown is a scanning electron micrograph
2 v, ~8 z0 G0 n& I" F$ iof the cross-sectional view of the coating layers which comprise a ceramic topcoat
+ s+ c9 U2 A# i; v# d* C2 edeposited by electron-beam PVD, an alumina TGO layer, and a NiCrAlY bondcoat
% D5 x' I# B# J" o$ pon a nickel-base superalloy substrate. Reprinted with permission from Padture et
8 l- G3 W$ o7 ~7 tal. (2002).), I# h9 R* P6 u. g7 b7 s
alloy which is investment-cast as a single crystal or polycrystal. The bondcoat,7 U) C' a6 S f: z* A3 o; v$ y9 X1 o
typically 75 to 150 ¹m in thickness and made of an oxidation-resistant alloy of
* O, F# x5 ^4 w4 z$ f, t" R* X6 VNiCrAlY or NiCoCrAlY, is deposited onto the substrate using plasma spray or
. q5 Q' Q q% f4 Jelectron-beam PVD. In some cases, the bondcoats are deposited by electroplating u, w# j. k7 o' f/ K% M
along with either di®usion-aluminizing or CVD with layers of Ni and Pt aluminides.& T1 t' u$ T A G
Occasionally, the bondcoats consist of sublayers of di®erent phases or compositions.
; s- w; M; `6 p, n1 YThe bondcoat is a critical component of the TBC system that determines the spallation) g; ~& J j8 _, R- Q( w
resistance of the TBC.
! E) j% G6 ]5 n% C$ J( KThe oxidation of the bondcoat at an operating temperature as high as 700 ±C# p) i# e2 @4 g! p7 K3 B
results in a 1 to 10 ¹m thick TGO layer between the bondcoat and the topcoat.* Z) m! d. e0 X+ k- k
This oxidation process is aided by the transport of oxygen from the surrounding hot
3 n' D' M( H& Cgases in the engine environment through the porous TBC top layer. The TGO layer) q5 r* t7 s% r% v; Q2 `
is also commonly engineered to serve as a di®usion barrier so as to suppress further
/ d |2 A7 ]$ \% p* joxidation of the bondcoat; for this purpose, the in-situ formation of a uniform,
' Q# b' ~8 z. v* \defect-free ®-Al2O3 TGO interlayer is facilitated by controlling the composition of9 D6 I6 _# U8 L, }' \6 H, P
the bondcoat.
/ S4 e. P0 r; PY2O3-stabilized Zr2O3 (YSZ), typically with a Y2O3 concentration of 7 to 8
6 ~$ \, W, K: v1 Rwt%, is the common material of choice for the ceramic topcoat in light of its many( Q- U: G: O! s3 s4 V
desirable properties as a TBC (Padture et al. 2002):
* K. i3 z" z5 a% Q5 |¡ the thermal expansion coe±cient of YSZ has a high value of approximately( F* z" j G. ?( `- h
16 Introduction and Overview
1 Y+ z( C* D* [: x9 |# [11 £10¡6=±C, which is closer to that of the metallic layer beneath it (» 14 £ 10¡6=±C) than to that of most ceramic materials. Consequently, the0 `& O& K. z3 l4 v8 [2 t6 u8 [% `4 V
stresses generated by thermal expansion mismatch with the underlying layers8 N) H0 K8 X" Q, K5 s$ H
during the thermal cycles generated by the operation of the turbine engine- Z5 w( `; R) f4 D
would be minimized;
4 s6 I4 N8 a4 L) ~: S2 X¡ YSZ has a very low thermal conductivity of approximately 2.3 W/m¢K at# u' c+ I( }( l- H* h8 U
1000 ±C when fully dense;
! e7 C. \1 Z) h' B' [5 K1 V) a¡ the low density of YSZ, typically about 6:4 £ 103 kg/m3, improves the performance
+ k: r7 C. F6 m0 ?; Aof the rotating engine component in which it is used as a coating;( M% N S. R1 y1 W& s9 k
¡ the high melting temperature of approximately 2700 ±C makes YSZ a desirable
/ e5 l D" A4 ^, S- H3 Zthermal barrier material;
5 p8 N- P$ g& k3 [) S( Q1 q¡ with a myriad of available processing methods, the YSZ topcoat can be# y, n" J% C" i8 H
deposited with controlled pore content and distribution in a such a way that4 C0 r+ _. C- S& ]! p2 B
it can be made compliant with an elastic modulus of approximately 50 GPa;
. V- @% I/ B/ O5 C T: [and: M1 X' Q* p) Q! g! G4 N
¡ YSZ has a hardness of roughly 14 GPa which renders it resistant to damage4 D3 G* X; Q! z
from foreign object impact and erosion.& ~6 u- {& J: }% ^+ ~. }
The two most common methods of producing the TBC topcoat entail air* n/ [3 b0 C. I n
plasma spray (see Section 1.2.3) and electron-beam physical vapor deposition, EBPVD' a& r3 B( z7 ` i. o9 a
(see Section 1.2.1). The former deposition method produces 15 to 25% porosity
9 K+ [2 _! \3 y9 @' D+ a2 nwhereby low values of thermal conductivity and elastic modulus result. The
* p% m* t4 @4 I, P9 y8 Lspray coating, typically 300 to 600 ¹m thick, contains pancake-shaped splats with
% k- Q, ~% I) J4 G- u6 r% O# Va diameter of 200{400 ¹m and thickness of 1{5 ¹m. The pores and cracks along
& _" [! p0 p+ ^' |the inter-splat boundaries are generally oriented parallel to the interface with the
* h7 p* }! f) E- v S. f( Abondcoat and normal to the direction of heat °ow, a consequence of which is the low
7 R2 P2 r/ x% D1 p' Y& Othermal conductivity of 0.8{1.7 W/m¢K. The air plasma spray method provides an
5 w9 j9 G) H; T% e2 keconomical means for the large-scale production of TBCs. However, the structural
& W5 b. U" {4 N3 k; X5 {defects inherent in this process and the rough interface between the sprayed coating
/ L' g: l- J* L, e% g# n/ P" D4 oand the material beneath it make this deposition technique more suitable for/ H* b% ~! {% u; q9 W* N8 ~- c
less critical parts. The EB-PVD deposited TBCs, on the other hand, are typically
( g& M h7 |4 L$ n125 ¹m thick and are more durable and costly compared to the plasma-sprayed v% C O1 x+ j# A
coatings. They are engineered to comprise the following microstructural features:- C4 G9 i7 i) m
(a) an equiaxed structure of YSZ grains with a diameter of 0.5{1.0 ¹m near the interface) h& P+ t( h0 j
with the bondcoat, (b) columnar grains of YSZ, 2{10 ¹m in diameter which' n w+ `, ]4 }" x$ G, V
extend from the equiaxed grains to the top surface of the coating, with the boundaries
5 c, s: ^- `; a- I. Q' gbetween the columnar grains amenable to easy separation to accommodate
R3 I. A- x+ v9 L2 mthermal stresses that develop during service, and (c) nanometer-size pores inside# G0 S) _+ ?! F% D4 x
the columnar grains.
, H c, n; @5 ]; E) X1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition 17
3 K( r7 K8 r' d4 C; q6 w, N# @* N1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition- C0 t4 @5 }) r: Y9 D& k( _
There is enormous variation in the microstructures of ¯lms formed by deposition
7 w$ E) w* {2 k/ c. d2 ?of atoms on the surfaces of substrates from vapors. Final structures
% m, _( X8 ^; D H# a* gcan range from single crystal ¯lms, through polycrystalline ¯lms with/ b! a$ N$ w9 I; a7 D1 I! A- b- D
columnar or equiaxed grains, to largely amorphous ¯lms. Some materials Z- _! N+ W7 ^2 Z
can be deposited in ways that yield any of these structures, with the ¯nal6 P3 l: N* D/ Z" S3 L: S* c
microstructure depending on the materials involved, the deposition method
# f( l+ d9 J6 x- m9 O# a" dused and the environmental constraints imposed. The purpose in this section9 v! i3 e+ N+ J/ B: c+ ^
is to discuss some general ideas in ¯lm growth by vapor deposition that0 c# T; ?; N* M2 M( Z. W
transcend issues of ¯nal microstructure. The discussion is largely descriptive,
& B3 Q, g1 s( Band it is couched in the terminology of thermodynamics. The principles! q. Y; x, i& M
of thermodynamics provide powerful tools for deciding whether or not some
. t( Z$ Q8 C2 i/ F* n' D# uparticular change in a material system can occur. On the other hand, in
, f2 d. [: P9 ^1 z7 C( o, L( \those cases in which the change considered can indeed take place, thermodynamics) f+ \' ]1 O9 x# @" r: \8 ?
is silent on whether or not it does take place and, if it does occur,+ v4 p+ [7 P3 }1 w8 _1 A
on how it proceeds. Nonetheless, the thermodynamic framework provides( {1 n/ w& ^; z5 ?' U9 P/ s2 [
a basis for establishing connections between deposition circumstances and
$ n6 P, ^0 G. e8 u¯lm formation. Progress toward understanding physical processes of ¯lm2 v7 x8 [8 j: Y( k/ O
growth are discussed in depth by Tsao (1993), Pimpinelli and Villain (1998)8 {& J3 g% ~' I4 V
and Venables (2000).
' `: P* }. t3 B1.3.1 From vapor to adatoms
: O3 ~8 _3 [$ c) ~$ ?In this section, the factors that control the very early stages of growth of a
X, w" v! O& n$ y: }thin ¯lm on a substrate are described in atomistic terms. The process begins
@4 E3 O" D ewith a clean surface of the substrate material, which is at temperature Ts,4 d6 f3 o' P% k( G
exposed to a vapor of a chemically compatible ¯lm material, which is at the6 K) f# e3 Z' ` N
temperature Tv. To form a single crystal ¯lm, atoms of the ¯lm material in
( H7 }- d) s$ o9 S* o u/ |the vapor must arrive at the substrate surface, adhere to it, and settle into9 V0 R9 ^4 V! m- Y1 k
possible equilibrium positions before structural defects are left behind the( L! }" G& O/ G! z: |/ q, K4 E
growth front. To form an amorphous ¯lm, on the other hand, atoms must
+ p. _/ M; w/ ~3 Y/ p; R7 R6 q! |2 Zbe prevented from seeking stable equilibrium positions once they arrive at
; I$ `; b! }& Cthe growth surface. In either case, this must happen in more or less the" o- b/ f$ T5 e, `- c$ V
same way over a very large area of the substrate surface for the structure0 E i4 I# R1 @$ t
to develop. At ¯rst sight, this outcome might seem unlikely, but such ¯lms' a( y# N0 b4 Q2 `- k \
are produced routinely.
0 T/ ^7 n7 E. z7 JAtoms in the vapor come into contact with the substrate surface where+ ~$ n9 ?) s" L1 Y- M
18 Introduction and Overview
& J9 i' _3 O4 _& Z" y# r
( S# z" H2 L' J0 x9 |1 p
0 F+ s/ K( W9 C J
# ~7 p$ U B: { " I1 L# I0 |4 U* {. [& L
, W$ O E, H, F3 ~
$ U3 {0 I) W8 F+ Z
1 Q9 \ V/ r. J! x- t& d) F# X$ O / r8 T7 a) L/ W8 M$ a( s
; d' y& e* ?0 m9 c1 M* {2 }
5 k5 ?( `. \. T; R8 n- K7 u; A/ R [/ H % L' ~3 [! j% B5 Z6 b
3 n) C0 }5 F- |4 X' g
* N* f4 a: K1 o8 [5 P6 f
2 H& r" u4 A2 n' G6 ?5 o8 P% v, M6 t' x0 l
6 d) j% B- [% T9 y
8 `! z2 U- O E2 B7 U0 r $ _; E7 z* }" \+ s
/ e" r& _- w( G7 E9 [; ~
; P% h9 `5 E ?/ L# L" |
) R# I2 x' w# z* D% Q+ u! Y5 `
9 g9 A }' C- `# }
% L9 B3 d/ i" j# P. [Fig. 1.8. Schematic showing the atomistics of ¯lm formation on substrates.
& S# o# a f: X" u3 M) @4 y$ z4 C+ Othey form chemical bonds with atoms in the substrate. The temperature of& j* T, ~6 m+ X, K/ E
the substrate must be low enough so that the vapor phase is supersaturated- V+ r0 Y2 A/ b; I# N
in some sense with respect to the substrate, an idea that will be made more
U! b" m8 ]3 pconcrete below. There is a reduction in energy due to formation of the bonds6 k y$ B2 c+ r- ^% _! {1 ?0 d3 U
during attachment. Some fraction of the attached atoms, which are called6 g, ]7 R* I- j z% ?
adatoms, may return to the vapor by evaporation if their energies due to% q8 R) Q6 \3 P0 P$ @+ y. T
thermal °uctuations are su±cient to occasionally overcome the energy of
6 W' D; l5 c" V5 dattachment, as suggested in the schematic diagram in Figure 1.8. To make
8 F: Z8 y7 B/ J/ S: Z( E1 ^the discussion a bit more speci¯c, a simple hexagonal close-packed crystal, F/ ^( M* [0 I$ s6 S* ~- y
structure is assumed for convenience in counting bonds.2 z& Z" `: w0 v: F( ]
It has already been recognized that, for ¯lm growth to be possible, it is5 i* L4 t; A' v7 v; L, ]
necessary that the vapor in contact with the growth surface is supersaturated8 K- n& K8 r7 a' @4 z/ A1 {2 s$ |
with respect to the substrate at its temperature Ts. For a homogeneous
7 I; n& N% u+ u" {" b5 [crystal at some temperature that is in contact with its own vapor at the/ F" ]2 l! w- G! `8 a8 v6 u q
same temperature, the equilibrium vapor pressure pe of the system is de¯ned' \8 w1 ]; X/ Y7 ^# A/ Q
as the pressure at which condensation of vapor atoms onto the solid surface8 c% R0 O; l' T& u2 H2 O
and evaporation of atoms from the surface proceed at the same rate. At
3 u( r3 P1 E2 @$ K! i3 \equilibrium, the entropic free energy per atom in the vapor equals the free
$ d$ ?/ x0 j+ ^& u& ]+ G" e& Aenergy per atom in the interior of the crystal. The lower internal energy of9 @* x3 k0 W! Z, q6 Q
atoms in the interior of the crystal compared to those in the vapor, due to* S: }0 H8 _7 O8 b# R. B' {
chemical bonding, is o®set by the lower entropic energy within the crystal.
8 H2 a6 t/ n5 H% c H: V) }3 _For net deposition on the substrate surface, it is essential that the pressure5 }* u9 r: H/ S% C
p in the vapor exceeds the equilibrium vapor pressure pe at the substrate; E* C1 b6 Q. I$ S) \
temperature, that is, the vapor must be supersaturated. For the pressure
- Y3 J# ]- l+ R2 y0 kp, the entropic free energy per atom of the vapor, over and above the free
! w' W2 Z% b+ |1 n, ~' ]; \energy at pressure pe, is estimated as the work needed per atom to increase8 B% N7 _9 j, I/ q- f" {+ n
the vapor pressure from pe to p at constant temperature. According to the
1 m7 I: w0 h6 z7 I0 uideal gas law, the result is kTv ln(p=pe) where k = 1:38£10−23 J/K= 8:617£
7 P" J, @8 o, o L( M1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition 19
) Z3 [9 N7 Q" d/ j1 V1 i) R3 Q10−5 eV/K is the Boltzmann constant and Tv is the absolute temperature
; b. {% e- y' e5 t/ lof the vapor. If the vapor becomes supersaturated, a free energy di®erence
6 L2 M9 n: B" j7 m& Z$ fbetween the vapor and the interior of the crystal exists, providing a chemical* \& F" F8 n" P
potential for driving the advance of the interface toward the vapor. As the) r2 {% H& |2 V3 \+ Z2 q0 D* r# d
interface advances in a self-similar way, a remote layer of vapor of some mass
/ o- U7 U! }: h' P& ~/ B5 W9 C; gis converted into an interior layer of crystal of the same mass. The interface' w% X) ^( Z3 y3 h
does not advance or retreat when these energies are identical.
2 Q2 m. J* `7 C3 K4 U6 e- dIn ¯lm deposition, the situation is often complicated by the fact that* u6 g# N" ]1 \
the vapor and the substrate are not phases of the same material, and by
) j% _7 ^8 D/ Q; ~' u% fthe fact that the temperature of the substrate is usually lower than that of
% D) @% {" Z. y$ P s1 m6 nthe vapor. The de¯nition of equilibrium vapor pressure is not so clear in
2 s, ^6 y! j7 n/ ?9 Tthis case. However, in most cases there will be some level of vapor pressure
) K9 e7 B# T2 J) ]1 N- _+ z$ Nbelow which deposition of ¯lm material onto the growth surface will not" _8 O1 i* d2 e+ E* k
occur; this serves as an operational de¯nition of pe for ¯lm growth.9 q* Q' P+ a* c
Once adatoms become attached to the substrate, their entropic free* J7 p- s6 L! X& P- h
energy is reduced from that of the vapor. The adatoms form a distribution
. J. Y: Q- z/ \, ]9 k" g$ h& _on the substrate surface having the character of a two-dimensional vapor.0 h3 P/ `0 T# W2 W- I
The deposited material it is believed to thermalize quickly and to take on the* m' {% R5 f5 ~. n& U
temperature Ts. On a crystal surface, there is some density ½ad of adatoms- F- U" q# {' t+ \! X1 g$ J8 t
that is in equilibrium with a straight surface step or ledge bordering a partial
0 V: e) F0 X1 b4 C* o( ~) C6 x2 k* |monolayer of ¯lm atoms, that is, for which the step neither advances nor
& V* H) M8 O$ @0 g* N2 Nrecedes. The step is a boundary between two phases in a homogeneous
8 q- x/ u7 z/ o6 C; P6 nmaterial system. Consequently, the notion of equilibrium vapor pressure
0 i7 P3 p# e& Y+ s) ]. n1 H. zor equilibrium vapor density ½e
6 K, ?8 _" u8 Dad can be invoked in an analogous way. For( |0 }; q9 N" ]/ ]7 a
¯lm growth to occur by condensation, the free energy per atom of the twodimensional% h4 j3 u# f+ |% o4 [
gas must exceed the free energy of a fully entrained surface% t/ x* K( L5 {! @/ {0 x
atom by the amount Eph = kTs ln(½ad=½e; l; Y) ]& o" z
ad).9 ^, c' g5 y: A) s
1.3.2 From adatoms to film growth
5 `: u# Z3 g2 O Y* XEach adatom presumably resides within an equilibrium energy well on the
8 x+ u9 q ?, q. c# }2 L( v, Tsurface most of the time, and this well is separated from adjacent energy
3 Q R# E; P- H; X4 }4 Gwells by a barrier of height Ed > 0 with respect to the equilibrium position.
9 b/ Y& `! S1 Q& k. MThe atoms oscillate in their wells due to thermal activation and,
5 F F6 q+ d0 X3 w% loccasionally, they acquire su±cient energy to hop into adjacent equilibrium
% B: ^0 o( L$ B, T" r2 k/ Ywells. Surface di®usion results from such jumps. If the surface is spatially T0 g: M6 s( Q& e1 @
uniform, di®usion occurs randomly with no net mass transport on a macroscopic
7 {* |/ ~5 J4 b; m, fscale. The hopping rate of any given atom increases with increasing1 g% \' n# s/ r, z9 `# D# E
substrate temperature. Occasionally, attached atoms may also change positions
* a: C7 P% X7 ~! r. lwith substrate atoms, but this possibility is not pursued further in
( w5 T) Y! [& h20 Introduction and Overview
8 E9 E- K0 j t: _this discussion. If the surface is not uniform, perhaps as a result of a strain
6 l3 m: G5 k' ?' Hgradient or a structural gradient, then surface di®usion can be directionally
9 R0 J" m( q5 x4 p/ hbiased, resulting in a net mass transport along the surface on a macroscopic# ~9 I- H8 B# S8 m
scale. Consequences of such transport are considered in Chapters 8 and 9. If
# f8 i6 ~% g6 M) G5 cthe temperature is very low or if the di®usion barrier is very high, adatoms
- f0 A& Y, m( U' d6 Cstick on the growth surface where they arrive, and the ¯lm tends to grow+ K& _2 R) f) H( J) H( h6 Q! T
with an amorphous or very ¯ne-grained polycrystalline structure.
2 l. o) x- T8 r, T" VThe growth surface invariably has some distribution of surface defects
; g. Z& n8 l$ O; g/ H7 g @{ crystallographic steps, grain boundary traces and dislocation line terminations," b" t4 l0 F; C$ O0 i: {4 Z
for example { which provide sites of relatively easy attachment for
# Q4 _( {1 h! J, q' t. s ~adatoms. The spacing between defects represents a length scale for comparison: K4 Y% A6 v& {6 t8 i) G( K, v3 w
to the extent of random walk di®usion paths. If the di®usion distance is
# x: u# U! e2 _4 q# ~" I% u' ylarge compared to the defect spacing, then adatoms tend to encounter these6 C. [6 g$ y- N& @3 c$ V
defects and become attached to them, giving up some free energy in the
& ?/ ]* Q* [2 Iprocess. This is the case of heterogeneous nucleation and growth of ¯lms.
# B l, a+ J# o' u6 ZGeneral statements about such processes are also di±cult to make. In some
3 Q' s8 {$ P+ E8 m8 kcases, surface steps are relatively transparent to migrating adatoms, that is,) s& @4 a" X! e- h8 k
adatoms often pass over the step in either the up direction or the down direction
+ l" n* b7 G1 |- \without attachment. For other materials, virtually every encounter of0 k" x4 a' H3 }
an adatom with the step results in attachment. In yet other cases, adatoms) } z4 m# O6 d) V# e) t' h9 B
easily bypass steps in the up direction but not in the down direction, a manifestation8 x: r3 w0 Z) e5 m# \8 }! t* ?& A
of the so-called Schwoebel barrier (Schwoebel 1969). If the spacing+ d, M `( |* ^
of defects is large compared to the di®usion distance, on the other hand,
8 E9 } \9 l& V& v& ?- n% uthen migrating adatoms have the potential for lowering the energy of the
: T% C3 x% q( Qsystem by binding together upon mutual encounters to form clusters. The4 z" D& H$ _! c* V8 e6 ]) D
case of formation of such stable clusters is called homogeneous nucleation- ~2 q3 i2 U0 a: y+ `
of ¯lm growth. That there is some minimum cluster size necessary for formation
4 f8 p5 S) g0 r' c4 Kof a stable nucleus can be demonstrated by appeal to the following
+ l2 s1 f: v: K" Oargument based on classical nucleation theory.6 w' O; J2 z+ P9 N
It was noted in Section 1.3.1 that the free energy of an adatom in the9 `7 t* V ]7 {# z
supersaturated distribution on the surface is Eph with respect to its state9 \ F* v/ ]- V3 a3 ]+ c0 O2 p
once entrained within the surface layer. In other words, this is the amount
, u: b3 x' V# o8 \ v* x& qof energy reduction per atom associated with the phase change from a two
5 O% z. U: z* x7 g8 w& X! ddimensional gas of adatoms on the surface to a completely condensed surface
. E/ [4 v0 v- ]8 T5 k4 X6 ?layer. Suppose that a planar cluster of n atoms is formed on the surface.
; v9 I* C8 ~$ v: d( c& r3 a1 DWill it tend to grow into a larger cluster, and eventually into a ¯lm, or will9 a6 i6 Y" M; k
the cluster tend to disperse? If all n atoms are fully entrained within the
* q/ g9 y9 c* u' ?2 D- O* Ecluster then the free energy reduction due to cluster formation would be
, ?" f: U; ?8 N. L. ~8 |! A4 Q¡nEph. However, those atoms on the periphery of the cluster are not fully
% X: B& H8 c3 A" J# W. [& cincorporated. They possess an excess free energy compared to those that
7 u7 g; l" }# P; L" [7 o1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition 219 u, |' k- p) {. }5 v" n
are fully entrained; this energy can be estimated to be roughly 4p¼nEf for
9 p( h+ E7 ^3 E9 ]: v+ ~an equiaxed cluster, if n is fairly large compared to unity. This quantity has
5 U" V) C# e# T9 X$ h2 G; i: ^the character of a surface step energy. The free energy change associated
, ]: f% c; r% fwith cluster formation is then. E4 W8 m- q% e3 D# p( U
¢F = ¡nEph + 4p¼nEf : (1.1)+ G+ B. l, ?1 h, F/ l9 O9 O8 ^- { }
A graph of F versus n for ¯xed ¢Eph and Ef shows a maximum value for0 N% R8 r% p: V) ^
a cluster size of n∗ = 4¼(Ef=Eph)2. The value of ¢F at n∗, which is the6 p$ D2 _& D$ Z0 w+ N* l
activation energy for cluster formation, is ¢F∗ = 4¼E25 p2 t# {: B4 v1 v5 ?2 X) ?, k/ A! L
f =Eph. The implication
6 ]9 a# Y+ f# Z9 b8 O6 r D0 Ois that clusters smaller than the size n∗ are unstable and that they tend to
$ a; [4 J+ x* @1 |: Z6 n/ Adisperse, whereas clusters larger than this size tend to grow, driven by a) v+ F/ P% F" h. R% G% }
corresponding reduction in free energy. It is likely that many clusters form
- H7 a/ q, ?; X! H8 M. hand disperse for each one that evolves into an island. In fact, the classical, ], o: ^* R: C2 E; K8 e
nucleation theory says nothing about such processes, other than that they
/ }# x+ V7 W0 g5 A; j9 q: Gare possible. In any case, for a ¯lm to form on the substrate surface, it is k- L1 n6 r$ x$ ]: v. }9 Y0 e8 l
necessary that either nuclei formed by such homogeneous processes are able: D: f; F! W# s: }$ R/ `# s- J
to grow or that a su±cient number of surface defects are available to serve
- k: h g; d* ~" {) @- {as sites of heterogeneous nucleation.% F$ l D7 Z% ]" s
The mode of ¯lm formation is determined by the relative values of the* N! K6 J j0 l
various energies involved in the process, and this mode largely determines9 g- f, P1 P, y* H% c1 V, }
the eventual structure of the ¯lm. There are two main comparisons to be
% B. ]8 n" u0 `6 G+ g8 P- qconsidered. One of these contrasts the height of the di®usion barrier Ed to- k/ o" i; B+ V, ]) t
the background thermal energy. If Ed is large compared to the background" B* E! N) M) S' l; W1 b, ^
thermal energy then surface mobility of adatoms is very low. Under such f/ y. O# \- ]( [, W- t2 X
conditions, adatoms more or less stick where they arrive on the substrate! x- _7 s! `0 ?. c2 c; k7 c% D( `: W
surface.: i5 U) ~: `( m( {" ~8 E8 R
For growth of crystalline ¯lms, it is important that Ed be less than: E, V* y/ ?2 U9 m$ H: U3 }
the background thermal energy so that adatoms are able to seek out and
: P/ O( {% r; c! goccupy virtually all available equilibrium sites in the ¯lm crystal lattice
9 ~! @& v! V4 U& y- Aas it grows. This requires the substrate temperature and/or the degree of
" r# t) f* j- K0 t# z$ Zsupersaturation of the vapor to be high enough to insure such mobility.
6 \* p0 y7 f. H) dSuppose that this is indeed so and that the adatoms are able to migrate
/ r) K/ q7 f, oover the surface.( N& M5 \3 t4 U" `
The other important energy comparison concerns the propensity for
% L3 Y3 l; I+ |) d6 Xatoms of ¯lm material to bond to the substrate. This is represented by the9 J$ g7 N; r7 C% s
magnitude of Efs, relative to their tendency to bond to other, less well-bound,
! `# d6 U3 h0 x. F" }/ ^atoms of ¯lm material, as represented by Ef . Two kinds of growth processes
: I) |" W) M3 t7 Ncan be distinguished, one with Efs larger in magnitude than Ef, and a second
( a5 q% J; ?# j" i4 f* D! R$ }4 p0 R3 B0 Cwith the relative magnitudes reversed. If Efs is the larger of the two energy
/ X5 B: C; [/ t4 n' Qchanges in magnitude, then ¯lm growth tends to proceed in a layer by layer
! i2 \* H }4 C) [22 Introduction and Overview& A' v7 B% G/ F- }) H
mode, as indicated in the schematic diagram in Figure 1.8. Adatoms are8 a- c7 k2 p3 [
more likely to attach to the substrate surface than to other ¯lm material
5 H. g2 K. R( q4 ]3 `surfaces. Once small stable clusters of adatoms form on the surface, other: \+ B% e: o5 k8 c; Q* d
adatoms tend to attach to the cluster at its periphery where they can bond- E, T L% _ g N2 f7 a
with both substrate and ¯lm atoms, thereby continuing the planar growth,
/ v# M& l9 U+ G# q- ^as indicated in Figure 1.8. This layer-by-layer ¯lm growth mode is often K; o9 T* ]4 q3 C: \! e
called the Frank—van der Merwe growth mode or FM mode, according to a
7 B5 ?/ ]4 H6 W! m" w! K# lcategorization of growth modes proposed by Bauer (1958) on the basis of# t8 S; W H" X X: g
more macroscopic considerations of surface energy. This alternate point of# m1 R. ^) [# S+ _( C, N% j n
view will be considered in Section 1.3.5.; b$ f- A+ p# F) ~+ H4 z
On the other hand, if Ef is larger in magnitude than Efs, then it is
; P; x! \1 {( t. s1 N& n5 Q' ?' nenergetically favorable for adatoms to form three-dimensional clusters or
0 _% s3 E3 ~1 oislands on the surface of the substrate. Film growth proceeds by the growth+ u9 M$ f7 P$ n1 w
of islands until they coalescence; this type of growth is commonly called the7 N4 n6 w& k/ H9 |7 ?' h2 x
Volmer—Weber growth mode or the VW mode; see Figure 1.8., V6 t) v7 y7 c2 _! s3 ?
A third type of growth, which combines features of both the Frank{van
) \1 G2 m) p. l3 q: `: ^der Merwe and the Volmer{Weber modes, is called the Stranski—Krastanov2 V) p/ k1 V9 u/ e4 k; `) u
growth mode or SK mode. In this mode, the ¯lm material tends to prefer
h Q/ w8 [9 B& w" z' e battachment to the growth surface rather than the formation of clusters on
+ E% S& W* Y( p1 d( V% s8 H% Gthe growth surface; that is, Efs is greater in magnitude than Ef. However,
6 R4 [' i/ W* safter a few monolayers of ¯lm material are formed and after the structure of' A7 z7 Y) c" X) M' g! f& W
the ¯lm becomes better de¯ned as a crystal in conformity with the substrate,
: ^* K5 O+ z7 u6 _the tendency is reversed. In other words, once the planar growth surface3 R: m8 T! d- y& g# R
becomes established as ¯lm material, subsequent adatoms tend more to! u8 ]: } l0 R* ^1 |$ h
gather into clusters than to continue planar growth. The magnitude of Efs
9 Y+ h% r( r% l% r6 ]* _appears to depend on the thickness of the ¯lm in the early stages of growth,; z0 f/ }* M, N; J" y* v3 w
decreasing from values larger than the magnitude of Ef to values that are
) ^! e0 j! a- m l* esmaller. The occurrence of this mode is most likely when the ¯rst few layers
# R8 A8 }; n ~( h, e0 M' s2 I: Nof ¯lm material are heavily strained due to the constraint of the substrate.
6 [# ]) y7 [' d8 ^: [This issue is revisited in Section 1.3.5." A( \/ h8 c" Z- n* }
1.3.3 Energy density of a free surface or an interface- `2 ^5 z) l$ j5 n. V3 e
In the preceding discussion, the early stages in the growth of a ¯lm from a- F, n$ a$ p3 t e3 R, f* j
vapor were considered in a qualitative way in terms of the behavior of atoms.
4 \& e. B. ?0 K. s3 M8 C' G/ u/ eMany of the inferences drawn can also be made in terms of surface energy9 E: v8 A+ E2 q$ q8 ^8 D+ E
and interface energy of solid materials. These quantities are macroscopic3 i0 C' X6 U! Q8 Y, _* f- C3 R
measures attributable to the discreteness of the material. However, they, g3 J, S- {( p, b. D- G( ^) @
represent only ensemble averages of behavior at the atomistic level and do. O) j+ V* C4 I8 X- B7 r8 F
not incorporate discreteness of the material in any direct way. In many
. n @9 X4 `8 D: z& T# Z1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition 23
9 {3 A5 H2 F" }cases of microstructure evolution, knowledge of these quantities provides an' H4 P/ R5 h+ K
adequate basis for understanding the ¯lm growth process. In this section,
7 L! O } |/ ?+ ^( f1 ?these quantities are discussed in general terms, and implications for ¯lm
4 e \! J" \' Ygrowth are considered.
7 p4 B, t. l8 Z+ ISurface energy is an important concept in considering the evolution
4 U+ o6 z6 f/ d8 Z jof microstructure in small-scale material systems. The free energy of the2 m' g2 G; V! | @' Y1 M
bounding surface of a crystal is a macroscopic quantity representing, in some
/ u/ E: } B: d4 ?2 r Q& _2 e& ?. esense, the net work that had to be done to create that surface. This energy0 R% I7 v! h4 E0 b T
is distributed over a speci¯c mathematical surface, which has no thickness,# E: I U+ s& u$ I( n
and which approximates the physical boundary between the crystal and its
. e$ j* a1 A3 Qsurroundings. From this de¯nition of surface energy it is clear that the
( J, Z( g! u! @4 c5 Ereference level for energy of a free surface is the state of the material on that
5 `" ~7 M7 H% [$ D4 \8 D' Csame crystallographic surface when it is embedded deep within a perfect; N( [% f3 \% ~. e) j
crystal. Presumably, creation of the surface was accomplished by dividing
" q6 V, r* l% G( T( y& y# x& Ta larger crystal into two parts by separating these parts along a common. f4 ]+ X; p7 k
bounding surface. The total work done per unit area is assumed to be* m- u. @# \5 e/ r+ n
evenly divided between the two bounding surfaces created. The concept of# Q/ S$ D: ?. b$ \9 J0 D
speci¯c surface energy, or energy of cohesion, appears to have its origins in4 j% y! W: N+ d
a theory of °uid surfaces due to Young (1805) and Rayleigh (1890). The
. Q+ b9 S) N; ?: C) {% j7 `concept was subsequently extended to crystal surfaces, where it was given a
" e" L1 E$ v' q$ F+ `central role in the work of Gibbs (1878). A useful geometrical interpretation+ K) n3 T+ T. x4 c
was provided subsequently by Wul® (1901). Later important contributions
n4 x0 T+ W- m! Y7 d, L4 x4 q) U3 rto the equilibrium theory of crystal surfaces and to the description of the
% J: P% T7 J/ M$ Xenergetics of surface evolution were provided by Herring (1953).8 n9 p0 g7 }6 h3 j% [/ E
In general, there is a free energy reduction (increase) associated with
( k! a3 e: p9 ^7 u [& q5 gforming (breaking) a chemical bond. It follows that there is an increase in3 J2 V$ Q1 p* q4 H! x ?% d U
free energy associated with creating a free surface that is more or less proportional
, E1 `3 u# m, D) E) Wto the area of surface created or the number of chemical bonds per
+ m G% n7 n5 ]2 u& Runit area that are directly involved. Once the surface is created, the corresponding
( N2 r3 N9 z' R. v$ h$ Gfree energy is, ¯rst and foremost, in the form of chemical bonding
2 { R% o+ ^: L( xpotential, but other physical factors can contribute to surface energy as$ l2 w" U. ?2 m: j
well. At the surface of a coherent crystal, the atoms retain the general
5 F5 _5 i M$ d+ _) |4 N* u. yarrangement that de¯nes the crystal structure. However, the spacings in) M, T; }% ?" U$ d9 N& Q& z
this arrangement are altered once bonds are broken; this is necessary to
% T- [8 q9 z& D" F+ M" Trestore equilibrium following the `disappearance' of interactions across the# I" {# m# b0 J v! d/ d
surface. Through this change in spacing, atoms at or very near the surface. [, h% \( p8 O2 p+ o9 q& K5 ]
are able to relax to energy states somewhat lower than those in the natural
8 j5 E9 Y3 v9 \ i+ Zlattice sites in the interior of the crystal; this change in positional energy4 _4 ~" v# K+ ]* S
may reduce the surface energy from the level predicted by bond counting
1 a# f- t/ C& u1 Halone. The e®ect is due primarily to the longer range interactions between' H' O, p. I# N& Y2 r
24 Introduction and Overview L9 J. F' Y! |8 _2 ]
atoms in the crystal. If only nearest neighbor interactions are taken into* K9 p5 m s% x6 N3 j3 d
account, then interactions forces are typically zero at equilibrium. However,
& o! F8 [% F3 L# jif next nearest neighbor interactions are also taken into account, then nearest
% U/ ? ?, c% q3 D6 Pneighbor interaction forces are compressive and next nearest neighbor
0 x( y1 z# {0 B- lforces are tensile at equilibrium. Consequently, if some of the interactions
7 L$ q5 X7 N4 d7 Vare eliminated to form a surface, unbalanced forces remain in the con¯guration5 r* {! P$ J+ K! n$ v. I
unless rearrangements occur.: ]4 s: G; R, T' e; t
There is yet another factor that comes into play in considering the
H' m/ \* Z, W& C4 }7 n9 l; ? kenergies of surfaces, namely, surface reconstruction or rebonding. Chemical
9 m0 C4 l. d1 a" ]4 @2 bbonds that are broken in creating a free surface are free or `dangling'
' g: X. y; L; s g6 I7 \* U2 E% @in the process described up to this point. Atoms in surfaces with bonding7 U7 ]$ D' `2 d
potential may seek out other atoms within the surface with the potential
( {4 W5 h `2 A2 C5 |to form bonds. Bond formation is likely to occur in such cases if it results+ p2 w% H& @4 H% q: v
in a net lowering of the energy of the system. Usually, more than one$ p( x% a p2 O( P
such reconstruction is possible for a given crystallographic surface. Each; {, F; B3 w, z- A5 w
reconstructed con¯guration represents a local minimum of free energy with
8 ]1 m0 l7 O1 s' J% Y$ v) R mrespect to that con¯guration. Presumably, the system seeks out the absolute
3 f+ t# Q) P, ]- G+ Ominimum from among these as the actual reconstructed con¯guration; the
7 d1 ~0 e5 R0 r4 Wchoice might depend on temperature, lattice strain or other factors. Reconstructed% [2 H: s- F0 d
surfaces are typically periodic, but with lattice vectors that are very S: N7 Q* ^- X/ }2 ]( V l
di®erent from the those of the underlying crystal. Reconstruction may also4 V! ~" v# m; n" R/ ~$ n+ [( F- ]9 V
result in surface anisotropy that is not representative of the lattice itself.) g! t; u+ i- Y, O T" O+ f
In summary, surface free energy represents the net energy increase of
4 |2 u% b) G' [% y) a: h2 \the system due to work that must be done to overcome chemical bonds in; U% X7 A6 F& U" V
creating the surface, reduced by any relaxation of atomic positions of lattice! }' z" E, {. ~) o: `
sites adjacent to the surface, and further reduced by surface reconstructions
S4 Q: [0 T9 x! T" _8 twhich take place to match up available bonds in the surface. It is a macroscopic# n8 r0 e. r1 x5 a
quantity represented mathematically by a scalar function of position( i# U" t, U5 o, ~
over a material surface. The value of surface energy per unit area of a given% U$ t* j' m, W$ r5 h8 E% Y
crystallographic surface orientation is determined by the ¯ne scale structure
/ `; y& g( A3 C' b& cof that surface. The ¯ne scale structure of the 'perfect' crystal may# t4 s, _' C+ R, J5 E3 Z' \3 Y
include steps only one atom spacing in height separating terraces, combinations! h' J5 i& v9 e% n2 q
of facets, various rebounding con¯gurations and other features unique; L# e- U) A* E% g# I; Z) K- z* T
to surface structure.
2 N. s/ p9 t' kConsider an isolated small crystal of some particular initial shape.
# E/ |- F' o! Q( SKnowledge of the dependence of surface energy on surface orientation is& g; d: ~7 X" X- j% C7 |. b+ |: ^
su±cient to predict a minimum energy shape for the small crystal when# ~/ \* l5 E! I% d. `1 u% p
surface energy is the only free energy contribution that changes when shape
0 @, Y0 F. ^' u2 ~. ?# X, K fchanges. This shape is most readily determined by means of the Wul®% J4 Z8 i8 T: j6 }: M
construction, as illustrated schematically in two dimensions in Figure 1.9.3 X: \+ q7 A% U/ T- e: m
1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition 25' M: g0 ^# U) U" i$ L0 L. O5 X% j
Fig. 1.9. Representative polar plot of surface free energy in a symmetry plane of a
' V, Y: h9 }: j( I N {! {4 Jcrystal; the free energy of a surface at a certain orientation is the radial distance
: l- F0 G f& j- j+ c- X$ U. m8 k' Xfrom the origin to the lobed curve in the direction of the surface normal. The Wul®8 B5 p) ]* j6 P) v9 o% e" p
construction is illustrated by the family of lighter weight lines, with one member; f( A2 P9 K" P3 n/ {
of the family and its corresponding perpendicular radial line shown in a heavier
# o* l7 T! H0 m% m" i6 J' b7 H" ?2 Gweight. The constructed equilibrium shape of the crystal is shown by the dashed9 r2 U2 f) Z! }. C5 D8 {
line.
" M$ _& i0 z, YIn this diagram, the solid lobed curve represents the variation of surface, u) C7 H4 D9 j6 ?% t
free energy with orientation; the radial distance in some direction from the
; L- \5 @# K: norigin of the polar plot to the solid curve is the free energy per unit area
% s* X( u1 b9 dof a planar surface with normal vector in the direction of the radial line. A8 u1 U; B$ ?& b1 x6 J; c
representative radial line is shown in the ¯gure. To form the surface shape,8 n( E/ I. @* Z# V
a line perpendicular to the radial line is drawn through the point where the# r6 G& O0 s8 U4 ^5 A) w
radial line intersects the curve of surface energy. Several examples of such, d# m8 t7 C. ? z1 y# `
lines are shown in the ¯gure, with the particular line perpendicular to the* c) f2 a: ]3 }1 ?% G5 }
radial line shown in heavier weight. The low temperature equilibrium shape) P' ]/ W8 s0 `6 B! o- P2 q. f6 d
of the small crystal is then geometrically similar to the region completely
# d9 C& u! g7 R3 [- Q9 V) Oenclosed by the totality of these perpendicular lines as the angle of the radial
1 j5 N7 W: Q' Z: L7 F# Tline varies continuously over its full range. This equilibrium shape is shown
, _$ D" B- t, ]: B! uas the heavy dashed line in the ¯gure. A proof that this construction leads t& M- s; T. n# N, g" h4 j
to the shape with minimum surface energy is outlined by Herring (1953)., j' s( i: e0 T O& l2 l
The construction is readily generalized to three space dimensions.
5 k* i& v; S3 y+ ZMany additional observations can be made on the basis of the same- V8 O! ^% Y- ^ N$ U4 z8 }
construction (Herring 1951). Among the most useful of these concerns the7 g; v0 H4 j) V$ P7 ]
possibility of a macroscopically °at surface assuming a corrugated or peak26
' T/ r- C0 }) K# v0 }) oIntroduction and Overview, a5 j) g( `9 p% o0 L) v
and-valley shape in order to reduce its free energy. For example, if a macroscopically2 O6 D, }3 ]. N) y1 O* w
°at surface has the orientation of one of the °at surfaces in the
& s( [' Y0 Q1 z0 d: B! R4 v3 g4 D/ Jequilibrium shape, then no corrugated surface composed microscopically of- C, d# ~; L/ U7 X* t" p9 E8 O
other orientations can be more stable. Conversely, if a given macroscopically* U. c- z. Y1 v5 }" z' |$ s
°at surface of a crystal does not coincide in orientation with some portion
) L& h& H/ g" Y1 f9 \$ o' |$ }of the boundary of the equilibrium shape, then there will always be a corrugated) \5 g# G. E' L9 ?- k
structure, with the same average orientation as the initial °at surface,
) ~) c. P, t9 uwhich has a lower free energy than the °at surface; this corrugated structure+ T$ R% N$ {3 {, Q* F# t/ \9 M; }/ Y( f
will be made up of segments of surface coinciding in orientation with the
' W: _% H. p2 t& c) p5 r. k°at faces of the equilibrium shape. The scale of the surface corrugations
y) r& \, q* _! }6 w& p; J+ X- ~is indeterminate unless an energy is associated with the edges where the
; _: v1 `' w6 d F8 H. W0 Z+ \( { P Sdi®erent facets of the con¯guration intersect.+ |$ t' @3 [* e1 D; L& d
Like free surfaces, interface surfaces at which materials are joined can9 h5 g) ]# ?0 H. f8 H4 E
also be represented macroscopically as discrete surfaces and can be characterized/ ?! x" ^5 i6 ~4 K
by an interface surface energy per unit area. The physical origin
6 ~3 F A& j# b8 Aof this energy is essentially the same as that of a free surface. The energy
1 M7 B7 y! @, g& Jdensity of an interface is presumably less than the sum of the free surface
! H. o7 d% ?) f. M$ Lenergies of the two materials joined at that interface, and greater than the% A% b% {, p4 j$ k3 u) y) e' U
energy densities within either of the materials at interior points remote from$ `$ b* b" G# i9 S/ {
the interface.
; ~- p s; E7 U3 m2 U+ cSuppose that a small cluster or island of ¯lm material of volume V is( s, ], k: Z' K
deposited onto the surface of the substrate. With this deposition, there is: r) t+ |5 {; [6 E
a decrease in the area of substrate free surface, a change in the area of free
! H! v+ v; S0 K P3 ` A+ Esurface of the ¯lm material, and an increase in the area of a shared interface.
$ n# k2 d7 I) o) J0 l3 E( CThere is a surface free energy density associated with both the substrate7 G9 a; p' p9 z) L3 W) c% Y. N
and ¯lm materials, say °s and °f , respectively. Likewise, there is also a
; a6 N$ \ @5 T3 hcharacteristic interface free energy per unit area, say °fs, associated with2 k0 v, O$ s3 O1 u% }. k, i Z- Q; J
the interface. What e®ect does the change in free energy associated with% u9 M; f8 S0 L7 L% r* p3 d
these surfaces have on the equilibrium shape of the island, assuming that
8 R9 K- k$ e8 i5 g& H! _the substrate surface remains °at? The equilibrium shape is that particular
" y3 ^" M1 M5 sshape that minimizes the free energy for given island volume.
" C) A9 F# g& S) d$ tTo illustrate the idea, assume that °f is independent of orientation of, Y* K3 M4 y' \1 W2 [( G. Q* o
the island surface. Furthermore, assume that the shape of the island is a0 R5 l+ A0 [6 v" L* \
spherical cap of constant volume. Two geometrical parameters are needed
( U' f4 h; Y8 _( c7 Rto specify the shape of the island. Denote the radius of the circular contact
1 o% N1 O8 z1 ?: `; ~7 S/ e$ [line where the island surface meets the substrate surface by R, and denote/ M& s; K. c* N0 C4 l7 H
the angle between the substrate surface and the tangent plane to the island- T+ ?# `; P/ R* @8 R. ]
surface at the contact line by µ. These parameters are indicated in the& H# W; e3 h1 K/ G7 ?" o
sketch in Figure 1.10. In terms of R and µ, the island volume V and the' E/ ?! a" b$ R/ A- R0 y5 d3 [- c4 b+ l
1.3 Modes of film growth by vapor deposition 27- d) p! C3 z7 {; e9 S
Fig. 1.10. Schematic diargram of a spherical cap island on a substrate. The radius+ [# l1 P4 }2 }! k; h! V$ L
of the circular contact line is R and the angle between the substrate surface and
# I7 h; I$ R" h7 ~the tangent plane to the island surface at the contact line is µ.5 R* t; i/ R; }8 B7 H0 _
island surface area A are4 V f2 C7 S* Y$ C" ?& ^, a) N
V =
/ ]: K/ N# Q) g. l¼R33 f) P9 w8 P1 |" O
3 µ2 + cos µ
, f1 b1 ^+ c* |' ?2 b1 + cos µ¶µ1 ¡ cos µ! G2 A2 _+ N8 k$ {, L
sin µ ¶; A=
+ o. ~8 e2 q1 y2¼R2$ Q5 K9 z/ W/ i, B
1 + cos µ
- ?3 h5 E' f$ ~4 @5 \. q: (1.2)7 z" w; W8 I: J, n; W3 k- C
Up to an additive of constant, the free energy change associated with island
* A( R. q" t4 `8 M+ ~# v0 Qformation is
# k+ h( k5 S5 h5 i, r! Y4 o1 ?1 FF(V; µ) = A°f + ¼R2(°fs ¡ °s) (1.3)
) V8 L# u% A. b) Xwhere R is understood to depend on V and µ according to (1.2)1. The! O L7 n( o! K6 [: a. B
requirement that µ must take on a value that minimizes the free energy F,/ b2 \% E/ Q6 S
subject to the constraint that V is constant, leads to the condition that9 i: g( B9 M8 b! k
°f cos µ + °fs ¡ °s = 0 ) cos µ =2 Y" l+ Z1 d3 P4 F! G4 Q* x2 [
°s ¡ °fs, E H: M' p) W% r, `+ H C1 }! L. e
°f$ |- k# V# ~' K) D. J
: (1.4)
% s. Q+ }5 Z4 ~% T) c$ IThis result is frequently said to follow from a `force balance' among surface
& N- Z+ K* ]- E8 n- benergies at the contact line, but the correctness of the result in only
# o- h: r/ P/ E# e' Bfortuitous; the basis for the result is constrained energy minimization. The: s" Z% o( r& u7 A; F
expression in (1.4) is known commonly as Young's equation for the wetting: m& E3 I7 f% X1 d
angle of a °uid droplet on a rigid solid surface (Young 1805); the dependence
3 u( g# B0 v' n# T4 z" rof the wetting angle on the surface energies does not hinge on the assumption
& H: }5 Z* M, [. r+ Kof a spherical shape. If additional forms of energy depend on island
+ b |8 I7 h4 R- |: eshape, the argument must be altered accordingly and the form of the edge
) W9 [4 H. ], Y/ i/ W; Bcondition may be a®ected. An example arises in the next section through' {7 L7 l& p, P# a) R5 S, r, ?: v. ^0 w9 v
the in°uence of elastic energy. |
|