Hysteresis behavior during facing target magnetron sputtering

Cougnon, Florian; Strijckmans, Koen; Schelfhout, Roeland; Depla, Diederik

doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2016.03.096

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In subsequent publications [65,[120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139], Depla et al reported on the development of the original RSD model. For example, in [65], kinetic equations appeared for all parts of the target surface ∂θ tM /∂t, ∂θ tC ch /∂t and ∂θ tC /∂t (see Figure 14), in which all considered physical processes are taken into account.…”

Section: Development Of the Rsd Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling of Reactive Sputtering—History and Development

Шаповалов

2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work critically reviews the evolution of reactive sputtering modeling that has taken place over the last 50 years. The review summarizes the main features of the deposition of simple metal compound films (nitrides, oxides, oxynitrides, carbides, etc.) that were experimentally found by different researchers. The above features include significant non-linearity and hysteresis. At the beginning of the 1970s, specific chemisorption models were proposed. These models were based on the assumption that a compound film was formed on the target due to chemisorption. Their development led to the appearance of the general isothermal chemisorption model, which was supplemented by the processes on the surfaces of the vacuum chamber wall and the substrate. The model has undergone numerous transformations for application to various problems of reactive sputtering. At the next step in the development of modeling, the reactive sputtering deposition (RSD) model was proposed, which was based on the implantation of reactive gas molecules into the target, bulk chemical reaction, chemisorption, and the “knock-on effect”. Another direction of the modeling development is represented by the nonisothermal physicochemical model, in which the Langmuir isotherm and the law of mass action are used. Various modifications of this model allowed describing reactive sputtering processes in more complex cases when the sputtering unit included a hot target or a sandwich one.

show abstract

Section: Development Of the Rsd Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling of Reactive Sputtering—History and Development

Шаповалов

2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This effect has no influence when the redeposition fraction is increased. Indeed, in the current version of the RSD code, as compared to the version used in [17], compound sputtering is described as an atomistic process while the congruent aspect of sputtering has been preserved. When the reactive atoms are redeposited on the target, their reaction probability is low as the target surface at the second critical point is fully poisoned.…”

Section: Example 1: Redeposition Of Sputtered Atomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling reactive magnetron sputtering: Opportunities and challenges

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Initially, target poisoning was attributed to chemisorption, which is the formation of a compound monolayer due to the chemical interaction of the target surface with the neutral reactive gas atoms [1]. Both experiments and simulations showed the importance of at least three additional processes [5,6,7,8,9]. First, chemisorbed material can be knocked into the target subsurface by ions of the working gas (often argon).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is termed direct implantation. Finally, redeposition of sputtered atoms can also contribute to target poisoning but is mainly important at high pressures, low mass of the target atoms and/or for specific set-ups such as facing target sputtering [9] and rotating cylindrical magnetrons [7,8]. A schematic overview of the aforementioned processes is shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%