Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:08:10.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of Parameters Affecting Atom Probe Tomography Specimen Survivability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2018

Ty J. Prosa ,
Savanna Strennen ,
David Olson ,
Dan Lawrence  and
David J. Larson
Ty J. Prosa*
Affiliation:
CAMECA Instruments Inc., 5470 Nobel Drive, Madison, WI 53711, USA
Savanna Strennen
Affiliation:
PPD Labratories - GMP Lab, 8551 Research Way, Suite 90, Middleton, WI 53562, USA
David Olson
Affiliation:
ThermoFisher Scientific, 5350 NE Dawson Creek Drive, Hillsboro, OR 97124-5793, USA
Dan Lawrence
Affiliation:
TESCAN Instruments Inc., 765 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15086, USA
David J. Larson
Affiliation:
CAMECA Instruments Inc., 5470 Nobel Drive, Madison, WI 53711, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Ty Prosa, E-mail: ty.prosa@ametek.com
Get access

Abstract

Specimen survivability is a primary concern to those who utilize atom probe tomography (APT) for materials analysis. The state-of-the-art in understanding survivability might best be described as common-sense application of basic physics principles to describe failure mechanisms. For example, APT samples are placed under near-failure mechanical-stress conditions, so reduction in the force required to initiate field evaporation must provide for higher survivability—a common sense explanation of survivability. However, the interplay of various analytical conditions (or instrumentation) and how they influence survivability (e.g., decreasing the applied evaporation field improves survivability), and which factors have more impact than others has not been studied. In this paper, we report on the systematic analysis of a material composed of a silicon-dioxide layer surrounded on two sides by silicon. In total, 261 specimens were fabricated and analyzed under a variety of conditions to correlate statistically significant survivability trends with analysis conditions and other specimen characteristics. The primary result suggests that, while applied field/force plays an obvious role in survivability for this material, the applied field alone does not predict survivability trends for silicon/silicon-dioxide interfaces. The rate at which ions are extracted from the specimen (both in terms of ions-per-pulse and pulse-frequency) has similar importance.

Keywords

analysis yieldexperimental designelectric fieldtensile stresssilicon-based materials
Type
Instrumentation and Experimental Methodology
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: Atom Probe Tomography and Microscopy APT&M 2018 , April 2019 , pp. 425 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2018 

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

Adamenko, SV, Bereznyak, PA, Mikhailovskii, IM, Stratienko, VA, Tolmachev, NG, Adamenko, AS Mazilova, TI (2001) Vacuum electric discharge initiated by accelerated nanoparticles. Tech Phys Lett 27, 671–673.Google Scholar
Arnoldi, L, Silaeva, EP, Gaillard, A, Vurpillot, F, Blum, I, Rigutti, L, Deconihout, B Vella, A (2014) Energy deficit of pulsed-laser field-ionized and field-emitted ions from non-metallic nano-tips. J Appl Phys 115, 203705.Google Scholar
Barofsky, DF Müller, EW (1968) Mass spectrometric analysis of low temperature field evaporation. Surf Sci 10, 177–196.Google Scholar
Birdseye, PJ Smith, DA (1970) The electric field and the stress on a field-ion specimen. Surf Sci 23, 198–210.Google Scholar
Bunton, JH, Olson, JD, Lenz, D Kelly, TF (2007) Advances in pulsed-laser atom probe: instrument and specimen design for optimum performance. Microsc Microanal 13, 418–427.Google Scholar
Bunton, JH, Olson, JD, Lenz, DR, Larson, DJ Kelly, TF (2010) Optimized laser thermal pulsing of atom probe tomography: LEAP 4000X. Microsc Microanal 16(Suppl 2), 10–11.Google Scholar
CAMECA (2012) LEAP 5000 System User Manual. Madison, WI: CAMECA Instruments Inc.Google Scholar
Cerezo, A, Clifton, PH, Gomberg, A Smith, GDW (2007) Aspects of the performance of a femtosecond laser-pulsed 3-dimensional atom probe. Ultramicroscopy 107, 720–725.Google Scholar
Cerezo, A, Smith, GDW Clifton, PH (2006) Measurement of temperature rises in the femtosecond laser pulsed three-dimensional atom probe. Appl Phys Lett 88, 154103/1–3.Google Scholar
Clopper, CJ Pearson, ES (1934) The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26, 404–413.Google Scholar
Eaton, HC Bayuzick, RJ (1978) Field-induced stresses in field emitters. Surf Sci 70, 408–426.Google Scholar
Eaton, HC Bayuzick, RJ (1984) Direct observation of electric field induced surface atomic displacements using the field ion microscope. Rev Sci Instrum 55, 547–550.Google Scholar
Estivill, R (2016) Analyse chimique 3D pour les dispositifs avancés de la microélectronique. Rouen, France: Groupe de Physique des matériaux.Google Scholar
Fortes, MA Ralph, B (1968) The occurrence of glissile shockley loops in field-ion specimens of iridium. Phil Mag 18, 787–805.Google Scholar
Gault, B Bouaziz, O (2013) A Weibull perspective on the fracture of atom probe specimens. Microsc Microanal 19, 996–997.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Menand, A, De Geuser, F, Deconihout, B Danoix, R (2006a) Investigation of an oxide layer by femtosecond-laser-assisted atom probe tomography. Appl Phys Lett 88, 114101.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Vurpillot, F, Vella, A, Gilbert, M, Menand, A, Blavette, D Deconihout, B (2006b) Design of a femtosecond laser assisted tomographic atom probe. Rev Sci Instrum 77, 043705/1–8.Google Scholar
Gomer, R (1961) Field Emission and Field Ionization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, JD (1998) Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kellogg, GL (1981) Determining the field emitter temperature during laser irradiation in the pulsed laser atom probe. J Appl Phys 52, 5320–5326.Google Scholar
Kellogg, GL Tsong, TT (1980) Pulsed-laser atom-probe field-ion microscopy. J Appl Phys 51, 1184–1194.Google Scholar
Kelly, TF, Bunton, JH, Prosa, TJ, Ulfig, RM, Clifton, PH Larson, DJ (2012) Laser-specimen interactions in atom probe tomography. Microsc Microanal 18, 584–585.Google Scholar
Kelly, TF Larson, DJ (2012) Atom probe tomography 2012. Ann Rev Mater Res 42, 1–31.Google Scholar
Kingham, DR (1982) The post-ionization of field evaporated ions: a theoretical explanation of multiple charge states. Surf Sci 116, 273–301.Google Scholar
Kölling, S Vandervorst, W (2009) Failure mechanisms of silicon-based atom-probe tips. Ultramicroscopy 109, 486–491.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Foord, DT, Petford-Long, AK, Anthony, TC, Rozdilsky, IM, Cerezo, A Smith, GDW (1998) Focused ion-beam milling for field-ion specimen preparation: preliminary investigations. Ultramicroscopy 75, 147–159.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Foord, DT, Petford-Long, AK, Liew, H, Blamire, MG, Cerezo, A Smith, GDW (1999) Field-ion specimen preparation using focused ion-beam milling. Ultramicroscopy 79, 287–293.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Geiser, BP, Prosa, TJ Kelly, TF (2012) On the use of simulated field-evaporated specimen apex shapes in atom probe tomography data reconstruction. Microsc Microanal 18, 953–963.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ Miller, MK (1998) In-situ micro-twinning of TiAl in the field ion microscope. Mat Sci Eng A 250, 72–76.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Prosa, TJ, Ulfig, RM, Geiser, BP Kelly, TF (2013) Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography: A User’s Guide. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Link, S El-Sayed, MA (1999) Spectral properties and relaxation dynamics of surface plasmon electronic oscillations in gold and silver nanodots and nanorods. J Phys Chem B 103, 8410–8426.Google Scholar
Mayama, N, Yamashita, C, Kaito, T, Nojima, M Owari, M (2008) Stress of needle specimen on the three-dimensional atom probe (3DAP). Surf Interface Anal 40, 1610–1613.Google Scholar
Mikhailovskij, IM, Wanderka, N, Storizhko, VE, Ksenofontov, VA Mazilova, TI (2009) A new approach for explanation of specimen rupture under high electric field. Ultramicroscopy 109, 480–485.Google Scholar
Miller, MK Forbes, RG (2014) Atom-Probe Tomography: The Local Electrode Atom Probe, 1st ed. Boston, MA: Springer US.Google Scholar
Miller, MK, Russell, KF, Thompson, K, Alvis, R Larson, DJ (2007) Review of atom probe FIB-based specimen preparation methods. Microsc Microanal 13, 428–436.Google Scholar
Moy, CKS, Ranzi, G, Petersen, TC Ringer, SP (2011) Macroscopic electrical field distribution and field-induced surface stresses of needle-shaped field emitters. Ultramicroscopy 111, 397–404.Google Scholar
Müller, EW (1958) Pseudospirals, imperfect structures and crystal habit produced by field evaporation of metal crystals. Acta Metallurg 6, 620–630.Google Scholar
Müller, EW (1960) Field ionization and field ion microscopy. Advan Electron Electron Phys 13, 83.Google Scholar
Müller, EW Tsong, TT (1969) Field Ion Microscopy: Principles and Applications. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Müller, EW Tsong, TT (1973) Field ion microscopy, field ionization and field evaporation. Prog Surf Sci 4, 1.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Mangelinck, D, Simola, R, Daineche, R Bernardini, J (2009) Atom redistribution during co-doped amorphous silicon crystallization. Defect Diffus Forum 289–292, 329–337.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Simola, R, Mangelinck, D, Bernardini, J Fornara, P (2007) Dopant diffusion during amorphous silicon crystallization. Defect Diffus Forum 264, 33–38.Google Scholar
Prosa, TJ, Geiser, BP, Lawrence, D, Olson, D Larson, DJ (2014) Developing detection efficiency standards for atom probe tomography. SPIE Proc 9173, 917307.Google Scholar
Prosa, TJ, Lawrence, D, Olson, D, Strennen, S, Martin, I, Larson, DJ, Martens, RL, Goodwin, J, Portavoce, A Mangelinck, D (2015) Experimental evaluation of conditions affecting specimen survivability. Microsc Microanal 21, 849–850.Google Scholar
Prosa, TJ, Olson, D, Geiser, B, Larson, DJ, Henry, K Steel, E (2013) Analysis of implanted silicon dopant profiles. Ultramicroscopy 132, 179–185.Google Scholar
Prosa, TJ, Reinhard, DA, Francois-Saint-Cyr, HG, Martin, I, Rice, KP, Chen, Y Larson, DJ (2017) Evolution of atom probe data collection toward optimized and fully automated acquisition. Microsc Microanal 23, 616–617.10.1017/S1431927617003750Google Scholar
Rendulic, KD Müller, EW (1967) Elastic deformation of field-ion-microscope tips. J Appl Phys 38, 2070.Google Scholar
Rolland, N, Vurpillot, F, Duguay, S Blavette, D (2015) Dynamic evolution and fracture of multilayer field emitters in atom probe tomography: a new interpretation. Eur Phys J Appl Phys 72, 21001.Google Scholar
Russell, KF, Miller, MK, Ulfig, RM Gribb, T (2007) Performance of local electrodes in the local electrode atom probe. Ultramicroscopy 107, 750–755.Google Scholar
Sakata, T Block, JH (1982) Field evaporation of silicon (111) surfaces in the presence of hydrogen. Surf Sci, L183–L189.Google Scholar
Sakurai, T, Culbertson, R Melmed, AJ (1978) Anamalous field evaporation of silicon. Surf Sci 78, L221–L226.Google Scholar
Smith, DA, Birdseye, PJ Goringe, MJ (1973) Forces on dislocations in field-ion specimens; further analysis of some previous observations. Philos Mag 27, 1175–1181.Google Scholar
Smith, PJ Smith, DA (1970) Preliminary calculations of the electric field and the stress on a field-ion specimen. Philos Mag 21, 907–912.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, Gorman, BP, Larson, DJ, van Leer, B Hong, L (2006) Minimization of Ga induced FIB damage using low energy clean-up. Micros Microanal 12, 1736CD.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, Larson, DJ Ulfig, R (2005) Pre-sharpened and flat-top microtip coupons: a quantitative comparison for atom-probe analysis studies. Microsc Microanal 11(Suppl 2), 882.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, Lawrence, DJ, Larson, DJ, Olson, JD, Kelly, TF Gorman, B (2007a) In-situ site-specific specimen preparation for atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 107, 131–139.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, Sebastian, JT Gerstl, SSA (2007b) Observations of Si field evaporation. Ultramicroscopy 107, 124–130.Google Scholar
Vurpillot, F, Gault, B, Vella, A, Bouet, A Deconihout, B (2006) Estimation of the cooling times for a metallic tip under laser illumination. Appl Phys Lett 88, 1–3.Google Scholar
Wada, M, Uemori, R Nishikawa, O (1983) Effect of hydrogen on the evaporation field of metals. Surf Sci 134, 17–29.Google Scholar
Wilkes, TJ, Titchmarsh, JM, Smith, GDW, Smith, DA, Morris, RF, Johnston, S, Godfrey, TJ Birdseye, PJ (1972) The fracture of field ion microscope specimens. J Phys D Appl Phys 5, 2226–22230.Google Scholar
Zaitsev, SV (2004) The fracture of microscopic metal samples in a strong electrostatic field. Tech Phys Lett 30, 190–192.Google Scholar