Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T05:51:20.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the stabilization of diamond relative to graphite by surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

E. S. Machlin
E. S. Machlin
Affiliation:
Henry Krumb School of Mines, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027
Get access

Abstract

Bond counting, and calculations of entropy, bond, and bond angle strain have been used to evaluate the relative stability of diamond and graphite on various substrates for conditions that normally stabilize the graphite structure in bulk. Pseudomorphic and many metallic substrates that bond to carbon when clean are found to stabilize the diamond phase; others stabilize the graphite phase. If the relative thermodynamic stability governs the kinetics of growth under film deposition conditions, then an interesting prediction of the present research is that growth of diamond on {100} surfaces should proceed by formation of surface monolayers that alternately have graphite and diamond bonding configurations, and with the graphite monolayer converting to a diamond configuration when it becomes subsurface. The latter mode of growth should not occur in an atomic hydrogen atmosphere, nor should it occur on {111} surfaces.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 3 , Issue 5 , October 1988 , pp. 958 - 968
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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

1Tabata, T., Aruga, T., and Murata, Y., Surf. Sci. 179, L63 (1987); W. Telieps and E. Bauer, Surf. Sci. 162, 163 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Heinz, K., Barthel, A., Hammer, L., and Muller, K., Surf. Sci. 191, 174 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Feldman, L. C., in Semiconductor-Based Heterostructures: Interfacial Structure and Stability, edited by Green, M. L., Baglin, J. E. E., Chin, G. Y., Deckman, H. W., Mayo, W., and Narasinham, D. (Metallurgical Society, Warrendale, PA, 1986).Google Scholar
4Fedoseev, D. V., Derjaguin, B. V., Varshavskaya, I. G., Lavrent'ev, A. V., and Matveev, V. V., Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 80(1), 413 (1981). This author prefers Kern's treatment (Ref. 5), which considers the anisotropic surface energy of both diamond and graphite. However, in both cases the driving forces drop out of the ratio of the work of nucleation of diamond to that of graphite and using Kern's treatment and values of the surface energies this ratio equals about 16, thus favoring the homogeneous nucleation of graphite.Google Scholar
5Kern, R., in Current Topics in Materials Science, edited by Kaldis, E. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), Vol. 12, p. 83.Google Scholar
6Lander, J. J. and Morrison, J., Surf. Sci. 4, 241 (1966); B. B. Pate, Surf. Sci. 165, 83 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Derjaguin, B. V. and Fedoseev, D. V., Growth of Diamond and Graphite from Gas Phase (Nauka, Moscow, 1977), pp. 1–115; B. V. Spitsyn, L. L. Bouilov, and B. V. Derjaguin, J. Cryst. Growth 52,219 (1981); A. Badzian, B. Simonton, T. Badzian, R. Messier, K. E. Spear, and R. Roy, SPIE 683, 127 (1986).Google Scholar
8Merwe, J.H. van der, J. Appl. Phys. 34, 117 and 123 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Jesser, W. A., Mater. Sci. Eng. 4, 279 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar