THE NEW GENERATION MICROWAVE PLASMA ASSISTED CVD
REACTOR FOR DIAMOND SYNTHESIS
By
Yajun Gu

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Electrical Engineering
2011

ABSTRACT
THE NEW GENERATION MICROWAVE PLASMA
ASSISTED CVD REACTOR FOR DIAMOND SYNTHESIS
By
Yajun Gu

In view of the important, recent, opportunity to commercially synthesize
high quality single crystal diamond (SCD) and polycrystalline diamond (PCD),
there is a need to continue to improve existing microwave plasma assisted
reactor designs that enable high quality and high deposition rate SCD synthesis.
It is now widely recognized that both the quality and growth rates of microwave
plasma assisted CVD (MPACVD) synthesized diamond are improved by using
high power density microwave discharges operating at pressures above 160 Torr.
Thus the object of this research is to design, develop, optimize and
experimentally evaluate a new generation 2.45 GHz microwave plasma assisted
chemical vapor deposition (MPACVD) reactor and associated processes
methods that are both robust and are optimized for high pressure and high power
density operation, and thereby take advantage of the improved deposition
chemistry and physics that exist at high pressures. This MPACVD reactor
operates with high power densities and at pressures up to 320 Torr. Differences
from earlier MPACVD reactor designs include an increase in applicator and

dome radii and the excitation of the applicator with a new hybrid electromagnetic
mode. The reactor is experimentally evaluated by synthesizing single crystal
diamond (SCD) at pressures from 180-320 Torr with absorbed power densities
between 300 to 1000 W/cm3. Without N2 addition SCD growth rates as high as
80 microns/hour were observed. A SCD growth window between 950 ° to 1300
C
° was identified and within this growth window growt h rates were 1.2-2.5 times
C
greater than the corresponding growth rates for earlier reactor designs. SCD
characterization

by

micro-Raman

spectroscopy,

SIMS,

and

by

IR-UV

transmission spectroscopy indicated that the synthesized SCD quality is that of
type IIa diamond.

To my wife Huiyuan Tang
and my parents Zhongping Gu and Haopei Chen

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I would like to express sincere gratitude to my major
advisor Dr. Jes Asmussen for his guidance, encouragement,
mentorship and support throughout the development of this research
and the writing of this dissertation. Thanks are also due to the other
members of my advisory committee: Dr. Timothy Grotjohn, Dr. Donnie
Reinhard and Dr. Greg Swain. Sincere appreciation is to Dr. Thomas
Schuelke, Michael Becker, M. Kagan Yaran and all Fraunhofer USA
CCL personnel for laboratory assistant. Additional thanks are given to
all fellow graduate students for their help and friendship.
This research was supported by Center for Coatings and Laser
Applications Fraunhofer USA and the Richard M. Hong Chaired
Professorship.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................xi

1

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
1.1
Introduction.......................................................................................1
1.2
Research objectives.........................................................................3
1.3
Thesis outline...................................................................................6

2

LITERATURE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE PLASMA
ASSISTED CVD DIAMOND SYNTHESIS..................................................9
2.1
Introduction.......................................................................................9
2.2
CVD diamond synthesis.................................................................10
2.2.1 Diamond properties.............................................................10
2.2.2 The CVD diamond growth process......................................14
2.3
A review of commercially available reactors...................................25
2.3.1 The MSU microwave plasma reactors.................................25
2.3.2 ASTeX (SEKI) high-pressure microwave plasma source....30
2.3.3 Ellipsoidal reactor (Aixtron) .................................................43
2.3.4 CYRANNUS plasma system (iplas)....................................48
2.3.5 LIMHP bell jar reactor..........................................................53
2.4
Development of inch-size single crystal diamond wafer production
(SEKI reactor system)....................................................................58

3

ANALYSIS OF MICROWAVE PLASMA ASSISTED CVD REACTORS..65
3.1
Introduction.....................................................................................65
3.2
Microwave plasma reactor design variables, experimental process
variables and performance variables.............................................66
3.3
A comparison of commercially available reactor designs...............68
3.4
Calculation of output variables.......................................................72
3.4.1 Measurement of film growth rate.........................................72
3.4.2 Measurement of carbon conversion efficiency....................73
3.4.3 Measurement of specific yield.............................................73
3.4.4 Measurement of absorbed microwave power density.........74
3.4.5 Measurement of diamond quality........................................74
3.5
Calculation of reactor performance...............................................75
vi

3.6

3.5.1 ASTeX (SEKI) MPACVD reactor system.............................75
3.5.1.1 Introduction..........................................................75
3.5.1.2 Results for 2.45 GHz SEKI reactor system.........76
3.5.1.3 Results for 915 MHz SEKI reactor system..........79
3.5.1.4 Estimation of absorbed plasma power density....81
3.5.2 MSU MPACVD reactor system............................................82
3.5.2.1 Results for 2.45 GHz MSU reactor system.........82
3.5.2.2 Results for 915 MHz MSU reactor system..........82
3.5.3 AIXTRON ellipsoidal reactor system...................................84
3.5.4 CYRANNUS (iplas) reactor system.....................................86
3.5.5 LIMHP reactor system.........................................................86
Summary........................................................................................87

4

THE NEW GENERATION MSU MICROWAVE PLASMA ASSISTED CVD
REACTOR DESIGN..................................................................................95
4.1
Introduction.....................................................................................95
4.2
Microwave cavity plasma reactor design........................................96
4.3
The generalized microwave reactor design concept......................98
4.4
Early MSU MPACVD reactor designs...........................................105
4.5
Reactor C: initial design objectives..............................................111
4.6
Reactor C: design realization process..........................................114
4.6.1 Initial design calculations...................................................114
4.6.2 Initial prototype design.......................................................118
4.6.3 Final prototype design.......................................................121
4.6.4 Experimental test (with or without plasma)........................123
4.7
Overview of the numerical simulation...........................................129
4.7.1 Subdomain setup and cavity dimensions..........................130
4.7.2 Numerical modeling...........................................................133
4.8
Summary......................................................................................148

5

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF POLYCRYSTALLINE DIAMOND
SYNTHESIS............................................................................................153
5.1
Introduction...................................................................................153
5.2
The MPACVD experimental subsystems overview......................154
5.2.1 Introduction........................................................................154
5.2.2 Microwave power supply subsystem.................................157
5.2.3 Gas flow control subsystem...............................................158
5.2.4 Pressure control subsystem..............................................159
5.2.5 Exhaust subsystem...........................................................161
5.3
Microwave plasma reactor process variables and performance
variables.......................................................................................161
5.4
The experimental roadmap for Reactor C....................................162
vii

5.5
5.6

5.7

6

Microwave power density at high pressure..................................170
Polycrystalline diamond synthesis................................................175
5.6.1 Introduction........................................................................175
5.6.2 Diamond growth rate.........................................................175
5.6.3 Diamond surface morphology............................................182
5.6.4 Diamond Raman FWHM measurement............................190
Summary......................................................................................197

REACTOR EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION: SINGLE CRYSTAL
DIAMOND SYNTHESIS..........................................................................199
6.1
Introduction...................................................................................199
6.2
How to understand reactor performance behavior.......................200
6.3
Substrate cleaning procedures and reactor start-up and shutdown
procedures...................................................................................207
6.3.1 Substrate cleaning procedures..........................................207
6.3.2 Reactor start-up and shutdown procedures......................208
6.4
The role of total gas flow rate.......................................................210
6.4.1 Introduction........................................................................210
6.4.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................211
6.4.3 Growth rate vs. total gas flow rate.....................................212
6.4.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. total gas flow rate..........215
6.4.5 Specific yield vs. total gas flow rate...................................217
6.5
The role of substrate holder position............................................218
6.5.1 Introduction........................................................................218
6.5.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................219
6.5.3 Growth rate vs. substrate holder position..........................221
6.5.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate holder
position..............................................................................222
6.5.5 Specific yield vs. substrate holder position........................223
6.6
The role of deposition time...........................................................224
6.6.1 Introduction........................................................................224
6.6.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................225
6.6.3 Growth rate vs. deposition time.........................................226
6.6.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. deposition time..............229
6.6.5 Specific yield vs. deposition time.......................................230
6.7
The role of deposition pressure....................................................231
6.7.1 Introduction........................................................................231
6.7.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................232
6.7.3 Growth rate vs. deposition pressure..................................233
6.7.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. deposition pressure.......237
6.7.5 Specific yield vs. deposition pressure................................238
6.8
The role of substrate temperature................................................239
6.8.1 Introduction........................................................................239
6.8.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................240
6.8.3 Growth rate vs. substrate temperature..............................241
viii

6.9

6.10

6.11

6.12
6.13

6.14

7

6.8.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate temperature...244
6.8.5 Specific yield vs. substrate temperature............................245
The role of methane concentration...............................................246
6.9.1 Introduction........................................................................246
6.9.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................247
6.9.3 Growth rate vs. methane concentration.............................248
6.9.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. methane concentration.251
6.9.5 Specific yield vs. methane concentration..........................252
The role of nitrogen concentration................................................253
6.10.1 Introduction........................................................................253
6.10.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................254
6.10.3 Growth rate vs. nitrogen concentration..............................255
6.10.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. nitrogen concentration..258
6.10.5 Specific yield vs. nitrogen concentration...........................259
The role of substrate size.............................................................260
6.11.1 Introduction........................................................................260
6.11.2 Initial benchmark experimental variables..........................261
6.11.3 Growth rate, carbon conversion efficiency and specific yield
vs. substrate size...............................................................263
The comparison of the performance of Reactor C with earlier
reactor designs.............................................................................267
Diamond quality assessment.......................................................270
6.13.1 Visual inspection of the diamond surface..........................270
6.13.2 Diamond Raman spectroscopy and stress
measurements...................................................................279
6.13.3 Diamond SIMS measurement...........................................286
6.13.4 Diamond transmission measurements..............................289
Summary......................................................................................292

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................294
7.1
Introduction...................................................................................294
7.2
Summary of research accomplishments......................................295
7.3
Recommendations for future research.........................................302

APPENDICES....................................................................................................304
Appendix A CVD polycrystalline diamond synthesis experimental
data.........................................................................................................305
Appendix B CVD single crystal diamond synthesis experimental data.309
Appendix C Raman spectra of CVD polycrystalline diamond...............316
Appendix D Additional drawings for the substrate holder and insert.....317

REFERENCES..................................................................................................320

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Growth rate for SEKI 915MHz reactor [56]...........................................81
Table 3.2 Process parameters for Aixtron reactor................................................85
Table 3.3 Design Specifications Among Commercially Available Reactors 1......87
Table 3.4 Design Specifications Among Commercially Available Reactors 2......88
Table 3.5 Design Specifications Among Commercially Available Reactors 3......88
Table 3.6 Comparison among 2.45GHz diamond deposition systems................89
Table 3.7 Comparison among 915MHz diamond deposition systems.................90

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Generic microwave plasma reactor cross section................................5
Figure 2.1 Comparison of diamond and graphite, which are two allotropes of
carbon [7].............................................................................................................11
Figure 2.2 General CVD diamond growth process..............................................15
Figure 2.3 Reduced variable model of the MPACVD process [12]......................16
Figure 2.4 Growth model for diamond synthesis [20]..........................................19
Figure 2.5 Growth rate and relative defect density [20].......................................21
Figure 2.6 The operating ranges of CVD diamond deposition process for different
pressure and different methane concentration.....................................................23
Figure 2.7 Growth rate versus pressure and CH4 concentration [24]..................24
Figure 2.8 Growth rate and power density versus pressure [24].........................25
Figure 2.9 Numerical simulation of the fourth generation MSU microwave plasma
assisted CVD reactor...........................................................................................27
Figure 2.10 DiamoTek 700...................................................................................29
Figure 2.11 DiamoTek 1800.................................................................................30
Figure 2.12 Cross-sectional views of the SEKI reactor design. The applicator is
excited in the approximate TM013 mode [19].......................................................32
Figure 2.13 Illustration of the second generation SEKI reactor; Quartz window is
located underneath the cooling stage [19]...........................................................33
Figure 2.14 Electric field pattern of the second generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor;
Mode 1 [39]..........................................................................................................34
Figure 2.15 Electric field pattern of the second generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor;
Mode 2 [39]..........................................................................................................35
Figure 2.16 Electric field pattern of the second generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor;
Mode 3 [39]..........................................................................................................36
xi

Figure 2.17 ASTeX 8 kW semi-production microwave plasma CVD system.......37
Figure 2.18 Schematic of the 5-kW 2.45GHz microwave CVD reactor [41]........38
Figure 2.19 Schemetic of ASTeX microwave plasma CVD system; [41].............39
Figure 2.20 Schematic of the 60-kW 915MHz microwave CVD reactor [41].......41
Figure 2.21 Substrate holder cooling system schemetic [41]..............................42
Figure 2.22 Illustration of the AIXTRON reactor cross section exploiting an
ellipsoidal resonant cavity (Left). An antenna provides the coupling and the
quartz dome is shown (Center). Modeling of 150 Torr H2 plasma is presented
(Right) [19]...........................................................................................................44
Figure 2.23 Evolution of the electric field pattern for TM012 mode and TM036 mode
from cylindrical to ellipsoidal cavity. The side graphs indicate the axial profiles of
electric field strength [19].....................................................................................45
Figure 2.24 AIXTRON P6 ellipsoid microwave plasma system...........................46
Figure 2.25 Ellipsoid microwave plasma reactor [46]..........................................47
Figure 2.26 (a) Electric field distribution in the selected compact ellipsoidal cavity
and (b) Electric field distribution in the original AIXTRON ellipsoidal reactor
[47].......................................................................................................................48
Figure 2.27 Illustration of the IPLAS reactor [19].................................................50
Figure 2.28 Schematic diagram of CYRANNUS plasma system [47]..................51
Figure 2.29 Magnetic field distributions in a transverse cut plane for the
waveguide and reactor [19]..................................................................................52
Figure 2.30 Manual CYRANNUS plasma system [47].........................................53
Figure 2.31 LIMHP first generation bell jar reactor designed in 1990: TM023
Electric field pattern (left); LIMHP coupled cavity with substrate holder and quartz
bell jar (center); photograph of an H2 plasma at 18 Torr and 600 W power
[19].......................................................................................................................54
Figure 2.32 Second generation LIMHP stainless steel reactor designed in 1994.
TM022 Electric field pattern (left); LIMHP coupled cavity with substrate holder and
quartz window (center); photograph of H2 plasma at 100 mbar [19]...................55
xii

Figure 2.33 Third generation LIMHP reactor (optimization of the first generation)
[19].......................................................................................................................56
Figure 2.34 LIMHP stainless steel reactor [48]....................................................57
Figure 2.35 LIMHP bell jar reactor [48]................................................................57
Figure 2.36 Schematic illustration of “open” and “enclosed” type holders [49]....59
Figure 2.37 Growth rate of diamond films for enclosed type holder as a function
of the depth d [49]................................................................................................60
Figure 2.38 Steps to enlarge a CVD diamond plate by combination of lift-off
process and side surface growth [50]..................................................................61

3

Figure 2.39 A half-inch (12.6x13.3x3.7 mm ) single crystal diamond fabricated
via enlarging process [50]....................................................................................62

Figure 2.40 “Mosaic wafer” process: Several clones are jointed into one large
diamond plate [51]...............................................................................................64
Figure 2.41 (a) Mosaic wafer made of SCD clone plates and (b) Raman spectra
measured at the junction [51]...............................................................................64
Figure 3.1 Growth rate as a function of CH4 concentration, microwave power and
gas pressure for SEKI AX5250 [42].....................................................................77
Figure 4.1 The cross section of the generalized reactor design........................100
Figure 4.2 The cross section of a specific embodiment of the MSU reactor
design................................................................................................................101
Figure 4.3 Cross section of a continuously variable generalized reactor...........104
Figure 4.4 Schematic Drawing of the first generation MSU reactor [52]............107
Figure 4.5 Cross sectional schematic drawing of the Reactor A [24].................109
Figure 4.6 Cross Sectional schematic drawing of the Reactor B [53]................111
Figure 4.7 Microwave Discharge Behavior vs. Pressure...................................113
xiii

Figure 4.8 Resonant frequencies versus Ls for 7-inch cavity.............................117
Figure 4.9 Resonant frequencies versus Ls for 12-inch cavity...........................118
Figure 4.10 The fourth generation MSU reactor and automated system...........119
Figure 4.11 The initial design for the fourth generation MSU reactor.................120
Figure 4.12 Cross section of the fourth generation MSU reactor.......................122
Figure 4.13 Rectangle waveguide hooked up with MPACVD reactor
entrance.............................................................................................................124
Figure 4.14 HP 8350B Sweep Oscillator and Tektronix 2215A Oscilloscope.....125
Figure 4.15 Low power sweep (2.3 – 2.6 GHz).................................................126
Figure 4.16 Low power sweep (2.44 – 2.46 GHz).............................................127
Figure 4.17 Reference microwave plasma reactor cross section......................130
Figure 4.18 Field configuration of TM013 electromagnetic mode.......................132
Figure 4.19 Classical Cylindrical Cavity (7-inch)................................................135
Figure 4.20 Classical Cylindrical Cavity (12-inch)..............................................136
Figure 4.21 Numerical simulation for generic cavity (7-inch).............................137
Figure 4.22 Numerical simulation for the third generation cavity (7-inch)..........138
Figure 4.23 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Inside Ring...................................139
Figure 4.24 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage...............................140
Figure 4.25 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage+2.5mm..................141
Figure 4.26 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage+5.0mm..................141
Figure 4.27 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage+7.5mm..................142
Figure 4.28 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage-2.5mm..................142
Figure 4.29 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage-5.0mm..................143
xiv

Figure 4.30 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage-7.5mm..................143
Figure 4.31 Four-stage Simulations of Cross Section of Reactor C..................144
Figure 4.32 Numerical Simulation for Reactor C (all parameters).....................146
Figure 4.33 Close-up Picture of Plasma with 1-mm Sheath..............................147
Figure 4.34 Close-up Picture of Plasma without 1-mm Sheath.........................147
Figure 5.1 Generic microwave plasma-assisted CVD diamond system............156
Figure 5.2 Standard microwave power supply subsystem.................................157
Figure 5.3 Schematic drawing for the cooling stage..........................................164
Figure 5.4 Schematic drawing for the substrate holder......................................164
Figure 5.5 Schematic drawing for the insert......................................................165
Figure 5.6 The reactor roadmap of the Reactor C, showing the substrate
temperature versus absorbed microwave power (75 Torr to 240 Torr)..............167
Figure 5.7 The reactor roadmap of the Reactor B, showing the substrate
temperature versus absorbed microwave power (60 Torr to 240 Torr) [53].......168
Figure 5.8 The closer view of reactor roadmap of the Reactor B, showing the
substrate temperature versus absorbed microwave power (180 Torr to 240 Torr)
[53].....................................................................................................................169
Figure 5.9 The comparison of the closer view of reactor roadmap between the
Reactor B and the Reactor C.............................................................................170
Figure 5.10 The plasma discharge at 75 Torr to 165 Torr with forward power 1900
W, Zs = -4.8 mm, CH4/H2 = 3%.........................................................................172
Figure 5.11 The plasma discharge at 180 Torr to 240 Torr with forward power
2700W, Zs = -4.8 mm, CH4/H2 = 3%.................................................................173
Figure 5.12 the comparison of the absorbed power density versus pressure for
Reactor A, B, C..................................................................................................174
Figure 5.13 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor C at
different CH4 concentration................................................................................179

xv

Figure 5.14 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor B
and C at 2% CH4/H2..........................................................................................180
Figure 5.15 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor B
and C at 3% CH4/H2..........................................................................................181
Figure 5.16 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor B
and C at 4% CH4/H2..........................................................................................182
Figure 5.17 1.12mm-thick Unpolished PCD Plate on 1” Si Wafer, grown at 3%
CH4/H2, no N2, 210 Torr for 100 hours results within an average growth rate of
11.2 µm/hr..........................................................................................................183
Figure 5.18 Surface morphology of polycrystalline CVD diamond Group #1.....187
Figure 5.19 Surface morphology of polycrystalline CVD diamond Group #2.....190
Figure 5.20 Raman spectrum for a CVD diamond film GYJ021 CH4/H2=4%;
growth time = 18 hours; pressure = 165 Torr; substrate temperature = 1074 °
C;
absorbed power = 2570 W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 14.03 µm/hr; film
thickness (measured by weight gain) = 252.5 µm.............................................192
Figure 5.21 Raman spectrum for a CVD diamond film GYJ029 CH4/H2=4%;
growth time = 52 hours; pressure = 210 Torr; substrate temperature = 1128 °
C;
absorbed power = 2429 W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 17.4 µm/hr; film
thickness (measured by weight gain) = 904.8 µm.............................................193
Figure 5.22 Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) versus pressures
from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under different methane concentrations 2% - 5%
CH4/H2...............................................................................................................195
Figure 5.23 Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) versus pressures
from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under methane concentrations 2% and 3% CH4/H2.
Compared with Reactor B [53]...........................................................................196
Figure 5.24 Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) versus pressures
from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under methane concentrations 4% and 5% CH4/H2.
Compared with Reactor B [53]...........................................................................197
Figure 6.1 Side cross sectional view of generic pocket holder (unit: mm).........202
Figure 6.2 Linear growth rate vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C....................214

xvi

Figure 6.3 Total growth rate vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C......................215
Figure 6.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................217
Figure 6.5 Specific yield vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C............................218
Figure 6.6 Linear growth rates vs. substrate holder location for Reactor C.......222
Figure 6.7 Total growth rate vs. substrate holder location for Reactor C...........223
Figure 6.8 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate holder location for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................224
Figure 6.9 Specific yield vs. substrate holder location for Reactor C.................225
Figure 6.10 Linear growth rate vs. deposition time for Reactor C......................229
Figure 6.11 Total growth rate vs. deposition time for Reactor C........................230
Figure 6.12 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. deposition time for Reactor C....231
Figure 6.13 Specific yield vs. deposition time for Reactor C..............................232
Figure 6.14 Linear growth rate vs. deposition pressure for Reactor C..............237
Figure 6.15 Total growth rate vs. deposition pressure for Reactor C.................238
Figure 6.16 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. deposition pressure for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................239
Figure 6.17 Specific yield vs. deposition pressure for Reactor C......................240
Figure 6.18 Linear growth rate vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C...........244
Figure 6.19 Total growth rate vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C.............245
Figure 6.20 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate temperature for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................246
Figure 6.21 Specific yield vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C...................247
Figure 6.22 Linear growth rate vs. methane concentration for Reactor C.........251
Figure 6.23 Total growth rate vs. methane concentration for Reactor C............252

xvii

Figure 6.24 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. methane concentration for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................253
Figure 6.25 Specific yield vs. methane concentration for Reactor C.................254
Figure 6.26 Linear growth rate vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor C..........258
Figure 6.27 Total growth rate vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor C.............259
Figure 6.28 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................260
Figure 6.29 Specific yield vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor C..................261
Figure 6.30 Linear growth rate vs. substrate size for Reactor C........................265
Figure 6.31 Total growth rate vs. substrate size for Reactor C..........................266
Figure 6.32 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate size for Reactor C.......267
Figure 6.33 Specific yield vs. substrate size for Reactor C................................268
Figure 6.34 Linear growth rate comparison among Reactor A, B and C vs.
deposition pressure............................................................................................269
Figure 6.35 SCD growth rate versus temperature for Reactors B and C...........271
Figure 6.36 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ118: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=24 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate temperature=1013 ° absorbed
C,
power = 2133 W, growth rate=30.1 µm/hr, film thickness = 722.4 µm...............273
Figure 6.37 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ087: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=67.5 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate temperature=974 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1637 W, growth rate=38.1 µm/hr, film thickness = 2572 µm................274
Figure 6.38 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ051: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=12.5 hours, No N2, substrate temperature=1172 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1841 W, growth rate=22 µm/hr, film thickness = 275.3 µm..................276
Figure 6.39 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ125: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=300 Torr,
Growth time=24 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate temperature=987 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1862 W, growth rate=33.3 µm/hr, film thickness = 799.2 µm...............277

xviii

Figure 6.40 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ054: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=51.5 hours, 10ppm N2, substrate temperature=1153 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1876 W, growth rate=38 µm/hr, film thickness = 1956 µm...................278
Figure 6.41 Examples of CVD diamond plates: GYJ069 (row 4 column 1)
CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr, Growth time=42 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate
temperature=962 ° absorbed power = 1668 W, growth rate=16.8 µm/hr, film
C,
thickness = 705.6 µm; GYJ075 (row 3 column 3) CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=44.5 hours, 10ppm N2, substrate temperature=982 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1859 W, growth rate=28.8 µm/hr, film thickness = 1282
µm......................................................................................................................279
Figure 6.42 Schematic diagram of a Raman spectrometer................................280
Figure 6.43 Raman spectrum of SCD (GYJ084), showing the main peak at 1332
cm-1. FWHM is 1.93 cm-1. The intensity is in arbitrary units...............................282
Figure 6.44 Raman spectra FWHM vs. N2 content for Reactor C.....................284
Figure 6.45 Raman spectra FWHM vs. substrate temperature for Reactor
C........................................................................................................................285
Figure 6.46 Internal compressive stress versus nitrogen concentration in different
types of diamond [79].........................................................................................287
Figure 6.47 Schematic diagram of a secondary ion mass spectrometry [84]....288
Figure 6.48 Collision on the sample surface [84]...............................................289
Figure 6.49 N content by SIMS vs. N2 content in gas phase for Reactor C......290
Figure 6.50 Schematic diagram of a FTIR measurement setup [85].................291
Figure 6.51 Optical absorption comparison among samples from Reactor A, C
and Element Six (wavelength from 1 to 10000 nm)...........................................292
Figure 6.52 Optical absorption comparison among samples from Reactor A, C
and Element Six (wavelength from 200 to 800 nm)...........................................293

xix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction
In view of the important, recent, opportunity to commercially synthesize a

variety of high quality diamond materials, i.e. polycrystalline diamond (PCD) and
single crystal diamond (SCD), there is a need to further improve existing
microwave plasma assisted reactor designs and to develop entirely new designs
that are able to achieve diamond synthesis at high rates. For example, certain
applications require (30-150 µm/hr) high deposition rates and often some reactor
users desire both high rates and very high quality [1-3] diamond. Also since it is
important to increase deposition rates it is desirable to develop and optimize new
reactors designs and processes in the 100-300 Torr (The unit Torr is a non-SI unit
of pressure with the ratio of 760 Torr to 1 standard atmosphere) pressure regime.

1

This Ph.D. thesis investigates the design and development of a new
microwave plasma-assisted CVD reactor. The investigation begins by employing
a generic but versatile microwave reactor design which has a variety of
dimensions that can be modified, “reshaped” and adjusted to allow process
optimization for different diamond synthesis applications. In particular the generic
reactor geometry can be varied by changing characteristic reactor dimensions,
such as varying both height and radius of the cavity, adjusting the shape, position
and the size of the substrate holder, etc.
Reactor designs variations are first investigated by starting with an
existing benchmark reactor design and then modifying it, i.e. by varying the
dimensions, via numerical modeling to produce a new reactor design. Building
upon intuition gleaned from past reactor designs and experimental CVD diamond
synthesis experience this thesis research modifies existing reactor designs by
varying the size and shape of the applicator and plasma reactor volume and then
experimentally evaluates these design modifications in CVD diamond synthesis
applications. Numerical electromagnetic reactor models are also employed to
calculate and provide an understanding of the electromagnetic field patterns
within the new reactor design. In particular the experimental experiences of the
most promising reactor design, identified in this thesis as Reactor C, is
experimentally explored using 2.45 GHz excitation over 180-300 Torr operating
pressure regime. First and briefly, PCD is synthesized and then SCD is
experimentally examined.

2

1.2

Research objectives
The objective of this thesis research is to design, develop, optimize and

experimentally evaluate a new generation 2.45 GHz microwave plasma assisted
chemical vapor deposition (MPACVD) reactor and associated diamond synthesis
processes that enable the synthesis of polycrystalline diamond (PCD) or single
crystalline diamond (SCD) at high deposition rates. The proposed thesis research
will extend the currently existing MSU reactor technologies to operate at high
pressures, and high power densities.
This thesis research involves two specific activities: (1) an engineering
related, technology development activity and (2) an activity that verifies a specific
scientific hypothesis. The technology development involves the invention, the
building and the experimental evaluation of new MPACVD machines/instruments
that synthesize diamond at high pressures (180- 320 Torr) and high absorbed
3

microwave power densities (300-1000 W/cm ). The scientific hypothesis that is
experimentally evaluated is that as the MPACVD diamond synthesis process is
moved to higher pressures (> 180 Torr) that: (1) growth rate increases and (2)
high quality diamond can be synthesized over an expanded range of methane
concentrations.
These objectives will be accomplished by performing the following tasks:
(1) A literature review and comparative analysis of existing MPACVD reactor
technologies--- i.e. performing a state-of-the-art assessment of current
commercially available MPACVD reactors;
3

(2) Identify and develop a promising design and then build it and
experimentally evaluated it in specific diamond synthesis applications.
(3) Perform a numerical electromagnetic field (EMF) simulation analysis of the
current MSU generic reactors. Identify the important dimensions of the
generic MSU reactor (R1, R2, R3, R4 etc. and L1, L2 etc. See Figure 1.1)
and vary these dimensions to develop an improved understanding of
reactor EMF behavior.
(4) Evaluate the new reactor design in MPACVD synthesis of PCD at high
3

pressures (180-300 Torr) and high power densities (300-1000 W/cm )
over a one inch diameter substrate area; and
(5) Perform a specific detailed experimental evaluation of the new reactor
design by synthesizing high quality SCD in the high pressure and high
power density operating regime.

4

Figure 1.1 Generic microwave plasma reactor cross section

The specific detailed work in task (4) includes (a) the exploratory synthesis
of PCD over one inch diameter and over the indicated high pressure and high
power density regime. Synthesized material is up to 1-2mm thick. Outputs will
k.
include reactor roadmaps of the operating regime and absorbed microwave
ps
power density versus pressure measurements.
The specific detailed work in task (5) will include (a) the synthesis of high

5

quality (optical) individual SCD crystals on 3.5x3.5mm HTHP diamond seeds, (b)
then the scaling up of the process to synthesize 4 SCD crystals at a time, and
finally (c) the process will be scaled up to investigate the synthesis of SCD over
7x7mm SCD seed crystals to produce large area, high quality (optical, type IIa)
SCD crystals. Other outputs are the experimental identification of deposition
rates versus the various experimental conditions and the diamond quality versus
experimental conditions. SIMS, transmission measurements, Raman, etc. will be
used to measure diamond quality.

1.3

Thesis Outline
Certain preliminary aspects of the thesis research are described in

Chapters 2-7 below. In Chapter 2, a brief literature review of commercially
available reactor technologies is presented and deposition chemistry is reviewed
along with additional background information. The background information
includes the theory of diamond synthesis as is currently presented in the
literature. The literature review of commercially available reactor technologies
includes descriptions of the: (1) MSU microwave plasma assisted CVD reactor,
(2) ASTeX (SEKI) microwave plasma reactor, (3) Aixtron Ellipsoidal Reactor, (4)
CYRANNUS iplas Plasma System, and (5) LIMHP bell jar reactor.
Chapter 3 analyzes and compares the commercially available MPACVD
diamond synthesis reactors. The similarities and differences between the reactor
designs are noted and then if possible the output performance of the different
reactor designs is compared. Reactor designs and the associated reactor

6

performance is a multi-dimensional variable optimization problem. Thus this
chapter first identifies and classifies the many experimental and reactor design
variables and then establishes several performance criteria, i.e. performance
“figures of merit”, from which the reactor performance can be calculated and
compared.
Chapter 4 begins with the description of the generalized microwave
reactor concept, and then describes the early MSU microwave reactor designs.
In the past these reactor designs sometimes have been referred to as microwave
cavity plasma reactors (MCPR). Then it describes the design process of the new
reactor which is identified here as Reactor C (the fourth generation MSU CVD
reactor). The “new” numerical reactor models will calculate the electromagnetic
field patterns versus reactor shape and size within the reactor. Then building
upon intuition from past reactor designs the proposed new generation reactor,
Reactor C, is identified.
Chapter 5 starts with the experimental subsystems overview of Reactor C.
Then the concept of the multivarible parameter space for microwave plasma
assisted diamond deposition is described. The experimentally measured road
map and absorbed microwave discharge power density versus pressure is then
presented for Reactor C and the experimental results of polycrystalline diamond
synthesis are presented. The experimental results include determining the
relationships between the output variables such as growth rate versus pressure
and methane concentration, CVD diamond surface morphology and Raman
spectra study.

7

Chapter 6 describes the CVD single crystal diamond synthesis results over
the 240-320 Torr pressure regime. Eight sets of the experimental results include
total gas flow rate vs. output variables, substrate holder location vs. output
variables, deposition pressure vs. output variables, substrate vs. output variables,
methane concentration vs. output variables, nitrogen concentration vs. output
variables, deposition time vs. output variables, and substrate size vs. output
variables. Micro-Raman spectroscopy, SIMS, and IR-UV transmission
spectroscopy measurements on the synthesized diamond showed that the SCD
synthesized with Reactor C was of similar quality to type IIa diamond.
Chapter 7 summarizes the research that is investigated in this thesis and
proposes suggestions for future work.

8

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS FOR
MICROWAVE PLASMA ASSISTED CVD
DIAMOND SYNTHESIS

2.1 Introduction
Over the past two decades, progress in the field of microwave plasma
assisted chemical vapor deposition (MPACVD) has led to the synthesis of high
quality polycrystalline diamond (PCD) and single crystal diamond (SCD) [4-6].
Thus a general understanding has emerged of how diamond is synthesized in a
plasma assisted environment and additionally a number of MPACVD machines
are now available commercially. This chapter in Section 2.2 will briefly review the
current understanding of CVD diamond synthesis, and then in Section 2.3 will

9

describe the different commercial MPACVD machines that are now available for
purchase. Currently the MPACVD reactor technology has developed a number of
commercially available designs. These microwave assisted plasma reactors
include (1) the MSU microwave plasma assisted CVD reactor (MPCR), (2) the
ASTeX microwave plasma sources, (3) the Aixtron Ellipsoidal Reactor, (4) the
CYRANNUS iplas Plasma System, and (5) the LIMHP bell jar reactor. Here in
this chapter as part of the proposed thesis research, the most common
commercially available reactors are reviewed. In the next chapter the
performance of each of these reactors is compared by calculating and comparing
a

number

of

reactor

performance

measurements.

The

performance

measurements will be calculated from experimental data that is available in the
published and reviewed literature. These reactor performance measurements are
(a) discharge absorbed power density (b) CVD diamond growth rate i.e. linear
growth rate or weight gain, (c) diamond film uniformity, (d) diamond quality, and
(e) energy efficiency (which is referred to in later chapters as specific yield).

2.2 CVD Diamond Synthesis
2.2.1 Diamond Properties
Diamond is a transparent crystal of tetrahedral bonded carbon atoms (sp3)
that crystallizes into the diamond lattice. This lattice is a variation of the face
centered cubic (FCC) structure [7] and can be viewed as the superposition of two
FCC lattices one displaced relative to the other along the body diagonal by one
quarter of lattice parameter from the origin. At room temperature, the unit cell is
10

cubic with a side length approximately equal to 0.357 nm. Four valence electrons
in each carbon atom form strong covalent bonds by sp

3

hybridization with

nearest neighbor distance of 0.15 nm (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 Comparison of diamond and graphite, which are two allotropes of
carbon [7] “For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures,
the reader is referred to the electronic version of this dissertation.”

Diamonds have been adapted for many uses because of the material’s
exceptional physical characteristics.
2

Hardness = 10,000 kg/mm

11

Diamond is the hardest known naturally occurring material, scoring 10 on
the Mohs scale of mineral hardness. Diamond is extremely strong due to
the structure of its carbon atoms, where each carbon atom has four
neighbors joined to it with covalent bonds. [8]
Toughness = 2.0 MPa m

1/2

Unlike hardness, which only denotes resistance to scratching, diamond’s
toughness of tenacity is only fair to good. Toughness relates to the ability
to resist breakage from falls or impacts. Due to diamond’s perfect and
easy cleavage, it’s vulnerable to breakage. The toughness of natural
diamond is good when compared to other gemstones, but poor
compared to most other engineering materials. [9, 10]
Optical properties
Due to impurities and structural defects, in nature diamonds occur in
various colors – black, brown, yellow, gray, white, blue, orange, purple to
pink and red. Pure diamonds would be transparent and colorless.
Diamonds are classified into two main types, according to the nature of
defects present and how they affect light absorption: [11]
Type I diamond has nitrogen atoms as the main impurity, at a
concentration of up to 1%. If the N atoms are in pairs or larger
aggregates, they give the diamond pale yellow color. Type Ia can have
nitrogen concentrations as high as 2500 ppm atomic. If the N atoms are
dispersed throughout the crystal in isolated sites, they give the diamond
an intense yellow or occasionally brown tint; these are classified as Type

12

Ib.
Type II diamond differs from type I diamond because type II has very few
nitrogen impurities. Type IIb, which account for ~0.1% of gem diamonds,
is also nitrogen free but contains boron. So they are usually blue or gray
due to boron atoms scattered within the crystal matrix. Type IIa diamonds
also have a broad optical transparency from the deep ultraviolet to the far
infrared. However, high purity diamond does have absorption in the
wavelength range of 2 to 7 microns (wavelength) due to the excitation of
vibration modes of C-C bonds. [12]
Electrical properties
Most diamond is a good electrical insulator. Natural blue diamonds (type
IIb) are semiconductors due to substitutional boron impurities replacing
carbon atoms. Both p-type (boron-doped) and n-type (phosphorus-doped)
diamond film can be synthesized during chemical vapor deposition. [13]
Thermal conductivity = 900-2,320 W/mK
One of the most notable properties of diamond is high thermal
conductivity, because of the strong covalent bonding within the crystal. It
is already used in semiconductor applications as a heat sink or heat
spreading material in order to prevent silicon and other semiconducting
materials from overheating. [14]
Thermal stability
Diamond oxidizes in air (converts to graphite) if heated over 700 ˚C. At
atmosphere pressure, diamond is not as stable as graphite. Diamond is

13

definitely not “forever”. However, due to its large kinetic energy barrier,
diamond is metastable. It will not convert to graphite under standard
conditions of temperature and pressure. [15, 16]
These exceptional properties make diamond a very promising material for
variety of applications ranging from space, semiconductor industrial, biochemistry,
etc. applications.

2.2.2 The CVD Diamond Growth Process
CVD diamond growth is a very complex process. A full description of the CVD
diamond growth requires knowing all the chemical reactions at the gas phase
and the substrate surface, and being able to describe the details of surface
kinetics such as absorption-desorption, abstraction and migration phenomena.
Although currently there is no model to describe all aspects of CVD diamond
growth, some simplified ones are still available to help us understand what
happens. A typical example of growth process is displayed in Figure 2.2. [17]

14

Figure 2.2 General CVD diamond growth process

The input process gases, i.e. CH4, H2, etc., are first mixed in the reactor and
then pass through the plasma. When the reactive gas inputs pass through the
plasma discharge activation region, they are ionized and dissociated. The
microwave plasma activation creates ions and electrons and also results in
breaking down the molecules into reactive radicals and atoms. Also the
microwave energy heats the gas in the discharge to high temperatures of the
temperature
order of 2000 – 4000 Kelvin. As these reactive radicals hit the substrate surface,
these
they continue to mix and interact with the hydrogen terminated diamond
substrate surface and continue to undergo a set of complex surface reactions.
The role of the microwave plasma assisted CVD diamond system is to create
system
the chemical and thermal environment needed for diamond deposition. This
environment for the standard hydrogen
r
hydrogen-methane deposition process has the
15

following attributes.
The first and a very important parameter is the substrate temperature d
during
the deposition. The temperature is in the range of 400 ˚C to 1400 ˚C according
accord
to the previous research [18 If the substrate temperature is too high, it converts
[18].
the diamond to graphite.

[1
Figure 2.3 Reduced variable model of the MPACVD process [12]

Two types of essential radicals need to be supplied to the growth surface.
They are atomic hydrogen [H] and an appropriate carbon-containing growth
containing
species such as [CH3] (See Figure 2.3). The vital roles of H atoms are to activate
2.3).
and cycle hydrocarbon species on the surface to permit growth in the diamond
phase of carbon and not the graphite phase [12
n
[12].

16

At the gas phase when the input process gases H2 and CH4 are first mixed
in the reactor, there is direct electron-impact dissociation at low pressure: [19]

-

-

e + H2 → e + 2H

(1)

and thermal dissociation at high pressure:
H2 + H → 3H

(2)

As far as CH3 production is concerned, at low pressure (M is a third body):
CH4 + M → CH3 + H + M

(3)

and at high pressure, CH3 production is due to CH4 dissociation through
collisions with H atoms at high pressure:
CH4 + H → CH3 + H2

(4)

This reaction (4) usually happens very close to the surface and it can also
happen in the reverse. The production rate of CH3 depends on the gas
temperature. From the model that F Silva et al [19] used, the optimal CH3
production occurs within the gas temperature range 1200 – 2200 K.
The substrate surface reactions were described by the Harris and Goodwin
model [20]. See Figure 2.4. The first important reaction is the hydrogen
abstraction surface reaction and the associated rate, Rabs-H. This reaction is
‫כ‬
given by equation (5) below, where Cd is an open carbon site.
‫כ‬
CdH + H → Cd + H2,

(5)

17

Rabs-H = k1[H]
In equation (5) k1 is the reaction rate constant and [H] is the atomic hydrogen
concentration at the surface. The abstraction results in an open carbon site on
the diamond surface, which can be filled by either the adsorption of another
atomic hydrogen or a carbon radical species (e.g. CH3). The reaction and
‫כ‬
associated rate, RadH, of hydrogen adsorption onto an open site, Cd , is given by
‫כ‬
Cd + H → CdH

(6)

RadH = k2[H]
The growth species CH3 can also be adsorbed on to the surface with the
reaction and associated rate for an open surface site given by
‫כ‬
Cd + CH3 → CdCH3

(7)

RadC = k3[CHx]
Once the growth species is on the surface, it can then proceed along one of two
primary paths. The first path is thermal desorption from the surface leading to an
open site on the surface again. The reaction and associated rate for a given
adsorbed site is
‫כ‬
CdCH3 →Cd + CH3

(8)

Rdes = k4
The other pathway is the incorporation of the adsorbed carbon species into the
diamond structure. The general event that begins this mechanism in growth
18

models is an abstraction of hydrogen from the adsorbed carbon species.
CdCH3 + H → CdCH2 + H2

(9)

Rabs-CHx = k5[H]
Under steady state conditions, this set of reactions can be combined to
give a growth rate G given by [21,22
ive
[21,22]
(10)

where ns is the surface site density which is 2.61 X 10

-9

2

mol/cm on (100)
3

surfaces, and nd is the molar density of diamond, which is 0.2939 mol/cm .

Figure 2.4 Growth model for diamond synthesis [20]

19

To conclude, a general view of the deposition process on the surface is one
where at first atomic hydrogen is bonded to almost the entire diamond surface.
The primary mechanism that opens sites on the surface is by abstraction of
surface-terminating hydrogen by atomic hydrogen.
2

Low hydrogen surface coverage can result in sp -like terminations on the
diamond surface, which can lead to growth defects and If the hydrogen coverage
is low enough, graphitic/amorphous film deposition. An empirical model (see
Figure 2.5) for the defects, Xdef, incorporated during diamond growth is
Xdef

ୋ

ሾୌሿౡ

(11)

where k is an empirical fit that is often selected as k = 2. The growth rate given
by equation (10) can be reduced to
G

ሾେୌଷሿሼୌሽ

ଷ୶ଵ଴భఱ ୡ୫షయ ା ሾୌሿ

(12)

20

Figure 2.5 Growth rate and relative defect density [20]

Hence, the higher quality diamond can be synthesized when the carbon
species concentration in the input gas flow is low and atomic hydrogen
concentration is high. At high pressures, microwave discharges in hydrogen and
methane gas mixtures separate from the reactor walls. They become freely
floating and assume shapes that are related to the shape of the impressed
electromagnetic (EM) fields. At pressures of 100 Torr or more, thermal
21

dissociation will produce more atomic hydrogen than direct electron-impact
dissociation at lower pressure (see Figure 2.6). These discharges have high
densities of radical species, i.e. H and CH3 radicals. The atomic hydrogen
concentration increases 800 times and CH3 species concentration increases 8
times when the pressure increases from 37.5 to 225 Torr. Also for the same
methane concentration, the growth rate increases more than 200 times and the
defect Xdef drops more than 100 times when the pressure increases from 37.5 to
225 Torr. So we can say that higher quality diamond can be synthesized with
higher growth rates at higher pressures. Also the previous experimental work [23,
24] (see Figures 2.7, 2.8) indicates that the growth rate increases as the
pressure and the microwave discharge absorbed power density increase.

22

Figure 2.6 The operating ranges of CVD diamond deposition process for
different pressure and different methane concentration

23

Figure 2.7 Growth rate versus pressure and CH4 concentration [24]
[24

24

Figure 2.8 Growth rate and power density versus pressure [24]

2.3

A Review Of Commercially Available Reactors

2.3.1 The MSU Microwave Plasma Reactors
The MSU microwave plasma assisted CVD reactor (See Figure 1.1) was
amongst the first microwave plasma assisted reactor concepts developed for
diamond film growth. The first generation of MSU’s MPACVD reactor was
developed and built in the Fall of 1986 by J. Asmussen and placed into operation
in the Fall of 1987 at Norton Company in Salt Lake City, Utah. The reactor design
was based on a microwave plasma reactor concept invented by J. Asmussen
25

while at Michigan State University and patented by MSU (See Asmussen et al
[25-33]). The technology was licensed to Wavemat Inc. by MSU, and Norton
Company obtained an exclusive sub-license during 1987-1999 period from
Wavemat for the application of this technology to diamond film deposition. The
second generation MSU microwave plasma assisted CVD reactor was developed
by Asmussen and his graduate students J. Zhang and K.P. Kuo during 1988–
1992 period [34]. The improvement over earlier designs was that this reactor had
the coaxial coupling probe located at the top end of the cavity, instead of on the
side of the cavity. Here this reactor is referred to as Reactor A. Also in the 19891990 time period the reactor concept was physically scaled up by the factor 2.7
[35,36], and was then excited at 915 MHz. Based on this scale up, a MPACVD
diamond synthesis reactor was designed, built and installed by Wavemat Inc. at
Norton Co. in 1992. Thus the deposition area was increased by over seven times
[37]. The reactor system has a power supply of 30 kW (although it was never
operated at that input level), and also had an input coaxial coupling probe at the
top of the cavity and a movable substrate stage. At the time of installation at
Norton Co., it was the first scaled up, 915 MHz MPACVD diamond synthesis
machine in the world.

26

Figure 2.9 Numerical simulation of the fourth generation MSU microwave
plasma assisted CVD reactor

Recently the MSU reactor design was extended to higher pressures (180 –
240 Torr) and higher power density operation. [38] This third generation MSU
reactor, identified as Reactor B in this thesis, is able to provide a higher
discharge plasma power densities by shrinking the size of the substrate holder
and water cooling stage and by operating at high pressures of 160 – 240 Torr.
The reactor developed in this PhD thesis research is the fourth generation MSU
microwave plasma assisted CVD (MPACVD) reactor and is identified here as
Reactor C. The major modifications of Reactor C are the redesign of the
applicator itself, which includes larger applicator and quartz dome dimensions,
and a scaled-up base plate. An example of numerical simulation of the
electromagnetic field of the reactor is shown in Figure 2.9. Specific details of the
27

redesign will be further discussed in Chapter 4.
Reactors A, Reactor B and Reactor C have been exclusively licensed to
Lambda Technologies Company by Michigan State University in 2002, 2009 and
2011 respectively. The power supply subsystem, the gas flow control, pressure
control, and exhaust

subsystem have been

implemented by Lambda

Technologies and they are now commercially available. An example of these
MPACVD machines is shown in Figures 2.10 – 2.11 (Figures from
www.microcure.com). The reactor design incorporates the internal cavity tuning.
The inherent performance provides the ultimate operating flexibility and control of
gas plasma density and uniformity over a wide range of operating conditions and
gasses. DiamoTek 700 is a small area (1-4 inch diameter deposition area)
diamond MPACVD system (Figure 2.10). It provides precise plasma control,
efficient energy coupling and full auto computer controlled cycle profiling process.
The power range of this system is from 1.2 kW to 10 kW at 2.45 GHz and the
operating pressure regime is from 20 to 160 Torr. The DiamoTek 1800 is a large
area (6-8 diameter deposition area) MPACVD reactor using 915 MHz microwave
excitation (Figure 2.11). It employs 5 kW – 30 kW microwave power and can be
operated from 20 – 180 Torr with 1 – 10 microns/hr deposition rate (PCD).

28

Figure 2.10 DiamoTek 700

29

Figure 2.11 DiamoTek 1800

2.3.2 ASTeX (SEKI) High-Pressure Microwave Plasma Source
The microwave plasma reactor introduced in this section is commercially
available from a company called Seki Technotron, formerly known before 1998
as AsTex Research. Their commercially available products include a first
generation AX5200 1.5kW, AX5250 5kW Microwave Plasma CVD system, and a
second generation AX6550/6560 2.45GHz 8kW Microwave Plasma CVD system,
and an AX6600 915MHz 100kW microwave plasma CVD reactor. Their reactors
can be grouped into: (1) a cylindrical reactor and (2) a clamshell (non-cylindrical)
reactor.

30

Numerical Simulation of SEKI system (ASTEX)
The first generation of the SEKI reactor, i.e. the cylindrical reactor as shown
in Figure 2.12, excites the plasma with the TM013 mode (see Figure 2.12(a)) by
employing a coaxial antenna coupling system (see Figure 2.12(b)). The
numerically calculated electromagnetic field patterns and the plasma gas
temperature distribution results which are shown in Figure 2.12(b) and 2.12(c)
were performed by Silva et al [19]. The excitation mode and the coupling method
are similar to those employed by Reactor A. A major difference between two
reactors is the way SEKI system shapes and locates the dielectric window. The
microwave energy is introduced into the cylindrical applicator by a coaxial
antenna and the dielectric window is a quartz plate located approximately at the
cavity mid-plane of Figure 2.12(b). Modeling of the H2 plasma gas temperature
distribution is presented in Figure 2.12(c).

31

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2.12 Cross-sectional views of the SEKI reactor design. The applicator is
excited in the approximate TM013 mode [19]

The second generation of SEKI reactor design and its associated
electromagnetic field simulation are shown in Figure 2.13. It uses a noncylindrical cavity (i.e. the clam shell reactor) and is phi symmetric. Several
peculiarities have been presented for this reactor. First, SEKI claims that it uses
the TM011 mode as the main excitation mode. However, secondary radial lobes,
which are related to the TM021 mode, are shown above the substrate holder in
the simulation in Figure 2.13 (a). Other EM field patterns exist below the
32

substrate holder and at the top clamshell region (TM011). The reactor is also a
hybrid mode cavity. Second, the microwave energy is introduced by a coaxial
feed located at the bottom of the cavity. Third, there is no quartz dome exposed
directly to the plasma when it is operated properly and this allows the reactor to
have a good power handling capability. Hemawan et al who is using the second
generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor also performed numerical simulation. They
showed three different modes with electromagnetic field patterns in Figure 2.14 2.16. [39] It is not clear how the reactor is adjusted (i.e. how the reactor shape or
top position is adjusted) to obtain these modes. They might use shim sets or a
mechanically moving parts to adjust the distance between the substrate holder
and the top of the cavity. At a given excitation frequency of the reactor, only one
mode can exist at a time, but apparently there are several modes that exist near
each other. Hemawan et. at. is investigating which is the best mode for the SCD
synthesis (i.e. see Figures 2.14-2.16).

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.13 Illustration of the second generation SEKI reactor; Quartz window is
located underneath the cooling stage [19]
33

Figure 2.14 Electric field pattern of the second generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor;
Mode 1 [39]

34

Figure 2.15 Electric field pattern of the second generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor;
Mode 2 [39]

35

Figure 2.16 Electric field pattern of the second generation 915 MHz SEKI reactor;
Mode 3 [39]

The commercial system and cross
cross-sectional schematic diagram of the SEKI
second generation high pressure microwave plasma reactor are shown in Figure
plasma
2.17 [40] and 2.18 [41]. The microwave plasma 2.45 GHz CVD system shown in
Figure 2.17 is equipped with a 8 kW power supply and occupies a laboratory foot
print of 2m × 5m [42, 43]. The system also includes a chamber, for introducing
].
the process gas that is used for the specific diamond synthesis process
process.
Generally, a CVD process is accomplished on a single flat electrode on which the
microwave energy is applied through the coaxial input feed locat
located on the

36

underside of the electrode. Microwave energy radially propagates along the
bottom surface of the electrode and the plasma is formed on the top of the
electrode.

Figure 2.17 ASTeX 8 kW semi-production microwave plasma CVD system

37

Figure 2.18 Schematic of the 5-kW 2.45GHz microwave CVD reactor [41]

38

Figure 2.19 Schemetic of ASTeX microwave plasma CVD system; [41]

More detailed cross sectional views of the reactor are displayed in Figs. 2.18
and 2.19. In particular reactor 100 (Figure 2.19) includes reactor chamber 102 for
containing the gas to be energized into plasma with microwave energy. Gas is
provided from 142 and exhausted through 144 by vacuum pump 146. Microwave
power is provided to the underside of electrode 114 by a fundamental mode
coaxial transmission line 118 with center conductor 120 connected to 114. The
quartz ring window 116 is an annular ring placed toward the outer edge of 114.

39

The quartz ring is placed in a low electric field region to act as a vacuum seal for
the reactor to prevent heating, coating, etching and plasma breakdown at window
116. This arrangement is to assist in the forming of the plasma on the upper side
of the electrode. Window 116 is sealed against both 106 and 114 by fixing spring
130 to apply downward force on 114.
The clamshell reactor was scaled up in size by exciting it with 915 MHz
microwave energy and increasing the reactors dimensions by a factor of 2.7. See
Fig. 2.20.

This reactor was used to explore process conditions for diamond

growth [44, 45]. The aluminum wall reactor is approximately 0.3 m in diameter
and the copper cooling stage at the center of the reactor is 111 mm in diameter.
The Si substrates 138 of up to 76mm in diameter (25- and 51-mm substrates
were single-crystalline Si, 76-mm substrates were polycrystalline Si) and up to
9.5 mm thick, which were abraded with diamond powder of 15-30 µm and were
placed on a molybdenum holder on top of the cooling stage.

40

Figure 2.20 Schematic of the 60-kW 915MHz microwave CVD reactor [41]

Substrate Cooling System:

41

Figure 2.21 Substrate holder cooling system schemetic [41]

The cooling system for the clamshell reactors includes both water cooling
and air cooling. Figure 2.21 displays a cross sectional view of the substrate
cooling system. 172 is cooling water in and 170 is cooling water out. Air cooling is
also used to control the temperature during process. 174 is hollow to provide a
passageway to cylindrical chamber 164 machined just below 162. The rate of
heat transfer from the substrate in 162 into 114 may be controlled by providing a
gas through 174 to fill 164. Substrate electrode cooling can be accomplished by
providing a means to flow a cooling fluid through the electrode.
Plasma Shape:
In Figure 2.19 surface 111 and 113 approximate a curve varying inversely
with electrode radius to create an axisymmetric, uniform, relatively thin elongated
disc-shaped plasma 140. The size of the plasma is approximately equal to the
size of substrate 138 located in the substrate holder 114. It is noted here that as
described in the US patent [41] that the thickness and radius of 110 can be
42

varied to tune the reactor and to adjust the plasma. It could be that this reactor
with its variable height clamshell dome allows the different excitations of EM
modes that have been described by Hemawan et. al. [39]

2.3.3 Ellipsoidal Reactor (Aixtron) 1998
AIXTRON’s ellipsoid diamond reactors are based on microwave reactor
developments at Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Solid State Physics, located in
Freiburg, Germany. Due to its special ellipsoidal geometry, it has been shown
experimentally that this reactor offers a good performance for producing thick
polycrystalline diamond coatings on large substrates.
Numerical Simulation of Aixtron system
The AIXTRON reactor system is a non-cylindrical cavity which uses an
ellipsoidal cavity. Despite its large dimensions, this innovative cavity shape has
the advantage of having only two main field maxima, located at the foci of the
ellipsoid. (See Figure 2.22) Due to its special geometry, this reactor offers a
uniform coating of large substrates.

43

Figure 2.22 Illustration of the AIXTRON reactor cross section exploiting an
ellipsoidal resonant cavity (Left). An antenna provides the coupling and the
quartz dome is shown (Center). Modeling of 150 Torr H2 plasma is presented
(Right) [19]

Figure 2.23(a) shows how the TM012 field distribution from a cylindrical cavity
evolves when the cavity transitions from a cylindrical to an ellipsoidal geometry.
The sequence of three field maxima along the cylindrical cavity axis is
transformed into two main maxima located at the foci separated by a smaller
secondary maximum for the ellipsoidal cavity. If a larger reactor is employed as
shown in Figure 2.23 (a), a TM036 mode can be excited in the cylindrical cavity.
When the ellipsoidal shape is employed the seven field maxima of the cylindrical
cavity are transformed into two main maxima as is shown in Figure 2.23.

44

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.23 Evolution of the electric field pattern for TM012 mode and TM036
mode from cylindrical to ellipsoidal cavity. The side graphs indicate the axial
profiles of electric field strength [19]

System diagram photos of the ellipsoid microwave plasma reactor are shown
in Fig. 2.24 and 2.25. Microwave energy is coupled from a waveguide system
into an ellipsoid cavity via an axial antenna. A hemispherical plasma discharge is
created and is placed in direct contact of the substrate inside a quartz bell jar.
Here the plasma is ignited and the deposition takes place. The silicon substrates
are placed on a water-cooled substrate holder. Two types of the commercial
45

systems, named P6 and P60, are available and operated at 2.45GHz and
915MHz respectively.

Figure 2.24 AIXTRON P6 ellipsoid microwave plasma system

46

Figure 2.25 Ellipsoid microwave plasma reactor [46]
Another group W.Z. Tang et. al. [
[47] from University of Science and
niversity
Technology Beijing, China recently introduced a new compact cavity type
ellipsoidal microwave plasma reactor. After performing systematic numerical
simulations on ellipsoidal cavities, they selected an ellipsoidal cavity with radiu
radius,
R, and height, Z, values of 165 mm and 435 mm respectively. From Figure 2.26,
we can see the compact ellipsoidal cavity has the maximum electric field intensity
above the center of the substrate holder (bottom of the cavity). The resonant
modes for the compact ellipsoidal cavity and the AIXTRON reactor are TM033 and
TM036, respectively. A plasma ball has been ignited in this compact ellipsoidal
.
cavity and hemisphere plasma is created above the center of the substrate
holder. To date no further research and experimental evaluation of using this
reactor for diamond deposition has been published. But this compact ellipsoidal
reactor is expected to be an improved more compact reactor design for MPACVD
tor

47

diamond deposition.

Figure 2.26 (a) Electric field distribution in the selected compact ellipsoidal cavity
and (b) Electric field distribution in the original AIXTRON ellipsoidal reactor [47]

2.3.4 CYRANNUS Plasma System (iplas) 1996
The iplas plasma systems from CYRANNUS have some great features. For
example their plasma systems can run continuously at any pressure and the
applicator system is fed with microwave power from the side and is equally
distributed to the whole cavity.
Numerical Simulation of IPLAS system
Similar to the MSU and SEKI reactors, the iplas system (Figure 2.27 and
2.28) excites the TM01n resonant modes. The major difference is the method of
microwave coupling into the applicator. For the iplas cavity microwave coupling is
achieved with a series of gaps in a toroidal waveguide wrapped around the
cylindrical cavity instead of a coupling probe. The length of each gap is an
48

integer number of guided wavelengths (four in this case). As is shown in Figure
2.27, the coupling waveguide is wrapped around the cylindrical cavity and the
slots are positioned every other half-wavelength. The waveguide has been
arranged along the cavity vertical wall. The mode excited within the cylindrical
cavity is TM012. The quartz window in this reactor consists of a tube located
inside the cavity to prevent plasma ignition at the slot’s location. In the absence
of quartz windows, the slot would experience the same pressure, as the
processing environment and the plasma would be ignited in the slot in the high
electric field region. So the use of the cylindrical quartz window allows one to
properly select the cavity excitation region and excite the cavity with a single
region of maximum plasma power density (Figure 2.28). This region as shown in
Figure 2.27 is close to the substrate surface. It is not clear where the substrate is
located, i.e. in the middle or the bottom of the cavity, during the deposition. It
probably depends on the specific application.

49

Waveguide
TM012 cavity
Quartz tube

Figure 2.27 Illustration of the IPLAS reactor [19]

The magnetic field distribution (shown in Figure 2.29) in the waveguide
switches from clockwise to counterclockwise rotation every half-wavelength. So
the cavity openings have to be chosen to only select the waveguide sections
where the magnetic field is rotating in the same direction as the magnetic field in
cavity, thereby exciting the resonance TM012 mode.

50

Figure 2.28 Schematic diagram of CYRANNUS plasma system [47]

51

Figure 2.29 Magnetic field distributions in a transverse cut plane for the
waveguide and reactor [19]

A photograph of a commercially available CYRANNUS iplas plasma system
is shown in Figure 2.30. Plasma generation is possible with many different
process gases, such as air, O2, H2, N2, CxHy or Ar [47]

52

Figure 2.30 Manual CYRANNUS plasma system [47]

As shown in Figure 2.28 the plasma source is fed with microwave power from
the right. The waveguide system is excited with microwave power from the
magnetron. The microwave energy passes through the circulator and the EHtuner, before it is coupled into the plasma source. Any reflected power is reflected
back to the circulator and then is absorbed in a water load.

2.3.5 LIMHP bell jar reactor
This bell jar reactor is the result of the collaboration between Plassys and the
CNRS laboratory LIMHP in Villetaneuse, France.
53

Numerical Simulation of LIMHP system
LIMHP system is very similar to the MSU system. The first generation of
LIMHP reactor is a bell jar type reactor with a TM023 mode as shown in Figure
2.31. The cylindrical cavity has a diameter of 250 mm, as compared to 178 mm
to MSU Reactor A, with a metal meshed outer cylindrical structure. Although this
provides a large access window to inspect the plasma, at high input powers it
causes a heating problem when pressures are above 110 Torr.

Figure 2.31 LIMHP first generation bell jar reactor designed in 1990: TM023
Electric field pattern (left); LIMHP coupled cavity with substrate holder and quartz
bell jar (center); photograph of an H2 plasma at 18 Torr and 600 W power [19]

In order to circumvent the heating problems a second generation of the
LIMHP reactor was designed. The quartz bell jar of the first generation reactor
54

was difficult to cool and then was replaced with a window located at the top of a
TM022 mode cavity. See Figure 2.32. The microwave coupling into the cavity was
achieved via an excitation probe just like MSU system. The lower part of the
cavity was able to move which enables modifying the geometrical size of the
cavity and matching. Thus it appears that they are using the same variable
coupling probe and sliding short matching that was patented many years ago.
(Ref US patents by Asmussen et. al 4,507,588, 4,130,566, 4,691,662, and
4,943,345 [25-33])

Figure 2.32 Second generation LIMHP stainless steel reactor designed in 1994.
TM022 Electric field pattern (left); LIMHP coupled cavity with substrate holder and
quartz window (center); photograph of H2 plasma at 100 mbar [19]

Figure 2.33 shows the cross section view of the third generation LIMHP
55

reactor. It’s an optimization of their first generation bell jar reactor. To achieve
higher power operation, the diameter of the quartz bell jar is increased to move
the quartz walls away from the plasma. The cavity geometry is also modified to
obtain higher power density plasma with better radial homogeneity. The third
generation LIMHP shows excellent performance for working pressures from 150
Torr to 225 Torr and good handling of heat fluxes to the walls.

Figure 2.33 Third generation LIMHP reactor (optimization of the first generation)
[19]

Two kinds of commercially available reactor designs are reported by LIMHP
for diamond synthesis. Figure 2.34 shows stainless steel reactor for high-purity
single crystalline diamond synthesis and Figure 2.35 shows “Bell-jar” reactor for
polycrystalline diamond deposition and plasma diagnostics. These reactors are
also known as BJS150 MPACVD Bell Jar diamond deposition reactor,
manufactured by PLASSYS Company.
56

Figure 2.34 LIMHP stainless steel reactor [48]

Figure 2.35 LIMHP bell jar reactor [48]

57

2.4 Development of inch-size single crystal diamond
wafer production (SEKI reactor system)
Seen as the future of wide band gap semiconductor materials, singlecrystal diamonds need to be fabricated in at least inch-size wafers if they are to
be of use in industry. This section presents a recent development of inch-size
SCD wafer production. H. Yamada et al. [49] has applied the first generation
SEKI 2.45 GHz microwave plasma CVD system for high rate homoepitaxial
growth of single crystal diamond with the thickness as large as 10 mm. Figure
2.36 shows two different types of substrate holder design. One is called “open”
type, which supports the diamond seed on the Molybdenum rod and another is
called “enclosed” type, which supports the seed inside the drilled hole. The hole
size can be varied according to the original diamond seed size. This design is
very similar to MSU CVD system holder design except for the so-called
“enclosed” type. The MSU design sits the diamond seed on the bottom of the
Molybdenum to improve the cooling condition.

58

Figure 2.36 Schematic illustration of “open” and “enclosed” type holders [
[49]
The research shows the diamond films grown by the open type indicates
the promotion of edge growth which is mostly proved to be polycrystalline
diamond. In contrast, the films grown by the enclosed type indicates very little
,
growth of polycrystalline diamond. This is a big advantage of enclosed type over
open type, because we always want to eliminate the poly rims in order to grow
high quality single crystal diamond. The poly rims are also responsible for the
shrinkage of the growth area (see Chapter 4 in this thesis). In Figure 2.36, there
is an important parameter d which is the distance between the holder top surface
and diamond top surface. As d becomes smaller, the grown surface becomes
the
smoother. It shows macroscopically flat surface morphology at d = 0.6 mm.
Diamond doesn’t grow at the four corners, due to the lower temperature
surrounding the holder. However, as shown in Figure 2.37, the growth rate for
enclosed type holder increases as d value is decreased and approaches growth
d
rate of open type holder at 100 160 microns per hour. It was not clearly described
100-160
59

how the growth rate was measured. That is it was not stated whether growth rate
was determined by weight gain or linear encoder.

Figure 2.37 Growth rate of diamond films for enclosed type holder as a function
of the depth d [49]
Optimum growth strategy for CVD diamond has also investigated by this
research group. These process steps are displayed pictorially in Figure 2.38. Liftoff process using ion implantation was successfully applied to produce a thick
and large single crystal CVD diamond plate. The first step was to grow a 40 µm
thick film on the ion implanted HPHT single crystal CVD diamond substrate. Then
the diamond film was separated from the substrate after wet etching of the ion
implanted layer. Then a much thicker layer of 470 µm was grown on the
60

separated plate with the average growth rate of 7.8 µm/h. The fourth step is to
apply a high rate growth on the side {100} surface of a thick diamond for the
purpose of three dimensional enlargements in crystal size. Although the side
surface of diamond is covered by polycrystalline diamond after step 3, it can be
laser-cut and the inside single crystal diamond still has some degree of optical
transparency. Once again a lift-off process is applied to achieve a large area
CVD diamond plate. By this method, a 12.6 x 13.3 mm2 single crystal diamond
plate was produced with thickness of 0.2 mm by high-rate growth (32 µm/h)
(Figure 2.39).

Figure 2.38 Steps to enlarge a CVD diamond plate by combination of lift-off
process and side surface growth [50]

61

3

Figure 2.39 A half-inch (12.6x13.3x3.7 mm ) single crystal diamond fabricated
inch
via enlarging process [50]

In order to obtain a single crystal wafer more than 1 inch in diameter, a so
socalled “mosaic wafer” technique was developed [ ]. SCD layers can grow on
[51].
62

several small plates, which have been arranged appropriately so that the upper
layer has a smooth larger surface. The maximum size of mosaic wafer obtained
2

2

by this group is 16 x 16 mm , which consisted of 16 SCD plates, each 4 x 4 mm .
It can be easily realized that the importance of obtaining the identical small SCD
plates for the mosaic wafer process. Once again the lift-off process using ion
implantation can be utilized to clone the seed crystal (See Figure 2.40 and 2.41).
The Raman spectra of the mosaic wafer along a line crossing the junction
between the seed crystals shows that FWHM is approximately 1.5 times large on
the junction than the other region in a distances of 0.3 – 1.0 mm. The FWHM of
all the Raman spectra are less than 5 cm

-1

which is close to that of HPHT Ib

substrate. For the IR transmission measurement, they also claim the mosaic
wafer shows characteristics close to type IIa SCD.

63

Figure 2.40 “Mosaic wafer” process: Several clones are jointed into one large
diamond plate [51]

Figure 2.41 (a) Mosaic wafer made of SCD clone plates and (b) Raman spectra
measured at the junction [51]

64

CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS OF MICROWAVE PLASMA
ASSISTED CVD REACTORS

3.1 Introduction
This Chapter analyzes and compares the commercially available
MPACVD diamond synthesis reactors. The similarities and differences between
the reactor designs are noted and then if possible the output performance of the
different reactor designs is compared. Reactor designs and the associated
reactor performance is a multi-dimensional variable optimization problem. Thus
this chapter first identifies and classifies the many experimental and reactor
design variables and then establishes several performance criteria from which
the reactor performance can be calculated and compared. Section 3.2 describes
the multi-dimensional variable space and the differences in the commercially
65

available reactor designs are discussed in Section 3.3. A number of performance
measures or “figures of merit” are defined in Sections 3.4 and Section 3.5. These
performance measures are calculated for each reactor and then are employed to
compare the performance of the different reactor designs. In Section 3.6 the
differences between the reactors are summarized.

3.2 Microwave Plasma Reactor Design Variables,
Experimental Process Variables And Performance
Variables
In order to systematically compare the performance of the different
commercially available microwave plasma assisted CVD reactors, it is essential
to identify the many input variables that influence the behavior of the reactor.
Most of these variables have been identified in earlier MSU theses and
publications [24,52,53], and thus they are only briefly summarized here. The
nonlinear relationships between the three main groups of variables are presented.
The three basic groups are (1) input variables, U; (2) internal variables, X; and (3)
output variables, Y.
The input variables are defined as the variables that are independently
controlled by an experimental operator or reactor designer. The input variables
can be further subdivided into
(1) Experimental controllable input variables, U1
U1 includes deposition pressure, incident microwave power, feed gas
66

composition, and total flow rate
(2) Reactor geometry design variables, U2
U2 includes applicator size and configuration, substrate holder location
and size, electromagnetic mode and cavity tuning, and quartz dome
geometry
(3) Deposition process variables, U3
U3 includes substrate material and size, substrate seeding and nucleation
procedure and deposition time
The internal variables are defined as the internal plasma reactor states.
Internal variables X include absorbed microwave power, plasma volume,
substrate temperature, and absorbed power density.
The output variables, Y, can be divided into two groups.
(1) Reactor performance, Y1
Y1 includes linear growth rate, total growth rate and carbon conversion
efficiency
(2) Film characteristics, Y2
Y2 includes film uniformity, film structural quality, film morphology and film
texture.
The sub-sections and chapters that follow in this section quantify the
relationships between the input variables, U, and internal variables, X = f(U), the
input variables and output variables, Y = g(U), and the internal variables and
67

output variables, Y= h(X).
Given a set of independently fixed input variables U1, e.g. deposition
pressure, incident microwave power, and feed gas composition, changing the
reactor design can have a big influence on the output performance of the CVD
diamond process. Different electromagnetic modes are excited due to different
applicator geometries i.e. reactor shape, reactor size, configuration. We can also
benefit from the larger size of the reactor or quartz dome to deposit diamond at
higher operating pressure. The cooling stage and substrate holder design will
also influence the cooling condition during the CVD process.

3.3 A Comparison of Commercially Available Reactor
Designs
Each of the reactor designs described in Chapter 2 has evolved over the
past 15 – 30 years, and at a “first glance” they appear to be quite different from
one another. In this section these commercially available MPACVD reactor
designs are compared. Here each reactor concept is reviewed by comparing the
specific reactor designs with the MSU developed MPACVD reactor design
principles that have evolved at MSU over the past 30 years. These MSU design
principles are as follows: what is (1) the applicator size and shape, (2) the
method of electromagnetic field excitation, (3) the method of cavity applicator
coupling and matching, (4) the ability and the ease of the design to scale up the

68

reactor size by lowering the excitation frequency (5) the location of the substrate
within the applicator and (6) the ability of the reactor design to optimize the CVD
process by applicator size and substrate position adjustment.
All the reactor applicators have a shape that is phi-symmetric. Some
applicators are just simple cylindrical cavities. Examples of these are the SEKI
1

st

generation reactor, the LIMHP 1

st

and 3

rd

generation reactors, the iplas

reactor and the MSU Reactor A. While the AIXTRON reactor is phi symmetric the
cavity applicator shape is ellipsoidal. As the shape of the AIXTRON applicator
varies versus the axial position, the electromagnetic field intensity also varies
versus axial position. Starting from the coupling probe at the top of the reactor,
the electromagnetic field is first unfocused and then as the Z=0 position is
approached the electromagnetic field is refocused onto the substrate. Thus the
EM energy flux density varies over the applicator cross section as it passes from
the input coupling port through the applicator to the discharge load. The more
advanced reactor designs have more complex, phi-symmetric, shapes. Examples
of these are the SEKI 2

nd

nd

generation reactor, the LIMHP 2

generation reactor

and the MSU Reactor B. In each of these designs the applicator radius varies
versus the axial position.
All the reactor designs employ a single, phi-symmetric, TM0 mode
excitation. Thus this appears to be the common method of producing the
microwave discharge within all the applicators. Examples of excitation modes are
the TM013 for the SEKI 1

st

generation reactor, the TM013 mode for the MSU

69

Reactor A, the TM012 for the iplas reactor and the TM023 mode for the LIMHP 1st
generation reactor. The AIXTRON reactor is excited in the ellipsoidal TM036
mode, as is shown in Figure 2.22[19]. However its size can be reduced and then
the ellipsoidal TM033 mode can be excited [54]. This mode excitation leads to a
more physically compact reactor. The reactors with more complex shapes have
the following mode excitations: (1) the hybrid TM013 + TEM001 mode for the
MSU Reactor B, and (2) the TM022 mode for LIMHP 2

nd

generation reactor.

However it is not clear what single mode is excited in the SEKI 2

nd

generation

reactor. An electromagnetic analysis of the reactor has been performed by F.
Silva et. al. [19]. The result indicates that more than one mode may be excited.
That is, as shown in Figure 12 of the reference [19], the EM field patterns consist
of a main field cavity TM011 mode as well as secondary radial field maxima
typical of TM021 mode. A recent investigation by Hemawan et. al. [39] also
indicates more than one mode can be excited.
Most of these reactors including MSU Reactors A and B, the SEKI first
generation and AIXTRON use excitation probes for microwave coupling into the
reactor. The LIMHP reactor uses a coaxial octahedron excitation probe.
Apparently the LIMHP designs use this variable radii probe to enhance the
impedance matching into the discharge-loaded applicator.
These reactors also have different impedance matching methods. Both
the MSU Reactors A and B and the LIMHP use internal impedance matching.

70

The MSU reactors use a sliding short and an adjustable excitation probe for
internal impedance matching. Similar to the sliding short in the MSU reactors, the
lower part of the LIMHP reactor is made of a movable metallic plate which
enables modifying the geometrical size of the cavity, i.e. the cavity length, and
hence enables reactor matching similar to the MSU reactor design. External
matching is employed by the SEKI, the AIXTRON and the iplas reactors. The
SEKI 2nd generation reactor uses triple screws and AIXTRON uses triple stubs
for external impedance matching, while the iplas uses an E-H tuner for external
impedance matching. The advantage of external matching is there are no or very
few moving parts in the reactor to prevent possible leaking or fine adjustment.
However the triple stubs or triple screw tuners introduce impedance matching
challenges of their own. Their triple tuners do not have the flexibility as internal
impedance matching and under specific experimental conditions can introduce
significant waveguide wall losses.
Usually these commercially available reactor designs locate the substrate
in a high electric field region for better deposition results. MSU Reactors A and B
and the LIMHP have a similar design which allows the substrate holders to be
moved up and down for different plasma discharge locations and for different
nd

process conditions. The SEKI 2

generation has a fixed substrate position which

is not easily optimized for different CVD process conditions. It is not clear in a
diamond synthesis application exactly where in the iplas reactor the substrate is
located, but it is believed it is placed in the high electric field region which is
somewhere in the center of the cavity.

71

All of these reactors have a similar ability to electromagnetically scale up
the reactor to larger reactor sizes when they are excited with 915 MHz
microwave energy. When reducing the excitation frequency to 915 MHz, the
reactor size increases by the factor of 2.7. However the input power doesn’t
scale linearly with discharge volume nor with substrate area. Rather the required
0.75

input power scales as (substrate area)

[55]. The ratio of plasma diameters

excited at 915 MHz is also not proportional to the ratio of excitation wavelength.
For example it is 2.13 instead of 2.7 [19].

3.4 Measurement of Output Variables
3.4.1 Measurement of Film Growth Rate
Film growth rate (GR) can be calculated in two different ways. The linear
growth rate (LGR) is pretty straightforward. We can measure the total substrate
thickness before (A1) and after (A2) the CVD diamond synthesis and divide by
deposition time (td). Usually we use the unit as microns per hour.

LGR =

஺1ି஺2
௧݀

µm/h

(1)

The other growth rate that is employed in this thesis is called total growth
rate (TGR). It is determined by measuring the total weight gain (W1 – W2) of the
substrate and dividing by the deposition time (td), where W 1 is silicon substrate
weight before deposition and W 2 is silicon substrate weight plus CVD diamond
film weight after deposition. The unit is mg per hour. It can also be converted to
72

2

microns per hour. Here A is the deposition area (for example 0.35x0.35 cm for
3

HPHT seeds), and D is the diamond density of 3.51 g/cm , then

TGR =

௪1ି௪2
௧݀

mg/h =

௪1ି௪2

஺‫כ‬஽‫כ‬௧݀

µm/h

(2)

3.4.2 Measurement of Carbon Conversion Efficiency
Carbon Conversion Efficiency (CCE) is the percentage of carbon atoms in
the input gases, which are converted into CVD diamond [23]. Let’s use the
previous definition of Total Growth Rate (TGR) over 1” diameter silicon substrate,
then the carbon conversion efficiency is

CCE=

೘೒
భ
೒
భ ೓ೝ
భ ೘೚೗೐ ల.బమಶమయ ೌ೟೚೘
௑
௑
௑
௑
೓
భబబబ ೘೒ లబ ೘೔೙ భమ ೒
భ
೘೚೗೐
೎೎
భ ೗೔೟೐ೝ
భ ೘೚೗೐
ೌ೟೚೘
஼ுସ
௑
௑
௑ ଺.଴ଶாଶଷ
೘೔೙ భబబబ ೎೎
మమ.ర ೗೔೟೐ೝ
೘೚೗೐

்ீோ

X 100% (3)

3.4.3 Measurement of Specific Yield
Specific yield (SY) is defined as the absorbed power input (pa) per
diamond film total growth rate in the units of kW-h/g. It is a measure of the
electric deposition efficiency. Since people usually published their total growth
rate TGR, in mg per hour, then the SY is given by
SY (kW-h/g) = pa / TGR

(4)

3.4.4 Measurement of Absorbed Microwave Power Density
73

The absorbed microwave power density <Pabs> is defined as the input
absorbed power divided by the plasma volume Vp. At each experimental
operating condition, i.e. pressure, gas mixture, etc., the plasma volume can be
approximated by taking size calibrated photographs of the discharge.
<Pabs> = Pabs / Vp

(5)

3.4.5 Measurement of Diamond Quality
The surface morphology of the grown diamond can be evaluated by visual
inspection with the human eye. Since the impurities and defects in the CVD
diamond can cause discoloration, the optical transparency (how well the film lets
through the visible light) can also be determined qualitatively by the human eye
visual inspection. The optical microscope can be also used as a first simple
evaluation of the diamond quality. Thus the microscope is usually integrated with
2-D and 3-D image processing computer program to allow optical observation
and analysis of the samples.
Raman spectroscopy is one of the most common methods to investigate
the diamond quality. Using Raman spectra we can easily detect graphite,
amorphous diamond like carbon, carbonaceous compounds and many other
kinds of impurities in the CVD diamond film. Very good quality diamond displays
a single ultra-sharp, narrow and high intensity peak at 1332 cm

-1

in the Raman

scan with a very small value of Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM). For high

74

quality diamond no peaks are detected for the graphite carbon peak at 1597 cm
2

-1

-1

and sp silicon carbon at 520 cm . This indicates that the CVD polycrystalline
diamond grown contains none or very little graphitic content in the film. So the
diamond quality can be quantized by scanning the Raman spectra, the noting the
positions of the high intensity peaks and measuring the FWHM of the high
intensity diamond peak.

3.5 Calculation of Reactor Performance
3.5.1 ASTEX (SEKI) MPACVD reactor system
3.5.1.1

Introduction

In the following section, the performance of all commercially available
reactors are compared by employing a number of reactor performance
measurements.

The

performance

measurements

are

calculated

from

experimental data that is available in the published literature. Since there is a
lack of comparable experimental data in the literature, the comparison that is
presented here may not be complete. For example some of the input
experimental conditions/parameters are missing for many of the data/results that
are presented in the published literature [42,44,46,48]. The SEKI reactor, which
is the most commonly used reactor, has the most experimental data available in
the literature. Hence the SEKI reactors are analyzed in the following performance
measures: (a) CVD diamond growth rate (linear or by weight gain), (b) discharge
absorbed power density, (c) energy efficiency i.e. SY, and (d) diamond quality.
75

3.5.1.2

Results for 2.45 GHz SEKI reactor system

SEKI reactor performance data was presented for the SEKI AX5250, 2.45
GHz, 5 kW, which is the first generation SEKI design by Y. Ando et al. [42].
Diamond films were grown on 1-inch silicon wafers of 0.5 mm thickness by a 5
kW 2.45 GHz microwave plasma CVD system using CH4-H2 and CH4-H2-O2
reaction gas mixtures.
Growth parameters: Operating pressure at 100-120 Torr, total gas flow rate at
400 sccm, microwave power at 2.0-4.5 kW, CH4 concentration at 0.25 - 8% and
O2 concentration at 0 - 3%.
1) The growth rate: It was found that the growth rate increased with CH4
concentration, the input microwave power and the gas pressure. (See
Figure 3.1 [42]) The maximum value of the growth rate is 9.3 µm/hr
when the CH4 concentration is 2 or 4%, a microwave power of 4.5 kW
and gas pressure of 120 Torr. The substrate temperature was 905 955 ˚C.

76

Figure 3.1 Growth rate as a function of CH4 concentration, microwave
power and gas pressure for SEKI AX5250 [
[42]

2) The quality of diamond films: the quality of diamond films is related to
uality
the methane concentration. The Raman spectra obtained from the
diamond film with 2% CH4 concentration and hence growth rate of 9.3
µm/hr indicate the existence of non diamond contents in the film. On
non-diamond
the other hand at 1% CH4 concentration, the growth rate was 2.4
µm/hr and the diamond didn’t have any non diamond contents. This
r
non-diamond contents
77

diamond quality variation versus methane concentration is typically
true for all MPACVD reactors.
3) The specific yield: Specific yield is a measure of the energy efficiency
of the deposition process. So the higher the specific yield the more
electrical energy kW-h is required to deposit a certain weight of
diamond. In this case, the SEKI system uses 4.5 kW microwave power
to deposit diamond at 9.3 µm/hr on a 1-inch wafer at 4%
methane/hydrogen concentration. So at 120 Torr, 4% CH4/H2
concentration, 4.5 kW microwave power, and 955 ° subst rate
C
temperature, the specific yield SY(kW-h/g) = Pa / (TGR*A*D) (See
3

Section 3.4.2) for SEKI equals to 4.5kW / (9.3µm/h * 3.51g/cm * π *
2

4

(2.54/2 cm) / 10 ) = 272.2 kW-h/g.

4) The microwave plasma power density measurement: The plasma can
be approximated as disc-shaped, thus a cylinder is used to calculate
the discharge plasma volume. For this SEKI 2.45 GHz diamond
system, we have approximate plasma radius r=4 cm and h<B=one half
2

3

wavelength=6.12 cm (Figure 2.19), then V=πr h= 307 cm . (r is the
approximate plasma discharge radius and h is the approximate plasma
discharge height) This yields power densities of 4.5 kW / 307 ≈ 14.7
3

W/cm .

78

3.5.1.3

Results for 915 MHz SEKI reactor system

For the deposition process of 915MHz system [44], first, the reactor was
pumped down to less than 0.1 Torr. Subsequently, the process gas composed of
methane and hydrogen of 0.5 - 5% was introduced. Carbon dioxide was also
added in certain processes. The source gas was 1200 - 5000 sccm of H2, 4 - 200
sccm of CH4, and 0 - 100 sccm of CO2. The pressure was adjusted to a range of
85 - 125 Torr by a pumping throttle valve. The plasma is ignited at 10 kW and
incident power could be increased to 60 kW. Heating of the substrate holder was
not necessary. The substrate temperature was controlled by balancing input heat
originating from the input microwave power/discharge and the removable of heat
by cooling stage. The cooling stage was cooled with a 90 kW chiller. The ASTeX
60 kW 915 MHz CVD system has been used under the following experimental
conditions: (1) gas pressure: 60-200 Torr, (2) H2: 2000 sccm, (3) CH4: 20-100
sccm, and (4) growth rate: 2-10 µm/h [44].
1) The substrate temperature: the substrate temperature is the most
important factor to control the characteristics of deposited diamond.
Many factors such as microwave power, gas composition, gas
pressure, substrate materials and substrate holder design will affect
the substrate temperature. For this system, with microwave power and
gas pressure of 45 kW and 80 Torr, the substrate temperature reaches
700˚C or higher, which is the typical diamond deposition temperature.

79

The temperature variation from center to edge of a 150mm wafer is
less than 35˚C.

2) The surface morphology: the surface morphology is affected by the
process conditions. The average crystal size is 20-30 µm for the
sample grown with 0.8% CH4 at 60 kW on a Si substrate. The macro-1

Raman spectra show a well-defined diamond peak at 1333 cm . The
α parameter [45] was calculated by comparing the facet shapes of an
isolated diamond particle before and after the growth. At the region of
lower Ts and higher CH4 concentration Cm, the value of α is larger than
3. A decrease in Cm or increase in Ts leads to decrease of α. α~1 is
obtained under the condition of (CH4+CO2) / (H2+CH4+CO2) = 1 %,
CO2/CH4 = 0.17 and Ts~1270 K. The α parameter was reduced by
adding CO2.

3) The film texture: Another two samples which were obtained with CH4
concentration of ~0.5%, substrate temperature 1000 – 1040 ˚C and
chamber pressure of 125 Torr, were grown on 25 mm diameter Si
substrates. They are approximately 20 µm in thickness. The average
crystal size is 0.5 - 1 µm. Difference of growth temperature was
reflected to film crystal size.

80

4) The gas flow rate: the gas flow rates of hydrogen and methane were
fixed at 2000 sccm and 100 sccm, respectively.
5) The specific yield: The 915 MHz SEKI system uses 60 kW microwave
power to deposit diamond at 7 µm/hr on a 6-inch wafer (Substrate
temperature is around 1050 °C) at 5% methane/hydrogen
concentration 110 Torr (Table 3.1). So the specific yield for SEKI equals
3

2

4

to 40kW / (3µm/h * 3.51g/cm * π * (2.54*6/2 cm) / 10 ) = 208.3 kWh/g.
Gas

Microwave

Substrate

Growth

Raman width

pressure

power kW

temperature

rate µm/h

cm

6.5

Torr

-1

˚C

85

20

720

0.2

100-115

40

850-880

3

125

60

1050

7

11

* The conversion efficiency from CH4 to diamond exceeds 10% in the third case
Table 3.1 Growth rate for SEKI 915MHz reactor [56]

3.5.1.4

Estimation Of Absorbed Plasma Power Density

For SEKI 915MHz diamond system, we have an approximate plasma radius
2

R=9cm and plasma height h<B=one half wavelength = 16.4 cm, then V = πr h =
3

3

4171 cm . The power densities vary from 45kW/4171 = 10.79 W/cm
81

to

60kW/4171 = 14.4 W/cm

3

3.5.2 MSU MPACVD reactor system
3.5.2.1

Results for 2.45 GHz MSU reactor system

The MSU 2.45GHz reactor [24], Reactor A, has the following ranges of
reactor input variables.
1) Deposition pressure p=80-140 Torr,
2) Absorbed Microwave Power Pt=3-5kW
3) Methane Concentration c=1-8%
4) Substrate Temperature Ts=800-1250C
5) Total Flow Rate ft=100-1400 sccm
6) Deposition Time t=4-200 Hours
The MSU reactor [24] has the following ranges of reactor output variables.
1) Linear Growth Rate 4-7 µm/h,
2) Total Growth Rate 27-50 mg/h,
3) Specific Yield: 69-300 kW-h/g
4) Carbon Conversion Efficiency 1-12%
3

5) Absorbed Microwave Power Density: 32-43 W/cm

3.5.2.2

Results for 915 MHz MSU reactor system

The MSU 915MHz reactor [37] has the following ranges of reactor input
82

variables.
1) Deposition pressure p=40-160 Torr,
2) Absorbed Microwave Power Pt=3-12kW
3) Methane Concentration c=1.7-7%
4) Total Flow Rate ft=2000 sccm
5) Substrate Temperature Ts=700-1300C
6) Wafer Size 150mm
The MSU reactor [37] has the following ranges of reactor output variables.
1) Linear Growth Rate 320-390 nm/h
2) Thickness variation 4-15% (Percentage of the standard deviation from
the average thickness across the wafers)
3) Absorbed Microwave Power Density: For MSU 915 MHz 10 kW
diamond system, the plasma is hemisphere shape. We have
approximate plasma radius R=7.5 cm, so the plasma volume Vp=
3

3

3

(2/3)* πr = 883 cm . The power density is 10kW/883 = 11.3 W/cm .

4) Specific Yield SY (kW-h/g) = Pa / TGR (See Section 3.4.2). For the
MSU 915MHz reactor, the absorbed power is 6.7 kW. The growth rate
is 460 nm/h. The wafer is 6-inch in diameter. So the SY is 6.7kW /
3

2

4

(0.46µm/h * 3.51g/cm * π * (2.54*6/2 cm) / 10 ) = 227.6 kW-h/g [37].

83

It has also been reported the MSU 915MHz reactor worked at 125 Torr
[57]. The absorbed power is 11.5 kW. The growth rate is 10-18 µm/hr. The
approximate cylindrical-shape plasma in this case is diameter of 14 cm and 10
2

3

cm high. So the plasma volume V = πr h ≈ 1500 cm . The absorbed power
3

density is 7.7 W/cm at 125 Torr. The specific yield with higher pressure
operation in this case is 10-18 kW-h/g.

3.5.3 AIXTRON ellipsoidal reactor system
The AIXTRON ellipsoidal reactor was found to exhibit a variety of beneficial
performance properties that are summarized below.
a) The plasma is very intense, spatially extended and in good contact
with the substrate
b) The plasma position is very stable. It remains above the substrate
irrespective of the gas pressure and the microwave power
c) The microwave-plasma coupling is excellent. No tuning is necessary
to minimize the reflected power (however there are three tuning stubs
in the external waveguide system for power matching)
d) The system allows the homogeneous deposition of diamond wafers
with 2-3 inches in diameter (at 2.45GHz)
Typical process parameters are given in Table 3.2.

84

Parameter

Value

Microwave frequency

2.45GHz

915MHz

Microwave power

3-6kW

20-60kW

Substrate size

1-3 inches

2-6 inches

Pressure range

50-200 mbar

Methane concentration

0.5-5.0 vol. %

Gas flow

100-500 sccm

Growth rate

1-5 slm

1-15 µm/h (depending on the process conditions with
which the film quality was aimed)

Thermal conductivity

>20 W/cm

K

at

room temperature

Table 3.2 Process parameters for Aixtron reactor

This ellipsoid CVD diamond deposition system is successfully used to
manufacture thick CVD-diamond optical grade lenses [46]. A microwave power of
6 kW at a frequency of 2.45GHz works at temperatures between 700 and 900°C
and pressures ranging from 75 to 150 Torr. The feed-gas is 1-2% methane in
hydrogen. Reference samples of the lens material reached a thermal conductivity
of 20.8 W/cm K, which is almost as high as the best values reported for natural
type IIa diamond (20-25 W/cm K). Also the samples which have 0.06 cm

-1

at

10.6 µm for an IR absorption coefficient are nearly as low as that of type IIa

85

-1

diamond (0.03-0.05 cm )
Although much technical progress has been obtained with ellipsoidal plasma
reactors, the ellipsoidal reactor geometry also has some drawbacks: the whole
system is rather spacious and is expensive to build.

3.5.4 CYRANNUS (iplas) reactor system
It is not very clear how iplas reactor performs due to lack of the available
diamond synthesis publications that use the iplas reactor system. Below is the
Technical specifications [47]:
frequency: 2.45 GHz, 915MHz
power required: 1 - 30 KW
plasma shape: ellipsoid, sphere, disc-like
plasma diameter: approx. 70-400 mm
pressure range: 0 - 1000 mbar

3.5.5 LIMHP reactor system
The LIMHP commercially available reactor system BJS150 has a 6 kW
microwave generator (switch mode power supply), a bell jar type reactor, and a
2-inch substrate holder. It shows the ability to produce discharges with high
microwave power densities and to grow high quality CVD diamond at high growth
rates. For polycrystalline diamond growth, the growth rate is up to 20 microns per
hour and the uniformity is ±5% on 2-inch wafer. These results are similar to those

86

reported by Zuo et. al [58] who used a MSU reactor A. For single crystalline
-1

diamond growth, the FWHM of the diamond Raman line at 1332cm

-1

is 1.6cm ,

-1

and there was no infrared absorption from 4000 – 10000cm [48].

3.6 Summary
In this chapter, the commercially available MPACVD diamond synthesis
reactors designs were compared. The detailed description of the comparison was
presented in Section 3.3 and also is summarized in Tables 3.3-3.5.

Manufacturer

Reactor Shape

Excitation Mode

Lambda

7-inch cylinder

TM013+TEM001

AsTeX

7-inch cylinder

TM013

AsTeX

Clamshell

TM02n

AIXTRON

AIXTRON

Ellipsoidal

TM036

iplas

CYRANNUS

5-inch Cylinder

TM012

rd

PLASSYS

9-inch cylinder

TM023

gen

PLASSYS

Cylinder

MSU A,B
st

SEKI 1 gen
SEKI 2

nd

gen

st

LIMHP 1 /3
LIMHP 2

nd

with TM022

variable radii
Table 3.3 Design Specifications Among Commercially Available Reactors 1

87

Impedance

Substrate position

Scalability

2-way Internal

adjustable

Yes, 915MHz

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Triple screws

Fixed

Yes, 915MHz

AIXTRON

Triple stubs

Not clear

Yes, 915MHz

iplas

E-H tuner

Not clear

Yes, 915MHz

rd

Internal

adjustable

Yes, 915MHz

gen

Internal

adjustable

Yes, 915MHz

matching
MSU A,B
st

SEKI 1 gen
SEKI 2

nd

gen

st

LIMHP 1 /3
LIMHP 2

nd

Table 3.4 Design Specifications Among Commercially Available Reactors 2
Plasma space

Power input

Microwave coupling

Quartz dome

Top-load

Excitation probe

Quartz plate

Top-load

Excitation probe

open

Bottom-load

Not clear

AIXTRON

Quartz dome

Top-load

Excitation probe

iplas

Quartz tube

Toroidal

Gap

rd

Quartz dome

Top-load

Octahedron probe

gen

Quartz plate

Top-load

Octahedron probe

MSU A,B
st

SEKI 1 gen
SEKI 2

nd

gen

st

LIMHP 1 /3
LIMHP 2

nd

Table 3.5 Design Specifications Among Commercially Available Reactors 3

88

Moreover the output performance of these reactor designs has been
compared in Table 3.6-3.7.
CH4

Total

Pressure

Incident

Substrate

Growth Specific

Power

/H2

flow

range

power

Temperat

rate

Yield

Density

rate

Torr

kW

ure C

µm/h

kW-h/g

W/cm3

400

100-120

2.0-4.5

830-955

2.4-9.3

<272

<14.7

80-140

3-5

800-1130

4-7

69-300

32-43

40-150

3-6

sccm
SEKI

0.25

2.45

-8%

GHz
MSU

1-

100-

2.45

8%

1400

AIXT

0.5-

100-

RON

5%

500

GHz
1-15

2.45
GHz
Table 3.6 Comparison among 2.45GHz diamond deposition systems

89

CH4/H2 Total

Pressur

Incid

Substrate

Growth Specific

Power

flow

e range ent

Temperat

rate

Yield

Density

rate

Torr

ure C

µm/h

kW-h/g

W/cm3

720-1050

0.2-7

<208

10.8-

sccm
SEKI

0.5-5% 1200-

915M

powe
r kW

85-125

60

5000

14.4

Hz
MSU

1.7-7% <2000

40-70

3-8

700-940

915M

0.32-

<228

<11.3

10-18

7.7

0.39

Hz
MSU

7%

<2000

125

11.5

40-150

20-60

1-atm

800-1300

10-18

1-30

915M
Hz(2)
AIXT
RON

0.5-5% 1000-

1-15

5000

915M
Hz
iplas
915M
Hz
Table 3.7 Comparison among 915MHz diamond deposition systems

Due to the lack of experimental data in the published literatures, the

90

comparison of the output performance of the different reactor designs cannot be
easily made. The SEKI reactor, however, has the most experimental data
available in the literatures and we at MSU also have considerable performance
data on the MSU 2.45 GHz and 915 MHz reactor designs. Thus a comparison is
made between the SEKI Reactor and the MSU Reactor and also the
performance is made between the 2.45 GHz reactors and the 915 MHz reactors.
First a comparison between the SEKI 2.45 GHz and the 915 MHz reactors
is presented. Their performance was already calculated under similar conditions
(at about 120 Torr) in Section 3.5.1. Using the data already calculated in Section
3.5.1.2-3.5.1.3 the comparison under similar operating conditions is presented
below.
1) The growth rate for the SEKI 2.45 GHz reactor is 9.3 µm/h. The
growth rate for the SEKI 915 MHz reactor is 7 µm/h.
3

2) The power density for the SEKI 2.45 GHz reactor is 14.7 W/cm .
The power density for the SEKI 915 MHz reactor is 10.8-14.4
3

W/cm .
3) The specific yield for the SEKI 2.45 GHz reactor is 272 kW-h/g.
The specific yield for the SEKI 915 MHz reactor is 208 kW-h/g.
Thus one can say that when the SEKI reactor technology is scaled with
915 MHz excitation up to larger areas the growth rate decreases slightly, the
power density also decreases slightly and the specific yield decreases (i.e. the
electrical energy efficiency improves) about 10%.

91

Under similar 110-140 Torr condition the MSU reactor has the following
figures of merit:
1) The growth rate for the MSU 2.45 GHz reactor is 5-7 µm/h [24].
The growth rate for the MSU 915 MHz reactor is about 10 µm/h
[57].
3

2) The power density for the MSU 2.45 GHz reactor is 32-43 W/cm .
3

The power density for the MSU 915 MHz reactor is 7.7 W/cm .
3) The specific yield for the MSU 2.45 GHz reactor is 70 kW-h/g. The
specific yield for the MSU 915 MHz reactor is 20 kW-h/g.
The growth rate improves slightly as the MSU reactor is scaled up. In
scaling up the MSU reactor design, the absorbed power density decreases by
four while the growth rate only increases slightly. The specific yield is reduced
significantly from 70 kW-h/g to 18 kW-h/g. This reduction in specific yield is due
to the increased deposition area and low absorbed power densities of the 915
MHz MSU reactor design.
One can compare the SEKI reactor with the MSU reactor. The growth
rates for the MSU and Seki reactors are similar for both 2.45 GHz and 915 MHz
systems. The absorbed power density for SEKI reactor is smaller at 2.45 GHz but
greater at 915 MHz than MSU reactor. This difference may be caused by the
discharge size estimate that we made for the SEKI design, i.e. we may have over
or under estimated the plasma size thereby reducing or increasing the absorbed
power densities for the SEKI reactors. It is important to note here that while we

92

can calculate the plasma volume in the MSU reactor directly from our MSU
laboratory experiments, in this study we must estimate the plasma volume in the
SEKI MPACVD machines by using the sparse experimental data available in the
literature.
The specific yield for the MSU reactors are considerably lower than the
specific yield for SEKI reactors. This is true for both the 2.45 GHz and the 915
MHz MSU reactors designs. For example, for 2.45 GHz, specific yield for the
MSU design is 70 kW-h/g and specific yield for the SEKI design is 272 kW-h/g.
Thus the MSU reactor is about 4 times more electrically efficient. For 915 MHz,
specific yield for the MSU design is about 20 kW-h/g and specific yield for the
SEKI design is 208 kW-h/g. Thus the MSU 915 MHz reactor is about 10 times
more electrically efficient than the 915 MHz design.
Why is this true? We do not know for sure but two possible reasons are as
follows:
1) The MSU reactor has a more efficient impedance matching system
(internal for MSU designs versus external matching for SEKI
designs)
2) The MSU MPACVD reactors utilize diamond synthesis processes
that create a discharge that is focused on the substrate and also
the system is operated in such a way that the discharge is created
away from and is not in contact with the reactor walls. All synthesis
data that is reported in the literature for the MSU reactors uses
synthesis processes that operate within a process road map (see

93

[12] Page 218). When operating within this road map reactor wall
heating is low and controlled. This would be true for reactor designs
that employ quartz walls or metal walls. Establishing an appropriate
road map is useful for all reactors because once the plasma
discharge touches the reactor walls wall losses then increase. If
additional power is added to the process when the discharge is
touching the walls then the plasma density at the wall surfaces
increases and the walls losses further increase, and then the
discharge position is no longer optimized for efficient operation. It
appears that the SEKI reactor is operated in this manner. For
example the SEKI reactor is reported to use of 45 – 60 kW for their
915 MHz design under similar experimental conditions the MSU
reactor only requires 10 – 15 kW. It appears that the SEKI reactor is
operated outside a safe and efficient process road map. Therefore
it is not surprising that the reactor wall losses (both thermal losses
and radical losses) are smaller in the MSU reactor design than for
the SEKI design.

94

CHAPTER 4
THE NEW GENERATION MSU MICROWAVE
PLASMA ASSISTED CVD REACTOR DESIGN

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the design and development of a new generation MSU
microwave plasma-assisted CVD reactor is presented. This investigation begins
with a review of early reactor designs. Then a generic but versatile microwave
reactor design concept (See Figure 1.1) is outlined. It has a variety of dimensions
that can be modified, “reshaped” and adjusted to allow process optimization for
different diamond synthesis applications. Here as part of this thesis research
different reactor design variations are investigated first by starting with the
generic, benchmark reactor design and then modifying it, i.e. by varying the
dimensions, via intuition from past reactor design experiences and via numerical
95

electromagnetic cavity applicator modeling to produce a new reactor design.
These “new” numerical reactor models will calculate the electromagnetic field
patterns versus reactor shape and size within the reactor. Then building upon the
performance of earlier MSU reactor designs. The proposed new generation
reactor design is realized by modifying existing reactors; i.e. by varying the size
and shape of the applicator and plasma reactor volume within existing MSU
reactors. An important consideration during the new reactor design process was
to position the intense microwave discharge that is observed at high pressures
away from the reactor walls. Thus MSU reactor designs with larger applicator
diameters and with larger quartz dome diameters were considered design
possibilities. Finally a “good” next generation reactor design was selected and
then it was constructed and experimentally evaluated.

4.2 Microwave Cavity Plasma Reactor Design
Before we describe the design process for the new MSU fourth generation
reactor (Reactor C), a number of design principles are introduced in this section.
These design principles have evolved at MSU over the past 30 years as the
know-how and knowledge of how to efficiently produce and control microwave
discharges were discovered. The history of how this knowledge and know-how
were developed has been described in over 30 PhD theses that have been
awarded at MSU. These design principles are listed below.
1)

Single mode excitation: Single mode excitation is employed so that the

microwave energy can be controlled and focused. Thus the microwave discharge
96

can be created and maintained above and in good contact with the substrate. For
the MPACVD diamond synthesis application, the mode is expected to be a phisymmetric TM0 mode in order to produce a phi symmetric microwave discharge.
2)

Internal cavity impedance matching: This feature includes a moveable

(variable) sliding short and an adjustable coupling probe. This allows efficient
microwave power coupling into the variable microwave discharge load. That is as
the input variables such as pressure, power, gas mixture, and gas flow rate are
varied, the reactor is detuned and thus the impedance match into the reactor is
lost. Thus as the experimental variables change the variable sliding short and
adjustable probe allow the reactor to be readily retuned to a good impedance
match while still maintaining the same single mode excitation. This method of
impedance matching is always superior to external impedance matching since it
avoids the high standing wave fields that exist in the waveguides that are
external to the reactor. If internal matching is employed then the applicator and
the overall microwave delivery system avoids the EM losses in the external
waveguides. Under some circumstances these losses can be a significant
fraction of the incident power.
3)

Variable substrate position: The substrate holder is located on a

movable stage that is an integral part of the microwave applicator. The ability to
adjust the position of the stage allows additional adjustment and local fine
tuning/focusing of the electromagnetic fields around and directly above the
substrate. This is especially important at the higher pressures as the discharge

97

absorbed power density increases and when the discharge constricts and
becomes buoyant.
4)

Four tuning variables Lp, Ls, L1, and L2: These variables enable the

nonlinear optimization of discharge positioning, discharge size adjustment,
growth rate enhancement, impedance matching, i.e. process optimization --thereby allowing for robust and efficient processes development and an
adaptable and versatile over all system operation.
5)

Scalability of the reactor design: Although the new Reactor C will be

excited at 2.45 GHz microwave energy, the scalability of the reactor must be
considered during the design process. That is the reactor design should be
scalable by a factor of 2.7 as the excitation frequency is varied from 2.45 GHz to
915 MHz. All practical reactor designs should be electromagnetically scalable.
Thus as for all our final designs if the excitation frequency is reduced from 2.45
GHz to 915 MHz, the reactor geometry should be able to be increased by the
factor of 2.7. The scalability of the plasma discharge itself has been described in
section 2.3.6.1. [55]

4.3 The Generalized Microwave Reactor Design
Concept
A generalized MSU reactor design is introduced in this section. This
design concept has been already described in a US patent application by J.
Asmussen and Y. Gu [59]. All the previous generations of MSU microwave
98

plasma reactor designs can be thought of as special cases of this generalized
design. The concept was first envisioned over fifteen years ago and, over many
years, specific cases have been developed and thus enable specific reactor
designs to be applied to many different microwave excited applications.
In its most generalized form the microwave reactor is formed by many
separate cylindrical coaxial and cylindrical waveguide sections each of which has
a different radii and variable lengths. An example of the generalized reactor
design is shown below in Figure 4.1. It consists of an input section and sections
1-5. The purpose of each section 1-5 is (a) to guide and transmit microwave
energy to the discharge load, (b) to impedance match the microwave power into
the discharge, and (c) to appropriately spatially focus or refocus the microwave
energy as it is transmitted through each individual waveguide section. By
adjusting the position of the substrate, Zs = L1 – L2, in sections 4 and 5 above
and below the Z=0 plane, the electromagnetic (EM) field in the vicinity of the
substrate can be varied (although in the vicinity of the substrate the electric field
is primarily in the axial direction, both the Ez and the Er electric field components
around the substrate vary as Zs is varied) to achieve the desired CVD process
growth rate and growth uniformity, The choice of the specific configuration, i.e.
the number of and the specific lengths of each of the cylindrical waveguide
sections that one employs in a particular design, depends upon on the
requirements of the particular application. As is indicated in Figure 4.1, the
waveguide section 3 can be further divided into multiple sections, 3(a), 3(b), etc.,

99

each with a different length L3a, L3b, etc. and radius, R3a, R3b, etc.

Figure 4.1 The cross section of the generalized reactor design

A cross section of a specific, simpler embodiment of the more generalized
reactor design is shown in Figure 4.2. This reactor design is very close to the
final design described later in this chapter. Thus it is used here to further describe
a specific example reactor design and to explain a specific reactor operation in
greater detail.
As indicated in earlier MCPR descriptions the cavity is phi-symmetric
about a center Z-axis, and the Z=0 plane is identified as the bottom of the reactor
100

and the top of the substrate holder is located in the vicinity of the Z=0 plane. The
substrate position is given by Zs = L1 – L2. The reactor shown in Figure 4.2, is
divided into five interconnected but distinct cylindrical waveguide sections.

Figure 4.2 The cross section of a specific embodiment of the MSU reactor
design

From the top to the bottom we identify these sections as:
section 1: which is the coaxial input microwave feed;
section 2: which is a length adjustable coaxial waveguide impedance
101

matching section of length Lp and radii R6 and R7
section 3: which is a cylindrical waveguide section of length Ls-L3-Lp and
of radius R1;
section 4: which is an additional cylindrical waveguide section of radius R5,
and length L3;
section 5: which is a variable length, coaxial cavity section with radii R2
and R3 and variable length L2. The length L1 of the cylindrical center conductor
of section 5 can be also independently variable. The substrate is placed on the
top of the center conductor of section 5 near the Z=0 plane. Thus the position of
the substrate is independently variable and is defined by Zs = L1 – L2. The center
conductor of section 5 also serves as the substrate holder and can be
independently externally heated or cooled.
As shown in Figure 4.2, section 1 is the coaxial waveguide input power
port. Section 2, the second cylindrical coaxial waveguide section, behaves as an
internal cavity impedance matching section where in practice Lp is often adjusted
to be close to a quarter TEM wavelength. In practice the radial dimensions of this
section, i.e. R6 and R7, can be chosen to allow the propagation of a single TEM
mode or the propagation of both the coaxial TEM and TM01 modes. Section 3
also acts like an internal cavity impedance matching section and for the case
shown by Figure 4.2, the radius, R1 is larger than the radii of sections 1 and 2.
102

This causes an EM field intensity redistribution over the waveguide cross section
of section 3 and for a given high input power operation produces a lower
standing wave electromagnetic (EM) field intensity and allows a lower EM power
2

flux density (W/cm ) to be transmitted through the cross section area of the
empty waveguide region of section 3 than the power flux density being
transmitted through the cross section areas of sections 1 and 2; i.e. section 3
unfocuses the microwave power as it is transmitted through the reactor
preventing at high input powers discharge formation in section 3.
Section 4 also acts like an additional internal cavity impedance matching
section similar to section 3. However the EM field is refocused (onto the center
and along axis of the applicator) due to the reduced radial dimension of the cavity.
Since it is desired to create an intense EM field region above the substrate
around the Z=0 plane and then maintain a microwave discharge in this region at
the center axis of the reactor, the EM fields in section 4 are refocused onto the
substrate holder location around the Z=0 plane. This is accomplished by reducing
the radius from R1 in section 3 to R5 in section 4 and then the appropriate,
additional coaxial waveguide, section 5, is added to the bottom of the applicator.
This creates a strong electric field along the Z-axis at the surface of the substrate.
Section 5, -L2<Z<0, behaves as a coaxial waveguide section with TEM
mode excitation. When excited with 2.45 GHz microwave energy only the TEM
waveguide mode is excited in this section. By adjusting the coaxial cavity lengths
L1 and L2 to about a half TEM wavelength, i.e. 6.12 cm using 2.45 GHz

103

excitation, a standing wave TEM001 mode EM field is excited in this section and
a perpendicular electric field is produced on the surface of the substrate. The
substrate position is further adjusted by slightly varying the substrate position Zs
above and below the Z=0 plane.

Figure 4.3 Cross section of a continuously variable generalized reactor

Another example of the generalized reactor is shown in Figure 4.3. Here
the individual sections that are shown in Figure 4.1 with a different radii and
length are replaced by a continuously varying applicator radius R(z). As one
104

moves from the top of the applicator down toward the Z=0 plane, R(z) first
increases and then as the substrate location is approached the radius decreases.
Thus the discrete cylindrical sections shown in Figure 4.1 are replaced with a
gradual and continuous variation of R(z). The exact variation of R(z) versus z
depends on the desired EM unfocusing and refocusing that is required by
specific plasma processing applications. If the radial variation is ellipsoidal, then
this generalized reactor R(z) becomes similar to the AIXTRON ellipsoidal reactor.
However it differs by the additional TEM excited section 4.

4.4 Early MSU MPACVD Reactor Designs
The first MSU MPACVD reactor was designed in the 1986 – 1987 by Jes
Asmussen. It was one of the first reactor concepts in the world that moved the
reactor technology beyond the simple tubular microwave plasma-assisted CVD
reactor technology that was initially used by Kamo et. al. [60] to demonstrate
MPACVD diamond growth. The cross section of the reactor is shown in Figure
4.4. It can be viewed as a simple, special case of the generalized reactor
described in Section 4.3, but has the variable coaxial coupling probe input at the
side of the applicator. The reactor has cylindrical brass walls (1) that form the
outer conducting shell of the cavity applicator. The diameter of the first reactor
was 7 inches (17.8 cm). The sliding short (2) is electrically connected to the
cavity walls (1) via finger stock (3). The sliding short (2) is water-cooled (41) and
forms the top end of the cavity. It can be moved up and down along the
longitudinal axis of the cylindrical cavity walls (1) to change the electrical and
105

physical height of the cavity applicator. The bottom end of the cavity (4) is formed
by the water-cooled (10) base plate (40) and substrate holder (13). Microwave
power is coupled into the cavity through an adjustable coaxial power input port
which is comprised of the variable length power coupling probe (17) and the
outer conductor (18). Either the TM011 or the TM012 mode could be excited.
Input gases flow into the discharge area (6) via the gas input channel (7) inside
the base plate. The quartz dome (5) confines the working gas to the lower
section of the cavity where the microwave fields produce a plasma discharge
adjacent to the substrate (14). A metal screen (9) is used to prevent the
microwave energy from radiating out of the bottom of the applicator, but still
allows the input gases to flow downstream into the vacuum pump system. A
quartz tube (12) is placed under the substrate holder. It sits on a graphite base
(11), which in turn sits on the metal screen (9). Once the plasma (6) is ignited, it
can be viewed through the top screened window (15).

106

Figure 4.4 Schematic Drawing of the first generation MSU reactor [52]
The second generation MSU MPACVD reactor, described in this thesis as
Reactor A, is shown in Figure 4.5. One of the important differences between the
second generation and first generation reactor is that the input power coupling
probe is located at the top end of the cavity, instead of on the side of the cavity.
This is a very important change because now the system is entirely phisymmetric and the microwave power can be more uniformly distributed into the
plasma. Similar to the first design the sliding short and coupling probe
adjustments, Ls and Lp, provide the internal cavity impedance tuning mechanism
to minimize the reflected power. The other difference is that the Reactor A cavity

107

applicator was designed to be longer (i.e. Ls can be larger) than the first
generation applicator design so that either TM012 or TM013 mode can be excited.
One additional cooling air inlet was added (not shown in Figure 4.5) for external
air input to cool the cavity and quartz dome. The original viewing window existing
in the first generation reactor served both as the exhaust port for the cooling air
and as a viewing port which allowed measurement of the substrate temperature
by an optical pyrometer.

108

Z axis

coaxial
variable
probe

sliding short

Lp

R1

quartz bell jar
Ls
substrate

plasma
discharge

cavity bottom
R4
Z=0
L1

L2

R2
quartz tube
holder

R3

conducting
short
plate

Figure 4.5 Cross sectional schematic drawing of the Reactor A [24]

The cross section of the third generation reactor [53] Reactor B is
displayed in Figure 4.6. The purpose of this modification is to allow microwave
plasma assisted CVD operation at higher discharge power densities (>400
W/cm3) and higher pressures (150 – 260 Torr). This was done by reducing the
109

substrate holder radius R4 from 5.08 cm to 3.24 cm and the coaxial cavity inner
conductor (cooling stage) radius R3 from 4.13 cm to 1.91 cm. The microwave
cavity applicator is still a single mode applicator but excites a single hybrid mode.
The hybrid excitation mode is a combination of TM013 in the cylindrical region Z >
0 and the TEM001 for the coaxial region Z < 0. After adjusting Ls and L1 to excite
the TEM001 modes, a high electric field is excited in the vicinity of the z=0 plane
at the transition region between the cylindrical and coaxial section. When L1 and
L2 are adjusted to be around 6.12 cm, the electric field is normal to the top of the
“substrate” surface, which is positioned on the center conductor electrode. For a
given applicator input power as the electrode diameter is reduced, the intensity of
the normal electric field on the substrate surface increases. In the presence of a
microwave discharge, this results in a high absorbed power density discharge
above and in good contact with the substrate. The performance of this reactor is
described in Kadek Hemawan’s PhD thesis [53] and in a recent paper [38]. Both
Reactors A and B are now commercially available by Lambda Technologies (See
Figure 2.10).

110

Z axis
coaxial
variable
probe

sliding short

Lp

R1

quartz bell jar
Ls

substrate

plasma
discharge

cavity bottom
R4
Z=0
L1

L2

R2
quartz tube
holder

R3

conducting
short
plate

Figure 4.6 Cross Sectional schematic drawing of the Reactor B [53]

4.5 Reactor C: Initial Design Objectives
As described in reference [38] and [53], the Reactor B design performed well.
The only difference between Reactor A and Reactor B was the reduction in
111

center conductor area of Reactor B by a factor of 4 over Reactor A, i.e. the radii
R3 ad R4 of Reactor A were reduced from 4.13 cm and 5.08 cm respectively to
1.91 cm and 3.24 cm in Reactor B. This allowed an increase in the operating
pressure to 240 Torr and at a constant pressure it increases the absorbed
microwave power density by a factor of 4-5 over Reactor A (see the microwave
power density measurements presented in Section 5.5). In order to further
extend the MSU reactors’ ability to operate at higher pressure and have a robust
and efficient reactor operation over a 240 – 320 Torr pressure regime, the
Reactor C design was carried out.
As shown in Figure 4.7, when the pressure increases the discharge shrinks
and constricts and becomes more intense. At pressures of 100 Torr or more,
microwave discharges in hydrogen and methane gas mixtures separate from the
reactor walls. They become freely floating and assume shapes that are related to
the shape of the impressed electromagnetic (EM) fields. At very high pressures
microwave discharges become very non-uniform, intense and “arc like”. They
may even move about the discharge chamber as they react both to buoyant
forces and to convective forces caused by the gas flows around and within the
discharge. These discharges have high densities of radical species, i.e. H and
CH3 radicals, which enable increased diamond growth rates at high pressures
[19].

112

Figure 4 Microwave Discharge Behavior vs. Pressure
4.7

There are a number of important issues associated with utilizing high
pressure MPACVD discharges for diamond synthesis.

First, because of the

discharge’s high gas temperatures, the substrate must be appropriately cooled to
the desired deposition temperature. The reactor walls, in contrast to the substrate,
temperature.
must be protected from the intense high temperatures of the discharge and from
the active discharge species. As a result it is desirable that the hot discharge be
separated from and placed out of direct contact from the reactor walls.
Thus

the

final

Reactor

C

design

incorporated

a

number

of

changes/improvements over the earlier MCPR designs that allow robust and
efficient operation at higher pressures, at high power densities and over longer
diamond synthesis process times. The experimental evaluation of Reactor B that
hesis
was reported in reference [ ] revealed that when the operating pressure was
[38]
increased from 160 Torr to 240 Torr, the microwave discharge power density
3

greatly increased to 300-450 W/cm . As pressure was increased from 160 Torr to
450
over 200 Torr, the gas temperature increased and the quartz walls and the cavity

113

walls were heated. Thus it was desirable to locate the quartz walls and the cavity
walls further away from the intense microwave discharge zone.
Thus in the Reactor C design the reactor diameter is increased from 7 inches
(17.78cm) of Reactor A and B to 12 inches (30.48cm). The quartz dome diameter
was increased from 5.125 inches (13.02cm) of Reactor A and B to 8.5 inches
(21.59cm). Thus in our new Reactor C design both the metal and dome walls are
pulled away from the discharge zone, which thereby reduces plasma and radical
species wall interactions as well as reduced the conductive and convective
discharge heat flux losses (per area) to the walls.

4.6 Reactor C: Design Realization Process
This section describes the design realization process that was employed for
the new and specific Microwave Plasma Assisted (MPACVD) Reactor C design.

4.6.1 Initial Design Calculations
As the first step in the reactor design process we employ simple, straight
forward, classical, cylindrical cavity electromagnetic theory to calculate the cavity
size, i.e. the radii and lengths for 2.45 GHz excitation. This design approach was
used in earlier reactor designs and as a first approximation assumes that the
cavity reactor is an empty cylindrical structure with perfectly conducting walls.
Even though the empty cylinder is a major over simplification of the actual cavity
reactor, i.e. neglecting the coaxial wave guide and input coupling probe, the

114

substrate holder and even the plasma itself, it has in the past yielded excellent
overall, final dimensions for the reactor.
The electromagnetic field theory of this microwave plasma reactor begins
with Maxwell’s equations, from which we can develop second-order differential
equations with wave solutions [61]. Solutions of the wave equations can be found
in the form of vector potentials. Assumptions have been made to calculate the
eigenfrequencies (or natural frequencies). The resonant reactor is assumed to
have perfectly conducting walls filled with a homogeneous, lossless, source-free
medium (air). Free space material constants µ0, ε0 are used in this case. For
such a reactor, it can be shown that the electric and magnetic field components
and the resonant frequency for the TMnpq and TEnpq resonant mode are given
by

E୰ ൌ j
Eம ൌ 0

E୸ ൌ j

Bnpq χnp π ᇱ
J ሺχ r/Rଵ ሻsin ሺπz/Ls ሻ
ωµε R1 Ls ଴ ୬୮

(1)
(2)

Bnpq χnp 2
ሺ ሻ J଴ ሺχ୬୮ r/Rଵ ሻcos ሺπz/Lୱ ሻ
ωµε R1

H୰ ൌ 0

Hம ൌ െ

(3)
(4)

Bnpq χnp ᇱ
J ሺχ r/Rଵ ሻcos ሺπz/Lୱ ሻ
µ R1 ଴ ୬୮

H୸ ൌ 0

(f୰ୣୱ ሻ୘୑ ൌ
୬୮୯

(5)
(6)

1

2πR1 ඥµ0ε0

ଶ
ටX୬୮ ൅ ሺ

qπR1 ଶ
ሻ
Ls

115

(7)

(f୰ୣୱ ሻ୘୉ ൌ
୬୮୯

1

2πR1 ඥµ0ε0

ᇱ
ටሺX୬୮ ሻଶ ൅ ሺ

qπR1 ଶ
ሻ
Ls

(8)

where n = 0,1,2,..., p = 1,2,3,…, q = 0,1,2,… for TM modes and n = 0,1,2,…, p =
ᇱ
1,2,3,…, q = 1,2,3,… for TE modes. χ୬୮ ൌ zeros of J୬ ሺXሻand X ୬୮ ൌ
Ԣ

zeros of Jn ሺXሻ .
Figure 4.8 and 4.9 show the resonance frequency versus Ls; i.e. equation
(7) and (8) are plotted for two different cavity diameters. The 7-inch (17.8cm) in
diameter is for 2.45 GHz Reactor A and B, and the 12-inch (30.5cm) is for the
proposed Reactor C. The line at 2.45 GHz shows our reactor is excited at 2.45
GHz. So if our reactor is excited with 2.45 GHz the TM013 mode can be excited if
the cavity length, Ls, is adjusted to 21.6 cm. As shown in Figure 4.9 if the cavity
diameter is increased to 30.5 cm then the reactor can be excited with the TM013
mode when the length, Ls, is adjusted to 19.3 cm.
This simplified theory provides the designer an approximate idea of the
cavity dimensions. That is given a cavity reactor of a certain diameter it allows
one to approximate the length of the cavity for TM013 mode excitation.

116

TM011
2.90E+09
TM012
2.85E+09
TM013
2.80E+09
TM111
&TE011
TM112
&TE012
2.45GH
z
TM212

2.75E+09
2.70E+09
2.65E+09
2.60E+09

TM014
2.55E+09
TM021
2.50E+09
TE111
2.45E+09
TE112
2.40E+09
TE113
2.35E+09
TE114
2.30E+09
TE211
2.25E+09
TE212
2.20E+09
TE213
2.15E+09
TE311
2.10E+09
TE312
2.05E+09
TE411
2.00E+09
5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

Figure 4.8 Resonant frequencies versus Ls for 7-inch cavity
inch

117

TE121

2.60E+09
TM011
2.58E+09

TM012

2.56E+09

TM013

2.54E+09

TM111&
TE011
TM112&
TE012
TM211

2.52E+09
2.50E+09

2.45GHz

2.48E+09

TM212
TM014

2.46E+09

2.42E+09

TM113&
TE013
TM114&
TE014
TM021

2.40E+09

TE111

2.44E+09

TE112

2.38E+09

TE113
2.36E+09
TE114
2.34E+09

TE115

2.32E+09

TE211
TE212

2.30E+09
5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TE213

Figure 4.9 Resonant frequencies versus Ls for 12-inch cavity
inch

itial
Design
4.6.2 Initial Prototype D
This reactor was initially designed in July 2006, the first prototype reactor was
built in late 2007 and then the experimental evaluation took place in MSU/FHG

118

CCL -C laboratories. Design and reactor construction were initiated during the
2007-2009 period and the experiments first briefly synthesized PCD over three to
four inches Si wafers and were performed at low pressures (50-100 Torr) and
then they were later extended to higher pressures (180-240 Torr) and
synthesized thick PCD over two-inch diameter Si wafers. These results are
reported in Chapter 5. The synthesis of single crystal diamond was initiated in
October 2009 and SCD synthesis and the resulting SCD quality evaluation
process continue through 2011. These SCD synthesis experimental results are
reported in Chapter 6.

Figure 4.10 The fourth generation MSU reactor and automated system

119

Figure 4.10 displays the fourth generation MSU reactor and Figure 4.11
shows the drawing of the initial design of the fourth generation MSU reactor. The
applicator consists of two coupled cavities, i.e. a cylindrical cavity section (z>0)
and a coaxial cavity section (z<0). The plasma loaded applicator is single mode
excited with the hybrid TM02 waveguide mode in the cylindrical section of the
applicator and TEM001 waveguide mode in the coaxial section. The discharge is
excited with the EM fields at the z=0 plane. The excited EM mode is a hybrid EM
applicator mode consisting of the two waveguide modes plus evanescent modes
around the Z=0 plane.

Figure 4.11 The initial design for the fourth generation MSU reactor
120

4.6.3 Final Prototype design
Figure 4.12 displays the cross sectional drawing of the fourth generation MSU
reactor. The reactor can be considered as a special case of the generalized
reactor design concept that is described in Section 4.3. As shown in Figure 4.12,
it is composed of the five cylindrical sections; i.e. the input section and plus
sections (1) through (4). The first, prototype realization of this design had the
following dimensions; Lp ≈ 3 cm; Ls ≈ 16.2 cm; R1 = 15.24 cm; R2 = 10.8 cm; R3
= 1.84 cm; R5 = 12.07 cm; L1 = L2 ≈ 6.12 cm; -0.8 cm < Zs < 0.5 cm; and L3 =
7.32 cm. It has four mechanically independent cavity applicator adjustments: (1)
variable coupling probe length Lp, (2) variable substrate holder length L1, (3)
variable top plate sliding short Ls, and (4) variable conducting short plate L2.

121

Figure 4.12 Cross section of the fourth generation MSU reactor

Therefore in Reactor C, the cavity and quartz dome wall radii were increased
and the reactor was changed from the Reactor A shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5 of
Section 4.4 to a design with larger cavity wall and quartz dome radii. In particular
the cylindrical cavity of Reactor A shown in Figure 4.5 was replaced with the
sections (2) and (3) that are shown in Figure 4.12 above. Radius R1 = 8.9cm of
cylindrical cavity section of Figure 4.5 was replaced by sections 2 and 3 in Figure
122

4.12 with respective radii R1 = 15.24 cm and R5 = 12.07 cm. For a given input
power this design change spreads out the electromagnetic field intensity over the
waveguide cross section. Then at and around the Z=0 plane the time average
power flux density flowing through the sections (2) and (3) is refocused onto the
substrate.

4.6.4 Experimental Test (with or without plasma)
After setting up the fourth generation MSU reactor system, some initial tests
were performed without plasma. At low power, a variable microwave frequency
sweep of the reactor was performed. This experimental technique has been
employed for over forty years at MSU to aid in the design and experimental test
of new reactor designs. In order to facilitate this evaluation a rectangle
waveguide was attached to the cavity entrance. The cavity/waveguide system
was then attached to a circulator, and a reflected power directional coupler. The
input to the circulator was connected to a HP 8350B Sweep Oscillator and
Tektronix 2215A Oscilloscope. (See Figure 4.13 and 4.14)
A very small amount of variable frequency microwave power (<25mW) was
input into the reactor. The power reflected from the cavity was then sampled by
the reflected power directional coupler and displayed on the oscilloscope versus
swept frequency as is shown on Figure 4.14. The dips in reflected power, i.e. the
absorptions in reflected power were identified as the excitation of a cavity
resonant mode. See Figure 4.15 and 4.16. These resonant cavity frequencies
could also be enhanced by matching the cavity to the input transmission circuit
123

by varying Ls and Lp.

Figure 4.13 Rectangle waveguide hooked up with MPACVD reactor entrance

124

Figure 4.14 HP 8350B Sweep Oscillator and Tektronix 2215A Oscilloscope

The cavity reactor design of Figure 4.11 was first tested at low power.
According to the resonance frequency calculations (see section 4.6.1), Ls, should
be 19.3 cm for a 12-inch cavity respectively, to let it excite the TM013 mode and
resonance at 2.45 GHz. Finally when we adjust Ls to 18.36 cm, we found the
cavity resonance frequency at 2.45 GHz. Figure 4.15 shows the frequency
sweep range from 2.3 GHz to 2.6 GHz, and Figure 4.16 shows the frequency
sweep range from 2.44 GHz to 2.46 GHz. The circuit loaded Q factor is equal to
f0 / ∆f = 2.45 / (2.4504-2.4495) = 2722. Ls value is not exactly what we have

125

calculated because there are other structures below the substrate surface (Z
surface) to affect the resonance frequency, but the simple eigenfrequency
calculations of Section 4.6.1 were able to guide us to the right Ls for the TM0
mode excitation.

Figure 4.15 Low power sweep (2.3 – 2.6 GHz)

126

Figure 4.16 Low power sweep (2.44 – 2.46 GHz)

After we found the right Ls, the MPACVD reactor system was hooked up to
the 10 kW microwave power supply and magnetron. A few exploratory diamond
deposition experiments were performed to test the new system with plasma.
Unfortunately there are several problems with the system including dome heating
and the ignition of unwanted discharges in the coaxial cavity region (Z < 0 region).
Since it was desired to operate the reactor at high power densities and at
high pressures, it was decided to further modify the design of Figure 4.11. This
reactor design employed the same cooling stage design that was used in
Reactor B. The basic idea was to divide the reactor in Figure 4.11 into 3 parts
127

vertically. The upper cylindrical reactor still keeps the original radius and the
lower section Z<0 coaxial section employed the same substrate holder and
cooling stage that reactor B utilized. A smaller diameter inner ring was also
inserted into the middle section and the lower cylindrical reactor radius was
reduced from 15.24 cm to 10.8 cm. The smaller radii that were used here
refocused the microwave energy onto the substrate holder similar to the design
of Reactor B. However a larger quartz dome was still used in order to allow the
discharge to locate itself away from the reactor walls and thereby enable high
pressure operation (see section 2.2).
The important dimensions of the final design (see Figure 4.12) are as follows.
The radius of the fourth generation cavity applicator is R1 = 30.48 cm. Other
important dimensions and coordinates of the applicator are the coupling probe
depth, Lp = 3.0 cm, the cylindrical cavity length, Ls = 16.2 cm, the cylindrical
cavity radius, R1 = 15.24 cm, the coaxial cavity radii R2 = 10.8 cm and R3 = 1.84
cm, the molybdenum substrate holder radius R4 = 3.24 cm, the coaxial cavity
lengths L1 = 6.12 cm and L2 =6.12 cm, and in particular the inner ring radius Ri =
12.07 cm and inner ring length Li = 7.32 cm.
It was not certain whether this design would work or not at that time. However
the low power swept frequency experimental evaluations identified a number of
possible EM resonances. One unexpected, experimentally identified resonance
was found at Ls ~ 16.2cm. This resonance was not predicted by the simple

128

theory presented in section 4.6.1 (see Figure 4.9) but the experimental low swept
frequency measurements identified it as a possible mode to excite the cavity
reactor. High power experimental evaluations as discussed in later chapters
identified this resonance as the best mode EM mode to operate within the high
pressure and high microwave power density regime. Thus all the experimental
results reported in Chapters 5 and 6 excite this EM resonance. This new EM
mode has also been investigated by numerical simulations (see Section 4.7
below).

4.7 Overview of the Numerical Simulation
Electromagnetic waves in the 2.45 GHz frequency range are used to produce
plasmas for diamond deposition. In this section our microwave plasma CVD
reactor is studied by numerical simulation. COMSOL Multiphysics version 3.5 is
used to calculate these coupled equations. The COMSOL Multiphysics simulation
environment allows us to define the reactor geometry, specify physics, meshing,
solving and then post-processing results. The microwave plasma assisted cavity
can be set up from the predefined model for the electromagnetic analyses.
Material properties, source terms and boundary conditions can all be arbitrary
functions of the dependent variables.

4.7.1 Subdomain setup and cavity dimensions
The whole cavity was divided into two different subdomains. The first

129

subdomain is a cylindrical cavity section (Z>0, See Figure 4.17) which is set in air
with relative permittivity equal to 1. The second subdomain is a coaxial cavity
section (-L2<Z<0).

Figure 4.17 Reference microwave plasma reactor cross section

The plasma loaded applicator is excited with the hybrid TM013 mode in the
cylindrical section of the applicator and TEM001 mode in the coaxial section, The
discharge is excited with the electrical magnetic fields at or around the Z=0 plane.
These fields consist of the two modes plus evanescent modes. This resonant
130

mode TM013 mode, which is shown in Figure 4.18 for a simple, empty, cylindrical
cavity, is characterized by regions of high electric energy density on the cavity
axis at the endplates, and in two annular regions circumscribing the cavity
midplane. The resonant cavity is a circular cross-section waveguide shorted by
two conducting endplates. One endplate contains a sliding short and excitation
probe. The other one is created by an inside ring and substrate holder.

131

Figure 4.18 Field configuration of TM013 electromagnetic mode
The electromagnetic field patterns for each waveguide can be divided into
transverse electric (TE) and transverse magnetic (TM) modes. There is an infinite
set of discrete TE and TM modes. The TE modes have electric field components
only in the plane transverse to z direction which is the direction of wave
propagation, while the TM modes have magnetic field components only in a
plane transverse to z direction. This microwave plasma resonant cavity operates
132

in the transverse magnetic TM013 mode, which is optimal for producing a
hemisphere, free-floating plasma at bottom end of the cavity. In this mode, no
magnetic field component is in the direction of propagation, but the electric field
strength is high at the cavity’s bottom end-plate. Proper selection of the cavity
height to diameter ratio causes the electric field strength at the end-plate to be
much greater than at the midplane of the cavity. The benefits for doing this are
that we acquire the maximum power density at the bottom-end plate and
minimum power density at the midplane to avoid the quartz dome overheating
problem.

4.7.2 Numerical Modeling
The study of the electric fields focused on three different aspects: The size
and shape of microwave plasma reactor and the effect of TEM001 mode in the
coaxial region. What we are interested in is the electric field strength above the
molybdenum holder and the plasma shape. A series of numerical simulations are
presented here to show the electric field patterns at the applicator cavity resonant
frequency.
Step 1 (Figure 4.19 and 4.20): These simulations are for a 7-inch and a
12-inch classical cylindrical cavity. The 2D picture shows half of the cross section.
The left line is center line of a cylindrical cavity, so it has been set to be axially
symmetric. The other boundary lines are set to be a perfect conductor, i.e. the
tangential electric field is zero. The cavity is full of air which has a relative
permittivity equal to 1, electric conductivity equal to 0 and relative permeability
133

equal to 1. Figure 4.19 displays a simplified empty cylinder with radius R1 = 8.89
cm and height Ls = 21.59 cm (see Figure 4.17 for R1 and Ls). With the calculated
Ls, the simulation matches the field pattern of TM013 electromagnetic mode. We
can observe from Figure 4.19 that the high field strength regions of the cavity
applicator are located at the bottom, the center and at the sides of the applicator.
If we now increase the same simple cylindrical cavity radius, R1, to 15.24
cm and height Ls to 19.29 cm and it is still resonant at 2.45 GHz. The numerical
eigenfrequency simulations of the electromagnetic field patterns are shown in
Figure 4.20. The interesting thing we observe is that even though the same mode
is excited, i.e. TM013, the EM field patterns are different. The high electric field
strength regions are now located at the side of the cavity. The regions of high
electric field strength in the center of the previous cavity applicator disappear.
Thus one end of the cavity would not be an optimal region for excitation.
However the electric region in the cavity center is greatly reduced. This result
suggests that the TM01n mode field patterns can be refocused by varying the
cylindrical cavity diameter. In particular electric field can be moved from the
center of the cylindrical cross section to the outer walls by just increasing the
diameter. This is of course what is done in the final design of the reactor.

134

Figure 4.19 Classical Cylindrical Cavity (7-inch)

Figure 4.20 Classical Cylindrical Cavity (12-inch)

135

Step 2 (Figure 4.21): The numerical simulation research starts from the
generic reactor. It’s a 7-inch cylindrical cavity with 4.1 cm radius cooling stage
and 5.1 cm radius substrate holder.

Figure 4.21 Numerical simulation for generic cavity (7-inch)

Step 3 (Figure 4.22): Figure 4.22 displays the numerical simulation for the
third generation reactor. It’s a 7-inch cylindrical cavity with 1.91 cm radius cooling
stage and 3.24 cm radius substrate holder.

136

Figure 4.22 Numerical simulation for the third generation cavity (7-inch)

Step 4 (Figure 4.23): Our project is to modify an available cavity which is
previously used as ECR cavity to operate CVD diamond deposition. The lower
part of the cylindrical cavity’s radius is 12.07 cm, less than the top cylinder’s
radius at 15.24 cm. This change of the shape gives us a stronger electric field at
center of the bottom end plate, which is beneficial to plasma formation and
diamond deposition. On left top, excitation probe is introduced. Also cooling
stage and molybdenum holder are added to complete the Z<0 region where
TEM001 mode is presented. The electric field is the greatest at the excitation
probe and above molybdenum holder where the plasma will be formed. The field
pattern changes a lot after a quartz dome is added to the simulation. The relative
permittivity of the dome is defined as 4.2, electric conductivity as 1x10
137

-14

S/m,

and relative permeability as 1. The electric energy density is much higher in the
center of the cavity than the edge. Then a quartz tube is added. The problem of
this system is although the top of the quartz dome is set to λg/2, the electric field
near the top of the dome is too strong and if the plasma was formed it is
expected to burn the dome top. To solve the burning dome top problem, we have
designed an inside ring to change the geometry shape of the cavity to affect the
electric field pattern.

Figure 4.23 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Inside Ring

Step 5 (Figure 4.24): We have redesigned microwave plasma reactor for
different process. A big 4-inch molybdenum holder allows us to make large area
CVD diamond deposition. For single crystal diamond deposition, we are looking
for higher discharge power densities and higher pressures. So we reduce the
molybdenum substrate holder radius and coaxial cavity inner conductor radius by
the factor about 4. This modification focuses electric field energy on top of the

138

molybdenum substrate holder. Details will be talked about in next chapter.

Figure 4.24 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage

Step 6 (Figure 4.25-Figure 4.30): Next six simulations show us when the
molybdenum holder position, Zs, changes, how it influences the electric field
pattern shape and strength. Our goal is to determine the best Zs position where
the electric field is strong on the top of the substrate. The numerical results in
Figures 4.25 -4.30 indicate that the negative Zs positions produce the most
intense electric fields above the substrate. This is also observed experimentally.

139

Figure 4.25 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage+2.5mm

Figure 4.26 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage+5.0mm

140

Figure 4.27 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage+7.5mm

Figure 4.28 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage-2.5mm

141

Figure 4.29 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage-5.0mm

Figure 4.30 Modified Cylindrical Cavity with Smaller Stage-7.5mm

Step 7 (Figure 4.31): These four simulations use the cross section of a complete
cylindrical Reactor C. For left to right, it starts from the simple cylindrical reactor.
Then add the microwave power entrance and excitation probe. Then add the
quartz dome. Finally add the cooling stage and quartz tube. We can see the
electromagnetic field changes when we add more details of the cavity.

142

Figure 4.31 Four-stage Simulations of Cross Section of Reactor C
stage

Step 8 (Figure 4.32): In this step, the numerical simulation of Reactor C with
plasma is performed. The complex electromagnetic equations are used to
he
calculate plasma electric conductivity σ, relative permittivity (dielectric constant
lasma
,
includes both real and imaginary part) εr = εr’ + iεr”, relative permeability µr, and
insert these variables to COMSOL.
The average electron density in hydrogen discharge ne ≈ 1E12 (1-4E11 as [62])
4E11
cm

-3

= 1E18 m

-3

The electron plasma frequency is equal to
ωpe = e /(me ε0)1/2 *(ne)1/2 = 56.5 (1E18
(1E18)1/2 = 5.65E10
ω = 2π(2.45E9) = 1.54E10
(2.45E9)
Assume pressure p=250 Torr and gas temperature T=3000 K
Torr,
The electron-neutral collisio frequency is equal to
neutral collision

143

γ = 4.8E9 p (300/T) = 4.8E9*250*(300/3000) = 1.2E11 s

-1

2

So εr = 1 – (ωpe/ω) / (1-jγ/ω)
2

= 1 – (5.65E10/1.54E10) / (1-j1.2E11/1.54E10)
= 0.774 – j1.76
Plasma electric conductivity σ = ω ε0 εr” = 1.54E10*8.85E-12*1.76 = 0.24
The relative permittivity εr = 0.774 – j1.76
The relative permeability µr = 1
Figure 4.32 shows the numerical simulation result for Reactor C after all
these calculated parameters have been inserted. The shape of the plasma has
been defined as three forth of an ellipsoid which is very close to what we
observed in the experiments. 1 mm sheath was added between the plasma and
substrate holder. Figure 4.33 shows a close-up picture of plasma with 1-mm
sheath and Figure 4.34 shows a close-up picture of plasma without 1-mm sheath.

144

Figure 4.32 Numerical Simulation for Reactor C (all parameters)

145

Figure 4.33 Close-up Picture of Plasma with 1-mm Sheath

Figure 4.34 Close-up Picture of Plasma without 1-mm Sheath

146

4.8 Summary
A new larger reactor design was developed. This new reactor design,
identified as Reactor C, has a larger diameter applicator and also a larger
diameter quartz dome (over earlier reactor designs) that were expected to enable
robust operation at high pressures (up to 300 Torr) and with higher power
densities. The applicator diameter is varied to unfocus and then refocus the EM
field as the EM energy is applied and matched into the discharge. The reactor is
excited with a single hybrid EM mode. This mode was first identified
experimentally and then was demonstrated to readily produce a high pressure
discharge. The next two chapters experimentally evaluate this new reactor
design in high pressure and high power density PCD and SCD synthesis
applications.
This chapter is concluded by summarizing some of the new reactor’s
design principles.
First it employs a single mode microwave cavity applicator to focus the
microwave energy and to create and maintain a microwave discharge above and
in good contact with the substrate over a wide pressure range. In the third
generation MSU reactor design the reactor is excited in the hybrid TM013/TEM001
mode. Here in this new design because of the multiple cylindrical waveguide
sections a new and quite different hybrid mode is excited. A numerical plot of the
EM field patterns for the empty reactor resonant mode that is employed in our
experimental reactor is shown in Figure what 4.24. As is observed in Figure 4.24,
the EM field forms a standing wave field pattern as expected in an empty
147

resonant metallic cylindrical structure, but the observed EM fields patterns as
they were in the third generation reactor. The resonant length Ls ≈ 16.2cm is not
closely related to an empty cylindrical cavity or an empty coaxial cavity
resonance. However the EM field patterns do exhibit the unfocusing and
refocusing of the EM energy versus Z.
Secondly it employs internal cavity impedance matching. That is it employs a
moveable (variable) sliding short, i.e. a continuously variable Ls and an
adjustable, continuously variable, Lp coupling probe for impedance matching.
These adjustments allow efficient microwave power coupling into the variable
microwave discharge load. Thus as the input variables such as pressure, power,
gas mixture, and gas flow rate are varied the reactor is readily tuned to a good
impedance match. Note that these impedance matching adjustments take place
at the top of the applicator away from the discharge and the substrate. The
discharge and substrate are located at least two half wavelengths away from the
near fields associated with the coaxial coupling probe/sliding short sections. The
tuning adjustments, i.e. Ls and Lp required for applicator impedance matching
and the associated changes in EM near fields in the coaxial coupling section are
separated from the EM focus near the substrate. Thus impedance matching of
the cavity applicator does not change the spatial EM focus around the
discharge/substrate region. Then as the cavity applicator is matched the special
shape of the EM focus (without the discharge) does not change. Only the electric
field intensity varies.

148

The third design principle is that it locates the substrate holder on a movable
stage that is an integral part of the microwave applicator. The stage is located
inside the applicator so that the electromagnetic field is intense and is focused at
the stage/substrate location. The reactor tunability and the ability to adjust the
position of the stage allows additional adjustment and local fine tuning/focusing
of the electromagnetic fields around and directly above the substrate. This
feature enables positioning of the microwave discharge above and in good
contact with the substrate while operating in the high pressure and power density
regime. It also appears to counter the buoyant forces that the discharge is
subjected to as the operating pressure is increased --- thereby keeping the
discharge in good contact with the substrate as the pressure is increased.
Fourthly the design which incorporates four tuning variables Lp, Ls, L1, and L2
enable the nonlinear optimization of discharge positioning, discharge size
adjustment, growth rate enhancement, impedance matching, i.e. process
optimization --- thereby allowing for robust and efficient processes development
and an adaptable and versatile over all system operation.
A fifth design feature is the scalability of the reactor design. The EM features
of the design can be directly scaled up in size by changing the excitation
frequency from 2.45 GHz to 915 MHz. This principle was identified in early
development in MCPR technologies. Specifically it was identified as an important
principle in the early US Patents 4,507,588 and 4,585,688 concerned with MPCR
ion and plasma source patents. The direct increase of the MPCR reactor size, i.e.
the size scalability, versus a decrease in the EM excitation frequency is a

149

property of all the MCPR designs and also remains valid for the fourth generation
MSU reactor. It is important to note here however, that while the MCPR design is
directly scalable with respect to the EM properties, the microwave discharge has
a different set of scaling laws. However the reactor EM performance CVD does
scale versus size and frequency the same way as the EM performance does.
The sixth design principle, a principle that only Reactor C employs (but is
also incorporated in the generalized reactor design concept) is that it
incorporates the specific dimensions that allow the coupling/transfer of large
amounts of microwave power into the discharge at high pressure. Specifically the
dimensions of the reactor are adjusted to enable the transfer/impedance
matching of high power fluxes densities of microwave energy that are required
for high pressure operation from the external wave guides into the small intense
high pressure discharge. It does this by unfocusing EM field in the quartz dome
regions and then refocusing the microwave energy on the substrate
holder/powered electrode without creating any high EM fields (standing waves)
elsewhere in the cavity applicator.
The overall goal of the numerical simulation effort was to understand how
the electromagnetic fields vary and behave when the reactor dimensions are
varied. Since the reactor has a complex shape, one can only perform numerical
electromagnetic simulations of the electric field in the resonant cavity by
computer software, i.e. COMSOL Multiphysics. Cavity shape is the biggest
concern to determine effects of finding the TM013 and TEM001 mode with
eigenfrequency.

150

The results show that calculations for the simple cylindrical cavity matches
the numerical result. When the cavity’s shape changes, it will also change the
electrical field pattern above the molybdenum holder. This can affect CVD
diamond deposition process. The COMSOL simulations have been used to
provide an understanding of how the EM field patterns vary inside the cavity as
the size and shape of the cavity are varied.

151

CHAPTER 5
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF
POLYCRYSTALLINE DIAMOND SYNTHESIS

5.1 Introduction
Polycrystalline diamond (PCD) deposition experimental results are presented
in this chapter. First the concept of the multivarible parameter space for
microwave plasma assisted diamond deposition is briefly reviewed. In general,
the output performance of the reactor (Y) is a function of input variables U1, U2,
U3 etc, i.e. Y = f(U1, U2, U3). The experimentally measured absorbed microwave
discharge power density versus pressure is presented for Reactor C. Then the
experimental results of polycrystalline diamond synthesis are presented. The
152

experimental results include determining the relationships between the output
variables such as growth rate, uniformity, and surface morphology versus the
input variables such as gas chemistry, pressure, etc. At the time of writing this
thesis more than 20 exploratory PCD experiments were performed. The total
growth time for all of the PCD experiments that are presented in this chapter was
about 300 hours. Most of the diamond synthesis experimental results shown in
this section were conducted as separate experimental runs each with duration
between 8 hours to 100 hours. These 20 experiments were performed as
preliminary experimental reactor design evaluation purposes, i.e. as a first test of
Reactor C’s ability to CVD synthesize diamond in the high, 160-300 Torr,
pressure regime.

5.2 The MPACVD Experimental Subsystems Overview
5.2.1 Introduction
The

fourth

generation

microwave

plasma-assisted

diamond

CVD

experimental system which was employed for the experimental evaluation of
Reactor C is displayed in Figure 5.1. The experimental subsystems include the
microwave power supply system, the microwave coupling system and reactor,
the gas flow control system, the pressure control system, and the exhaust
system. All these subsystems work together, generally under computer
automated control, to provide the desired CVD diamond deposition environment.
Several of these subsystems are described in greater detail in Section 5.2.25.2.5. The automated subsystems were designed previous to the beginning of
153

this thesis research at Michigan State University and Lambda Technologies.
Reactor C and the substrate holder and associated cooling stage were designed
and modified at Michigan State University (MSU) as part of the research activities
described in this thesis.

154

Figure 5.1 Generic microwave plasma-assisted CVD diamond system

155

5.2.2 Microwave Power Supply Subsystem
In a typical microwave plasma assisted CVD system, the plasma discharge is
used to dissociate process gases and produce active atoms (radicals) within the
process chamber. It’s very important to have a highly reliable automated
microwave power supply to generate and optimize microwave plasmas for CVD
process. A standard microwave power supply subsystem is shown in Figure 5.2.

2.45 GHz
Microwave
Power
Supply

Microwave
Reactor

Circulator

Dummy
Load
Incident
Power
Meter

Reflected
Power
Meter

Figure 5.2 Standard microwave power supply subsystem
The continuously variable ~ 1.5 – 10 kW microwave power displayed in
Figure 5.2 is generated by a magnetron power supply GENSRS10.0, consisting
of MW-power supply MWPSSRS10.0 and magnetron-head MHWCS10.0, at the
frequency of 2,450 MHz with a maximum 10KW HF-output. The output of the
magnetron power supply is connected to a circulator that isolates and protects
the power supply from any power that may be reflected from microwave reactor.
The reflected power is led to a water-cooled dummy load which is impedancematched. The absorbed power Pa is Pi - Pr, which is measured as the incident
156

power, Pi, minus the reflected power, Pr, is one of the major input variables.
Microwave power measurements are made using dual-directional power couplers
inserted in the waveguide between the circulator and microwave reactor. Typical
absorbed powers, Pa, measured during the MPACVD diamond synthesis
experiments range from 1 kW to 4 kW.

5.2.3 Gas Flow Control Subsystem
Four essential gases are used in the deposition process. They are nitrogen,
hydrogen, methane and argon. Some other gases, like carbon monoxide, oxygen
etc, are also needed for specific process. Because of the sensitivity of the
process to impurities in the discharge plasma and the desire to minimize
impurities in the CVD diamond, the compressed feed gases had the following
compositions: 99.9995% purity (Total impurities < 5ppm, N2 < 3ppm) for
Hydrogen, 99.999% purity (Total impurities < 10ppm, N2 < 5ppm) for Methane.
Mass flow controllers (MFC) are devices used to measure and control the flow of
gases. The MKS Type 1179A general purpose mass flow controller is designed
and calibrated to control processing gases at a particular range of flow rates. A
signal is sent to the control panel. The total flow rate ranges from tens to
hundreds of sccm (standard cubic centimeters per minute) in our process. These
controlled flow rate feed gases are mixed together and delivered to the discharge
chamber.

157

5.2.4 Pressure Control Subsystem
The pressure control subsystem is used to maintain the desired pressure in
the deposition chamber. During the process, the vacuum pumping system will
pump the reacted gases out of the deposition chamber continuously. In this
thesis diamond CVD processes operated in the pressure range of a few tens of
Torr to 300 Torr. The pressure was maintained by using a mechanical roughing
pump. In this research system a TRIVAC D 16 BCS two-stage rotary vane
vacuum pump was used. The pressure in the deposition chamber was
maintained by an automatic throttle valve located between the chamber and the
pump. The pressure was measured by a pressure gauge MKS Type 141A which
is a variable capacitance sensor consisting of rigidly attached capacitive
electrodes located on the back or reference side of a metal diaphragm. The
reference side is permanently evacuated and sealed and thus makes the
pressure measurement totally independent of the gas type or composition. When
pressure is applied to the diaphragm, its deflection produces a change in the
distance between the electrodes and the diaphragm and a resultant capacitance
change. The signal is sent to a pressure controller in main control panel. The
control system automatically adjusts the throttle valve to achieve the desired
pressure in the deposition chamber.
The system leak rate is an important factor for CVD diamond synthesis. The
pressure-changing rate (mTorr/hr) needs to be converted to the gas flow rate in
standard cubic centimeters per minute (SCCM) to estimate the residual gas, i.e.
158

N2, from the leaking of the vacuum system. An example of this conversion is
shown below.
ܲ‫ݎܾ݄݁݉ܽܿ ݂݋ ݄݁݃݊ܽܿ ݁ݎݑݏݏ݁ݎ‬
ܸ‫ݎܾ݄݁݉ܽܿ ݄݁ݐ ݋ݐ݊݅ ݏܽ݃ ݈݃݊݅݇ܽ݁ ݄݁ݐ ݂݋ ݁݉ݑ݈݋‬
ൌ
ܲ‫ݎܾ݄݁݉ܽܿ ݂݋ ݁ݎݑݏݏ݁ݎ‬
ܸ‫ݎܾ݄݁݉ܽܿ ݄݁ݐ ݂݋ ݁݉ݑ݈݋‬
So
the leaking gas flow rate (SCCM) =
೘೅೚ೝೝ
ሻ‫כ‬௏௢௟௨௠௘
೓ೝ

௉௥௘௦௦௨௥௘ି௖௛௔௡௚௜௡௚ ௥௔௧௘ ሺ

଻଺଴ ்௢௥௥

௢௙ ௧௛௘ ௖௛௔௠௕௘௥ ሺ௖௠3ሻ

In this experimental system, the leak rate was measured to be 1 mTorr/hr.
The chamber volume for Reactor C is the sum of the vacuum chamber volume
and quartz dome volume. The vacuum chamber is a cylinder with the radius of
16.51cm and height of 35.56cm. So the volume of the vacuum chamber is
4

3

3.04x10 cm . The quartz dome is also a cylinder with the radius of 10.8cm and
3

height of 10.16cm. The volume of the quartz dome is 3721 cm . So the total
4

3

volume is 3.41x10 cm . Thus we can calculate:
The leaking gas flow rate (SCCM) =
7.48 x10

-4

ଵ ୫୘୭୰୰ ୶ ሺଵ/଺଴ሻ ୦୰/୫୧୬ ୶ ଷ.ସଵ୶ଵ଴ ସ ୡ୫ଷ
଻଺଴଴଴଴ ௠்௢௥௥

=

sccm

Since the leaking gas is air and air is mostly nitrogen, we can estimate the
residual nitrogen from the leaking of the vacuum system as 7.48 x10

-4

/ 400

(total flow rate in sccm) = 1.87 ppm. Thus all experiments reported in this thesis
the system N2 gas leak rate is less than 2 ppm of the total input gas flow rate.

159

5.2.5 Exhaust Subsystem
Safety is very important so it has been emphasized in every detail of this
design. The exhaust subsystem is one of the safety precautions. A nitrogen
purge is used as a dilution of the hydrogen-dominated exhaust gas at the exit of
the mechanical roughing pump. Usually the flow rate of a nitrogen purge is 10
times of the total flow rate of flammable gases. The nitrogen dilution thus reduces
the methane and hydrogen exhaust gas concentration to a nonflammable level at
the exit of the mechanical roughing pump. The safety interlock system measures
the pressure of the processing gases to prevent any over pressurizing when
hydrogen is present in the system.

5.3 Microwave Plasma Reactor Process Variables And
Performance Variables
In order to orderly investigate the performance of the microwave plasma
assisted CVD reactor, it is essential to identify the experimental variables. These
variables have been identified at MSU in earlier PhD thesis [24,52,53], and thus
they are only briefly summarized here. The nonlinear relationships between the
three groups of variables are presented. The three basic groups are (1) input
variables, U; (2) internal variables, X; and (3) output variables, Y. A description of
these variables and the relationships between these variables has already been
described in Section 3.2.
The sections that follow in this section quantify the relationships between
160

the input variables, U, and internal variables, Xi = f(U); the input variables and
output variables, Y = g(U); and the internal variables and output variables, Y=
h(X). In particular, Section 5.4 describes the experimental relationship between
absorbed power, substrate temperature and operation pressure; i.e. it describes
the reactor roadmap. Section 5.5 presents the relationship between microwave
absorbed power density and deposition pressure; Section 5.6 investigates the
relationship between PCD growth rate and deposition pressure and / or gas
chemistry and the quality of the synthesized PCD films as indicated by Raman
measurements is briefly presented.

5.4 The Experimental Roadmap for Reactor C
When the reactor geometry, substrate size, and total gas flow are fixed,
the deposition process is a function of absorbed input power, pressure, gas
chemistry, and substrate temperature. The first three are input variables and the
substrate temperature is an internal variable. The nonlinear relationship between
these variables for a given reactor can be plotted as a set of curves called the
reactor roadmap. Given a reactor design the relationship between the
experimental multivariable parameter spaces is nonlinear and the best way to
determine it is by experimentally measuring the substrate temperature versus
absorbed power and pressure.
The experimentally measured reactor roadmap for Reactor C is displayed in
Figure 5.6. The experimental variable range for the roadmap and power density
measurements are listed below:
161

(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Variable: p = 75 - 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.2 – 3.0 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4 / H2 = 3% and no N2 addition

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft= 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed: Reactor C as described in
Chapter 4

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm (The exploratory
experiments have been performed to find the right Zs. I found when
Zs = -4.8 mm, the plasma ball is stable when adjusting the pressure
from 75 to 240 Torr)
c) Cooling stage and molybdenum substrate holder design, Fixed: for 1inch Si wafer with insert (See Figure 5.3 - 5.5).

162

Unit: mm

Figure 5.3 Schematic drawing for the cooling stage

Unit: mm

Figure 5.4 Schematic drawing for the substrate holder

163

Unit: mm

Figure 5.5 Schematic drawing for the insert

d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments as described
in Chapter 4

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 15.65-15.85 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: Quartz dome has been used

g) Chiller, Fixed: General ACCPS081-4B-S Air-cooled Liquid Chiller, flow
rate is 1.5 GPM for the substrate holder, base plate and excitation
probe; and 4.5 GPM for the magnetron. The set temperature range is
20 – 24 °
C.

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

164

a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 1-inch silicon wafer

(4) Internal variables Xi, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Variable: Ts ≈ 650 – 1250 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs= 1.6 – 3.5 kW

165

1" substrate roadmap PCD w/insert
320 mbar

1250

300 mbar
280 mbar
260 mbar
240 mbar

Substrate Temperature (C)

1150

220 mbar

1050

200 mbar
180 mbar
950

160
mbar
140 mbar

850
120 mbar

100 mbar

750

650
1100

1600

2100

2600

Absorbed Microwave Power (Watts)

Figure 5.6 The reactor roadmap of the Reactor C, showing the substrate
temperature versus absorbed microwave power (75 Torr to 240 Torr)

Figure 5.7 and 5.8 show the experimentally measured reactor roadmap for
the Reactor B [53]. Figure 5.9 compares the roadmaps of Reactor B and C at
180 Torr and 240 Torr. We can see the roadmaps of two reactors are almost
identical, except the Reactor C has a slightly lower substrate temperature (less
than 2%, which is within experimental measurement error). This relatively close
166

agreement is not surprising since Reactor B and C have very similar cooling
stages and molybdenum substrate holder sets.
In any of the experiments presented later in this thesis the substrate
temperature at any given constant pressure may be further adjusted by changing
the thickness of the molybdenum holder to enable Reactor C’s substrate
temperature to be adjusted to be within 900 – 1300 °C for 180 – 240 Torr. This is
a similar to the design for Reactor B.

Figure 5.7 The reactor roadmap of the Reactor B, showing the substrate
temperature versus absorbed microwave power (60 Torr to 240 Torr) [53]

167

Figure 5.8 The closer view of reactor roadmap of the Reactor B, showing the
substrate temperature versus absorbed microwave power (180 Torr to 240 Torr)
[53]

168

1200
1180

Substrate
Temperature
(˚C)

1160

Reactor C
(180torr)
Reactor C
(240torr)
Reactor B
(180torr)
Reactor B
(240torr)

1140
1120
1100
1080
1060
1040

Absorbed
Microwave
Power
(Watts)

1020
1000
2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

Figure 5.9 The comparison of the closer view of reactor roadmap between the
he
Reactor B and the Reactor C

5.5 Microwave Power Density at High Pressure
An important visual difference between high pressure (>75 Torr) and low
t
Torr
pressure (< 75 Torr) microwave discharges is that at low pressure the microwave
)
discharge fills the quartz dome and produces a diffusion loss dominated, cold
(gas temperatures are less than 15
as
1500 K), non-equilibrium plasma, while at high
equilibrium
pressure the microwave discharge is hot (gas temperatures usually are greater
temperatures
than 2500 K), is volume recombination dominated and becomes a more thermal
thermallike discharge. The photographs displayed in Figures 5.11 and 5.12 show how
the plasma discharges shape color and size vary as the operating pressures
s shape,
varies from 75 Torr to 240 Torr. A Canon EOS 20D Digital single-lens reflex
single
169

camera with a Canon EF wide-angle zoom lens 17-40mm F/4.0 was used to take
these plasma discharge pictures. Two meshed view windows are located on the
middle of the cavity wall. The picture taker stood beside the cavity, and held the
camera so that the discharge was viewed through either of the reactor wall view
windows at about 45 degrees against top surface of the quartz dome. The input
experimental variables are the same as those that were used in the roadmap
measurements (see Section 5.4). The substrate is a 1.5 mm thick, 1-inch silicon
wafer. Forward power is 1900 W for the low to medium high pressures, i.e. from
75 Torr to 165 Torr, and 2700 W for the high pressure regime from 180 Torr to
240 Torr. The reason to increase the forward power is that in the high pressure
regime, we need to provide more power to maintain the plasma or it will go out.
This is also indicated in the reactor roadmap plots of Figure 5.6. Also at low
pressure, if the forward power is too much, the plasma will expand, touch and
heat the quartz walls.
The experimental average power density versus pressure can be determined
from discharge photographs as those shown in Figure 5.10 and 5.11. The
discharge power density is defined as the input absorbed power divided by the
plasma volume. At each experimental operating condition, i.e. pressure, gas
mixture, etc., the plasma volume was approximated by taking size calibrated
photographs of the discharge as it is displayed in Figure 5.10 and 5.11. From the
visual images of these plasma discharges during diamond deposition from 75
Torr to 240 Torr, we can see the plasma discharge constricts as pressure
increases. It has also been found that at high pressure, the discharge: 1)

170

separates from the walls, 2) becomes volume recombination dominated, and 3)
is thermally inhomogeneous.
In each photograph the discharge volume is defined as the brightest
luminescence region of the discharge; i.e. the white central discharge core. The
discharge volume can be then determined directly from each of the photographs.
At each experimental operating condition, i.e. each photo, the discharge power
density is then determined by dividing the absorbed power by the measured
discharge volume.

Figure 5.10 The plasma discharge at 60 Torr to 160 Torr with forward power 1900
W, Zs = -4.8 mm, CH4/H2 = 3%

171

Figure 5.11 The plasma discharge at 180 Torr to 300 Torr with forward power
2500W, Zs = -4.8 mm, CH4/H2 = 3%

An example of the experimentally measured discharge power density
versus pressures for Reactor A, B, and C is shown in Figure 5.12. At a given
operating pressure we can see that between 60 – 200 Torr Reactor C has almost
5-10% more power density than Reactor B and about 8 times more power
density than Reactor A at low pressure, i.e. 80 Torr, and about 5 times at high
pressure, i.e. 140 Torr. At pressures above 200 Torr, there is a much steeper rise
in absorbed power density in the Reactor C than the Reactor B.

172

1100

Reactor A
Reactor B
Reactor C

Absorbed Power Density (W/cm3)

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Pressure (Torr)
Figure 5.12 the comparison of the absorbed power density versus pressure for
Reactor A, B, C

One reason the absorbed power density increases dramatically from Reactor
A to either the Reactor B or C is that Reactor B and C have introduced a smaller
cooling stage. This was done by reducing the substrate holder radius R4 (See
Figure 4.6) from 5.08 cm to 3.24 cm and by reducing the coaxial cavity inner
conductor (cooling stage) radius R3 from 4.13 cm to 1.91 cm. Since the electric
field is normal to the top surface of the inner conductor electrode, when the

173

electrode diameter is reduced, the normal electric field on the electrode
increases. This higher electric field creates and maintains the discharge, i.e. it is
related to the electrical field that is impressed on the discharge, and thus results
in higher discharge absorbed power densities in Reactor B and C.

5.6 Polycrystalline Diamond Synthesis
5.6.1 Introduction
This section presents the polycrystalline diamond deposition experimental
results for Reactor C. The section begins with a description of the experimental
multivariable operating parameter space, followed by discussion of experimental
results of the synthesized diamond. In particular, the growth rate, surface
morphology, Raman spectrum including full width half maximum (FWHM) are
presented. A comparison between the growth rates and the synthesized diamond
quality of Reactor B and C is presented.

5.6.2 Diamond Growth Rate
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable growth
rate as a function of the operating pressure. A total of 20 experiments were
conducted in polycrystalline diamond MPACVD synthesis. Polycrystalline
diamond film synthesis was investigated over a range of experimental conditions
and the results are shown in Figure 5.14 – 5.16 and are also compared with the
results of the Reactor B. The experimental variables are listed below.

174

(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following
a) Deposition pressure, Variable: p = 165 - 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Variable: c = CH4 / H2 = 2% - 5% and no N2
addition. The residual N2 from the input gases is no more than 3 ppm
(see Section 5.2.2). The residual N2 from the leaking of the vacuum
system is 1.87 ppm, given the leaking rate 1 mTorr/hr as measured.
(see Section 5.2.3) Thus the total input N2 is ≈ 5 ppm.

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft= 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Molybdenum substrate holder design, Fixed: for 1-inch silicon wafer
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

175

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #1 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 1-inch 1.5mm-thick silicon wafer
b) Deposition time, Variable: t = 6 - 100 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Variable: Ts ≈ 1020 – 1100 ˚C

c) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs= 2.0 – 2.5 kW

d) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

e) Absorbed power density, Fixed: <Pabs> = Pabs/ Vp ≈ 600 W/cm

3

The polycrystalline diamond films were deposited on 1-inch silicon wafers as
pressure varied from 165 Torr to 240 Torr. The methane concentration varied
from 2% to 4% with no addition of nitrogen. For each experiment, the reactor has
been finely tuned to its optimized condition without changing Zs. In all
experiments for Reactor C, Zs

= -4.8 mm. For each experimental run the

substrate temperature varied slightly between 1020 ˚C to 1100 ˚C. In order to
176

keep the substrate temperature in such narrow range, for example, at 240 Torr
operating pressure, the absorbed microwave power was adjusted between 2.0
kW to 2.4 kW. (See Roadmaps on Figure 5.6 and 5.9) As the input power was
slightly adjusted the absorbed power densities don’t vary very much since Ts was
adjusted to be within the deposition, 1020-1100 ˚C, window.
Figure 5.13 shows polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus operating
pressure for Reactor C. See Section 3.4.1 for the measurement of PCD growth
rate. According to CVD diamond growth theories (see Section 2.2.2), CVD
diamond growth rates increase as methane concentration increases or as
pressure increases while all the other experimental parameters are held constant.
Growth rate also increases slightly with growth time. For example, Kuo et al [23]
has shown that growth rate increases by as much as 10-20% as growth time is
increased from 6 hours to 100 hours. Thus the growth time is also indicated in
Figure 5.14 next to each data point. Taking into account of the differences in
growth times the results in Figure 5.13 match what we expect from the theory; i.e.
the growth rate increases with pressure, with methane concentration and growth
time.

177

Growth Rate by Weight Gain (um/hr)

24

10.5hrs

20
24hrs

16

52hrs

51hrs

24hrs

Reactor C: 2% CH4

18hrs

12

Reactor C: 3% CH4
100hrs

Reactor C: 4% CH4

8

21hrs

Reactor C: 5% CH4

101hrs

4

6hrs

58hrs

27hrs

0
150

170

190

210

230

250

Operating Pressure (Torr)

Figure 5.13 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor C
at different CH4 concentration
From Figure 5.14-5.16 compare the growth rate of Reactor B and C. We can
see at lower methane concentrations (CH4/H2 = 2%) the growth rates are very
close for Reactor B and C versus pressure. However when CH4/H2 = 4%,
Reactor C’s growth rates are higher than Reactor B. For example at 180 Torr,
the growth rate of reactor C is about 50% more than Reactor B at 4% CH4/H2.
In general the experimental performance between reactors B and C is similar;
that is when operating under similar experimental conditions the performances
do not greatly differ. This is not surprising since the two reactors are evaluated
under the same conditions and have identical substrate holder geometries. One
178

important difference is the performance with higher methane concentrations of 4%
and 5%. Here Reactor C can operate for longer times with higher growth rates.

Growth Rate by Weight Gain (um/hr)

8
7
6

100hrs

5

6hrs

4

27hrs

Reactor B: 2% CH4
Reactor C: 2% CH4

3

The growth time
for all Reactor B
data is 8-10

2
1
0
150

170

190

210

230

250

Operating Pressure (torr)

Figure 5.14 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor B
and C at 2% CH4/H2

179

Growth Rate by Weight Gain (um/hr)

16
14
12

100hrs
21hrs

10
8

Reactor B: 3% CH4
Reactor C: 3% CH4

6
4

The growth time
for all Reactor B
data is 8-10 hours

58hrs

2
0
150

170

190

210

230

250

Operating Pressure (torr)

Figure 5.15 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor B
and C at 3% CH4/H2

180

Growth Rate by Weight Gain (um/hr)

24

20

52hrs

24hrs

24hrs

16

18hrs

12

51hrs
Reactor B: 4% CH4
Reactor C: 4% CH4

8

The growth time
for all Reactor B
data is 8-10 hours

4

0
150

170

190

210

230

250

Operating Pressure (torr)

Figure 5.16 Polycrystalline diamond growth rate versus pressure of Reactor B
and C at 4% CH4/H2

5.6.3 Diamond Surface Morphology
Figure 5.17 displays a picture of a 1.12 mm thick polycrystalline diamond
plate grown on a 1-inch silicon wafer. It was grown at 3% CH4/H2, no N2, 210
Torr for 100 hours resulting in an average growth rate of 11.2 µm/hr. The
diamond plate has not been polished after deposition and as a result the top
diamond surface is made up of many small (100-200 microns) diamond crystals.

181

Figure 5.17 1.12mm thick Unpolished PCD Plate on 1” Si Wafer, grown at
1.12mm-thick
3% CH4/H2, no N2, 210 Torr for 100 hours results within an average
growth rate of 11.2 µm/hr

Figure 5.18-5.19 displays typical synthesized PCD surface morphology at
different methane concentrations and operating pressures Since the growth time
pressures.
is a major factor for the crystal size, the samples have been divided into two
groups. Figure 5.18 displays three samples with growth times from 6 hours to 24
hours. These growth times are considered as short run experiments. Figure 5.19
shows another three samples with long growth times of 51 to 101 hours.
The grown polycrystalline diamonds in both groups exhibits a pyramidal
e
shape, square, and triangle structure as can be seen in the figures. These
.
shapes are dependent on the operating pressure, gas chemistry, microwave
forward power, substrate temperature, and deposition time. The crystal grain size

182

mostly depends on the operating pressure, gas chemistry, growth time and film
thickness. Typical grain sizes shown in Figure 5.18-5.19 are 10 to 40 µm for 160
– 240 Torr, 2 – 5% CH4/H2 and 6-24 hours. The grain size can range as large as
80 to 200 µm for 180 – 240 Torr, 2 – 5% CH4/H2 for the longer, 50 - 100 hours,
growth times shown in Figure 5.19.
It is well known that the grain size increases with growth time and
methane concentration [63] and film thickness. Basically the film grain size
increases as the film thickness increases. This is caused by the fact that some of
the many initially nucleated crystals overgrow others as growth time of the film
increases. Usually we can see a random orientation of small crystals at the initial
film. As the film grows, the crystals that grow with their direction of fastest growth
perpendicular to the surface become taller than their competitor crystals. The
thicker the film the larger the crystals on the surface become. This grain size
variation with deposition time and film thickness was also observed by Kuo [24],
Zuo [64] and Hemawan [53]. The experimental results displayed in Figure 5.18
and 5.19 indicate the expected PCD growth behavior versus growth time,
methane concentration and film thickness.

183

(a) GYJ016 CH4/H2=2% Other growth condition: growth time = 6 hours; pressure
= 150 Torr; substrate temperature = 820 ° absorbed power = 2510 W; Zs = -4.8
C;
mm; growth rate = 1.87 µm/hr; film thickness (measured by weight gain) = 11.2
µm

184

(b) GYJ036 CH4/H2=4% Other growth condition: growth time = 24 hours;
pressure = 240 Torr; substrate temperature = 1120 ° absorbed power = 1870
C;
W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 15.8 µm/hr; film thickness (measured by weight
gain) = 379.2 µm

185

(c) GYJ037 CH4/H2=5% Other growth condition: growth time = 10.5 hours;
pressure = 240 Torr; substrate temperature = 1127 ° a bsorbed power = 2115 W;
C;
Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 21.8 µm/hr; film thickness (measured by weight gain)
= 228.9 µm
Figure 5.18 Surface morphology of polycrystalline CVD diamond Group #1

Below is another group which are considered as long run experiments.
Figure 5.19 shows another three samples growth time from 51 hours to 101
hours.

186

(a) GYJ031 CH4/H2=2% Other growth condition: growth time = 101 hours;
pressure = 210 Torr; substrate temperature = 1136 ° absorbed power = 2327
C;
W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 4.73 µm/hr; film thickness (measured by weight
gain) = 477.7 µm

187

(b) GYJ027 CH4/H2=3% Other growth condition: growth time = 58 hours;
pressure = 180 Torr; substrate temperature = 1145 ° absorbed power = 2219
C;
W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 4.88 µm/hr; film thickness (measured by weight
gain) = 283.0 µm

188

(c) GYJ026 CH4/H2=4% Other growth condition: growth time = 51 hours;
pressure = 180 Torr; substrate temperature = 1140 ° absorbed power = 2207
C;
W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 14.87 µm/hr; film thickness (measured by weight
gain) = 758.4 µm
Figure 5.19 Surface morphology of polycrystalline CVD diamond Group #2

5.6.4 Diamond Raman FWHM Measurement
In this section, the typical Raman spectra are presented and Raman full
width half maximum (FWHM) is compared between Reactor B and C. Although
Reactors B and C share a lot of similarities in designs, Reactor C can be
operated at higher pressure and with much longer experimental runs due to its
larger reactor and quartz dome dimension (See Chapter 4). Based on the theory

189

presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.2), microwave discharges in hydrogen and
methane gas mixtures constrict at high pressure. More atomic hydrogen will be
produced by thermal dissociation at higher pressure than by the direct electronimpact dissociation at lower pressure. So there will be higher densities of radical
species, i.e. H and CH3 radicals, at higher pressure. These results are shown in
Figure 2.6. Also the figure shows that the diamond quality increases when the
pressure increases. This has been experimentally confirmed by the previous
experimental research of Zuo [64] Table 4-3 Page 188 and Kuo [23,24] Figure
2.7-2.8. So it is expected that higher quality of the CVD diamond is easier to
achieve in Reactor C than at low pressure using Reactor A.
Figure 5.20 and 5.21 show typical Raman spectrums for CVD diamond
films from 1100 to 1700 cm-1 at different experiment conditions. We can see from
both results the films have Raman spectrums with a strong sp3 bonding diamond
-1

peak around 1332 cm . No peaks were detected for the graphite carbon peak at
-1

1597 cm . There are separated Raman spectrum measurements from 400 –
1000 cm

-1

-1

and they also display no peak for sp2 silicon carbon (520 cm ). This

indicates that the CVD polycrystalline diamond grown in Reactor C contains very
little graphitic content in the film and it is a good quality polycrystalline diamond
film. See the detailed Raman spectra in Appendix 3 for all polycrystalline film
experiments.

190

Figure 5.20 Raman spectrum for a CVD diamond film GYJ021
CH4/H2=4%; growth time = 18 hours; pressure = 165 Torr; substrate temperature
= 1074 ° absorbed power = 2570 W; Z s = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 14.03 µm/hr;
C;
film thickness (measured by weight gain) = 252.5 µm

191

Figure 5.21 Raman spectrum for a CVD diamond film GYJ029 CH4/H2=4%;
growth time = 52 hours; pressure = 210 Torr; substrate temperature = 1128 °
C;
absorbed power = 2429 W; Zs = -4.8 mm; growth rate = 17.4 µm/hr; film
thickness (measured by weight gain) = 904.8 µm
192

Figure 5.22 displays Raman full width half maximum maximum (FWHM) versus
pressures from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under different methane concentrations 2% 5% CH4/H2 for Reactor C. These diamond films show their experimentally
-1

measured FWHM vary from 1.97 to 3.6 cm . According to the diamond growth
theories (Section 2.2.2), CVD diamond quality is expected to increase as
pressure increases. Thus when the PCD Raman measurement results
summarized in Figures 5.22 for Reactor C are compared with similar results from
Reactor A, as expected, the film quality improves as the synthesis pressure
increases. Also at higher pressure and higher power densities high quality films
can be produced at higher methane concentrations than in reactor A. See in
Figure 5.22 for example the FWHM values for the 4% and 5% methane data
-1

points lie between 3.2 and 2.2 cm . This suggests very good quality PCD films
even for the high, 4-5% methane concentrations. This behavior has the benefit
of synthesizing high quality PCD diamond films with much higher growth rates
than at lower pressures. This result is a significant performance improvement.
While the FWHM data displayed in Figure 5.22 indicates that all
synthesized films are of good quality, the variations of FWHM (quality) versus
methane concentrations are not consistent with expectations. For example the
FWHM are higher for methane concentrations of 2-3% than with methane
concentrations of 4-5%. This needs further study with additional experimental
runs performed as methane concentration is varied from 2-5%.

193

Raman Spectrum FWHM (cm-1)

6.5

5.5

Reactor C: 4% CH4/H2

4.5

Reactor C: 5% CH4/H2
HPHT SCD
3.5

Reactor C: 2% CH4/H2
Reactor C: 3% CH4/H2

2.5

1.5
160

180

200

220

240

260

Pressure (torr)

Figure 5.22 Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) versus pressures
from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under different methane concentrations 2% - 5%
40
CH4/H2

Shown in Figure 5.23 and 5.24 are the Raman full width half maximum
(FWHM) measurements of the CVD polycrystalline diamond films synthesized at
various pressures (165 – 240 Torr) and methane concentrations (2% - 5%
CH4/H2). All experiment data have been compared with Reactor B’s data
measured at similar conditions [
[53] except for deposition time. As we can
observe from Figure 5.23, at both 2% and 3% CH4/H2, the Raman full width half
,
maximum of Reactor C’s samples are slightly lower value than of Reactor B’s.
However, at 4% and 5% CH4/H2 (Figure 5.24), the Raman full width half
),
194

maximum of Reactor C’s samples are much lower than the Reactor B’s samples.
So these results prove the theory in Chapter 2 that the higher quality diamond
can be easier to achieve at higher pressure. Since Reactor C’s CVD diamond
films are thicker and the grain sizes of the films are larger than Reactor B’s, this
can be another factor that FWHM is lower for Reactor C’s samples than Reactor
B’s.

Raman Spectrum FWHM (cm-1)

9.5
8.5
7.5
6.5
Reactor C: 2% CH4/H2
5.5

Reactor C: 3% CH4/H2

4.5

HPHT SCD
Reactor B: 2% CH4/H2

3.5

Reactor B: 3% CH4/H2

2.5
1.5
160

180

200

220

240

260

Pressure (torr)

Figure 5.23 Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) versus pressures
from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under methane concentrations 2% and 3% CH4/H2.
Compared with Reactor B [
[53]

195

9.5

Raman Spectrum FWHM (cm-1)

8.5
7.5
6.5
Reactor C: 4% CH4/H2
5.5

Reactor C: 5% CH4/H2
HPHT SCD

4.5

Reactor B: 4% CH4/H2

0.253mm

3.5

Reactor B: 5% CH4/H2

2.5

0.371mm

0.905mm

0.379mm
0.229mm

1.5
160

180

200

220

240

260

Pressure (torr)

Figure 5.24 Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) versus pressures
from 165 Torr to 240 Torr under methane concentrations 4% and 5% CH4/H2.
Compared with Reactor B [
[53]

5.7 Summary
Reactor C was experimentally evaluated in high pressures and high power
densities in a PCD synthesis application. In particular the absorbed microwave
discharge power density versus pressure and reactor roadmap were measured.
measured
Then the polycrystalline diamond (PCD) deposition was performed as a set of
exploratory experiments. About 20 experiments were performed as a preliminary
reactor design evaluation purposes, i.e. as a first test of Reactor C’s ability to

196

CVD synthesize PCD diamond in the high, 160-300 Torr, pressure regime.
3

The absorbed power density for Reactor C ranged 300 – 1000 W/cm

over a pressure range of 180 – 300 Torr. The growth rate varied from 4.2 - 21.8
µm/hr which is much higher than growth rates for MSU Reactor A (see Chapter 3).
The growth rate for Reactor C is slightly higher than Reactor B under similar
conditions, but Reactor C is able to operate at higher CH4/H2 concentrations at
higher pressures and also was able to continuously run for over 100 hours
without reactor maintenance. Using the maximum growth rate of 21.8 µm/hr over
a 1-inch Si wafer yields a specific yield of 54 kW-h/g. This is approximately 10
kW-h/Ct. Recognizing that additional CVD diamond was deposited beyond the 1inch wafer out to at least 1 ½ inches the total process specific yield is even lower.
-1

The Raman spectrum full width half maximum (FWHM) is 1.97 – 3.6 cm . It
shows the diamond films from Reactor C have considerably better quality than
Reactor B at the higher 4-5% methane concentrations.
After redesigning the reactor, i.e. changing its size and shape, the cooling
stage, the quartz dome size and the substrate holder, Reactor C produces higher
absorbed power density plasma and operates in a reliable, stable fashion in the
high pressure regime (180 – 300 Torr). At a given pressure the plasma shape
and position can be adjusted for good to excellent PCD synthesis. The general
evaluation of these experimental results can provide additional guidance to
further optimize the MSU reactor design for operation at even higher pressures
and higher power densities.

197

CHAPTER 6
REACTOR EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION:
SINGLE CRYSTAL DIAMOND SYNTHESIS

6.1 Introduction
The experimental results of single crystal diamond (SCD) synthesis using the
MSU MPACVD Reactor C are presented and analyzed in this chapter. The
performance of a microwave plasma assisted CVD (MPACVD) reactor depends
on many experimental variables. The concept of the multivariable experimental
parameter space for microwave plasma assisted diamond deposition, which has
been presented in Section 5.3, continues to be used here. The output
performance (Y) of the reactor is a function of input variables U1, U2, U3 etc, i.e.
Y = f(U1, U2, U3). The relationship between output variables Y such as growth
rate, optical quality versus the input variables such as gas chemistry, gas flow

198

rate, pressure, etc. are presented as the experimental results for Reactor C
synthesizing SCD. At the time of writing this thesis more than 100 exploratory
SCD deposition experiments were performed using Reactor C. The total growth
time for all of the SCD experiments that are presented is over 2200 hours.

6.2 How to understand reactor performance behavior?
Understanding reactor performance behavior is very difficult not only because
of so many variables but also because the relationships between the input and
output variables are nonlinear and complex. Currently there are no models that
can describe and predict reactor behavior over a wide range of input experimental
conditions. Thus this PhD thesis research will experimentally explore the
relationships between the input variables and output variables. First, examples of
the ranges of experimental variation of the input and output variables that are
presented in this chapter are listed below along with expected, experimental
ranges.
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following
a) Deposition pressure, Variable: p=240 / 260 / 280 / 300 / 320 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 3.0 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Variable: c = CH4/H2 = 3% / 5% / 7% / 9% and
N2 = 0 / 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 ppm

199

d) Total flow rate, Variable: ft= 200 / 400 / 600 / 700 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed: Reactor C except in Section
6.12 where Reactor C’s performance is compared with the
performance of Reactor B.

b) Substrate position, Variable: Zs = -8 to 0 mm

c)

Substrate holder design, Variable: All substrate holders used in the
experiments were the same holders used in PCD experiment shown
in Figure 5.4. The “generic” insert for SCD experiment is shown in
Figure 6.1. The differences between inserts were the pocket
dimensions and thicknesses. The substrate deposition temperature,
Ts, was varied by varying the insert thickness. The detailed drawing of
the insert is shown in Appendix D.

200

Figure 6.1 Side cross sectional view of generic pocket holder (unit: mm)

d) Electromagnetic mode: The EM mode, which is described in Chapter
4, is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 15.5 – 16.5 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Variable: four quartz domes have been used
#1 / #2 / #3 / #4 (the dome height varies slightly within 1mm due to
manufacturer).

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following
a) Substrate material and size, Variable:
Width*Length*Height=3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT diamond (S);

201

4.8mm*4.8mm*1.5mm HPHT diamond (M); and
7.0mm*7.0mm*1.2mm HPHT diamond (L)
b) Deposition time, Variable: t = 6 – 100 Hours
c) Substrate cleaning procedure and Reactor start-up, shutdown
procedures as is described in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, respectively.

(4) Internal variables X, which include
a) Substrate temperature, Variable: Ts = 900 – 1400 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs= 1.4 – 2.4 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 4 - 10 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Variable: <Pabs> = Pabs/ Volume of plasma
= 300 – 1000 W/cm

3

(5)Output variables, Y, which can be divided into two groups.
I. Reactor performance, Y1 includes

a) Linear growth rate: 16 – 100 µm / hr as measured by linear encoder
b) Total growth rate by weight gain: 100– 650 mg / hr

202

c) Carbon conversion efficiency (CCE): 3 - 10% (See how to calculate
CCE at Section 3.4.2)
d) Specific yield (SY): 100-3000 kW-h/g (See how to calculate SY at
Section 3.4.3)
It is important to note that both carbon conversion efficiency and
specific yield calculations employed in this Chapter assume that the SCD
deposition on the top surface area of the diamond seed substrate is the
only diamond deposited. However in each experimental run presented in
this chapter there is, in addition to the SCD deposited on the HPHT
diamond seed, considerable PCD diamond is deposited on the top surface
of the molybdenum substrate holder. In this chapter this assumption leads
to a much smaller carbon conversion efficiency and higher SY in this
Chapter than those calculated for PCD in Chapter 5. Thus the CCF and
SY calculated in this chapter should only be compared with each other.
The deposition of PCD on the substrate holder often covers an
annular region over an area of an inch or more in diameter. Later in the
summary section of this chapter a different CCE and SY is calculated for
Reactor C that approximately accounts for this extra synthesized PCD.
These adjusted “Figures of Performance”, i.e. CCE and SY, for Reactor C
can then be directly compared with other reactor performance “Figures of
Merit” that are presented in Chapters 3 and 5.

II. CVD diamond characteristics, Y2, which include the following
203

a) Structural quality: FWHM = 1.6 – 1.8 cm

-1

(Raman), SIMS,

transmission measurement from IR to UV
b) Morphology and texture: Microscope images
In order to experimentally explore the relationships between the input
variables and output variables, a number of the many variables will be held fixed
and then one at a time selected input variables are individually varied. For
example looking at the reactor variables, the reactor design/size is held fixed and
Reactor C is only excited with the “newly discovered” hybrid mode as described
in Section 4.6. Then Reactor C is experimentally evaluated with this fixed
geometry and fixed EM mode excitation. Then the experimental investigation is
initiated at some well defined “initial benchmark experimental SCD growth
condition” and then varies one input variable at a time.
During the proposed experiments several reactor variables are held
approximately constant: (1) cavity tuning, Ls and Lp, and (2) generic substrate
holder design. Major input variables that are individually varied are the pressure,
input absorbed power, total gas flow rate, and feed gas concentrations such as
percentage of methane concentration and nitrogen feed gas composition. A
reactor variable that is varied is substrate position. Since the reactor is always
excited with the same hybrid mode the cavity reactor tuning is held approximately
fixed. Important internal variables are substrate temperature and discharge
power density. Important output variables are diamond synthesis/ deposition
rates, diamond quality, and reactor efficiency such as specific yield.
204

As indicated above the relationships between these variables are nonlinear
and can only be determined by experimental measurement. Given a particular
substrate holder design the first experiments will, given a particular substrate
holder design, establish the relationship between the input absorbed discharge
power density, the operating pressure and the substrate temperature. This
measurement has already been performed and has been reported in Chapter 5.
See Figures 5.6 and 5.13 in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, which relates the pressure,
discharge power density and the internal variable substrate temperature. This
measurement establishes the reactor roadmap and thereby establishes the new
reactor’s useful and safe experimental operating regime. It also establishes the
“initial benchmark experimental growth conditions” which in this thesis operate
from and vary around a pressure of 240 Torr.
Starting with the initial benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions a set
of exploratory experiments is then performed where the performance of the
Reactor C is investigated over a large experimental operating space. These
experiments are summarized in Figures 6.2-6.35 below and demonstrate that the
new reactor is indeed robust and safe to operate over a large experimental
operating space. Eight sets of experiments have been performed in the
sequence as is described in Section 6.4 – 6.11. The first experiments described
in Section 6.4 investigate the variation of growth rate versus flow rate. These
experiments identify the “best flow rate” conditions in which to perform the rest of
the experiments. Then operating with these “best flow rate” conditions the
substrate position, Zs, is varied as described in Section 6.5.

205

The optimum

substrate position, Zs, is then determined from these experiments. In Section 6.6
the growth rate versus time is investigated. Then the rest of the experiments,
growth rate versus pressure, substrate temperature, methane concentration etc.,
are performed with the flow rate and substrate position held constant at their
“best” conditions and for a fixed deposition time of 24 hours.

6.3 Substrate Cleaning Procedures and Reactor Startup and Shutdown Procedures
6.3.1 Substrate Cleaning Procedures
High pressure high temperature (HPHT) diamond seeds are used as the
substrate in all CVD single crystal diamond synthesis. The cleaning procedures
are described as follows:
Acidic Cleaning
1) Nitric Acid (40 ml) + Sulfuric Acid (40 ml) in Pyrex beaker, on the
heater (set to Maximum, about 200 ° for 20 minutes .
C)
2) Rinse sample in DI water (dip the sample in water container for a
second)
3) Hydrochloric Acid (60 ml) in Pyrex beaker, on the heater (set to
Maximum, about 200 ° for 20 minutes.
C)
4) Rinse sample in DI water (dip the sample in water container for a
second)

206

5) Ammonium Hydroxide (80 ml) in Pyrex beaker, on the heater (set to
Maximum, about 200 ° for 20 minutes.
C)
6) Rinse sample in DI water (dip the sample in water container for a
second)
Ultrasonic Cleaning
1) Ultrasonic bath cleaning with Acetone (40 ml) in Pyrex beaker for
15 minutes.
2) Ultrasonic bath cleaning with Methanol (40 ml) in Pyrex beaker for
15 minutes.
Final Rinsing and Drying
1) Rinse sample with DI water for 5 minutes
2) Blow Nitrogen (or Air) on the sample to remove water
3) Place sample in a clean petri dish

6.3.2 Reactor Start-up and Shutdown Procedures
The general start-up and shutdown procedures are described as follows:
Sample Pre-load
1) The prepared sample (after cleaning procedure described in
Section 6.3.1) is manually loaded onto the substrate holder then
placed in the discharge chamber at the right position.
2) The system is pumped down to 0.5 mTorr (usually overnight).
Start-up Procedures
207

1) Open the valves for all processing gases.
2) Turn on microwave power supply and chiller.
3) Adjust the short Ls and excitation probe Lp to the right position.
4) Set H2 flow rate to 1500 sccm.
5) Set pressure to 8 Torr.
6) Turn on the microwave power by setting the incident microwave
power as 1 kW when the pressure is greater than 3 Torr. The
plasma should be lit at this point.
7) Set pressure to the experimental pressure (i.e. 240 Torr).
8) Slowly increase the incident microwave power as the pressure
increases to the desired incident power (i.e. 2.4 kW).
9) If necessary, adjust the short Ls and excitation probe Lp to maintain
the minimum reflected power.
10) When reaching the desired pressure, set H2 flow rate to 400 sccm.

During Experiment
1) Use H2 only plasma for pre-etching for 3 hours.
2) After pre-etching turn on other processing gases (i.e. CH4, N2) for
CVD single crystal diamond synthesis.
Shutdown Procedures
1) Turn off all processing gases except H2.

208

2) Slowly drop the power to 1 kW when dropping the pressure to 75
Torr with a step of 15 Torr.
3) Turn off the microwave power when the pressure is at 75 Torr.
4) Turn off H2 gas.
5) Pump down the system to 1 mTorr.
6) Wait until at least 30 minutes for the system to cool down, then set
the chamber pressure to atmosphere pressure.
7) Unload the grown diamond sample.
8) Turn off microwave power supply and chamber.
9) Turn off the valves for all processing gas.

6.4 The Role of Total Gas Flow Rate
(ft=100/200/400/600/700 sccm)
6.4.1 Introduction
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of total gas flow rate. A total of five experiments were conducted to verify
the role of total gas flow rate in SCD MPACVD synthesis. The experiments start
at the initial “benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions” as described in
Section 6.4.2 and then carefully vary the flow rate. First the initial “benchmark
experimental SCD growth conditions are introduced in this Section 6.4.2. Then
the relationship between total gas flow rate and output variables Y, such as linear

209

growth rate, total growth rate by weight gain, carbon conversion efficiency,
specific yield, surface morphology and structural quality is described.

6.4.2 Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4/H2= 5% and N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Variable: ft= 100 / 200 / 400 / 600 / 700 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed
b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm
c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: 8.5” quartz domes

210

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, Fixed: t = 24 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include
a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs= 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: <Pabs> = Pabs/ Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

3

6.4.3 Growth Rate vs. Total Gas Flow Rate
The linear growth rate and total growth rate variation versus the total flow rate
are shown in the Figures 6.2 and 6.3 below. In the figures each experimental run
has the substrate growth temperature listed next to each data point. The
substrate temperature varies slightly from run to run varying from 971-1018 °
C.
211

As shown the growth rate decreases as the total gas flow rate increases.
CVD diamond growth is a very complex process. The feed gas is undergoing
many chemical reactions during the CVD diamond deposition process (See
Section 2.2.2). When the total input gas flow rate increases, it means higher
carbon radical species content may be available in the gas phase for diamond
synthesis than at lower flow rates. However as shown in Figure 6.2 the growth
rate decreases as the flow rate increases. This may be caused because more of
the input gas by passes the discharge reactor zone at the higher flow rates than
at the lower flow rates.
It has been observed by others that lower diamond quality is produced at low
flow rate (100/200 sccm) [12]. This is because the associated longer gas
residence times allows the gas leaking into the vacuum system to become a
more important fraction of the “total input gas flow”. Thus chamber wall erosion
and vacuum system leaks lead to larger gas impurity concentrations, like N2, in
the reactor synthesis gases and thus may contribute to the growth rate increase
and diamond quality decrease as flow rate is decreased.
Thus looking at the experimental results in Fig. 6.2 and also noting what has
been used in other MSU reactor investigations [Kadek, Kou, Stanley] a total flow
rate of ~ 400 sccm was determined to be the “best flow rate” to use for the rest of
the experiments. This flow rate was high enough to minimize the vacuum system
impurity problem but it is not so high as to reduce the growth rate and thereby
waste input gases. Thus all experiments in Sections 6.5 – 6.12 described below
are performed with a total flow rate held constant at ~400 sccm. The substrate

212

temperature is kept approximately constant by adjusting the input power. The
experiment is repeatable.

Linear
Growth
Rate 40
um/hr

LGR vs TFR

35

30
973C

1008C

25

1018C

LGR vs TFR

971C

20

1013C

15

10
0

200

400

600

800

Total
Flow
Rate

Figure 6.2 Linear growth rate vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C

213

Total
Growth
Rate 50
um/hr

TGR vs TFR

45
40
35
30

TGR vs TFR

25
20
15
10
0

200

400

600

Total
Flow Rate
800
sccm

Figure 6.3 Total growth rate vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C

6.4.4 Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Total Gas Flow Rate
Before we explore the relationship between carbon conversion efficiency
(CCE) and total gas flow rate, a very important parameter which is the residence
time of the feed gas in the deposition chamber, is defined. The residence time, t,
is given by
t = Vc / F

(1)

where Vc is the discharge chamber volume and F is the flow rate scaled to
the pressure in the chamber. Typical residence times in a discharge chamber
214

range from 1 second to a few minutes. For Reactor C, the quartz dome is a
cylinder with the radius of 10.8 cm and height of 10.16 cm. The volume of the
3

quartz dome is 3721 cm . A 400-sccm flow is 1250 cc/min at 240 Torr. So the
residence time t is about 3 minutes.
Carbon conversion efficiency tells us how much of the carbon in the input
feed gas is deposited on the diamond surface. As expected the carbon
conversion efficiency is higher at lower total flow rates than at higher flow rates
as shown in Figure 6.4.
According to equation (1), we get longer gas residence times when gas flow
rate is lower since the discharge chamber volume is fixed. Because of the longer
gas residence times during the diamond growth, the exit gas composition can be
considered a close approximation of the carbon mole fraction in the chamber.
Hence lower gas flow rates are equivalent to lower carbon concentrations.

215

CCE%

CCE vs TFR
1.4

1.2

1

0.8

CCE vs TFR

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

200

400

600

Total
Flow Rate
800
sccm

Figure 6.4 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C

6.4.5 Specific Yield vs. Total Gas Flow Rate
Specific yield (SY) is defined as the absorbed power input (pa) per diamond
total growth rate in the units of kW-h/g. It is a measure of the electric deposition
efficiency. As shown in Figure 6.5 the specific yield slightly increases as the total
flow rate increases. This behavior is just the inverse of the growth rate. Thus the
deposition system becomes less electrically efficient and less total gas handling
efficient at the high total input gas flow rates.

216

SY
kW-h/g

SY vs TFR

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

SY vs TFR
800
600
400
200
0
0

200

400

600

Total
Flow Rate
800
sccm

Figure 6.5 Specific yield vs. total gas flow rate for Reactor C

6.5 The Role of Substrate Holder Position (Zs = -6 mm
to 0 mm)
6.5.1 Introduction
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function the substrate holder location, Zs, is varied from -6 – 0 mm. A total of six
experiments were conducted to verify the role of substrate holder location on
single crystal diamond MPACVD synthesis. The experiments were started by

217

operating the reactor at the initial “benchmark experimental SCD growth
conditions” and then Zs was carefully experimentally varied. The optimized SCD
growth conditions are described in Section 6.5.2. Then the relationships between
substrate holder location, Zs, and output variables Y, such as linear growth rate,
total growth rate by weight gain, carbon conversion efficiency, and specific yield
are presented in Sections 6.5.3 – 6.5.5.

6.5.2 Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4 / H2 = 5% and N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft = 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following
a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Variable: Zs = -6 - 0 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
218

d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following
a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, Fixed: t = 24 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include
a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs = 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: < Pabs > = Pabs / Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

3

6.5.3 Growth Rate vs. Substrate Holder Position

219

The substrate holder is sitting on a movable cooling stage with a reduction of
holder area by four times over Reactor A. The ability to adjust the position of the
stage allows additional adjustment and local fine tuning of the electromagnetic
field and the discharge around and above the substrate. It also appears to
counter the buoyant microwave discharge as pressure increases. The
experimental results are displayed in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 below. The highest
linear growth rate occurs at Zs = -4.8 mm. Thus this substrate position was used
for the experiments presented in this thesis.
Linear
Growth
Rate 40
um/hr

LGR vs Zs

35

30

25

LGR vs deltaZ
20

15

10
-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

delta Z
1 mm

Figure 6.6 Linear growth rates vs. substrate holder location for Reactor C

220

Total
Growth
Rate 50
um/hr

TGR vs Zs

45
40
35
30

TGR vs deltaZ
25
20
15
10
-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

delta Z
1 mm

Figure 6.7 Total growth rate vs. substrate holder location for Reactor C

6.5.4 Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Substrate Holder
Position
Since the methane concentrations and substrate sizes were not changed in
this set of the experiments, carbon conversion efficiency versus Zs has as
expected the same variation versus position as the total growth rate versus Zs
that is shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7.

221

CCE %

CCE vs Zs

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

CCE vs deltaZ

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

delta
Z mm

Figure 6.8 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate holder location for
Reactor C

6.5.5 Specific Yield vs. Substrate Holder Position
Since specific yield is defined as the absorbed power input per diamond film
total growth rate, and the absorbed power input in this set of experiments is held
approximately constant, the specific yield versus Zs is inversely proportional to
the total growth rate versus Zs as expected.

222

SY
kW-h/g

SY vs Zs

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

SY vs deltaZ
800
600
400
200
0
-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

delta
Z mm

Figure 6.9 Specific yield vs. substrate holder location for Reactor C

6.6 The Role of Deposition Time (t = 15 – 70 hours)
6.6.1 Introduction
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of deposition time t. A total of six experiments were conducted to verify
the role of deposition time in SCD MPACVD synthesis. The experiments start at
the initial “benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions” and then time was
varied from 15 – 70 hours. The initial benchmark SCD growth conditions are
introduced in Section 6.6.2. Then the relationships between deposition time and

223

output variables Y, such as linear growth rate, total growth rate by weight gain,
carbon conversion efficiency, and specific yield, are presented in Sections 6.6.3 –
6.6.5.

6.6.2 Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4/H2= 5% and N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft = 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

224

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, variable: t = 15 - 70 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs = 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: < Pabs > = Pabs / Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

3

6.6.3 Growth Rate vs. Deposition Time
Figures 6.10 and 6.11 display the linear growth rate and total growth rate
versus time. As shown the growth rate increases as time increases. Over the 1570 hour time period the growth rate increase can be approximated as a straight
225

2

line with a slope of 0.83 microns / hr . Thus over this time period the longer runs
yield the fastest growth rates. The reason for this growth rate increase is not
understood. However one possible explanation is that as deposition time
increases the SCD growth surface grows from inside the substrate holder pocket
further into the discharge. Thus as the CVD diamond is added to the diamond
seed surface the plasma boundary layer between the diamond surface and
position occupied by the intense discharge is modified in such a manner that
more growth radicals are available for diamond synthesis. That is, as the
diamond thickness increases the growth surface moves into a more higher
density radical species region resulting in higher growth rates. This explanation is
very similar to growth rate versus dave explanation given in Figure 2.37 and
reference [49].
Longer synthesis times result in higher growth rates and thus it was desirable
to perform the basic experiments in this study with the longer growth times of 6070 hours. However in order to place a limit on the total experimental run time
required to perform this investigation the basic experiments in this investigation
were limited to run times of 24 hours. It is recognized that in all the experiments
presented in the sections below that higher deposition rates can be achieved with
deposition times greater than 24 hours.

226

Linear
Growth
Rate 50
um/hr

LGR vs Deposition Time

45
40

LGR vs Deposition
Time

35
30
25
20
15
10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Depositio
n Time
100
hours

Figure 6.10 Linear growth rate vs. deposition time for Reactor C

227

Total
Growth
Rate 60
um/hr
55

TGR vs Deposition Time

50
45

TGR vs
Deposition…

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Depositio
n Time
90 100 hours

Figure 6.11 Total growth rate vs. deposition time for Reactor C

6.6.4 Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Deposition Time
Since the methane concentrations and substrate sizes are not changed in this
set of the experiments, carbon conversion efficiency versus deposition time as is
shown in Figure 6.12 is expected to have a curve with a similar shape as the total
growth rate versus deposition time that is displayed in Figure 6.11.

228

CCE %

CCE vs Deposition Time

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

CCE vs
Deposition…

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Depositio
n Time
90 100 hours

Figure 6.12 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. deposition time for Reactor C

6.6.5 Specific Yield vs. Deposition Time
Since specific yield is defined as the absorbed power input per diamond film
total growth rate, and the absorbed power input in this set of experiments
remains approximately constant, the specific yield versus deposition time is
inversely proportional to the total growth rate. This is displayed in Figure 6.13.
Thus as the deposition time increases the electrical efficiency increases.

229

SY
kW-h/g

SY vs Deposition Time

2000
1800
1600
1400

SY vs
Deposition…

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Depositio
n Time
90 100 hours

Figure 6.13 Specific yield vs. deposition time for Reactor C

6.7 The Role of Deposition Pressure (p = 240 / 260 / 280
/ 300 / 320 Torr)
6.7.1 Introduction
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of deposition pressure p. A total of six experiments were conducted to
verify the role of deposition pressure in SCD MPACVD synthesis. The
experiments start at the initial “benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions”
and then pressure is varied incrementally. The initial SCD growth conditions are
230

described in Section 6.7.2. Then the relationships between deposition pressure
and output variables Y, such as linear growth rate, total growth rate by weight
gain, carbon conversion efficiency, and specific yield are presented in Sections
6.7.3 – 6.7.5.

6.7.2 Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following
a) Deposition pressure, Variable: p = 240 / 260 / 280 / 300 / 320 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4/H2= 5% and N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft = 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm
231

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following
a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, Fixed: t = 24 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include
a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs= 1.6 – 1.9 kW
3

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: <Pabs> = Pabs/ Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

3

6.7.3 Growth Rate vs. Deposition Pressure
The formation of microwave discharges at high pressures was first observed
and investigated many years ago [65-67], and high pressure microwave
discharges have been applied as plasma sources for electrothermal thruster

232

space engines [62,68,69] and as high pressure microwave discharge light
sources [70]. A visual example of how a microwave discharge behaves as
pressure increases is displayed in Figure 5.11 and 5.12.

As shown, as the

pressure increases the discharge shrinks and constricts and becomes more
intense.
At pressures of 100 Torr or more, microwave discharges in hydrogen and
methane gas mixtures separate from the reactor walls. They become freely
floating and assume shapes that are related to the shape of the impressed
electromagnetic (EM) fields.

At very high pressures microwave discharges

become very non-uniform, intense and “arc like”. They may even move about the
discharge chamber as they react both to buoyant forces and to convective forces
caused by the gas flows around and within the discharge. Plasma densities for
2.45 GHz hydrogen discharges operating at 100-200 Torr pressure regime are
11

estimated to be 10

cm

-3

13

to 10

cm

-3

[62,63]. At pressures greater than 150

Torr, microwave discharges in hydrogen and methane gas mixtures have neutral
gas temperatures in excess of 2500 K. These discharges have high densities of
radical species, i.e. H and CH3 radicals, which enable increased diamond growth
rates at high pressures [19].
Since high pressure microwave plasma discharges behave very differently
from the typical lower pressure discharges they require methods of discharge
control and microwave applicator and plasma reactor design that take into
account their distinctly unique nature. As pressure increases the size, the spatial
location and the shape of the very hot, non-uniform plasma must be controlled so

233

that optimal CVD diamond synthesis is achieved. Thus in our designs we provide
substrate position adjustments that enable the discharge to be positioned up into
and in good contact with the substrate as pressure is varied. This enables the
optimal, independent positioning of the substrate with respect to the discharge as
pressure varies, and yields high deposition rates. At high pressures the
independent positioning of the discharge with respect to the substrate position
becomes an additional experimental variable. However, all the experimental
results presented in this section hold the substrate position constant at the
maximum growth rate position, Zs= -4.8 mm, that was identified by the
experiments that were described in Section 6.5.3. This value may not be the
optimized growth rate position for all the experiments presented here, but it was
believed that it is also relatively close to the maximum growth rate positions for
all the pressure conditions. This assumption should be checked further in future
experimental investigations.
From Figure 6.14, a continuous increase of linear growth rate is observed
when the pressure increases from 240 Torr to 320 Torr. This increase in growth
rate versus pressure was expected since the discharge absorbed power density
also increases versus pressure (see Figure 5.12) and as discussed in Chapter 2
the growth rate is expected to increase as pressure increases since the growth
radical increase with pressure.
It is believed that in the future additional experiments can be operated at even
higher pressures if the substrate holder/ cooler configuration is additionally
designed to maintain an appropriate steady substrate temperature at these

234

higher pressures.

In addition for safety reasons the reactor dome must be

cooled with pure nitrogen gas.

Linear
Growth
40
Rate
um/hr
35

LGR vs Pressure

30
LGR vs
Pressure

25
20
15
10
220

240

260

280

300

320

Pressure
340 Torr

Figure 6.14 Linear growth rate vs. deposition pressure for Reactor C

235

Total
Growth
60
Rate
um/hr 55

TGR vs Pressure

50
45
40
TGR vs
Pressure

35
30
25
20
15

Pressure
Torr

10
220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Figure 6.15 Total growth rate vs. deposition pressure for Reactor C

6.7.4 Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Deposition Pressure
Since the methane concentrations and substrate sizes are not changed in this
set of the experiments, carbon conversion efficiency versus deposition pressure
has, as is shown in Figure 6.16, the same shaped curve as the total growth rate
versus deposition pressure.

236

CCE %

CCE vs Pressure

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
CCE vs
Pressure

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
220

240

260

280

300

320

Pressure
340 Torr

Figure 6.16 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. deposition pressure for Reactor
C

6.7.5 Specific Yield vs. Deposition Pressure
Since specific yield is defined as the absorbed power input per diamond film
total growth rate, and the absorbed input power in this set of experiments slightly
increases with pressure, the specific yield versus deposition pressure is not
exactly inversely proportional to the total growth rate versus pressure as
expected.

237

SY kW-h/g

SY vs Pressure

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
SY vs
Pressure

1000
800
600
400
200
0
220

240

260

280

300

320

Pressure
340 Torr

Figure 6.17 Specific yield vs. deposition pressure for Reactor C

6.8 The Role of Substrate Temperature (Ts = 900 –
1200 °
C)
6.8.1 Introduction
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of substrate temperature Ts. A total seven experiments were conducted
to verify the role of substrate temperature in SCD MPACVD synthesis. The
experiments start with the initial benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions
outlined in Section 6.8.2 and then substrate temperature is varied by adjusting
the input power and also the substrate holder design. Then the relationships
238

between substrate temperature and output variables Y, such as linear growth rate,
total growth rate by weight gain, carbon conversion efficiency, and specific yield
are experimentally determined. These relationships are presented in Sections
6.8.3 – 6.8.5.

6.8.2 Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4 / H2 = 5% and N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft = 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following
a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm
239

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, Fixed: t = 24 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Variable: Ts ≈ 900 - 1200 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs= 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: < Pabs > = Pabs / Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

3

6.8.3 Growth Rate vs. Substrate Temperature
The linear growth rate as a function of substrate temperature is shown in
Figure 6.18. The substrate holder is located on top of a water cooling stage
(Figure 5.3) to control the substrate temperature. The schematic drawings of the
240

substrate holder and insert are shown in Figure 5.4 and 6.1. Additional schematic
insert drawings of different thicknesses and pocket sizes insert are shown in
Appendix D. The substrate temperature can be studied independently without
varying any input variables such as deposition pressure, feed gas composition
etc.
Figure 6.18 shows the maximum growth rate versus substrate temperature is
in the temperature range 1000 ˚C - 1150 ˚C. PCD synthesis experimental results
[24, 57, 71] have shown a similar shaped growth curve versus pressure and that
the maximum growth rate temperature, Tmax, increases gradually with deposition
pressure. The SCD synthesis growth results shown in Figure 6.18 and 6.19
indicate a similar growth behavior versus temperature.

241

Linear
Growth Rate
um/hr
40

LGR vs Substrate Temperature

35
30
LGR vs Temperature

25
20
15
10
900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Substrate
Temperatur
eC

Figure 6.18 Linear growth rate vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C

242

Total
Growth
Rate 60
um/hr 55

TGR vs Substrate Temperature

50
45
40

TGR vs Temperature

35
30
25
20
15
10
900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Substrate
Temperatur
eC

Figure 6.19 Total growth rate vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C

6.8.4 Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Substrate Temperature
Since the methane concentrations and substrate sizes are not changed in this
set of the experiments, carbon conversion efficiency versus substrate
temperature is expected to have the same shaped curve as the total growth rate
versus substrate temperature.

243

CCE %

CCE vs Substrate Temperature

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25

CCE vs Temperature

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Substrate
Temperatur
eC

Figure 6.20 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate temperature for
Reactor C

6.8.5 Specific Yield vs. Substrate Temperature
Since specific yield is defined as the absorbed power input per diamond film
total growth rate, and the absorbed power input in this set of experiments remain
close, the specific yield versus substrate temperature is inversely proportional to
the total growth rate versus substrate temperature as expected.

244

SY
kW-h/g

SY vs Substrate Temperature

3500

3000

2500

2000

SY vs Temperature

1500

1000

500

0
900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Substrate
Temperatur
eC

Figure 6.21 Specific yield vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C

6.9 The Role of Methane Concentration (CH4 / H2 = 3% /
5% / 7% / 9%)
6.9.1 Introduction
This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of methane concentration. A total of four experiments were conducted to
verify the role of methane concentration in single crystal diamond MPACVD
synthesis. The experiments began at the initial benchmark experimental SCD
growth conditions and then carefully varied the methane concentration. The SCD
245

growth conditions are described in Section 6.9.2. The relationships between
methane concentration and output variables Y, such as linear growth rate, total
growth rate by weight gain, carbon conversion efficiency, and specific yield, are
described in Section 6.9.3 – 6.9.5.

6.9.2 Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables
(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following
a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr
b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW
c) Feed gas composition, Variable: c = CH4/H2= 3% / 5% / 7% / 9% and
Fixed: N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft = 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

246

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, Fixed: t = 24 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs = 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: < Pabs > = Pabs / Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

3

6.9.3 Growth Rate vs. Methane Concentration
The linear growth rate increases as expected when methane concentration

247

increases for low methane concentrations as shown in Figure 6.22. This is, as
described in Section 2.2.2, because the carbon related radical growth species, i.e.
CH3 and H2, in the plasma are expected to increase as the methane
concentration increases resulting in higher growth rates and higher quality
diamond. However, the increase of linear growth rate stops at 7% (CH4/H2) and
decreases at 9%. The reason for this is once the methane concentration
becomes large enough at high CH4/H2ratios, other reactions within the reactor,
such as the formation of soot in the gas phase, and also reactions on the reactor
walls which result in wall coating, become important. For example when growing
at 9% (CH4/H2) graphic layers (black) were found on the top of the deposited
SCD when the substrate was taken out of the reactor after the run was finished.
It is not known if this graphite formation occurred during the synthesis process or
as the reactor was shut down. Additionally at methane concentrations > 7%, the
reactor walls also become coated with a dark carbon containing film thereby
limiting the length of the deposition process. These wall and gas phase reactions
reduce the growth rate and contaminate the deposited diamond and also limit the
deposition time.
This series of experiments ended at 9% (CH4/H2) because the quartz dome
gets badly coated when the methane concentration is too high. The maximum
deposition time is limited to 8 hours if the methane concentration is more than
7%. However it is believed that the formation of soot can be modified, and hence
reduced, by adjusting the cooling of the reactor walls. This needs more
248

experimental investigation in future studies.

Linear
Growth
Rate 50
um/hr

LGR vs CH4

45
40
35
30

LGR vs CH4
25
20
15
10
1

3

5

7

9

CH4/H2
11 %

Figure 6.22 Linear growth rate vs. methane concentration for Reactor C

249

Total
Growth
90
Rate
um/hr

TGR vs CH4

80
70
60
50

TGR vs CH4
40
30
20

CH4/H2 %

10
1

3

5

7

9

11

Figure 6.23 Total growth rate vs. methane concentration for Reactor C

6.9.4 Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Methane Concentration
As shown in Figure 6.24, carbon conversion efficiency reaches maximum
when the growth rate is highest at CH4/H2is 7%. The CCE drops significantly at 9%
because the possible soot formation happens in the gas phase to slow down the
CVD diamond deposition. Under these conditions the some of input carbon is
being lost in the formation of soot and also in unwanted reactor wall reactions.

250

CCE %

CCE vs CH4
0.5

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25

CCE vs CH4
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1

3

5

7

9

CH4/H2
11 %

Figure 6.24 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. methane concentration for
Reactor C

6.9.5 Specific Yield vs. Methane Concentration
Since specific yield is defined as the absorbed power input per diamond film
total growth rate, and the absorbed power input in this set of experiments is
slightly varied within a very limited range of 1.7 – 2 kW, the specific yield versus
methane concentration is almost inversely proportional to the total growth rate
versus methane concentration as expected.

251

SY kW-h/g

SY vs CH4

2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200

SY vs CH4

1000
800
600
400
200
0
1

3

5

7

9

CH4/H2
11 %

Figure 6.25 Specific yield vs. methane concentration for Reactor C

6.10 The Role of Nitrogen Concentration (N2 / H2 = 0 / 5 /
10 / 15 / 20 ppm)
6.10.1

Introduction

This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of nitrogen concentration. A total of five experiments were conducted to
verify the role of nitrogen concentration in SCD MPACVD synthesis. The
experiments start with the benchmark SCD growth conditions and then the total
nitrogen content is varied from 5 ppm to 25 ppm. The initial SCD growth
252

conditions are presented in Section 6.10.2. Then the relationships between the
input nitrogen concentration and output variables Y, such as linear growth rate,
total growth rate by weight gain, carbon conversion efficiency, and specific yield
are presented in Section 6.10.3 – 6.10.5.

6.10.2

Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables

(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4/H2= 5% and variable: N2 = 5 /
10 / 15 / 25 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft = 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Fixed: Adjust and redesign for size S seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments
253

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following
a) Substrate material and size, Fixed: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S)
b) Deposition time, variable: t = 42 - 82 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs = 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: < Pabs > = Pabs / Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

6.10.3

3

Growth Rate vs. Nitrogen Concentration

It has been demonstrated experimentally over last two decades that the
addition of small amounts of nitrogen to the methane-hydrogen diamond
254

synthesis gas has an important impact on CVD diamond synthesis [72-74]. For
example, the addition of 5-50 ppm of nitrogen can have a beneficial effect on
growth rate. So using the experience of past experiments the linear growth rate is
expected to increase as the nitrogen concentration increases. This has been
observed in other experiments such as Jing [75] and it also has been observed in
the recent published literature [76,77].
Figures 6.26 and 6.27 display the experimental variation of growth rate
versus input nitrogen gas concentration. A shown in Figure 6.26 the growth rate
increases linearly from about 17 microns/hr with 5 ppm nitrogen to over 40
microns/hr for 25 ppm of nitrogen concentration. It is important to note that the 5
ppm data point is the amount of nitrogen input that results from the input feed
gas impurities and vacuum leaks. The 5 ppm nitrogen input is an estimated
maximum impurity level.

255

Linear
Growth
Rate 50
um/hr

LGR vs N2

45
40
35
30

LGR vs N2
25
20
15

N2/H2 ppm

10
5

10

15

20

25

Figure 6.26 Linear growth rate vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor C

256

Total
Growth
Rate 70
um/hr

TGR vs N2

60

50

40

TGR vs N2
30

20

N2/H2 ppm

10
5

10

15

20

25

Figure 6.27 Total growth rate vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor C

6.10.4

Carbon Conversion Efficiency vs. Nitrogen

Concentration
Since the methane concentrations and substrate sizes are not changed in this
set

of

the

experiments,

carbon

conversion

efficiency

versus

nitrogen

concentration is expected to have the same shaped curve as the total growth
rate versus nitrogen concentration.

257

CCE %

CCE vs N2
0.5

0.4

0.3

CCE vs N2
0.2

0.1

N2/H2 ppm

0
5

10

15

20

25

Figure 6.28 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. nitrogen concentration for
Reactor C

6.10.5

Specific Yield vs. Nitrogen Concentration

Since specific yield is defined as the absorbed power input per diamond film
total growth rate, and the absorbed power input is limited to the narrow range of
1.6-1.9 kW, the specific yield versus nitrogen concentration is in inverse
proportion of the total growth rate versus nitrogen concentration as expected.

258

SY
kW-h/g

SY vs N2

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

SY vs N2
800
600
400
200

N2/H2 ppm

0
5

10

15

20

25

Figure 6.29 Specific yield vs. nitrogen concentration for Reactor C

6.11 The Role of Substrate Size (S / M / L)
6.11.1

Introduction

This section presents the experimental results of the output variable Y as a
function of substrate size. Total three experiments were conducted to understand
the role of substrate size in SCD MPACVD synthesis. The experiments start with
the initial benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions and then substrate
size was varied from 3.5mm*3.5mm, to 4.8mm*4.8mm and then to 7mm*7mm.
The initial benchmark experimental SCD growth conditions are introduced in

259

Section 6.11.2. Then the relationships between substrate size and output
variables Y, such as linear growth rate, total growth rate by weight gain, carbon
conversion efficiency, and specific yield are presented in Sections 6.11.3 – 6.11.5.
It is important to note that each substrate size has its own substrate holder set
design. The holder for each substrate size is very similar to the holder shown in
Fig. 6.1 except the pocket area in the molybdenum holder is adjusted to
accommodate the different diamond seed substrate areas. Thus these
experiments have in addition to the variation of seed substrates may have
another variable; i.e. the molybdenum holder itself.

6.11.2

Initial Benchmark Experimental Variables

(1) Controllable input variables, U1, which include the following

a) Deposition pressure, Fixed: p = 240 Torr

b) Incident microwave power, Variable: Pi = 1.7 – 2.2 kW

c) Feed gas composition, Fixed: c = CH4/H2= 5% and N2 = 5 ppm

d) Total flow rate, Fixed: ft= 400 sccm

(2) Reactor geometry variables, U2, which include the following

a) Applicator size and configuration, Fixed

260

b) Substrate position, Fixed: Zs = -4.8 mm

c) Substrate holder design, Variable: Adjust and redesign for size S / M /
L seeds
d) Electromagnetic mode: Mode is fixed in all experiments

e) Cavity tuning, Variable: Ls = 16.2-16.5 cm

f)

Quartz dome geometry, Fixed: #3 quartz domes have been used

(3) Deposition process variables, U3, which include the following

a) Substrate material and size, Variable: 3.5mm*3.5mm*1.4mm HPHT
diamond (S), 4.8mm*4.8mm*1.5mm HPHT diamond (M) and
7.0mm*7.0mm*1.2mm HPHT diamond (L)
b) Deposition time, fixed: t = 24 Hours

(4) Internal variables X, which include

a) Substrate temperature, Fixed: Ts ≈ 1000 ˚C

b) Absorbed microwave power, Variable: Pabs = 1.6 – 1.9 kW

c) Plasma volume, Variable: Vp = 3.2 - 3.8 cm3

261

d) Absorbed power density, Fixed: < Pabs > = Pabs / Volume of plasma ≈
600 W/cm

6.11.3

3

Growth Rate, Carbon Conversion Efficiency and

Specific Yield vs. Substrate Size
From Figure 6.30, it is observed that the linear growth rates have the lowest
growth rate for medium size substrate and are similar for small and large size
substrates. However considering that the SCD growth rates are dependent on
the substrate holder geometry the variation between all three runs is not
significant. It is believed that the growth rate variation shown in Figures 6.30 –
6.31 is probably due to the variation in substrate holder design from one size
substrate to another and thus there is little variation in growth rate versus size
2

over the 10 -50 mm variation in substrate area displayed in Figures 6.30 and
6.31. Figures 6.32 and 6.33 display the carbon conversion efficiency and specific
yield versus substrate area.

262

Linear
Growth 50
Rate
um/hr 45

LGR vs Substrate Size

40
35

LGR vs Substrate Size

30
25
20

Substrate
Area
(mm2)

15
10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 6.30 Linear growth rate vs. substrate size for Reactor C
Total
Growt 50
h Rate
um/hr 45

TGR vs Substrate Size

40
35

TGR vs Substrate Size

30
25
20

Substrate
Area
(mm2)

15
10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 6.31 Total growth rate vs. substrate size for Reactor C

263

CCE %

CCE vs Substrate Size
1

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

CCE vs Substrate…

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Substrate
Area
60 (mm2)

Figure 6.32 Carbon conversion efficiency vs. substrate size for Reactor C
SY kW-h/g

SY vs Substrate Size

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200

SY vs Substrate Size

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Substrate
Area
60 (mm2)

Figure 6.33 Specific yield vs. substrate size for Reactor C

264

6.12 The Comparison of the Performance of Reactor C
with Earlier Reactor Designs
A series of exploratory experiments of SCD growth rate versus pressure,
were performed in Reactors A, B and C and the results are displayed in Figure
6.34. Clearly the maximization of the growth rate at each data point is a
multivariable optimization problem. At each of the data points shown in Figure
6.34 the total flow rate was held at ~ 400 sccm and the substrate position, Zs, for
each reactor was held constant at an optimized (high growth rate) position. The
optimized Zs position for Reactor B is ~ -3.6 mm and for Reactor C are -4.8 mm.
The input powers ranged from 3 kW for Reactor A, between 2.1-2.3 kW for
Reactor B and 1.9-2.1 kW for Reactor C. The exploratory experimental data in
Figure 6.34 shows that there are important increases in SCD growth rates for
Reactors B and C over the growth rates of Reactor A at lower pressures. If we
compare Figure 5.12 and Figure 6.34, it suggests that the increased growth rates
in Reactor C are related in part to the increased discharge power density due to
both the smaller substrate holder and to the operation at higher pressures.

265

Figure 6.34 Linear growth rate comparison among Reactor A, B and C vs.
deposition pressure

After we compare linear growth rate versus pressure for Reactor A, B and C,
a more precise comparison between reactors B and C is made in Figure 6.35
where the performance of the reactors is compared under similar experimental
conditions. For each experimental data point there are at least eight important
experimental variables: (1) pressure, (2) substrate temperature, (3) substrate
position, Zs, (4) substrate holder configuration, (5) methane concentration, (6)
flow rate, (7) absorbed power density, and (8) reactor design/geometry. In the
comparison between Reactors B and C shown in Figure 6.35 both reactors were
266

operated under the same input variable conditions, i.e. 240 torr, fixed Zs, the
fixed generic substrate holder configuration shown in Figure 6.1, CH4/H2= 5%,
and a constant total flow rate of ~ 400 sccm. Under these input conditions a
series of experiments versus substrate temperature were performed for both
reactors B and C operating with the approximate absorbed power density
conditions that are indicated in Figure 5.12. Figure 6.35 identifies a SCD growth
window between 1000 ° -1300 ° where the growth r ate exhibits a maximum
C
C,
between 1125 ° -1225 ° Under these conditions the maximum growth rate for
C
C.
Reactor B is about 25 microns/hr at 1200 ° and is 38 m icrons/hr at 1150 ° for
C,
C
Reactor C. Within this growth window the growth rates for Reactor C are 1.2-2.5
times greater than the corresponding growth rates for Reactor B. This suggests
that the higher power densities of Reactor C (see Figure 5.12) result in higher
deposition rates; i.e. changes in reactor design/configuration result in higher
power densities and also higher deposition rates.

267

Figure 6.35 SCD growth rate versus temperature for Reactors B and C

6.13 Diamond Quality Assessment
6.13.1

Visual Inspection of the Diamond Surface

After each experimental run the CVD synthesized SCD diamond substrate
was visually inspected with an optical microscope (Nikon Eclipse ME600) and a
group of photographs were taken as part of the experimental record for this
investigation. Examples of several of the microscope photo images of the grown
single crystal diamond surface are shown in Figure 6.36-6.37. These two
samples were grown under similar conditions, i.e. 5% CH4/H2, 240 Torr. These
268

two images indicate that the diamond process may vary during a long experiment.
Sample GYJ118 grew for 24 hours at a relatively high temperature 1013 ° The
C.
image shows it grew in thin layers starting from the outer edges and moving
inward. Some conical round hillocks can be seen on the right side of the surface.
Sample GYJ087 also grew for the same methane concentration and pressure,
but at lower temperature and a longer growth time of 67.5 hours. In this
photograph it appears that the growth surface becomes more even when it grows
longer and at a lower temperature and top surface now grows from inside out.
Thus as the diamond becomes thicker the growth changes from initially growing
from the edges inward to growth from the inside out. Substrate temperature also
may play a role in the growth process. This phenomenon needs additional
investigation. It is recognized that growth from the inside out produces diamond
plates with a minimal PCD boundary.

269

Figure 6.36 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ118: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=24 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate temperature=1013 ° absorbed
C,
power = 2133 W, growth rate=30.1 µm/hr, film thickness = 722.4 µm

270

Figure 6.37 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ087: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=67.5 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate temperature=974 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1637 W, growth rate=38.1 µm/hr, film thickness = 2572 µm

Figures 6.38 – 6.40 show some examples of the defects on the grown
single crystal diamond surface. Figure 6.38 displays some dark particles at the
corner of sample GYJ051. This could be caused by the fact that soot was formed
in the high temperature high power density plasma and fell down on the diamond
surface or even more likely the defects in the corner probably originated at the
seed surface and then propagated and enlarged as the growth proceed and the
film became thicker. Figure 6.39 shows a conical round hillock on the smoothly
271

grown surface of sample GYJ125.
The high pressure high temperature (HPHT) diamond seed itself contains
imperfections or defects prior to deposition. For example it usually contains more
than 100 ppm N content and consists of several HPHT growth domains that have
different impurity levels. Also depending on how the manufacturer fabricates and
cuts the HPHT diamond seed, the top surface may not perfectly on [100]
direction. Thus many of the defects that have been observed probably originate
on the seed substrate surface. An example of one such defect is shown in Figure
6.40. It has been observed that in some cases these defects are overgrown as
the process proceeds and under other conditions the defect becomes more
pronounced as the process proceeds.
The identification, the origin and understanding of growth defects require
much additional study and were not the topic of this thesis. Thus the benchmark
processes/conditions that were employed here in this investigation were known
to produce few defects and a goal was to produce thick (> 250 µm) diamond
plates.

272

Figure 6.38 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ051: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=12.5 hours, No N2, substrate temperature=1172 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1841 W, growth rate=22 µm/hr, film thickness = 275.3 µm

273

Figure 6.39 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ125: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=300 Torr,
Growth time=24 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate temperature=987 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1862 W, growth rate=33.3 µm/hr, film thickness = 799.2 µm

274

Figure 6.40 Unpolished SCD sample GYJ054: CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=51.5 hours, 10ppm N2, substrate temperature=1153 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1876 W, growth rate=38 µm/hr, film thickness = 1956 µm

Diamond plates were fabricated by first removing the SCD CVD
synthesized diamond from the seed by laser cutting and then also the PCD rims
were removed by laser cutting. Then the plates were mechanically polished.
Typical examples of these plates are shown in Figure 6.41. Some of the plates
shown were synthesized in Reactor A and some contain different but small
amounts nitrogen. However they are all type IIa CVD single crystal diamond

275

plates.

Figure 6.41 Examples of CVD diamond plates: GYJ069 (row 4 column 1)
CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr, Growth time=42 hours, 5ppm N2, substrate
temperature=962 ° absorbed power = 1668 W, growth rate=16.8 µm/hr, film
C,
thickness = 705.6 µm; GYJ075 (row 3 column 3) CH4/H2=5%, pressure=240 Torr,
Growth time=44.5 hours, 10ppm N2, substrate temperature=982 ° absorbed
C,
power = 1859 W, growth rate=28.8 µm/hr, film thickness = 1282 µm

276

6.13.2

Diamond Raman Spectroscopy and Stress

Measurements
Raman spectroscopy is a spectroscopic technique commonly used for the
identification of a wide range of substances, i.e. solids, liquids, and gases. In
general a sample is illuminated with a laser beam. A spectrometer is used to
examine the light from the illuminated spot.

Figure 6.42 Schematic diagram of a Raman spectrometer.

As shown in Figure 6.42 is a schematic diagram of a typical Raman
spectrometer. Lasers are used as a photon source due to their highly
monochromatic nature, and high beam fluxes. Raman spectrometer for CVD
material characterization uses a microscope to focus the laser beam to a small

277

spot. The light from the illuminated spot passes through the microscope optics to
the spectrometer. Raman shifted radiation can be detected with a charge coupled
device (CCD) detector. Computer is used to collect the data. The data is postprocessed with software to fit the curve and calculate full width half maximum
(FWHM). FWHM is the difference between two values (X2 – X1) at the half of its
dependent variable’s maximum value (1/2 * fmax(x)). It is used to describe a
measurement of the width of the diamond peak. The low values of FWHM imply
good quality of diamond.

278

Figure 6.43 Raman spectrum of SCD (GYJ084), showing the main peak at
-1

-1

1332 cm . FWHM is 1.93 cm . The intensity is in arbitrary units.

Good quality diamond usually shows one Raman spectrum peak around

279

1332 cm

-1

-1

[78] and FWHM is typically less than 2 cm . An example of a Raman

spectrum for the CVD SCD samples synthesized by Reactor C is shown in
-1

Figure 6.43. The FWHM is 1.93 cm . An Element Six type IIIa diamond sample
was also used as a reference sample for these measurements and its Raman
-1

FWHM was 1.64 cm . FWHM Raman measurements were made on nine
experimental SCD runs with input nitrogen concentrations of only < ~ 5ppm. The
FWHM of these samples ranged from 1.62 to 1.70 cm

-1

indicating good quality

diamonds were synthesized. The experimental data for these samples are listed
in Appendix B.
Another example of the measured Raman spectrum is displayed in Figure
6.44. The data presented in the figure are the measured Raman FWHM versus
nitrogen concentrations for five experiments shown in Figure 6.26. Note that the
nitrogen concentration in gas phase includes the residual nitrogen calculated in
Section 5.2.4, which is 2 ppm plus the nitrogen impurity (<3 ppm) in the hydrogen
gas bottle. As shown, the FWHM of the synthesized SCD increases as the input
nitrogen increases from 5 ppm to 25 ppm. At 5 ppm the FWHM is about 1.6 cm
and the FWHM gradually increases to 2.07 cm

-1

as the nitrogen concentration is

increased from 5ppm to 25ppm. As shown in Figure 6.44 the SCD synthesized
by Reactor C is of good quality.

280

-1

4

Raman Spectra FWHM

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

Element Six type IIIa diamond @1.64
1
0.5
0
5

10

15

20

25

N2 Content in Gas Phase (ppm)
Figure 6.44 Raman spectra FWHM vs. N2 content for Reactor C

Figure 6.45 displays Raman spectra FWHM versus substrate temperature.
Although all of SCD samples show excellent quality with very low FWHM, we can
see relatively higher FWHM for the SCD grown above 1300 ° or below 1000 °
C
C.
This matches the experimental data shown in Section 9.7.3 where the good
diamond growth window was identified from 1000 ° to 1300 °
C
C.

281

4

Raman Spectra FWHM

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

Element Six type IIIa diamond @1.64

1
0.5
0
950

1150

1050

1250

1350

1450

Substrate Temperature
Figure 6.45 Raman spectra FWHM vs. substrate temperature for Reactor C

Local stress analyses are also calculated via Raman spectrum shift by
Muehle et al. [79]. Figure 6.46 shows the internal stress versus nitrogen
concentration. The red X samples were SCD synthesized in Reactor C and the
blue X samples were synthesized in Reactor A at 160 Torr with 5% methane. The
following equation, by Ager et al. [80], is used for stress calculation.

(1)
where

is the local stress,

is equal to 1332 cm

-1

for diamond. To

calculated maximum internal stress inside the diamond,

(2
2)
282

As shown in Figure 6.46, the first impression is that the nitrogen
concentration in the crystal doesn’t increase internal stress. However, according
to Lang et al. [81] 10 to 100 ppm nitrogen in the crystal increase the lattice
parameter significantly, thus leads to local stress. One possible reason is that
since both CVD SCD and HPHT SCD are compared in Figure 6.46, CVD SCD
are more affected by incorporated nitrogen than HPHT SCD. If only CVD SCD
internal compressive stress versus nitrogen concentration are compared, the
diamond samples from Reactor C (called DS IV in the figure) shows relatively
lower stress level as compared to Reactor A (called DS II in the figure) and the
literature values for CVD diamond stress from several GPa [80] to -0.25 GPa
[82,83].

283

Figure 6.46 Internal compressive stress versus nitrogen concentration in
different types of diamond [79]

6.13.3

Diamond SIMS Measurement

Secondary ion mass spectrometry (
(SIMS) is another commonly used
technique to analyze the composition of solid surfaces or thin films. A focused
+

primary ion beam (usually an inert gas such as Ar ) generated by ion gun in
Figure 6.47 is sputtered to the sample surface. These high energy ions damage
the sample surface as seen in Figure 6.48. Then a mass spectrometer is used to
collect and analyze the mass of species sputtered off the surface. SIMS is a
more sensitive surface analysis technique than Raman, but due to its high-cost, a
high

284

limited number of samples from Reactor C have been sent for SIMS analysis.

Figure 6.47 Schematic diagram of a secondary ion mass spectrometry [84]

Figure 6.48 Collision on the sample surface [84]
285

Nitrogen content by SIMS vs. N2 content in gas phase for Reactor C is
shown in Figure 6.49. The SIMS result shows that 400-500 ppb N in the
500 pp
synthesized diamond when residual N2 was less than or equal to 5ppm in the gas
phase (see Section 5.2.4). When the N2 content in gas phase increases to 10
).
and 20 ppm, N content by SIMS also increase to 1.3 and 1.7 ppm. The increase
is not linear. Experimental data points included in Figure 6.49 are listed in the
Appendix B.

N Content By SIMS (ppm)

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
5

10

15

20

25

N2 Content in Gas Phase (ppm)
Figure 6.49 N content by SIMS vs. N2 content in gas phase for Reactor C
or

286

6.13.4

Diamond Transmission Measurements

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is commonly used to
obtain an infrared spectrum of absorption of a solid, liquid or gas. IR radiation is
passed through a sample in the measurement. Some of the infrared radiation is
absorbed by the sample and some is transmitted and collected by the detector
(Figure 6.50). Fourier transform is required to convert the collected raw data into
the actual spectrum. This technique can determine the quality of a diamond
sample by comparing it with the known good-quality diamond.

Figure 6.50 Schematic diagram of a FTIR measurement setup [85]

Before comparing the diamond sample from Reactor C with other good
quality diamond, we need to understand the absorption coefficient. First let’s
consider an optical beam of intensity I0 normally incident on the surface of a
287

diamond sample [12]. So the optical intensity at depth d in this case is,
I(d) = I0 (1-R)exp(-αd)

(1)

where R is the reflection coefficient at the front surface given by
R=ሺ

݊௔െ݊ௗ 2
݊௔൅݊ௗ ሻ

(2)

Where na and nd are the refractive indices of air and diamond, respectively.
α used in equation (1) is called absorption coefficient. The lower value of α
means less optical beam is absorbed by the diamond sample. Figure 6.51 shows
the comparison among samples from Reactor A, C and Element Six of
absorption coefficient versus wavelength from 0 to 10000 nm. Figure 6.52 is a
close-up image for wavelength from 200 to 800 nm. The IR transmission for all
samples was similar to that associated with type IIa diamond and the sub-band
gap ultraviolet optical absorption coefficients for the SCD synthesized with
Reactor C were comparable to that reported for type IIa [12]; i.e. the absorption
-1

coefficient at 250 nm is between 4 and 7 cm . Thus Reactor C is capable of
synthesizing type IIa diamond.

288

Figure 6.51 Optical absorption comparison among samples from Reactor
A, C and Element Six (wavelength from 1 to 10000 nm)

289

Figure 6.52 Optical absorption comparison among samples from Reactor
A, C and Element Six (wavelength from 200 to 800 nm)

6.14 Summary
Reactor C was experimentally evaluated in high pressure and high power
density in a SCD synthesis application. After the examples of the ranges of
experimental variation of the input and output variables were presented, eight
sets of exploratory experiments were performed with the initial benchmark
experimental SCD growth conditions. These experiments included determining
the output variables, i.e. linear growth rate, total growth rate, carbon conversion
efficiency, and specific yield, versus variety of input variables, i.e. total flow rate,
substrate holder position, deposition pressure, substrate temperature, methane
290

concentration, nitrogen concentration, growth time, and substrate size. These
experiments show that the new Reactor C is indeed robust and safe to operate
over a large experimental operating space. The performance of Reactor C was
compared to early reactor designs, i.e. Reactor A and B via growth rate versus
pressure and substrate temperature. Reactor C shows better growth rate over
Reactor A and B due to both the smaller substrate holder and to the operation at
higher pressures.
Finally selected CVD SCD samples from Reactor C were characterized by
Raman spectroscopy, SIMS, transmission measurement and visual surface
inspections. The Raman spectrum peak and FWHM indicates that SCD of
Reactor C are of good quality as compared to Element Six type IIIa diamond.
SIMS results shows a very small amount (400-500 ppb) of the nitrogen content in
the samples when the samples were grown with less than 5ppm nitrogen in the
gas phase. For transmission measurement, the absorption coefficient for SCD
synthesized with Reactor C were comparable to that reported for type IIa. Thus
again the diamond quality measurements have demonstrated that Reactor C
operating under high pressure and high power density conditions is capable of
synthesizing type IIa diamond with very good growth rates. After laser cutting and
mechanical polishing high quality, type IIa, CVD SCD plates of thicknesses of
0.25 – 3.3 mm were produced.

291

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Introduction
It is widely understood that CVD synthesized diamond quality and growth
rates can be improved by using high power density microwave discharges
operating at pressures above 160 Torr. In order to take advantage of the
improved deposition chemistry and physics that exist at high pressure, we have
designed, developed and experimentally evaluated this new generation MSU
microwave plasma assisted reactor and associated process methods that are
both robust and are optimized for high pressure and high power density
operation. This reactor can operate in the 160-320 Torr pressure regime
contiguously for more than 100 hours.

7.2 Summary of Research Accomplishments
292

Using information available in the published literature a review of all
commercially available MPACVD diamond synthesis reactor designs was
performed. The five commercial reactor designs/systems that are currently
available are offered by the following manufactures/organizations: (1) MSU/
Wavemat/Lambda, (2) AsTex/SEKI, (3) FHG IAP/AIXTRON (4)
French/LIMHP/PLASSYS and (5) iplas.
The five different reactor designs have a number of design similarities.
First, all applicators have an axially symmetric, phi independent cylindrical shape
except for the AIXTRON which has an ellipsoidal phi independent shape.
Secondly, microwave energy is coupled into the reactor by a coaxial coupling
probe except for the iplas which uses a rectangular wave guide which is
toroidally wrapped around the cylindrical reactor side walls and coupling takes
place via a small gap in the applicator side walls. Additionally all reactors excite a
phi symmetric TM0 electromagnetic waveguide mode. Specific electromagnetic
mode excitations of the more advanced designs are the TM01n (SEKI 1

st

gen),

the TM012 (iplas), the hybrid TM013 +TEM001 (MSU A and B), the TM023 (LIMHP)
and the ellipsoidal TM012 (AIXTRON). All the reactor designs can be readily
scaled up by a factor of 2.67 in size by dropping the excitation to 915MHz.
Important reactor design differences are: (1) external matching (SEKI,
iplas, and AIXTRON) versus internal matching (MSU/Lambda, PLASSYS/LIMHP);
(2) the reactor vacuum barrier is provided by (a) a quartz dome (MSU/Lambda,
st

AIXTRON, LIMHP 1 and 3

rd

gen), (b) a quartz plate (SEKI 1

293

st

nd

gen, LIMHP 2

gen), (c) a cylindrical quartz tube (iplas), and (d) a quartz ring located in the
coaxial input system under the fixed coupling probe/substrate holder; and (3) a
variable substrate position (MSU/Lambda) versus a fixed substrate position
(SEKI 3

rd

gen, AIXTRON, iplas, PLASSYS/LIMHP) .

Using experimental data available in the reviewed published literature a
comparison of the performance of the difference reactor designs was performed.
MPACVD synthesis of diamond is a multi-dimensional experimental problem and
a carful comparison of reactor performance requires the knowledge of all the
experimental variables. However the experimental data presented for each
commercial reactor that is available in the reviewed literature is not complete
enough to make a careful, exact comparison between most of the reactor
designs. However there are two exceptions: (1) the SEKI reactor and (2) the
MSU reactor. Much data is available in the reviewed published literature on the
performance of the MSU reactors, and additional unpublished experimental data
is also available directly from experiments that have been performed in the MSU
laboratories. The SEKI reactors also have considerable experimental data
available in the literature. Thus an approximate comparison was made (1)
between the 2.45 GHz and 915MHz excited reactors of the same design, and (2)
between the SEKI reactor and the MSU reactor designs. In each comparison the
reactors are operating approximately under similar experimental conditions.
The various reactors were compared by calculating the (1) growth rate, (2)
the discharge absorbed power density and (3) specific yield.
When the SEKI Reactors were compared to the MSU/Lambda Reactors

294

the growth rate for the MSU and SEKI reactors were within 30% of each other
and the discharge absorbed power densities for the SEKI reactor were smaller at
2.45 GHz but were greater at 915 MHz than the corresponding absorbed power
densities for the MSU reactor. The specific yield for the MSU reactors are
considerably lower than the specific yield for SEKI reactors. For example, for
2.45 GHz, the specific yield for the MSU design is 70 kW-h/g and specific yield
for the SEKI design is 272 kW-h/g. Thus the 2.45 GHz MSU Reactor A is about 4
st

times more electrically efficient than the 2.45 GHz SEKI 1 and 2

nd

generation

reactor. For 915 MHz excitation, the specific yield for the MSU design is about
20 kW-h/g and specific yield for the SEKI 915 MHZ design is 208 kW-h/g. Thus
the MSU 915 MHz reactor is about 10 times more electrically efficient than the
915 MHz design.
It was observed when comparing the 2.45GHz MSU Reactor A to the 915
MHz MSU scaled up reactor that when operating under similar conditions, i.e.
from 100-160 Torr, (1) that the scale up the MSU reactor design via 915 MHZ
excitation improved the SY from 70 kW-h/g to 20kW-h/g, and reduced the
3

3

discharge absorbed power density from 32-45 W/cm to 7.7 W/cm while the
growth rates remained approximately the same .
An improved high pressure, high power density reactor was designed,
built and experimentally evaluated by synthesizing PCD and SCD diamond over
180-320 Torr pressure regime. The design features of the new design were (1)
single electromagnetic mode excitation, (2) internal cavity applicator impedance
matching, (3) variable substrate position, (4) four independent process tuning
295

variables, Ls, Lp, L1 and L2, and (5) the ability to scale up the design. As with
earlier designs the substrate holder diameter was reduced by a factor of two and
it incorporated position/length tuning to enable the substrate position to be
adjusted to enable process optimization. Major differences in the design over
earlier designs was the larger diameter applicator and quartz dome diameters in
order to locate the reactor walls away from the high intensity high pressure
discharge. Another design difference was the variation in applicator diameter
versus the axial position. This enabled the unfocusing and then refocusing the
microwave energy as it passes through the reactor applicator and it is delivered
to the discharge zone. These improvements enabled higher pressure operation
and also longer synthesis runs and less dome maintenance.
The new rector design, identified in this thesis as Reactor C, was first
experimentally evaluated by synthesizing PCD over one inch diameter silicon
substrates in the high pressures regime. The experimentally measured absorbed
3

power density for Reactor C ranged 300 – 1000 W/cm over a pressure range of
180 – 300 Torr. The growth rate varied from 4.2 - 21.8 µm/hr as pressure was
increased from 180 Torr to 300 Torr, which is much higher than growth rates for
MSU Reactor A. The PCD growth rate for Reactor C was slightly higher than
Reactor B under similar conditions, but Reactor C was able to operate at higher
CH4/H2 concentrations at higher pressures and also was able to continuously run
for over 100 hours without reactor maintenance. Using the maximum growth rate
of 21.8 µm/hr over a 1-inch Si wafer yielded a specific yield of 54 kW-h/g. If a
deposition area of 1.5 inches is assumed then and the same growth is assumed
296

over the entire wafer, then the specific yield is reduced to 26 kW-h/g or 5kWh/carat. This is a considerable improvement in efficiency over the specific yield of
Reactor A. The quality of the PCD films was investigated via Raman
spectroscopy. The Raman spectrum did not indicate the presence of and
appreciable amount of graphite in the films. The Raman spectrum full width half
-1

maximum (FWHM) was 2 – 3.6 cm . These Raman measurements indicated
that the PCD films that were synthesized in Reactor C produced under the same
growth conditions; i.e. 240 Torr, CH4/H2 = 4-5%, have considerably better quality
than PCD films produced in Reactor B.
Reactor C was also experimentally evaluated operating at high pressures
3

3

of 180-320 Torr and at high power densities of 400 W/cm to 1000 W/cm in the
application of SCD synthesis. This SCD experimental investigation consisted of
over 100 separate experimental runs as reactor investigated the
multidimensional experimental variable space resulting in a total exploratory
process time of well over 2200 hours. These experiments required little
operational maintenance other than dome cleaning after each run, and thus
demonstrated that Reactor C is indeed robust and safe to operate over a large
high pressure experimental operating space. Growth rates of 25-80 microns/h
were achieved as the synthesis pressure was varied from 240-320 Torr and the
methane concentration was varied from 3-9%. If this deposition rate was
maintained over a one-inch diameter single crystal area the specific yield of
Reactor C would be approximately 50 - 15 kW-h/g.
Then the performance of Reactor C was compared to early reactor
297

designs, i.e. Reactor A and B via growth rate versus pressure and substrate
temperature. When operating at 240 Torr and with an input with a methane
concentration of 5%, a high quality SCD growth window was identified between
1000 ° -1300 ° Within this growth window the grow th rate exhibited a
C
C.
maximum between 1125 ° -1225 ° Under these condit ions the maximum
C
C.
growth rate for Reactor B was about 25 microns/hr at 1200 ° and was 38
C,
microns/hr at 1150 ° for Reactor C. Within this growth window the growth rates
C
for Reactor C are 1.2-2.5 times greater than the corresponding growth rates for
Reactor B. This suggests that the higher power densities of Reactor C result in
higher deposition rates; i.e. the Reactor C design results in higher power
densities and also produces higher growth rates than those in Reactor B.
Diamond plates were fabricated by first removing the SCD CVD
synthesized diamond from the seed by laser cutting and then also the PCD rims
were removed by laser cutting. The quality of these SCD plates was investigated
by Raman, SIMS and transmission measurements. The Raman spectroscopy
-1

displayed a strong and narrow Raman signal with a FWHM of 1.6-1.7 cm . This
is comparable to a reference Raman spectrum from a type IIIa CVD grown
diamond sample from Element Six. SIMS measurements indicted that when the
SCD is synthesized with 5ppm nitrogen concentration in the gas phase the
nitrogen concentration in the synthesized diamond is 400-500 ppb. Single crystal
diamond IR to UV transmission spectra measurements displayed spectra similar
to or better than that of a type IIa diamond or better. In particular the IR
transmission for all samples was similar to that associated with type IIa diamond

298

and the sub-band gap ultraviolet optical absorption coefficients for the SCD
synthesized with Reactor C were comparable to that reported for type IIa [12]; i.e.
-1

the absorption coefficient at 250 nm is between 4 and 7 cm . Thus Reactor C is
capable of synthesizing type IIa diamond.
In summary an improved high pressure, high power density reactor, i.e.
Reactor C, was designed, and built, and was successfully experimentally tested
by synthesizing PCD and SCD diamond over a high, 180-320 Torr, pressure and
3

high, 200-1000 W/cm , discharge power density regime. Reactor C
demonstrated reliable MPACVD PCD and SCD synthesis operation operating
over long (> 100 hrs.) deposition times and with little run to run maintenance.
The Reactor C design has been disclosed to the MSU IP office and a patent has
been submitted to the US patent office.
Also both the PCD and SCD experimental results presented in this thesis
support the initial hypothesis that as the MPACVD diamond synthesis process is
moved to higher pressures: (1) the diamond growth rates increase (up to 25-80
microns/h) and (2) high quality diamond can be synthesized over an expanded
range (1-9%) of input methane concentrations.

7.3 Recommendations for Future Research
I.

One of the design features of the fourth generation MSU MPACVD
reactor is to locate the substrate holder on a movable stage that
works as an integral part of the microwave applicator. The ability to
adjust the position of the stage allows additional adjustment and
299

local fine tuning/focusing of the electromagnetic fields around and
directly above the substrate. This feature enables the positioning of
the microwave discharge above and in good contact with the
substrate while operating in the high pressure and power density
regime. It also appears to counter the buoyant forces that the
discharge is subjected to as the operating pressure is increased --thereby keeping the discharge in good contact with the substrate as
the pressure is increased. But the current stage is movable by
manually adding a shim set before experiment starts. So it only
allows discrete height option for the substrate holder. A
mechanically movable cooling stage can be built in the future
design to allow continuous height position for the substrate holder.
So even when experiment has already starts, we still can adjust the
stage position for the best diamond synthesis conditions.
II.

According to Section 6.8, substrate temperature plays a very
important role in CVD diamond synthesis. To grow a diamond with
better quality, we would like to keep the substrate temperature
steady. So one or more thermal detectors can be installed in the
system. The control software can adjust the input power due to the
increase of substrate temperature at the different growth stages.

III.

In order to apply CVD diamond technology in industry, multi-seed
CVD diamond synthesis has to be investigated. The main challenge
is the coverage of microwave plasma on 2x2 or even 3x3 multi-

300

seed layout. The only way to increase the plasma size is to
increase the absorbed microwave power but maintain the same
substrate cooling condition. It will require a redesign for the cooling
stage and substrate holder.

301

Appendix

302

APPENDIX A CVD Polycrystalline Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data
Sample

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

Numbe

16-2

31

33

27

30

34

21

22

26

29.0

478.1

124.1

283.0

1120

201.9

252.5

370.8

758.4

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.9

11.2

9.6

14.0

15.5

14.9

6

101

27

58

100

21

18

24

51

2410

2327

2020

2219

2338

2008

2570

2484

2207

1044

1136

1135

1145

1128

1125

1074

1136

1140

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

r
Total
Thickne
ss (µm)
Growth
Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time
(hr)
Pabs
(W)
Sub.Te
mp.
(°
C)
∆Z
(mm)
Table A.1 CVD Polycrystalline Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 1

303

Table A.1 CVD Polycrystalline Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 1 (Cont,d)
Pressure

165

210

210

180

210

240

165

180

180

CH4/H2 % 2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

H2 (sccm)

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

Si

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

(Torr)

Thickness
(mm)
SiWafer
Dia. (inch)

304

Sample

GYJ029 GYJ036 GYJ037

Number

Total

904.8

379.2

228.9

17.4

15.8

21.8

52

24

10.5

2429

1870

2115

Sub.Temp. 1128

1120

1127

Thickness
(µm)
Growth
Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time (hr)
Pabs (W)

(°
C)
∆Z (mm)

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

Pressure

210

240

240

4

4

5

(Torr)
CH4/H2 %

Table A.2 CVD Polycrystalline Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 2

305

Table A.2 CVD Polycrystalline Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 2 (Cont,d)

H2 (sccm)

400

400

400

Si

1.5

1.5

1.5

1

1

1

Thickness
(mm)
SiWafer
Dia.
(inch)

306

APPENDIX B CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data
Sample

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ0

GYJ1

GYJ1

GYJ1

Number 85

92

95

97

98

99

00

01

02

Total

510.9

549.7

513.6

667.2

547.4

606.3

566.4

473.8

496.8

26.2

23.9

21.4

27.8

23.8

25.8

23.6

20.6

20.7

19.5

23

24

24

23

23.5

24

23

24

1661

1775

1684

1733

2004

1696

1570

1731

1661

1008

1018

1013

973

971

981

991

978

978

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-3.7

-2.5

-1.2

0

Thickne
ss (µm)
Growth
Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time
(hr)
Pabs
(W)
Sub.Te
mp.
(°
C)
∆Z
(mm)
Table B.1 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 1

307

Table B.1 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 1 (Cont,d)
Pressure

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

H2 5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

CH4/H2 % 5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

H2

600

700

100

200

400

400

400

400

(Torr)
N2/
ppm

400

(sccm)
Seed

12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25

Area
(mm2)

308

Sample

GYJ103 GYJ104 GYJ110 GYJ119 GYJ121 GYJ122 GYJ125

Number

Total

588

626.4

627.9

244

504

260.8

799.2

24.5

26.1

27.3

30.5

31.5

32.6

33.3

24

24

23

8

16

8

24

1681

1675

1666

1942

1762

1871

1862

978

988

984

989

991

987

Thickness
(µm)
Growth
Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time (hr)
Pabs (W)

Sub.Temp. 973
(°
C)
∆Z (mm)

-6.1

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

Pressure

240

260

280

300

320

300

300

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

(Torr)
N2/

H2 5

ppm
CH4/H2 %

5

Table B.2 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 2

309

Table B.2 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 2 (Cont,d)
H2 (sccm)

400

Seed Area 12.25

400

400

400

400

400

400

12.25

12.25

12.25

12.25

12.25

12.25

(mm2)

Sample

GYJ126 GYJ112 GYJ113 GYJ115 GYJ116 GYJ117 GYJ118

Number

Total

280

280.8

556.8

492

590.5

710.4

722.4

35

11.7

23.2

20.5

24.1

29.6

30.1

8

24

24

24

24.5

24

24

1815

1748

2312

2339

2115

2557

2133

Thickness
(µm)
Growth
Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time (hr)
Pabs (W)

Table B.3 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 3

310

Table B.3 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 3 (Cont,d)
Sub.Temp. 987

913

1148

1195

1094

1070

1013

(°
C)
∆Z (mm)

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

Pressure

320

240

240

240

240

240

240

5

5

5

5

5

5

(Torr)
N2/

H2 5

ppm
CH4/H2 %

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

H2 (sccm)

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

Seed Area 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25
(mm2)

311

Sample

GYJ06 GYJ12 GYJ13 GYJ06 GYJ07 GYJ08 GYJ08 GYJ08

Number

1

8

0

9

6

Total

261.3

475.2

264.8

705.6

1735.9 1327.9 2584.8 3341.5

40.2

19.8

33.1

16.8

23.3

27.1

35.9

41

6.5

24

8

42

74.5

49

72

81.5

Pabs (W)

1766

2125

2292

1668

1714

1796

1642

1679

Sub.Tem

10000

967

1030

962

990

976

964

982

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

Pressure 240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

5

5

0

5

10

15

20

0

1

4

Thicknes
s (µm)
Growth
Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time (hr)

p. (°
C)
∆Z (mm)

(Torr)
N2/

H2 5

ppm
Table B.4 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 4

312

Table B.4 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 4 (Cont,d)
CH4/H2 % 7

3

9

5

5

5

5

5

H2

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

(sccm)
Seed

12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25

Area
(mm2)

313

Sample

GYJ06 GYJ06 GYJ06 GYJ06 GYJ07 GYJ08 GYJ07 GYJ12

Number

5

6

7

8

5

7

9

4-2

Total

1453.

330.2

1424

1249.

1281.

2571.

340.8

638.4

5

6

8

Thicknes 5
s (µm)
Growth

32.3

21.3

32

29.4

28.8

38.1

21.3

26.6

45

15.5

44.5

42.5

44.5

67.5

16

24

1992

1935

1940

1727

1859

1637

1626

1918

Sub.Tem 1024

1022

982

979

982

974

975

1004

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

-4.8

Pressure 240

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Rate
(µm/hr)
Growth
Time (hr)
Pabs (W)

p. (°
C)
∆Z (mm)

(Torr)
N2/

H2 5

ppm
Table B.5 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 5

314

Table B.5 CVD Single Crystal Diamond Synthesis Experimental Data 5 (Cont,d)
CH4/H2 %

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

H2 (sccm)

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

Seed Area 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 23.04 47.82
(mm2)

315

APPENDIX C Raman Spectra of CVD Polycrystalline Diamond

Figure C.1 Sample GYJ031 2% CH4/H2, 210 Torr, Ts=1136 ° P abs=2327 W,
C,
Growth Time=101 hours, Growth Rate=4.7 µm/hr, Total Thickness=478.1 µm

316

APPENDIX D Additional Drawings for the Substrate Holder and Insert

Figure D.1 Additional drawing for the moly insert (PCD)

317

Figure D.2 Additional drawing for the moly insert (thin, SCD)

318

Figure D.3 Additional drawing for the moly insert (thick, SCD)

319

REFERENCES

320

REFERENCES

1. J. Angus and C. Hayman Low-pressure, metastable growth of diamond and
diamondlike phases, Science 241 913-21, 1988
2. W. Yarbrough and R. Messier Current issues and problems in the chemical
vapor deposition of diamond, Science 247 688-96, 1990
3. J. Butler and H. Windischmann Developments in CVD-diamond synthesis
during the past decade, MRS Bull. 23 22-7, 1998
4. W. Wang, T. Moses , R. Linares, J. Shigley, M. Hall and J. Bulter Gem-quality
synthetic diamonds grown by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) method,
Gems Gemol. 39 268-83, 2003
5. C. Yan, Y. Vohra, H. Mao and R. Hemley, Very high growth rate chemical
vapor deposition of single crystal diamond, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99
12523-5, 2002
6. G. Bogdan, K. De Corte, W. Deferme, K. Haenen and M. Nesladek, Thick
single crystal CVD diamond prepared from CH4-rich mixtures, Phys. Status
Solidi a, 203 3063-9, 2006
7. WIKIPEDIA, The Encyclopedia, internet based
8. V. Blank, Ultrahard and superhard phases of fullerite C60: comparison with
diamond on hardness and wear, Diamond and Related Materials 7: 427,
1998
9. M. Wever, Handbook of optical materials, CRC Press, p. 119, 2002
10. J. Field, C. Freeman, Strength and fracture properties of diamond,
Philosophical magazine A 43 (3): 595-618, 1981
nd

11. P. Read, Gemology (2 edition), Butterworth-Heinemann, Great Britain, P.
52,53,275,276, ISBN 0-7506-4411-7, 1999
12. J. Asmussen, D. K. Reinhard, Diamond Films Handbook, Marcel Dekker,
2002
13. S. Koizumi, C. Nebel, M. Nesladek, Physics and Applications of CVD
diamond, Wiley VCH. Pp. 200-240. ISBN 3527408010, 2008
321

14. L. Wei, P. Kuo, R. Thomas, T. Anthony, W. Banholzer, Thermal conductivity of
isotropically modified single crystal diamond, Physical Review Letters, 70
(24): 3764-3767, 1993-02-16
15. G. Davies and T. Evans, Graphitization of Diamond at Zero Pressure and at a
High Pressure, Proceedings of the Royal Society a Mathematical Physical
and Engineering Sciences 328: 413, 1972
16. T. Evans, P. James, A study of the transformation of diamond to graphite,
Proc. Roy. Soc. A 277: 260, 1964
17. J. Asmussen, K. Hemawan, J. Lu, Y. Gu, T. Grotjohn, M. Yaran, T. Schuelke,
Microwave Plasma Reactor Design for Diamond Synthesis at High Pressures
th
and High Power Densities, 37 IEEE ICOPS, 2010
18. J. Butler, Y. Mankelevich, A. Cheesman, J. Ma, M. Ashfold, Understanding
the chemical vapor deposition of diamond: recent progress, J. Phys.:
Condens. Matter 21 (2009) 364201 (20pp)
19. F Silva, K Hassouni, X Bonnin and A Gicquel, Microwave engineering of
plasma-assisted CVD reactors for diamond deposition, J. Phys.: Condens.
Matter 21 (2009) 364202 (16pp)
20. D. G. Goodwin, J. Appl. Phys. 74(11) (1993) 6888
21. K. V. Ravi, C. A. Koch, H. S. Hu, A. Joshi, J Mater Res 5:2356, 1990
22. K. Hirabayashi, Y. Hirose, Diamond Relat Mater 5:48, 1996
23. K. Kuo, J. Asmussen, Diamond and Related Materials 6 (1997) 1097-1105
24. K. Kuo, Microwave assisted plasma CVD of diamond films using thermal-like
plasma discharge, thesis, MSU 1997
25. J. Asmussen, J. Root, Ion generating apparatus and method for the use
thereof, U.S. Patent No. 4,507,588, March 26, 1985
26. J. Asmussen, S. Nakanishi, J. Malinkey and S. Whitehair, Microwave
electrothruster, patent applied for by NASA-Lewis
27. J. Asmussen, D. K. Reinhard, Method for treating a surface with a microwave
plasma and improved apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 4,585,688, Apr. 29, 1986
28. J. Asmussen, D. K. Reinhard, Microwave or UHF plasma and improved
apparatus, U. S. Patent NO. 4,630,566, Dec. 23, 1986
322

29. T. Ropple, D. K. Reinhard and J. Asmussen, Dual Plasma microwave
apparatus and method for treating a surface, U.S. Patent No. 4,691,662,
Sept. 8, 1987
30. J. Asmussen, D. K. Reinhard and M. Dahimene, Improved plasma generating
apparatus using magnets and method, U.S. Patent No. 4,727,293, Feb. 23,
1988
31. J. Asmussen, Method for treating a material using radiofrequency waves, U.S.
Patent No. 4,777,336, Oct. 11, 1988
32. J. Asmussen, Improved microwave apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 4,792,772,
Dec.20, 1988; also Canadian Letters Patent No. 1,287,666, Aug. 13, 1991
33. J. Asmussen, D. K. Reinhard, Improved plasma reactor apparatus and
method for treating a substrate, U.S. Patent No. 4,943,345, July 24, 1990
34. J. Asmussen, J. Zhang, Apparatus for the coating of material on a substrate
using a microwave or UHF plasma, U.S. Patent No. 5,311,103, May 10, 1994
35. F. C. Sze, Design And Experimental Investigation Of A Large Diameter
Electron Cyclotron Resonant Plasma Source, thesis, MSU 1993
36. F. C. Sze et. al., J. of Vac. Sci. Technology B8(6) 1759, 1990
37. D. King, Scaling the microwave plasma-assisted chemical vapor diamond
deposition process to 150-200 mm substrates, Diamond and Related
Materials 17 (2008) 520-524
38. K. Hemawan, T. Grotjohn, D. Reinhard, J. Asmussen, Improved microwave
plasma cavity reactor for diamond synthesis at high pressure and high power
density, Diamond and Related Materials, In Press, Available online Aug. 14,
2010
39. K. W. Hemawan, C. Yan, Q. Liang, J. Lai, S. Krasnicki, Y. Meng, H. Mao, R.
Hemley, “Simulation of Microwave Plasma Discharge in 915 MHz CVD
Reactor for Single Crystal Diamond Deposition”, ICOPS 2011
40. www.sekitech.com/product/DiamondCVD/MicroCVD/productline.html
41. M. Besen, E. Sevillano, D. Smith, Microwave Plasma Reactor, US patent
5,501,740
42. Y. Ando, T. Tachibana, K. Kobashi, Growth of diamond films by a 5-kW
microwave plasma CVD reactor, Diamond and Related Materials 10 (2001)
323

312-315
43. V. Ralchenko, I. Sychov, I. Vlasov, A. Vlasov, V. Konov, A. Khomich, S.
Voronina, Quality of diamond wafers grown by microwave plasma CVD:
effects of gas flow rate, Diamond and Related Materials 8 (1999) 189-193
44. K. Kobashi, R&D of diamond films in the frontier carbon technology project
and related topics, Diamond and Related Materials 12 (2003) 233-240
45. T. Tachibana, Diamond films grown by a 60-kW microwave plasma chemical
vapor deposition system, Diamond and Related Materials 10 (2001) 15691572
46. E. Woerner, C. Wild, W. Mueller-Sebert, P. Koidl, “CVD-diamond optical
lenses”, Diamond Relat. Mater. Vol. 5, pp688, 1996
47. www.cyrannus.com/
48. www.plassys.com/plassysf2/pageuk/machines/diamant/depot_diamant.html
49. Y. Mokuno, A. Chayahara, Y. Soda, Y. Horino, F. Fujimori, Diamond and
related materials, 14 (2005) 1743 – 1746
50. Y. Mokuno, A. Chayahara, H. Yamada, N. Tsubouchi, Diamond and related
materials, 18 (2009) 1258 – 1261
51. H. Yamada, A. Chayahara, Y. Mokuno, N. Tsubouchi, S. Shikata, N. Fujimori,
Diamond and related materials, 20 (2011) 616 – 619
52. J. Zhang, PhD Dissertation, MSU 1993
53. K. Hemawan, PhD Dissertation, MSU 2010
54. X.J. Li, W.Z. Tang, F.Y. Wang, C.M. Li, L.F. Hei, F.X. Lu, “A Compact
Ellipsoidal Cavity Type Microwave Plasma Reactor For Diamond Film
Deposition”, Diamond & Related Materials 20 (2011) 374-379
55. T. Grotjoh, R. Liske, K. Hassouni, J. Asmussen, “Scaling behavior of
microwave reactors and discharge size for diamond deposition”, Diamond &
Related Materials 14 (2005) 288-291
56. Y. Ando, Y. Yokota, T. Tachibana, A. Watanabe, Y. Nishibayashi, K. Kobashi, T.
Hirao, K. Oura, “Large area deposition of <100>-textured diamond films by a
60-kW microwave plasma CVD reactor”, Diamond and Related Materials 11
(2002) 596-600

324

57. J. Asmussen, T.A. Grotjohn, T. Schuelke, M. Becker, M. Yaran, D. King, S.
Wicklein, D. Reinhard, “Multiple substrate microwave plasma-assisted
chemical vapor deposition single crystal diamond synthesis”, Applied Physics
Letters 93, 031502 (2008)
58. S. S. Zuo, M. K. Yaran, T. A. Grotjohn, D. K. Reinhard, J. Asmussen,
Inverstigation of diamond deposition uniformity and quality for freestanding
film and substrate applications, Diamond and Related Materials, 17,3 March
2008, pp. 300-305
59. J. Asmussen, Y. Gu, “Improved Hybrid Electromagnetic Mode Microwave
Plasma Reactor”, Pub. No: MSU 4.1-921, 2011
60. M. Kamo, H. Yurimuto, Y. Sato, “Epitaxial growth of diamond on diamond
substrate by plasma assisted CVD”, Applied Surface Science 33/34, 553-560
(1988)
61. L.D. Landau, “The Classical Theory of Fields”, Oxford, 1987 ISBN 0-08018176-7
62. T.A. Grotjohn, J. Asmussen, J. Sivagnaname, D. Story, A.L. Vikharev, A.
Gorbachev, A, Kolysko, Diamond and Related Materials, 9 (2000) 322.
63. RE Clausing, Diamond morphology. In: MA Prelas, G. Popovici, LK Bigelow,
eds. Handbook of Industrial Diamonds and Diamond Films. New York: Marcel
Dekker, 1998, pp19-47
64. S. Zuo, PhD Dissertation, MSU 2009
65. P. L. Kapitza, Soviet Physics, JETP, 30 (1970) 973.
66. S. Whitehair, and J. Asmussen, J. Propulsion and Power, 3, (1987) 136.
67. J.E Brandenburg, J.Kline, D. Sulliven, IEEE Trans. On Plasma Science 33, 2
Part 2, (2005) 776.
68. K.D. Diament, B. L. Ziegler, R. B. Cohen, J. of Propulsion and Power, 23
(2007) 27.
69. S. Offermans, J Appl Phys. 67, (1990) 115.
70. A. L. Vikharev, A. M. Gorbachev, A. V. Kolysko, D. B. Radishev, and A. B.
Muchnikov, “Microcrystalline diamond growth in presence of argon in
millimeter wave plasma assisted CVD reactor”, Diamond and Related
Materials 17, 1055 (2008)

325

71. A Gicquel, E Anger, MF Ravet, D Fabre, G Scatena, ZZ Wang, “Diamond
deposition in a bell-jar reactor: influence of the plasma and substrate
parameters on the microstructure and growth rate”, Diamond Related
Material 2:417-424, 1993
72. D Takeuchi, H Watanabe, S Yamanaka, H Okushi, K Kajimura, “Defects in
device grade homoepitaxial diamond thin films grown with ultra-low CH4/H2
conditions by microwave-plasma chemical vapor deposition”, Phys Status
Solidi(a) 174:101-115, 1999
73. CF Edwards, DW Hahn, Proceeding of ILASS-95 (Institute for Liquid
Atomization and Spray Systems), Troy, MI 1995 p34
74. CA Wolden, Z Sitar, RF Davis, JT prater. Diamond Related Material 6:1862,
1997
75. J. Lu, Y. Gu, D. Reinhard, T. Grotjohn, J. Asmussen, “Microwave Plasma
Assisted Synthesis of Single Crystal Diamond at High Pressure and High
Power Densities”, 38th International Conference Plasma Science, 2011
76. Q. Liang, C. Yan, Y. Meng , J. Lai, S. Krasnicki, H. Mao, R. Hemley, J. Phys.:
Condens. Matter 21 (2009) 364215
77. V. Ralchenko, Diamond and Related Materials 16 (2007) 2067-2073
78. SA Solin, K Ramdas, Phys. Rev. B,1 (1970) 1687
79. M. Muehle, “Untersuchungen der Materialqualität von mittels chemischer
Gasphasenabscheidung
und
Hochdruck-Hochtemperatur
Verfahren
hergestellten Diamantkristallen”, thesis (German), 2011
80. J. Ager and M. Drory. Quantitative measurement of residual biaxial stress by
Raman spectroscopy in diamond grown on a Ti alloy by chemical vapor
deposition. Physical Review B, 48(4): 2601–2607, July 1993
81. A. R. Lang, M. Moore, A. P. W. Makepeace, W. Wierzchowski, and C. M.
Welbourn. On the Dilatation of Synthetic Type Ib Diamond by Substitutional
Nitrogen Impurity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 337(1648): 497–520,
December 1991
82. H. Windischmann, G. F. Epps, Y. Cong, and R. W. Collins. Intrinsic stress in
diamond films prepared by microwave plasma CVD. Journal of Applied
Physics, 69(4): 2231, 1991.
83. M. Donato. A joint macro-/micro- Raman investigation of the diamond
lineshape in CVD films: the influence of texturing and stress. Diamond and
326

Related Materials, 10(8): 1535–1543, August 2001.
84. www.condensed-matter.uni-tuebingen.de/cms/en/facilities/sims.htm
85. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

327