1 / 28

DC breakdown measurements

DC breakdown measurements . Sergio Calatroni Present team: Gonzalo Arnau Izquierdo, Jan Kovermann, Chiara Pasquino, Rocio Santiago Kern, Helga Timko, Mauro Taborelli, Walter Wuensch. Outline. Experimental setup Typical measurements Materials and surface preparations

gazit
Download Presentation

DC breakdown measurements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DC breakdown measurements Sergio Calatroni Present team: Gonzalo Arnau Izquierdo, Jan Kovermann, Chiara Pasquino, Rocio Santiago Kern, Helga Timko, Mauro Taborelli, Walter Wuensch

  2. Outline • Experimental setup • Typical measurements • Materials and surface preparations • Time delays before breakdown • Gas released during breakdown • Evolution of  and Eb • Effect of spark energy • Future Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  3. Experimental set-up : ‘‘ the spark system ’’ vacuum chamber (UHV 10-10 mbar) HV switch HV switch m-displacement gap 10 - 50 mm (±1 mm) 20 mm typically anode (rounded tip, Ø 2 mm) power supply (up to 15 kV) V spark cathode (plane) C (28 nF typical) • Two similar systems are running in parallel • Types of measurements : Field Emission ( b) Conditioning ( breakdown field Eb) Breakdown Rate ( BDR vs E) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  4. gas analyzer vacuum gauges V optical fibre V photomultiplier or spectrometer current probe HV probe to scope Experimental set-up : diagnostics V Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  5. Field emission -  measurement • An I-V scan is performed at limited current, fitting the data to the classical Fowler-Nordheim formula, where [jFE] = A/m2, [E] = MV/m and [φ] = eV (usually 4.5 eV).  is extracted from the slope Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  6. Conditioning – average breakdown field Molybdenum Copper Eb Eb Deconditioning 1-5 sparks or no conditioning Conditioning phase: 40 sparks Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  7. Surface damage (Mo) 1 5 10 20 40 100 Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  8. Conditioning curves of pure metals Selection of new materials for RF structure fabrication was the original purpose of the experiment Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  9. hcp fcc : face-centered cubic bcc : body-centered cubic hcp : hexagonal closest packing bcc hcp bcc bcc bcc bcc bcc fcc fcc Breakdown field of materials (after conditioning) • In addition to other properties, also importance of crystal structure? • reminder : Cu < W < Mo  same ranking as in RF tests (30 GHz) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  10. Surface treatments of Cu • Surface treatments on Cu only affects the very first breakdowns • After a few sparks: ~ 170 MV/m, b ~ 70 for everysamples The first sparks destroy rapidly the benefit of a good surface preparation and result in deconditioning. This mightbe the intrinsincproperty of copper surface In RF, sparksare distributed over a muchlargersurface, and conditioningisseen. Mightbe due to extrinsicproperties. • More foreseen in the near future to assess the effect of etching, brazing, etc. Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  11. Oxidized copper • Cu2O is a p-type semiconductor, witha higherworkfunctionthan Cu : 5.37 eV instead of 4.65 eV • Cu oxidizedat 125°C for 48h in oven (air): purple surface ↔ Cu2O layer~15 nm • Cu oxidizedat 200°C for 72h in oven (air): 2 1 • BDR = 1 for standard Cu @ 300 MV/m • BDR = 10-3 – 10-4 for oxidizedCu @ 300 MV/m, but last only a few sparks Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  12. Breakdown rate experiments • A target field value is selected and applied repeatedly for 2 seconds • BDR is as usual: #BD / total attempts • Breakdown do often appear in clusters (a simple statistical approach can account for this) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  13. Breakdown Rate : DC & RF (30 GHz) BDR ~ Eg Same trend in DC and in RF, difficultto compare ‘slopes’ Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  14. Time delays before breakdown delay • Voltage rising time : ~ 100 ns • Delay beforespark : variable • Sparkduration : ~ 2 ms Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  15. Cu Ta Mo SS Eb = 170 MV/m Eb = 300 MV/m Eb = 430 MV/m Eb = 900 MV/m R = 0.07 R = 0.29 R = 0.76 R = 0.83 R = fraction of delayed breakdowns (excludingconditioningphase, whereimediated breakdowns dominate) R increases with average breakdown field Time delays with different materials (but why ?!?) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  16. Gas released during a breakdown 0.95 J / spark 0.8 J / spark (heat treatment: ex-situ, 815°C, 2h, UHV) • Samegasesreleased, withsimilar ratios • Outgassingprobablydominated by Electron StimulatedDesorption (ESD) • Slightdecrease due to preliminaryheattreatment • Data used for estimates of dynamic vacuum in CLIC strucures Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  17. consecutive breakdowns ‘quiet’ period H2outgassing in Breakdown Rate mode (Cu) Outgassingpeaksat breakdowns Slightoutgassingduring ‘quiet’ periods  ESD with FE e-at the anode No visible increase in outgassingjustbefore a breakdown Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  18. b · Eb = const b↔ next Eb correlation b↔ previous Eb no correlation b · Ebis the constant parameter (cf. Alpertet al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 1, 35 (1964)) Local field: · Eb (Cu) • Measurements of b after each sparks (Cu electrodes) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  19. conditioning ? b · Eb = 10.8 GV/m (± 16%) good surface state Local field = const= 10.8 GV/m for Cu Evolution of  & Eb during conditioning experiments Eb = 159 MV/m (± 32%) b = 77 (± 36%) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  20. Evolution of  during BDR measurements (Cu) No spark Spark • General pattern : clusters of consecutive breakdowns / quiet periods(here BDR = 0.11) • bslightlyincreasesduring a quiet periodif E issufficientlyhigh The surface ismodified by the presence of the field (are « tips » pulled?) Probably the single most important resultfrom DC-spark Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  21. b·E = 10.8 GV/m Evolution of  during BDR measurements (Cu) No spark Spark • Breakdown as soon as b > 48 ( ↔ b · 225 MV/m > 10.8 GV/m) • Consecutivebreakdowns as long as b > bthreshold length and occurence of breakdown clusters ↔ evolution of b Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  22. Effect of spark energy - Cu • EBRD increases with lower energy (less deconditioning is possible) • Local breakdown field remains constant Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  23. Effect of spark energy - Mo • EBRDseems to increase with higher energy (better conditioning possible) • Local breakdown field remains constant • However, we have doubts on representative the  measurement is in this case Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  24. Energy scaling of the spot size • The diameter of the damaged area depends on the energy available • Area mostly determined by the conditioning phase • Decreases with decreasing energy; saturates below a given threshold Mo Cu Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  25. The future • Ongoing work: • Finalise the work on the effect of spark energy on BD field, and understand the beta measurements for Mo • Collaboration with KEK to study BD field (and BDR) for high purity copper samples and single crystals with special surface preparation • Trying to understand “worms”( “flowers”?) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  26. The future • Effect of temperature on  evolution and other properties • To verify the hypothesis and the dynamic of dislocation motion in collaboration with Helsinki, on single crystals Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  27. The future • Effect of surface treatment and in general of the fabrication process on BD • To study the influence of etching and its link with machining (preferential etching at dislocations, field enhancement or suppression, smoothening etc.) • To study the influence of H2 bonding (faceting, etc) • (In parallel, ESD studies on the same samples) Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

  28. The end Many thanks to all those who participated in the years Sergio Calatroni - 6.5.2010

More Related