1. Introduction to Plasma-Surface Interactions Lecture 5 Sputtering

2. Topics Physical sputtering –Sputter yields –Energy distribution of sputtered atoms Chemical sputtering –Yields –Flux dependence of yields Global Model –Comparing effect of different materials

3. Physical sputtering This is the most common mechanism for bulk impurity atoms getting into the plasma. Sputtering occurs as a result of momentum transfer from an energetic incident ion to solid surfaces It is a well understood physical process and results agree well with calculations Calculations are normally made with the TRIM Monte Carlo code. Tabulation of data for a wide range of ions and targets & energies are available

4. Energy threshold Because an atom leaving the surface has to overcome the surface binding energy E s there is a threshold energy E T for sputtering. This is given by Where

5. Sputter yields for Be, C and W by D and self ions Note the increasing threshold energy with target mass. Using D + ions yield is ~ same for Be, C and W W Eckstein PMI, Garching, Report PP9/8 (1993)

6. High energy sputtering The maximum in the yield and the decreas at high energies is due to the collision cascade occurring deeper and deeper in the solid. The surface atoms have less chance of receiving sufficient energy to be sputtered

7. Uncertainty in yields There is an variation in yields measured experimentally ~ 2. This is not experimental error but genuine variations which depend on surface conditions which can affect the binding energy Examples are variation in the structure, surface roughness or impurity levels

8. Effect of incident angle The sputter yield increases as the angle  increase from normal (  =0) This is due to the increased probability of the incident ion being backscattered At energies <300 eV the variation of yield with angle is small. This is the region of most interest in plasma physics (the sheath potential tends to make ions arrive at normal incidence)

9. Energy distribution of sputtered atoms The energy of the sputtered atoms is important because it determines how far they penetrate into the plasma It too has been well studied and is understood theoretically The most probable energy is 0.5 E s (2 to 5 eV) At higher energies the energy distribution has a tail going as E -2 with a cut-off at the incident ion energy

10. Sputtered atom energy distribution for C Measured spectroscopically using doppler shift and compared with Thomson model using B.E.= 9.3 eV Bogen and Ruesbueldt JNM 179 (1992) 196

11. Chemical sputtering This only applies to C: but because C is widely used it has received a lot of attention A typical reaction is 4 H+ C = CH 4 Methane is the most common product but higher hydrocarbons are also produced eg C 2 H 4, C 3 H 6 The details of the reactions are not well understood and there is no reliable theory

12. Chemical Sputtering of C Ion energy dependence Mech et al JNM 255 (1998) 153 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 20 50 100 200 eV Yield almost independent of energy

13. Chemical sputtering of C Surface temperature dependence Mech et al JNM 255 (1998) 153 400 600 800 1000 K 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4 CD 4 CH 4 C2H4C2D4C2H4C2D4 The behaviour is complex and not understood (to my knowledge)

14. Extrapolating to high flux conditions Over the last few years there has been much discussion about how the chem. sputt. yield varies with incident ion flux. Results from 7 different devices have been correlated and analyzed to obtain a consensus view (Roth et NF 44 (2004) L21) Results from this study are presented in the next slide

15. Extrapolating to high flux conditions results from many experiments Roth Nuclear Fusion 44 (2004) L21

16. Modelling global behaviout The operation of a plasma physics device is complicated because there are so many interacting processes. These are generally studied using large computer programs, often using fluid codes. It is difficult to see the importance of different processes. An attempt has been made to present a simpler analytical model. It is not expected to give accurate description of the systems but to try and see the relative importance of different processes

17. Carbon as a target material The reduction of the sputter yield at high flux compensates for the higher flux The concern over chem. sputt. is not as serious as originally thought. However the major concern in using carbon in a DT machine is th ehigh inventory built up in the deposited layers

18. Global model of sputtering From particle balance of confinement times and sputtering yields we can get Where is a screening coefficient We can get a measure of the edge T e from energy balance Where P H,P R, and P C are the input, radiated and conducted power. Although crude this model allows us to see the difference in behaviour of low and high Z materials

19. Calculation of radiated power and Z eff vs n e : Comparison of Be and W Calculations based on the global model At low n e : T e is high and W is sputtered fast, resulting in High P r and Z eff Be has reached or is over the maximum in the sputter yield. Becaause of low Z and low density P r and Z eff are low. At high n e : T e is low and W sputter rate is low or zero, resulting in low P r and Z eff Be sputter rate is still high and n e : is high so P r is high G McCracken and G Matthews JNM 176-177 (1990) 312

20. Choice of materials A figure of merit M was proposed by Lazlo and Eckstein (1991) Where f i is the maximum impurity concentration allowed in the plasma. The larger M the less power will be radiated Both the sputter yields and f i are functions of edge T e. M can be plotted against edge T e

21. Figure of merit for materials as a function of edge T e High M is good: low M is bad! At low enough T e all materials are good At high T e Mo and W are useless For high edge T e only very low Z materials are tolerable

22. Health warning! Don’t take these models too seriously, but they are worth thinking about, particularly in terms of comparing high and low Z materials The thresholds even for hig Z materials like W are not very high, especially when you take into account multiply charged ions

23. Summary - 1 Physical sputtering is a real threat. Only by keeping the edge T e low can it be avoided At low density i.e. higher T e, only low Z materials stand any chance

24. Summary - 2 Chemical sputtering is only a problem with carbon. Unlike phys. sputt. there is no good theoretical model and so it is difficult to include it general plasma codes Recent data of lower yields at high fluxes look helpful

25. Schematic of arc tracks Because the arc tracks are driven by an JxB force, for a fixed field, on a curved surface the current changes direction and henc the force changes This results in curved tracks Typical patterns seen in tokamaks are shown Thhe tracks go in the opposite direction to the JxB force. There are at least 20 explanations for this effect but none are very convincing!