journal article·2011-01-21

Exploring Nanomechanical Behavior of Silicon Nanowires: AFM Bending Versus Nanoindentation

Yong‐Jae Kim, Kwangsoo Son, In‐Chul Choi, In‐Suk Choi, Won Il Park, Jae‐il Jang

Advanced Functional Materials· Volume 21· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Despite many efforts to advance the understanding of nanowire mechanics, a precise characterization of the mechanical behavior and properties of nanowires is still far from standardization. The primary objective of this work is to suggest the most appropriate testing method for accurately determining the mechanical performance of silicon nanowires. To accomplish this goal, the mechanical properties of silicon nanowires with a radius between 15 and 70 nm (this may be the widest range ever reported in this research field) are systematically explored by performing the two most popular nanomechanical tests, atomic force microscopy (AFM) bending and nanoindentation, on the basis of different analytical models and testing conditions. A variety of nanomechanical experiments lead to the suggestion that AFM bending based on the line tension model is the most appropriate and reliable testing method for mechanical characterization of silicon nanowires. This recommendation is also guided by systematic investigations of the testing environments through finite element simulations. Results are then discussed in terms of the size‐dependency of the mechanical properties; in the examined range of nanowire radius, the elastic modulus is about 185 GPa without showing significant size dependency, whereas the nanowire strength dramatically increases from 2 to 10 GPa as the radius is reduced.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Nanowire Synthesis and Applications · Diamond and Carbon-based Materials Research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (48)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1126/science.111475710.1126/science.1114757 ↗
2. 10.1021/nl060166j10.1021/nl060166j ↗
3. 10.1016/S1369-7021(05)00791-110.1016/S1369-7021(05)00791-1 ↗
4. 10.1038/nmat163510.1038/nmat1635 ↗
5. 10.1021/nl072622p10.1021/nl072622p ↗
6. 10.1038/nmat140310.1038/nmat1403 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.carbon.2009.04.02210.1016/j.carbon.2009.04.022 ↗
8. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.17550210.1103/PhysRevLett.101.175502 ↗
9. 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.23540910.1103/PhysRevB.73.235409 ↗
10. 10.1021/nl802556d10.1021/nl802556d ↗
11. 10.1021/nl034525b10.1021/nl034525b ↗
12. 10.1063/1.218902010.1063/1.2189020 ↗
13. 10.1021/nl072678j10.1021/nl072678j ↗
14. 10.1021/nl071986e10.1021/nl071986e ↗
15. 10.1016/S0928-4931(01)00293-410.1016/S0928-4931(01)00293-4 ↗
16. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.07550510.1103/PhysRevLett.96.075505 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2008.02.04610.1016/j.scriptamat.2008.02.046 ↗
18. 10.1002/adma.20080048510.1002/adma.200800485 ↗
19. 10.1021/nl902132w10.1021/nl902132w ↗
20. Since these contact‐based methods cannot perfectly avoid the contact‐induced experimental artifacts sometimes noncontact methods including an electric‐field‐induced resonance method are preferred. However such a noncontact method can estimate only elastic properties and cannot provide information about non‐elastic behavior (yielding and plasticity).
21. 10.1557/jmr.2009.007910.1557/jmr.2009.0079 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.tsf.2009.01.09410.1016/j.tsf.2009.01.094 ↗
23. 10.1063/1.274573310.1063/1.2745733 ↗
24. From the viewpoint of a local bond average (LBA) approach for defect‐free crystalline materials one may argue that the equational origin for the elastic modulusEand yield strengthσyshould be different from each other because they are physically independent;Eandσyare for an equilibrium and a non‐equilibrium state respectively. However with a simple continuum mechanics viewpoint Eandσycan have the same mechanical origin (that is elastic stress‐strain relationship) asσyshould satisfy the constitutive equations for both elastic and plastic regimes. Also it is noteworthy that for estimating realσy one should take into consideration the structural defects (whether crystalline defects or mechanical flaws) that practically control the yielding plasticity and failure of crystalline materials.
25. Callister W. D. · 2005
26. 10.1017/CBO978051162312710.1017/CBO9780511623127 ↗
27. 10.1016/S0921-5093(98)00724-210.1016/S0921-5093(98)00724-2 ↗
28. 10.1179/09506600322501022710.1179/095066003225010227 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.actamat.2004.03.04310.1016/j.actamat.2004.03.043 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0038-1098(99)00514-110.1016/S0038-1098(99)00514-1 ↗
31. Hull R. · 1997
32. 10.1557/JMR.1992.156410.1557/JMR.1992.1564 ↗
33. 10.1017/CBO978113917173110.1017/CBO9781139171731 ↗
34. 10.1557/jmr.2007.038110.1557/jmr.2007.0381 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.jmps.2009.01.00810.1016/j.jmps.2009.01.008 ↗
36. 10.1021/nl060028u10.1021/nl060028u ↗
37. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.08.00110.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.08.001 ↗
38. 10.1063/1.310978610.1063/1.3109786 ↗
39. 10.1088/0953-8984/21/1/01300110.1088/0953-8984/21/1/013001 ↗
40. 10.1063/1.216527510.1063/1.2165275 ↗
41. 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.19532810.1103/PhysRevB.75.195328 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2010.02.00110.1016/j.ijplas.2010.02.001 ↗
43. 10.1143/JJAP.40.L18310.1143/JJAP.40.L183 ↗
44. 10.1002/sia.277710.1002/sia.2777 ↗
45. 10.1557/JMR.1997.001010.1557/JMR.1997.0010 ↗
46. 10.1063/1.343659910.1063/1.3436599 ↗
47. 10.1557/jmr.2008.040010.1557/jmr.2008.0400 ↗
48. 10.1021/nl063056l10.1021/nl063056l ↗