OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 21, Iss. 20 — Oct. 7, 2013
  • pp: 24185–24190
« Show journal navigation

Femtosecond laser nanomachining initiated by ultraviolet multiphoton ionization

Xiaoming Yu, Qiumei Bian, Zenghu Chang, P. B. Corkum, and Shuting Lei  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 21, Issue 20, pp. 24185-24190 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.024185


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1309 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We report on the experimental results of 300 nm features generated on fused silica using a near-infrared (IR) femtosecond laser pulse initiated by an ultraviolet (UV) pulse. With both pulses at a short (~60 fs) delay, the damage threshold of the UV pulse is only 10% of its normal value. Considerable reduction of UV damage threshold is observed when two pulses are at ± 1.3 ps delay. The damage feature size of the combined pulses is similar to that of a single UV pulse. A modified rate equation model with the consideration of defect states is used to help explain these results. This concept can be applied to shorter wavelengths, e.g. XUV and X-ray, with the required fluence below their normal threshold.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

Direct fabrication of nanoscale structures in at least one dimension is of significant importance for miniaturization and integration. Although photolithography is commonly used in industry and structures of several tens of nanometers can be achieved, single-step nanomachining methods are still desired. Ultrafast lasers are a promising tool for nanomachining due to the unique properties such as reduced thermal effects and the potential for direct 3-dimensional fabrication [1

1. B. N. Chichkov, C. Momma, S. Nolte, F. von Alvensleben, and A. Tünnermann, “Femtosecond, picosecond and nanosecond laser ablation of solids,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process. 63(2), 109–115 (1996). [CrossRef]

3

3. M. Ali, T. Wagner, M. Shakoor, and P. A. Molian, “Review of laser nanomachining,” J. Laser Appl. 20(3), 169–184 (2008). [CrossRef]

]. Waveguides, microfluidic devices, opto-electronic systems have been successfully fabricated using femtosecond lasers [4

4. R. Osellame, H. J. W. M. Hoekstra, G. Cerullo, and M. Pollnau, “Femtosecond laser microstructuring: an enabling tool for optofluidic lab-on-chips,” Laser Photon. Rev. 5(3), 442–463 (2011). [CrossRef]

].

Generally speaking, there are two approaches to direct laser nanomachining. One is to use a single laser beam and focus it down to sub-micrometer scale using high numerical aperture focusing optics. Due to the nonlinear interaction between ultrafast laser pulses and wide bandgap dielectric materials, further reduction of damage size is possible by setting the pulse energy such that only the center part of the focused beam is above the damage threshold. By this means, small features with dimension of ~40 nm are achieved with 800 nm wavelength pulses [5

5. A. P. Joglekar, H. H. Liu, E. Meyhöfer, G. Mourou, and A. J. Hunt, “Optics at critical intensity: Applications to nanomorphing,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101(16), 5856–5861 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,6

6. Y. Liao, Y. Shen, L. Qiao, D. Chen, Y. Cheng, K. Sugioka, and K. Midorikawa, “Femtosecond laser nanostructuring in porous glass with sub-50 nm feature sizes,” Opt. Lett. 38(2), 187–189 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. However, this method requires a very high degree of laser power stability and thus is not practical for industrial applications. Due to diffraction limit of all focused laser beams, the minimal focal spot size is of the order of λ/NA, where λ is laser wavelength and NA is the numerical aperture of focusing optics. One way to reduce focal size is using high NA microscope objectives. By using high NA objectives, structures with the size of ~130 nm and 200 nm are achieved on the surface of fused silica [7

7. S. I. Kudryashov, G. Mourou, A. Joglekar, J. F. Herbstman, and A. J. Hunt, “Nanochannels fabricated by high-intensity femtosecond laser pulses on dielectric surfaces,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91(14), 141111 (2007). [CrossRef]

] and PMMA [8

8. J. M. Fernández-Pradas, C. Florian, F. Caballero-Lucas, J. L. Morenza, and P. Serra, “Femtosecond laser ablation of polymethyl-methacrylate with high focusing control,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 278, 185–189 (2013). [CrossRef]

], respectively. Alternatively, by using short wavelength laser beams, such as UV lasers with wavelength of 200-400 nm and proper focusing, structures of 250 nm on fused silica [9

9. D. N. Nikogosyan, M. Dubov, H. Schmitz, V. Mezentsev, I. Bennion, P. Bolger, and A. V. Zayats, “Point-by-point inscription of 250-nm-period structure in bulk fused silica by tightly-focused femtosecond UV pulses: experiment and numerical modeling,” Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 8(2), 169–177 (2010). [CrossRef]

] and 600 nm on stainless steel foils [10

10. J. Békési, J. H. Klein-Wiele, and P. Simon, “Efficient submicron processing of metals with femtosecond UV pulses,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process. 76(3), 355–357 (2003). [CrossRef]

] are achieved.

The other approach is to use multiple laser beams and usually the interference between these beams are utilized, e.g., laser-induced periodic surface structures (LIPSS) [11

11. J. Bonse, J. Kruger, S. Hohm, and A. Rosenfeld, “Femtosecond laser-induced periodic surface structures,” J. Laser Appl. 24(4), 042006 (2012). [CrossRef]

], which is beyond the scope of our research.

As mentioned above, one effective way to reduce focal spot size is to use short wavelength beams, such as XUV and X-ray, generated from high harmonic generation (HHG). However, due to the low conversion efficiency of HHG, direct machining of dielectrics using HHG remains a challenge. Our recent results show that with the help of a long wavelength IR beam, the damage threshold of 267 nm beam is lowed by 88% [12

12. X. Yu, Q. Bian, B. Zhao, Z. Chang, P. B. Corkum, and S. Lei, “Near-infrared femtosecond laser machining initiated by ultraviolet multiphoton ionization,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(10), 101111 (2013). [CrossRef]

]. This provides a pathway to XUV or even shorter wavelength laser nanomachining with energy below the damage threshold.

In this paper, we present a novel approach for laser direct fabrication of nanostructures in which 267 nm femtosecond laser pulses are used to produce seed electrons with subsequent damage induced by IR pulses. The significance of this approach is its potential downward scalability in feature size with shorter and shorter wavelengths down to sub 10 nm.

2. Experimental details

3. Results and discussion

First we examine the damage caused by a single UV beam. Figure 2
Fig. 2 (a) SEM image of a damage spot caused by single UV beam. (b) Cross section along the dashed line in (a). The pulse energy is 64 nJ.
shows a damage spot caused by the single UV beam with pulse energy of 64 nJ. The damage is a line shape instead of a round one, which is attributed to the following two factors. First, the beam quality is not good enough, especially the outer portion of the beam that the reflecting objective lens uses to focus. This has been experimentally verified with a separate experiment (results not shown here). Second, the beam profile of the THG beam is not round. Right after the THG BBO, the beam size (1/e2) is 2.9 mm (horizontal) and 3.9 mm (vertical) measured by the knife-edge method assuming a Gaussian profile. Due to the nonlinearity of the interaction between the laser pulse and the sample, the resulting damage becomes more elliptical. To obtain a 300 nm circular damage spot, we suggest to use a UV transmitting objective to fully utilize the central portion of the beam. In addition, a pair of cylindrical lenses (a concave and a convex lens) can be inserted after the THG BBO to correct the asymmetric profile, and spatial filtering can also be used to improve the beam quality. The cross section along the narrow direction of Fig. 2(a) is shown in Fig. 2(b). The FWHM width is measured to be 300 nm. To the best of our knowledge, it’s the first time features of 300 nm resolution have been directly written on the surface of a dielectric, although periodic structures with period of 250 nm has been reported [9

9. D. N. Nikogosyan, M. Dubov, H. Schmitz, V. Mezentsev, I. Bennion, P. Bolger, and A. V. Zayats, “Point-by-point inscription of 250-nm-period structure in bulk fused silica by tightly-focused femtosecond UV pulses: experiment and numerical modeling,” Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 8(2), 169–177 (2010). [CrossRef]

].

With the combination of UV and IR beams, the damage threshold of UV beam can be lowered by ~90%, as shown in Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Relationship between threshold energy and delay of UV and IR pulses. Insets: SEM images of each point indicated by a, b, c and d. Scale bars are 1 μm. Black dashed line indicates UV single beam threshold. The solid lines are guides to the eye.
. Three IR energy levels (33 μJ, 35 μJ, 37 μJ) and three delays (−1.3 ps, 60 fs, 1.3 ps) are used. Positive delays are defined as when the UV pulse reaches the sample before the IR pulse. In the experiments, different UV energy is used and the damage threshold is determined as the lowest energy with which nanoscale damage is observed using SEM. No damage is seen using only the IR beam. As can be seen in Fig. 3, at 60 fs delay and 37 μJ IR energy, UV damage threshold is ~10% of the normal value, and it increases with longer delays and with lower IR energy. This feature is observed in our recent experiments [12

12. X. Yu, Q. Bian, B. Zhao, Z. Chang, P. B. Corkum, and S. Lei, “Near-infrared femtosecond laser machining initiated by ultraviolet multiphoton ionization,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(10), 101111 (2013). [CrossRef]

]. In contrast to the multiple shot threshold, this time we used single shot threshold measurement to avoid incubation effects. It should be noted that at 60 fs delay, the damage threshold using IR energy of 37 μJ and 35 μJ is similar. This is because 6 nJ is the lowest energy level that can be measured accurately due to background noise. Therefore, the actual damage threshold using IR energy of 37 μJ may be lower than 6 nJ. The insets show SEM images of the points indicated by the corresponding letters. As can be seen, the feature size is similar for different cases, which suggests that this technique can be used for nanomachining with an XUV (or shorter wavelength) beam combined with a longer wavelength beam, and the resulting feature size is only determined by the XUV beam. It should be noted that with the combination of two beams, there is an increase of edge roughness in morphology (Figs. 3(b)-3(d)) compared to the damage caused by single UV beam (Fig. 3(a)), which may be caused by the energy fluctuation of the UV beam, especially when the pulse energy is low.

A simple rate equation has been popularly used to model the electron density in order to get the damage threshold [13

13. B. C. Stuart, M. D. Feit, S. Herman, A. M. Rubenchik, B. W. Shore, and M. D. Perry, “Nanosecond-to-femtosecond laser-induced breakdown in dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 53(4), 1749–1761 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15

15. D. Grojo, M. Gertsvolf, S. Lei, T. Barillot, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Exciton-seeded multiphoton ionization in bulk SiO(2),” Phys. Rev. B 81(21), 212301 (2010). [CrossRef]

]. It calculates the evolution of free electron density with respect to time, and it is assumed that damage occurs when the electron density reaches a critical value. It is found that the lifetime of these generated electrons is 60~150 fs [14

14. M. Li, S. Menon, J. P. Nibarger, and G. N. Gibson, “Ultrafast Electron Dynamics in Femtosecond Optical Breakdown of Dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(11), 2394–2397 (1999). [CrossRef]

,16

16. P. Martin, S. Guizard, P. Daguzan, G. Petite, P. D'Oliveira, P. Meynadier, and M. Perdrix, “Subpicosecond study of carrier trapping dynamics in wide-band-gap crystals,” Phys. Rev. B 55(9), 5799–5810 (1997). [CrossRef]

,17

17. G. M. Petrov and J. Davis, “Interaction of intense ultra-short laser pulses with dielectrics,” J. Phys. B 41(2), 025601 (2008). [CrossRef]

]. In our experiments, however, we observe significant reduction (~50%) of the damage threshold at long delays ( ± 1.3 ps), which suggests that the free electrons generated by the UV pulse are trapped in defect states and then are re-ionized easily by the IR pulse, and these defect states have a lifetime on the order of 1 ps [18

18. J. Peng, D. Grojo, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Control of energy deposition in femtosecond laser dielectric interactions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(16), 161105 (2013). [CrossRef]

].

The modified rate equation model with consideration of defect states is:
dnedt=WMPI(I)+αIne+σjIjndneτednddt=neτeσjIjndndτd
(1)
where ne is free electron density, WMPI is the Keldysh multi-photon ionization rate, I is laser intensity, α and σ are the ionization cross section of avalanche electrons and defect states, respectively, τe and τd are decay time of free electrons and defect states, respectively, and nd is defect state density. We use j = 1 and 2 for UV and IR beams respectively [15

15. D. Grojo, M. Gertsvolf, S. Lei, T. Barillot, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Exciton-seeded multiphoton ionization in bulk SiO(2),” Phys. Rev. B 81(21), 212301 (2010). [CrossRef]

]. Both UV and IR pulses have a Gaussian shape in time and the pulse duration (FWHM) is 70 fs and 60 fs, respectively. In our model, free electrons are first generated by photo-ionization (calculated by the Keldysh theory) and the electron density is further increased by avalanche ionization within the pulse duration. The decay time of these electrons is 150 fs and all of them are assumed to decay into defect states which have a bandgap of 3.2 eV. It should be noted that in this model the defect states have a single band lying in between the conduction band and exciton band [15

15. D. Grojo, M. Gertsvolf, S. Lei, T. Barillot, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Exciton-seeded multiphoton ionization in bulk SiO(2),” Phys. Rev. B 81(21), 212301 (2010). [CrossRef]

]. The second pulse re-ionizes the defect states to free electrons, and both photo and avalanche ionization are also considered. Damage occurs when free electron density reaches 1.7 × 1021 cm−3 (critical density at 800 nm wavelength).

The modeling results and experimental data (37 μJ, Fig. 3) are shown in Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Comparison of numerical calculation of damage threshold with and without defect states at different delays. Dots are experimental results from Fig. 3 (37 μJ). α2 = 20 cm2/J, α6 = 4 cm2/J, σ1 = 2 × 10−3 (W/m2)s−1, σ2 = 1.1 × 10−21 (W/m2)2s−1, τe = 150 fs, τd = 1 ps, pulse duration (FWHM): 70 fs for UV and 60 fs for IR.
, and for comparison, modeling results using the same parameters without the defect states term is also shown. As can be seen, our model agrees with the experimental data well with the defect states term considered, and the lifetime of defect states is found to be ~1 ps, which is similar to recent results [18

18. J. Peng, D. Grojo, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Control of energy deposition in femtosecond laser dielectric interactions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(16), 161105 (2013). [CrossRef]

]. Without defect states, the damage threshold will return to its normal value at much shorter delays because the electrons have a shorter lifetime.

4. Conclusion

Using a high NA objective to focus a UV femtosecond laser beam, nanostructures with dimension of 300 nm are fabricated on the surface of fused silica. The damage threshold of the UV beam can be reduced by ~90% with the combination of an IR beam at short (~60 fs) delay. The required seeding pulse energy can already be reached in the XUV wavelength range by high harmonic generation [19

19. Y. Wu, E. Cunningham, H. Zang, J. Li, M. Chini, X. Wang, Y. Wang, K. Zhao, and Z. Chang, “Generation of high-flux attosecond extreme ultraviolet continuum with a 10 TW laser,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(20), 201104 (2013). [CrossRef]

]. Significant UV threshold reduction at ± 1.3 ps indicates that defect states, which have a longer lifetime compared to free electrons, should be taken into account. Our modified rate equation model confirms the role of defect states.

Acknowledgments

Xiaoming Yu, Qiumei Bian and Shuting Lei acknowledge the support from the National Science Foundation. Zenghu Chang acknowledges the support from the US Army Research Office.

References and links

1.

B. N. Chichkov, C. Momma, S. Nolte, F. von Alvensleben, and A. Tünnermann, “Femtosecond, picosecond and nanosecond laser ablation of solids,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process. 63(2), 109–115 (1996). [CrossRef]

2.

R. R. Gattass and E. Mazur, “Femtosecond laser micromachining in transparent materials,” Nat. Photonics 2(4), 219–225 (2008). [CrossRef]

3.

M. Ali, T. Wagner, M. Shakoor, and P. A. Molian, “Review of laser nanomachining,” J. Laser Appl. 20(3), 169–184 (2008). [CrossRef]

4.

R. Osellame, H. J. W. M. Hoekstra, G. Cerullo, and M. Pollnau, “Femtosecond laser microstructuring: an enabling tool for optofluidic lab-on-chips,” Laser Photon. Rev. 5(3), 442–463 (2011). [CrossRef]

5.

A. P. Joglekar, H. H. Liu, E. Meyhöfer, G. Mourou, and A. J. Hunt, “Optics at critical intensity: Applications to nanomorphing,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101(16), 5856–5861 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

Y. Liao, Y. Shen, L. Qiao, D. Chen, Y. Cheng, K. Sugioka, and K. Midorikawa, “Femtosecond laser nanostructuring in porous glass with sub-50 nm feature sizes,” Opt. Lett. 38(2), 187–189 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

S. I. Kudryashov, G. Mourou, A. Joglekar, J. F. Herbstman, and A. J. Hunt, “Nanochannels fabricated by high-intensity femtosecond laser pulses on dielectric surfaces,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91(14), 141111 (2007). [CrossRef]

8.

J. M. Fernández-Pradas, C. Florian, F. Caballero-Lucas, J. L. Morenza, and P. Serra, “Femtosecond laser ablation of polymethyl-methacrylate with high focusing control,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 278, 185–189 (2013). [CrossRef]

9.

D. N. Nikogosyan, M. Dubov, H. Schmitz, V. Mezentsev, I. Bennion, P. Bolger, and A. V. Zayats, “Point-by-point inscription of 250-nm-period structure in bulk fused silica by tightly-focused femtosecond UV pulses: experiment and numerical modeling,” Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 8(2), 169–177 (2010). [CrossRef]

10.

J. Békési, J. H. Klein-Wiele, and P. Simon, “Efficient submicron processing of metals with femtosecond UV pulses,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process. 76(3), 355–357 (2003). [CrossRef]

11.

J. Bonse, J. Kruger, S. Hohm, and A. Rosenfeld, “Femtosecond laser-induced periodic surface structures,” J. Laser Appl. 24(4), 042006 (2012). [CrossRef]

12.

X. Yu, Q. Bian, B. Zhao, Z. Chang, P. B. Corkum, and S. Lei, “Near-infrared femtosecond laser machining initiated by ultraviolet multiphoton ionization,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(10), 101111 (2013). [CrossRef]

13.

B. C. Stuart, M. D. Feit, S. Herman, A. M. Rubenchik, B. W. Shore, and M. D. Perry, “Nanosecond-to-femtosecond laser-induced breakdown in dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 53(4), 1749–1761 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

M. Li, S. Menon, J. P. Nibarger, and G. N. Gibson, “Ultrafast Electron Dynamics in Femtosecond Optical Breakdown of Dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(11), 2394–2397 (1999). [CrossRef]

15.

D. Grojo, M. Gertsvolf, S. Lei, T. Barillot, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Exciton-seeded multiphoton ionization in bulk SiO(2),” Phys. Rev. B 81(21), 212301 (2010). [CrossRef]

16.

P. Martin, S. Guizard, P. Daguzan, G. Petite, P. D'Oliveira, P. Meynadier, and M. Perdrix, “Subpicosecond study of carrier trapping dynamics in wide-band-gap crystals,” Phys. Rev. B 55(9), 5799–5810 (1997). [CrossRef]

17.

G. M. Petrov and J. Davis, “Interaction of intense ultra-short laser pulses with dielectrics,” J. Phys. B 41(2), 025601 (2008). [CrossRef]

18.

J. Peng, D. Grojo, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Control of energy deposition in femtosecond laser dielectric interactions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(16), 161105 (2013). [CrossRef]

19.

Y. Wu, E. Cunningham, H. Zang, J. Li, M. Chini, X. Wang, Y. Wang, K. Zhao, and Z. Chang, “Generation of high-flux attosecond extreme ultraviolet continuum with a 10 TW laser,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(20), 201104 (2013). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(240.4350) Optics at surfaces : Nonlinear optics at surfaces
(260.7190) Physical optics : Ultraviolet
(320.2250) Ultrafast optics : Femtosecond phenomena
(220.4241) Optical design and fabrication : Nanostructure fabrication

ToC Category:
Laser Microfabrication

History
Original Manuscript: July 25, 2013
Revised Manuscript: September 17, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: September 21, 2013
Published: October 2, 2013

Citation
Xiaoming Yu, Qiumei Bian, Zenghu Chang, P. B. Corkum, and Shuting Lei, "Femtosecond laser nanomachining initiated by ultraviolet multiphoton ionization," Opt. Express 21, 24185-24190 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-21-20-24185


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. B. N. Chichkov, C. Momma, S. Nolte, F. von Alvensleben, and A. Tünnermann, “Femtosecond, picosecond and nanosecond laser ablation of solids,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process.63(2), 109–115 (1996). [CrossRef]
  2. R. R. Gattass and E. Mazur, “Femtosecond laser micromachining in transparent materials,” Nat. Photonics2(4), 219–225 (2008). [CrossRef]
  3. M. Ali, T. Wagner, M. Shakoor, and P. A. Molian, “Review of laser nanomachining,” J. Laser Appl.20(3), 169–184 (2008). [CrossRef]
  4. R. Osellame, H. J. W. M. Hoekstra, G. Cerullo, and M. Pollnau, “Femtosecond laser microstructuring: an enabling tool for optofluidic lab-on-chips,” Laser Photon. Rev.5(3), 442–463 (2011). [CrossRef]
  5. A. P. Joglekar, H. H. Liu, E. Meyhöfer, G. Mourou, and A. J. Hunt, “Optics at critical intensity: Applications to nanomorphing,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.101(16), 5856–5861 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Y. Liao, Y. Shen, L. Qiao, D. Chen, Y. Cheng, K. Sugioka, and K. Midorikawa, “Femtosecond laser nanostructuring in porous glass with sub-50 nm feature sizes,” Opt. Lett.38(2), 187–189 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. S. I. Kudryashov, G. Mourou, A. Joglekar, J. F. Herbstman, and A. J. Hunt, “Nanochannels fabricated by high-intensity femtosecond laser pulses on dielectric surfaces,” Appl. Phys. Lett.91(14), 141111 (2007). [CrossRef]
  8. J. M. Fernández-Pradas, C. Florian, F. Caballero-Lucas, J. L. Morenza, and P. Serra, “Femtosecond laser ablation of polymethyl-methacrylate with high focusing control,” Appl. Surf. Sci.278, 185–189 (2013). [CrossRef]
  9. D. N. Nikogosyan, M. Dubov, H. Schmitz, V. Mezentsev, I. Bennion, P. Bolger, and A. V. Zayats, “Point-by-point inscription of 250-nm-period structure in bulk fused silica by tightly-focused femtosecond UV pulses: experiment and numerical modeling,” Cent. Eur. J. Phys.8(2), 169–177 (2010). [CrossRef]
  10. J. Békési, J. H. Klein-Wiele, and P. Simon, “Efficient submicron processing of metals with femtosecond UV pulses,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process.76(3), 355–357 (2003). [CrossRef]
  11. J. Bonse, J. Kruger, S. Hohm, and A. Rosenfeld, “Femtosecond laser-induced periodic surface structures,” J. Laser Appl.24(4), 042006 (2012). [CrossRef]
  12. X. Yu, Q. Bian, B. Zhao, Z. Chang, P. B. Corkum, and S. Lei, “Near-infrared femtosecond laser machining initiated by ultraviolet multiphoton ionization,” Appl. Phys. Lett.102(10), 101111 (2013). [CrossRef]
  13. B. C. Stuart, M. D. Feit, S. Herman, A. M. Rubenchik, B. W. Shore, and M. D. Perry, “Nanosecond-to-femtosecond laser-induced breakdown in dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter53(4), 1749–1761 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. M. Li, S. Menon, J. P. Nibarger, and G. N. Gibson, “Ultrafast Electron Dynamics in Femtosecond Optical Breakdown of Dielectrics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.82(11), 2394–2397 (1999). [CrossRef]
  15. D. Grojo, M. Gertsvolf, S. Lei, T. Barillot, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Exciton-seeded multiphoton ionization in bulk SiO(2),” Phys. Rev. B81(21), 212301 (2010). [CrossRef]
  16. P. Martin, S. Guizard, P. Daguzan, G. Petite, P. D'Oliveira, P. Meynadier, and M. Perdrix, “Subpicosecond study of carrier trapping dynamics in wide-band-gap crystals,” Phys. Rev. B55(9), 5799–5810 (1997). [CrossRef]
  17. G. M. Petrov and J. Davis, “Interaction of intense ultra-short laser pulses with dielectrics,” J. Phys. B41(2), 025601 (2008). [CrossRef]
  18. J. Peng, D. Grojo, D. M. Rayner, and P. B. Corkum, “Control of energy deposition in femtosecond laser dielectric interactions,” Appl. Phys. Lett.102(16), 161105 (2013). [CrossRef]
  19. Y. Wu, E. Cunningham, H. Zang, J. Li, M. Chini, X. Wang, Y. Wang, K. Zhao, and Z. Chang, “Generation of high-flux attosecond extreme ultraviolet continuum with a 10 TW laser,” Appl. Phys. Lett.102(20), 201104 (2013). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited