Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:13:05.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improvement of surface and interface roughness estimation on X-ray reflectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2014

Y. Fujii*
Affiliation:
Kobe University, Nada, Kobe 657-8501, Japan
*
a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: [email protected]

Abstract

In the conventional X-ray reflectivity (XRR) analysis, the reflectivity is calculated based on the Parratt formalism, incorporating the effect of the interface roughness according to Nevot and Croce. However, the results of calculations of the XRR have shown strange outcomes, where interference effects increase at a rough surface because of a lack of consideration of diffuse scattering within the Parratt formalism. Therefore, we have developed a new improved formalism in which the effects of the surface and interface roughness are included correctly. In this study, for deriving a more accurate formalism of XRR, we tried to compare the measurements of surface roughness of the same sample by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and XRR. It is found that the AFM result could not be completely reproduced even with the improved XRR formalism. By careful study of the AFM results, we determined the need for an additional effective roughness term within the XRR simulation that depends on the angle of incidence of the beam.

Type
Technical Articles
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boer, D. K. G. (1995). “X-ray reflection and transmission by rough surfaces,” Phys. Rev. B 51, 52975305.Google Scholar
Daillant, J. and Gibaud, A. (Eds.) (1999). X-ray and Neutron Reflectivity, Principles and Applications (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (2010). “Influence of surface roughness on near-surface depth analysis from X-ray reflectivity measurements,” Surf. Interface Anal. 42, 16421645.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (2011). “Improved X-ray reflectivity calculations for rough surfaces and interfaces,” Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 24 012009.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (2013). “Improved X-ray reflectivity calculations on a multilayered surface,” Powder Diffr. 28 (2), 100104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Y., Nakayama, T., and Yoshida, K. (2004). “Roughness estimation of polycrystalline iron surface under high temperature by small glancing angle X-ray scattering,” ISIJ Int. 44, 15491553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Y., Komai, T., and Ikeda, K. (2005). “Depth profiling of polycrystalline layers under a surface using X-ray diffraction at small glancing angle of incidence,” Surf. Interface Anal. 37, 190193.Google Scholar
Holy, V., Pietsch, U., and Baumbach, T. (Eds.) (1999). High-Resolution X-ray Scattering from Thin Films and Multilayers (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
Holy, V., Kubena, J., Ohlidal, I., Lischka, K., and Plotz, W. (1993). “X-ray reflection from rough layered systems,” Phys. Rev. B 47, 1589615903.Google Scholar
Nevot, L. and Croce, P. (1980). “Caracterisation des surfaces par reflexion rasante de rayons X. Application a l'etude du polissage de quelques verres silicates,” Rev. Phys. Appl. 15, 761779.Google Scholar
Parratt, L. G. (1954). “Surface studies of solids by total reflection of X-Rays,” Phys. Rev. 95, 359369.Google Scholar
Sakurai, K. (Ed.) (2009). Introduction to X-ray Reflectivity (Kodansha Scientific, Tokyo, Japan).Google Scholar
Sinha, S. K., Sirota, E. B., Garoff, S., and Stanley, H. B. (1988) “X-ray and neutron scattering from rough surfaces,” Phys. Rev. B 38, 22972311.Google Scholar
Vidal, B. and Vincent, P. (1984). “Metallic multilayers for X rays using classical thin-film theory,” Appl. Opt. 23, 17941801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed