Abstract
X-ray reflectivity (XRR) is usefull tool to estimate surface and interface roughness. In the conventional XRR analysis, the reflectivity is calculated based on the Parratt formalism, accounting for the effect of roughness by the theory of Nevot-Croce. However, the calculated results have shown often strange behavior due to the fact that the diffuse scattering at the rough interface was not taken into account in the equation. Then we developed new improved formalism to correct this mistake. For deriving more accurate formalism of XRR, we tried to compare the measurements of the surface roughness of the same sample by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and XRR. The results of analysis show that the effective roughness measured by xrrmay depend on the angle of incidence. In this paper, it shows that new improved XRR formalism which derives more accurate surface and interface roughness with depending on the size of the probing area of coherent X-rays.
Highlights
In the X-ray reflectivity (XRR) analysis, the x-ray reflectivity is usually calculated based on the Parratt formalism,[1] coupled with the use of the theory of Nevot and Croce to include the effect of surface and interface roughness.[2]
For deriving more accurate formalism of XRR, we tried to compare the measurements of the surface roughness of the same sample by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and XRR.[15]
The surfaces of these samples were measured by XRR and AFM.By the AFM observations, we found that the r.m.s
Summary
X-ray reflectivity (XRR) is usefull tool to estimate surface and interface roughness, whichis of prime importance in many applications, such as microelectronics.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] In the XRR analysis, the x-ray reflectivity is usually calculated based on the Parratt formalism,[1] coupled with the use of the theory of Nevot and Croce to include the effect of surface and interface roughness.[2]. The results of the x-ray reflectivity measured for the sample A and B were analysed, and the surface roughness, interface roughness and the thickness of the sio layer were estimated.In comparison with AFM and XRR for the sample A and B, the results of surface roughness by XRR were different with the AFM observations for the both samples. The surface roughness estimated from AFM observation showed small value with those of x-ray reflectivity and smaller at the area of 1 × 1 μm than at the area of 10 × 10 μm2 This suggested that the value of roughness measured by the measurement range might be different in the x-ray reflectivity measurements. It. Yoshikazu Fujii: Improvement of X-Ray Reflectivity Analysis on Surface and Interface Roughness Estimation suggested that the effective roughness depending on an incidence angle in XRR calculation should be assume. We show the new improved XRR formalism which derives more accurate surface and interface roughness with depending on the size of the probing area of coherent X-rays
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
