Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T05:33:55.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In-Situ Observation of Stress in Cu/Pd Multilayers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

T. Ueda
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2205
G.F. Simenson
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2205
W.D. Nix
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2205
Bruce M. Clemens
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2205
Get access

Abstract

Stress evolution was studied during growth of Cu/Pd multilayers using an in-situ, laserbased wafer curvature technique which allowed measurement of stress changes associated with sub-monolayer thickness increases. The apparent stress in the Cu layers changes during growth, from compressive, for thickness less than about 0.5 nm, to tensile for thicknesses above this. The stress behavior in the Pd layers depends on the thickness of the underlying Cu layer. Pd deposited on thick (2 nm) Cu layers is under an apparent compressive stress, while Pd deposited on thin (< 1 nm) Cu layers is initially under a tensile stress but changes to a compressive stress at about 0.5 nm. The overall compressive stress maxima observed in multilayers at a bilayer period of 2 nm is explained by this in-situ behavior. The stress behavior in this system is consistent with either island growth of Cu, or thickness dependent alloying behavior, or both.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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

REFERENCES

1. Bain, J.A., Chyung, L.J., Brennan, S.M., and Clemens, B.M.. Phys. Rev. B, 44, 1184–92, (1991).Google Scholar
2. Baker, S.P. and Nix, W.D.. J. Mat. Res., 9, 3145–52, (1994).Google Scholar
3. Daniels, B.J., Nix, W.D., and Clemens, B.M.. Mat. Res. Soc. Symp.Proc., 382, 1995.Google Scholar
4. Nakayama, N., Wu, L., Dohnomae, H., Shinjo, T., Kim, J., and Falco, C.M.. J. Magn. and Magn. Matls., 126, 71–5, (1993).Google Scholar
5. Somekh, R.E.. J. Vac. Sci. Tech., A 2, 1285–91, (1984).Google Scholar
6. Hoffman, D.W. and Thornton, J.A.. Thin Solid Films, 45, 387–96, (1977).Google Scholar
7. Oral, B., Korhari, R., and Vook, R.W.. J. Vac. Sci. Tech., A 7, 2020–3, (1989).Google Scholar
8. Ruud, J.A., Witvroum, A, and Spaepen, F.. Mat. Res. Soc. Proc., 209, (1991).Google Scholar
9. Bain, J.A., Clemens, B.M., and Brennan, S.. Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 312, 291–6, (1993).Google Scholar
10. Koymen, A.R., Lee, K.H., Yang, G., Jensen, K.O., and Weiss, A.H.. Phys. Rev. B, 48, 2020–3, (1993).Google Scholar