Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:37:40.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructure of FCC/BCC Metal Multilayers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Nigel M. Jennett ,
D.J. Dingley  and
Y. Ando
Nigel M. Jennett
Affiliation:
Bristol University, Dept. Physics, Tyndall Ave, Bristol, BS81TL, England.
D.J. Dingley
Affiliation:
Bristol University, Dept. Physics, Tyndall Ave, Bristol, BS81TL, England.
Y. Ando
Affiliation:
Nagoya University, Dept. Applied Physics, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Get access

Abstract

Bilayers of Cu/Fe and Cu/V and multilayers of Ni/Fe have been grown under high vacuum and ultra high vacuum conditions respectively with [111] epitaxy. Multilayer layer thicknesses ranged from 3 monolayers to 15 monolayers per layer. Improved epitaxy of the UHV growth was, we believe, due to the better vacuum although perfect material could only be obtained for growth within a narrow and shifting substrate temperature ‘window’. Possible shortfall in the quality of the Cu backing layer epitaxy was averted by a 2hr anneal at 425°C.

In the Fe/Ni multilayers the Fe was observed to adopt the FCC lattice rather than the equilibrium BCC lattice for layer thicknesses less than 10 monolayers. This change of structure coincided with a reduction in sample magnetic moment per volume attributed to a collapse of the Fe moment to a value 7 times less than bulk.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 160 , 1989 , 183
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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

1Tsakalakos, T. and Hilliard, J.E., J. App. Phys. 54, 734 (1983).Google Scholar
2Orozco, P.J., PhD Thesis Bristol University UK, 1988.Google Scholar
3Zheng, J.Q., Ketterson, J.B., Falco, C.M. and Schuller, I.K., J. App. Phys. 53, 3150 (1982).Google Scholar
4Haase, O., Naturf. A14, 920 (1959).Google Scholar
5Jesser, W.A. and Matthews, J.W., Phil. Mag. 15, 1097 (1967).Google Scholar
6Olsen, G.H. and Jesser, W.A., Acta Met. 19, 1009 (1971).Google Scholar
7Kato, M., Fukase, S., Sato, A. and Mori, T., Acta Met. 34, 1179 (1986).Google Scholar
8Kato, M., Wada, M., Sato, A. and Mori, T., Acta Met. 37, 749 (1989).Google Scholar
9Gaigher, H.L., van der Berg, N.G. and Malherbe, J.B., Thin Solid Films 128, 139 (1985); 137, 337 (1986); 146, 299 (1987).Google Scholar
10Thaler, B.J., Ketterson, J.B. and Hilliard, J.E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 336 (1978).Google Scholar
11Somekh, R.E. and Baxter, C.S., J. Cryst. Growth, 79, 119 (1986).Google Scholar
12Weiss, R.J., Proc. Phys. Soc. 82, 281 (1963).Google Scholar
13Pinski, F.J., Staunton, J., Gyorffy, B.L., Johnson, D.D. and Stocks, G.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2096 (1986).Google Scholar