Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:57:20.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bragg-Brentano and Seeman-Bohlin Diffractometers for Thin Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

L. S. Zevin
L. S. Zevin
Affiliation:
Materials Engineering Department and Institutes for Applied Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 1025, Beer-Sheva, 84110, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The performances of Seeman-Bohlin (S-B) and Bragg-Brentano (B-B) diffractometers with flat thin film samples were compared on the basis of equal instrumental aberrations. It was found that the S-B arrangement has only a marginal advantage as regards diffracted intensity, and that both types of diffractometer may be successfully employed for characterization of thin films. Diffraction data obtained with very thin metallic films (down to 30 Å) are included for illustration. In order to eliminate reflections from the singlecrystal substrate in the B-B diffractometer, sample tilting was employed. Provided the tilting angle remains within 0.5°, sample tilting causes only moderate additional broadening of the thin film peaks.

Type
Research Article
Information
Powder Diffraction , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 25 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Feder, R. & Berry, B. S. (1970). J. Appl. Crystallogr. 3, 372–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinier, A. (1956). Théorie et Technique de la Radiocristallographie. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Huang, T. C. & Parrish, W. (1979). Adv. X-Ray Anal., ed. McCarthy, G. J., Barrett, C. S., Leyden, D. E., Newkirk, J. B., and Ruud, C. O., 22, 43–64. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. & Paolini, F. R. (1974). Norelco Reporter 21, 9–14.Google Scholar
Kheiker, D. M. & Zevin, L. S. (1963). X-Ray Diffractometry. Moscow: Fizmatigiz, (In Russian).Google Scholar
Kunze, G. (1964). Z. Angew. Phys. 17, 522–534.Google Scholar
Mack, M. & Parrish, W. (1967). Acta Crystallogr. 23, 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrish, W. (1974). Adv. X-Ray Anal., ed. Grant, C. L., Barrett, C. S., Newkirk, J. B. and Ruud, C. O., 17, 97–105.Google Scholar
Parrish, W. & Mack, M. (1967). Acta Crystallogr. 23, 637–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segmüller, A. (1957). Z. Metallk. 48, 448–454.Google Scholar
Stoecker, W. C. and Starbuck, J. W. (1965). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 36, 1593–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, P. M. de (1958). Appl. Sci. Res. B7, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zevin, L. S. & Kheiker, D. M. (1967). Industrial Labor. USSR 33, 1798–1803.Google Scholar
Zevin, L. S., Umanski, M. M. and Kheiker, D. M. (1963). Sov. Phys. Crystallogr. (Engl. Transl.) 8, 528–536.Google Scholar
Zevin, L. S. (1977). Apparatus and Methods of X-ray Analysis No. 8, 51–57. (In Russian).Google Scholar
Zevin, L. S. (1981). J. Phys. E. 14, 725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zevin, L. S. & Zevin, I. M. (1987). X-ray Diffractometry of Low-Mass Samples. Powder Diff. 2(2), 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar