Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T09:16:12.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Orientation Selection and Microstructural Evolution of Epitaxial Pt Films on (001) MgO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Paul C. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545
Carl J. Maggiore
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545
Michael Nastasi
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545
Get access

Abstract

Thin platinum films were deposited at several different deposition rates and with varying thickness on (OOl)-cut MgO single crystal substrates by electron beam evaporation. A mixture of two epitaxial Pt orientations were detected in the films by X-ray diffraction and planar ion channeling experiments: (001) [100] Pt // (001) [100] MgO (the “cube-on-cube” orientation) and (111) [110] Pt // (001) [110] MgO. The effect of deposition rate on film orientation indicated the (111) Pt orientation was preferred under conditions of high driving force for nucleation. The volume fraction of the films occupied by the (111) orientation increased with nominal film thickness, at a constant substrate temperature and deposition rate. This result indicates crystallites having the (111) Pt orientation grew more quickly following nucleation than the (001). The mosaic spread of the Pt orientations decreased markedly as the nominal film thickness increased from ∼ 1.5 nm (isolated islands) to 20 nm (continuous film).

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. Pashley, D.W., Adv. Phys. 5, 173 (1956).Google Scholar
2. Matthews, J.W. and Grünbaum, E., Appl. Phys. Lett. 5, 106 (1964); Phil. Mag. 11, 1233 (1965).Google Scholar
3. Baibich, M.N., Broto, J.M., Fert, A., Nguyen Van Dau, F., Petroff, F., Etienne, P., Creuzet, G., Friederich, A., and Chazelas, J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2472 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Etienne, P., Massies, J., Lequien, S., Cabanel, R., and Petroff, F., J. Crystal Growth 111, 1003 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Lairson, B.M., Visokay, M.R., Sinclair, R., Hagstrom, S., and Clemens, B.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 61, 1390 (1992).Google Scholar
6. Lairson, B.M., Visokay, M.R., Sinclair, R., and Clemens, B.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 639 (1993).Google Scholar
7. Lu, H.A., Willis, L.A., and Wessels, B.W., Appl. Phys. Lett. 64, 2973 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Narayan, J., Tiwari, P., Jagannadham, K., and Holland, O.W., Appl. Phys. Lett. 64, 2093 (1994).Google Scholar
9. Mclntyre, P.C., Maggiore, C.J., and Nastasi, M., Appl. Phys. Lett.; to be published.Google Scholar
10. Mclntyre, P.C., Hawley, M.E., Maggiore, C.J., and Nastasi, M.; unpublished work.Google Scholar
11. Chu, W-K., Mayer, J.W., and Nicolet, M-A., Backscattering Spectrometry (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1978), p. 229.Google Scholar
12. Fecht, H.J. and Gleiter, H., Acta Metall. 33, 1113 (1985).Google Scholar
13. Barret, J.H., Phys. Rev. B 3, 1527 (1971).Google Scholar