Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-76l5x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T02:14:05.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why does Hydrogen Loss Rate Correlate with How Strongly Hydrogen Inhibits Ion Beam Mixing?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

R. E. Wistrom  and
P. Borgesen
R. E. Wistrom
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Bard Hall Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
P. Borgesen
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Bard Hall Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the presence of hydrogen in multilayer samples containing Ti reduces ion beam mixing rates. The present study sought to determine why the magnitude of this effect depends on which metal is mixed into Ti and why it is correlated to the rate at which hydrogen leaves the sample during mixing. Hydrogen loss rates of multilayers were compared with those of bilayer samples designed to minimize the effect of mixing. For bilayers, hydrogen loss rates were smaller and did not depend on which metal was mixed into Ti in the same way that multilayer loss rates do. This suggests that hydrogen leaves the multilayer samples because it is bound less strongly in the mixed regions than in the Ti. The primary cause of hydrogen loss is mixing rather than ion beam induced desorption.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 157: Symposium A – Beam-Solid Interactions: Physical Phenomena , 1989 , 209
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

REFERENCES

1 Borgesen, P., Wistrom, R. E., Johnson, H. H., and Lillenfeld, D. A.: J. Mater. Res. 4, 821 (1989).Google Scholar
2 Wistrom, R. E., Borgesen, P., Johnson, H. H., and Lillenfeld, D. A.: in Processing and Characterization of Materials Using Ion Beams, edited by Rehn, L. E., Greene, J. E., and Smid, F. A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 125, Pittsburgh, Pa 1989) pp. 219–224.Google Scholar
3 Borgesen, P., Wistrom, R. E., Alford, T. L., Johnson, H. H., and Lillenfeld, D. A.:, Nucl. Instrum. and Meth. B43, 165 (1989).Google Scholar
4 Borgesen, P., Lillenfeld, D. A., Wistrom, R. E.: to be published.Google Scholar
5 Hirvonen, J. -P., Elve, M. A., Mayer, J. W., and Johnson, H. H., Mater. Sei. and Eng. 90, 13 1987).Google Scholar
6 Johnson, W. L., Cheng, Y. T., Van Rossum, M., and Nicolet, M.-A., Nucl. Instrum. and Meth. B7/B8. 657 (1985).Google Scholar
7 Reilly, J. J., Z. Phys. Chem. NF 177 155 (1979).Google Scholar
8 Doyle, B. L. and Peercy, P. S.: Appl. Phys. Lett. 34, 811 (1979).Google Scholar
9 Behrisch, R. (ed.), Sputtering by Particle Bombardment I. Topics in Applied Physics, vol. 47, (Springer Verlag, 1981).Google Scholar
10 Becker, O., Knippelberg, W., and Wien, K., Physica Scripta T6, 117 (1982).Google Scholar
11 Schluckebier, M., Pfeiffer, Th., Muskalla, K., Schmulling, W., and Kamke, D., Appl. Phys. A 42, 19 (1987).Google Scholar
12 Schluckebier, M., Pfeiffer, Th., Muskalla, K., Schmulling, W., and Kamke, D., Appl. Phys. A12, 179 (1987).Google Scholar