Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T15:28:25.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interface-dominated growth of a metastable novel alloy phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

Subhendu Sarkar*
Affiliation:
Surface Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata 700 064, India
Alokmay Datta
Affiliation:
Surface Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata 700 064, India
Purushottam Chakraborty
Affiliation:
Surface Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata 700 064, India
Biswarup Satpati
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar 751 005, India
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: purushottam.chakraborty@saha.ac.in
Get access

Abstract

A new D023 metastable phase of Cu3Au was found to grow at the interfaces of Au/Cu multilayers deposited by magnetron sputtering. The extent of formation of this novel alloy phase depends upon an optimal range of interfacial width primarily governed by the deposition wattage of the direct current magnetron used. Such interfacially confined growth is utilized to grow a ∼300-nm-thick Au/Cu multilayer with thickness of each layer nearly equal to the optimal interfacial width which was obtained from secondary-ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) data. This growth technique is observed to enhance the formation of the novel alloy phase to a considerable extent. The SIMS depth profile also indicates that the mass fragment corresponding to Cu3Au occupies the whole film while x-ray diffraction (XRD) shows almost all the strong peaks belonging to the D023 structure. High-resolution cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy shows the near-perfect growth of the individual layers and also the lattice image of the alloy phase in the interfacial region. Vacuum annealing of the alloy film and XRD studies indicate stabilization of the D023 phase at ∼150 °C. The role of interfacial confinement, the interplay between interfacial strain and free energy, and the hyperthermal species generated during the sputtering process are discussed.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

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

1Fournee, V., Ledieu, J., Cai, T. and Thiel, P.A.: Influence of strain in Ag on Al(111) and Al on Ag(100) thin film growth. Phys. Rev. B 67, 155401 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Davies, A., Stroscio, A.J., Pierce, D.T., Unguris, J. and Celotta, R.J.: Observations of alloying in the growth of Cr on Fe(001). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 165, 82 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Kong, L.T., Liu, J.B. and Liu, B.X.: Prediction of possible metastable alloy phases in an equilibrium immiscible Y–Mo system by ab initio calculation. J. Mater. Res. 17, 528 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Zhang, Z.J. and Liu, B.X.: Solid-state reaction to synthesize Ni–Mo metastable alloys. J. Appl. Phys. 76, 3351 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Abadias, G., Jaouen, C., Martin, F., Pacaud, J., Djemia, Ph. and Ganot, F.: Experimental evidence for the role of supersaturated interfacial alloys on the shear elastic softening of Ni/Mo superlattices. Phys. Rev. B 65, 212105 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Yavari, A.R., Desre, P.J. and Benameur, T.: Mechanically driven alloying of immiscible elements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2235 (1992).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Ma, E., He, J.H. and Schilling, P.J.: Mechanical alloying of immiscible elements: Ag–Fe contrasted with Cu–Fe. Phys. Rev. B 55, 5542 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Ferreira, L.G., Ozolins, V. and Zunger, A.: Fitting of accurate interatomic pair potentials for bulk metallic alloys using unrelaxed LDA energies. Phys. Rev. B 60, 1687 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Chen, Y.G. and Liu, B.X.: Interface-driven solid-state alloying in an immiscible Cu–W system. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 30, 1729 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Schwarz, R.B. and Johnson, W.L.: Formation of an amorphous alloy by solid-state reaction of the pure polycrystalline metals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 415 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Huang, J.Y., Jiang, J.Z., Yasuda, H. and Mori, H.: Kinetic process of mechanical alloying in Fe50Cu50. Phys. Rev. B 58, R11817 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Dorofeev, G.A., Elsukov, E.P. and Ulyanov, A.L.: Mechanical alloying of immiscible elements in the Fe–Mg system. Inorg. Mater. 40, 690 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Ma, E. and Atzmon, M.: Calorimetric evidence for polymorphous constraints on metastable Zr-Al phase formation by mechanical alloying. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1126 (1991).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Koike, J., Okamoto, P.R., Rehn, L.E. and Meshii, M.: Amorphization in Zr3Al irradiated with 1-MeV e and Kr+. Metall. Trans. A 21, 1799 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Hung, L.S., Nastasi, M., Gyulai, J. and Mayer, J.W.: Ion-induced amorphous and crystalline phase formation in Al/Ni, Al/Pd, and Al/Pt thin films. Appl. Phys. Lett. 42, 672 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Hafner, J.: From Hamiltonian to Phase Diagrams, Springer Series in Solid State Sciences, Vol. 70 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Bardhan, P. and Cohen, J.B.: A structural study of the alloy Cu3Au above its critical temperature. Acta Crystallogr. A 32, 597 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Hanley, L. and Sinnott, S.B.: The growth and modification of materials via ion-surface processing. Surf. Sci. 500, 500 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Zhou, X.W. and Wadley, H.N.G.: Hyperthermal vapor deposition of copper: athermal and biased diffusion effects. Surf. Sci. 431, 42 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Sarkar, S., Datta, A., Chakraborty, P. and Satpati, B.: Formation of a tetragonal Cu3Au alloy at gold/copper interfaces. Surf. Interface Anal. 35, 793 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Sarkar, S. and Chakraborty, P.: Preferential oxygen-trapping in metallic multilayers: A SIMS perspective. J. Chin. Chem. Soc. 48, 521 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Sarkar, S., Chakraborty, P. and Gnaser, H.: Energetics of MCsn + molecular ions emitted from Cs+ irradiated surfaces. Phys. Rev. B 70, 195427 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Chen, Y.G. and Liu, B.X.: Alloy phases formed in immiscible Cu–Mo and Cu–W systems by multilayer-technique. J. Alloys Compd. 261, 217 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams, edited by Massalski, T.B., Okamoto, H., and Subramanian, T.R., 2nd ed. (American Society of Metals, Materials Park, OH, 1996).Google Scholar
25Madakson, P. and Liu, J.C.: Interdiffusion and resistivity of Cu/Au, Cu/Co, Co/Au and Cu/Co/Au thin films at 25–550°C. J. Appl. Phys. 68, 2121 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Lifshitz, Y., Kasi, S.R., Rabalais, J.W. and Eckstein, W.: Subplantation model for film growth from hyperthermal species. Phys. Rev. B 41, 10468 (1990).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Lifshitz, Y., Kasi, S.R. and Rabalais, J.W.: Subplantation model for film growth from hyperthermal species: Application to diamond. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1290 (1989).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Jacobsohn, L.G., Freire, F.L. and Jr., : Influence of the plasma pressure on the microstructure and on the optical and mechanical properties of amorphous carbon films deposited by direct current magnetron sputtering. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 17, 2841 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Langmuir, I.: The effect of space charge and residual gases on thermionic currents in high vacuum. Phys. Rev. 2, 450 (1913).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Kaminsky, M.: Atomic and Ionic Impact Phenomenon (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Meyer, K., Schuller, I.K. and Falco, C.M.: Thermalization of sputtered atoms. J. Appl. Phys. 52, 5803 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Somekh, R.E.: The thermalization of energetic atoms during the sputtering process. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2, 1285 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar