OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 19, Iss. 10 — May. 9, 2011
  • pp: 9172–9184
« Show journal navigation

Analytic theory of soft x-ray diffraction by lamellar multilayer gratings

I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 19, Issue 10, pp. 9172-9184 (2011)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.009172


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1344 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

An analytic theory describing soft x-ray diffraction by Lamellar Multilayer Gratings (LMG) has been developed. The theory is derived from a coupled waves approach for LMGs operating in the single-order regime, where an incident plane wave can only excite a single diffraction order. The results from calculations based on these very simple analytic expressions are demonstrated to be in excellent agreement with those obtained using the rigorous coupled-waves approach. The conditions for maximum reflectivity and diffraction efficiency are deduced and discussed. A brief investigation into p-polarized radiation diffraction is also performed.

© 2011 OSA

1. Introduction

Lamellar Multilayer Gratings (LMG) offer increased spectral and angular resolution in the soft x-ray (SXR) region compared to conventional multilayer mirrors (MM). The resolution of MMs in the SXR region is inherently limited due to absorption [1

1. I. V. Kozhevnikov and A. V. Vinogradov, “Basic formulae of XUV multilayer optics,” Phys. Scr. T17, 137–145 (1987). [CrossRef]

]. By fabricating a grating structure into a MM, an LMG structure is obtained that allows the SXR to penetrate deeper into the multilayer stack. Effectively, more bi-layers contribute to the reflection, improving the spectral and angular resolution of the MM. A schematic representation of an LMG is shown in Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Schematic of the cross section of an LMG. (a): An incident beam from the left (In), under grazing angle θ0, is reflected from the multilayer and diffracted into multiple orders (Out) by the grating structure. The multilayer is built up from N bi-layers with thickness d. Each bi-layer consists of an absorber material (A) with thickness γd and a spacer material (S) with thickness (1-γ)d. The grating structure of the LMG is defined by the grating period D and lamel width ΓD. (b): The normalized function U(x) is used to describe the lamellar profile.
and more detailed descriptions of the working principles of LMGs can be found in Refs. [2

2. A. Sammar, J.-M. André, and B. Pardo, “Diffraction and scattering by lamellar amplitude multilayer gratings in the X-UV region,” Opt. Commun. 86(2), 245–254 (1991). [CrossRef]

7

7. R. Benbalagh, “Monochromateurs Multicouches à bande passante étroite et à faible fond continu pour le rayonnement X-UV,” PhD Thesis, University of Paris VI, Paris, 2003.

].

Till now, diffraction of SXR from LMGs has been analyzed by time-consuming numerical simulations using complex rigorous theories [2

2. A. Sammar, J.-M. André, and B. Pardo, “Diffraction and scattering by lamellar amplitude multilayer gratings in the X-UV region,” Opt. Commun. 86(2), 245–254 (1991). [CrossRef]

,7

7. R. Benbalagh, “Monochromateurs Multicouches à bande passante étroite et à faible fond continu pour le rayonnement X-UV,” PhD Thesis, University of Paris VI, Paris, 2003.

,8

8. L. I. Goray, “Numerical analysis of the efficiency of multilayer-coated gratings using integral method,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Res. A 536(1-2), 211–221 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. Generally, one would not expect that computation time would be a significant limitation when addressing a physical problem. However, the optimization of LMG performance, in terms of resolution and reflectivity, is very difficult, as many of these time-consuming simulations need to be performed. It is even more difficult for the inverse problem of obtaining multilayer structural data, such as intermixing or roughness, from reflectivity measurements. Here, a multi-dimensional fitting procedure needs to be performed requiring hundreds or even thousands of simulations. Computation time is, thus, an important aspect when trying to understand the optical properties of LMGs. The lack of easy optimization and difficulties in understanding the LMG physical structure hampers the implementation of these dispersive elements in the SXR region.

Some progress in reducing computation time has recently been made in Ref. [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. where we used a coupled-waves approach (CWA). Additionally, we identified a single-order operating regime. In this regime, the incident wave only excites one diffraction order and, hence, the problem of diffraction is simplified as a two-wave approximation can be used. Nevertheless, the approach described in this work still requires numerical calculations [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

In this paper, we will derive analytic expressions for the diffraction efficiency of SXR radiation by LMGs operating in the single-order regime. We will demonstrate that these expressions are in excellent agreement with results from rigorous diffraction theories. This analytical description of the optical properties of LMGs makes earlier, complex, theories redundant. Furthermore, this theory can be used to improve our understanding of the optical properties of LMGs, simplify their design and optimization, and, most importantly, reveal their ultimate potential performance.

In section 2, we will first describe the differential equations of the CWA that can be rigorously used to calculate LMG SXR diffraction efficiency with numerical methods. Next, in section 3, we will derive the analytical solution to these differential equations for the zero-order diffraction efficiency (reflectivity) for LMGs operating in single-order regime. We will compare the reflectivity obtained using our analytic solution to that obtained from rigorous diffraction theory and demonstrate excellent agreement between them. In section 4, the analytical solution for the diffraction efficiency of higher diffraction orders is derived and discussed. Again, we will show an excellent agreement between rigorous diffraction theory and our simple analytical expressions. Finally, in section 5, a concise discussion of the diffraction of p-polarized radiation by LMGs will be presented.

2. Differential equations of the coupled waves approach

A comprehensive description of a CWA used to calculate diffraction and reflection by LMGs is given in Ref. [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Certain parts of that description are repeated here, as they are required for our derivation of analytical expressions. We begin with a schematic representation of an LMG as shown in Fig. 1(a). Here, a two-component (absorber A and spacer S) periodic multilayer structure with bi-layer period d and thickness ratio γ is depicted. The Z-axis is defined as directed into the depth of the substrate and L is the total thickness of the multilayer structure. The spatial distribution of the dielectric permittivity ε and the piece-wise periodic function U can be written as
ε(x,z<0)=1;   ε(x,0zL)=1χ(z)U(x;Γ,D);   ε(x, z>L)=εsub
(1)
where χ=1ε is the polarizability of matter. The piece-wise periodic function U, shown in Fig. 1(b), describes the lamellar profile in the X-direction and can be expanded into a Fourier series:
U(x;Γ,D)=n=+Unexp(2iπnx/D),   U0=Γ,   Un0=[1exp(2iπnΓ)]/(2iπn)
(2)
The solution to the 2D-wave equation 2E(x,z)+k2ε(x,z)E(x,z)=0 then has the following form (chapter 1, Ref. [9

9. R. Petit, Electromagnetic Theory of Gratings, (Springer-Verlag, 1980.

].):
E(x,z)=n=+Fn(z)exp(iqnx);qn=q0+2πnD;q0=kcosθ0;k=2πλ
(3)
where θ0 is the grazing angle of the incident monochromatic plane wave, qn is the X-component of the wave vector for the n th diffraction order and k is the wave number in vacuum.

Substituting Eqs. (1)(3) into the 2D wave equation (s-polarized radiation case) we obtain a system of coupled equations for waves of different diffraction orders:
       d2Fn(z)dz2+κn2Fn(z)=k2χ(z)mUnmFm(z);Fn(0)+iκnFn(0)=2iκnδn,0;Fn(L)iκn(s)Fn(L)=0
(4)
where δn,0 is the Kronecker symbol, and κn=k2qn2 and κn(s)=k2εsubqn2 are the Z-components of the wave vector for n th diffraction order in vacuum and in the substrate, respectively. The boundary conditions in Eqs. (4) signify that only a single plane wave is incident on the LMG at the grazing angle θ0, and that there are no waves incident onto the LMG from the substrate.

Still following the derivation of Ref. [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], let us now represent the field of the n th order diffracted wave Fn(z) as a superposition of two waves propagating in opposite directions along Z-axis:
Fn(z)=An(z)exp(iκnz)+Cn(z)exp(iκnz)
(5)
For a unique determination of the functions An(z) and Cn(z) we impose an additional requirement:
An(z)exp(iκnz)+Cn(z)exp(iκnz)=0
(6)
where the prime symbol in A'n and C'n indicates a first derivative with respect to z.

The functions An(z) and Cn(z) can be considered as amplitudes of a transmitted and a reflected wave, respectively. The representation of the diffracted waves in the form of Eqs. (5) and (6) is especially useful for the x-ray and soft x-ray region, because the polarizability of all materials (χ=1ε) is very small. This small polarizability means that the Z-component of the wave vector in vacuum κn=k2qn2 is very close to that in matter κn(ε)=k2εqn2. As a result, the amplitudes An(z) and Cn(z) vary slowly with z compared with the quickly oscillating exponential multipliers as long as the angle of incidence does not satisfy total external reflection.

By substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eqs. (4) we obtain a system of first order differential equations for the amplitudes An(z) and Cn(z)
{dAn(z)dz=ik22κnχ(z)m=+Unm[Am(z)ei(κmκn)z+Cm(z)ei(κm+κn)z]dCn(z)dz=+ik22κnχ(z)m=+Unm[Am(z)ei(κm+κn)z+Cm(z)ei(κmκn)z]
(7)
with the following boundary conditions
An(0)=δn,0;   Cn(L)=0
(8)
The dielectric permeability of the substrate is set to unity in Eq. (8), which is quite reasonable for soft x-rays as the polarizability is very small. We can, therefore, neglect the effect of reflection and diffraction of the incident wave from the substrate. Evidently, diffraction and reflection from an LMG can be determined by numerically solving Eqs. (7) and (8) and calculating the amplitudes of the waves diffracted into the vacuum (rn=Cn(0)) and substrate (tn=An(L)).

In Ref. [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], we have already compared numerical simulations using Eqs. (7) and (8) to calculations performed by other authors [7

7. R. Benbalagh, “Monochromateurs Multicouches à bande passante étroite et à faible fond continu pour le rayonnement X-UV,” PhD Thesis, University of Paris VI, Paris, 2003.

] and found excellent agreement provided sufficient diffraction orders are taken into account. In that work, we also identified a single-order operating regime for LMGs in which, an incident plane wave can only excite a single diffraction order. It was shown that, in this regime, the LMG zeroth-order diffraction efficiency (reflectivity) can be calculated by replacing the LMG by a conventional multilayer mirror (MM) with its material densities reduced by a factor of Γ (the ratio of the lamel width to grating period). The angular width of the zeroth-order diffraction peak of an LMG then simply reduces by a factor of 1/Γ without loss of peak reflectivity compared to a conventional MM. The necessary condition for LMG operation in the single-order regime is quite evident: the angular width of the LMG Bragg peak ΓΔθMM (where ΔθMM is the Bragg peak width for conventional MM) should be small compared with the angular distance between neighboring diffraction peaks d/D, such that [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]:

ΓDΔθMM<<d
(9)

3. Analytical solution for the zeroth-order diffraction efficiency (reflectivity)

Let us now consider a periodic multilayer structure having abrupt interfaces and consisting of two materials, namely a spacer and an absorber, with polarizabilities χS and χA, respectively. Then
χ(z)=χS+(χAχS)u(z)
(11)
describes the modulation of the multilayer and the piece-wise function u is similar to the function U that describes the lamellar profile:
u(z;γ,d)=n=+unexp(2iπnzd),   u0=γ,   un0=12iπn[1exp(2iπnγ)]
(12)
We limit ourselves to the most important case of a wave incident onto the multilayer structure within or near the Bragg resonance of the j th order, i.e. we will suppose that jλ2dsinθ0 or, equivalently, κ0πj/d. Substituting Eqs. (11) and (12) into Eqs. (9) we obtain
{dA0(z)dz+ik22κ0[χ¯ΓA0(z)+(χAχS)ujΓC0(z)e2i(πj/dκ0)z]=ΔA(z)dC0(z)dzik22κ0[χ¯ΓC0(z)+(χAχS)ujΓA0(z)e2i(πj/dκ0)z]=ΔC(z)
(13)
where χ¯=χAγ+χS(1γ) is the mean polarizability of a multilayer structure. The left-hand side of Eqs. (13) contain all terms that vary slowly with z. The functions ΔA and ΔC on the right-hand side denotes all other terms that oscillate quickly with z. These only weakly influence the amplitudes A 0 and C 0 and, therefore, can be neglected. Formally, this can be expressed by averaging Eqs. (13) over an interval, Δz, that is substantially larger than the period of oscillations of the functions ΔAand ΔC, but much smaller than the typical length scale over which the functions A 0 and C 0 vary.

A system of coupled differential equations with constant coefficients can be obtained by introducing a0(z)A0(z)exp[i(πj/dκ0)z] and c0(z)C0(z)exp[i(πj/dκ0)z]:
{da0(z)dz+i(πjdκ0+k22κ0χ¯Γ)a0(z)+ik22κ0(χAχS)Γujc0(z)=0dc0(z)dzi(πjdκ0+k22κ0χ¯Γ)c0(z)ik22κ0(χAχS)Γuja0(z)=0
(14)
with the same boundary conditions a0(0)=1 and c0(L)=0 as for Eqs. (10). By solving Eqs. (14) we obtain an analytical expression for the zeroth-order diffraction efficiency
R0=|Btanh(SNd)btanh(SNd)iB+Bb2|2
(15)
where R0=|r0|2. The terms used in Eq. (15) are
b=χ¯Γ+2sinθ0(jλ2dsinθ0);   B±=(χAχS)u±jΓ;     S=k2sinθ0B+Bb2
(16)
where the Bragg parameter, b, characterizes a deviation from the Bragg resonance, the parameters B± describe the modulation of the structure, and the parameter S characterizes the variation of the amplitudes A 0 and C 0 with z. The number N is the total number of bi-layers in the multilayer structure.

Vinogradov and Zeldovich have previously derived Eq. (15) in Refs. [10

10. A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “X-ray and far uv multilayer mirrors: principles and possibilities,” Appl. Opt. 16(1), 89–93 (1977). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,11

11. A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “Multilayer mirrors for x-ray and far-ultraviolet radiation,” Opt. Spektrosk. 42, 404–407 (1977).

]. However, they used a somewhat different mathematical technique and, in contrast to our approach, neglected the second derivatives with respect to z of the slowly varying amplitudes. As a result, there is a small difference in the expression for the Bragg parameter b.

To demonstrate the effect of the different Bragg parameters, b, Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Reflectivity R0 (at E = 183.4 eV) of conventional Mo/B4C multilayer mirror (d = 6 nm, γ = 0.34, N = 50) versus grazing angle. Calculations were performed with the use of exact algorithm (curve 1, red), simple analytic expressions (15) and (16) deduced in the present paper (curve 2, blue), and formulas obtained in Ref. [10,11]. (curve 3, green).
shows calculated reflectivities versus the grazing incidence angle using 3 different approaches. These calculations were performed for a conventional Mo/B4C multilayer mirror (i.e. for Γ = 1) at E = 183.4eV, which is the characteristic boron Kα-line. Curve 1 is the result of exact calculations using a recurrent algorithm [12

12. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 6th ed. (Pergamon, 1980.

], while curve 2 was calculated via Eqs. (15) and (16). Curve 3 was calculated using the Bragg parameter derived by Vinogradov and Zeldovich. It can easily be seen that curves 1 and 2 are in better agreement outside the Bragg peak than curves 1 and 3. Figure (2), thus, demonstrates that the Bragg parameter, b, deduced above (Eq. (16)) is better suited for the calculation of MM reflectivity than the parameter deduced by Vinogradov and Zeldovich.

We will now continue our investigation by deriving the generalized Bragg condition for LMGs. For simplicity, we begin by assuming a semi-infinite multilayer structure (N). Equation (15) then reduces to its simplest form with tanh(SNd)=1. The Bragg peak is very narrow, because of the small polarizability of matter in the SXR wavelength region. Therefore, we can neglect the wavelength dependence of the dielectric constant inside the peak. The reflectivity then only depends on the incidence angle and the radiation wavelength through the Bragg parameter b. At maximum reflectivity, we have the condition dR0/dτ=2Re[r*(dr/db)(db/dτ)]=0 (where either τ=sinθ0 or τ=λ) and we can obtain a Bragg condition that also includes the absorption and refraction of radiation
jλ2d=sinθ0Γ2sinθ0[Reχ¯Re(χAχS)Im(χAχS)Imχ¯sin2(πjγ)(πj)2]
(17)
If the Bragg condition (Eq. (17)) is fulfilled, the reflectivity achieves a peak value, which can be written in a very simple manner [1

1. I. V. Kozhevnikov and A. V. Vinogradov, “Basic formulae of XUV multilayer optics,” Phys. Scr. T17, 137–145 (1987). [CrossRef]

]
R0peak=1w1+w;w=1y21+f2y2;f=Re(χAχS)Im(χAχS);y=Im(χAχS)Imχ¯sin(πjγ)πj
(18)
From Eq. (18), it can be seen that the peak reflectivity is independent of the grating parameters and corresponds to that of a conventional multilayer mirror [1

1. I. V. Kozhevnikov and A. V. Vinogradov, “Basic formulae of XUV multilayer optics,” Phys. Scr. T17, 137–145 (1987). [CrossRef]

]. This is because the parameters f and y determine the peak reflectivity entirely and these parameters are not changed if the density of both materials is scaled by the same factor, Γ. In contrast, the penetration depth of the radiation into the multilayer structure LMS, and therefore also the spectral and angular resolution of an LMG, is inversely proportional to Г:
LMS~1S=λsinθ0πΓImχ¯(1y2)(1+f2y2)
(19)
LMGs can, thus, offer improved resolution without loss of peak reflectivity. Note that the peak reflectivity, (Eq. (18)), chieves its maximum possible value when the parameter y is maximal and, hence, the thickness ratio, γ, of a multilayer structure obeys the equation
tan(πjγ)=πj[γ+ImχS/Im(χAχS)]
(20)
which is well-known in the theory of conventional SXR multilayer mirrors [10

10. A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “X-ray and far uv multilayer mirrors: principles and possibilities,” Appl. Opt. 16(1), 89–93 (1977). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,11

11. A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “Multilayer mirrors for x-ray and far-ultraviolet radiation,” Opt. Spektrosk. 42, 404–407 (1977).

].

Figure 3
Fig. 3 Reflectivity (at E = 183.4 eV) versus the grazing angle of an incident beam for a conventional Mo/B4C multilayer mirror (Γ = 1) and for LMGs with different Γ-ratios: Γ = 1/2, 1/3, and 1/10. The multilayer parameters are the same as for Fig. 2, with the exception that the number of bi-layers increases with Γ according to N = 100/ Γ. The lamel width ΓD is fixed at 70nm and so the grating period increases through the relation D = 70 nm/ Γ. The colored curves were calculated with the use of rigorous coupled waves approach (Eq. (7)), where 5 diffraction orders were taken into account, while black dashed curves were calculated via simple analytic expressions (Eqs. (15) and (16)).
demonstrates the accuracy of the analytic expressions (15) and (16) for the reflectivity of LMGs operating in the single-order regime. For these calculations, the lamellar width ГD = 70 nm was fixed, while the parameter Г and the grating period D were varied. The number of bi-layers N was chosen to be large enough to provide the maximum possible peak reflectivity. The colored curves were calculated using rigorous diffraction theory, as described by Eqs. (7), where 5 diffraction orders were taken into account. The black dashed curves were calculated using the analytic Eq. (15). Figure 3 shows that the agreement between the curves is excellent with a deviation in reflectivity peaks of less than 0.6%. In addition, it can be seen that the width of the Bragg peak decreases proportionally to Γ and that the peak reflectivity of the LMG corresponds to that of a conventional MM. The shift in the peak position is caused by the dependence on the Γ-ratio of the Bragg condition (Eq. (17)) as the “effective” polarizabilities of both materials are scaled by this factor. Here, the “effective” polarizability refers to the average polarizabiliy of an individual layer.

4. Analytic solution for higher-order diffraction efficiencies

Similar to Eq. (17), the generalized Bragg condition can be written as
jλ2d=sinθ0+sinθm2sinθ0+sinθm4sinθ0sinθmΓReχ¯+                        +Re(χAχS)sinθ0+sinθmIm(χAχS)Imχ¯sin2(πjγ)(πj)2sin2(πmΓ)(πm)2Γ
(23)
The peak value of the diffraction efficiency then has the same form as in Eq. (18), but the parameter y is more complex:
y=Im(χAχS)Imχ¯sin(πjγ)πj2sinθ0sinθmsinθ0+sinθmsin(πmΓ)πmΓ
(24)
As a quick check of these equations, one would expect that, for specular reflectivity [i.e. inserting m = 0 into Eqs. (21)(24)], we should obtain Eqs. (14)(17), which is indeed the case.

To investigate the accuracy of the expressions (15) and (22), we compared results deduced from these equations with those obtained using rigorous diffraction theory (Eqs. (7)). As an example of such a comparison, Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Diffraction efficiency Rn (for n = −5,...,0) at E = 183.4 eV versus grazing angle of the incident beam. Parameters of the LMG: Mo/B4C multilayer structure (d = 6 nm, γ = 0.34, N = 300), D = 210 nm, Γ = 1/3. The colored curves were calculated using the rigorous coupled waves approach, where 9 diffraction orders (from + 2nd to −6th) were taken into account. The black dashed curves were calculated via the simple analytical expressions (15) and (22). The agreement is excellent, except for the −3rd order (blue curve).
shows the zeroth to −5th order diffraction peaks as a function of the grazing angle of the incident beam. The colored curves were numerically calculated using rigorous diffraction theory, where 9 diffraction orders, from + 2nd to −6th order, were taken into account. The black dashed curves were calculated using the analytic expressions (15) and (22). The parameters of the multilayer structure were the same as for Fig. 3. The grating period D was 210 nm, the lamellar width ГD was 70 nm and the number of bi-layers N was 300. As can be seen, the agreement between the curves is excellent with less than 0.6% deviation in diffraction peaks, except for the very small −3rd order diffraction peak. A closer look at the −3rd order diffraction peak shows that our parameter choices (specifically Gamma = 1/3) yields B± = 0. Under these circumstances, the small residual reflection comes from the quickly oscillating terms, which are neglected in the derivation of the analytical solution (Eq. (21)). From these observations it can be concluded that these extremely small peaks can be neglected in practical applications. Hence, as was found for the reflectivity calculations, complicated rigorous diffraction theories are not required for the calculation of the diffraction efficiencies of LMGs operating in the single order regime.

While the expressions for the reflectivity and the higher-order diffraction efficiencies are very similar, they differ in certain details. The main difference is the dependence of the maximum diffraction efficiency on the Γ-ratio in Eq. (24) for the parameter y. The diffraction efficiency becomes higher for larger values of y. However, the Γ-ratio is always smaller than unity for a grating, so each multiplier in Eq. (24) is also less than unity, and the parameter y for the higher order diffraction efficiencies is always less than that of the zeroth order diffraction efficiency (Eq. (18)). Hence, the peak value of the higher order diffraction efficiencies, Rn, will increase with decreasing Г, but not exceed the reflectivity peak value R0. Note that the parameter γ providing the maximum of diffraction efficiency is the same as for the reflectivity and is determined by Eq. (20).

In Fig. 5
Fig. 5 1st order diffraction efficiency at E = 183.4 eV versus grazing angle of incident beam and for different values of Γ. The lamellar width is fixed ΓD = 70 nm and the number of bi-layers is chosen as N = 100/Γ. The remaining parameters of the Mo/B4C multilayer structure are the same as in Fig. 4. The colored curves were calculated using the rigorous coupled waves approach, where 5 diffraction orders were taken into account. The black dashed curves were calculated via the simple analytical expressions (15) and (22).
, the Г-dependence of higher order diffraction efficiencies is demonstrated by showing the −1st order diffraction efficiencies for different values of Г. The parameters of the multilayer structure are the same as for Figs. 3 and 4. The lamellar width ГD = 70 nm is fixed, while Г and the grating period, D, are varied. The number of bi-layers N is again chosen large enough (100/Г) to obtain the maximum possible diffraction efficiency. The colored curves were calculated on the basis of rigorous diffraction theory (where 5 diffraction orders were taken into account) and black curves were calculated with the use of the analytical Eqs. (15) and (22). The agreement between the curves is excellent for all values of Г. By comparing Figs. 4 and 5, it can be seen that the −1st order diffraction efficiency is almost as high as the reflectivity, with a relative difference of only 0.85% for Г = 1/20.

5. Diffraction of p-polarized radiation by LMG

Equation (29) clearly demonstrates the main feature of p-polarized radiation reflection, namely, that at Brewster's angle of incidence θ0=π/4, the modulation effect of a multilayer structure disappears and the reflectivity (the zeroth order diffraction efficiency) goes to zero. Similarly, the m th order diffraction efficiency goes to zero if the diffracted beam propagates perpendicular to the incident one, i.e. at θ0+θm=π/2.

6. Conclusions

We developed an analytical theory for the reflection and diffraction of soft x-rays (SXR) by Lamellar Multilayer Gratings (LMGs) operating in the single-order regime. In this regime, an incident plane wave can only excite a single diffracted plane wave. The description of diffraction then becomes much easier, because a two-wave approximation can be used. Being mostly interested in cases of practical importance at or near the Bragg or quasi-Bragg resonance, we deduced simple analytical expressions describing the reflection and diffraction efficiencies as function of incidence angle and radiation wavelength.

Analytical expressions for diffraction efficiencies were first derived for LMGs in specular reflectance, i.e. expressions for the zeroth-order diffraction efficiency (reflectivity). The resolution of an LMG (angular width of the Bragg peak) was shown to grow inversely with the Γ-ratio (ratio of lamel width to grating period), provided that the number of bi-layers increases inversely proportional to Γ. At the same time, the peak value of the reflectivity is independent of the grating parameters and can be as high as that of a conventional MM. It was also shown that the reflectivity peak of a single-order LMG is the same as that of a conventional MM for which the material densities have been reduced by a factor of Γ. Therefore, the choice of optimal parameters for the multilayer structure (composition and γ-ratio) remains the same. However, in contrast to a conventional MM, the resolution of an LMG is not limited by the absorption of radiation and is independent of the peak reflectivity. LMGs can therefore be considered as MMs with no physical limitation on their resolution and without loss of peak reflectivity. However, resolution and reflectivity are still limited by the structures that can be fabricated. The analytical approach, thus, confirmed the main results of Ref. [6

6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], where the rigorous coupled-waves approach was numerically solved.

Expressions describing diffraction efficiencies and peak efficiencies for higher orders have been deduced. These results are very similar to those for the zeroth order reflection, differing only in certain details. The main difference is the dependence of the diffraction efficiency on the Γ-ratio: for smaller Γ-ratios, the peak diffraction efficiency approaches, but does not exceed, the peak reflectivity. Also, a decreasing Γ results in a narrowing of the diffraction peak in terms of grazing angle of the incident radiation. The parameters of the multilayer structure (composition and γ-ratio) providing maximum diffraction efficiency proved to be the same as for the reflectivity maximum.

The analytical expressions describing diffraction and reflection of LMGs were demonstrated to be in excellent agreement with those obtained using the rigorous coupled-waves approach. We, therefore, conclude that, in the single-order regime, complex and time-consuming computer codes, based on rigorous theories, are not required for the calculation of the reflection and diffraction by LMGs. Optimization of LMG parameters or deducing structural information, such as intermixing or roughness, of the LMG multilayer from reflectivity measurements are, thus, significantly simplified. This opens several opportunities for the investigation of the fabrication and use of LMGs in the SXR wavelength region.

We also analyzed diffraction and reflection of p-polarized radiation and showed that LMGs can be described analytically for p-polarized radiation as well, in an analogous manner that found for s-polarized radiation. The only difference compared to s-polarized radiation is a reduced efficiency of reflection and diffraction at Brewster’s angle of incidence, i.e. when the reflected or diffracted beam propagates perpendicular to the incident one.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, which is the applied science division of NWO, and the Technology Programme of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. F. Bijkerk additionally acknowledges the contribution from the research programme ‘Controlling photon and plasma induced processes at EUV optical surfaces (CP3E)’ of the ‘Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)’, which is financially supported by the ‘Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)’. The CP3E programme is co-financed by Carl Zeiss SMT and ASML.

References and links

1.

I. V. Kozhevnikov and A. V. Vinogradov, “Basic formulae of XUV multilayer optics,” Phys. Scr. T17, 137–145 (1987). [CrossRef]

2.

A. Sammar, J.-M. André, and B. Pardo, “Diffraction and scattering by lamellar amplitude multilayer gratings in the X-UV region,” Opt. Commun. 86(2), 245–254 (1991). [CrossRef]

3.

A. I. Erko, B. Vidal, P. Vincent, Yu. A. Agafonov, V. V. Martynov, D. V. Roschupkin, and M. Brunel, “Multilayer gratings efficiency: numerical and physical experiments,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 333(2-3), 599–606 (1993). [CrossRef]

4.

A. Sammar, M. Ouahabi, R. Barchewitz, J.-M. Andre, R. Rivoira, C. K. Malek, F. R. Ladan, and P. Guerin, “Theoretical and experimental study of soft X-ray diffraction by a lamellar multilayer amplitude grating,” J. Opt. 24(1), 37–41 (1993). [CrossRef]

5.

R. Benbalagh, J.-M. André, R. Barchewitz, P. Jonnard, G. Julié, L. Mollard, G. Rolland, C. Rémond, P. Troussel, R. Marmoret, and E. O. Filatova, “Lamellar multilayer amplitude grating as soft-X-ray Bragg monochromator,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Res. A 541(3), 590–597 (2005). [CrossRef]

6.

I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

R. Benbalagh, “Monochromateurs Multicouches à bande passante étroite et à faible fond continu pour le rayonnement X-UV,” PhD Thesis, University of Paris VI, Paris, 2003.

8.

L. I. Goray, “Numerical analysis of the efficiency of multilayer-coated gratings using integral method,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Res. A 536(1-2), 211–221 (2005). [CrossRef]

9.

R. Petit, Electromagnetic Theory of Gratings, (Springer-Verlag, 1980.

10.

A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “X-ray and far uv multilayer mirrors: principles and possibilities,” Appl. Opt. 16(1), 89–93 (1977). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “Multilayer mirrors for x-ray and far-ultraviolet radiation,” Opt. Spektrosk. 42, 404–407 (1977).

12.

M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 6th ed. (Pergamon, 1980.

OCIS Codes
(050.1950) Diffraction and gratings : Diffraction gratings
(230.1480) Optical devices : Bragg reflectors
(230.4170) Optical devices : Multilayers
(340.0340) X-ray optics : X-ray optics
(340.7480) X-ray optics : X-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet (EUV)

ToC Category:
X-ray Optics

History
Original Manuscript: February 23, 2011
Revised Manuscript: April 21, 2011
Manuscript Accepted: April 21, 2011
Published: April 26, 2011

Citation
I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, "Analytic theory of soft x-ray diffraction by lamellar multilayer gratings," Opt. Express 19, 9172-9184 (2011)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-19-10-9172


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. I. V. Kozhevnikov and A. V. Vinogradov, “Basic formulae of XUV multilayer optics,” Phys. Scr. T17, 137–145 (1987). [CrossRef]
  2. A. Sammar, J.-M. André, and B. Pardo, “Diffraction and scattering by lamellar amplitude multilayer gratings in the X-UV region,” Opt. Commun. 86(2), 245–254 (1991). [CrossRef]
  3. A. I. Erko, B. Vidal, P. Vincent, Yu. A. Agafonov, V. V. Martynov, D. V. Roschupkin, and M. Brunel, “Multilayer gratings efficiency: numerical and physical experiments,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 333(2-3), 599–606 (1993). [CrossRef]
  4. A. Sammar, M. Ouahabi, R. Barchewitz, J.-M. Andre, R. Rivoira, C. K. Malek, F. R. Ladan, and P. Guerin, “Theoretical and experimental study of soft X-ray diffraction by a lamellar multilayer amplitude grating,” J. Opt. 24(1), 37–41 (1993). [CrossRef]
  5. R. Benbalagh, J.-M. André, R. Barchewitz, P. Jonnard, G. Julié, L. Mollard, G. Rolland, C. Rémond, P. Troussel, R. Marmoret, and E. O. Filatova, “Lamellar multilayer amplitude grating as soft-X-ray Bragg monochromator,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Res. A 541(3), 590–597 (2005). [CrossRef]
  6. I. V. Kozhevnikov, R. van der Meer, H. M. J. Bastiaens, K.-J. Boller, and F. Bijkerk, “High-resolution, high-reflectivity operation of lamellar multilayer amplitude gratings: identification of the single-order regime,” Opt. Express 18(15), 16234–16242 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. R. Benbalagh, “Monochromateurs Multicouches à bande passante étroite et à faible fond continu pour le rayonnement X-UV,” PhD Thesis, University of Paris VI, Paris, 2003.
  8. L. I. Goray, “Numerical analysis of the efficiency of multilayer-coated gratings using integral method,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Res. A 536(1-2), 211–221 (2005). [CrossRef]
  9. R. Petit, Electromagnetic Theory of Gratings, (Springer-Verlag, 1980.
  10. A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “X-ray and far uv multilayer mirrors: principles and possibilities,” Appl. Opt. 16(1), 89–93 (1977). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. A. V. Vinogradov and B. Ya. Zeldovich, “Multilayer mirrors for x-ray and far-ultraviolet radiation,” Opt. Spektrosk. 42, 404–407 (1977).
  12. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 6th ed. (Pergamon, 1980.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited