Abstract
The effects of lattice strain on the step edge diffusion of Ag(111) and Ag(100) surfaces are analyzed using molecular statics (MS) based on the semi-empirical embedded atom method (EAM) potential. The calculation of activation barriers of adatom diffusion on surfaces, diffusion over step edge, island corner diffusion, and diffusion along step under strained conditions shows that lattice strain greatly affects the energy barriers of various diffusion processes. For example, comparison shows that the Ehrlich-Schwoebel (ES) barrier decreases as lattice strain increases, which is opposite with strain dependency of surface diffusion barrier, and the diffusions along two different types of steps on Ag(111) surface have a lattice strain dependency different from each other. These different diffusion barrier behavior dependencies on lattice strain have interesting implications on the morphological evolution of strained thin film.
Keywords
embedded atom method strain ES barrier activation barrier potential energy surface (PES)Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Y. W. Mo, D. E. Savage, B. S. Swartzentruber, and M. G. Lagally,Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1020 (1990).PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 2.H. Brune, K. Bromann, H. Rödder, K. Kern, J. Jacobsen, P. Stoltze, K. Jacobsen, and J. Nørskov,Phys. Rev. B 52, R14380 (1995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 3.H. Brune,Surf. Sci. Rep. 31, 121 (1998).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 4.E. Lundgren, B. Stanka, G. Leonardelli, M. Schmid, and P. Varga,Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5068 (1999).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 5.H. Röder, K. Bromann, H. Brune, and K. KernPhys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3217 (1995).PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 6.C. Ratsch, A. P. Seitsonen, and M. Scheffler,Phys. Rev. B. 55, 6750 (1997).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 7.B. D. Yu and M. Scheffler,Phys. Rev. B. 56, R15569 (1997).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.C. Ratsch, P. Ruggerone, and M. Scheffler,The Chemical Physics of Soild Surfaces (eds., D. A. King and D. P. Woodruff) vol. 8, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1997).Google Scholar
- 9.P. Stoltze,J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 6, 9495 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 10.C. L. Liu, J. M. Cohen, J. B. Adams, and A. F. Voter,Surf. Sci. 253, 334 (1991).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 11.L. Hansen, P. Stoltze, K. W. Jacobsen, and J. K. Nørskov,Phys. Rev. B. 44, 6523 (1991).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 12.G. Leonardelli, E. Lundgren, and M. Schmid,Surf. Sci. 490, 29 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 13.L. E. Shilkrot and D. J. Srolovitz,Phys. Rev. B. 53, 11120 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 14.G. H. Vineyard,J. Phys. Chem. Solids 3, 121 (1957).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 15.G. Wahnström,Interaction of Atoms and Molecules with Solid Surfaces (eds., V. Bortolani, N. H. March, and M. P. Tosi), p. 529, Plenum Press, New York and London (1990).Google Scholar
- 16.R. Gomer,Rep. Prog. Phys. 53, 917 (1990).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 17.J. Cai and Y. Y. Ye,Phys. Rev. B 54, 8398 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 18.XMD was written by Jon Rifkin at University of Connecticut. The authors appreciate the permission of public use of this code by Jon Rifkin.Google Scholar
- 19.M. S. Daw, S. M. Foiles, and M. I. Baskes,Mater. Sci. Rep. 9, 251 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.R. L. Schwoebel,J. Appl. Phys. 40, 614 (1969).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 21.R. Q. Hwang, J. Schröder, C. Günther, and R. J. Behm,Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3279 (1991).PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 22.M. Bott, T. Michely, and G. Comsa,Surf. Sci. 272, 161 (1992).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 23.Th. Michely, M. Hohage, M. Bott, and G. Comsa,Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3943 (1993).PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 24.H. Brune, C. Romainszyk, H. Röder, and K. KernNature 369, 469 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 25.H. Brune, C. Romainszyk, H. Röder, and K. KernAppl. Phys. A 60, 167 (1995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 26.M. Hohage, M. Bott, M. Morgenstern Z. Zhang, T. Michely, and G. Comsa,Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2366 (1996).PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar