Low-temperature growth morphology of singular and vicinal Ge(001)

Nostrand, J. E. Van; Chey, S. Jay; Cahill, David G.

doi:10.1103/physrevb.57.12536

Cited by 64 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[6]. Very recently, experimental observations of striking mound formation [7] in Au and MgO vapor deposition growth have been interpreted without invoking any ES barrier effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…mounds do not necessarily imply an ES barrier) has recently been mentioned in at least two experimental publications [4,5] where it was emphasized that the mounded patterns seen on Si [4] and GaAs [5], InP [5] surfaces during MBE growth were not consistent with the phenomenology of a Schwoebel instability. In two other recent experimental publications [6] mound formation during semiconductor surface growth (Ge, GaAs) was carefully analyzed using the prevailing Schwoebel instability phenomenology with a conclusion not very dissimilar from that in ref. [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non-universal mound formation in non-equilibrium surface growth

Sarma¹,

Punyindu²,

Toroczkai³

2000

Surface Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate, using well-established nonequilibrium limited-mobility solid-on-solid growth models, that mound formation in the dynamical surface growth morphology does not necessarily imply the existence of a surface edge diffusion bias ("the Schwoebel barrier"). We find mounded morphologies in several nonequilibrium growth models which incorporate no Schwoebel barrier. Our numerical results indicate that mounded morphologies in nonequilibrium surface growth may arise from a number of distinct physical mechanisms, with the Schwoebel instability being one of them.Keywords: Computer simulations; Models of surface kinetics; Molecular beam epitaxy; Scanning tunneling microscopy; Growth; Surface diffusion; Surface rougheningIn vacuum deposition growth of thin films or epitaxial layers (e.g. MBE) it is common [1] to find mound formation in the evolving dynamical surface growth morphology. Although the details of the mounded morphology could differ considerably depending on the systems and growth conditions, the basic mounding phenomenon in surface growth has been reported in a large number of recent experimental publications [1]. The typical experiment [1] monitors vacuum deposition growth on substrates using STM and/or AFM spectroscopies. Growth mounds are observed under typical MBE-type growth conditions, and the resultant mounded morphology is statistically analyzed by studying the dynamical surface height h(r, t) as a function of the position r on the surface and growth time t. Much attention has focused on this ubiquitous phenomenon of mounding and the associated pattern formation during nonequilibrium surface growth for reasons of possible technological interest (e.g. the possibility of producing controlled nanoscale thin film or interface patterns) and fundamental interest (e.g. understanding nonequilibrium growth and pattern formation).The theoretical interpretation of the mounding phenomenon has often been based [1] on the step-edge diffusion bias [2] or the so-called Schwoebel barrier [3] effect (also known as the Ehrlich-Schwoebel [3], or ES, barrier). The basic idea of the ES barrier-induced mounding (often referred to as an instability) is simple : The ES effect produces an additional energy barrier for diffusing adatoms on terraces from coming "down" toward the substrate, thus probablistically inhibiting attachment of atoms to lower or down-steps and enhancing their attachment to upper or up-steps; the result is therefore mound formation because deposited atoms cannot come down from upper to lower terraces and so three-dimensional mounds or pyramids result as atoms are deposited on the top of already existing terraces.The physical picture underlying mounded growth under an ES barrier is manifestly obvious, and clearly the existence of an ES barrier is a sufficient condition [2] for mound formation in nonequilibrium surface growth.Our interest in this paper is to discuss the necessary condition for mound formation in nonequilibrium surface growth morphology -more precisely, we want to ask the inverse qu...

show abstract

“…[6]. Very recently, experimental observations of striking mound formation [7] in Au and MgO vapor deposition growth have been interpreted without invoking any ES barrier effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-universal mound formation in non-equilibrium surface growth

Sarma¹,

Punyindu²,

Toroczkai³

2000

Surface Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Particularly, in homoepitaxial film growth by MBE, there exists a well-known growth instability leading to mound formation due to an additional potential barrier for adatom transport at the downward step edge, the so-called Ehrlich-Schwoebel (ES) barrier. 1,2 Experimental evidence of an instability induced by the ES barrier during MBE growth has been reported in many semiconductor materials including Si, 3 Ge, 4,5 and GaAs, 6 as well as in metals. 7 For example, in their study of homoepitaxial growth of Ge(001) by MBE, Van Nostrand et al 4 experimentally determined the ES barrier by applying the model of Politi and Villain 2 to their measurements of island density in sub-monolayer (ML) growth and of the interval before the first appearance of growth mounds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of morphology evolution of Ge(001) homoepitaxial films grown by pulsed laser deposition and molecular-beam epitaxy

Shin

Leonard

McCamy

et al. 2005

Applied Physics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The growth of semiconductor films by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) is generally envisioned to form relatively smooth surfaces during homoepitaxy. However, there has been substantial experimental evidence in the literature that unstable growth can arise even during homoepitaxial semiconductor growth [3][4][5] and lead to the formation of mounds. While these mounds are much smaller than the aforementioned defect mounds, it is clearly desirable to minimize any surface roughness during the fabrication of heterostructures to preserve layers of uniform thickness.…”

Section: Security Classification Of: 17 Limitation Of Abstractmentioning

confidence: 99%