Morphological Stability of Alloy Thin Films

Guyer, Jonathan E.; Voorhees, Peter W.

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.4031

Cited by 145 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, due to the nonplanar interfaces between different layers, even if the elastic constants of all the layers and substrate are assumed to be identical, the stability results of the system here are not equivalent to those of a simplified semi-infinite solid as in the former study of single layer film with flat film-substrate interface. [20][21][22] So to obtain the exact and direct solution of these equations is very difficult for large k, even in a linear analysis.…”

Section: Model and Elastic Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we know from the heteroepitaxial growth of a single-layer film, [19][20][21][22]27,28 the nonzero misfit strain can be relieved through the development of morphological instability, leading to a nonplanar surface profile z = h 1 (x, y) = l 1 + qĥ 1 (q) exp(iq x x+ iq y y) for the first layer 1, with a coherent interface at z = h 0 = ζ(x, y) = qζ (q) exp(iq x x + iq y y) (the average positionζ = 0) between film and substrate, where l 1 is the average thickness of first layer andĥ 1 (ζ) denotes the surface (interface) morphological perturbation. Here we only consider the morphological modulations of the film, corresponding to the deposition of only a single component in each layer, and do not consider the compositional evolution which is important in alloy growth systems and which results in more complicated properties due to its coupling with the morphological evolution.…”

Section: Model and Elastic Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we only consider the morphological modulations of the film, corresponding to the deposition of only a single component in each layer, and do not consider the compositional evolution which is important in alloy growth systems and which results in more complicated properties due to its coupling with the morphological evolution. 21,22,27,28 When the second and higher layers are deposited with different materials and thus with different misfits, the undulating surface is buried as a frozen rough interface if the growth temperature T is not too high making interlayer diffusion negligible. Then the elastic state of the system is altered as a result of new deposition, and the morphological evolution of the new free surface is different from that of the first single layer due to the coupling of strain fields in different layers and the influence of buried interfaces on the elastic field and energy of the multilayer film as a whole.…”

Section: Model and Elastic Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the interfaces between different layers are generally not planar (except for the interfaces between strained and thick enough spacer layers), and then the system cannot be simplified to an equivalent and solvable semi-infinite solid as in the study of single-layer films. [20][21][22] Thus, it is very difficult to exactly calculate the elastic fields of the system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Stress-driven instability in growing multilayer films

Huang

Desai

2003

Phys. Rev. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the stress-driven morphological instability of epitaxially growing multilayer films, which are coherent and dislocation-free. We construct a direct elastic analysis, from which we determine the elastic state of the system recursively in terms of that of the old states of the buried layers. In turn, we use the result for the elastic state to derive the morphological evolution equation of surface profile to first order of perturbations, with the solution explicitly expressed by the growth conditions and material parameters of all the deposited layers. We apply these results to two kinds of multilayer structures. One is the alternating tensile/compressive multilayer structure, for which we determine the effective stability properties, including the effect of varying surface mobility in different layers, its interplay with the global misfit of the multilayer film, and the influence of asymmetric structure of compressive and tensile layers on the system stability. The nature of the asymmetry properties found in stability diagrams is in agreement with experimental observations. The other multilayer structure that we study is one composed of stacked strained/spacer layers. We also calculate the kinetic critical thickness for the onset of morphological instability and obtain its reduction and saturation as number of deposited layers increases, which is consistent with recent experimental results. Compared to the single-layer film growth, the behavior of kinetic critical thickness shows deviations for upper strained layers.

show abstract

Section: Model and Elastic Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model and Elastic Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model and Elastic Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stress-driven instability in growing multilayer films

Huang

Desai

2003

Phys. Rev. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For very large values of η, the growth rate of the instability can become unbounded, even without misfit strain, producing surface decomposition of the alloy despite its stability in the bulk. This effect is known as compositional-stress instability or kinetics instability [216].…”

Section: Intermixingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuum modelling of semiconductor heteroepitaxy: an applied perspective

Bergamaschini

Salvalaglio

Backofen

et al. 2016

Advances in Physics: X

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semiconductor heteroepitaxy involves a wealth of qualitatively different, competing phenomena. Examples include threedimensional island formation, injection of dislocations, mixing between film and substrate atoms. Their relative importance depends on the specific growth conditions, giving rise to a very complex scenario. The need for an optimal control over heteroepitaxial films and/or nanostructures is widespread: semiconductor epitaxy by molecular beam epitaxy or chemical vapour deposition is nowadays exploited also in industrial environments. Simulation models can be precious in limiting the parameter space to be sampled while aiming at films/nanostructures with the desired properties. In order to be appealing (and useful) to an applied audience, such models must yield predictions directly comparable with experimental data. This implies matching typical time scales and sizes, while offering a satisfactory description of the main physical driving forces. It is the aim of the present review to show that continuum models of semiconductor heteroepitaxy evolved significantly, providing a promising tool (even a working tool, in some cases) to comply with the above requirements. Several examples, spanning from the nanometre to the micron scale, are illustrated. Current limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

show abstract

Multiscale modeling for emergent behavior, complexity, and combinatorial explosion

Vlachos

2012

AIChE Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological Stability of Alloy Thin Films

Cited by 145 publications

References 23 publications

Stress-driven instability in growing multilayer films

Stress-driven instability in growing multilayer films

Continuum modelling of semiconductor heteroepitaxy: an applied perspective

Multiscale modeling for emergent behavior, complexity, and combinatorial explosion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About