The effect of applied magnetic field on flow structures in liquid phase electroepitaxy—a three-dimensional simulation model

Recent developments in modelling of liquid phase electroepitaxy under applied magnetic field

“…The electric field in the solution will be obtained from the solution of ∇ ⋅ = J 0 , as was the case in Refs. [8,9]. However, since the LPEE growth crucible was designed so as to have an almost uniform electric current distribution in the liquid zone, and also since the computed electric field was almost uniform [8][9], in this work for computational convenience we consider that the electric current distribution is uniform.…”

“…However, the contribution of the heat source in the liquid zone may be neglected since the liquid Ga-As solution is a good conductor. In addition, the contribution of ( ) × × v B B to the electric current can also be neglected since, as shown numerically [8,9] the contribution of ( ) × × v B B with respect to E is very small. Then the constitutive equations in Eqs.…”

“…(5.4) is the contribution of the applied magnetic field due to the motion of the fluid particles (coupling term). We have examined its contribution [22,27], and found that it is very small compared with the contribution of C ⋅∇ E (in the order of 3% based on a maximum velocity of 0.01 m/s and a 10 kG field level), it is then neglected in the model for computer simulations [8,9]. Then we can write…”

“…Fig. 3 shows the evolution of growth interface computed using only the electric mobility E µ [8,9]. In the figure, the dashed lines represent growth under no magnetic field while the solid lines describe those under a 4.5 kGauss static magnetic field.…”

Double Diffusive Natural Convection in Binary Mixture Under the Effect of External Magnetic Field: Steady and Oscillatory State

“…For example, the effect of magnetic fields on the flow structure, the interface shape of growth, and the growth rate in the techniques of crystal growth from a solution or a melt (Dost et al [5]; Galindo et al [6]; Liu et al [7]; Seibani et al [8]; Kumer et al [9]; Yieldiz et al [10]; and Armour et Dost [11]). …”