Noise-assisted mound coarsening in epitaxial growth

European Physical Journal B

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 409-412

  Tang, L H ^a,b   Smilauer P ^a,c   Vvedensky, D D ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

^c INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

05.70.Ln nonequilibrium thermodynamics, irreversible processes; 68.55. a Thin film structure morphology; 81.10.Aj Theory and models of crystal growth; physics of crystal growth, crytal morphology and orientation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYSTAL GROWTH; CRYSTAL ORIENTATION; DEPOSITION; INTERFACIAL ENERGY; MORPHOLOGY; RANDOM PROCESSES; THERMODYNAMICS;

MOUND COARSENING;

EPITAXIAL GROWTH;

EID: 0031699978     PISSN: 14346028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s100510050264     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. J. Villain, J. Phys. I France 1, 1 (1991).
2. G. Ehrlich, F.G. Hudda, J. Chem Phys. 44, 1039 (1966); R.L. Schwoebel, E.J. Shipsey, J. Appl. Phys. 37, 3682 (1966).
3. G. Ehrlich, F.G. Hudda, J. Chem Phys. 44, 1039 (1966); R.L. Schwoebel, E.J. Shipsey, J. Appl. Phys. 37, 3682 (1966).
4. M.D. Johnson, C. Orme, A.W. Hunt, D. Graff, J. Sudijono, L.M. Sander, B.G. Orr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 116 (1994).
5. J.A. Stroscio, D.T. Pierce, M. Stiles, A. Zangwill, L.M. Sander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4246 (1995).
6. M. Seigert, M. Plischke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1517 (1994); Phys. Rev. E 53, 307 (1996).
7. M. Seigert, M. Plischke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1517 (1994); Phys. Rev. E 53, 307 (1996).
8. P. Šmilauer, D.D. Vvedensky, Phys. Rev. B 52, 14263 (1995).
9. J.G. Amar, F. Family, Phys. Rev. B 54, 14742 (1996).
10. K. Thürmer, R. Koch, M. Weber, K.H. Rieder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1767 (1995).
11. Cf., however, J. Krug, in Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics in one dimension, edited by V. Privman (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997) p. 305.
12. An example of mound splitting is given in reference [6].
13. T. Kawakatsu, T. Munakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 74, 262 (1985).
14. J. Krug, Adv. Phys. 46, 139 (1997).
15. P. Politi, J. Villain, Phys. Rev. B 54, 5114 (1996).
16. M. Rost, J. Krug, Phys. Rev. E 55, 3952 (1997).
17. M. Siegert, M. Plischke, R. K. P. Zia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3705 (1997).
18. By "late-stage", we have in mind a situation where the surface has acquired a quasistationary profile, i.e., after depositing exactly one more monolayer of atoms, the surface, on average, looks "almost the same" as before.
19. s does not depend appreciably on L, but it may depend on the strip width (which is inversely proportional to the mound slope) when the second process dominates.
20. s estimated in (11).
21. R. Koch, personal communication.
22. Obviously the barrier to detachment of adatoms from step edges must be important as well. In our simulations, this barrier is of the similar magnitude for the both parameter sets, so its effect could not be established.
23. S equal to 0.45 eV for Fe(001) [J.A. Stroscio, D.T. Pierce, R.A. Dragoset, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3615 (1993)].