Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-16T17:53:54.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Scaling of the Island-Size Distribution and Percolation in a model of Sub-Monolayer Molecular Beam Epitaxy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Jacques G. Amar ,
Fereydoon Family  and
Pui-Man Lam
Jacques G. Amar
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, EMory University, Atlanta GA 30322
Fereydoon Family
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, EMory University, Atlanta GA 30322
Pui-Man Lam
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813
Get access

Abstract

The results of a detailed study of the scaling and percolation behavior of the sub-Monolayer in a model of molecular beam epitaxy are presented. In our model adatoms are randomly deposited on a square lattice and then allowed to diffuse. Whenever an adatom encounters another adatom or an island, it is attached to them and becomes immobile. We have found and studied four distinct scaling regimes, corresponding to a low-coverage (nucleation) regime, intermediate-coverage regime, an aggregation regime, and coalescence and percolation regime. At low coverage the islands have a dendritic structure such as seen in Au/Ru (0001) while at higher coverages they become compact. The scaling of the cluster fractal dimension, island density, Monomer density, island size distribution, and structure factor and pair-correlation function are studied as a function of the coverage θ and the ratio R = D /F of the diffusion rate to the deposition rate.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 317: Symposium B – Mechanisms of Thin Film Evolution , 1993 , 167
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stroscio, J.A., Pierce, D.T., and Dragoset, R.A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3615 (1993).Google Scholar
2. Kopatzki, E., Gunther, S., Nichtl-Pecher, W., and Behm, R.J., Surf. Sci. 284, 154 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Mo, Y.W., Kleiner, J., Webb, M.B., Lagally, M.G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1998 (1991)Google Scholar
4. Ernst, H.J., Fabre, F., and Lapujoulade, J., Phys. Rev. B 46, 1929 (1992).Google Scholar
5. Li, W., Vidali, G., and Biham, O., Phys. Rev. B 48, 8336 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Hwang, R.Q., Schroder, J., Gunther, C., and Behm, R.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 3279 (1991);Google Scholar
Hwang, R.Q. and Behm, R.J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 10, 256 (1992)Google Scholar
7. AMar, J.G., Family, F., and Lam, P.-M. (preprint).Google Scholar
8. Witten, D. and Sander, L.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1400 (1981).Google Scholar
9. Stoyanov, S. and Kashchiev, D., Curr. Topics Mat. Sci. 7, 69 (1981).Google Scholar
10. Tang, L.-H., J. de Physique I 3, 935 (1993).Google Scholar
11. Bartelt, M.C. and Evans, J.W., Phys. Rev. B 46, 12675 (1992).Google Scholar
12. Blackman, J.A. and Wilding, A., Europh. Lett. 16, 115 (1991).Google Scholar
13. Stauffer, D. and Aharony, A., Introduction to Percolation Theory (Taylor and Francis, London, 1992).Google Scholar
14. Gawlinski, E. and Stanley, H.E., J. Phys. A 14, L291 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Yu, X., Duxbury, P.M., Jeffers, G., and Dubson, M.A., Phys. Rev. B 44, 13163 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Anderson, S. R. and Family, F., Phys. Rev. A 38, 4198 (1988).Google Scholar
17. Sanders, D.E. and Evans, J.W., Phys. Rev. A 38, 4186 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar