Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:05:41.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study on the Differences in the Evolutions of Thin Film Morphologies of Co-Al Binary System: Molecular Dynamics Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Sang-Pil Kim ,
Seung-Cheol Lee ,
Kwang-Ryeol Lee ,
Kyu-Hwan Lee  and
Yong-Chae Chung
Sang-Pil Kim
Affiliation:
Future Technology Research Division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 136-790, KOREA CPRC, Department of Ceramics, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, KOREA
Seung-Cheol Lee
Affiliation:
Future Technology Research Division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 136-790, KOREA
Kwang-Ryeol Lee
Affiliation:
Future Technology Research Division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 136-790, KOREA
Kyu-Hwan Lee
Affiliation:
Future Technology Research Division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 136-790, KOREA
Yong-Chae Chung
Affiliation:
CPRC, Department of Ceramics, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, KOREA
Get access

Abstract

The morphology evolution of thin films was studied by molecular dynamics simulation. In this simulation four deposition and substrate elements combinations were used: Al on Al(001), Al on Co(001), Co on Co(001), Co on Al(001). The Al thin film was always grown by layer-bylayer mode regardless of substrates used. On the other hand, thin films formed by Co deposition depended on substrates used.While Co thin films on the Co substrates were grown by the island mode, a 3 monolayer (ML) thickness of CoAl surface compound was initially formed on Al substrate, before pure Co thin film growth occurred. In addition to the study on morphologies, the degrees of mixing of atoms in the interface were studied quantitatively. No surface mixing and a sharp interface were observed when Co was used as a substrate regardless of deposited atoms. On the contrary, a large amount of surface mixing or compound formation was observed when Al was used as a substrate.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 777: Symposium A – Nanostructuring Materials with Energetic Beams , 2003 , T8.10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

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. Baibich, M. N., Broto, J.M., Fert, A., Dau, F. N.V., Petroff, F., Eitenne, P., Creuzet, G., Friederich, A. and Chazelas, J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988).Google Scholar
2. Binash, G., Grunberg, P., Saurenbach, F. and Zinn, W., Phys. Rev. B 39, 4828 (1989)Google Scholar
3. Julliere, M., Phys. Lett 61, 2472 (1975)Google Scholar
4. Moodera, J. S., Kinder, L. R., Wong, T. M. and Meservey, R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3273 (1995)Google Scholar
5. Miyazaki, T. and Tezuka, N., J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 139, L231 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Tehrani, S., Engel, B., Slaughter, J. M., Chen, E., DeHerrera, M., Durlam, M., Naji, P., Whig, R., Janesky, J. and Calder, J., IEEE Transc. Mag. 36, 2752 (2000)Google Scholar
7. Tsymbal, E. Y., Mryasov, O. N. and LeClair, P. R., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, R109 (2003).Google Scholar
8. Venables, J. A., Introduction to Surface and Thin Film Processes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).Google Scholar
9. Tersoff, J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 434 (1995)Google Scholar
10. Roder, H., Shuster, R., Brune, H. and Kern, K., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2086 (1993)Google Scholar
11. Choi, Y. J., Jeong, I. C., Park, J.-Y., Kahng, S.-J., Lee, J. andKuk, Y., Phys. Rev. B 59, 10918 (1999)Google Scholar
12. Daw, M. S., Foiles, S.M. andBaskes, M. I., Mater. Sci. Rep. 9, 251 (1993)Google Scholar
13. Pasianot, R. and Savino, E. J., Phys. Rev. B 45, 12704 (1992)Google Scholar
14. Voter, A. F. and Chen, S. P., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 82, 175 (1987)Google Scholar
15. Vailhe, C. and Farkas, D., J. Mater. Res. 12, 2559 (1997)Google Scholar
16. Rifkin, J., XMD Molecular Dynamics Program 2.5.30 (Univ. of Connecticut, 2002)Google Scholar
17. Montalenti, F. and Voter, A. F., Phys. Rev. B 64, 081401(R) (2001).Google Scholar
18. Frenkel, D. and Smit, B., Understanding Molecular Simulation (Academic Press, 1996).Google Scholar
19. Feibelman, P. J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 729 (1990)Google Scholar
20. Shivaparan, N. R., Teter, M. A. and Smith, R. J., Surf. Sci. 476, 152 (2001)Google Scholar