1: \documentstyle[aps,floats,graphicx]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \newcommand{\bec}{\begin{center}}
6: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\bet}{\begin{table}}
12: \newcommand{\ent}{\end{table}}
13: \newcommand{\bib}{\bibitem}
14:
15:
16: %\baselineskip 4.2mm
17:
18:
19: \wideabs{
20:
21: \title{
22: Interface-anisotropy induced asymmetry of intermixing in bilayers
23: }
24:
25:
26: \author{P. S\"ule, M. Menyh\'ard, L. K\'otis, J. L\'ab\'ar, W. F. Egelhoff Jr.$^{\star}$}
27: \address{Research Institute for Technical Physics and Material Science,\\
28: Konkoly Thege u. 29-33, Budapest, Hungary,sule@mfa.kfki.hu,www.mfa.kfki.hu/$\sim$sule,\\
29: $^{\star}$ National Institute of Standards \& Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899\\
30: }
31: %\email{sule@mfa.kfki.hu}
32:
33: \date{\today}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: The ion-sputtering induced intermixing is studied by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations
39: and by Auger electron spectroscopy depth profiling (AES-DP) analysis in Pt/Ti/Si substrate (Pt/Ti) and Ta/Ti/Pt/Si substrate (Ti/Pt) multilayers.
40: Experimental evidence is found for
41: the asymmetry of intermixing in Pt/Ti and in Ti/Pt.
42: An unexpected enhancement of the injection of the heavy Pt atoms into the Ti substrate is observed
43: both by AES-DP and by MD simulations.
44: In Ti/Pt we get a much weaker interdiffusion than in Pt/Ti.
45: The asymmetry is
46: explained by the
47: backscattering of hyperthermal particles at the mass-anisotropic interface and
48: which is reproduced by computer atomistic simulations.
49: The AES-DP measurements support our earlier predictions
50: (P. S\"ule, M. Menyh\'ard, Phys. Rev., {\bf B71}, 113413 (2005)) obtained for mass-anisotropic
51: bilayers.
52:
53:
54: {\em PACS numbers:} 61.80.Jh, 68.35.-p, 68.35.Fx, 66.30.-h, 68.55.-a \\
55: %{\scriptsize {\em Keywords:} intermixing, interdiffusion, interface, film/substrate, Auger depth profiling, sputtering, computer simulations, thin film, multilayer, ion-solid interaction, molecular dynamics, Ti/Pt
56: %}
57: \end{abstract}
58: }
59:
60:
61: %\scriptsize{
62: %61.80.Az Theory and models of radiation effects,
63: %61.80.Jh Ion radiation effects,
64: %61.82.-d Radiation effects on specific materials,
65: %61.82.Bg Metals and alloys,
66: %66.30.-h Diffusion in solids (for surface and interface diffusion, see 68.35.Fx)\\
67: %68. Surfaces and interfaces; thin films and low-dimensional systems (structure and nonelectronic properties) (for surface and interface chemistry, see 82.65.+r, for surface magnetism, see 75.70.Rf)
68: %68.35.Bs Structure of clean surfaces (reconstruction)\\
69: %68.35.-p Solid surfaces and solid-solid interfaces: Structure and energetics
70: %68.55.-a Thin film structure and morphology (for methods of thin film deposition, film growth and epitaxy, see 81.15.-z)
71: %68.35.Fx Diffusion; interface formation (see also 66.30.-h
72: %79.20.Rf Atomic, molecular, and ion beam impact and interactions with surfaces\\
73: %81.40.Wx Radiation treatment (particle and electromagnetic) (see also 61.80.-x Physical radiation effects, radiation damage)\\
74: %61.46.+w Nanoscale materials: clusters, nanoparticles, nanotubes, and nanocrystals (see also 36.40.-c Atomic and molecular clusters; for fabrication and characterization of nanoscale materials, see 81.07.-b in materials science)
75: %\\
76: %79.20.Ap Theory of impact phenomena; numerical simulation\\
77: %34.50.Dy Interactions of atoms and molecules with surfaces; photon and electron emission; neutralization of ions (for surface characterization by particle-surface scattering, see 68.49.-h in surfaces, interfaces, thin films, and low-dimensional structures)\\
78: %34.10.+x General theories and models of atomic and molecular collisions and interactions (including statistical theories, transition state, stochastic and trajectory models, etc.)\\
79: %96.35.Gt Surface features, cratering, and topography\\
80: %}
81:
82:
83:
84: %\section{Introduction}
85:
86:
87:
88: There has been intense interest in the past few years in maintaining well-defined conditions
89: for the fabrication of ultra-thin film devices \cite{Schukin,Ramana,Egelhoff,Gomez05}.
90: Controllable fabrication of interfaces is still a great challange for
91: nanoscience and nanotechnology \cite{Schukin,Egelhoff,Gomez05}.
92: It is necessary to understand the driving force of intermixing
93: in order to avoid or suppress interdiffusion during thin film growth.
94: Unfortunately our knowledge on the mechanism of interfacial mixing is
95: far from being complete \cite{Cai,Buchanan,Gomez}.
96:
97:
98:
99: Despite the apparent technological importance of thin film multilayers, the research of the atomic transport phenomena at
100: interfaces, however, is less intense.
101: Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) depth profiling analysis has been used for the study of the sharpness and broadening
102: of interfaces during ion-sputtering \cite{Hofmann} in combination with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) \cite{Gnaser,Menyhard}.
103: Computer simulations have revealed that
104: mass-anisotropy of the bilayer governs interdiffusion at the interface and
105: greatly influences surface morphology development during ion-sputtering
106: \cite{Sule_PRB05,Sule_SUCI}.
107:
108: In this Letter we present results which can be taken as the first direct experimental
109: evidence of mass effect on interfacial mixing.
110: We reproduce and explain the experimentally found asymmetry of intermixing by MD simulations.
111:
112:
113:
114:
115:
116:
117:
118:
119:
120: %\section{The setup of the simulation}
121:
122: Classical constant volume molecular dynamics simulations were used to simulate the ion-solid interaction
123: using the PARCAS code \cite{Nordlund_ref}.
124: The computer animations can be seen in our web page \cite{web}.
125: Further details are given in \cite{Nordlund_ref} and details specific to the current system in recent
126: communications \cite{Sule_PRB05,Sule_NIMB04}.
127: We irradiate the bilayers Pt/Ti and Ti/Pt (9 monolayers, ML film/substrate)
128: with 0.5 keV Ar$^+$ ions repeatedly with a time interval of 10-20 ps between each of
129: the ion-impacts at 300 K
130: which we find
131: sufficiently long time for the termination of interdiffusion, such
132: as sputtering induced intermixing (ion-beam mixing) \cite{Sule_NIMB04}.
133: The initial velocity direction of the
134: impacting atom was $10$ degrees with respect to the surface of the crystal (grazing angle of incidence)
135: to avoid channeling directions and to simulate the conditions applied during ion-sputtering.
136: We randomly varied the impact position and the azimuth angle $\phi$.
137: In order to approach the real sputtering limit a large number of ion irradiation are
138: employed using automatized simulations conducted subsequently together with analyzing
139: the history files (movie files) in each irradiation steps.
140: In this article we present results up to 100 ion irradiation which we find suitable for
141: comparing with low to medium fluence experiments. 100 ions are randomly distributed
142: over a $50 \times 50$ \hbox{\AA}$^2$ area which corresponds to $< 10^{15}$
143: ion/cm$^2$ ion fluence
144: and the removal of few MLs.
145: The size of the simulation cell is $110 \times 110 \times 90$ $\hbox{\AA}^3$ including
146: 57000 atoms.
147: In order to reach the most efficient ion energy deposition at the interface,
148: we also initialize recoils placing the ion above the interface by $10$ \hbox{\AA} and
149: below the free surface in the 9 ML thick film.
150: In this way
151: we can concentrate directly on the intermixing phenomenon avoiding
152: many other processes occur at the surface (surface roughening, sputter erosion, ion-induced surface diffusion, cluster ejection, etc.) which weaken energy deposition at the interface.
153: Further simplification is that chanelling recoils are left to leave the cell
154: and in the next step these energetic and sputtered particles are deleted.
155:
156:
157:
158: The experimental setup is the following:
159: According to the XTEM results the thickness of the layers in samples are: Pt 160 \hbox{\AA}/Ti 130 \hbox{\AA}/Si substrate, and Ta 260 \hbox{\AA} (cap layer to prevent oxidation of Ti)/Ti 150 \hbox{\AA}/Pt 140 \hbox{\AA}/Si substrate. The interfaces are sharp and straight.
160: For the sake fo simplicity we consider our multilayer samples as bilayers and we study the atomic transport processes at the Ti/Pt and Pt/Ti interfaces.
161: We see no asymmetry in the interface widths of Ti/Pt and Pt/Ti bilayers (which includes roughness and mixing) using XTEM in Ta/Ti/Pt/Si (Ti/Pt) and in Pt/Ti/Si (Pt/Ti) in the as grown samples.
162: Both samples were AES depth profiled by applying sputtering conditions as following: ion energy $500-1500$ eV, projectile Ar$^+$, grazing angle of incidence $5^{\circ}-10^{\circ}$ degree (with respect to the surface), sample was rotated during ion bombardment.
163: The atomic concentrations of Pt, Ti, Ta and Si were calculated by the relative sensitivity method taking the pure material's values from the spectra. The oxygen atomic concentration was calculated by normalizing the measured oxygen Auger peak-to-peak amplitude to TiO$_2$ \cite{Vergara}. The depth scale was determined by assuming that the sputtering yield ($Y_i$) in the mixed layer is the weighted sum of the elemental sputtering yields ($\sum_i X_i Y_i$).
164: Two typical AES depth profiles recorded on samples of Pt/Ti and Ti/Pt at $500$ eV ion energy, are shown, respectively in Fig. 1. It is clear without any detailed evaluation that the Pt/Ti and Ti/Pt transitions are very different. While the Ti/Pt transition is a "normal" one, in case of Pt/Ti an unusual deep penetration of Pt to the Ti phase is observed.
165: The interface widths between pure materials can be well characterized by the distance of points on the depth profile showing concentrations of $\sim 84$ \% and $\sim 16$ \% (step function true profile) if the transitions can be approximated by an error function. It can be supposed that the intrinsic surface roughness, $\sigma_{rough}$, is independent of ion bombardment induced mixing and thus the measured width, $\sigma_{meas}$, can be calculated as, $\sigma=\sqrt{\sigma_{meas}^2-\sigma_{rough}^2}$. Now $\sigma$ is the width as a result of the ion bombardment induced processes (mixing) and the finite inelastic mean free path of the signal electrons. The metal/substrate system interface was found to be sharp, thus correction is not necessary, while roughness of the other interfaces are about 15 \hbox{\AA}. Though the Pt/Ti transition is far from being an error function type one, we still used the definition for comparative purpose.
166:
167:
168:
169: In Fig. 1 we also recognize the presence of oxygen in the Ti layer in the Ti/Pt and metal/substrate interfaces. The later is the consequence of using Si substrate with native oxide. Since the bulk level of oxygen slightly correlated with the ion current intensity (the larger the ion current intensity the lower the oxygen AES signal) part of the oxygen is contamination occurring during the AES depth profiling process. The concentrations of the oxygen in the Ti/Pt interface neither correlate with the bulk level nor with the ion current intensity. Consequently we might conclude that the origin of the oxygen on the interface is due to the sample preparation process.
170: %------------------------------------------------------
171: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
172: \begin{center}
173: \includegraphics*[height=4cm,width=6cm,angle=0.]{fig1a.eps}
174: \includegraphics*[height=4.2cm,width=6cm,angle=0.]{fig1b.eps}
175: \caption[]{
176: The concentration depth profile as a function of the removed layer thickness (\hbox{\AA}) obtained by AES depth profiling analysis
177: using ion-sputtering at 500 eV ion energy in Pt/Ti/Si substrate (upper Fig: 1a) and Ta/Ti/Pt/Si substrate (lower Fig: 1b).
178: }
179: \label{fig1}
180: \end{center}
181: \end{figure}
182: %------------------------------------------------------
183: Moreover the interface broadening does not correlate with the concentration of the oxygen in the Ti/Pt interface.
184: Thus we conclude
185: that the atomic transport is not affected by the presence of the oxygen.
186:
187: The MD simulations of ion-sputtering and AES-DP reveal rather similar values for broadening
188: at the interface as well as reproduce the asymmetry of intermixing shown in Figs 1a and 1b.
189: In Fig 2 the evolution of the sum of the square atomic displacements of all intermixing atoms $\langle R^2 \rangle= \sum_i^N [{\bf r_i}(t)-{\bf r_i}(t=0)]^2$ (${\bf r_i}(t)$ is the position vector of atom 'i' at time $t$), can be followed as a function of the simulated ion fluence, and calculated as it has been given in ref.
190: \cite{Sule_PRB05}.
191: A result for the Cu/Co system is also given
192: to compare the magnitudes of intermixing in various bilayers and to
193: demonstrate the performance of the MD simulations.
194: The magnitude of ion-beam intermixing can also be characterized by the measurable quantity mixing efficiency $\xi$ \cite{Sule_PRB05,AverbackRubia} which is given as follows:
195: $\xi=\frac{\sigma^2}{\Phi F_D}$, where $\Phi$, and $F_D$,
196: are the ion fluence (ion/$\hbox{\AA}^2$) and the deposited nuclear energy at the interface (eV/$\hbox{\AA}$), respectively.
197:
198: We get mixing efficiency value of $\xi \approx 10$ $\hbox{\AA}^5/eV$ which is
199: comparable with our experimentally measured value of $\sim 3-6$ $\hbox{\AA}^5/eV$ for Cu/Co.
200: The asymmetry of mixing can clearly be seen when $\langle R^2 \rangle (\Phi)$ and the depth profiles are compared in Ti/Pt and in Pt/Ti in Figs 1a,1b and 2.
201: %------------------------------------------------------
202: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
203: \begin{center}
204: \includegraphics*[height=5.cm,width=6.5cm,angle=0.]{fig2.eps}
205: \caption[]{
206: The simulated $\langle R^2 \rangle$ ($\hbox{\AA}^2$) in Pt/Ti, Ti/Pt and in Cu/Co as a function of the
207: ion-fluence (ions/cm$^2$) obtained during the ion-sputtering of these bilayers at 500 eV ion energy.
208: The dotted line (iso Pt/Ti) denote the results obtained for the artificial mass-isotropic
209: Pt/Ti bilayer.
210: {\em Inset}:
211: The simulated $\langle R^2 \rangle$ for Pt in Pt/Ti and in Ti/Pt
212: at 500 eV ion energy.
213: }
214: \label{fig2}
215: \end{center}
216: \end{figure}
217: %------------------------------------------------------
218: The computer animations of the simulations also reveal the stronger
219: interdiffusion in Pt/Ti \cite{web}.
220: Moreover, in the inset in Fig 2 the higher mobility ($\propto$ $\langle R^2 \rangle$) of the energetic Pt atoms can be seen in
221: Pt/Ti.
222:
223: A relatively weak intermixing is found in Ti/Pt (the corrected ion-induced AES-DP interface width $\sigma \approx 13 \hbox{\AA}$ at 500 eV ion energy) and
224: a much stronger interdiffusion occurs in the Pt/Ti bilayer ($\sigma \approx 70 \hbox{\AA}$).
225: MD simulations provide $\sim 4$ ($\sim 10 \hbox{\AA})$ and $\sim 8$ ($\sim 20 \hbox{\AA})$ ML thick interface after 100 ion impacts, respectively.
226: As mentioned before, in our immiscible reference system, in Cu/Co we find also a weak mixing.
227:
228: Asymmetric AES depth profiles (when the broadening of A/B interface is different from that of B/A) have already been observed \cite{Hofmann,Barna}. The asymmetric behavior was explained by the large relative sputtering yield of the elements (preferential sputtering) causing different atomic mixing \cite{Hofmann} and/or enhanced bombardment induced interface roughening.
229: The asymmetry of intermixing is also known during thin film growth
230: \cite{Buchanan,MM}.
231: In the present experiment the relative sputtering yield of
232: $Y_{Pt}/Y_{Ti} \approx 0.7-0.9$ at 500-1500 eV
233: therefore the mechanism is different.
234: This kind of an ion-bombardment induced asymmetric mixing in metallic diffusion couples has not reported yet
235: at best of our knowledge.
236:
237:
238: In recent papers we explained single-ion impact induced intermixing as an interdiffusion
239: process governed by the mass-anisotropy parameter (mass ratio) in these bilayers
240: \cite{Sule_PRB05,Sule_SUCI}.
241: Following this way of reasoning Ti/Pt (Pt/Ti) is a mass-anisotropic, while Cu/Co is
242: a mass-isotropic bilayer.
243: It has already been shown in refs. \cite{Sule_PRB05,Sule_NIMB04} that the backscattering of the hyperthermal particles (BHP)
244: at the heavy interface leads to the increase in the energy density of the collisional cascade.
245: We have found that the jumping rate of atoms through the interface is seriously affected by the
246: mass-anisotropy of the interface when energetic atoms (hyperthermal particles) are present and which leads to the
247: preferential intermixing of Pt to Ti \cite{Sule_PRB05,Sule_NIMB04}.
248: In this article we would like to explain the mixing asymmetry seen in the case of Pt/Ti and Ti/Pt using
249: the extension of this model.
250:
251: The schematic view of the hyperthermic backscattering mechanism is shown in Fig 3.
252: According to the BHP model,
253: in Pt/Ti, the energetic Ti light particles are backscattered downwards and confined below the heavy interface
254: in the bulk which results in increasing energy density below the interface.
255: %------------------------------------------------------
256: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
257: \begin{center}
258: \includegraphics*[height=3.5cm,width=6cm,angle=0.]{fig3.eps}
259: \caption[]{
260: The schematic view of the hyperthermic atomic backscattering
261: mechanism in anisotropic bilayers.
262: The closed light regions represent the cascade region occurs at each
263: ion impact. Note that the lower lobe of the cascade is larger
264: in Pt/Ti than the upper lobe in Ti/Pt due to the downward scattering and the confinement of the light particles
265: indicated by the curved arrows.
266: The arrows with dashed lines show the atomic transport of Pt.
267: The path of the inpinging ions from the vacuum towards the free surface of the film/substrate system is also shown by arrows.
268: }
269: \label{fig3}
270: \end{center}
271: \end{figure}
272: %------------------------------------------------------
273: The increased lifetime and energy density of the collisional cascade or heat spike region below the interface
274: in Pt/Ti
275: leads to an enhanced injection of Pt atoms into the bulk and to a rather deep depth distribution of Pt shown in Fig 1a. We find a $18-22$ $\hbox{\AA}$ ($6-8$ ML) deep penetration of Pt into the Ti phase (and $36-44$ $\hbox{\AA}$ interface width) at $\Phi \approx 10^{15}$ ion/cm$^2$ fluence by MD simulations. Although the experimental $\sigma \approx 70 \hbox{\AA}$ value is still far from our simulated value, however, we expect that the penetration depth (intermixing length) of Pt could be increased by further ion-impacts.
276: Nevertheless, MD simulations reproduce the mixing asymmetry and
277: we are able to explain the essential features of the phenomenon.
278: In Ti/Pt the Ti atoms are backscattered in the
279: overlayer film and ejected towards the surface. This leads to the reduction of the energy density
280: in the collisional cascade and hence to a weaker intermixing when
281: compared with the Pt/Ti system.
282: The BHP is the most effective when the projected range of the deposited energy is positioned
283: right at the interface.
284:
285: In order to clarify the details of intermixing,
286: simulations have been run with mass ratio $\delta$ is artificially set to $\delta
287: \approx 1$ (mass-isotropic), and we find that $\langle R^2 \rangle$ drops below the corresponding curve of Ti/Pt in Pt/Ti (see
288: Fig 2, dotted line, and animation \cite{web}).
289: We find it as a direct evidence of mass effect on sputtering induced intermixing
290: and on the observed asymmetry.
291: Hence, we expect that the energetic particle scattering mechanism is weakened
292: heavily
293: when
294: mass-anisotropy
295: vanishes and the magnitude of intermixing is also weakened approaching
296: %------------------------------------------------------
297: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
298: \begin{center}
299: \includegraphics*[height=4.5cm,width=6cm,angle=0.]{fig4.eps}
300: \caption[]{
301: The Cleri-Rosato potential energy as a function of the
302: interatomic distance ($\hbox{\AA}$) in Ti and in Pt averaged for
303: an atom with its 12 first neighbors in the hcp and fcc lattices.
304: }
305: \label{fig4}
306: \end{center}
307: \end{figure}
308: %------------------------------------------------------
309: the $\langle R^2 \rangle$ values of Ti/Pt.
310: Therefore the observed mixing asymmetry can solely be explained by the
311: hyperthermic light particle backscattering mechanism at the mass-anisotropic interface.
312: The stronger simulated mixing in Ti/Pt than in Cu/Co
313: could mostly also be accounted for by mass effect.
314: The artificially set mass-isotropy in Ti/Pt results in the decrease of
315: $\langle R^2 \rangle$ (filled diamonds in Fig. 2) which drops to the regime of Cu/Co.
316: %In Ti/Pt, the mass effect explains
317: %partly the increase of intermixing rate, when compared with the low mixing rate
318: %of Cu/Co.
319: In Ti/Pt, the heavy atoms at the interface block the transport path of the film atoms and reverse the flux of energetic Ti atoms.
320: In the artificially mass-isotropic Pt/Ti (iso-Pt/Ti), however,
321: $\langle R^2 \rangle$ is similar to that of in iso-Ti/Pt and somewhat larger than in Cu/Co (see Fig 2)
322: hence mass effect does not solely explain intermixing in
323: these bilayers.
324:
325: To understand the physical origin of the higher intermixing in iso-Pt/Ti
326: and in iso-Ti/Pt than in Cu/Co,
327: we explain in general intermixing by a more complex anisotropy of the interface
328: then previously
329: expected.
330: We can rule out the effect of thermochemistry (e.g. heat of mixing $\Delta H$)
331: because
332: it has also been shown recently, that $\Delta H$ has no
333: apparent effect on intermixing during single-ion impact in this bilayer \cite{Sule_NIMB04}.
334: Also, thermochemistry could not explain the mixing asymmetry observed in Ti/Pt and
335: in Pt/Ti since $\Delta H$ must be the same in magnitude in the two systems.
336: Moreover, simulated ion-sputtering with $\Delta H \gg 0$ (switching off the attractive term of the cross-potential
337: and using purely repulsive (Born-Mayer) Ti-Pt interaction potential for Pt/Ti)
338: leads to intermixing instead of the expected sharp interface (see also animations \cite{web}).
339: We reach the conclusion that there must be another anisotropy in the system.
340:
341: In order to find another anisotropy paramater,
342: the employed interaction potential energy functions are plotted
343: in Fig ~(\ref{fig4}) as a function of the interatomic distance for Ti and for Pt. It can clearly be seen that
344: the thermal atomic size (the width of the potential valley at higher atomic kinetic energy) is different.
345: The atomic radius (the width of the vibration around the equilibrium lattice site) of the Ti atoms
346: is larger than that of in Pt. The atomic size anisotropy is even more robust at 1-2 eV energies above the energy minimum (hyperthermal atomic energies, see the horizontal lines in Fig 4). This explains the fact that the smaller and heavier Pt atoms are the first
347: ballistic diffuser during ion-beam mixing \cite{Sule_NIMB04}.
348: The atomic size difference (with smaller contribution) and the mass-anisotropy together could explain the stronger simulated (and measured) intermixing in Pt/Ti and in Ti/Pt than
349: in Cu/Co. In the latter mass-isotropic bilayer no serious atomic size difference (anisotropy) is found (see the inset Fig ~(\ref{fig4})).
350: The mixing in the iso-Pt/Ti could also be understood by the size anisotropy:
351: the larger energetic Ti atoms are reversed at the interface and confined in the bulk.
352: The smaller energetic Pt atoms, however, are injected to the Ti bulk during
353: the cascade period.
354: Therefore the BHP mechanism is governed by a complex anisotropy of the
355: interface system: both by mass and size anisotropy.
356: In the iso-Ti/Pt the energy density of the cascade is weaker due to the
357: proximity of the free surface hence the influence of the size difference
358: is less efficient on intermixing.
359:
360:
361:
362: We could explain the observed mixing asymmetry between Ti/Pt and Pt/Ti in terms
363: of the backscattering of energetic particles at the mass-anisotropic interface.
364: The mass effect might not solely explain intermixing in Pt/Ti:
365: the atomic size and mass-anisotropy might together be responsible for
366: the observed strong interfacial mixing and
367: the weaker mixing in Cu/Co is explained by atomic size and mass-isotropy.
368:
369:
370:
371:
372:
373:
374:
375:
376: %\section{acknowledgement}
377: {\scriptsize
378: This work is supported by the OTKA grants F037710
379: and T043704
380: from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
381: We wish to thank to K. Nordlund
382: for helpful discussions and constant help.
383: The work has been performed partly under the project
384: HPC-EUROPA (RII3-CT-2003-506079) with the support of
385: the European Community using the supercomputing
386: facility at CINECA in Bologna.
387: The help of the NKFP project of
388: 3A/071/2004 is also acknowledged.
389: }
390:
391: \vspace{-0.7cm}
392:
393: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
394:
395: \bib{Schukin}
396: V.A. Schukin, N. N. Ledentsov, D. Bimberg, {\em Epitaxy of Nanostructures},
397: Springer (2004).
398:
399:
400: \bib{Ramana}
401: C. V. Ramana, {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
402: {\bf 90}, 066101, (2003).
403:
404: \bib{Egelhoff}
405: W. F. Egelhoff, {\em et al.},
406: Prog. Surf. Sci., {\bf 67}, 355 (2001).
407:
408: \bib{Gomez05}
409: L. G\'omez, C. Slutzky, J. Ferr\'on, Phys. Rev. {\bf B71}, 233402 (2005).
410:
411: \bib{Cai}
412: M. Cai, {\em et al.},
413: J. Appl. Phys., {\bf 95}, 1996 (2004).
414:
415:
416: \bib{Buchanan}
417: J. D. R. Buchanan, {\em et al.},
418: Phys. Rev. {\bf B66}, 104427 (2002).
419:
420:
421: \bib{Gomez}
422: L. G\'omez, {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 84}, 4397 (2000).
423:
424: \bib{Hofmann}
425: S. Hofmann,
426: Prog. Surf. Sci., {\bf 36}, 35 (1991).
427:
428:
429:
430: \bib{Gnaser}
431: H. Gnaser, {\em Low-energy Ion Irradiation of Solid Surfaces},
432: in Solid-State Physics, Springer (1999)
433:
434:
435: \bib{Menyhard}
436: A. Barna, {\em et al.}, Appl. Surf. Sci. {\bf 242} 375 (2005).
437:
438: \bib{Sule_PRB05}
439: P. S\"ule, M. Menyh\'ard, Phys. Rev., {\bf B71}, 113413 (2005).
440:
441: \bib{Sule_SUCI}
442: P. S\"ule, Surf. Sci., {\bf 585}, 170 (2005).
443:
444:
445: \bib{Nordlund_ref}
446: %K. Nordlund, Comput. Mater. Sci, {\bf 3}, 448. (1995).
447: K. Nordlund, {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev., {\bf B57} 7556. (1998).
448:
449: \bib{web}
450: http://www.mfa.kfki.hu/$\sim$sule/animations/ptti.htm.
451:
452: \bib{Sule_NIMB04}
453: P. S\"ule, M. Menyh\'ard, K. Nordlund, Nucl Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res.,
454: {\bf B226}, 517 (2004).
455:
456: \bib{Vergara}
457: L.L. Vergara, I.Vaquila, J. Ferron, Appl. Surf. Sci. 151. 129 (1999).
458:
459: \bib{CR}
460: F. Cleri, G. Mazzone and V. Rosato, Phys. Rev. {\bf B47}, 14541 (1993).
461:
462:
463: \bib{AverbackRubia}
464: R. S. Averback, T. Diaz de la Rubia, Solid State Pysics, {\bf 51}, 281 (1998)
465:
466: \bib{Barna}
467: A. Barna, {\em et al.}, J. Vac. Sci. Tech. {\bf A21} 553 (2003).
468:
469: \bib{MM}
470: M. Menyh\'ard, {\em et al.},
471: Appl. Surf. Sci. {\bf 180} 315 (2001).
472:
473:
474:
475:
476:
477:
478:
479:
480:
481:
482:
483: \end{thebibliography}
484:
485:
486:
487:
488: \end{document}
489: