1: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: % \documentclass[prb,preprint,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Effects of deposition dynamics on epitaxial growth}
9:
10: \author{Jikeun Seo}
11: \affiliation{Department of Ophthalmic Optics, Chodang University,
12: Muan 534-701, Korea }
13: \author{Hye-Young Kim}
14: \affiliation{ Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University,
15: University Park, PA 16802}
16: \author{J.-S. Kim}
17: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Sook-Myung Women's University,
18: Seoul, 140-742, Republic of Korea}
19:
20: \date{\today}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: The dynamic effects, such as the steering and the screening effects during deposition,
24: on an epitaxial growth (Cu/Cu(001)), is studied by kinetic Monte
25: Carlo simulation that incorporates molecular
26: dynamic simulation to rigorously take the interaction of the
27: deposited atom with the substrate atoms into account.
28: We find three characteristic features of the surface morphology
29: developed by grazing angle deposition:
30: (1) enhanced surface roughness, (2) asymmetric mound, and (3)
31: asymmetric slopes of mound sides.
32: Regarding their dependence on both deposition angle and substrate
33: temperature, a reasonable agreement of the simulated results
34: with the previous experimental ones is found.
35: The characteristic growth features by grazing angle deposition
36: are mainly caused by the inhomogeneous deposition flux due to
37: the steering and screening effects, where the steering effects play
38: the major role rather than the screening effects.
39: Newly observed in the present simulation is that the
40: side of mound in each direction is composed of various facets
41: instead of all being in one selected mound angle even if the slope
42: selection is attained, and that the slope selection does not
43: necessarily mean the facet selection.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{PACS numbers:68.35.-p,68.37.-d }
47: \maketitle
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: For the tailored growth of a structure on a substrate, careful consideration of
52: energetic parameters, such as surface and interface energies, and
53: kinetic parameters, such as diffusion barriers, is necessary.
54: However, the parameters related to the dynamics of the deposited
55: atoms, other than the deposition flux, have not been seriously
56: considered. Recently, Dijken, Jorritsma, and Poelsema\cite{Dijken1}
57: has observed by spot profile analysis low energy electron
58: diffraction (SPA-LEED) that the islands formed on Cu (001) show
59: rectangular symmetry in contrast to the square symmetry of the
60: substrate when the 0.5 monolayer (ML) of Cu is deposited at
61: deposition angle ($\theta$) of 80$^o$ from the surface normal. They
62: suggest a model in which the interaction between deposited atom and
63: substrate atoms steers the deposited atom and thus results in the
64: inhomogeneous deposition flux, so called the steering effect. Our
65: previous study on the thin film growth \cite{Seo1}, simulating
66: dynamics of the deposited atoms by molecular dynamics (MD), has
67: confirmed this hypothetical model. These studies demonstrate that
68: the dynamic parameters involved in the deposition process, which
69: have been ignored in most of the previous studies, exert notable
70: effects on the thin film growth. Since the steering effect is
71: unavoidable during deposition process, it influences all the thin
72: film growth by atomic deposition in some degree. Even in the case of
73: the normal deposition, the steering effect is found to affect the
74: thin film growth.\cite{Montalenti,Montalenti2,Yu} It has been also
75: shown that the deposition dynamics is a cause of the unstable growth
76: of thin film on a vicinal surface.\cite{Seo2} \par
77:
78: Dijken, Jorritsma and Poelsema \cite{Dijken2} has observed, in the
79: thicker film (40 ML) growth with $\theta =80^o$ that the surface
80: is rougher than that with $\theta = 0^o$. It has
81: also been observed that the slope of the mound facing the deposition
82: direction is much steeper than that of the side shadowed from the
83: deposition.\cite{Dijken2} Although a qualitative model is suggested
84: relating the experimental result with the inhomogeneous deposition
85: flux due to the steering and screening effects,\cite{Wormeester}
86: there has not been any realistic growth study or simulation work
87: which confirms such speculation.
88:
89: In the present work, we perform kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) simulation
90: in conjunction with MD simulation that is designed to probe the
91: effects of the dynamic processes on the thick film growth in atomic
92: level. The main results of our simulation are as follows; (1) the
93: roughness increases with increasing deposition angle, (2) the mound
94: formed in the thick film growth has rectangular symmetry with sides
95: elongated in the direction perpendicular to the deposition
96: direction, and (3) the slopes of the illuminated and shadowed sides
97: of the mound significantly differ, which is consistent with the experimental
98: results.\cite{Dijken2} The aforementioned three characteristic
99: morphological features are mainly caused by the inhomogeneous
100: deposition flux on the top terrace of the mound mainly due to the steering
101: effects rather than the screening effects. In the present study, in
102: addition, it is found that the side of mound in each direction is
103: formed of various local facets instead of all being in one selected
104: mound angle, even if the slope selection is attained, and that the
105: experimentally observed mound slope actually corresponds to the mean
106: slope of various local facets coexisting on each mound side. Also
107: found is that the dependence of the mound slope on growth condition
108: is due to the variation of the relative population of the facets. \par
109:
110:
111: \section{Simulation Schemes}
112:
113: Kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) simulation is utilized to study the thin film
114: growth by deposition. In most of the previous KMC simulations,
115: the deposition process is treated by randomly or uniformly
116: positioning atoms at arbitrary adsorption sites. In the present
117: study, when the deposition process is selected during usual KMC
118: routine, an MD routine is called to simulate the trajectory of a
119: deposited atom by fully considering the interaction between the
120: deposited atom and substrate atoms.\par
121:
122: The details of the simulation are as follows. The substrate, Cu(001),
123: lies on the xy-plane (at z=0) with x-axis lying parallel to the
124: [110] direction. In the deposition process, the deposition starts at
125: the height of 11-28 $a_z$ above the substrate, and deposited atoms
126: are incident at an angle in the direction of x-axis. Here, $a_z$ is
127: the interlayer spacing of Cu(001). The interaction between a
128: deposited atom and substrate atoms is calculated by summing pairwise
129: Lennard-Jones potentials, $U(r)=4D[(\sigma/r)^{12}-(\sigma/r)^{6}]$.
130: Here, $D=$ 0.4093 eV, $\sigma =$ 2.338 \AA,\cite{Sanders1} and $r$
131: is the distance between two atoms. The initial kinetic energy of the
132: deposited atom is set to 0.15 eV, which corresponds to the melting
133: temperature of copper. During each deposition process, all the
134: substrate atoms are assumed to be frozen in their positions. Verlet
135: algorithm is used in the MD simulation.\par
136:
137: In between two sequential deposition processes, KMC simulation is
138: performed to simulate the diffusion processes of atoms on the
139: substrate. In the KMC, only the diffusion into empty lattice sites
140: is allowed and the exchange diffusion is not allowed. Also the
141: overhang is not allowed during both deposition and diffusion
142: processes. The simulation system is composed of 400$\times$400
143: atomic lattice sites in fcc (001) surface and a vacuum region on top
144: of the substrate with height of 28 atomic layers. \par
145:
146: %%%%%%%%Table I%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
147: \begin{table}
148: \caption{ diffusion barriers and
149: parameters adopted in our simulation}
150: \begin{ruledtabular}
151: \begin{tabular}{cc}
152: type of diffusion & diffusion barrier \\
153: \tableline
154: single adatom hopping(E1) & 0.48 eV\\
155: step edge diffusion (E2) & 0.44 eV \\
156: dimer lateral bond breaking (E3) & 0.46 eV \\
157: re-estbilishing of a NN bond (E6) & 0.18 eV \\
158: ES barrier (ES) & 0.10 eV\\
159: ES barrier (kink site) & 0.05 eV\\
160: \tableline
161: jump frequency($\nu_{0}$) & $2.4 \times 10^{13} $ \\
162: deposition rate ($F_{0}$) & 0.00416 ML/s \\
163: \end{tabular}
164: \end{ruledtabular}
165: \end{table}
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167:
168: Values of diffusion coefficients and diffusion barriers are adopted from
169: those used by Furman and coworkers,\cite{Furman,Mehl} which
170: reproduced the surface morphology of Cu islands on Cu(001) very
171: well; the step Ehrlich-Schwoebel (ES) barrier is 0.10 eV and the
172: kink ES barrier is 0.05 eV. In total, eleven kinds of diffusion
173: barriers (including the ES barriers) are used in the KMC simulation
174: and some of the important diffusion barriers are listed in Table I.
175: Note that the barrier (E2) for the diffusion along step edge is
176: 0.44 eV in the present study,
177: which is much larger than the generally accepted values of 0.2
178: $\sim$0.3 eV, to save the computation time for the very frequent
179: diffusions back and forth along steps.
180: We examine the dependence of the surface morphology on E2,
181: and find that that the morphology
182: does not show any noticeable dependence on E2 down to 0.34 eV,
183: the lowest tested value of E2.
184: In addition, the simulation with the E2 fairly reproduces the real
185: growth mode. Hence, we anticipate that the high E2 value would not
186: seriously limit the validity of the present simulation.\par
187:
188: The surface roughness is determined by the root-mean-square
189: fluctuation of surface height around the mean height.
190: The mound radius is determined as the radius (r) that makes the first
191: zero of the height-height correlation function $G({\vec r})= <h({\vec
192: r})h(0)> - <h(0)>^{2} $, and the mound radii along x- and y-axis are
193: calculated separately. All the results presented are
194: obtained from the average of 20 simulations under identical
195: conditions. Unless mentioned otherwise, the distance in
196: a plane is in unit of a$_{nn}$, and that in the vertical direction is
197: in unit of a$_z$. Here, the nearest neighbor distance, a$_{nn}$,
198: is $a_{nn}=a/\sqrt{2}$, and the interlayer distance is $a_{z}=a/2$,
199: where $a$ is the lattice constant of Cu. \par
200:
201:
202: \section{RESULTS}
203:
204: \subsection{Roughness}
205:
206: %%%%%% Fig. 1 roughness%%%%%%%%%%%%
207: \begin{figure}
208: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig1}
209: \caption{Surface roughness as a function of coverage at 250 K. Inset
210: shows the roughness as function of the deposition angle at 10 ML
211: coverage. The solid line in the inset is the simulation result of random
212: deposition without considering the steering or screening effect (NSS: No
213: Steering or Screening effect). }
214: \end{figure}
215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
216:
217: In Fig. 1, the surface roughness is presented
218: as a function of the coverage ($\Theta$)
219: when Cu atoms are deposited at various deposition angles on Cu(001) at 250K.
220: The most notable feature is that, even at the same
221: coverage, the surface becomes much rougher as the deposition angle
222: increases. Also, as $\Theta$ increases, the difference in roughness
223: between the grazing angle deposition and the normal deposition
224: ($\theta = 0^o$) multiplies. At $\Theta =$ 10 ML, the roughness with
225: $\theta = 80^o$, comes to be twice larger than that with the normal
226: deposition. (Inset of Fig. 1) The presently observed dependence of
227: the roughness on the deposition angle is expected to originate from
228: the deposition dynamics rather than the diffusion kinetics of the
229: atoms on the substrate on the following grounds; (1) such angle
230: dependence of the roughness is observed irrespective of the
231: substrate temperature ($T$) (Fig. 2), and (2) both steering and
232: screening effects become more effective as $\theta$ increases, as
233: revealed by the simulation.(Fig.1 Inset) \par
234:
235: %%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236: \begin{figure}
237: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2}
238: \caption{Surface roughness as a function of temperature at coverage of
239: 10 ML for two deposition angles of 80$^o$ and 0$^o$ (normal
240: incidence). The temperature dependence is more distinct for 80$^o$ case
241: than 0$^o$ case. }
242: \end{figure}
243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
244:
245: In Fig. 2, shown is the dependence of the roughness on $T$; the
246: roughness tends to decrease when $T$ becomes too high or too low.
247: The $bell-shape$ curve is well-explained by the $T$-dependence of
248: the destabilizing current by the ES barrier.\cite{Amar} Thus, such
249: $T$-dependence is caused by the kinetics of deposited atoms and is
250: irrelevant to the deposition dynamics. When the deposition is made
251: at $\theta = 80^o$, such $bell-shape$ $T$-dependence is also
252: observed, but now in an amplified form. This illustrates that the
253: surface roughness is determined $synergetically$ by the diffusion
254: kinetics and the deposition dynamics.\par
255:
256: \subsection{Mound radius}
257:
258: %%%%%%Fig. 3 (Mound radius) %%%%%%%%%%%%
259: \begin{figure}
260: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3}
261: \caption{Mound radius as a function of coverage. Results for
262: $\theta = 80^o$ are shown in solid and broken curve for
263: radius along x- and y-axis, respectively. Result for the normal deposition
264: ($\theta = 0^o$) is also shown in gray broken curve. The substrate
265: temperature is 250 K for all the cases. Inset: the mound radius as a
266: function of the deposition angle at the coverage of 10 ML.
267: Open squares and
268: closed circles signify the radii along x- and y-axis, respectively. }
269: \end{figure}
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271:
272: The mound radius as a function of the coverage and the deposition angle
273: is shown in Fig. 3. When atoms are deposited in normal direction
274: ($\theta = 0^o$), square mounds form with the same four-fold
275: symmetry as that of the substrate. However, when the atoms are
276: deposited at grazing angles, rectangular mounds form with evidently
277: elongated sides along y-axis. (Here, x(y)-axis is parallel
278: (perpendicular) to the deposition direction.) It is conspicuous,
279: from Fig. 3 and its inset, that the difference between mound radii
280: in x- and y-axis increases as does the coverage or the deposition
281: angle. This prediction agrees well with the experimental results of
282: Dijken {\it et al.}\cite{Dijken2} and Lu {\it et al.}\cite{Lu},
283: where such side way growth of the mound with high aspect ratio has
284: been observed with the deposition at grazing angle. In
285: regards to Fig. 3, the anisotropy in the shape of mound is caused
286: mainly because the growth of the mound along x-axis slows down once
287: it reaches a certain length, $\simeq$13 $a_{nn}$. \par
288:
289: %%%%%%Fig. 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%
290: \begin{figure}
291: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4}
292: \caption{Mound radius as a function of temperature for the deposition angle of
293: 80$^o$ and the coverage of 10 ML. Open and closed circles are for
294: the radius along x- and y-axis, respectively. Inset: the aspect
295: ratio of the mound radii as a function of temperature.}
296: \end{figure}
297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
298:
299: Fig. 4 shows $T$-dependence of the mound radii in two
300: directions when 10 ML film is grown at $\theta = 80^o$.
301: It shows that both mound radii increase as does $T$
302: due to the increased atomic diffusion length. At both
303: high and low $T$ regimes, the mound shape is very
304: asymmetric. The inset of Fig. 4 shows the aspect ratio as a function
305: of $T$ at $\Theta =$ 10 ML, and the difference between the
306: two mound radii as high as 40 \%. (Here, the aspect ratio is defined
307: as the ratio of the mound radius along y-axis to that along x-axis.)
308: The complicated dependence of the aspect ratio on the
309: temperature suggests that the diffusion kinetics also plays a
310: substantial role in the determination of the mound shape in
311: conjunction with the deposition dynamics. The asymmetric mound shape
312: is, however, found over the whole $T$-range, which illustrates
313: that the effect of deposition dynamics on the mound shape is never
314: wiped out by the diffusion kinetics over the examined $T$-range. \par
315:
316: \subsection{Mound slope}
317:
318: For the characterization of the slopes of the mound, we
319: investigate the local slope
320: at each step on each side of the mound that is defined as
321: the step height divided by the width of the adjacent
322: lower terrace. Most steps in the sides of the mounds are of
323: one-atomic-layer height. Thus, if the width of a lower terrace
324: adjacent to a step is 0.5 a$_{nn}$, then, the local slope is
325: a$_z$/0.5 a$_{nn}$ which corresponds to the slope of \{1,1,1\}-facet
326: on the fcc (001) surface. For the steps with the terrace widths, 1.5
327: and 2.5 $a_{nn}$, the corresponding local slopes are those
328: of \{1,1,3\}- and \{1,1,5\}-facets, respectively.
329:
330: %%%%%% Fig. 5 (slope coverage dependence)%%%%%%%%%%
331: \begin{figure}
332: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5}
333: \caption{Distribution of the facets that compose the sides of the
334: mounds formed with the normal deposition (0$^o$) at 250 K. Inset:
335: the average slope of the mounds as a function of the coverage. }
336: \end{figure}
337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
338:
339: In our simulation, we find that various kinds
340: of steps coexist on each side of mound.
341: In Fig. 5, the distribution of the various steps with different
342: local slopes is presented as a function of the coverage for the thin
343: films grown by the deposition at $\theta = 0^o$ and $T =$ 250 K. As
344: $\Theta$ increases, so does the mean slope. (Inset of Fig. 5) At
345: $\Theta =$ 100 ML, the mean terrace width becomes 1.67 $a_{nn}$ that
346: is close to that of the \{1,1,3\}-facet. However, at the coverage,
347: the relative population of the step with the local slope of
348: \{1,1,j\}-facet (from now on, referred as \{1,1,j\}-step) is 21 \%
349: (j=1), 53 \% (j=3), 18 \% (j=5), 6 \% (j=7), and 2 \% (j=9).
350: (The portion of steps with their slopes less than that of \{1,1,11\}-facet
351: is negligible.) Therefore, even though the mean slope converges to that of
352: \{1,1,3\}-facet, the actual relative population of steps with the
353: mean slope is only 50 \% and the rest of the mounds are composed of
354: the steps with relatively wide range of the local slopes. \par
355:
356: %%%%%% Fig. 6 (slope angle dep)%%%%%%%%%%
357: \begin{figure}
358: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6}
359: \caption{Distribution of the facets that compose the sides of the
360: mounds formed after depositing 10 ML at 250 K at various deposition angles.
361: (a) P-side: Two sides of mound facing in the direction perpendicular
362: to the deposition direction, (b) IL-side: the side facing the deposition direction,
363: and (c) SH-side: the shadowed (or back) side of mound in the deposition direction.}
364: \end{figure}
365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
366:
367: %%%%%%Fig. 7 %%%%%%%%%%%%
368: \begin{figure}
369: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7a}
370: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7b}
371: \caption{Relative population of various facets and average facet slope
372: at the coverage of 10 ML as
373: a function of temperature for both deposition angles of (a) 0$^o$ and (b-d) 80$^o$.
374: (e)Mean slopes of the three sides of the mound
375: as a function of the deposition temperature for the coverage of 10 ML. }
376: \end{figure}
377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
378:
379: Now, we examine the dependence of the distribution of slopes or
380: steps on the deposition angle for three inequivalent sides of the
381: mounds, illuminated (IL), shadowed (SH), and perpendicular (P)
382: sides. (See the caption of Fig. 6 for the description of the sides.)
383: In Fig. 6 shown is the distribution of local steps on each side
384: after depositing 10 ML at 250 K at various deposition angles. From
385: the figure, we find that the distributions of the steps are similar
386: for these three sides of the mounds for $\theta < 50^o$. As the
387: deposition angle further increases, the distributions start to
388: change and become quite distinct from each other at $\theta = 80^o$.
389: For $\Theta =$ 10 ML and $\theta = 80^o$, 54 \% of the IL-sides are
390: composed of \{1,1,1\}-step. On the other hand, only 30 \% of SH-side
391: is composed of the \{1,1,1\}-step, and thus its mean slope is much
392: less steep than that of the IL-side. In the SPA-LEED experiment of
393: Cu/Cu(001), Dijken {\it et al.} \cite{Dijken2} reported that the
394: IL-side is made of \{1,1,1\}-step and SH- and P-sides are of
395: \{1,1,3\}-step. These experimental results nearly match the
396: average behaviors observed in our simulation. \par
397:
398: We also investigate the distribution of the steps
399: as a function of the substrate temperature (Fig. 7).
400: For the case of grazing angle
401: deposition, the step distributions (Fig. 7 (b)-(d)) and the mean
402: slopes(Fig. 7 (e)) on the three sides become similar around 220 K.
403: Further, they vary little, as the substrate temperature is lowered
404: below 220K. These observations suggest that the step distribution
405: for $T < 220 K$ represents the limiting behavior of the slope
406: formation or the steepest slope reachable by deposition, during
407: which some less steep steps such as \{113\}-steps other than the
408: steepest \{111\}-steps occurs due to statistical fluctuation.\par
409:
410: As $T$ increases, the portion of the less steep steps increases and
411: that of the steeper steps such as \{111\}-step decreases. That is,
412: the mound becomes smooth as $T$ increases. The way of smoothing,
413: however, differs depending on the mound side: As $T$ increases, the
414: P-side (Fig. 7(b)) and the SH-side (Fig. 7(d)) rapidly become
415: smooth, while the change in the step distribution on the IL-side
416: occurs in the smaller scale (Fig.
417: 7(c)). This can also be seen clearly in the $T$ dependence of the
418: mean slopes in Fig. 7(e). \par
419:
420:
421: \section{DISCUSSION}
422:
423:
424: \subsection{Effects of the deposition dynamics on the morphology of the film}
425:
426: In the previous section, we observe that the roughness (Inset of
427: Fig. 1 and 2), the mound shape (Fig. 3 and 4) and the mound slope
428: (Fig. 5-7) depend on the non-kinetic variable such as deposition
429: angle. Such angular dependence can be attributed to the deposition
430: dynamics that includes (1) the steering of the trajectory of the
431: deposited atom due to its interaction with substrate
432: atoms and (2) the screening effects of the deposited atoms due to
433: the geometrical structure already formed on the substrate. Both
434: effects cause inhomogeneous deposition flux
435: depending on the deposition condition and make the growth of thin films
436: sensitive to the deposition condition. \par
437:
438: %%%%%% Fig 8 flux %%%%%%%%%%%%
439: \begin{figure}
440: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8}
441: \caption{Deposition flux calculated by MD simulation.
442: Atoms are deposited at grazing deposition angle of 80$^o$ on an 8-layer
443: high mound surrounded by (1,1,5)-facets. (a) The local deposition flux in
444: gray scale, where the brighter color indicates the higher local flux. (b) The local
445: deposition flux along the line crossing the center of the mound along x-axis.
446: The ordinate is the deposition flux in percentage
447: relative to the average deposition flux over the total area. The deposition
448: flux at normal (0$^o$) deposition is shown with + symbol as a
449: reference and the mound is depicted by gray circles at the bottom. }
450: \end{figure}
451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452:
453:
454: To study the effects of the inhomogeneous deposition flux on the
455: growth of thin film, we investigate the flux on an 8-layer high
456: mound surrounded with \{1,1,5\}-facets by MD simulation. Fig. 8(a)
457: shows the deposition flux over the mound in gray scale for $\theta =
458: 80^o$. Fig. 8(b) shows the deposition flux along a line passing
459: through the center of the mound along the x-axis, which shows strong
460: asymmetry, i.e., the deposition flux on the IL-side is 2 to 4 times
461: larger than the average deposition flux and that on SH-side is only
462: about 10 to 50 \% of the average. The simulation with the mounds
463: surrounded by the different facets show the same trend, $i.e.$, the
464: enhanced deposition flux on the IL-side and the reduced deposition
465: flux on the SH-side.\par
466:
467: Such inhomogeneous deposition flux gives rise to different growth
468: speeds on each side, and thus the film is rougher than the film
469: grown under the normal deposition condition (Figs.1 and 2).
470: Especially, the enhanced deposition flux near the front edge of the
471: top terrace increases the destabilizing current toward ascending
472: step edge by the ES barrier, and critically roughens the
473: surface.\cite{Amar}(See the following section for the detailed
474: description.) \par
475:
476: The asymmetric shape of mound formed during grazing angle
477: deposition (Fig. 3 and 4) is attributed to the decrease of the
478: overall deposition flux along x-direction (i.e., over both the IL-
479: and SH-sides), and the simultaneous increase of the effective
480: deposition flux over the P-sides (Fig. 8) due to the following two
481: reasons; the first one is the net mass transfer from the region near
482: the rear edge of the mound to the top of the mound due to the
483: steering effects, reducing the deposition flux along
484: x-axis.\cite{Dijken1,Seo1} Some of the transferred mass on the top
485: of the mound is in the long run redistributed equally to the four
486: sides.\cite{Seo1} It effectively increases the deposition flux along
487: the y-axis and {\it vice versa}. The second one is the increased
488: deposition flux over the P-sides due to the attraction of the
489: deposited atoms moving along the edges of the P-sides toward the
490: sides.\cite{Seo1} Such imbalance of the effective deposition flux
491: results in the faster growth speed in the y-direction than in the
492: x-direction, giving birth to the asymmetric mounds elongated
493: along y-axis. \par
494:
495: The observed asymmetric slopes of the mounds observed for $\theta >
496: 50^o$ (Fig. 6) can also be explained by the inhomogeneous deposition
497: flux on the following two grounds. Firstly, the higher deposition
498: flux on IL-side than that on SH-side offers growth
499: environment effectively equivalent to the lower growth temperature
500: on IL-side than that on SH-side. Thus, the terrace size in
501: IL-side is narrower than that in SH-side or, equivalently, the slope
502: in IL-side is steeper than that in SH-side as observed in both the
503: previous experiment\cite{Dijken2} and the present simulation. \par
504:
505: In addition, the flux distribution on the top terrace strengthens
506: the asymmetric slope formation; A notable feature of the deposition
507: flux in Fig. 8(b) is that the flux near the edge toward IL-side is
508: much higher than that near the opposite edge, which should result in
509: the increased density of islands near to the edge of IL-side
510: on the top terrace. Sequential formation of islands on the top terrace
511: preferentially close to the edge makes the mound have steps
512: with the narrower terrace width or the steeper slope on IL-side than
513: those on SH-side. \par
514:
515: In Fig.7, we observe the dependence of the smoothing kinetics on the
516: side of the mound; as $T$ increases, relatively rapid smoothing
517: occurs on both the P- and SH- sides, while it is retarded at the
518: IL-side. This is because the deposition flux is larger on the
519: IL-side than those on the other sides (Fig. 8); The mean capture
520: length of the deposited atoms to form islands on the IL-side is
521: shorter than those on the other sides. It means that the effective
522: temperature felt by the deposited atoms on the IL-side is lower than
523: that on the other sides. As a result, the smoothing proceeds
524: relatively slowly on the IL-side, as $T$ increases. \par
525:
526: In summary, both (1) the inhomogeneous deposition flux over the
527: sides of the mound due to the steering and screening effects and (2)
528: the enhanced deposition flux near the front edge of the top terrace
529: of the mound due to the steering effect cooperatively give rise to
530: the asymmetric mound formation with different lengths and slopes on
531: each side, and also accelerate the roughening of surface during
532: deposition at grazing angle.\par
533:
534:
535: \subsection{The steering effects v.s. the screening effects}
536:
537: %%%%%% Fig 9 Screening v.s. Steering %%%%%%%%%%%%
538: \begin{figure}
539: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9ab}
540: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9cde}
541: \caption{Simulation results with the screening effects alone
542: with $\theta = 80^o$ and $\Theta = 10$ ML. As a reference, the
543: simulation results considering both screening and steering effects
544: are also presented. (a) Roughness as a function of temperature: open
545: circles for deposition considering screening effects alone, + for
546: random deposition (NSS), and closed circles for deposition
547: considering both screening and steering effects. (b) Mean slopes for
548: the SH-side (circle) and the IL-side (square). Open (closed) symbols
549: for deposition including screening effects alone (both screening and
550: steering effects). (c-e) Mound radius as a function of coverage.
551: Gray (black) curves correspond to the deposition considering
552: screening effects (both screening and steering effects). Solid and
553: broken curves are radii along x- and y-axis, respectively. }
554: \end{figure}
555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
556:
557: As the thickness of the film become thick, in addition to the
558: steering effects, the geometric screening effects play an important
559: role. To study the contribution of the individual dynamic effect to
560: thin film growth, we carry out another set of growth simulation
561: which takes only the geometric screening effects into account. In
562: this simulation, the trajectory of the deposited atom is a straight
563: line determined by the initial position and velocity of the
564: atom.\par
565:
566: In Fig. 9(a) shown is the roughness evolution as a function of the
567: temperature for three different cases; (1) the case assuming no
568: steering and screening effects (NSS) or random deposition, (2) the
569: case taking only the geometric screening effects into account, and
570: (3) the usual simulation taking all the dynamic effects, i.e., both
571: steering and screening effects. At low temperature (e.g., 190 K),
572: the screening effects contribute to the roughening almost as much as
573: the steering effects. Here, the contribution of the screening
574: effects to the roughening is estimated as the difference between the
575: roughness obtained with the screening effects included and that of
576: NSS. The contribution of the steering effects is estimated similarly
577: as the difference between the roughness with both effects considered
578: and that with only the screening effects. The roughening due to the
579: screening effects, however, decreases gradually as temperature
580: increases and becomes negligible at temperatures higher than 260 K.
581: On the other hand, the roughness due to the steering effect keeps
582: increasing up to 240 K and starts to decrease gradually at the
583: higher temperatures. This suggests that the effects of the
584: inhomogeneous deposition flux due to the screening effect alone
585: relaxes through diffusion kinetics at a temperature lower than that
586: due to the steering effects.\par
587:
588: %%%%%% Fig 10 flux %%%%%%%%%%%%
589: \begin{figure}
590: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10}
591: \caption{Deposition flux calculated by considering only the screening
592: effects. Atoms are deposited at grazing deposition angle of 80$^o$
593: on an 8-layer high mound surrounded by (1,1,5)-facets.
594: (a) The local deposition flux in
595: gray scale, where the brighter color indicates the higher local flux.
596: (b) The local
597: deposition flux on the line crossing the center of the mound along
598: x-axis is presented; the ordinate is the relative amount (\%) of
599: deposition flux relative to the average deposition flux over the
600: whole surface. The mound is shown with gray circles in the upper region.}
601: \end{figure}
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603:
604: The origin of the difference in the roughness and the relaxation
605: temperature between these two cases lies in their different
606: flux distributions: In Fig. 10 shown is the flux distribution for the same mound as
607: that in Fig. 8, but only with the screening effects taken into
608: account. The flux near SH-side is totally depleted and about the same
609: amount is added to IL-side. The most notable difference between
610: two cases is found in the flux on the top terrace. The flux distribution
611: taking both dynamic effects in Fig. 8 shows pronounced enhancement
612: of the flux near the front edge of the top terrace, while no such enhancement of flux
613: is found in Fig. 10. The steering effect causes
614: vertical mass redistribution, displacing the flux
615: on SH-side expected for the random deposition to the top terrace,
616: accelerating the roughening of the surface. In contrast, the
617: screening effect just redistributes
618: the depleted flux from SH-side to IL-side in the same plane.
619: Thus, for the relaxation of the screening effects,
620: only the diffusions in the same plane via terrace
621: diffusion or diffusion along the edges of mound
622: need to be activated. For the relaxation of the steering effects, however,
623: interlayer diffusion across the ES barrier that requires much higher activation energy
624: than that for the in-plane diffusion should be accompanied. In fact,
625: the $bell-shape$ dependence of the roughness on the temperature in
626: Fig. 9(a), shown for the case when the steering effect is also
627: considered, is reminiscent of the growth mode where the limiting
628: process is the diffusion over ES barrier.\cite{Amar} Hence, the
629: relaxation of the steering effects takes place at temperature
630: higher than that for the relaxation of the screening effects. \par
631:
632: In Fig. 9(b), the mean slopes for IL- and SH-sides are shown as a function
633: of growth temperature also for the aforementioned two cases. The
634: mean slope of the IL- side is steeper than that of the SH-side over
635: the whole temperature range for both cases. If only the screening
636: effect is considered, the difference in their slopes dwindles as $T$
637: increases, and finally becomes almost negligible around 270 K. At
638: 250 K, the slopes of both sides are slightly lower than that of
639: \{113\} facet. In the previous experiment depositing 40 ML of Cu on
640: Cu(001) at 250 K\cite{Dijken2}, the slopes of the IL- and SH-side is
641: found to be those of \{111\} and \{113\}, respectively, in
642: contradiction with the results of the aforementioned simulation
643: considering the screening effects alone.\par
644:
645: The inclusion of the steering effect makes the slopes steeper,
646: especially on the IL-side, and the difference in
647: slopes becomes evident as observed in the experiment. (Fig. 9(b))
648: Further, the mean slope of the IL-side lies in between \{111\} and
649: \{113\}, and that of the SH- side corresponds to that of \{113\}.
650: These slopes now approach the ones observed in the previous
651: experiment.\cite{Dijken2} \par
652:
653: Regarding the mound radius, the screening effects alone make
654: the mounds of almost symmetric shape (Figs. 9 (c)-(e))
655: which strikingly differs
656: from what has been observed in the experiments.\cite{Dijken2,Lu}
657: This is understood by the fact that the flux
658: blocked by the screening effect on the SH-side
659: results in the increase of the flux on the IL-side (Fig. 10),
660: which looks as if the blocked flux is simply displaced
661: to the IL side. Therefore, the reduced lateral growth speed on the SH-side is
662: almost compensated by the increased growth speed
663: on the IL-side.
664: Hence, the overall shape of mound remains square symmetric,\cite{square} if only the
665: screening effects are taken into account in the growth.
666: The asymmetric mounds with
667: longer side along y-axis (Fig. 9) form as observed in the
668: experiment,\cite{Dijken2} only when the steering effect is
669: added. \par
670:
671: In short, in the thin film growth at grazing deposition angle, the
672: asymmetric mound shape, the surface roughness, and the slope
673: difference on the IL- and SH-sides of mounds
674: result mainly due to
675: the steering effect rather than the screening effect. (Fig. 9).
676: Remembering that the main difference of the steering effects from
677: the screening effects is the higher deposition flux near the front
678: edge of the top terrace, the observed characteristics of the films
679: grown at grazing deposition angle
680: is largely determined by the growth characteristics of the
681: top layer as the growth front. \par
682:
683: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION}
684:
685: We perform KMC simulation to study the thin film growth by deposition at
686: grazing angle. We observe (1) the notable increase of the surface
687: roughness and (2) the asymmetry in both mound shape and slopes, as
688: compared with the thin film grown by the normal deposition. Such
689: results are in good agreement with the previous experimental
690: observations. We find that the aforementioned structural features of
691: the films grown by grazing angle deposition are mainly attributed to
692: the steering effect rather than the screening effect. Especially,
693: the inhomogeneous deposition flux on the top terrace induced by the
694: steering effects is the most influential factor. \par
695:
696: We also make an additional interesting observation that the mound
697: side is not composed of one kind of facet, even when the slope selection is attained.
698: Instead, we find that there coexist
699: variety of local facets and the selected mound slope observed in
700: experiment represents only the mean slope of those.
701: Therefore, the slope selection does not mean the facet selection. \par
702:
703: \begin{acknowledgements}
704:
705:
706: \end{acknowledgements}
707:
708: \begin{references}
709:
710: \bibitem{Dijken1} S. V. Dijken, L. C. Jorritsma, and B. Poelsema, Phys.
711: Rev. Lett. {\bf 82},4038 (1999).
712:
713: \bibitem{Seo1} J. Seo, S.-M. Kwon, H.-Y. Kim, and J.-S.
714: Kim, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, R121402 (2003).
715:
716: \bibitem{Montalenti} F. Montalenti, M. R. Sorensen, and A. F. Voter,
717: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 126101 (2001).
718:
719: \bibitem{Montalenti2} F. Montalenti and A. F. Voter,
720: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, R081401 (2001).
721:
722: \bibitem{Yu} J. Yu and J. G. Amar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 286103
723: (2002).
724:
725: \bibitem{Seo2} J. Seo, H.-Y. Kim, and J.-S. Kim, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}
726: 075414 (2005).
727:
728: \bibitem{Dijken2} S.V. Dijken, L.C. Jorritsma, and B.
729: Poelsema, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 14047 (2000).
730:
731: \bibitem{Wormeester} H. Wormeester and B. Poelsema, Phys. Rev. {\bf B
732: 66}, 165406 (2002).
733:
734: \bibitem{Sanders1}D. E. Sanders and A. E. DePristo, Surf. Sci.{\bf 254},
735: 341(1991).
736:
737: \bibitem{Sanders2} D.E. Sanders D.M. Halstead, and A.E. DePristo,
738: J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A {\bf 10(4)}, 1986 (1992).
739:
740: \bibitem{Furman} I. Furman, O. Biham, Jiang-Kai Zuo, A. K. Swan,
741: and John F. Wendelken, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, R10649 (2000).
742:
743: \bibitem{Mehl} H. Mehl, O. Biham, I. Furman, and M. Karimi, Phys. Rev.
744: {\bf B}, 2106 (1999).
745:
746: \bibitem{Amar} J.G. Amar and F. Family, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 14742
747: (1996).
748:
749: \bibitem{Lu} T.-M. Lu, D.-X. Ye, T. Karabacak, and G.-C. Wang,
750: Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. {\bf 849}, KK8.4.1 (2005).
751:
752: \bibitem{square} The slightly longer mound length in the y-axis
753: than in the x-axis may be
754: caused by the net mass transfer through diffusion from the IL-side
755: to the P-side due to the large adatom density gradient resulting from
756: the large difference in the deposition flux between the two sides.
757:
758: \end{references}
759:
760:
761:
762:
763: \end{document}
764: