Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

  • Sang-Pil Kim (a1) (a2), Seung-Cheol Lee (a1), Kwang-Ryeol Lee (a1), Kyu-Hwan Lee (a1) and Yong-Chae Chung (a2)...


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.



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


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed