Abstract
An analytic calculation of the surface current and selected mound angle is presented for the case of irreversible epitaxial growth on an fcc(111) surface with a finite Ehrlich-Schwoebel (ES) barrier. The special cases of short terraces and combinations of short terraces with facets which lead to large mound slopes are also discussed. We find that for both $A$ and $B$ steps the surface current and selected mound slope are determined by two key parameters---the Ehrlich-Schwoebel barrier and the degree of uphill funneling due to short-range attraction. However, the presence or absence of a small-slope instability is exclusively determined by the value of the ES barrier. In particular there exists a critical value of the parameter $\ensuremath{\rho}$ (where $\ensuremath{\rho}=({\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\mathrm{ES}}∕{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{0}){e}^{\ensuremath{-}{E}_{\mathrm{ES}}∕{k}_{B}T}$ and ${E}_{\mathrm{ES}}$ is the ES barrier) such that for $\ensuremath{\rho}<{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{c}$, the flat surface is unstable to mound formation while for $\ensuremath{\rho}>{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{c}$ there is no such instability. The critical value ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{c}\ensuremath{\simeq}0.21$ is the same for both $A$ and $B$ steps and independent of the degree of uphill funneling due to short-range attraction. When the uphill funneling is not too large, the selected slope decreases continuously with increasing $\ensuremath{\rho}$, reaching zero at ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{c}$. However, in the presence of sufficiently large uphill funneling, the selected slope is independent of $\ensuremath{\rho}$ for $\ensuremath{\rho}<{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{c}$. In this case a new phenomenon which we refer to as fluctuation-induced instability also occurs. In particular, while the surface remains stable for $\ensuremath{\rho}>{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{c}$ for small slopes, for larger slopes the surface current may become positive due to uphill funneling. Thus, even in the presence of a small ES barrier, mound formation may still occur. Finally, we present typical results for the dependence of the mound slope on $\ensuremath{\rho}$ for both $A$ and $B$ steps.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.