Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:11:13.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First-Principles Calculation of the Evaporation Field and Roll-up Effect of M (M = Fe, Cu, Si, and Mn) on the Fe (001) and Fe Step Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2021

Toshiharu Ohnuma Open the ORCID record for Toshiharu Ohnuma [Opens in a new window]
Toshiharu Ohnuma*
Affiliation:
Materials Science Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), 2-6-1 Nagasaka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken 240-0196, Japan
*
*Author for correspondence: Toshiharu Ohnuma, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

First-principles calculations were performed on the evaporation field of Fe, Cu, Mn, and Si in Fe (001) and on the evaporation field and roll-up effect of Fe, Cu, and Mn in the Fe (001) step structure. The larger the evaporation barrier energy tendency, at an electric field of 0 V/nm (absorption energy), the larger was the evaporation field. Electric field evaporation calculation results indicate that the order in which the electric field is easily evaporated is Mn > Cu > Fe > Si. The tendency that Mn and Cu evaporate more easily than does Fe and that the evaporation of Si is less probable is consistent with the experiment of a dilute element in steel. In the Fe (001) step structure, when the electric field is low, the roll-up effect where the evaporated atoms move on the step is large, and when the electric field is large, the roll-up effect is small. The roll-up effect of Cu was almost the same as that of Fe, and the roll-up effect of Mn was small because the chemical bond between Mn and Fe was weak.

Keywords

atom probe tomographyeffective screening medium methodevaporation fieldfield evaporationfirst-principles calculationroll-up effect
Type
Development and Computation
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 1181 - 1187
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Microscopy Society of America

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

Antczak, G & Ehrlich, G (2007). Jump processes in surface diffusion. Surf Sci Rep 62, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M, Mishra, A, Neugebauer, J & Freysoldt, C (2020). Ab initio description of bond breaking in large electric fields. Phys Rev Lett 124, 176801-1–176801-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gault, B, Danoix, F, Hoummadad, K, Mangelinck, D & Leitner, H (2012 b). Impact of directional walk on atom probe microanalysis. Ultramicroscopy 113, 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gault, B, Moody, MP, Cairney, JM & Ringer, SP (2012 a). Atom Probe Microscopy. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karahka, M & Kreuzer, HJ (2013). Field evaporation of oxides: A theoretical study. Ultramicroscopy 132, 54–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karahka, ML & Kreuzer, HJ (2016). New physics and chemistry in high electrostatic fields. Surf Sci 643, 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuzer, HJ (1991). Physics and chemistry in high electric fields. Surf Sci 246, 336–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuzer, HJ & Nath, K (1987). Field evaporation. Surf Sci 183, 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuzer, HJ, Wang, LC & Lang, ND (1992). Self-consistent calculation of atomic adsorption on metals in high electric fields. Phys Rev B 45, 12050–12055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, DJ, Prosa, TJ, Ulfig, RM, Geiser, BP & Kelly, TF (2013). Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, MK & Forbes, RG (2014). Atom-Probe Tomography: The Local Electrode Atom Probe. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monkhorst, HJ & Pack, JD (1976). Special points for Brillouin-zone integrations. Phys Rev B 13, 5188–5192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberdorfer, C & Schmitz, G (2011). On the field evaporation behavior of dielectric materials in three-dimensional atom probe: A numeric simulation. Microsc Microanal 17, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohnuma, T (2019). Surface diffusion of Fe and Cu on Fe (001) under electric field using first-principles calculations. Microsc Microanal 25, 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T & Hirose, K (2004). First-principles study on field evaporation for silicon atom on Si(001) surface. J Appl Phys 95, 1568–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T, Sasaki, T, Otsuka, J & Hirose, K (2005). First-principles study on field evaporation of surface atoms from W(0 1 1) and Mo(0 1 1) surfaces. Surf Sci 577, 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otani, M & Sugino, O (2006). First-principles calculations of charged surfaces and interfaces: A plane-wave nonrepeated slab approach. Phys Rev B 73, 115407-1–115407-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozaki, T (2003). Variationally optimized atomic orbitals for large-scale electronic structures. Phys Rev B 67, 155108-1–155108-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozaki, T & Kino, H (2004). Numerical atomic basis orbitals from H to Kr. Phys Rev B 69, 195113-1–195113-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozaki, T & Kino, H (2005). Efficient projector expansion for the ab initio LCAO method. Phys Rev B 72, 045121-1–045121-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peralta, J, Broderick, SR & Rajan, K (2013). Mapping energetics of atom probe evaporation events through first principles calculations. Ultramicroscopy 132, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdew, P, Burke, K & Ernzerhof, M (1996). Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys Rev Lett 77, 3865–3868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchez, CG, Lozovoi, AY & Alavi, A (2004). Field-evaporation from first-principles. Mol Phys 102, 1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchorski, Y, Ernst, N, Schmidt, WA, Medvedev, VK, Kreuzer, HJ & Wang, RLC (1996). Field desorption and field evaporation of metals. Prog Surf Sci 53, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchorski, Y, Schmidt, WA, Block, JH & Kreuzer, HJ (1994). Comparative studies on field ionization at surface sites of Rh, Ag, and Au: Differences in local electric field enhancement. Vacuum 45, 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchorski, Y, Schmidt, WA, Ernst, N, Block, JH & Kreuzer, HJ (1995). Electrostatic fields above individual surface atoms. Prog Surf Sci 48, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomanek, D, Kreuzer, HJ & Block, JH (1985). Tight-binding approach to field desorption: N2 on Fe(111). Surf Sci 157, L315–L322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, KL, Geiser, B, Moody, MP, Ringer, SP & Thompson, GB (2011). Field evaporation behavior in [0 0 1] FePt thin films. Ultramicroscopy 111, 512–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsukada, M, Tamura, H., McKenna, K.P, Shluger, A.L, Chen, Y.M, Ohkubo, T. & Hono, K (2011). Mechanism of laser assisted field evaporation from insulating oxides. Ultramicroscopy 111(6), 567–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.11.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vurpillot, F, Bostel, A. & Blavette, D (2000). Trajectory overlaps and local magnification in three-dimensional atom probe. Applied Physics Letters 76(21), 3127–3129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.126545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wada, M (1984). On the thermally activated field evaporation of surface atoms. Surf Sci 145, 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, LC & Kreuzer, HJ (1990). Kinetic theory of field evaporation of metals. Surf Sci 237, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, AR, Boyes, ED & Southon, MJ (1976). Investigations of field evaporation with a field-desorption microscope. Surf Sci 61, 109–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y, Takahashi, J & Kawakami, K (2009). The study of quantitativeness in atom probe analysis of alloying elements in steel. Ultramicroscopy 109, 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar