Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:58:19.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Semiconductor Models for the Study of Liquid Phase Epitaxy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Stephen J. Cook  and
Paulette Clancy
Stephen J. Cook
Affiliation:
Cornell University, School of Chemical Engineering, Olin Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853
Paulette Clancy
Affiliation:
Cornell University, School of Chemical Engineering, Olin Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853
Get access

Abstract

The phase behavior of silicon is studied using the Modified Embedded Atom Method (MEAM) proposed by Baskes, Nelson and Wright. We find this model to quantitatively reproduce aspects of both the solid and liquid phases with an accuracy comparable to the widely-used Stillinger-Weber (SW) potential, thus providing an opportunity to examine the consistency of results obtained previously using the SW model. Although the models are very different, they both produce solid-liquid interfaces on both silicon (100) and (111) which have very similar morphologies. We find that the MEAM predicts the melting point of silicon to be 1445K, or 14% lower than the experimental value. The model also predicts the heat of melting to be 34.9 kJ/mol, 45% lower than the experimental value of 50.6 kJ/mol, and a liquid density which is 5.4% larger than that of the solid at the melting point, which is the density ratio found by experiment. The liquid density is found to be too low with respect to experiment. We also suggest a correction which might be applied to the MEAM model to improve its description of the liquid phase.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 205: Symposium F – Kinetics of Phase Transformations , 1990 , 435
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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

1. Stillinger, F.H. and Weber, T.A., Phys. Rev. B 31, 5262 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Tersoff, J., Phys. Rev. B 38, 9902(1988).Google Scholar
3. Broughton, J.Q. and Li, X.P., Phys. Rev. B 35, 9120 (1987).Google Scholar
4. Luedtke, W.D. and Landman, U., Phys. Rev. B 40, 1164 (1989).Google Scholar
5. Cowley, E. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2379 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Foiles, S.M., Phys. Rev. B 32, 7685 (1985).Google Scholar
7. Foiles, S.M., Phys. Rev. B 32, 3409 (1985).Google Scholar
8. Brown, D. and Clarke, J.H.R., Mol. Phys. 51, 1243 (1984).Google Scholar
9. Landman, U., Luedtke, W.D., Barnett, R.N., Cleveland, C.L., Ribarsky, M.W., Arnold, E., Ramesh, S., Baumgart, H., Martinez, A. and Khan, B., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 155 (1986).Google Scholar
10. Baskes, M.I., Nelson, J.S. and Wright, A.F., Phys. Rev. B 40, 6085 (1989).Google Scholar
11. Grabow, M.H. and Gilmer, G.H., this proceedings.Google Scholar
12. Waseda, Y. and Suzuki, K., Z. Physik B 20, 339 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Rose, J.H., Smith, J.R., Guinea, F. and Ferrante, J., Phys. Rev. B 29, 1963 (1984).Google Scholar