Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:43:09.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Molecular Dynamics Study of (001) and (111) Thin Fcc Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

F.H. Streitz ,
K. Sieradzki  and
R. C. Cammarata
F.H. Streitz
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218
K. Sieradzki
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218
R. C. Cammarata
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218
Get access

Abstract

We report on the results of molecular dynamics simulations of thin unsupported fcc films ranging in thickness from 20 layers to a monolayer. The films were oriented with either (001) or (111) free surface normals. The atomic interactions were modelled using a standard Lennard-Jones potential and a short range analytic form of the embedded atom potential. The elastic moduli of the films were determined by measuring their response to very low levels of applied stress.

We find that the embedded atom and Lennard-Jones results are in relative agreement for (001) films and qualitative disagreement for (111) oriented films. We relate these differences to the nature of the interatomic potential and the thermodynamic instability of the (001) surface.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 187: Symposium J – Thin Film Structures and Phase Stability , 1990 , 299
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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. People, R. and Bean, J.C., Appl. Phys. Lem. 47, 332 (1985); 49, 229, 1986.Google Scholar
2. Danner, R., Huebner, R.P., Chun, C.S.L., Grimsditch, M. and Schuller, I.K., Phys. Rev. B 33, 3696 (1986).Google Scholar
3. Merwe, Jan H van der and Jesser, W.A., J. Appl. Phys. 63, 1509 (1988); 63, 1928, (1988)Google Scholar
4. Dodson, B.W., Phys. Rev. B 37, 772, (1988); 60, 2288, (1989).Google Scholar
5. Clemens, B.N M and Eesley, G.L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2356 (1989).Google Scholar
6. Cammarata, R.C. and Sieradzki, K., Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2005 (1989).Google Scholar
7. Raju Gupta, P., Phys. Rev. B 23, 6265, (1981).Google Scholar
8. Ackland, G.J. and Finnis, M.W., Philos. Mag. A 54, 301, (1986).Google Scholar
9. Baskes, M. I. (private communication).Google Scholar
10. Benedek, R., J. Phys. F8, 1119, (1978).Google Scholar
11. Johnson, R.A., Phys. Rev. B 37, 3924, (1988).Google Scholar
12. Parrinello, M. and Rahman, A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1196, (1980).Google Scholar