Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:21:08.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperature and Flux dependence of ion induced ripple: a way to study defect and relaxation kinetics during ion bombardment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Wai Lun Chan
Wai Lun Chan*
Affiliation:
Eric Chason Division of Engineering, Brown University Providence, RI02912.
Get access

Abstract

We have measured the temperature and ion flux dependence of the ripple wavelength on a Cu(001) surface during low energy ion sputtering. We analyze these results in terms of a linear instability model and identify different experimentally observed behavior with different mechanisms of relaxation and surface defect kinetics. In a high temperature regime, diffusing species on the surface are mainly thermally induced while in a lower temperature range, the diffusing species are ion beam induced. At even lower temperature, thermal diffusion is deactivated and the surface relaxes through an athermal mechanism. We define a transition between different defects formation kinetics in temperature and flux phase space and discuss how the defect kinetics model can be extended to different materials system.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 849: Symposium KK – Kinetics-Driven Nanopatterning on Surfaces , 2004 , KK6.8
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

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

REFERENCES

1. Valbusa, U., Borangno, C., and de Mongeot, F. B., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, 8153 (2002).Google Scholar
2. Makeev, M. A., Cuerno, R., and Barabasi, A. L., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 197, 185 (2002).Google Scholar
3. Bradley, R. M., Harper, J. M. E., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 6, 2390 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Rusponi, S., Costantini, G., Boragno, C., and Valbusa, U., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2738 (1998).Google Scholar
5. Herring, C., J. Appl. Phys. 21, 301 (1950);Google Scholar
Mullins, W. W., J. Appl. Phys. 30, 77 (1959).Google Scholar
6. Makeev, M. A. and Barabasi, A. L., Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 2800 (1997).Google Scholar
7. Politi, P., Villain, J., Phys. Rev. B 54, 5114 (1996).Google Scholar
8. Chan, W. L., Pavenayotin, N., and Chason, E., Phys. Rev. B 69, 245413 (2004).Google Scholar
9. Chan, W. L., Ramasubramaniam, A., Shenoy, V., and Chason, E., Phys. Rev. B 70, 245403 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Chan, W. L., and Chason, E., submitted.Google Scholar
11. van Dijken, S., de Bruin, D., and Poelsema, B., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4608 (2001).Google Scholar