Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T01:10:05.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embedded Atom Model of Surface Stress and Early Film Growth in Electrodeposition: Ag/Au(111)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Michael I. Haftel ,
Nervine Rosen  and
Sean G. Corcoran
Michael I. Haftel
Affiliation:
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. 20375–5345
Nervine Rosen
Affiliation:
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. 20375–5345
Sean G. Corcoran
Affiliation:
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. 20375–5345
Get access

Abstract

We develop an embedded-atom-model (EAM) for simulations of metallic film growth under electrodeposition. The surface charge induced by the electric field is handled as an addition to the electron density to be used in the EAM. Parameters relating the shift in electron density to the electrolytic potential are calibrated to measurements of the capacitance and of surface stress versus potential for Au. For Ag the calibration is to capacitance and local density approximation calculations of surface energy. The resulting parameters are physically realistic for the experiments performed. The model is then applied to calculating migration and step edge barriers for Ag electrodeposited on Au (111) as an explanation of the observed Stranski-Krastanov growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 451: Symposium P – Electrochemical Synthesis and Modification , 1996 , 31
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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. Corcoran, S.G., Chakarova, G.S., and Sierdadzki, K., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1585 (1993).Google Scholar
2. Chen, Chen-hsien, Vesecky, Scott M., and Gewirth, Andrew A., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 451 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Bromann, Karsten, Brune, Harald, Dôder, Holger, and Kern, Klaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 677 (1995).Google Scholar
4. Wulfhekel, W. et al., Surf. Sci. 348, 227 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Dovek, M.M., Lang, C.A.,, Negami, J., and Quate, C.F., Phys. Rev. B40, 11983 (1989);Google Scholar
Chambliss, D.D. and Wilson, R.J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B9, 928 (1991).Google Scholar
6. Haftel, Michael I. and Rosen, Mervine, Phys. Rev. B51, 4426, (1995).Google Scholar
7. Daw, M.S. and Baskes, M.I., Phys. Rev. B29, 6443 (1984).Google Scholar
8. Bockris, J.O'M. and Reddy, A.K.N., Modern Electrochemistry, Plenum Press, New York, 1973, pp. 698–707.Google Scholar
9. Lin, K.F. and Beck, T.T., J. Electrochem. Soc: Electochemical Science and Technology 123, 1145, (1976).Google Scholar
10. Raiteri, Roberto and Butt, Hans-Jürgen, J. Phys. Chem 99, 15728 (1995).Google Scholar
11. Foiles, S.M., Baskes, M.I., and Daw, M.S., Phys. Rev. B33, 7983 (1986).Google Scholar
12. Schmickler, Wolfgang, Interfacial Electrochemistry, Oxford University Press, New York (1996), p 26.Google Scholar
13. Fu, C.L. and Ho, K.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1617 (1989).Google Scholar