arxiv: v2 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 10 Feb 2016

Transcription

1 Surface roerties and scaling behavior of a generalized ballistic deosition model in (1 + 1)-dimension arxiv:141.66v [cond-mat.stat-mech] 1 Feb 16 Baisakhi Mal, 1,, Subhankar Ray, 1, and J. Shamanna, 1 Deartment of Physics, Jadavur University, Calcutta 7, India. Deartment of Physics, Budge Budge Institute of Technology, Calcutta 7 17, India. Physics Deartment, University of Calcutta, Calcutta 7 9, India. (Dated: July, 18) The surface exonents, the scaling behavior and the bulk orosity of a generalized ballistic deosition (GBD) model are studied. In nature, there exist articles with varying degrees of stickiness ranging from comletely non-sticky to fully sticky. Such articles may adhere to any one of the successively encountered surfaces, deending on a sticking robability that is governed by the underlying stochastic mechanism. The microscoic configurations ossible in this model are much larger than those allowed in existing models of ballistic deosition and cometitive growth models that seek to mix ballistic and random deosition rocesses. In this article, we find the scaling exonents for surface width and orosity for the roosed GBD model. In terms of scaled width W and scaled time t, the numerical data collase on to a single curve, demonstrating successful scaling with sticking robability and system size L. Similar scaling behavior is also found for the orosity. I. INTRODUCTION The formation and growth of rough surfaces have several alications in hysical and chemical rocesses, such as crystal growth, growth of thin films, vaor deosition, formations of colloids and electrolating to name a few [1, ]. Many of the unique mechanical, otical and electromagnetic roerties of surfaces originate from their surface morhology. The bulk roerties of deository rocks, e.g., orosity, saline saturation, texture, stability and strength, find imortant alications in geology of sedimentary rocks. The underlying formation mechanism influences the geometry of deosition structures and is relevant in the manufacture of otical and electronic nanostructures and nanodevices, sohisticated drug delivery systems using magnetic carbon nanostructures [] and smart nanostructures for monitoring, diagnoses and treatment in hysiology[4]. Understanding the dynamics and growth of surfaces is, therefore, a challenging roblem in surface science. There are two fundamental aroaches to the study of surface growth: (i) extensive numerical simulation of discrete models and comutation of surface and bulk roerties []; and (ii) solving the stochastic differential equation derived from henomenology corresonding to the growth model [5, 6]. Another recent aroach of study involves transformation of discrete deosition rules into stochastic differential equations using a limiting rocedure and regularization, and hence, finding the scaling exonents [7]. Random deosition(rd) is a simle deosition rocess where non-sticky, solid articles deosit on randomly selected sites of a substrate (see Fig 1a). A quantitative baisakhi.mal@gmail.com sray.ju@gmail.com, sray@hys.jdvu.ac.in jlshy@caluniv.ac.in measure of the roughness of the surface, called the surface width W(L,t), is defined in terms of the surface height h(i,t), at a site i and at a time t, as, W(L,t) = 1 L [h(i,t) h(t) ], (1) L i=1 wherelis the system size, and is the average. In RD, each site grows indeendently of the other sites and the surface roughness grows without bound. There are no voids in random deosition, so the deosition structure is comact [1]. Ballistic deosition (BD) on the other hand, gives rise to orous structures as the deositing articles stick to the first surface they encounter in their vertical downward journey towards randomly selected sites (see Fig 1b). In BD, the articles behave as strongly sticky, whereas in RD they are not sticky at all [1, 8, 9]. In nature however, articles may have intermediate stickiness which varies between the two extremes of strongly sticky and comletely non-sticky behavior. In the resent study of a generalized ballistic deosition(gbd) model, we investigate the deosition of hysically realistic articles with intermediate stickiness. The level of stickiness is arametrized in terms of a sticking robability of the incident article, at each contact oint with the surface. The arameter ranges between and 1, reresenting non-sticky articles as in the case of random deosition, and 1 reresenting extremely sticky articles, as in ballistic deosition. A logarithmic lot of the surface width W(L,t) versus t, for GBD shows three distinct growth regions, similar to those observed by Banerjee et. al.[1], followed by saturation. The resent model, for any >, however small, leads to orous structures [11]. Interesting scaling relations of surface roughness and orosity, with both the system size L, and the sticking robability, are observed in the growth [6] and saturation regions. The relevant scaling

2 exonents are determined from the simulation data. This GBD is distinct from the earlier cometitive growth models [1 ] in several ways. The deosition in GBD mimics a realistic sticking rocess such as gel, or mud thrown on a wall. Some variants of BD models, e.g., those of Horowitz et al. [1 14], study the ossible nontrivial effect of introducing a second alternate osition of sticking (see Fig 1c,1d,1e). Each incoming article either deosits on to of a selected site as in RD, or, sticks to a higher location of a taller nearest neighbour. The robability assigned is ad hoc and is not suggested by any underlying mechanism or dynamics. The GBD, on the other hand, reresents a true stochastic rocess. The incoming article, at each contact with the surface has a chance to stick (with robability ) or to slide down (with robability q = 1 ). This rocess continues for successive oints of contact until the descending article reaches the bottom of the column. The case of article descending between two nearest neighbor adjacent columns is also considered, where the robabilities of sticking to two adjacent surfaces of contact is different than that for a single nearest neighbor column (see Fig. 1f). In some other cometitive growth models, different secies of articles are considered, some deosit as in RD, others as in BD. These models use mixture of articles with different re-assigned robability of sticking. Thus, they reresent deosition of mixed secies of articles. However, no individual article has the ossibility of sticking to successive contact locations guided by a relevant stochastic rocess. Thus, in these other varaints of BD and cometitive growth models, the ossible sticking ositions of the new article are far fewer than those in the GBD model roosed in this work. The configurations ossible in the cometitive growth models (Fig 1c,1d,1e) form a smaller subset of the large ensemble of configurations allowed in the resent model(fig 1f). The resent GBD model involves stochasticity at two stages, first in the random selection of an active site and second, in the assignment of a sticking robability of the incoming article. The structure of the deosit in the GBD model, deends on the successive stages of evolution. Hence, the relevant evolution equation is exected to be a stochastic integro-differential equation (SIDE) [1, ]. This is in contrast to Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) or Kardar-Parisi-Zhang(KPZ) equations [5, 6] which are stochastic differential equation (SDEs). II. GENERALIZED BALLISTIC DEPOSITION MODEL The generalized ballistic deosition model resented in this work attemts to reresent the deosition of realistic articles with varying degrees of stickiness. A arameter, whose values vary between and 1, is introduced that reresents the robability of an incoming article sticking to a oint of contact on the growingsurface. A article is allowed to descend vertically towards a randomly chosen (c) HABD (a) Random deosition (d) HABD1 (1 ) (b) Ballistic deosition (1 ) ( ) 4 (1 ) (1 +)( ) (f) resent model (GBD) 1 (e) HABD FIG. 1: (Color Online) Allowed ositions of the deosited article for (a) RD, (b) BD, (c, d, e) Horowitz and Albano s BD aearing in [1, 14], HABD, HABD1, HABD, (f) resent model (GBD). site on a one dimensional substrate. If the selected site is higher than its nearest neighbors, the article simly deosits on to of the column at that site. However, if the chosen site has a taller column of articles as its nearest neighbor, then the new article sticks to the first occuied site it encounters if the value of is larger than a random number generated from a uniform distribution between and 1. Otherwise, it slides down vertically to the next occuied site with robability (1 ). At this site the article may stick with robability (1 ) or continue its further descent with robability (1 ), and so on, till it reaches the bottom. Thus if the chosen site has a nearest neighbor with column height taller by n layers relative to it, the robabilities of the arriving article sticking to the successive articles of the nearest neighbor column from to are given by, P(1) =, P() = (1 ),... P(k) = (1 ) (k 1). () The robability that the article slides ast the receding (n 1) occuied neighbors, and lands at the lowest

3 ossible osition is given by, n 1 P(n) = 1 P(k) = (1 ) (n 1). k=1 This describes a roer stochastic rocess. The total robability of a descending article sticking to one of the allowed osition is n k=1p(k) = 1. In simle deosition models, the surface width follows a dynamic scaling law [4], W(L,t) L α f(t/l z ), () where f is ascaling function satisfying f( ) constant and f(x) x β for small x. The exonents α,β and z are related by z = α/β. For the GBD studied in this work, the introduction of a sticking robability, brings in another arameter in the roblem. GBD interolates between RD ( = ) and BD ( = 1) systems. Physically relevant quantities, e.g., surface width W(L,,t) and orosity ρ(l,,t) thus deend on the sticking robability in addition to L and t. From the results of our simulation we obtain dynamic scaling relations, ) (t W(L,,t) L α z α F (4) L c L z ( ) t ρ(l,,t) L a b d G. (5) where F(x) and G(y) are scaling functions described above. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION For different values of sticking robabilities between = and = 1, simulations were erformed in (1+1) dimension for system sizes L = 16,,64,18,56,51 and 14. The grahs are suitably drawn to resent the data, observations and results in a succinct, yet clear and uncluttered manner. The average number of layers deosited, is used as a measure of time t. Deending on the values of and L, the simulation results were averaged over 1 to 5 ensembles. The logarithmic lot of surface width with time has four distinct regions, for any non-zero robability ( > ). This is shown in Fig. The deendence of surface width W on t in log-log scale, in the early submonolayer region (t 1) is linear with sloe 1/ as in random deosition (growth region 1, GR). At later stages of submonolayer growth (growthregion, GR-), t 1, the surface width shows a stee increase which continues for the first few layers (1 ǫ t, 1 ǫ > ). With deosition of further layers, the rate of increase in width slows down (growth region, GR-). After deosition of a large number of layers, the ensemble average of the surface width saturates. Three different crossover times are of relevance. The first crossover time t r corresonds to the change from random growth to region with sloe greater than 1/. The second crossover time t k corresonds to time beyond few layers where the sloe decreases and changes from GR- to GR-. The third crossover time t sat corresonds to beginning of saturation region. The aearance of different growth regions in the resent model may be understood as follows. Initially, when the deosition starts from a flat substrate almost no two adjacent sites are occuied. Hence there is no correlation among neighboring columns and the growth is random like, irresective of whether the model allows for stickingor not. This feature is observedin all systems with different L and values as shown in Fig and Fig. ln W =.15 =.5 =.5 = 1. (BD) =. (RD) r k sat FIG. : (Color Online) Logarithmic lot of surface width with time for different and system size L = 56, showing four distinct regions and crossover times. ln W L = 56 L = 18 L = L = FIG. : (Color Online) Variation of lnw with lnt for =.5 for different system sizes.

4 4 The deviation from random like behavior in the few layer deosition region is shown in Fig 4. The rate of growth of surface width in this region is higher than that inthe caseofrandomdeosition. Asthenumberofarticles deosited is nearly L, due to fluctuation, some short multi-layer columns may start forming. Hence the descending articles encounter occuied neighbors, and allowing sticking in the model, brings in non-trivial correlations in the system. However, since very few layers are deosited at this stage, even one article sticking to a higher location or descending to the bottom of a column, makes a significant relative change in width. Thus the rate of growth of surface width in this region, when only a few layers have formed, is higher than that for RD. Our study shows, that the growth exonent in this region, denoted by β, increases with sticking robability, as is shown in Fig 5, reaching a maximum when = 1., corresondingto the standardbd, and is almost indeendent of system size L, as is shown in Fig. ln W RD =.15 =.5 =.7 = 1. (BD) FIG. 4: (Color Online) Deviation from random deosition behavior at later stages of submonolayer growth for L = 56. The rate of increase in surface width slows down as more and more articles are deosited in GR-. The average height of the interface and its width are larger. The descending article need not roceed to the bottom, and can get deosited at a higher location by sticking. Thus the correlation has a smoothening effect, as it fills u dee crevices efficiently. The growth exonent β in this region decreases with, unlike the exonent in GR-. With further deosition of articles the surface width finally saturates. The saturated width deends both on the system size L and sticking robability, as shown in Fig and Fig. For a given value of, the surface width at saturation W sat, and the time at which the saturation is reached t sat, increase with system size L. For a given system size L, W sat and t sat decrease with increase in robability of sticking. This decrease is more ronounced for lower values of. ThedeendenceofW sat on, foragivensystemsize, is β(β ) β β FIG. 5: (Color Online) Deendence of β and β on shown for system size L = 51. of the form W sat (L,) f(l) α, where the exonent α is indeendent of L (Fig 6). An increase in sticking robability corresonds to a stronger correlation in the deosition rocess. The surface width saturates at lower values of saturation width W sat, at corresonding earlier times, i.e., smaller t sat. ln W sat L = 18 L = 56 L = 51 L = ln FIG. 6: (Color Online) Variation of lnw sat with ln for different system sizes L. For a given robability of sticking, lnw sat increases linearly with lnl. The deendence is found to be of the form W sat (L,) L α (Fig 7). From results of extensive simulations, grahically resented in the adjacent figures, Fig 6, Fig 7, and Fig 8, we find the exonents α =.45 and α =.5, in the region of saturated surface width. The surface width W in the third growth region, GR-, i.e., between t k and t sat deends on both system size L and sticking robability as shown in Fig 9. The scaled width (W α /L α ) in GR- shows that it is larger for larger system sizes and lower robability ( =.15). For a given system size L, t sat and hence the growth region, decrease with increase in robability. The scaling

5 5 ln W sat = 1. (BD) =.7 =.5 =.5 = ln L FIG. 7: (Color Online) Variation of the saturated surface width lnw sat with lnl for different values. ln ( W sat / L α ) fitted line ln FIG. 8: (Color Online) Scaled saturated surface width ln(w sat /L α ) versus ln. The sloe is.5. of t with resect to is obtained from Fig 9, with exonent z =.77. Log-log lot of rescaled variables (W α /L α ) versus (t z /L z ) shows an excellent collase of data in the growth region GR- and saturation region as shown in Fig 1 and Fig 11. Analysis of our simulation data roduces numerical estimates for the scaling exonents in Eq.4. The exonents are, α =.45 ±.16, α =.5 ±.16, z = 1.45 ±. and z =.77 ±.4. The closest reresentation of these values in terms of rational fractions are α = 1/, α = 1/4, z = / and z = /4. From the scaled W versus scaled t grah in Fig.1 and Fig.11, we obtain β.1 as the sloe in the growth region GR-. In Eq. 4, for small values of (t z /L z ), we can aroximate F(x) x β, and hence W L α α ( ) β t z L z, (6) giving β as the exonent of t in this regime. The exo- ln ( W α / L α ) L = 51 L = 56 L = FIG. 9: (Color Online) Variation of ln(w α /L α ) with lnt showing deendence on system size L and sticking robability. Within each set of L, the different lines aear in order of decreasing values as one moves from bottom to to of the lot. nents obtained above, satisfy the relations, β = α z = α z. (7) The growth exonent β is aroximately the rational fraction 1/. ln (W α / L α ) L = 18 L = 56 L = 51 = 1. =.7 =.5 =.5 = ln ( t z ) FIG. 1: (Color Online) ln(w α /L α ) versus ln(t z ) for different sticking robability. The orosity ρ can be defined as the fraction of unoccuied sites within a few layers N just below the active interface, where no further deosition can take lace. It is seen that the orosity is quite indeendent when N is varied from 16 to L for a given system size L. The orosity is found to initially increase with time, signifying growth and then saturates to a value ρ sat. The onset of saturation for orosity occurs earlier than the onset of saturation of surface width. The orosityρis found to deend on the stickingrobabilityand showsaweakdeendence onthe system size

6 6 ln (W α / L α ) sloe β ln ( ρ -b / L a ) collased data L=64,=1. L=18,=1. L=56,=1. L=51,=1. L=64,=.7 L=18,=.7 L=56,=.7 L=51,=.7 L=64,=.5 L=18,=.5 L=56,=.5 L=51,=.5 L=64,=.5 L=18,=.5 L=56,=.5 L=51,=.5 L=64,=.15 L=18,=.15 L=56,=.15 L=51,= ln (t z / L z ) ln ( t d / L c ) FIG. 11: (Color Online) ln(w α /L α ) versus ln(t z /L z ) for L = 51,56,18,64 and = 1.,.7,.5,.5,.15. FIG. 1: (Color Online) Scaled data shown as ln(ρ b /L a ) versus ln(t d /L c ) for L = 51,56,18,64 and = 1.,.7,.5,.5,.15. ln ρ =1. =.7 =.5 =.5 = FIG. 1: (Color Online) lnρ versus lnt for L = 51,56,18,64 and = 1.,.7,.5,.5,.15. L. ρ sat is higher for higher L at any given. However, in the early growth region, ρ(l,,t) starts at a lower value for higher L. The orosity in both the growth and saturation regions increases with increase in sticking robability ; fully ballistic deosition system being most orous. Onset of saturation in orosity is earlier for higher sticking robability. A scaling behavior for orosity is obtained in the form of Eq.5, with the exonents a =.69 ±.7,b =.4 ±.51,c =.14 ±.5 and d =.59 ±.16. The deendence of orosity on time t, sticking robability and system size L is shown in Fig 1 and as scaled data in Fig 1. It may be noted that, in our simulations of the resent generalized ballistic deosition model, two indeendent random number generators were used, one for selecting a site on the growing surface and, another to determine whether a article will stick at a articular location for a chosen value of the sticking robability. These two random number generators are comletely indeendent and uncorrelated to each other. IV. CONCLUSION We have studied the deosition of hysically realistic articles with variable stickiness by roosing a generalized ballistic model of deosition. As mentioned in section II, the GBD model involves stochasticity in two stages:(i) in random selection of an active site and (ii) in assigning a sticking robability that affects the extent to which the height at the active site is altered for a given configuration of articles deosited on neighboring sites. The random selection of an active site aears as the random noise term in the corresonding differential equation, such as in the KPZ equation, while the detailed mechanism of the change in height h(x, t), determines the different satial derivatives i.e., sloe, curvature etc., aearing in the differential equations. In the resent model, the sticking of an incoming article at a site is ossible only when it has slied ast the surfaces encountered earlier in its ath. Thus, the ossibility of sticking at the resent osition, deends on the robabilities of all such earlier events. The relevant equation and the scaling behavior is exected to deend on this sticking robability. This is corroborated by our observations. A larger value of sticking robability imlies stronger correlation among neighboring columns, hence, the surfacewidth, atafixedvalueofl,isexectedtosaturateto lowervalues ofw sat at earlier (smaller t sat ) times. In the growth region, however, correlations have a smoothening effect, as dee creivces are filled u more efficiently. Thus, in the growth region, surface width, at a fixed L, should decrease with increase in sticking robability. Porosity, on the other hand, should increase with the sticking robability, in both growth and saturation regions for a fixed

7 7 system size, as a larger sticking robability imlies a more orous structure. Our observations are in agreement with the above arguments. We find excellent collase of data for the scaling of the surface width and orosity, in terms of system size L and sticking robability in the KPZ-like growth and saturation regions. A simlying assumtion in this work is that the sticking robability at successive encounters is assumed to be a constant. However, each encounter may cause some hysical change(s) to the incoming article. Further investigation of the above may be of interest and rogress of study along the above lines will be reorted elsewhere. It may be noted however, that a most general treatment will involve all the comlexities associated with non-markovian rocesses. V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors gratefully acknowledge the use of comuting facility at University of Calcutta, under the DRS rogram sonsored by the University Grants Commission, India. B. M. also wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance rovided by the West Bengal State Deartmental Fellowshi, India. [1] A. L. Barabasi and H. E. Stanley, Fractal Concets in Surface Growth (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995). [] P. Meakin, Physics Reorts 5, 189 (199). [] S. Boncel, A. P. Herman, and K. Z. Walczak, J. Mater. Chem., 1 (1). [4] K. M. Kummer, E. Taylor, and T. J. Webster, Nanosci. and Nanotechnol. Lett. 4, 48 (1). [5] S. F. Edwards and D. R. Wilkinson, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 81, 17 (198). [6] M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 889 (1986). [7] D. D. Vvedensky, Phys. Rev. E 67, 51 (). [8] F. Family and T. Vicsek, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 18, L75 (1985). [9] F. Family, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Alications 168, 561 (199). [1] K. Banerjee, J. Shamanna, and S. Ray, Phys. Rev. E 9, 111 (14). [11] E. Katzav, S. F. Edwards, and M. Schwartz, Eurohys. Lett. 75 (1), 9 (6). [1] C. M. Horowitz, R. A. Monetti, and E. V. Albano, Phys. Rev. E 6, 661 (1). [1] C. M. Horowitz and E. V. Albano, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 4, 57 (1). [14] C. M. Horowitz and E. V. Albano, Phys. Rev. E 7, 1111 (6). [15] W. Wang and H. A. Cerdeira, Phys. Rev. E 47, 57 (199). [16] W. Wang and H. A. Cerdeira, Phys. Rev. E 5, 68 (1995). [17] H. F. El-Nashar and H. A. Cerdeira, Phys. Rev. E 61, 6149 (). [18] F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E 66, 711 (). [19] F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E 68, 416 (). [] F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E 7, 165 (6). [1] Y. P. Pellegrini and R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1745 (199). [] Y. P. Pellegrini and R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. A 4, 9 (1991). [] E. Katzav, Phys. Rev. E 68, 4611 (). [4] F. Family, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 19, L441 (1986).