Yamamura 1996

ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 62, 149–253 (1996)
ARTICLE NO. 0005
ENERGY DEPENDENCE OF ION-INDUCED SPUTTERING YIELDS

FROM MONATOMIC SOLIDS AT NORMAL INCIDENCE
YASUNORI YAMAMURA* and HIRO TAWARA

National Institute for Fusion Science, Chigusa-ku
Nagoya 464-01, Japan
The ion-induced sputtering yields from monatomic solids at normal incidence are presented
graphically for various ion–target combinations as a function of the incident ion energy. To supplement
the experimental data, sputtering yields are calculated by the Monte Carlo simulation code ACAT for
some ion–target combinations. Each graph shows the available experimental and ACAT data points,
together with the sputtering yields calculated by an empirical formula whose parameters are determined
from the best fit to available data. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
* Permanent address: Department of Applied Physics, Okayama University of Science, Ridai-cho,

Okayama 700, Japan
0092-640X/96 $18.00
Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 149 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 62, No. 2, March 1996
AID ADNDT 0716 / m4727$$$$1 02-06-96 01:16:02 ada AP: Atomic Data
Y. YAMAMURA and H. TAWARA Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Theoretical Background for the Empirical Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
A New Empirical Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Presentation of Data and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE SPUTTERING YIELD . . . . . . . 156
EXPLANATION OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
EXPLANATION OF GRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
TABLES
I. Surface Binding Energies Us and Best-Fit Values of Q(Z2 ),
W(Z2 ), and s(Z2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
II. Ion–Target Combinations and the Number of Experimen-
tal References Represented in Each Graphical Display 169
GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at
Normal Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
INTRODUCTION
Sputtering of surfaces is an important parameter tion.1 Since then, a large number of new data have been
in the understanding of fusion energy device operation. published. It seems again timely to collect the new experi-
Sputtering ejects high atomic number materials into the mental sputtering data published during 1983–1994 and
plasma, causing significant contamination and increasing to revise the previous empirical formula.
the effective charge of the plasma, and thus results in Recently, Eckstein et al.2 reported their survey of ex-
inefficient heating of the fuel. From the point of view perimental sputtering yields measured at the Max-Planck
of plasma–wall interaction, sputtering is an undesired Institut für Plasmaphysik (Garching) in which the data
process which contaminates the plasma and erodes the for normal incidence as a function of ion energy were
surrounding walls. On the other hand, sputtering is also fitted by a formula derived by Bohdansky.3 Recently,
useful in many applications. Sputtering allows controlled Thomas et al.4 also presented an evaluated database for
removal of surface layers on a nearly atomic scale, permit- light ion sputtering, again employing the Bohdansky for-
ting submicrometer spatial resolution if a well-focused mula.3 Basically, both groups used the expression
F S D GF S DG
ion beam is used. Another important application of sput- 2/3 2
Eth Eth
tering is the deposition of the removed material as thin Y (E) Å Qsn ( e ) 1 0 10 (1)
films on a large variety of substrates. Therefore, it is very E E
useful to have an empirical, analytical formula which can
easily provide the sputtering yields for any ion–target for the sputtering yield, where E is the projectile energy,
combination. sn ( e ) is the reduced nuclear stopping cross section, and
In 1984 the working group at the Institute of Plasma e is the reduced energy
Physics, Nagoya University, published the compiled sput- M2 aL
tering yield data available to early 1983 and proposed an eÅE . (2)
M1 / M2 Z1Z2 e 2
empirical formula which could predict the energy depen-
dence of sputtering yields for any ion–target combina- Here, Z1 and Z2 are the atomic numbers, M1 and M2 are
150 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 62, No. 2, March 1996
the masses of the projectile and the target atom, respec- result, target atoms are ejected from the surface (mecha-
tively, e is the electron charge, and aL is the Lindhard nism A). On the other hand, an incoming light ion such
screening length given5 as as H / and D / does not produce a collision cascade near
the surface. Instead, the ions are reflected from inside the
aL Å 0.4685{Z 2/3
1 /Z 2/3
2 } 01 / 2 Å. (3) surface layer, hitting the surface atoms and sputtering
as Q and Eth are used as parameters to fit to the data those recoil atoms whose kinetic energies are able to over-
available. come the surface barrier (mechanism B). As the mass of
For the reduced nuclear stopping power in Eq. (1), the incident ion becomes lighter, the sputtering mecha-
Bohdansky originally used the following analytical ex- nism shifts gradually from mechanism A to mechanism
pression based on the Thomas–Fermi potential 1 : B. For ions of intermediate mass, such as Ar, both mecha-
q nisms A and B contribute to the total sputtering yield.
3.441 e ln( e / 2.718) In 1969 Sigmund 7 derived the following formula for
s nTF ( e ) Å q q . (4)
1 / 6.355 e / e(6.882 e 0 1.708) the sputtering yield by solving the linearized Boltzmann
equation based on the assumption that the collision cas-
In their recent revision of Bohdansky’s formula, Eckstein cade is well developed in the infinite medium:
et al.2 used the following reduced nuclear stopping power
based on the Kr-C potential: Y (E) Å LFD (E); (6)
0.5 ln(1 / 1.2288e ) here

s KrC
n (e) Å
q . (5)
e / 0.1728 e / 0.008e 0.1504 3 1 0.0420
LÅ 2
Å , (7)
The best-fit values of Q and Eth are listed for each ion– 4p NC0Us NUs
target combination in their data book.2 where the numerical coefficient is in units of Å 02 , FD (E)
From the theoretical point of view, the sputtering yield is the deposited energy at the surface given by
for the high-energy light ion is not directly proportional
to the reduced nuclear stopping cross section sn ( e ) corre- FD (E) Å a(M2 /M1 )NSn (E). (8)
sponding to the incident projectile energy, because it is In Eqs. (7) and (8), N is the atomic number density, Us
affected strongly by the electronic energy loss. In this is the surface binding energy of the target solid, a is an
sense, it is difficult for the Bohdansky formula to predict energy-independent function of the masses of the incident
the sputtering yield by high-energy light ions. The fit ion (M1 ) and target atom (M2 ), and Sn (E) is the nuclear
parameter Q in that formula includes the effect of the stopping cross section. In our work, we use the heat of
electronic stopping, but the influence of the electronic sublimation as the surface binding energy. C0 is the coef-
stopping on sputtering depends on the incident energy. ficient of the nuclear stopping cross section when the
Still, from the perspective of plasma–wall interaction approximation m Å 0 is used for the inverse of the expo-
where one is mainly interested in the low-energy sput- nent in the interatomic power law potential.
tering yield, it seems that the Bohdansky formula can As the energy of the incident ion becomes smaller, the
predict the sputtering yield reasonably well. angular distribution of the recoil spectrum in the collision
The purpose of this report is to update the sputtering cascade becomes increasingly anisotropic. The sputtering
yield data to 1994 and to propose a new empirical formula decreases toward its threshold. Then, the original Sig-
which better represents the aggregate data on the ion- mund formula should be modified8 as
induced sputtering yield as a function of the energy of r
the incident ion for various ion–target combinations. In
this work, some calculated data by the Monte Carlo
Y (E) Å 0.042
FD (E)
NUs F 10
Eth
E G
ACAT code have been added to the experimental data-
r
F G
base. The compiled data of sputtering yields at normal
a(M2 /M1 )Sn (E) Eth
incidence are shown in graphs, which also include the Å 0.042 10 (9)
yield vs energy curves calculated by our proposed empiri- Us E
cal formula.
for low-energy heavy-ion sputtering, where Eth is the sput-
Theoretical Background for the Empirical Formula tering threshold energy.
At another extreme, let us consider the case of the high-
The sputtering mechanism can be classified into two energy light-ion sputtering, where the sputtering yield is
categories.6 When a relatively heavy ion is incident on proportional to the particle reflection coefficient. A single-
the solid surface, the incoming ion deposits its energy collision approximation gives the result that the particle
near the surface and a collision cascade develops. As a reflection coefficient RN (E) is proportional to the ratio of
the nuclear stopping cross section Sn (E) to the electronic possible, we use in Eq. (12) the power approximation for
stopping cross section Se (E), 9 that is, sn ( e ) 5 and the Lindhard electronic stopping power for
se ( e ), 12 that is,
M2 Sn (E)
RN (E) } . (10)
M1 Se (E) lm
sn ( e ) Å e 102 m , (13)
Since high-energy light-ion sputtering is due to the energy 2(1 0 m)
FD (E*) deposited at the surface by the reflected particle, se ( e ) Å kee 0.5 , (14)
the yield can be represented by 10
r
F G s where lm is a calculable constant if m is given, and ke is the
FD (E*)RN (E) E thL Lindhard electronic stopping coefficient. In the previous
Y (E) Å 0.042 10 , (11)
NUs E empirical formula published in 1984 1 we had used m Å
0.5 for sn ( e ). In the new empirical formula we use m Å
where E* is the average energy of the reflected ions es- 0.4 for sn ( e ).
caping from the surface layer, E thL is the threshold energy Since a(M2 /M1 ) of Eq. (12) has a Z2-dependence, 1 we
for light-ion sputtering, and the power s is equal to 2.8 factorize it as a(M2 /M1 ) Å Q(Z2 ) a*(M2 /M1 ). Then, our
if the power approximation of m Å 1 (corresponding to new empirical formula is finally given as
Rutherford scattering) is used.
Generally, both mechanisms A and B are present in Q(Z2 ) a*(M2 /M1 ) Sn (E)
Y (E) Å 0.042
actual sputtering. Therefore, the sputtering yield formula Us 1 / Gkee 0.3
can be written as an interpolation 10 between Eq. (9) and r
Eq. (11), that is, as
a(M2 /M1 ) Sn (E)sn ( e )
1 F 10
Eth
E G
s
(15)
Y (E) Å 0.042
Us sn ( e ) / Gse ( e )
r
F G s
with the numerical factor in units of Å 02 . The G factor
Eth now has the form
1 10
E
W (Z2 )
GÅ (16)
a(M2 /M1 ) Sn (E) 1 / (M1 /7) 3
Å 0.042
Us 1 / Gse ( e )/sn ( e )
r with M1 in a.m.u. The best-fit values of the dimensionless
1 F 10
Eth
E G s
, (12)
parameters W (Z2 ) and Q(Z2 ) are listed in Table I. In the
previous empirical formula the factor G corresponded to
0.35 Us, and the power s was fixed at 2.8 for all target
where sn ( e ) and se ( e ) are the reduced nuclear stopping materials. In contrast, the s of the new empirical formula
power and the reduced electronic stopping power, respec- is slightly dependent on the target material, as is shown
tively. The parameter G describes the contribution of the in Table I. The best-fit values of a* are described as a
mechanism B-sputtering to the total sputtering yield. For function of the mass ratio M2 /M1 in the following manner:
low-energy heavy-ion sputtering where se ( e ) is very
a* Å 0.249(M2 /M1 ) 0.56 / 0.0035(M2 /M1 ) 1.5 ,
small, Eq. (12) reduces to Eq. (9), whereas for high-
energy light-ion sputtering where sn ( e ) can be neglected, M1 £ M2 ,
Eq. (12) reduces to Eq. (11).
Å 0.0875(M2 /M1 ) 00.15 / 0.165(M2 /M1 ),
A New Empirical Formula
M1 § M2 . (17)
The important requirements for an empirical formula
are the following: The empirical formula should predict Concerning the sputtering threshold in Eq. (15), we use
the energy dependence of the sputtering yield as precisely the best-fit functional relation
as possible, using as few parameters as possible. For ex-
ample, if we employ the ZBL formula 11 for se ( e ) in Eq. Eth 6.7
(12), we can estimate the electronic stopping power for Å , M1 § M2 ,
Us g
any ion–target combination more precisely, but at the
expense of having to calculate many parameters. 1 / 5.7(M1 /M2 )
Å , M1 £ M2 , (18)
In order to propose as simple an empirical formula as g
which is derived based on Yamamura and Bohdansky’s

theory, 13 where g is the energy transfer factor in the
elastic collision given by
4M1 M2
gÅ . (19)
(M1 / M2 ) 2
The Lindhard electronic stopping coefficient ke is given
as 12
(M1 / M2 ) 3 / 2 Z 21 / 3 Z 12 / 2
ke Å 0.079 3/2 1/2
(20)
M1 M2 (Z 1 / Z 22 / 3 ) 3 / 4
2/3
with the Mi in a.m.u. The nuclear stopping cross section

Sn (E) in the present formula is calculated by
8.478Z1Z2 M1
Sn (E) Å 2/3 2/3 1/2
s nTF ( e ) (21)
(Z 1 / Z 2 ) M1 / M2
in units of eV Å 2 /atom, using an analytic expression for
s nTF ( e ), which is given in Eq. (4). The explicit expression
for the reduced energy e is
0.03255 M2
eÅ E(eV). (22)
Z1Z2 {Z 21 / 3 / Z 2/3
2 } 1/2
M1 / M2 Figure 2. Plot of the best-fit values of the relative threshold energy Eth /
Us as a function of the mass ratio M2/M1 . The solid line corresponds
The procedures of obtaining the best-fit parameter val- to Eq. (18).
ues from the available experimental data are the same as
in the previous work 1 done in 1984. The physical meaning
of the Z2 dependence of a through Q(Z2 ) is that, whereas

in Sigmund’s formula [Eqs. (6) and (7)] the energy loss
of the sputtered particles between the point of origin and
the surface is neglected, the actual sputtering depends on
Z2 through the particle energy loss in traversing the target
material and the particle energy of escape which is of the
order of the surface binding energy. The best-fit values
of a* are shown in Fig. 1 as a function of the mass ratio
M2 /M1 , where the solid line represents Eq. (17). The
best-fit values of the relative threshold energies Eth /Us
are shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the mass ratio M2 /
M1 , where the solid line represents Eq. (18). The Z2
dependence of W (Z2 ) may reflect that of the electronic
stopping power. The most important advantage of our
new empirical formula over Bohdansky’s empirical for-
mula is that Eq. (15) can be applied to all the possible
ion–target combinations over any incident ion energy
range.
Simulations
For many ion–target combinations, especially for light
incident ions, sputtering yields have been calculated with
the Monte Carlo simulation code ACAT program14 in
Figure 1. Plot of the best-fit values of a* as a function of the mass ratio order to supplement scarce experimental data. The ACAT
M2 /M1. The solid line corresponds to Eq. (17). program is based on the binary collision approximation,
the target is assumed to be amorphous, and the surface TABLE A

is randomly rough in a depth of half a monolayer. Values of the Adjusting Parameter q Used in the ACAT Simulation
As an interatomic potential we used the Kr-C poten- Target Z H D He
tial 15 with the Firsov screening length aF for heavy ion
(Z1 ú 3) sputtering, where aF is given as Be 4 00.1 00.1 0.0
B 5 00.1 00.1 0.0
aF Å 0.4685{Z 1/2
1 /Z 1/2
2 } 02 / 3Å. Ca 6 0.0 0.0 0.1
Al 13 00.1 00.1 00.1
For sputtering by the light ions H / , D / , and He / , some Si 14 00.25 00.25 00.4
efforts were undertaken to get good agreement with ex- Ti 22 00.35 00.35 00.35
perimental data by adjusting the Firsov screening length V 23 00.3 00.3 00.25
Cr 24 00.1 00.1 00.1
(that is, by adjusting aF to aF (1 / q)) because in principle
Mn 25 0.0 0.0 0.0
the Thomas–Fermi statistical model cannot be applied to Fe 26 00.25 00.25 00.2
light ions. The adjusting values q are listed in Table A Co 27 00.2 00.2 00.2
for typical target materials. For heavier projectiles (Z1 ú Ni 28 00.2 00.2 00.15
2), we used the original Firsov screening length for all Cua 29 0.0 00.1 00.1
Ge 32 00.2 00.2 00.2
ion–target combinations.
Zr 40 00.25 00.25 00.25
For light-ion sputtering, the electronic energy loss is Nb 41 00.05 00.05 0.0
simulated with the path-length-dependent nonlocal Mo 42 00.2 00.2 00.2
model, where we used the ZBL electronic stopping for- Ru 44 0.0 0.0 0.0
mula 11 for all the ion–target combinations. The electronic Rh 45 00.1 00.1 00.2
Pd 46 0.0 0.0 0.0
energy loss due to the violent collisions, however, is esti-
Aga 47 00.1 0.0 0.0
mated by the Oen–Robinson (OR) local model.16 For Sn 50 0.0 0.0 0.0
heavier projectiles (Z1 ú 2), we also use the path-length- Tba 65 00.1 0.0 0.0
dependent nonlocal model at high collision energies. The Tma 69 0.0 0.0 0.0
electronic energy loss at low collision energies, however, Hf 72 00.2 00.2 00.2
Ta 73 00.4 00.5 00.3
is estimated by the OR local model. This is referred to as
W 74 00.35 00.4 00.2
‘‘the mixed model’’ in Ref. 14. The bulk binding energy is Os 76 00.2 00.2 00.2
set equal to zero for all ion–target combinations. It is Ir 77 00.2 00.2 00.2
well known that the calculated sputtering yields are de- Pt 78 00.2 00.2 00.2
pendent on which electronic energy loss model is used, Aua 79 0.0 00.1 00.2
Th 90 00.2 00.1 00.2
the nonlocal or the OR local model. For several targets,
U 92 00.2 00.2 00.2
namely C, Cu, Ag, Tb, Tm, and Au (which are marked
with a superscript a in Table A), we obtained better re- a
The OR local model of the electronic energy loss is used for all
sults for the energy dependence of the sputtering yield if projectile–target combinations.
we employ the OR local model for all projectile–target
combinations.
Presentation of Data and Discussion

Agreement between the solid curve and the data
The graphs show the available experimental and ACAT
points is much improved as compared with the previous
data, and the yield vs energy curve calculated by the
work, 1 especially for light-ion sputtering. The sput-
present empirical formula, Eq. (15), for each ion–target
tering data near the threshold energy region for some
combination. For plotting the experimental and the ACAT
ion – target combinations ( see, for example, the C target
data, different symbols are used to indicate different refer-
data ) cannot be described by the present empirical for-
ences; the complete reference citation is given in the Ref-
mula, and the deviation of the measured data from the
erences for Graphs. The calculated yield vs energy curves
calculated curve does not seem to have any systematic
are shown as solid lines. The ion–target combinations
explanation. This may be due to the fact that the sput-
shown in the graphs are listed in Table II, where the
tering yield is strongly dependent on the conditions of
number in each grid position represents the number of
the surface and the vacuum.
references of experimental works for that particular com-
bination. If one wishes to estimate the sputtering yield
Acknowledgment
for unlisted ion–target combinations by the present for-
mula, one should use Q Å 1.0, W Å 0.35Us , and s Å 2.5, The authors express their sincere thanks to a number
where Us is the heat of sublimation in eV. of students of Okayama University of Science for their
continuous effort in searching out experimental data from 7. P. Sigmund, Phys. Rev. 184, 383 (1969)
many published articles.
8. Y. Yamamura, Radiat. Eff. 55, 49 (1981)
References for Introduction 9. J. Vukanic and P. Sigmund, Appl. Phys. 11, 265
(1976)
1. N. Matsunami, Y. Yamamura, Y. Itikawa, N. Itoh,
10. Y. Yamamura, N. Matsunami, and N. Itoh, Radiat.
Y. Kazumata, S. Miyagawa, K. Morita, R. Shimizu,
Eff. 71, 65 (1983)
and H. Tawara, ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA
TABLES 31, 1 (1984) 11. J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, and U. Littmark, The
Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids (Pergamon
2. W. Eckstein, C. Garcia-Rosales, J. Roth, and W. Ot- Press, New York, 1985)
tenberger, IPP 9/82 (Inst. Plasma Physics, Garching,
Germany, 1993) 12. J. Lindhard and M. Scharff, Phys. Rev. 124, 128
(1961)
3. J. Bohdansky, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B2, 587
13. Y. Yamamura and J. Bohdansky, Vacuum 35, 561
(1984)
(1985)
4. E. W. Thomas, R. K. Janev, J. Botero, J. J. Smith, 14. Y. Yamamura and Y. Mizuno, IPPJ-AM-40 (Inst.
and Yanghui Qiu, INDC(NDS)-287 (1993) Plasma Physics, Nagoya University, 1985)
5. J. Lindhard, V. Nielson, and M. Scharff, Mat. Fys. 15. W. D. Wilson, L. G. Haggmark, and J. Biersack,
Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk., 36, No. 10 (1968) Phys. Rev. B 15, 2458 (1977)
6. R. Weissmann and R. Behrisch, Radiat. Eff. 19, 69 16. O. S. Oen and M. T. Robinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth-
(1973) ods 132, 647 (1976)
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE SPUTTERING YIELD
To estimate the sputtering yield for an unlisted ion–target combination with the
present formula, one should use Q Å 1.0, W Å 0.35Us , s Å 2.5, where Us is the heat
of sublimation in eV. As an example, however, we calculate the sputtering yield for
the listed combination He on Au at an incident energy of 1 keV. First, we calculate
e using Eq. (22):
0.03255 197
eÅ 1 1000
2 1 79 1 (2 2 / 3 / 79 2 / 3 ) 1 / 2 4 / 197
0.03255 1 197
Å 1 1000 Å 0.0452.
706.5 1 201
Next we obtain s nTF ( e ) using Eq. (4), that is,
q
TF q
3.441 1 0.0452 ln 2.763q
s (e) Å
n
1 / 6.355 1 0.0452 / 0.0452(6.882 1 0.0452 0 1.708)
0.7435
Å Å 0.318.
2.351 0 0.011
Calculate ke ( e ) using Eq. (20):
(4 / 197) 3 / 2 2 2 / 3 1 79 1 / 2 225.1 1 14.11
ke ( e ) Å 0.079 1 Å Å 2.99.
4 3 / 2197 1 / 2 (2 2 / 3 / 79 2 / 3 ) 3 / 4 112.3 1 9.457
Then calculate the nuclear stopping cross section Sn (E) from Eq. (21):
2 1 79 4
Sn (E) Å 84.78 2/3 2/3 1/2
1 1 0.318
(2 / 79 ) 4 / 197
84.78 1 201.0
Å Å 19.0 eV Å 2 /atom.
4.472 1 201
From Table I, we read off Q Å 1.08, Us Å 3.81 eV, W Å 1.64, and s Å 2.8, and we obtain
G Å 1.38 from Eq. (16). Next, calculate a* using Eq. (17), where M2 /M1 Å 49.3:
a* Å 0.249 1 (49.3) 0.56 / 0.0035 1 (49.3) 1.5 Å 2.21 / 1.21 Å 3.42.
The threshold energy of this combination is calculated by Eq. (18). Since the energy
transfer factor g is given by Eq. (19) as g Å 4 1 4 1 197/(4 / 197) 2 Å 0.0780,
we have
1 / 5.7/49.3
Eth Å 1 3.81 Å 54.5 eV.
0.0780
Finally, the sputtering yield of 1 keV He r Au is, from Eq. (15),
r
Y Å 0.042
1.08 1 3.42 1 19.0
3.81 1 (1 / 1.38 1 2.99 1 0.0452 0.3 ) F 10
54.5
1000 G 2.8
2.95
Å 1 0.475 Å 0.140,
10.02
which is in agreement with the yield shown in Fig. 307.
EXPLANATION OF TABLES
TABLE I. Surface Binding Energies Us and Best-Fit Values of Q(Z 2 ), W(Z 2 ), and
s(Z 2 )
Z2 Target atomic number Z2
Us Surface binding energy of the target solid (in eV)
Q Fit parameter Q(Z2 ) of the empirical formula Eq. (15) (dimensionless)
W Fit parameter W (Z2 ) in the G factor (Eq. (16)) of the empirical formula
Eq. (15) (dimensionless) q
s The power s to which the term [1 0 Eth /E] in Eq. (15) is raised.
TABLE II. Ion–Target Combinations and the Number of Experimental References
Represented in Each Graphical Display
The last column, with a heading of /, lists the number references for
self-sputtering experiments
EXPLANATION OF GRAPHS
GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Inci-

dence
The graphs (numbered 3–338) are ordered by target group in increasing
target atomic number and then within each group by increasing projectile
atomic number.
Ordinate Sputtering yield (atoms/incident ion) at normal incidence.
Abscissa Kinetic energy of incident ion in eV.
Heading Ion–target combination. He r Cu means He ion on Cu target. Sb3
r Pt (MOLECULAR ION) means a trimer of Sb on Pt target,
but the yield is reduced to that per a monatomic ion. Since
sputtering in a dense cascade is enhanced over that in a linear
cascade, such data points are expected to lie above the empiri-
cal fit formula.
Symbols Experimental and ACAT simulation data points.
Legend Reference key for the symbols. The first author and the publication
year for each experimental reference are given; the ACAT
data are denoted by YAMAMURA. Y (ACAT). For the com-
plete citation, see References for Graphs.
Solid line Energy dependence of the sputtering yield calculated using the
newly proposed empirical formula of Eq. (15).
Caption The figure caption lists the mass ratio A Å M2 /M1 , and the fit
parameters Q(Z2 ), Us (Z2 ), s(Z2 ), and W (Z2 ). W (Z2 ) is ex-
pressed in terms of a factor multiplying Us . The statement
‘‘The best-fit surface binding energy is used’’ indicates that
Us and hence W differ from the values given in Table I.
REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS
REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued
TABLE I. Surface Binding Energies Us and Best-Fit Values of Q(Z2 ), W(Z2 ), and s(Z2 )
See page 157 for Explanation of Tables
TABLE II. Ion–Target Combinations and the Number of Experimental References

Represented in Each Graphical Display
See page 157 for Explanation of Tables
GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

See page 158 for Explanation of Graphs




















































































Yamamura 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yamamura 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 62, 149–253 (1996)

ARTICLE NO. 0005

ENERGY DEPENDENCE OF ION-INDUCED SPUTTERING YIELDS

YASUNORI YAMAMURA* and HIRO TAWARA

* Permanent address: Department of Applied Physics, Okayama University of Science, Ridai-cho,

0.5 ln(1 / 1.2288e ) here

which is derived based on Yamamura and Bohdansky’s

with the Mi in a.m.u. The nuclear stopping cross section

of the Z2 dependence of a through Q(Z2 ) is that, whereas

the target is assumed to be amorphous, and the surface TABLE A

Presentation of Data and Discussion

SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE SPUTTERING YIELD

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Inci-

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

REFERENCES FOR GRAPHS continued

TABLE II. Ion–Target Combinations and the Number of Experimental References

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence

GRAPHS. Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monatomic Solids at Normal Incidence