Enas Ahmed Jawad Al-Atabe

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education

University of Baghdad
College of Education for pure sciences
Ibn Al-Haitham
Calculation of Sputtering Yield of

Nuclear Fusion Wall to Relevant
Mono-atomic Materials Due to
Light Ions by using TRIM program
A thesis
Submitted to the Council of College of Education for Pure
Sciences /Ibn Al-Haithem University of Baghdad In Partial
Fulfillment of the
Requirements for
the Degree of Ph.D.
in Physics
By
Enas Ahmed Jawad
Al-atabe
Supervised by
Assist . Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kamil
Assist . Prof .Dr. Huda Majeed
2014 A.D 1436 H.D
Nomenclature
Nomenclature
M1 = Mass of the incident particle.
M2 = Mass of the target particle.
E = Energy of the incident particle.
γ = Energy transfer factor.
T = Energy transferred to the target atom .
ϴsc = Scattering angle between the particles .
b = Collision impact parameter .
r = Distance between the particles.
Ec = Kinetic Energy of the center mass .
Y = sputtering yield .
Eth = sputtering threshold Energy .
Z1 ,Z2 = atomic number for ion and target respectively.
Ub =surface binding energy.
Sn(E) = elastic (nuclear)stopping power.
α , 𝛼 ′ , α* =function of the masses of the incident ion and the target atom.
ɛ = reduced energy .
Sn(ɛ) = reduced elastic cross section .
Γ = parameter describing the contribution to sputter yield of the mechanism
whereby ions penetrate deep into the surface of the material
Q,W,S = fitting parameter are function of Z2 .

ke = electronic stopping coefficient.
Us= Sublimation energy.
K = Conversion factor .
f , ϴopt = empirical sputtering curve fit parameter.
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Chapter One (Introduction)

Page
1-1 Brief History Of Sputtering……………………………………… 1
1-2 Applications Of Sputtering …………………………….. 2
1-3 Nuclear Fusion…………………………………………………….. 3
1-4 Tokamak, ITER …………………………………………………... 10
1-5 Previous Studies …………………..………………………………. 14
1-6 Current Study ………………..…..………………………………. 19
Chapter Two ( Theory of Physical Sputtering )
Page
2-1 Physics of Sputtering …………..……………………………….. 21

2-1-1 Sputtering Process …………………………………………….. 21
2-1-2 Physics and Mechanisms …………………...…………………. 25
2-1-3 Ion – Solid Interaction………………………… .……………... 27
2-2 Sputtering Yield ………………….……………………………… 29
2-3 Sputtering Regimes ……………………………………………… 30
2-3-1 The Single Knock – on Regimes ……………………….……... 30
2-3-2 The Linear Cascade Regimes..……………………………….. 32
2-3-3 The spike Regimes ……...……...…………...……………… 32
2-4 Sputtering Models …….………………………… .……………... 33
2-4-1 Sputtering Yield Formulas ..………...……………………….. 33
2-4-1-1 Empirical Formulas (Sigmund Formulas) …..………………. 33
2-4-1-2 Semi - Empirical Formulas Based on Sigmund Theory….….. 35
2-4-1-3 Wilhelm Formulas …………..……………...…………………. 39
V
CONTENTS
Page
2-4-2 Angular Sputtering Yield Formula …………..…………… ... 40
2-5 Threshold Energy and Atomic Mass dependence ……………… 41
2-6 TRIM Simulation ………………….…………………………….. 42
2-6-1 TRIM data fitted by theoretical function……………….……….. 44
Chapter Three ( Results and Calculations )

Page
3-1 Information for ions and elements……………………………….. 45

3-2 Effect of changing target width on normalized sputtering yield 48
3-3 Effect of changing ions number on normalized sputtering yield 64
3-4 Other vision due to effect of target width ,angle of incident and 68
ions number on sputtering yield …………………………………
3-5 Effect of increasing ion energy on the normalized sputtering 73
yield vs. incident angle ………….………………………………
3-6 Comparison of fitted function between polynomial and Ior for 82
normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle …………………
3-7 Comparison among incident ions (H ,D, T, He) on the 105

sputtering yield vs. incident angle for mono –atomic material
3-8 Theoretical Models………………………………………………. 116

3-8-1 Angular sputtering yield formula ………………………………. 116
3-8-2 Yamamura empirical equation for the ion energy…………… 140
3-8-3 Theoretical equation to fit TRIM data ………….……………… 150
3-8-3-1 Some experimental data fitted with TRIM …………………...... 171
3-9 Mesh normalized sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident 173
angle …………………..………………………………………….
3-10 Sputtering yield as a function surface binding energy ………. 177
3-11 Sputtering yield as a function target atomic number ………… 178
VI
CONTENTS
3-12 Sputtering yield vs. sputtering threshold energy……………… 179
3-13 sputtering threshold energy vs. atomic number and atomic 181
mass for target ………………………………………………..
3-14 Comparison among theoretical models of sputtering yield … 182
Chapter Four ( Discussion and Conclusions )
Page
4-1 The angular dependence of sputtering yield of Beryllium for 190

Hydrogen ion bombardment …………………………………...
4-1-1 The sputter yield due to Hydrogen ion interaction with 191
Beryllium. ……………………………………………………….
4-1-1-1 Effect of a Width Target and Ions Number of Beryllium on the 192
Sputter Yield ……………………………………………………...
4-1-2 The sputter yield due to Deuterium interaction with 195

Beryllium………………………………………………………
4-1-2-1 Effect of a Width target and Ions Number of Beryllium on the 195
Sputter Yield………………………………………………………
4-1-3 The sputter yield due to Tritium interaction with Beryllium….. 197
Sputter Yield ……………………………………………………..
4-1-4 The sputter yield due to Helium interaction with Beryllium…... 200
Sputter Yield ……………………………………………………..
4-1-5 Comparison among the four incident ions due to the effect of 202
Ions Number and Width target of Beryllium………………….
4-1- 6 Critical width of Beryllium target……………………………... 203
4-1-7 Other vision to look on the relations of sputter yield, target 204
width, angle of incident and ion number…………………………
VII
CONTENTS
4-1-8 The effect of increasing ion energy on the sputtering yield….. 208
4-1-9 The effect of the mass of incident ions ………………………… 218
4-1-10 The effect of the atomic mass of target…………………………... 219
4-1-11 Angular Sputtering Yield Formula applied for TRIM 220

simulation data…………………………………………………….
4-2 Incident ions energy………………………………………………. 221

4-3 Some experimental data fitted with TRIM……………………… 227
4-4 Mesh representation……………………………………………..... 227
4-5 Influence of the surface binding energy…………………………. 228

4-6 The effect of atomic number of target …………………………... 229
4-7 Influence of the sputtering threshold energy……………………. 229

4-8 Comparison of sputter yield models……………………………... 230
4-9 Conclusions …………………………………….………………… 232

4-10 Suggestions for future work……………………………………… 235
VIII
Abstract :
Extended calculations for sputtering yield for bombarded (4Be,
5B, 6C, 13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re)
targets by (H+, D+, T+, He+) ions plasma are accomplished using a
Monte Carlo code TRIM 2013.The calculations include changing the
input parameters : the energy of (H+, D+, T+, He+) ions plasma, the
hitting target angle, the atomic mass of incident ion, the number of
incident ions, the width of target ,atomic number of target and the
surface binding energy of target .
There are many mathematical models that illustrate the interaction of

ions with metals, as well as several of the simulation programs which
describes this interaction. In this study it has been verified the interaction
of four light ions with fifteen elements that used or candidate for use in
nuclear fusion reactors by these mathematical models. Furthermore, the
global TRIM program also been used to simulate the process of
sputtering.
The sputtering yield of elements gradually increase with increasing

incidence angle reaching to a maximum value and then starts to
decrease.It also increase with increasing the ion energy and incident ion
mass, While it decrease with increasing the atomic mass of target, The
sputtering yield is the largest for the Beryllium target and is the lowest for
Tungsten and Rhenium. The sputtering yield decrease with increasing the
atomic number of target, A small change in surface binding energy of
target (whether to increase or decrease ) leads to large and significant
change in sputtering yield. The results show that sputtering yield is
directly dependent upon the input parameters and any change in those
parameters leads to a significant change in sputtering yield.
III
Methodical models are applied for TRIM simulation data to fit the
sputtering yield with incident angle and ion energy. The best – fit values
of the parameters included in the formulae have been tabulated for all of
the mono-atomic materials interact with light ions.
The data of sputtering yield is fitted using to a polynomial provided by

Matlab software package and (Ior ) by IGOR Pro. Comparison of
sputtering yield models the Sigmund formula for sputtering yield and
Three semi-empirical equations based on Sigmund’s formula are
graphically plotted. Also mesh graphic showing sputtering yield vs. ion
energy and incident angle, is illustrated.
A comparison of TRIM simulation data with some experimental data was

graphically carried out them. Moreover the influence of the surface
binding energy and sputtering threshold energy is studied .
IV
Thesis outline:
This thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter one gives an

introduction, literature survey and aim of the work. Chapter two
investigates the basic processes and interactions of sputtering,
and some numerical/empirical models that help the description
of the process. Collision cascades are discussed as well as the
basic factors that change the sputtering yield. Chapter three
includes the tables of information about of hydrogen isotopes’
ions, helium ion, and fifteen of fusion-relevant mono-atomic
materials (4Be, 5B, 6C, 13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr,
42Mo, 74W, 75Re) i.e. the atomic number, mass (amu), density
(gm/cm3), ionization energy (eV), Q-Value and Sublimation
Energy of target. The chapter also includes plots of the data
that have been obtained via computer simulation program TRIM
2013 .
Finally chapter four includes discussion, conclusions and

suggestions for future work.
Introduction Chapter one
Introduction:
This chapter deals with introduction of sputtering. After a brief history of
sputtering process application of sputtering is review. A nuclear fusion of various
light ions is then presented. A preview of Tokamak, ITER is introduced. Finally
some of previous studies and the current study are briefly showed.
1-1: Brief History of Sputtering:
The sputtering has a very long history that can be traced back to
the mid of the 19th century. The verb " to sputter " originates from the Latin
word " sputare" , meaning " to emit saliva with noise". Sputtering is defined
as the removal of near surface atoms by energetic particle bombardment. The
term " sputtering " was possibly derived from J. J. Thompson’s use of the
word " spluttering " to describe the wear of a cathode in a vacuum tube .The
first actual uses of the term ‘sputtering’ did not occur until the early1920’s
when I. Langmuir and K. H. Kingdon used the term in publications [1].
In 1852 a description of the use of a wire as a sputtering source material

to be deposited onto the surface was published [2] . Other names for
sputtering are spluttering and cathode disintegration.
The most extensive early sputter measurements were made in the

1920’s and 1930’s by Guentherschulze [3]. In the 1920’s Kingdon and
Langmuir worked on sputtering theory, and proposed a momentum transfer
theory of sputtering [4].
In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Thompson, Lindhard, and Sigmund separately

refined the momentum transfer theories further. Sigmund’s model presented the
standard sputtering model that is accepted to this today [5]. In the 1980’s and
1990’s, Yamamura, Matsunami, Eckstein, and Bodhansky worked on
formulating extensive empirical formula ( based on theoretical considerations)
for use in any ion / target combination. Many of Monte Carlo computer
simulations software have been produced in the past years to emulate the
1
Sputtering process , most notably SRIM / TRIM, which was developed in the
early 1980’s by Ziegler and Biersack [3,4].
Sputtering is both a nuisance to scientific apparatus and an important
industrial too. Besides destroying ion thruster hardware, sputtering damages
diaphragms and targets in particle accelerators and in electron microscopes. It
also contaminates plasma in fusion devices with metal atoms from the wall.
However, removal of surface atoms through sputtering has many useful
purposes. A highly focused ion beam can be used for micromachining without
the concerns of tool deformation or the need for cooling[6].
Sputtering is also used in surface preparation to remove contaminants and

polishing [6, 7]. The deposition of thin films on a substrate is one of the most
useful applications of sputtering.
1-2: Applications Of Sputtering:
Sputtering processes are involved in many important fields including [8, 9]:
1. High energy physics.
2. Space science: Sputtering is one of the forms of space weathering, a process

that changes the physical and chemical properties of airless bodies, such as
asteroids and the Moon . It is also one of the possible ways that Mars has lost
most of its atmosphere and that Mercury continually replenishes its tenuous
surface-bounded. In the context of space propulsion using ion or plasma
thrusters, sputtering is never desired. In essence, it is an erosion phenomenon
that limits the lifetime of components used in these thrusters.
3. A major application is that of the creation of surface property changing.
4. Sputtered particles are used to coat other materials which are applied to
surfaces to enhance their mechanical, thermal, or optical properties.
2
5. Thin-film coatings are used heavily in the semi-conductor: Sputtering is

widely used in semiconductor processing for metal and compound
deposition. Sputter deposition is a method of depositing thin films by
sputtering that involves eroding material from a "target" source onto
a "substrate".
6. They are used to clean and modify micro-surfaces.
7. In microscopy/spectroscopy applications.
8. In fusion research, the walls of reactors are constantly sputtered by very high
energy neutral atoms and neutrons.
9. Etching: In the semiconductor industry sputtering is used to etch the target.

Sputter etching is chosen in cases where a high degree of etching anisotropy
is needed.
10. For analysis: Another application of sputtering is to etch away the target
material. One such example occurs in Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry
(SIMS), where the target sample is sputtered at a constant rate. As the target
is sputtered, the concentration and identity of sputtered atoms are measured
using Mass Spectrometry. In this way the composition of the target material
can be determined and even extremely low concentrations (20 µg/kg)
of impurities detected. Furthermore, because the sputtering continually
etches deeper into the sample, concentration profiles as a function of depth
can be measured.
1-3: Nuclear Fusion:
With an increasing world population and a growing economy, the demand

for energy is sure to grow. New solutions will be required for providing a targeted
answer to both the energy demand and the emission problems associated with our
present energy system [10]. Fusion energy, the energy source of the sun and the
stars, has seen remarkable progress over the last decades, and is now ready to
3
move out of the laboratory, and to be considered as a credible energy option for
clean, large - scale power generation, (Figure 1-1)
Figure 1-1: Energy supply and demand projection based on UN population

growth, world energy consumption, and energy conservation [11, 12, 13].
In a fusion reaction, two light atomic nuclei fuse together to form heavier
ones, as is shown in (Figure 1-2). The fusion process releases a large amount of
energy heavier elements are formed by consecutive fusion reactions starting from
hydrogen, a process that continues until the element iron is reached, which is the
most stable of the elements. The formation of even heavier elements such as gold
and uranium requires a net input of energy, which is only accomplished in the
most extreme of circumstances: supernovas [14, 15].
To bring the two nuclei close enough together, they need to collide with a
very high speed, which means that the temperature of the gas must be high. If a
4
gas is heated beyond a certain temperature, the electrons are separated from the
atoms which they belong to [16], and together they form a gas of charged
particles, in which the electrons and nuclei move independently. That state is
called a plasma. In the centre of the sun, fusion reactions occur at 15 million
degrees Celsius [17, 18].
Figure 1-2: Two nuclei, here deuterium and tritium, fuse together to form helium,
a neutron, and a large amount of energy.
The energy released through a fusion reaction is much larger than that in
chemical reactions, because the binding energy that holds the nucleons in a
nucleus together is far greater than the energy that binds atoms and molecules
together through electronic linkages. For example, the ionization energy of a
hydrogen atom (energy required to strip the single electron from a hydrogen
atom) is 13.6 eV less than one millionth of the 17.6 MeV released in the D-T
reaction. Fusion reactions also have an energy density (energy released per unit
mass of the reactants) much larger than fission reactions, even though individual
fission reactions involving very heavy nuclei are generally much more energetic
than individual fusion reactions. only in direct conversion of mass into energy, for
example through matter–antimatter collisions, could more energy per unit of mass
than in the fusion reactions be released [18].
5
Several different fusion reactions exist where light nuclei are fused together
to heavier while releasing energy ,Common fusion reactions [19].
D+D T (1.01MeV) + P (3.02MeV)
3
He (0.82MeV) + n (2.45MeV)
4
D+T He (3.5MeV) + n (14.1MeV)
D + 3He 4
He (3.6MeV) + n (14.7MeV)
4
T+T He + 2n + 11.3MeV
3 4
He + T He + P+ n + 12.1MeV
4
He (4.8MeV) + D (9.5MeV)
5
He (2.4MeV) + P (11.9MeV)
6 4
p + Li He (1.7MeV) + 3He (2.3MeV)
p + 7 Li 2 4He + 17.3MeV
7
Be + n -1.6MeV
D + 6 Li 24He + 22.4MeV
p + 11 B 3 4He + 8.7MeV
n + 6 Li 4
He (2.1MeV) + T (2.7MeV)
Although many different fusion reactions are possible, only a few of them are
interesting for the application of fusion as an energy source on earth. Those are
the reactions that will still occur at a relatively low temperature. The fusion
reaction that is easiest to accomplish on earth is the reaction between deuterium
and tritium, two isotopes of hydrogen, as shown in Figure 1- 2.
As the deuterium and the tritium nuclei have the lowest binding energy per
nucleon, the kinetic energy required for them to have the highest probability for
fusion to occur is the lowest (Figure 1-3), for the D-T reaction as well as for some
of the other common fusion reactions. In this figure, the kinetic energy of the
reacting particles increases from left to right, while the vertical axis (in barns)
represents the probability of a collision between two particles with that kinetic
energy resulting in a fusion reaction. Thus the D-T reaction has the largest cross-
section at about 100 keV, while for the other reactions, the peak probability
occurs at much higher temperature as also they have much lower probability; for
6
example, the p-11B reactions have the largest cross-section, of about 1.2 barns
(about 5 times less than the peak D-T cross-section) at 642 keV [20].
Figure 1-3: Fusion cross-sections of various fusion reactions as a function of

kinetic energy of an incident D or p on a stationary target. The curve for D-D
represents a sum over the cross-sections of the reaction branches [20,21].
4
D+T He (3.5MeV) + n (14.1MeV)
He: 3.5 MeV (an alpha particle used for further heating of the fuel), neutron
14.1 MeV. In a magnetic confinement scheme, the neutron is not confined and
escapes from the plasma. The charged 4He particle, however, is confined by the
magnetic field. Its energy must be thermalised to sustain the high plasma
temperature. The availability of these two fuel components on earth is very
different: Deuterium is abundant in nature; its concentration in natural hydrogen
is about 0.015%. Therefore it is practically inexhaustibly available from sea
7
water. Tritium, however, does not occur naturally in sufficient quantities because
it is radioactive with a half life of about 12 years. The concept for a fusion power
plant is that the fusion reactor produces its own supplies of tritium in a self
sustained fashion. The neutrons produced by the fusion reaction are employed for
producing tritium from the two naturally occurring lithium isotopes:
6 4
Li + n He + T + 4.8 MeV
7 4
Li + n He + T + n - 2.465MeV
This is achieved by surrounding the inside of the plasma vessel with a so-called
blanket, a structure that absorbs the neutrons and contains the tritium breeding
fuel. It is this blanket, which also absorbs the energy released with the neutron.
Therefore, it must contain coolant channels [22, 23].
The coolant carries the produced tritium to an extraction stage and the tritium
is finally injected into the plasma as a new fuel. In this way, radioactive tritium is
handled only inside a closed system of a fusion reactor facility. The first wall
covers the blanket surface towards the plasma and has the task to absorb the heat
and particle fluxes from the plasma [24, 25] The divertor is the component which
is in most intense interaction with the plasma. At the divertor surface, the
impinging ions are neutralized, which allows to exhaust the neutral atoms from
the plasma [26].
The basic challenges of fusion are the following:
(a) Heating of the reacting mixture to a very high temperature, to overcome the
repulsive forces of positively charged nuclei.
(b) Compressing the mixture to a high density so that the probability of collision
between the nuclei can be high.
(c) Keeping the reacting mixture together long enough for the fusion reaction to
produce energy at a rate that is greater than the rate of energy input (as heat and
compression).
8
The first challenge is that of providing a huge amount of energy to the

reactants. This is why fusion is called a thermonuclear reaction.
Table 1-1, shows temperature thresholds "ignition temperatures" needed to

accomplish some of the fusion reactions shown above. The second and third
challenges are collectively referred to as the "confinement" problem [27]. It is
easily understood that the reacting mixture called "plasma" at the high
temperatures involved cannot be brought together (or confined) in ordinary
vessels. The presence of solid vessels is ruled out because they would carry away
the heat necessary to reach the very high ignition temperatures.
Table 1-1: Heating requirements for selected fusion reactions [27].
Fusion Reaction Threshold Temperature (OC)

3
D-D He + n + 3.3 MeV 400,000,000
D-D T + P + 4.0 MeV 400,000,000
4
D-T He + n + 17.6 MeV 45,000,000
D - 3He 4
He + p + 18.3 MeV 350,000,000
The development of nuclear fusion technology is focused on achieving the

so-called "break-even point". The production of a plasma at sufficiently high
temperature and particle density, held together long enough to produce at least as
much energy as is being consumed in this process, is being pursued.
In addition to the temperature requirement, the so-called "Lawson criterion"

must be met, meaning that the product of particle density (in nuclei per cubic
centimeter), and confinement time (in seconds) must exceed 10 14. This criterion
can be satisfied, for example, by having 1014 nuclei/cm3 held together for one
second (using magnetic confinement), or by having 10 25 nuclei/cm3 held together
for 10-11 seconds (using inertial confinement). The development of nuclear fusion
technology is focused on achieving the so-called "break-even point" [27]. The
production of a plasma at sufficiently high temperature and particle density.
9
1-4: Tokamak, ITER:
In the last years that research on nuclear fusion has been carried out,
enormous scientific and technological progress has been made. Fusion scientists
now manipulate plasmas of hundreds of millions of degrees, in large fusion
devices. ITER project is set to remove the last obstacle to the creation of the
world’s first thermonuclear power plant that promises to solve global energy and
environmental problems [18]. A thermonuclear power plant may materialize by
2020. The current architectural plan of ITER’s fusion power plant is given in
Figure 1-4 [28]. ITER (originally an acronym of International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor) is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering
megaproject, which is currently building the world's largest experimental
tokamak nuclear fusion reactor adjacent to the Cadarache facility in the south of
France.
The main issue of controlled thermonuclear fusion is to get a high plasma

density at a high temperature for a long period of time inside a reactor [29].
These three conditions are coupled. The triple product of plasma density, ion
temperature and energy confinement time is used as a measurement of how
"good" a particular plasma confinement is.
There are two efficient approaches to produce the high triple product. The first,
inertial confinement by lasers focused on a small D-T pellet. This can give both
high density (103 g.cm-3) and temperature (108 K), but short confinement time[30,
31]. The second approach, which will be applied in ITER, is magnetic
confinement where the hot plasma is spatially controlled by strong magnetic
fields.
The tokamak is one of the several types of magnetic confinement devices, and is
one of the most-researched candidates for producing controlled thermonuclear
fusion power. Magnetic fields are used for confinement since no solid material
could withstand the extremely high temperature of the plasma. A tokamak
(Russian: токамак) is a device using a magnetic field to confine a plasma in the
shape of a torus. Achieving a stable plasma equilibrium requires magnetic field
lines that move around the torus in a helical shape. Such a helical field can be
generated by adding a toroidal field (traveling around the torus in circles) and a
10
poloidal field (traveling in circles orthogonal to the toroidal field). In a tokamak,

the toroidal field is produced by electromagnets that surround the torus, and the
poloidal field is the result of a toroidal electric current that flows inside the
plasma. This current is induced inside the plasma with a second set of
electromagnets[32].
To achieve the required high temperature, several methods of heating the

plasma are used. The initial heat is generated by the "transformer current", the
already mentioned, passes through the plasma and raises the plasma temperature.
This is referred to as “ohmic heating” and is efficient to heat the plasma to
temperatures of a few keV. Plasma resistance decreases and the heating
consequently drops when the temperatures increase further so to reach sufficient
high temperatures auxiliary heating is required. One form is neutral beam
injection where atoms with a high velocity enter through the magnetic
confinement into the plasma and deliver energy to the plasma[33]. Radio
frequency heating is a second alternative of auxiliary heating where radio waves
are used to heat the plasma [32]. For a commercial, energy producing, fusion
reactor it is important that alpha particles from the fusion reaction provide a large
portion of plasma heating.
ITER is a large tokamak device, currently under construction in France [34,

35]. While the existing large devices were oriented primarily towards scientific
feasibility of fusion, the role of ITER is to verify the technological feasibility. In
technical terms, its goals are to the demonstrate extended burn of D−T plasma
and to integrate and test the technologies and components essential for a fusion
reactor as a source of energy [10, 36]. Vacuum vessel provides the vacuum
necessary to sustain the plasma, and a barrier for radioactive species. The plasma
facing components absorb most of the heat and particle fluxes from the plasma.
The first wall + blanket makes up about 80% of the plasma facing area; its role
lies in neutron and thermal shielding (Be) and tritium breeding (Li), in ITER,
only few test blanket modules will be used. The objective of the divertor is to
exhaust helium and heat.
11
In brief, the reactor is composed of a support structure, a cryostat with

superconducting magnet, a vacuum vessel and the first wall being an integrated
blanket [28], as shown in Figure 1-4. The blanket includes structural materials, a
neutron absorber, and high heat flux components i. e. plasma facing and heat
sink. Energy leaves the plasma in form of electromagnetic radiation and kinetic
energy of particles. Plasma surrounding wall is irradiated by ions, charge
exchange neutral electrons, photons and neutrons. All of them have modified
material properties, from the surface to the bulk. Therefore, blanket materials
must be compatible with ultra high vacuum, cryogenics, magneto hydrodynamics,
neutron irradiation and handling of high heat loads. As a consequence, there are
stringent requirements regarding the properties of plasma facing materials (PFM).
These are materials of high thermal conductivity, good thermo mechanical
properties, high resilience to thermal socks, nonmagnetic, low activation by
neutrons and high resistance to radiation damage [37].
In a fusion reactor, materials will have to function in rather extreme

conditions – they will be subjected to complex thermal, mechanical and chemical
loads as well as strong irradiation [38, 39, 40]. Besides JET and the future
ITER there are several different fusion experiments in the world and summary
of major parameters for some of the installations, which are presented in [41, 42],
as shown in Table 1-3. All values should be considered as typical and changes
due to experimental conditions and modifications. The most relevant for this
work, TEXTOR in Jülich, Germany [43, 44], JET (Joint European Torus), in
Culham, United Kingdom [45, 46] , Tore Supra [39, 40], JT-60U in Naka, Japan
, DIII-D in San Diego, USA; operated by General Atomics since the late 1980s,
EAST [47, 48] , KSTAR in Daejon, South Korea [49] are the largest tokamak in
Japan, America, China and South Korea, respectively. ASDEX-Upgrade in
Garching, Germany [50, 51] is a European machine that tests different concepts
such as all metal wall. Research is focused at supplying input to basic physics and
to the construction of ITER [52, 53] and its follower the demonstration fusion
power plant (DEMO) on the path to a commercial power source.
12
Figure 1-4: Schematic diagram of a Fusion reactor [28].
13
Table 1-2: Summary of existing and planned tokamak installations [54].

Tokamak Major Minor Auxiliary Magnetic Plasma Plasma In Wall
radius radius Heating field on Current Lifetime operation materials
of of (MW) axis (T) (MA) (s) (Year)
torus torus
(m) (m)
TEXTOR 1.75 0.47 9 3 0.8 10 1983 Metal
(Germany) Graphite
JET 3 1.25 50 4 7 60 1983 Beryllium
(England) CFC
JT-60U 3.4 1 50 4.2 6 15 1985 Graphite

(Japan) CFC
D-IIID 1.67 0.67 26 2.2 3,0 5 1986 Graphite
(USA)
ASDEX- 1.65 0.5 3.3 3.1 1.6 10 1990 Tungsten
Upgrade coated
(Germany) carbon
Tore Supra 2.4 0.70 12 4.5 1.7 1000 1998 CFC
(France)
EAST 1.7 0.4 7.5 3.5 0.5 1000 2006 Metal
(China)
KSTAR 1.8 0.5 15.5 3.5 2 20 2008 Graphite
(South CFC
Korea)
ITER 6 2 110 5.3 15 420 ~2020 Beryllium
(France) Tungsten
CFC
1-5: Previous studies:
F. Gronlund and J. M. Walter In 1960 have studied the sputtering yield

(atoms per ion) for light ions normally incident on silver targets at energies
from 2 − 12 keV. The yields displayed broad maxima with energy in the range
studied[55].
G. bei Munchen In 1977 has measured the sputtering yields of

molybdenum and gold for H+, D +, T+, and He + ion, for energies between 150 eV
14
and 20 keV. The sputtering yields are strongly influenced by threshold effects for
energies below 10 keV[56] .
L.G. Haggmark and W.D. Wilson In 1978 have used a developed computer
program to simulate the sputtering process using the Monte Carlo method and the
binary collision approximation. This program is a result of the generalization of
the TRIM computer program such that the target atom trajectories are followed in
addition to those of the incident particles[57].
S. Miyagawa, etal. have studied bombard boron films by He+ and H+ ions in the
medium keV energy range at room temperature[58].
L.G. Haggmark and J.P. Biersack In 1980 have studied the sputtering of
metal surfaces by light ions has been studied as a function of the incident angle
using an extension of the TRIM Monte Carlo computer program. Sputtering
yields were calculated at both normal and oblique angles of incidence for H, D, T,
and +He impinging on Ni, Mo targets with energies ≤ 10 keV [59].
L.G. Haggmark and J.P. Biersack In 1981 have studied the sputtering yield
calculations have been performed for 50, 100, and 200 keV D+ incident on Fe,
Mo, and W at both normal and oblique angles of incidence. The calculations were
performed with an extension of the TRIM Monte Carlo computer program[60].
Xu Tingwei, etal. In 1982 have studied the sputtering yields in a tokamak

reactor, the sputtering yields of wall materials bombarded by light ions from the
plasma are so small that they are difficult and expensive to measure by
experiment and to calculate by direct Monte Carlo method[61].
U. Littmark and S. Fedder have studied the theory for the sputtering of heavy
solid targets during low energy light ion bombardment is proposed. Assuming
that only primary recoils are candidates for sputtering[62].
15
G.L. Bohdansky, etal. have calculated yields obtained by the computer simulation
program TRIM. for Ni, Cu , Mo and W bombarded by H, D and He ions in the
energy range of 25– 100 keV at different angles of incidence[63].
Y. Yamamura discussed two topics in sputtering. The first was low energy
sputtering and the other is non-linear sputtering based on the assumption that
transient phenomena are dominant in the low-energy sputtering; a modified
version of Sigmund's formula is derived[64].
G. Falcone and A. Oliva In 1983 carried out a calculation has been made for
the sputtering of heavy targets by keV light-ion bombardment. The calculation is
based both on linear transport theory and on the assumption that only primary
recoiling atoms are candidates for the sputtering process[65].
Y. Yamamura and Y. Mizuno In 1984 have studied the bombarding-angle

dependences on sputtering thresholds by computer simulation for light-ion. It was
found that the threshold energies of light-ion sputtering were an increasing
function of angle of incidence[66].
Noriaki Matsunami, etal. have studied the ion-induced sputtering yields of

monatomic solids are presented graphically for various ion-target combinations as
a function of the energy of normally incident ions[67].
W. Eckstein and J. Biersack have used the Monte Carlo program TRIM SP to
determine sputtering yields angular and energy distributions of sputtered
particles. The influence of the inelastic energy loss model on the sputtering yield
is shown to be of great importance[68].
J. P. Biersack and W. Eckstein have used the Monte Carlo Program TRIM.SP
(sputtering version of TRIM) to determine sputtering yields and energy, and
angular distributions of sputtered particles in physical (collisional) sputtering
processes. The output is set up to distinguish between the contributions of
primary and secondary knock-on atoms[69].
16
An outline is given by J. Roth In 1986 on the current understanding of

physical sputtering with emphasis on the use in fusion reactor technology. This
determines the ion species H, D, He[70].
G. Falcone and F. Gullo In 1987 have studied the theoretical sputtering yield
of heavy targets by low-energy light-ion bombardment. The results, obtained
were within the framework of a recent unified sputtering theory, of Mo
bombarded with H, D, He ions[71].
J. Roth and J. Bohdansky have measured the physical sputtering yield of different
sorts of graphite with H, D, and He ions and the study have been extended down
to energies of 20 eV for H+, D+, and3 keV for He+ ions in front of the target to
energies of 60 eV [72].
Giovanni Falcone has studied a new formulation of collisional sputtering. In this
formulation, sputtered atoms are recoiled that preserve their kinetic energy during
the ejection process[73].
A.A. Haasz, etal. In 1989 have studied the experimental results for the
physical sputtering of carbon as a function of H+ and He+ incidence angle; The
increase in sputtering yield at large angles is more pronounced for higher ion
energies, and the angle at which the maximum yield occurs also increases with
ion energy[74].
V.V. Manukhin In 1992 has present a theory for analysis of sputtering of

amorphous solids by light-ion bombardment. It is based on the following two
mechanisms: sputtering due to incident ions directly, and sputtering due to
backscattered ions, which includes the effects caused by knocked-off atoms.
Calculated sputter yields are compared with Monte Carlo simulation data[75].
C. Eckstein, etal. In 1993 have discussed the sputtering threshold energy in

detail and the processes responsible for sputtering at low energies. the sputtering
yield at low energies and at various angles of incidence is investigated by
17
computer simulation with the program TRIM.SP and compared to available

experimental data [76].
L. Zhengming, etal. In 1998 have studied the material erosion induced by

physical sputtering resulted from bombardments of hydrogen, helium and their
isotopes and found to be critical problem for fusion technique. An important
feature for such ion-induced sputtering is isotropic incidence condition[77].
P.C. Smith and D.N. Ruzic found that the phenomenon of ion induced
sputtering is integral to many applications. In magnetically confined fusion, this
sputtering is important for both the lifetime of the plasma facing components and
the contamination of the plasma. A method has been developed to obtain both
the angular distribution and the total sputtering yield[78].
In 2002: M.V.Ramana Murty has explained the erosion of materials with

energetic ions as an indispensable tool in the laboratory and the industry. The
ion–solid collision process leading to the ejection of atoms contains fascinating
physics and materials science of surfaces[79].
In 2003: R. Behrisch, etal. have studied and estimate the next-step fusion
device and the erosion at the vessel walls during normal operation caused by the
bombardment with different species from the plasma . With the known sputtering
yields the erosion rates for vessel walls made out of Be, C, Fe, Mo or W, are
calculated[80].
R . Kallenbach, etal. In 2005 investigate plasma operation with high-Z

plasma facing components with regard to sputtering, core impurity contamination
and scenario restrictions. A simple model based on dimensionless quantities for
fuel and high-Z ion sources and transport to describe the high-Z concentration in
the plasma core is introduced[81].
H. Bolt, etal. In 2006 have reviewed a brief survey of the current status of
materials development for plasma-facing applications. To provide materials
which can sustain the severe loading conditions in a fusion environment is a key
18
issue in developing fusion as an economic energy technology without long-lived

radioactive waste[ 82].
T. Ono, etal. In 2007 have explained three parameters included in the new
formula for data calculated for D+ ions incident obliquely on C, Fe and W
materials in incident energy regions from several tens of eV to 10 keV. Then, the
parameters are expressed as a function of incident energy[83].
E. Wolfgang and M. Herbert have explained sputtering whish caused by a

series of atomic collisions between the incident projectiles and target atoms and
between the target atoms themselves. These collision cascades can be followed
with computer programs[84].
F. Donald and A. Emily In 2009 state that the interaction between atomic
hydrogen and solid tungsten is important for the development of fusion
reactors in which proposed tungsten walls would be bombarded with high
energy particles including hydrogen isotopes[85].
G. Pintsuk In 2012 has explained the most promising plasma - facing

material for actual and future nuclear fusion devices, tungsten has to face and
withstand a broad variety of severe operational conditions[86].
1-6 : The current study :
In magnetically confined fusion, sputtering is important for both the

lifetime of the plasma facing components and the contamination of the
plasma. Turbulence in the plasma has proven to be a major problem, causing the
plasma to escape from the confinement area, and potentially touch the walls of
the container. These atoms represent impurities, which cool the plasma by
radiation, and may thus prevent the ignition of a DT-plasma. Further plasma
particles bombard the vessel walls and release wall atoms by sputtering. The
crucial contribution of sputtering is to wall erosion and plasma contamination.
19
Understanding the interaction between light ion plasma and solid target is
important for the development of fusion reactors in which the best target material
walls is proposed so that it could be bombarded with high energy particles
including hydrogen isotopes and Helium ion. So it is problematic from many
points of view, and improved understanding is needed to understand and avoid
harmful effects.
We have presented a general expression for sputtering yield that has

been validated by TRIM simulations. Comparison with experimental data was
made when data was available.
There are many mathematical models that illustrate the interaction of ions
with metals, as well as several simulation programs describing this interaction. In
this study it has been verified the interaction of forth light ions with fifteen
elements that used or candidate for use in nuclear fusion reactors by these
mathematical models. Further the global TRIM program has also been used to
simulate the process of sputtering.
A comprehensive study has been expanded to include the process of fitting

the results of the program TRIM. Previously, researches achieved the process of
fitting over the results of the simulation program known as ACAT but in this
study for the first time the process of fitting achieved for the overall results of the
TRIM of four light ions with fifteen elements. In this study extended calculations
involved Mathematical equations also adapted for the fitting process. These
equations were used previously for one or two light-ion with some elements.
As long as there is an increasing interest in nuclear fusion, the better to

choose the element facing the plasma in terms of the lack of sputtering will
reduce the cost of erosion of the wall and opens the way for nuclear fusion to
occur due to the decreasing of impurities that reduce the reaction temperature.
20
Theory of Physical Sputtering Chapter Two
Introduction:
This chapter will investigate the basic processes and interactions of

sputtering, and some numerical and empirical models that help to describe the
process. Collision cascades are discussed as well as basic factors that change
the sputtering yield.
In this chapter different models for calculating sputtering behavior are

implemented. It starts by introducing the Sigmund formula for sputtering
yield. Three semi-empirical equations based on Sigmund’s formula and an
equation valid for energies near threshold are presented next. A study of
sputtering behavior using the computer simulation program TRIM (The
TRansport of Ions in Matter) is described in detail.
2-1 Physics of Sputtering:
2-1-1: Sputtering Process:
Sputtering is a process whereby atoms are ejected from a solid target

material due to bombardment of the target by energetic particles
[87,88,89,90] .
This process occurs for all materials for incident particle energies above a
certain threshold, which is characteristic of the target-projectile combination;
the physical sputtering yield is not a function of temperature [91].
In a solid target material whose surface is bombarded by energetic particles

several possible processes may occur [92], Sputtering happening begins when
an energetic particle strikes a target surface atom. This particle is often called
the incident, primary, or projectile particle.
When a solid material is bombarded with an ion beam, a number of

mechanisms operate to slow the ion and dissipate the energy. These
mechanisms can be subdivided into two general categories: (i) nuclear energy
losses, and (ii) electronic energy losses. Nuclear energy transfer occurs in
discrete steps as a result of elastic collisions ( kinetic energy conserved,
atom - on-atom “ billiard ” ball collisions ) where energy is imparted from
the incident ion to the target atom by momentum transfer. Electronic
21
energy losses occur as the result of inelastic scattering events where the
electrons of the ion interact with the electrons of the target atoms ( electronic
excitation, ionization , electron - electron collisions ) Figure 2-1 [93].
Sputtering in typical FIB (focused ion beam) processes occurs in energy

ranges that are dominated by nuclear energy losses[93]. Therefore, it is
sufficient to present ion-solid interactions due only to the nuclear energy loss
of ions[94].
Figure 2-1: Interaction between an ion beam and the target [93]
22
Surface damage and surface migration occur, When lattice atoms move to
new lattice sites [92].
A surface atom will be ejected from the surface . If it receives an

energy transfer greater than the surface Binding energy, Ub, This kinetic
energy transfer ejection process is termed physical sputtering [93].
Primary recoils or primary knock- on atoms, ( PKAS) are called for atoms that
collide directly with the incident particle. These primary recoil atoms in turn
are generally dislodged from their lattice sites (overcoming the lattice
displacement energy, Ud) and have collisions with yet other target atoms
( secondary recoil atoms or 2nd generation recoil atoms) , which will
collide with yet other target atoms ( 3rd generation recoil atoms ) in
a process known a collision cascade. The collision cascade will
continue in this way ( 4th , 5th , … , nth generation recoil atoms ) until
all displaced atoms’ energies fall below the level where they can expulsion
other bulk atoms. The whole process is usually over in Pico seconds [95].
When a target atom is displaced near the target surface and has a trajectory
far from the surface and has enough kinetic energy so that it no longer
interacts with other target surface atoms ( overcoming the surface binding
energy, Ub), the target atom becomes sputtered, thus escaping and becoming
a gas phase sputtered atom. This collision cascade/sputter process is shown in
Figure 2-2 [95,96].
23
Figure 2-2: Two dimensional diagram of a typical collision cascade [96] .
When an energetic ion interacts with a surface sputtering is one of many

effects that may occur. Other possible effects is illustrated in Figure 2-3
include:
secondary electron emission (2), sputtered target atom in an excited or ionized
state (3), desorbed atom (4), adsorption (5), surface diffusion (6), surface
reaction (7), incident particle implantation ( 8 ), heating (9), photon emission
(10), and sputtering of target atom clusters (11). of the sputtered particles,
approximately ~ 80% are single neutral target atoms, 1% are electronically
excited target atoms, 1% are ionized target atoms, and ~18 % are target
atomic clusters [ 97 ] .
At depths of tens of nanometers to just below the surface layer many incident
ions (1) remain implanted in the surface (8). Other incident ions are adsorbed
or reflected from the surface[95].
24
Figure2-3 Possible effects with ion bombardment [97, 98].
The collisions created by the incident ion may create photonic emission (10),
when excited electrons drop to their ground state or electronic emission (2)
much of the incident particle’s energy goes into heating the surface
(9) show in Figure 2-3 [ 98] .
2-1-2: Physics and Mechanisms:
Sputtering at energies much higher than the threshold can be analyzed as

a sequence of independent binary collisions resembling a three - dimensional
billiards game with atoms [92] .
The derivation of physical sputtering theory start with analysis of a simple

elastic collision between two particles with one initially at rest. A center of
mass coordinate system [99], shown in Figure 2-4, is used to simplify the
equations. Using the conservation of kinetic energy and momentum, the
energy transferred to the target is
25
….…………………………………………………….(2-1)
where
….……………………………………………………(2-2)
T is the energy transferred to the target atom, E is the initial energy of

the incident particle, M1 and M2 are the mass of the incident particle
and target particle, respectively, and θ is the scattering angle between the
particles incident and ejected atoms . Tm is the maximum energy transfer ,
happen during a head - on collision so that [6].
……………………………………………........ (2-3)
The scattering angle θsc is given by the integration of the single equation of
motion along the collision path , can be calculated as [96, 99].
……………….(2-4)
where b is the collision impact parameter as shown in Figure 2-4, Ec is

the kinetic energy of the center of mass, and r is the distance between the
particles [93].
26
Figure 2-4: Particle collision in a center of mass coordinate system [100]
2-1-3: Ion – Solid Interaction:
An understanding of sputtering requires consideration of the interaction

between an ion beam and the target. Sputtering occurs as the result of
a series of elastic collisions where momentum is transferred from the
incident ions to the target atoms within a collision cascade region .
A surface atom may be ejected as a sputtered particle if it receives
a component of kinetic energy that is sufficient to overcome the surface
binding energy (SBE) of the target material [101]. Inelastic interactions also
occur as the result of ion bombardment. Inelastic scattering events can result
in the production of phonons, and the emission of secondary electrons (SE)
Figure (2-1) [102].
27
interaction between the incident ion and the solid occur at the expense of the
initial kinetic energy of the ion. Consequently, if the ion is not backscattered
out of the target surface, the ion will eventually come to rest, implanted within
the target at some depth Figure (2-5) [103]
The basic concepts of ion - solid interactions , on which the theory

of Sputtering is built, quantitative analysis of sputtering requires both
an understanding of the energy transfer mechanisms in atomic collisions
and penetration phenomena [104].
A central aspect in the theory of ion-matter interaction is the distinction

between nuclear and electronic processes [105, 106]. In this field, ‘nuclear’
processes are elastic interactions between a projectile ion or atom and a target
atom, while electronic processes comprise excitation, ionization and charge
transfer. The two types of process are coupled in principle, but such coupling
is most often ignored in particle penetration and related phenomena. Nuclear
processes tend to dominate at low incident energies, whereas electronic
processes take over at higher energies. The cross-over energy depends on the
atomic numbers Z1, Z2 of projectile and target, respectively , and
increases monotonically with increasing Z1 [107].
Figure 2-5: Schematic diagram of the sputtering process and ion-solid

interactions [103].
28
2-2: Sputtering Yield:
Sputtering is quantified by the sputtering yield, Y , the mean number

of atoms removed per incident particle, as stated in Eq. (2-5).
……………….………………………………..(2-5)
A bombarding particle must have a kinetic energy above the sputtering

threshold, Eth, whish defined as the minimum kinetic energy of the
bombarding particle for sputtering to occur [108, 109].
The sputtering yield is dependent on properties of both the incident

particle and the target as follows [109, 110]:
• Incident Particle Properties

- energy.
- mass.
- incidence angle.
• Target Properties
- atomic mass.
- surface binding energy.
- surface texture .
- crystal orientation.
Sputtering yields tend to increase with increasing incident ion mass. At

incident ion energies below the threshold energy ( Eth) sputtering will not
occur, but above ( Eth) sputtering yields generally increasing with the
increase of incident ion energy [ 111 ] yields will start to decline due to the
incident ion’s energy being deposited too far away from the surface layer
where most sputtered particles originate[112].Sputtered atoms exhibit a
distribution in their kinetic energy, angle of ejection, and charge state [6].
29
2-3: Sputtering Regimes:
When a target atom is knocked from its position, it can contribute to

the collision cascade, (i.e., the moving sea of particles) within a solid under
ion bombardment. Sputtering occurs if sufficient momentum is transferred
from the collision cascade to a surface or near the surface particle. The main
parameters that govern the energy loss rate of the incident ion , the atomic
masses (MI and M2), and atomic numbers (Z1 and Z2), of the ion and the
target atoms, respectively. The nature of the cascade is dependent on the ratio
of the target to ion masses (M2 /M1) and the incident ion energy. The
classification of collision cascades is divided into three regimes [110].
Sputtering by elastic collisions can have three regimes: the single-knock on,
the linear cascade and the spike regime [6].Sigmund has identified three
sputtering regimes that can be classified by the incident ion’s energy( Table
2-1), Figure 2- 6 [ 5 , 113, 114, 115].
2-3-1:The single knock-on regime:
The single knock-on regime is observed for the case of light incident
particles or low - energy heavier particles, this regime occurs when either
M1 << M2 or E0 is low. Where the collision cascades are not created and the
recoil atoms do not receive enough energy to generate a cascade and sputtering
is minimal [7].
At incident energies of 40 to perhaps 1000 eV, the collision sequence is

erratic, though, and depends on exactly where the incident particle hits. After
this first collision, the incident particle and the impacted one move on into the
material causing more and more collisions. The nature of these collisions is
difficult to follow, though, because it depends on exactly where the first
particle hits[116]. Eventually, these knock-on collisions may result in an atom
at or near the surface being ejected from the solid [117].
The sputtered particles are created by undergoing a collision with the

primary particle and having a very small number of collisions which direct it
toward the surface, In the single knock-on regime the ion transfers enough
energy to the target atoms to create PKAS (primary knock – on atoms) ,
some of which are sputtered [93].
30
Table 2-1: Sputtering Regimes [95,97].

Regime Apprpx. Energy Range Characteristic
Single < 1 keV Only primary recoil are created
Knock - on
Linear (1 -300) keV 2nd and above generation
cascade recoils are created, collisions
between moving (displaced)
atom and (1) other atoms and
(2) subsequent incoming
particles are rare .
spike >100 keV ,also can occur at lower Collision cascade area become
energies when ions arrive at high "molten"(i.e. all atom are
flux levels. displaced). Majority of
collisions are between moving
particles ,moving particles can
by subsequent incoming ions
when ion flux is high.
Single Knock - on Linear cascade spike
( A) (B) ( C)
Figure2-6: diagrams of the three sputtering regimes [97,115].
31
2-3-2: The linear cascade regime:
In this regime, the sputtering mechanism is caused by collision cascades

created by incoming ions near the solid surface .If the target is bombarded
by medium or heavy particles with a few hundreds of eV incident energy
[118], the recoil atoms receive enough energy from the collisions with the
incident particles to generate a recoil cascade .in this case the density of
recoil atoms is low[119], so the knock-on collisions with atoms of the solid
at rest dominate and collision between moving atoms are infrequent[6]. Most
of the experimental data available, as well as simulation and analytical
studies of physical sputtering [93,124], have been performed in this regime.
The linear cascade framework lends itself to being described by transport
theory [120].
At ion energies of nearly 1 keV to perhaps 20 keV, the incident particle has
sufficient energy to break all the bonds between atoms in a spherical region
around the impact site. While this regime has generally higher yields than the
knock-on regime, the higher energies (and voltages) make it impractical to use
for most industrial-scale sputter deposition applications.
2-3-3 :The spike regime:
This regime applies for the incidence of heavy ions having a large
collision cross-section and for the incidence of molecules or atom clusters. In
this case the density of recoil atoms is so high that the majority of atoms in a
certain volume are set in motion [113]. The spike regime produces collision
cascades, except that the interaction between moving atoms and other target
atoms is no longer negligible. In this regime, the sputtering mechanism is
caused by collision cascades generated by ions backscattered from the interior
of the solid.
In the spike regime the density of recoil atoms is high and most atoms
within a certain volume are in motion.
In ion propulsive devices undergoing sputtering at low energy and relatively

low flux , most sputtering occurs in the single knock-on regime , with a
smaller amount happening in the linear cascade regime. Unfortunately,
32
the single knock – on regime has the least extensive theoretical underpinnings
and is also the hardest of the regimes to measure yields experimentally [120].
The processes involving a linear collision cascade or the spike regime become
less important at energies near threshold the possible sputtering mechanisms
for low-energy light ions as reproduced in ( Figure 2- 6 )[121].
At ion energies above 5 keV, the incident particle can travel well into the bulk
of the solid before depositing its energy. While this can create significant
damage a micron or so below the surface, little or no sputtering occurs because
the energy is deposited so far away from the surface. In addition, the incident
particle is often trapped or implanted within the sample.
2-4 : Sputtering Models:
2- 4-1: Sputtering Yield Formulas:
There exist many different sputtering models, in this section the equations
presented include many different parameters calculated with separate formulas
using standard units for the required constants i.e. atomic mass (g /mol ),
atomic number ( number of protons ), surface binding energy (eV) , and ion
energy (eV). Sputtering yield will be given in units of atoms / ion . U b, the
surface binding energy, and Us heat of sublimation, are considered
interchangeable for metals in most cases [116].
2-4-1-1 :Empirical Formula ( Sigmund Formula):
In 1969 , Sigmund published [112] formula for Sputter yield with

normally incident ions on to a monatomic surface based on the Boltzmann
transport equation [ 5], that is a function of collision cross sections, atomic
binding energies and normal ion incidence.
33
Sigmund proposed a systematic study of the sputtering of a random

monatomic target in the linear collision cascade regime based on transport
theory. His formulation of sputtering yield is [116] :
For E > 1 keV …………. ………..........(2-6 )
gives the energy dependence of the yield Y(E) as a function of the measured
surface binding energy of the target material Ub and is generally assumed to
have the same value as the heat of sublimation. Sn (E),is The elastic
(nuclear) stopping power , and α is a function of the masses of the incident
ion and the target atom. This formula works well for most sputter scenarios,
but is not accurate for sputtering by light or low-energy incident ions [122].
The Sigmund formula is probably the most widely used to obtain total
sputtering yields and is most accurate in the linear collision cascade regime
based on transport theory[5]. The sputter yield increases linearly with the ion
energy. This is indeed the case in the linear cascade regime, hence the name .
, For 10 Ub< E <1 keV………... (2-7 )
M1 and M2 are the incident particle atomic mass (amu) and target atom
mass respectively [5,117].
Where :
……………………………………………………..…...(2-8)
The nuclear stopping power , sn ( E ) is the function of energy and can be

calculated with the analytical function developed by Lindhard [112,116] .
……………….(2-9 )
34
Calculating the nuclear stopping power requires the calculation of the

reduced elastic cross section , which is a function of the reduced energy.
The reduced energy is given by [116].
…..……………………...(2-10 )
The reduced elastic cross section can be calculated with the analytical
expression [118] .
……………………..... (2-11)
2-4-1-2 :Semi - Empirical Formulas Based on Sigmund Theory:
The Bohdansky formula apply a correction factor to Sigmund’s formula

for better correlation with published experimental results for sputtering yields.
This formula calculate sputtering yield for any ion - target combination as
a function of energy.
1. Bohdansky Formula
Semi- empirical formulas based on Sigmund theory, Bohdansky formula is

[119]:
……...(2-12)
where The correction factor:
…………………………………………..(2-13)
35
and
………………………………………………(2-14)
The threshold energy, Eth is calculated as
for M1/M2 ≤ 0.3

……………………………. (2-15)
for M1/M2 > 0.3
2. Yamamura & Tawara Model:
This model based on Several revisions to their original formula have been
made mostly in the 1980’s. for monatomic solids bombarded with projectiles
under normal incidence is [118]:
………..(2-16)
Γ is a parameter describing the contribution to sputter yield of the

mechanism whereby ions penetrate deep into the surface of the material,
collide with atoms, and are reflected back to sputter material at the surface .
This mechanism is most common with light, fast incident ions. The other
mechanism accounted for in this semi - empirical equation is most common
with slow, heavy ions and consists of the ion interacting with target atoms and
causing cascades amongst the atoms near the surface of the material.
where:
…………………………………………….(2-17)
36
W is another fitting parameter that is dependent on target material and given

in (Table 2-2),[ 118].
and
for M1≤ M2...(2-18)

for M1≥ M2
M1 and M2 are the masses of the incident ion and target atoms, respectively .k e
is the electronic stopping coefficient:
…………..………….……….(2-19)
The threshold energy is calculated as;
For M1 ≥M2
………………….……...(2-20)
For M1 ≤ M2
where:
…………….…………………………………………....(2-2)
The fitting parameters, Q, W, and S are functions of Z2 [118] , Yamamura and

Tawara provide a table ,(Table 2-2) for these parameters for an extensive list
of elements. E is the energy of the incident ion and Eth, is the threshold energy.
37
Table 2-2: U b , Q(Z2), W(Z2), S(Z2) from Yamamura and Tawara [118].
target Z2 Ub Q W s
Be 4 3.32 1.66 2.32 2.5
B 5 5.77 2.62 4.39 2.5
C 6 7.37 1.7 1.84 2.5
AL 13 3.39 1.0 2.17 2.5
Si 14 4.63 0.66 2.32 2.5
Ti 22 4.85 0.54 2.57 2.5
Cr 24 4.1 0.93 1.44 2.5
Fe 26 4.28 0.75 1. 2 2.5
Co 27 4.39 1.02 1.54 2.5
Ni 28 4.44 0.94 1.33 2.5
Cu 29 3.49 1.0 0.73 2.5
Zr 40 6.25 0.54 2.5 2.8
Mo 42 6.82 0.85 2.39 2.8
W 74 8.9 0.72 2.14 2.8
Re 75 8.03 1.03 2.81 2.5
4. Yamamura Empirical Equation :
An empirical equation is given Yamamura [123] to fit the energy and the
sputtering yield :
………..…..(2-21)
Where Y(E) is the yield of sputtering by incident ions at an energy of (E )and

α* is empirical parameter ; US is the sublimation energy in eV; Sn(ɛ) and Se(ɛ )
are Lindhards elastic and inelastic stopping function, respectively [124]. These
function are expressed in terms of the reduced energy ɛ:
...………………………...(2-22)
K is the conversion factor elastic stopping function sn to the stopping power Sn

in the unite of eVcm2/1015atom :
38
…...…………………………………………………………….(2-23)
……………..…………………..(2-24)
In equations (2-24) and (2-26), Z1 and Z2 are the atomic number of incident ion
and target atom . M1 and M2 are their mass number, respectively. The
sublimation energy of elementary solid are shown in table (2-2)[118] .
The averaged dependence of α* on M2/M1 could be now expressed as

α*( M2/M1) :
……(2-25)
similarly the averaged dependence of Eth / Us on M2/M1 is given by :
………………….....(2-26)
2 -4-1-3 :Wilhelm Formula:
This model appropriate for predicting sputtering yield at energies near

threshold [120]. Wilhelm model is not dependent on binary collisions like
Sigmund Formula. It models an ion collision with two atoms, a three body
collision. However. The Wilhelm equation can be given in the form.
………………………………………………………(2-27)
where K is a constant that includes the quantum statistical parameters [122] .
39
2 -4-2 :Angular Sputtering Yield Formula:
Total yields from off-normal sputtering (oblique, Figure 2-7 ) increase as

the angle of incidence increases because of more energy becoming
increasingly available in the near surface region until a maximum is reached
and then the yield quickly drops to zero as β approaches 90°, Figure (2-8).
Sigmund’s analysis suggests the following model for 0< β < 80° [116].
……………………………………….....(2-28)
Where Y(0) represents the yield at normal incidence , and f is a parameter

that is based upon atomic spatial moments. The f parameter can
also be experimentally determined by plotting ( Y(β) / Y(0) ) vs. cos ( β) and
taking the slope to be equal to –f [ 96,122 ] .
Yamamura also modified Sigmund’s oblique sputter yield model attempting

to account for the drop in yield near β = 90° [125 ,126]. Figure( 2-8) shows
a typical plot of total yield vs. incidence angle [95,109].
…………….……….(2-29)
The Formula adapts the Matsunami equation for normal incident sputtering
yields by a factor that is dependent on incidence angle. The sputtering yield
equation is [126,127]:
……….……(2-30)
with
Figure 2-7: Definition of oblique angle β [95].
40
Figure 2-8: Typical plot of total yield vs. incidence angle [95,109].
2 - 5 : Threshold Energy And Atomic Mass Dependence:
Since physical sputtering is a collision process, it is intuitive that it should

be a function of the atomic mass of the collision partners. It can easily be
shown that the fraction of energy transferred to a target particle of mass M2 by
a projectile of mass M1 in a head-on (zero scattering angle) collision
is[104,122]:
…………………………………………...…..(2 -2)
where γ is the energy transfer factor, E2 is the kinetic energy transferred to the
target particle and E0 is the initial kinetic energy of the projectile.
Several formulas have been proposed to estimate the sputtering threshold

energy. Bradley proposed a formula based on binary elastic collisions
[109,128,129], he reasoned that a relation with the sputtering threshold could
be stated as [130,131,109].
………………………………………………………(2-31)
41
However, Stuart and Wehner [112,132,133], who first realized that the mass
ratio between ion and target atom played hardly in the thresholds. According
to Wehner, sputtering thresholds differ little for different ions, but are more
dependent on target material, and according to This model threshold values
were roughly given by
………...………………………………………………...(2-32)
where US is the atomic heat of sublimation (given in Table 3-2). Some

researchers have derived semi-empirical formulas for sputtering threshold
based on the fitting of experimental data. Mantenieks [122] developed the
formula[129,109,134]:
………………..……………….(2-33)
Where h = 0.834 at MI /MT > 1 and h = 0.18 at MI /MT< 1

The formulation for sputtering threshold energy used in the Bohdansky and
Third Matsunami formulas, given in equations (2-15) and (2-21), are also used
to find a numerical value for threshold energy [109,135,136].
2 - 6 :TRIM Simulations:
The theoretical and semi-empirical calculations provide valuable

analytical expressions that describe the important physical mechanisms related
to sputtering and the corresponding dependencies of several variables.
However, these calculations also show that the solutions are more than often
complicated and simplified assumptions have to be made. Alternatively,
several software packages have been developed which simulate the evolution
of the collision cascade inside the target. Binary collision Monte Carlo codes
such as SRIM [122, 126], TRIDYN [133], SDTRIM.SP [125], ACAT [93,136]
and MARLOWE [125] are available to simulate the sputter process and
calculate the sputter yield.
Monte Carlo methods (or Monte Carlo experiments) are a broad class of
computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain
numerical results; typically one runs simulations many times over in order to
obtain the distribution of an unknown probabilistic entity. They are often used
42
in physical and mathematical problems and are most useful when it is difficult
or impossible to obtain a closed-form expression, or infeasible to apply a
deterministic algorithm. Monte Carlo methods are mainly used in three distinct
problems classes: optimization, numerical integration and generation of draws
from a probability distribution [137].
The modern version of the Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s
by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapons projects at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory.[138,139]
In physics-related problems, Monte Carlo methods are quite useful for

simulating systems with many coupled degrees of freedom, such as fluids,
disordered materials, and strongly coupled solids. Other examples include
modeling phenomena with significant uncertainty in inputs, in math,
evaluation of multidimensional definite integrals with complicated boundary
conditions. In application to space and oil exploration problems, Monte Carlo-
based predictions of failures, cost overruns and schedule overruns are routinely
better than human intuition or alternative "soft" methods [140,141].
Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter (SRIM) is a group of computer

programs which calculate the interaction of ions with matter; the core of SRIM
is a program Transport of ions in matter (TRIM). The programs were
developed by James F. Ziegler and Jochen P. Biersack around 1983 and are
being continuously upgraded with the major changes occurring approximately
every five years. SRIM is based on a Monte Carlo simulation method, namely
the binary collision approximation with a random selection of the impact
parameter of the next colliding ion. As the input parameters, it needs the ion
type and energy (in the range 10 eV – 2 GeV) and the material of one or
several target layers. As the output, it lists or plots [142,143].
The programs are made so they can be interrupted at any time, and then
resumed later. They have a very easy-to-use user interface and built-in default
parameters for all ions and materials. Those features made SRIM immensely
popular. However, it doesn't take account of the crystal structure nor dynamic
composition changes in the material that severely limits its usefulness in some
cases. Other approximation of the program include [144 147]:
43
• Binary collision (i.e. the influence of neighboring atoms is neglected).

• Recombination of knocked off atoms (interstitials) with the vacancies is
neglected;
• The electronic stopping power is an averaging fit to a large number of
experiments.
• The interatomic potential as a universal form which is an averaging fit
to quantum mechanical calculations.
• The target atom which reaches the surface can leave the surface (be
sputtered) if it has momentum and energy to pass the surface barrier.
• The system is layered, i.e. simulation of materials with composition
differences in 2D or 3D is not possible.
• The threshold displacement energy is a step function for each element.
SRIM originated in 1983 as a DOS based program then called TRIM. The
DOS version was upgraded until 1998 and is still available for download. It
will run on a Unix PC having a DOS emulator. SRIM-2000 requires a
computer with any Windows operating system. The program may work with
Unix or Macintosh based systems through Wine [137,148 151].
TRIM uses three key calculation parameters for the target material. These are
the lattice displacement energy, surface binding energy, and lattice binding
energy [152 ,153,154,155].
2 -6-1 : TRIM data fitted by theoretical function :
The data points computed with TRIM were fitted with the following function
[156]:
………………………………. (2 – 34)
the first term in equation (2-36) well describes the rapid increase of the
sputtering yield in the proximity of the threshold energy Eth, the second term,
centered on the energy value Emax, is needed to reproduce the maximum and
the slow decrease of Y (E) at higher energies. The function provides a
remarkably good description of both Y (E, θ)[156]. The best-fit values of Eth,
Emax and the parameters k, β and γ can be found in Table (3-61,62,63 and 64).
44
Results and calculations Chapter Three
Introduction:
This chapter includes The information of hydrogen-isotopes and helium
ions and fifteen fusion-relevant mono-atomic materials (4Be, 5B, 6C, 13Al, 14Si,
22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re),atomic number,
mass(amu),density(gm/cm3),ionization energy (eV), Q-Value and sublimation
Energy of target. The result were plotted by a computer simulation software
TRIM 2013 . for the change of incidence ion angle, width target, number of
incident ions, incident ions energy, mass of incident ions, surface binding
energy , atomic mass and atomic number of target.
The data of sputtering yield is fitted using to a polynomial provided by

Matlab software package and (Ior ) by IGOR Pro. Drawing different models
for calculating sputtering the Sigmund formula for sputtering yield and three
semi-empirical equations based on Sigmund’s formula. Also mesh graphic
showing sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident angle.
(3-1) Information for ions and elements:

Table (3-1) shows the atomic mass of element and isotopes mentioned in this
study have been taken from reference [157]. Q-Value and sublimation
energy[154] is shown in table (3-2), while table (3-3) expresses the threshold
energies of ion –target is taken from (TRIM 2013).
Table 3-1: atomic masses in (amu), density of element and isotopes in
(gm/cm3) and ionization energy in (eV) [157].
Symbols of the Atomic Mass Density Ionization Energy
elements Number (amu) (gm/cm3) (eV)
Hydrogen (H) 1 1.007 825 0.0715 13.5984

Deuterium (D) 1 2.014 102 0.153 15.46658
Tritium (T) 1 3.016 049 ----- ------
Helium (He) 2 4.002 603 0.1259 24.5874
Beryllium (Be) 4 9.012 182 1.848 9.3227
Boron (B) 5 10.811 2.3502 8.298
Carbon (C) 6 12.0107 2.253 11.2603
Aluminum (AL) 13 26.981 53 2.702 8.9858
Silicon (Si) 14 27.976 92 2.3212 8.1517
Titanium (Ti) 22 47.947 94 4.5189 6.8281
Chromium (Cr) 24 51.940 51 7.2 6.7662
Iron (Fe) 26 55.934 94 7.8658 7.9025
Cobalt (Co) 27 58.933 2 8.9 7.881
Nickel (Ni) 28 57.935 34 8.8955 7.6399
Copper (Cu) 29 62.929 60 8.92 7.7264
Zirconium (Zr) 40 91.224 6.49 6.6339
Molybdenum(Mo) 42 95.94 10.206 7.0924
Tungsten (w) 74 183.84 19.35 7.864
Rhenium (Re) 75 186.207 20.53 7.8333
45
Table 3-2: Q-Value and Sublimation Energy of target [158].
Target Sublimation Sublimation Q-Value

Energy(eV) Energy (eV) by [158]
[158] TRIM 2013
Beryllium (Be) 3.32 3.36 2.17±0.82
Boron (B) 5.77 5.73 4.6±1.5
Carbon (C) 7.37 7.41 3.1±0.9
Aluminum (Al) 3.39 3.26 1.09±0.14
Silicon (Si) 4.63 4.7 0.78±0.17
Titanium (Ti) 4.85 4.89 0.58±0.1
Chromium (Cr) 4.1 4.12 1.23±0.21
Iron (Fe) 4.28 4.34 1.06±0.18
Cobalt (Co) 4.39 4.43 1.0±0.32
Nickel (Ni) 4.44 4.46 1.06±0.26
Copper (Cu) 3.49 3.52 1.3±0.22
Zirconium (Zr) 6.25 6.33 0.7±0.16
Molybdenum(Mo) 6.82 6.83 0.84±0.24
Tungsten (w) 8.9 8.68 1.1±0.18
Rhenium (Re) 8.03 8.09 1.27±0.22
Table 3-3: sputtering Threshold energies for light ion (H+ ,D+ ,T+, He+) with
target (4Be, 5B, 6C, 13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W,
75Re) by TRIM 2013. The researcher finding values.
Ion Target Eth (eV)

H Be 70.6
D Be 54.2
T Be 53.07
He Be 50.03
H B 90.065
D B 50.08
T B 55.02
He B 52.08
H C 100.07
D C 60.41
T C 50.05
He C 51.04
46
Ion Target Eth (eV)

H Al 200.04
D Al 90.4706
T Al 70.067
He Al 55.0994
H Si 211.792
D Si 100.543
T Si 75.298
He Si 60.899
H Ti 400.1765
D Ti 215.259
T Ti 205.3389
He Ti 90.0921
H Cr 500.1795
D Cr 220.024
T Cr 217.074
He Cr 100.611
H Fe 513.3578
D Fe 225.8547
T Fe 219.9747
He Fe 200.2208
H Co 522.5535
D Co 300.1606
T Co 220.509
He Co 215.9871
H Ni 530.9013
D Ni 310.0439
T Ni 223.7743
He Ni 215.3764
H Cu 700.7219
D Cu 314.5599
T Cu 228.2892
He Cu 220.5232
H Zr 716.7468
D Zr 400.1168
T Zr 310.9858
He Zr 225.1725
H Mo 720.968
D Mo 410.1168
T Mo 319.9858
He Mo 230.1725
47
Ion Target Eth (eV)

H W 1259.42
D W 600.84
T W 500.8842
He W 400.56
H Re 1387.75
D Re 700.334
T Re 500.87
He Re 400.57
(3-2) Effect of changing target width on normalize sputtering

yield:
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by a six degree polynomial
………….………..(3-1)𝑦 = 𝑝1 𝑧 6 + 𝑝2 𝑧 5 + 𝑝3 𝑧 4 + 𝑝4 𝑧 3 + 𝑝5 𝑧 2 + 𝑝6 𝑧 + 𝑝7
Where the 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , ⋯ , 𝑝7 are constants and vary from one curve to another. 𝑧
represents the independent variable data of a width beryllium target .for
(H,D,T, He) ions incident on beryllium target with energy 0.5 keV the
tables(3-4) − (3-27) and figures (3-1) − ( 3-24) are illustrate this .
normalized sputtering yield as a function of incident angle.
Table 3-4: Parameters fitting for 500 hydrogen ions number with angle (10,
20,30,40,..,890) and width (30,100,200,400,1000)A0 , are shown in figure (3-1).
Width A0 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7
30 -0.63793 -0.52022 1.9144 1.5284 -0.2593 0.6091 1.589
100 -0.43793 -0.37578 1.1245 0.94177 0.6421 1.528 2.263
200 -2.2e-008 4.3e-006 -0.0003 0.00898 -0.1154 1.0929 ------
400 -0.24068 -0.57247 0.38747 1.5076 1.0722 1.1408 1.777
1000 -0.24068 -0.57247 0.38747 1.5076 1.0722 1.1408 1.777
20,30,40,..,890) and width (30,100,200,400,1000)A0 ,are shown in figure (3-2).
30 -0.4361 -0.4757 1.221 1.3593 0.18723 0.72787 1.6302
100 -0.2552 -0.5240 -0.0405 1.1966 2.4347 2.142 2.583
200 -0.2017 -0.296 0.46527 0.69129 0.36719 0.77666 1.23
400 -0.1242 -0.2804 0.18911 0.74186 0.69864 0.72262 1.4419
1000 -0.1242 -0.2804 0.18911 0.74186 0.69864 0.72262 1.4419
48
Figure 3-1: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when
hydrogen ions number are 500 .
Figure 3-2: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when
hydrogen ions number are 1000 .
49
30 -0.2494 -0.46264 0.47681 1.2885 0.91728 0.73173 1.425
100 -0.2941 -0.40339 0.51282 1.0594 1.1795 1.3745 2.1505
200 -0.2666 -0.36696 0.71958 1.0182 0.23409 0.57612 1.3197
400 -0.2632 -0.39042 0.70103 1.113 0.30446 0.42547 1.223
1000 -0.2632 -0.39042 0.70103 1.113 0.30446 0.42547 1.223
20,30,40,..,890) and width (30,100,200,400,1000)A0, are shown in figure (3-4).
30 -0.2707 -0.40321 0.68864 1.1567 0.43217 0.55525 1.3515
100 -0.2428 -0.35405 0.58301 0.95348 0.53525 0.8034 1.4793
200 -0.2352 -0.35437 0.56786 0.99449 0.47082 0.60259 1.2706
400 -0.259 -0.32973 0.69636 0.89864 0.31111 0.58803 1.2137
1000 -0.259 -0.32973 0.89864 0.89864 0.31111 0.58803 1.2137
Width P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7
A0
30 -0.25142 -0.37679 0.63085 1.0844 0.43947 0.54136 1.2937
100 -0.22639 -0.36907 0.5042 1.0027 0.63478 0.80872 1.515
200 -0.29511 -0.41208 0.74284 1.1848 0.46398 0.66997 1.4943
400 -0.25196 -0.34465 0.64877 0.96443 0.40159 0.5793 1.2387
1000 -0.25196 -0.34465 0.64877 0.96443 0.40159 0.5793 1.2387
50
Figure 3-3: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when hydrogen
ions number are 2500 .
51
30 -0.25606 -0.37264 0.65305 1.0679 0.4058 0.55783 1.3084
100 -0.22648 -0.35578 0.5235 0.98485 0.57117 0.72056 1.4402
200 -0.26431 -0.39016 0.64195 1.1182 0.50384 0.60694 1.423
400 -0.23211 -0.35374 0.53753 0.99544 0.56714 0.60074 1.291
1000 -0.23211 -0.35374 0.53753 0.99544 0.56714 0.60074 1.291
Table 3-10: Parameters fitting for 500 deuterium ions number with angle (100,
200,300,400,..,890) and width (40,100,200,400,1000)A0 , are shown in figure
(3-7).
40 -0.253 -0.929 -0.29801 1.8676 2.1057 0.72729 0.9993
100 -0.53165 -0.33463 0.80688 0.27703 1.0217 1.7258 1.641
200 -1.2786 -1.5428 2.1832 3.2238 1.293 0.94582 2.0974
300 -0.77965 -1.5366 1.1213 3.1597 1.2541 0.98332 1.8468
400 -0.82262 -1.51 1.2679 3.0699 1.1375 1.051 1.8504
1000 -0.82262 -1.51 1.2679 3.0699 1.1375 1.051 1.8504
Table 3-11: Parameters fitting for 1000 deuterium ions number with angle
(100, 200,300,400,..,890) and width (40,100,200,400,1000)A0 , are shown in
figure (3-8).
40 -0.4927 -1.0211 0.5162 2.195 1.4871 0.51431 1.0587
100 -1.5593 -0.86488 3.4801 1.3109 -0.2286 2.1808 2.6823
200 -0.73092 -1.0025 1.292 1.9715 0.75704 0.86909 1.3972
300 -1.5438 -1.4105 3.3234 2.9352 0.13994 1.0774 2.1531
400 -0.94205 -1.8099 1.6182 4.0142 1.0057 0.67072 2.0537
1000 -0.94205 -1.8099 1.6182 4.0142 1.0057 0.67072 2.0537
52
ions number are 10000.
Figure 3-7: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when deuterium
53
figure (3-9).
40 -0.81904 -1.0956 1.447 2.2008 0.95636 1.0139 1.4524
100 -0.81918 -0.7648 1.6428 1.3763 0.47861 1.2017 1.5251
200 -0.70399 -1.0633 1.1555 2.2048 1.0328 0.91658 1.5676
300 -0.62273 -1.1305 0.80201 2.4172 1.4852 0.89526 1.578
400 -0.65324 -1.2065 0.79638 2.5799 1.6544 0.99039 1.6823
1000 -0.65324 -1.2065 0.79638 2.5799 1.6544 0.99039 1.6823
figure (3-10).
40 -0.67712 -0.92553 1.1814 1.835 0.86859 0.98212 1.39
100 -0.59757 -0.63413 0.93566 1.0453 1.0413 1.3622 1.4416
200 -0.72714 -0.82832 1.3308 1.5058 0.74592 1.4237 1.7577
300 -0.56549 -0.84724 0.81927 1.6328 1.144 1.2196 1.5955
400 -0.59986 -0.88272 0.87136 1.6945 1.2 1.3115 1.6697
1000 -0.59986 -0.88272 0.87136 1.6945 1.2 1.3115 1.6697
figure (3-11).
40 -0.67533 -0.97 1.1734 1.9274 0.85585 1.0242 1.4786
100 -0.55897 -0.72596 0.82139 1.2292 1.0523 1.3027 1.4046
200 -0.70728 -0.912 1.2315 1.7982 0.89361 1.1277 1.6158
300 -0.53446 -0.80174 0.7865 1.5506 1.0474 1.0221 1.4017
400 -0.54712 -0.81495 0.80451 1.5699 1.0701 1.0655 1.4317
1000 -0.54712 -0.81495 0.80451 1.5699 1.0701 1.0655 1.4317
54
55
figure (3-12).
40 -0.65393 -0.96988 1.0584 1.9328 1.0186 1.007 1.4429
100 -0.54459 -0.73702 0.76902 1.2685 1.1022 1.3049 1.447
200 -0.61301 -0.92814 0.91875 1.8606 1.1362 1.0512 1.5611
300 -0.54698 -0.8120 0.8157 1.5661 1.0468 1.0388 1.3983
400 -0.5598 -0.82788 0.82702 1.5928 1.0853 1.0823 1.4327
1000 -0.5598 -0.82788 0.82702 1.5928 1.0853 1.0823 1.4327
Table 3-16: Parameters fitting for 500 tritium ions number with angle (100,
(3-13).
40 -0.39296 -1.3046 -0.66847 2.3334 3.7226 1.9644 1.7676
100 -0.46858 -1.3428 0.13644 2.685 2.3092 1.3735 2.1317
200 -1.5985 -1.0494 4.0898 1.993 -1.1358 1.6336 2.5417
300 -1.1432 -1.1069 2.6135 2.2298 -0.10896 1.4381 2.1127
400 -1.1358 -1.1539 2.5634 2.3338 -0.02495 1.4675 2.1571
1000 -1.1358 -1.1539 2.5634 2.3338 -0.02495 1.4675 2.1571
(3-14).
40 -0.56955 -1.0521 0.46152 2.0835 1.9785 1.1616 1.4683
100 -0.41337 -1.1745 0.022297 2.4462 2.0681 0.8582 1.5621
200 -0.28188 -0.65722 -0.015474 1.105 1.5752 1.4579 1.7282
300 -0.679 -1.2082 1.0961 2.5208 0.91704 0.8991 1.7511
400 -0.65725 -1.0856 1.1257 2.2351 0.76876 0.8335 1.605
1000 -0.65725 -1.0856 1.1257 2.2351 0.76876 0.8335 1.605
56
Figure 3-13: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when tritium ions
number are 500.
number are 1000.
57
(3-15).
40 -0.73418 -0.96771 1.3118 1.8957 0.85456 1.2008 1.6198
100 -0.56599 -1.0409 0.55954 2.0639 1.7043 1.2386 1.674
200 -0.70437 -0.90051 1.0098 1.6338 1.4554 1.6051 1.6815
300 -0.61543 -0.8711 1.1028 1.682 0.70087 1.1489 1.6187
400 -0.62889 -0.84136 1.155 1.6049 0.65173 1.1598 1.5979
1000 -0.62889 -0.84136 1.155 1.6049 0.65173 1.1598 1.5979
(3-16).
40 -0.6089 -0.96765 0.95558 1.9212 1.0434 1.1111 1.5375
100 -0.5356 -0.96323 0.5772 1.8317 1.4829 1.2587 1.582
200 -0.56831 -0.92536 0.60821 1.7225 1.72 1.4992 1.5382
300 -0.54525 -0.95449 0.78494 1.8898 1.1099 1.197 1.6608
400 -0.54893 -0.90566 0.84514 1.749 1.0013 1.2351 1.5935
1000 -0.54893 -0.90566 0.84514 1.749 1.0013 1.2351 1.5935
(3-17).
40 -0.44653 -0.96361 0.28382 1.8513 1.7659 1.2483 1.4686
100 -0.56511 -1.0037 0.70803 1.9971 1.3538 1.0767 1.5211
200 -0.70997 -1.1256 1.0537 2.2583 1.3501 1.2697 1.6706
300 -0.67276 -1.0806 1.1392 2.198 0.9275 1.0862 1.6437
400 -0.68804 -1.0652 1.1985 2.1403 0.87413 1.1367 1.6332
1000 -0.68804 -1.0652 1.1985 2.1403 0.87413 1.1367 1.6332
58
number are 2500.
number are 5000..
number are 7500.
59
Table 3-21: parameters fitting for 10000 Tritium ions number with angle (100,
(3-18).
40 -0.59701 -1.0919 0.7151 2.2024 1.5316 1.0859 1.4881
100 -0.56955 -0.96964 0.7769 1.8953 1.2192 1.1094 1.49
200 -0.61634 -1.1137 0.74596 2.244 1.5764 1.1968 1.591
300 -0.67305 -1.0735 1.0571 2.1172 1.1155 1.2401 1.6469
400 -0.69769 -1.0634 1.1498 2.0728 1.025 1.2921 1.6638
1000 -0.69769 -1.0634 1.1498 2.0728 1.025 1.2921 1.6638
Table 3-22: parameters fitting for 500 Helium ions number with angle (100,
(3-19).
40 -0.7788 -0.96961 1.6587 1.7726 -0.0132 1.0297 1.6438
100 -0.31225 -0.42852 0.5245 0.48214 0.23781 1.1427 1.4444
200 -0.35526 -0.56091 0.435 0.82841 0.65702 1.0714 1.5022
300 -0.35526 -0.56091 0.435 0.82841 0.65702 1.0714 1.5022
400 -0.35526 -0.56091 0.435 0.82841 0.65702 1.0714 1.5022
1000 -0.35526 -0.56091 0.435 0.82841 0.65702 1.0714 1.5022
(3-20).
40 -0.42403 -0.55688 0.61941 0.7545 0.61712 1.3125 1.571
100 -0.37853 -0.58655 0.54502 0.88588 0.55247 1.0897 1.4666
200 -0.32114 -0.61896 0.16124 0.94721 1.1183 1.1846 1.5834
300 -0.32114 -0.61896 0.16124 0.94721 1.1183 1.1846 1.5834
400 -0.32114 -0.61896 0.16124 0.94721 1.1183 1.1846 1.5834
1000 -0.32114 -0.61896 0.16124 0.94721 1.1183 1.1846 1.5834
60
number are 10000.
Figure 3-19: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when helium ions
number are 500.
number are 1000.
61
(3-21)
40 -0.35529 -0.62839 0.16066 0.88652 1.2805 1.3999 1.6543
100 -0.13855 -0.47744 -0.38021 0.58765 1.4904 1.328 1.4941
200 -0.18725 -0.53013 -0.19408 0.70287 1.2892 1.308 1.523
300 -0.18725 -0.53013 -0.19408 0.70287 1.2892 1.308 1.523
400 -0.18725 -0.53013 -0.19408 0.70287 1.2892 1.308 1.523
1000 -0.18725 -0.53013 -0.19408 0.70287 1.2892 1.308 1.523
(3-22)
40 -0.30803 -0.5603 0.069114 0.7429 1.2727 1.354 1.562
100 -0.1577 -0.45735 -0.28506 0.46923 1.3528 1.5209 1.5856
200 -0.10097 -0.47299 -0.52694 0.51121 1.6069 1.5042 1.5934
300 -0.10097 -0.47299 -0.52694 0.51121 1.6069 1.5042 1.5934
400 -0.10097 -0.47299 -0.52694 0.51121 1.6069 1.5042 1.5934
1000 -0.10097 -0.47299 -0.52694 0.51121 1.6069 1.5042 1.5934
(3-23).
40 -0.02328 -0.75623 -1.053 1.3565 2.5292 0.97585 1.1993
100 0.17064 -0.62933 -1.5958 0.9853 2.8147 1.2231 1.1656
200 0.19183 -0.65811 -1.7153 1.0551 2.9703 1.1982 1.1948
300 0.19156 -0.65788 -1.7146 1.0545 2.9699 1.1984 1.1948
400 0.19156 -0.65788 -1.7146 1.0545 2.9699 1.1984 1.1948
1000 0.19156 -0.65788 -1.7146 1.0545 2.9699 1.1984 1.1948
62
number are 2500.
number are 5000.
number are 7500.
63
(3-24).
40 0.026758 -0.7552 -1.2099 1.3437 2.6428 1.0224 1.2355
100 0.11148 -0.71326 -1.4798 1.1602 2.8261 1.2695 1.3053
200 0.17174 -0.67741 -1.6599 1.0958 2.9333 1.2033 1.2452
300 0.17152 -0.67743 -1.6597 1.0957 2.934 1.2039 1.2457
400 0.17152 -0.67743 -1.6597 1.0957 2.934 1.2039 1.2457
1000 0.17152 -0.67743 -1.6597 1.0957 2.934 1.2039 1.2457
(3-3) Effect of changing ions number on normalized sputtering

yield :
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by a six degree
………….………..(3-1)𝑦 = 𝑝1 𝑧 6 + 𝑝2 𝑧 5 + 𝑝3 𝑧 4 + 𝑝4 𝑧 3 + 𝑝5 𝑧 2 + 𝑝6 𝑧 + 𝑝7
Where the 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , ⋯ , 𝑝7 are constants and vary from one curve to another. 𝑧
represents the independent variable data of ions number .for (H,D,T, He)
ions incident on beryllium target with energy 0.5 keV the tables(3-28) −(3-
31) and figures (3-25) − ( 3-28) are illustrate this . normalized sputtering
yield as a function of incident angle.
Table 3-28: Parameters fitting of hydrogen ions with angle (100, 200,300,400,..,890) and
number of ions (500.1000,2500,5000,7500 and 10000), are shown in figure (3-25).
Ion No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7
500 -0.12836 -0.30532 0.20665 0.80408 0.57186 0.60845 0.9479
1000 -0.11019 -0.24868 0.1677 0.65787 0.61955 0.64082 1.2787
2500 -0.27437 -0.40696 0.73074 1.1601 0.31736 0.4435 1.2748
5000 -0.27347 -0.3487 0.73642 0.95033 0.32901 0.62185 1.2835
7500 -0.29989 -0.41021 0.77219 1.1479 0.47799 0.6895 1.4743
10000 -0.24773 -0.37755 0.57372 1.0624 0.60531 0.64118 1.3779
Table 3-29: Parameters fitting of deuterium ions with angle (100, 200,300,400,..,890) and
number of ions (500.1000,2500,5000,7500 and 10000),are shown in figure (3-26).
500 -0.82262 -1.51 1.2679 3.0699 1.1375 1.051 1.8504
1000 -0.94205 -1.8099 1.6182 4.0142 1.0057 0.67072 2.0537
2500 -0.65324 -1.2065 0.79638 2.5799 1.6544 0.99039 1.6823
5000 -0.59986 -0.88272 0.87136 1.6945 1.2 1.3115 1.6697
7500 -0.54712 -0.81495 0.80451 1.5699 1.0701 1.0655 1.4317
10000 -0.5598 -0.82788 0.82702 1.5928 1.0853 1.0823 1.4327
64
number are 10000.
Figure 3-25: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when beryllium
target width is 400 A0.
Figure 3-26: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield when beryllium
target width is 400 A0.
65
Table 3-30: Parameters fitting of tritium ions with angle (100,

200,300,400,..,890) and number of ions (500,1000,2500,5000,7500 and 10000),
are shown in figure (3-27)
500 -1.3015 -1.3221 2.9372 2.6742 -0.02859 1.6815 2.4716
1000 -0.65725 -1.0856 1.1257 2.2351 0.76876 0.83352 1.605
2500 -0.62889 -0.84136 1.155 1.6049 0.65173 1.1598 1.5979
5000 -0.54893 -0.90566 0.84514 1.749 1.0013 1.2351 1.5935
7500 -0.68804 -1.0652 1.1985 2.1403 0.87413 1.1367 1.6332
10000 -0.67548 -1.076 1.0611 2.1225 1.1183 1.244 1.6517
Table 3-31: Parameters fitting of helium ions with angle (100,

200,300,400,..,890) and number of ions (500,1000,2500,5000,7500 and 10000).
are shown in figure (3-28)
500 -0.3553 -0.56091 0.435 0.82841 0.65702 1.0714 1.5022
1000 -0.3212 -0.61896 0.16124 0.94721 1.1183 1.1846 1.5834
2500 -0.1873 -0.53013 -0.1941 0.70287 1.2892 1.308 1.523
5000 -0.1009 -0.47299 -0.5269 0.51121 1.6069 1.5042 1.5934
7500 0.19601 -0.67243 -1.7526 1.078 3.035 1.2243 1.2208
10000 0.17174 -0.67741 -1.6599 1.0958 2.9333 1.2033 1.2452
66
Figure 3-27: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield

when beryllium target width is 400 A0.
Figure 3-28: The angular distribution of the normalized sputtering yield

when beryllium target width is 400 A0.
67
(3-4) Other vision due to effect of target width, angle of incident

and ions number on sputtering yield :
There are many to illustrate the relations of sputter yield, target width, angle
of incident and ion number as show in figures (3-29) –(3-48).
figure 3-29: Effect of changing beryllium figure 3-30: Relationship between beryllium
target width on sputtering yield for various target width and hydrogen incident angle
hydrogen incident angle of ions number for sputtering yield of ions number are 5000.
are 5000.
figure 3-30: relationship between width of

figure 3-29: Effect of change width of target beryllium and different Hydrogen
target beryllium on sputtering yield from incident ions angle from sputtering yield
different Hydrogen incident ions angle of of number of ions =5000.
number of ions =5000.
Figure 3-31: Effect of changing beryllium Figure 3-32: Relationship between

target width on sputtering yield for various beryllium target width and hydrogen
hydrogen incident angle of ions number incident angle for sputtering yield of ions
are 10000. number are 10000.
68
Figure 3-34: Relationship between

Figure 3-33: Effect of changing beryllium beryllium target width and deuterium
target width on sputtering yield for various incident angle for sputtering yield of ions
deuterium incident angle of ions number are number are 5000.
5000.

target width on sputtering yield for various beryllium target width and tritium incident
tritium incident angle of ions number are angle for sputtering yield of ions number
5000. are 5000.
69

target width on sputtering yield for various beryllium target width and helium incident
helium incident angle of ions number are angle for sputtering yield of ions number are
5000. 5000.
Figure 3-40: Effect of changing beryllium

Figure 3-39: Effect of changing beryllium
target width on sputtering yield for various
target width on sputtering yield for various
deuterium ions number at angle is 400 .
hydrogen ions number at angle is 500 .
70
Figure 3-41: Effect of changing beryllium Figure 3-42: Effect of changing beryllium
target width on sputtering yield for various target width on sputtering yield for various
tritium ions number at angle is 700 . helium ions number at angle is 600 .
Figure 3-43: Relationship between beryllium Figure 3-44: Relationship between beryllium
target width and various hydrogen ions target width and various hydrogen ions
number at angle is 100. number at angle is 890.
71
Figure 3-45: Relationship between Figure 3-46: Relationship between

beryllium target width and various beryllium target width and various tritium
0
deuterium ions number at angle is 80 . ions number at angle is 300.
figure 3-47: Relationship between beryllium figure 3-48: Relationship between beryllium
target width and various tritium ions number at target width and various helium ions
angle is 890. number at angle is 800.
72
(3-5) Effect of increasing ion energy on the normalized

sputtering yield vs. incident angle:
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by a five degree polynomial
………………. ………….………..(3-2)𝑦 = 𝑘0 + 𝑘1 𝑥 + 𝑘2 𝑥 2 + 𝑘3 𝑥 3 + 𝑘4 𝑥 4 + 𝑘5 𝑥 5
the 𝑘0 , 𝑘1 , ⋯ , 𝑘5 are constants for (H+ ,D+,T+, He+) incident ions on width
target 1000 A0 of (4Be, 5B, 6C, 13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr,
0 0 0 0 0
42Mo, 74W, 75Re),with 5000 ions number and angle (10 , 20 , 30 ,40 ,..,89 ) as
shown in the tables(3-32) − (3-46) and figures (3-49)−(3-63) are illustrate
them .
Table 3-32: Parameters fitting of hydrogen ions bombarding of beryllium target and ions
energy (0.5,1.5,7.5) keV, are shown in figure (3-49).
Ion (keV) Energy K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5
-006
0.5 1.0478 .086 .00825 .00029 4.5e 2.4e-008
1.5 1.1358 .263 .03189 .00122 1.8e-006 9.2 e-008
7.5 1.219 .547 .0598 .00207 .88 e-006 1.3 e-007
Table 3-33: Parameters fitting of deuterium ions bombarding of boron target and ions
energy (0.3,0.6,1.0,2.0) keV , are shown in figure (3-50).
0. 3 1.016 .04289 .004928 .00019 1.15e-006 1.7e-008
0. 6 0.056 .1001 .01226 .00049 7.9e-006 4.3e-008
1. 0 1.0846 .1674 .01849 .00068 1.04e-005 5.3e-008
2.0 1.1247 .2544 .02616 .00094 1.39e-005 6.9e-008
Table 3-34: Parameters fitting of tritium ions bombarding of carbon target and ions energy
(0.2,0.8,1.5,3.0) keV , are shown in figure (3-51).

0. 2 1.01 .0287 .00315 .00019 2.04e-006 1.18e-008
0. 8 1.0884 .1771 .018114 .00064 9.68e-006 4.9e-008
1. 5 1.117 .22196 .02555 .00096 1.44e-005 7.2e-008
3.0 1.1073 .17686 .02211 .000855 1.2e-005 6.4e-008
Table 3-35: Parameters fitting of helium ions bombarding of aluminum target and ions
energy (0.4,0.9,2.5,4.0) keV , are shown in figure (3-52).

0. 4 0.9947 .00015 .00038 2.5e-005 2.8e-007 7.8e-010
0. 9 1.0116 .04827 .00489 .00018 2.9e-006 1.5e-008
2.5 1.0413 .08529 .0104 .00041 6.4e-006 3.44e-008
4.0 1.077 -.144 .0174 .00067 1.01e-005 5.2e-008
73
Figure 3-49: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Be material bombarded by
H+, with various ion energy.
74
Figure 3-50: Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-51: Normalized sputtering yield vs.
incident angle for B material bombarded by D+, with incident angle for C material bombarded by T+,
various ion energy. with various ion energy.
Figure 3-52: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Al material bombarded by He+,
with various ion energy.
75
Table 3-36: Parameters fitting of hydrogen ions bombarding of silicon target and ions
energy (0.5,0.7, 3.5,6.0) keV, are shown in figure (3-53).

0. 5 1.098 .2397 .02494 .00089 1.2e-005 6.1e-008
0. 7 1.05 .08696 .0087 .00032 4.8e-006 2.4e-008

3.5 1.0222 .03559 .0035 .00014 2.3e-006 1.27e-008
6.0 1.2259 .4079 .00471 .00176 2.58e-005 1.268e-008
Table 3-37: Parameters fitting of deuterium ions bombarding of titanium target and ions
energy (0.6,0.9, 5.0,10) keV, are shown in figure (3-54).
0. 6 1.0248 .0455 .00446 .00015 2.2e-006 1.15e-008
09 1.0399 .06664 .0089 .00021 3.1e-006 1.62e-008
5.0 1.1385 .2746 .0274 .00094 1.3e-005 6.2e-008
10 1.1597 .273 .0287 .00104 1.48e-005 7.19e-008
Table 3-38: Parameters fitting of tritium ions bombarding of chromium target and ions
energy (0.3,0.8, 4.5,9.0) keV, are shown in figure (3-55).

0. 3 .0994 .0229 .00168 5.2e-005 7.7e-007 4.2e-009
0. 8 1.0076 .04688 .00507 .00018 2.8e-006 1.49e-008
4.5 1.1089 .1803 .02094 .00077 1.15e-005 5.7e-008
9.0 1.1342 .25608 .026836 .00095 1.34e-005 -6.4e-008
Table 3-39: Parameters fitting of helium ions bombarding of iron target and ions energy
(0.6,0.9, 5.0,10) keV , are shown in figure (3-56).

0. 6 1.0013 .00923 .00031 1.9e-006 2.88e-007 2.7e-009
0. 9 1.0019 .02242 .0023 8.1e-005 1.3e-006 7.3e-009

5.0 1.0598 .06711 .00873 .00035 5.6e-006 3.005e-008
10 1.0659 .1603 .0169 -.00061 9.0e-006 -4.5e-008
76
incident angle for Si material bombarded by H+, incident angle for Ti material bombarded by D+,
with various ion energy. with various ion energy.
incident angle for Cr material bombarded by T+, incident angle for Fe material bombarded by He+,
77
Table 3-40: Parameters fitting hydrogen ions bombarding cobalt target and ions energy
(1,12) keV, is show in figure (3-57).

1.0 1.0259 .01238 .0018911 8.7e-005 1.59e-006 -9.5e-009
12.0 1.15 .334 .036 .00124 1.7e-005 -8.6e-008
Table 3-41: Parameters fitting of deuterium ions bombarding of nickel target and ions
energy (0.7,0.9, 4.0,11) keV , are shown in figure (3-58).

0. 7 .996 .0257 .00269 9.5e-006 1.47e-006 7.9e-009
0. 9 1.132 .0059 .0009 3.0e-005 1.25e-007 1.11e-009

4.0 1.2018 .3544 .0395 .00144 2.1e-005 -1.044e-007
11 1.1238 .193 .0228 -.00085 1.2e-005 -6.28e-008
Table 3-42: Parameters fitting of tritium ions bombarding of copper target energy (0.8,0.9,
7.0) KeV , are shown in figure (3-59).

0. 8 1.010107 .0187 .0023 -9.325 1.62e-006 -9.5e-009
0. 9 1.0053 -.018 .00253 .0001 1.88e-006 1.09e-008
7.0 1.1094 .247 .0298 .00111 1.63e-005 -8.04e-008
Table 3-43: Parameters fitting of helium ions bombarding of zirconium target energy
(0.6,7.0,14) keV , are shown in figure (3-60).
0. 6 1.114 -.0189 .02 .0007 1.04e-005 5.1e-008
7.0 1.049 -.0606 .0068 -.00027 4.3e-006 -2.29e-008
14 1.089 -.123 .0126 -.00045 6.8e-006 3.4e-008
78
incident angle for Co material bombarded by H+, incident angle for Ni material bombarded by D+,
incident angle for Cu material bombarded by T+, incident angle for Zr material bombarded by He+,
79
Table 3-44: Parameters fitting of hydrogen ions bombarding of molybdenum target and
ions energy (7.0,15) keV , are shown in figure (3-61).
7.0 1.05 -.015 .016 -.0006 8.63e-006 -4.14e-008
15.0 1.085 .1785 .018 .00067 1.0e-005 -4.95e-008
Table 3-45: Parameters fitting of deuterium ions bombarding of tungsten target and ions
energy (6.0,17)keV , are shown in figure (3-62).

6.0 1.0331 .081 .0087 -.00032 5.07e-006 2.6e-008
17 1.1337 .269 .03244 -.0012 1.75e-005 -8.5e-008
Table 3-46: Parameters fitting of tritium ions bombarding of rhenium target and ions
energy (3.0,15,25) keV , are shown in figure (3-63).

3.0 1.044 -.0877 .0085 .00029 4.3e-006 -2.2e-008
15 1.0517 -.0109 .01158 -.00042 6.1e-006 3.01e-008
25 1.185 .3932 .0137 -.00157 2.2e-005 -1.08e-007
80
incident angle for Mo material bombarded by H+, incident angle for W material bombarded by D+,
Figure 3-63: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Re material
bombarded by T+, with various ion energy.
81
(3-6) Comparison of fitted function between polynomial and Ior

for normalized sputter yield vs. incident angle:
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by five degree polynomial
………………. ………….………..(3-2)𝑦 = 𝑘0 + 𝑘1 𝑥 + 𝑘2 𝑥 2 + 𝑘3 𝑥 3 + 𝑘4 𝑥 4 + 𝑘5 𝑥 5
𝐴
And (Ior) function provided by IGOR software package , 𝑦 = 𝑦0 + (𝑋−𝑋 2
………..(3-3)
0 ) +𝐵
the 𝑘0 , 𝑘1 , ⋯ , 𝑘5 and 𝑦0 , 𝐴, 𝑋, 𝑋0 , 𝐵 are constants .for (H+ ,D+,T+, He+) incident
ions on 1000 A0 (4Be, 5B, 6C, 13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr,
0 0 0 0 0
42Mo, 74W, 75Re) with 5000 ions number ,angle (10 , 20 , 30 , 40 ,..,89 ) and incident
ion energy 1.5 keV .the tables(3-47−3-50) and figures (3-64) − ( 3-120) are illustrate this
.
Table 3-47: Parameters fitting of Hydrogen ions bombarding with(

Beryllium, Boron, , Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon , Titanium, Chromium, Iron,
Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum) target , are shown in figure
(3-64) − (3-75).
Target K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5
Be 1.338 0.6333 0.031894 0.0012165 1.832e-005 9.20e-008
B 1.0906 0.23103 0.02509 0.0009101 1.339e-005 6.66e-008
C 1.0211 0.17594 0.017831 0.0006397 9.362e-005 4.64e-008
Al 1.07 0.15600 0.018791 0.0007085 1.066e-005 5.394e-008
Si 1.0436 0.1247 0.013742 0.0005037 7.404e-006 3.665e-008
Ti 1.0551 0.07749 0.009083 0.0003426 5.219e-006 2.677e-008
Cr 1.0209 0.06925 0.006431 0.0002255 3.368e-006 1.726e-008
Fe 1.0294 0.06484 0.004976 0.0001613 2.417e-006 1.258e-008
Co 1.0155 0.10366 0.009368 0.0003096 4.666e-006 2.155e-008
Ni 1.0118 0.08848 0.009502 0.0003393 4.977e-006 2.507e-008
Cu 1.0373 0.00842 0.003072 0.0001475 2.673e-006 1.545e-008
Zr 1.0113 0.02828 0.000431 4.7 e-005 1.454e-006 9.986e-008
Mo 1.0089 0.03284 0.003591 0.0001439 2.311e-006 1.234e-008
Target Y0 A X0 B
Be 0.86309 1282.2 81.57 120.97
B 0.77784 1100.6 81.271 143.32
C 0.56491 844.74 81.381 166.79
Al 1.0127 652.76 79.737 188.17
Si 0.2638 513.55 81.437 137.98
Ti 0.97842 406.65 78.687 139.96
Cr 0.86043 230.43 77.87 122.5
Fe 0.81685 181.43 76.774 110.94
Co 0.86884 144.26 76.194 78.951
Ni 0.99915 135.07 75.907 60.827
Cu 1.1747 346.51 76.602 143.4
Zr 1.051 307.17 77.052 141.92
Mo 0.91745 66.172 75.974 49.937
82
Figure 3-64: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Be material
bombarded by H+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
83
incident angle for B material bombarded by incident angle for C material bombarded by
H+, with using two fit function polynomial H+, with using two fit function polynomial
and Ior. and Ior.
incident angle for Al material bombarded by incident angle for Si material bombarded by
and Ior. and Ior.
84
Figure 3-70: Normalized sputtering yield vs.

incident angle for Cr material bombarded by
incident angle for Ti material bombarded by
H+, with using two fit function polynomial
and Ior.
and Ior.

incident angle for Ni material bombarded by
incident angle for Fe material bombarded by
and Ior.
and Ior.
85
incident angle for Cu material bombarded by incident angle for Zr material bombarded by
and Ior. and Ior.
Figure 3-75: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Mo material
bombarded by H+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
86
Table 3-48: Parameters fitting of Deuterium ions bombarding of ( beryllium,

Boron, , Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon , Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum) target , are shown in figure (3-
76) − (3-90).
Be 1.131 0.25132 0.02692 0.0098539 1.455e-005 -7.251e-008
B 1.2335 0.42208 0.047701 0.0017223 2.487e-005 1.2174e-007
C 1.1223 0.22679 0.025003 0.0009246 1.378e-005 6.8949e-008
AL 1.0539 0.10068 0.011952 0.0004561 7.177e-006 3.7839e-008
Si 1.091 0.19486 0.019779 0.000691 9.929e-006 4.8819e-008
Ti 1.0492 0.1336 0.013734 0.0004703 6.947e-006 3.448e-008
Cr 1.0535 0.08094 0.00861 0.0003013 4.479e-006 2.2944e-008
Fe 1.0187 0.09413 0.009891 0.0003483 5.086e-006 2.5531e-008
Co 1.0327 0.02692 0.003888 0.0001707 3.017e-006 1.7255e-008
Ni 1.0214 0.06737 0.007607 0.0002778 4.216e-006 2.1855e-008
Cu 1.0995 1.0802 0.0076386 0.00021406 2.0908e-008 1.4624e-008
Zr 1.0288 0.07942 0.007786 0.0002736 4.010e-006 2.0111e-008
Mo 1.01 0.0175 0.00337 -0.00016 2.92e-006 -1.61e-008
W 1.0059 -0.0372 0.00333 0.000111 1.626e-006 -8.29e-009
Re 0.994 0.00879 0.00097 -4.227e-005 8.64e-007 -4.94e-009
Target Y0 A X0 B
Be 0.70348 821.83 80.974 109.86
B 1.1577 984.35 81.307 84.459
C 0.70112 1218.4 81.764 142.6
AL 0.8964 1032 78.695 193.84
Si 0.881611 536.97 80.452 109.35
Ti 0.88417 613.34 79.838 163.48
Cr 1.0328 467.9 77.61 162.48
Fe 0.96788 284.36 77.614 119.77
Co 0.99452 375.96 76.05 139.72
Ni 0.99907 319.96 76.151 136.72
Cu 0.6793 737.62 74.821 312.90
Zr 0.91684 213.12 79.464 100.41
Mo 0.915 405.66 75.728 188.71
W 0.889 141.27 74.522 205.64
Re 0.922 166.95 72.066 215.24
87
bombarded by D+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
88
D+, with using two fit function polynomial D+, with using two fit function polynomial
and Ior. and Ior.
and Ior. and Ior.
89
incident angle for Ti material bombarded by incident angle for Cr material bombarded by
and Ior. and Ior.
incident angle for Fe material bombarded by incident angle for Co material bombarded by
and Ior. and Ior.
90
incident angle for Ni material bombarded by incident angle for Cu material bombarded by
and Ior. and Ior.
Figure 3-87: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Zr material
bombarded by D+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
91
incident angle for Mo material bombarded by incident angle for W material bombarded by
and Ior. and Ior.
Figure 3-90: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Re material bombarded by
D+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
92
Table 3-49: Parameters fitting of Tritium ions bombarding of ( beryllium,

Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum) target , are shown in figure (3-
91) − (3-105).
Be 1.122 0.28824 0.031101 0.0011403 1.695e-005 8.5082e-008
B 1.1338 0.26072 0.029435 0.0010917 1.388e-005 8.2711e-008
C 1.117 0.22199 0.025566 0.0009617 1.446e-005 7.2869e-008
AL 1.0398 0.08296 0.009774 0.0003833 6.183e-006 3.3092e-008
Si 1.0734 0.15614 0.017053 0.0006174 9.216e-005 4.6545e-008
Ti 1.0331 0.13523 0.01273 0.000434 0.253e-006 3.096e-008
Cr 1.0406 0.07914 0.008869 0.0003323 5.118e-005 2.6612e-008
Fe 1.028 0.06655 0.006741 0.0002432 3.784e-006 2.0135e-008
Co 1.0252 0.00268 0.001643 9.1 e-005 1.865e-006 1.1592e-008
Ni 1.0144 0.0604 0.006933 0.0002557 3.952e-006 2.0797e-008
Cu 1.024 0.06915 0.008123 0.0003011 4.617e-006 2.4096e-008
Zr 1.0251 0.07377 0.007111 0.0002504 3.709e-006 1.8762e-008
Mo 1.0067 0.01988 0.003417 0.0001553 2.742e-006 1.5581e-008
W 1.0171 0.05966 0.006591 0.0002325 2.384e-006 1.7083e-008
Re 1.0001 0.00285 0.000354 2.92e-005 7.905e-006 5.6395e-008
Target Y0 A X0 B
Be 0.62903 1173.1 80.3 131.84
B 0.78985 1470.2 80.808 146.44
C 0.85169 945.92 80.884 117.3
AL 0.85169 945.92 80.884 117.3
Si 0.82566 1161.9 80.512 189.3
Ti 0.72728 541.47 79.759 162.78
Cr 0.95764 406.84 78.044 131.53
Fe 0.91008 424.56 76.293 160.81
Co 0.94749 696.88 76.166 261.51
Ni 0.95908 436.31 75.68 173.66
Cu 1.0155 375.3 76.098 142.05
Zr 0.85241 336.39 79.596 152.69
Mo 0.98151 334.37 75.907 148.97
W 1.1084 61.852 76.244 34.502
Re 0.89882 165.36 71.37 130
93
bombarded by T+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
94
T+, with using two fit function polynomial T+, with using two fit function polynomial
and Ior. and Ior.
and Ior. and Ior.
95
and Ior. and Ior.
and Ior. and ior.
96
and Ior. and Ior.
incident angle for Zr material bombarded by incident angle for Mo material bombarded by
and Ior. and ior.
97
Figure 3-104: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for W material
98
Table 3-50: Parameters fitting of Helium ions bombarding of ( beryllium,

Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum) target, are shown in figure (3-
106−3-120).
Be 1.0593 0.15657 0.01836 0.0006969 1.087e-005 5.6975e-008
B 1.0479 0.13128 0.014452 0.0005484 8.442e-006 4.4228e-008
C 1.0493 0.09491 0.012037 0.0004872 7.929e-006 4.2627e-008
AL 1.0271 0.05761 0.006775 0.000261 4.231e-006 2.3122e-008
Si 1.04 0.09598 0.009936 0.0003547 5.346e-006 2.7575e-008
Ti 1.0174 0.07019 0.007575 0.0002807 4.341e-006 2.2764e-008
Cr 1.0109 0.02038 0.002819 0.0001188 21e-006 1.217e-008
Fe 1.0103 0.017549 0.002947 0.0001223 2.15e-006 1.2512e-008
Co 1.0064 0.002704 0.000999 4.94e-005 1.05e-006 6.8596e-008
Ni 1.0168 0.033921 0.003849 0.0001398 2.22e-006 1.214e-008
Cu 1.0099 0.014838 0.002246 9.0 e-005 1.59e-006 9.3658e-008
Zr 1.0302 0.060438 0.006214 0.0002235 3.39e-006 1.7648e-008
Mo 1.0011 0.004436 0.000921 5.3 e-005 1.15e-006 7.423e-008
W 1.0057 0.013458 0.001696 6.4e-005 1.06e-006 6.086e-008
Re 0.9942 0.031236 0.002642 8.6e-005 1.25e-006 6.604e-008
Target Y0 A X0 B
Be 0.84474 1193.9 77.625 169.98
B 0.8076 861.2 77.895 158.16
C 0.87149 871.13 77.874 156.12
AL 0.92356 626.25 75.868 190.99
Si 0.93615 476.8 77.718 145.87
Ti 0.91069 389.65 77.022 146.25
Cr 0.94261 378.97 73.982 199.47
Fe 0.93666 554.81 72.25 269.61
Co 0.94212 418.78 71.314 258.64
Ni 0.94195 393.07 72.769 236.34
Cu 0.95098 417.99 71.543 253.89
Zr 0.96481 228.54 76.532 115.72
Mo 0.92652 262.23 73.254 172.96
W 0.98297 125.77 69.017 150.86
Re 0.89791 95.916 68.509 133.9
99
bombarded by He+, with using two fit function polynomial and ior.
100
He+, with using two fit function polynomial He+, with using two fit function polynomial
and Ior. and Ior.
and Ior. and Ior.
101
and Ior. and Ior.
and Ior. and Ior.
102
and Ior. and Ior.

Figure 3-117: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Mo material bombarded by
incident angle for Zr material bombarded by He+, with using two fit function polynomial
He+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
and Ior.
103
Figure 3-119: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for W material bombarded by
He+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
Figure 3-120: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Re material bombarded
by He+, with using two fit function polynomial and Ior.
104
(3-7) Comparison among incident ions (H+ ,D+ ,T+ ,He+ )on the sputtering
yield vs. incident angle for mono-atomic materials:
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by Ior function provided by IGOR
software package:
𝐴
𝑦 = 𝑦0 + (𝑋−𝑋 2 +𝐵
…………...…………………………………………...(3-3)
0)
The (𝑦0 , 𝐴, 𝑋, 𝑋0 , 𝐵 ) are constants for (H+ ,D+,T+, He+) incident ions on 1000 A0 (Be,
B, C, Al, Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo ,W ,Re) width of target ,with 5000 ions number
,angle (100, 200,300,400,..,890) and incident ion energy (0.5,1 and 1.5 )keV .the tables(3-
51−3-56) and figures (3-121− 3-139) are illustrate this .
Table 3-51: Parameters fitting for Hydrogen ,Deuterium , Tritium, Helium incidence ion
bombarding of (Beryllium, Boron, Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon ,Titanium, Chromium, Iron)
target , with ion energy 0.5 keV , are shown figures (3-121−3-128).
Ion-Target Y0 A X0 B
H-Be 0.0176 26.157 81.57 120.97
D-Be 0.042209 49.31 80.974 109.98
T-Be 0.046422 86.57 80.3 131.84
He-Be 0.174 245.96 77.62 169.98
H-B 0.0267 4.39 77.69 56.619
D-B 0.054 29.69 76.39 126.46
T-B 0.065 59.36 76.96 170.24
He-B 0.177 122.85 74.96 187.16
H-C 0.02659 4.39 77.698 58.619
D-C 0.0437 20.299 76.94 117.29
T-C 0.06639 33.767 76.94 138.48
He-C 0.14748 94.45 74.45 149.38
H-AL 0.03469 0.4206 74.44 139.6
D-AL 0.0779 37.726 74.06 207.61
T-AL 0.1126 48.37 75.13 154.82
He-AL 0.288 131.11 71.035 254.07
H-Si 0.02259 2.744 75.72 66.407
D-Si 0.041311 19.42 75.458 173.09
T-Si 0.07079 19.481 76.38 94.364
He-Si 0.17557 72.213 74.379 219.5
H-Ti 0.00703 3.122 69.71 417.23
D-Ti 0.0265 4.461 74.46 121.35
T-Ti 0.038 18.92 70.47 313.54
He-Ti 0.0962 36.921 72.25 269.61
H-Cr 0.0008 104.03 59.15 4656.7
D- Cr 0.05619 5.92 69.2 94.431
T- Cr 0.087662 21.717 71.411 239.43
He- Cr 0.2138 34.3 66.43 208.27
H-Fe 0.0118 1.635 53.9498 237.24
D- Fe 0.0582 6.8849 68.86 161.19
T- Fe 0.0808 32.492 68.045 384.65
He- Fe 0.2143 33.199 66.69 232.96
105
Figure 3-121: sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Be material bombarded by
(H+,D+,T+,He+), with using Ior function.
106
Figure 3-122: sputtering yield vs. incident Figure 3-123: sputtering yield vs. incident
angle for B material bombarded by angle for C material bombarded by
(H+,D+,T+,He+), with using Ior function. (H+,D+,T+,He+), with using Ior function.
angle for Al material bombarded by angle for Si material bombarded by
107
angle for Ti material bombarded by angle for Cr material bombarded by
Figure 3-128: sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Fe material bombarded by
(H+,D+,T+,He+), with using Ior function.
108
Table 3-52: Parameters fitting for Hydrogen ,Deuterium , Tritium, Helium

incidence ion bombarding of (Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Zirconium,
Molybdenum, Tungsten, Rhenium ) target ,with ion energy 0.5 keV for
(Cobalt, Nickel, Copper) ,1keV for (Zirconium, Molybdenum) and1.5 keV for
(Tungsten, Rhenium ) target , are shown in figures (3-129) –(3-135).
Ion-Target Y0 A X0 B
H-Co 0.0111 4.484 70.97 644.25
D- Co 0.0593 6.156 67.4 122.53
T- Co 0.096 18.22 68.88 209.15
He- Co 0.2213 61.49 62.27 348.6
H-Ni 0.0146 0.4829 43.49 470.7
D-Ni 0.0626 15.84 69.927 363.2
T-Ni 0.10683 19.657 70.136 217.6
He-Ni 0.235 116.95 63.069 706.57
H-Cu 0.011149 0.573 78.14 62.265
D-Cu 0.0625 34.056 71.74 513.75
T-Cu 0.11779 31.155 68.185 257.18
He-Cu 0.2897 77.45 61.06 409.29
H- Zr 0.0057 0.3177 77.51 35.059
D- Zr 0.01607 2.247 77.43 64.128
T- Zr 0.0222 12.1 74.66 230
He- Zr 0.0766 13.9 74.665 143.06
H- Mo 0.0054 1.91 70.77 263.66
D- Mo 0.0248 76.985 76.98 78.93
T- Mo 0.038 9.4416 73.114 164.81
He- Mo 0.10255 17.97 72.43 185.71
H-W 0.0034 0.17 79.86 65.27
D-W 0.016721 0.905 75.196 65.096
T-W 0.0285 1.595 76.244 34.502
He-W 0.069 11.919 70.19 210.25
H- Re 0.0032 0.007 79.31 30.79
D- Re 0.017 4.007 69.39 257.29
T- Re 0.0306 5.746 71.48 133.07
He- Re 0.0799 17.52 69.012 242.5
109
Figure 3-129: sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Figure 3-130: sputtering yield vs. incident
Co material bombarded by (H+,D+,T+,He+), with angle for Ni material bombarded by
using Ior function. (H+,D+,T+,He+), with using Ior function.
angle for Cu material bombarded by angle for Zr material bombarded by
110
angle for Mo material bombarded by angle for W material bombarded by
(H+,D+,T+,He+), with using ior function. (H+,D+,T+,He+), with using ior function.
Figure 3-135: sputtering yield vs. incident angle for Re material bombarded by
(H+,D+,T+,He+), with using ior function.
111
Table 3-53: Parameters fitting for Hydrogen incidence ion bombarding of

(Beryllium , Boron, Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon ,Titanium, Chromium, Iron,
Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Rhenium) target,
with ion energy 1.5 keV. are shown in figures (3-136).
Target Y0 A X0 B
Be .0176 26.157 81.57 120.97
B .01509 21.35 81.27 140.32
C .01163 17.402 81.38 166.79
AL .02896 18.669 79.737 118.17
Si .01818 11.298 81.437 137.98
Ti .011154 4.7 78.687 137.96
Cr .0277 7.419 77.87 122.5
Fe .02793 6.2048 76.77 110.94
Co .0311 5.164 76.194 78.95
Ni .00047 13.311 47.789 4058.1
Cu .036417 10.74 76.602 143.4
Zr .002657 3.06 65.5 580.39
Mo .0063 1.84 77.05 141.92
W .0104 .75 75.9 49.93
Re .03537 4.78 75.9 60.827
Table 3-54: Parameters fitting for Deuterium incidence ion bombarding of

with ion energy 1.5 keV . are shown in figures (3-137).
Target Y0 A X0 B
Be .0422096 49.31 80.97 109.86
B .0349 29.72 81.37 84.45
C .0217 37.77 81.78 142.6
AL .054 62.3 78.6 193.84
Si .04 24.37 80.45 109.35
Ti .024 16.805 79.83 163.48
Cr .059 26.85 77.67 162.48
Fe .0677 19.905 77.6 119.79
Co .0668 25.26 76.0194 139.72
Ni .076 24.44 76.15 136.7
Cu .061 66.97 74.8 312.99
Zr .0618 3.92 79.4 100.4
Mo .024 5.89 75.19 104
W .0177 .505 75.32 30.052
Re .017 4.92 70.89 195.07
112
Figure 3-136: sputtering yield vs. incident angle for (Be ,B ,C ,AL ,Si ,Ti ,Cr
,Fe ,Co ,Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo, W ,Re) material bombarded by H+ incident ions .
,Fe ,Co ,Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo, W ,Re) material bombarded by D+ incident ions .
113
Table 3-55: Parameters fitting for Tritium incidence ion bombarding of

Target Y0 A X0 B
Be .0464 86.5 80.3 131.84
B .0361 67.3 80.8 146.44
C .039 43.51 80.88 117.3
AL .079 102.18 78.53 205.76
Si .045 63.67 80.51 189.3
Ti .038 28.37 79.7 162.78
Cr .093 39.7 78.7 131.53
Fe .094 44.23 76.29 160.81
Co .0966 71.08 76.166 261.51
Ni .115 52.61 75.68 173.66
Cu .145 53.819 76.098 142.05
Zr .0289 11.43 79.89 182.89
Mo .03867 13.174 75.9 148.97
W .0285 1.59 76.24 34.5
Re .036 5.622 71.37 130
Table 3-56: Parameters fitting for Helium incidence ion bombarding of

Target Y0 A X0 B
Be .174 245.9 77.62 169.98
B .15 160.01 77.89 158.16
C .125 126.86 77.8 156.12
AL .277 187.8 75.86 190.99
Si .199 101.65 77.71 145.87
Ti .124 53.14 77.02 146.26
Cr .254 102.47 73.98 199.47
Fe .235 140.51 72.25 269.61
Co .293 130.33 71.31 258.64
Ni .318 132.86 72.76 236.3
Cu .375 164.86 71.54 253.89
Zr .0852 20.2 76.53 115.72
Mo .1095 30.99 73.25 172.96
W .068 8.802 69.01 150.86
Re .086 9.22 68.5 138.59
114
,Fe ,Co ,Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo, W ,Re) material irradiated by T+ incident ions .
,Fe ,Co ,Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo, W ,Re) material bombarded by He+ incident ions .
115
(3-8) Theoretical Models :
(3-8-1) Angular sputtering yield formula:

Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by[126,127]:
1
……….. (2 – 30)𝑌(𝐸0 , 𝜃) = 𝑌 (𝐸0 , 0)[cos 𝜃]−𝑓 exp[ 𝑓 [1 − ] sin(𝜂) ]
cos 𝜃
and f is a parameter that is based upon atomic spatial moments ,
𝜋
with 𝜂 = − 𝜃𝑜𝑝𝑡 , for (H+ ,D+,T+, He+) incident ions on 1000 A0 (4Be,
2
5 B, 6 C, 13 Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re) width
of target ,with 5000 ions number ,angle (100, 200,300,400,..,890) and incident
ion energy 1.5 keV .the tables(3-57) − (3-60) and figures (3-140) − (3-199)
are illustrate this .
Table 3-57: Parameters fitting for Hydrogen incidence ion bombarding of

are shown in figures (3-140) − ( 3-154).
Target f θopt
Be 2.2 81.98
B 1.732 83.932
C 1.232 85.432
Al 1.672 82.352
Si 1.094 85.352
Ti 1.194 82.84
Cr 0.85 82.94
Fe 0.708 83.54
Co 0.705 84.14
Ni 0.965 81.94
Cu 1.2965 80.98
Zr 1.14 81.099
Mo 0.454 85.098
W 0.254 80.78
Re 0.454 80.78
116
bombarded by H+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
117
incident angle for B material bombarded by H + incident angle for C material bombarded by
with angular sputtering yield formula. H+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
H+ with angular sputtering yield formula. H+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
118
incident angle for Fe material bombarded by H+ incident angle for Co material bombarded by
with angular sputtering yield formula. H+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
119
Figure 3-151: Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-15

incident angle for Zr material bombarded by incident ang
H+ with angular sputtering yield formula. H+ with ang
120
121
Table 3-58: Parameters fitting for Deuterium incidence ion bombarding of

are shown in figures (3-155) − (3-169).
Target f θopt
Be 2.0194 79.376
B 1.894 84.23
C 1.887 83.32
Al 1.763 82.54
Si 1.45 83.498
Ti 1.36 82.8
Cr 1.35 81.9
Fe 1.15 81.299
Co 1.24 81.55
Ni 1.25 81.5
Cu 1.295 81.093
Zr 0.74 81.94
Mo 1.084 81.19
W 0.37 83.887
Re 0.48 81.397
122
bombarded by D+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
123
Figure 3-156 Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-157: Normalized sputtering yield vs.
incident angle for B material bombarded by D+ incident angle for C material bombarded by D+
with angular sputtering yield formula. with angular sputtering yield formula.
Figure 3-158: Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-159

incident angle for Al material bombarded by incident angl
D+ with angular sputtering yield formula. with angular
124
Figure 3-160: Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-161 : Normalized sputtering yield vs.
incident angle for Ti material bombarded by D+ incident angle for Cr material bombarded by D+
D+ with angular sputtering yield formula. D+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
125
incident angle for Ni material bombarded by incident angle for Cu material bombarded by D+
D+ with angular sputtering yield formula. with angular sputtering yield formula.
incident angle for Zr material bombarded by incident angle for Mo material bombarded by
D+ with angular sputtering yield formula. D+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
126
Figure 3-168 : Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for W material
127
Table 3-59: Parameters fitting for Tritium incidence ion bombarding of

are shown in figures (3-170− 3-184).
Target f θopt
Be 1.98 82.897
B 2.198 82.57
C 1.77 83.87
AL 1.87 80.97
Si 1.78 83.17
Ti 1.03 86.57
Cr 1.33 81.77
Fe 1.65 81.97
Co 1.63 78.77
Ni 1.47 79.57
Cu 1.45 79.82
Zr 0.8 85.95
Mo 1.198 81.54
W 0.78 82.44
Re 0.88 81.14
128
bombarded by T+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
129
Figure 3-171: Normalized sputtering yield Figure 3-172: Normalized sputtering yield vs.
vs. incident angle for B material bombarded incident angle for C material bombarded by T+
by T+ with angular sputtering yield formula. with angular sputtering yield formula.
incident angle for Al material bombarded by T+ incident angle for Si material bombarded by T+
130
incident angle for Ti material bombarded by T+ incident angle for Cr material bombarded by T+
Figure 3-177: Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-178: Normalized sputtering yield vs.+
incident angle for Fe material bombarded by incident angle for Co material bombarded by T
T+ with angular sputtering yield formula. with angular sputtering yield formula.
131
incident angle for Ni material bombarded by T+ incident angle for Cu material bombarded by
with angular sputtering yield formula. T+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
incident angle for Zr material bombarded by T+ incident angle for Mo material bombarded by
with angular sputtering yield formula. T+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
132
Figure 3-183: Normalized sputtering yield vs. incident angle for W material bombarded
by T+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
bombarded by T+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
133
Table 3-60: Parameters fitting for Helium incidence ion bombarding of

are shown in figures (3-185 −3- 199).
Target f θopt
Be 2.47 79,12
B 1.89 81.65
C 1.99 80.76
AL 1.74 79.3
Si 1.54 80.5
Ti 1.28 81.8
Cr 1.3 78.8
Fe 1.9 75.8
Co 1.49 76.1
Ni 1.38 77.2
Cu 1.27 79
Zr 1.07 80.65
Mo 1.1 79.85
W 0.79 79.9
Re 0.69 78
134
bombarded by He+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
135
incident angle for B material bombarded by He+ incident angle for C material bombarded by
with angular sputtering yield formula. He+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
incident angle for Al material bombarded by He+ incident angle for Si material bombarded by
136
incident angle for Ti material bombarded by He+ incident angle for Cr material bombarded by
Figure 3-192: Normalized sputtering yield vs. Figure 3-193: Normalized sputtering yield
incident angle for Fe material bombarded by vs. incident angle for Co material
He+ with angular sputtering yield formula. bombarded by He+ with angular sputtering
yield formula.
137
He+ with angular sputtering yield formula. He+ with angular sputtering yield formula.
Figure 3-196: Normalized sputtering yield Figure 3-197: Normalized sputtering yield
vs. incident angle for Zr material bombarded vs. incident angle for Mo material
by He+ with angular sputtering yield formula. bombarded by He+ with angular sputtering
yield formula.
138
139
3-8-2 Yamamura empirical equation for the ion energy:

equation for this studies are given by[123]:
𝛼 ∗ 𝑄 𝐾 𝑆𝑛 (𝜖)
………………... (2 –21)𝑌(𝐸) = 0.42 [1 − (𝐸𝑡ℎ /𝐸)1/2 ]2.8
𝑈𝑠 [1+0.35 𝑈𝑠 𝑆𝑒 (𝜖)
(Be,B,C,Al,Si,Ti,Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo ,W ,Re) target bombarded by
(H+ ,D+,T+, He+) , figures (3-200− 3-219) are illustrate this .
Figure 3-200: Sputtering yield as a function of H+ energy for (Be,B,C,AL) material

using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-201: Sputtering yield as a function of H+ energy for (Si ,Ti ,Cr, Fe ) material,
140
Figure 3-202: Sputtering yield as a function of H+ energy for (Co ,Ni ,Cu,
Zr) material ,using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-203: Sputtering yield as a function of H+ energy for (Mo ,W ,Re)

material, using Yamamura empirical equation.
141
Figure 3-204: Sputtering yield as a function of D+energy for (Be, B,C, Al)
Figure 3-205: Sputtering yield as a function of D+ energy for (Si ,Ti ,Cr,
Fe ) material, using Yamamura empirical equation.
142
Figure 3-206: Sputtering yield as a function of D+energy for (Co ,Ni ,Cu,
Zr) material , using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-207: Sputtering yield as a function of D+ energy for (Mo ,W ,Re)

143
Figure 3-208: Sputtering yield as a function of T+ energy for (Be, B,C,

AL) material, using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-209: Sputtering yield as a function of T+ energy for (Si ,Ti ,Cr,
Fe ) material, using Yamamura empirical equation.
144
Figure 3-210: Sputtering yield as a function of T+ energy for (Co ,Ni ,Cu,
Zr) material, using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-211: Sputtering yield as a function of T+ energy for (Mo ,W ,Re)

material , using Yamamura empirical equation.
145
Figure 3-212: Sputtering yield as a function of He+ energy for (Be, B,C,
AL) material, using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-213: Sputtering yield as a function of He+ energy for (Si ,Ti
,Cr, Fe ) material , using Yamamura empirical equation.
146
Figure 3-214: Sputtering yield as a function of He+ energy for (Co ,Ni
,Cu, Zr) material , using Yamamura empirical equation.
Figure 3-215: Sputtering yield as a function of He+ energy for (Mo ,W

,Re) material , using Yamamura empirical equation.
147
Figure 3-216: Sputtering yield as a function of H+energy for (4Be, 5B, 6C,
13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re) material ,
Figure 3-217: Sputtering yield as a function of D+ energy for (4Be, 5B,

6C, 13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re) material
, using Yamamura empirical equation.
148
Figure 3-218: Sputtering yield as a function of T+ energy for (4Be, 5B, 6C,
13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re) material ,
Figure 3-219: Sputtering yield as a function of He+ energy for (4Be, 5B, 6C,
13Al, 14Si, 22Ti, 24Cr, 26Fe, 27Co, 28Ni, 29Cu, 40Zr, 42Mo, 74W, 75Re) material
, using Yamamura empirical equation.
149
(3-8-3 ) Theoretical equation to fit TRIM data :
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by[156]:

−𝛽 𝐸 2
𝑓(𝐸) = 𝑘 exp (
𝐸−𝐸𝑡ℎ
) − 𝛾 log (𝐸 ) …………………………….. (2 – 36)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
where 𝑘, 𝛽, 𝐸𝑡ℎ , 𝛾, 𝐸𝑚𝑎𝑥 the constants ,for (Be, B, C, Al, Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, Co,
Ni, Cu, Zr, Mo ,W ,Re) target bombarded by (H+, D+,T+, He+) incident ions
with 5000 ions number and 1000A0 width target ,angle is 00 ,the tables(3-
61) − (3-64) and figures (3-220) − ( 3-279) are illustrate this .
Table 3-61: Parameters fitting for Hydrogen incidence ion bombarding of (Beryllium ,
Boron, Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon ,Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper,
Zirconium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Rhenium) target, are shown in figures (3-219 3-233).
Target k β Eth ɤ Emax
Be 0.044987 17.016 14.398 1.0984 200
B 0.032384 87.897 27.8119 0.68887 110
C 0.028868 67.995 35.291 0.70108 80
AL 0.043997 87.428 30.291 0.57595 350
Si 0.029769 137.66 45.8114 0.42084 130
Ti 0.022072 477.36 78.729 0.45663 60
Cr 0.059655 457.34 65.985 0.33988 200
Fe 0.059979 487.74 68.37 0.35826 175
Co 0.073656 487.35 87.32 0.34895 270
Ni 0.073547 387.57 89.68 0.34256 100
Cu 0.099689 487.37 74.75 0.42783 420
Zr 0.023396 887.1 190.55 0.34788 70
Mo 0.042529 887.78 220.64 0.42586 104
W 0.032136 1780.6 500.2 0.48007 200
Re 0.055986 2480.3 400.53 0.38995 90
150
Figure 3-220: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Be material bombarded by H +
ions with Theoretical equation .
151
Figure 3-221: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy Figure 3-222: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy
for B material bombarded by H+ ions with for C material bombarded by H+ ions with
Theoretical equation . Theoretical equation .
Figure 3-223: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy Figure 3-224: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for
for Al material bombarded by H+ ions with Si material bombarded by H+ ions with
152
Figure 3-225: Sputtering yield vs. ion Figure 3-226: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for
energy for Ti material bombarded by H+ Cr material bombarded by H+ ions with Theoretical
ions with Theoretical equation . equation .
for Fe material bombarded by H+ ions with Co material bombarded by H+ ions with
153
for Ni material bombarded by H+ ions with for Cu material bombarded by H+ ions with
Figure 3-231: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Figure 3-232: Sputtering yield vs. ion
Zr material bombarded by H+ ions with energy for Mo material bombarded by H+
Theoretical equation . ions with Theoretical equation .
154
Figure 3-233: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for W material bombarded by H + ions
with Theoretical equation .
Figure 3-234: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Re material bombarded by H+ ions
155
Table 3-62: Parameters fitting for Deuterium incidence ion bombarding of (Beryllium ,
Zirconium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Rhenium) target, are shown in figures (3-234, 3-248).
Be 0.11863 20.988 30.185 0.9974 380
B 0.078675 16.547 44.812 0.5945 170
C 0.055946 73.675 0.95469 0.49965 180
AL 0.09746 100.48 78.835 0.54146 260
Si 0.052583 80.686 26.999 0.655623 290
Ti 0.048863 330.22 0.38456 0.6578 400
Cr 0.10009 370.68 40.474 0.7253 570
Fe 0.11998 400.78 90.856 0.57468 380
Co 0.10728 204.28 148.83 0.58245 369
Ni 0.1392 360.28 0.83224 0.42963 200
Cu 0.17877 440.15 0.76578 0.45365 170
Zr 0.028863 400.22 100.69 0.53466 450
Mo 0.039677 420.34 110.57 0.54645 430
W 0.03689 820.34 280.78 0.41332 460
Re 0.057967 880.66 350.89 0.33233 180
Figure 3-235: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Be material bombarded by D+ ions
156
for B material bombarded by D+ ions with C material bombarded by D+ ions with
.
Figure 3-238: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Figure 3-239: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for
Al material bombarded by D+ ions with Si material bombarded by D+ ions with
. .
157
for Ti material bombarded by D+ ions with for Cr material bombarded by D+ ions with
Figure 3-242: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Figure 3-243: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy
Fe material bombarded by D+ ions with for Co material bombarded by D+ ions with
158
for Ni material bombarded by D+ ions with Cu material bombarded by D+ ions with
for Zr material bombarded by D+ ions with Mo material bombarded by D+ ions with
159
Figure 3-248: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for W material bombarded by D + ions with
Theoretical equation .
Figure 3-249: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Re material bombarded by D + ions with
160
Table 3-63: Parameters fitting for Tritium incidence ion bombarding of (Beryllium ,
Zirconium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Rhenium) target, are shown in figures (3-249 3- 263).

Be 0.10997 8.7468 20.879 0.58773 220
B 0.084283 16.865 21.745 0.66586 250
C 0.07586 39.685 8.9335 0.5777 210
AL 0.14411 85.261 29.573 0.45752 250
Si 0.081765 36.922 32.736 0.4429 230
Ti 0.077668 199.92 15.444 0.39661 130
Cr 0.17967 220.84 23.555 0.4448 140
Fe 0.18632 260.84 24.678 0.4384 160
Co 0.2887 230.48 25.786 0.38931 75
Ni 0.30968 330.49 25.886 0.38931 80
Cu 0.34975 350.62 22.836 0.3993 90
Zr 0.069555 410.56 30.816 0.40682 130
Mo 0.091435 420.54 80.789 0.42693 178
W 0.07993 950.54 90.117 0.42566 280
Re 0.15994 1200.8 90.182 0.38734 100
Figure 3-250: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Be material bombarded by T + ions with
161
for B material bombarded by T+ ions with C material bombarded by T+ ions with
for AL material bombarded by T+ ions with for Si material bombarded by T+ ions with
162
Figure 3-255: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Figure 3-256: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for
Ti material bombarded by T+ ions with Cr material bombarded by T+ ions with
Fe material bombarded by T+ ions with for Co material bombarded by T+ ions with
163
Figure 3-259: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy Figure 3-260: Sputtering yield vs. ion
for Ni material bombarded by T+ ions with energy for Cu material bombarded by T+
Zr material bombarded by T+ ions with for Mo material bombarded by T+ ions with
164
Figure 3-263: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for W material bombarded by T+ ions with
Figure 3-264: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Re material bombarded by T + ions
165
Table 3-64: Parameters fitting for Helium incidence ion bombarding of (Beryllium , Boron,
Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon ,Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper,
Zirconium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Rhenium) target, are shown in figures (3-264 3-278).

Be 0.29986 24.588 1.0536 0.53245 410
B 0.24777 30.54 0.57768 0.59369 455
C 0.17547 25.479 0.78159 0.58865 385
AL 0.39988 70.819 31.912 0.48833 500
Si 0.2242 60 7.7876 0.3876 300
Ti 0.17886 230.22 2.9116 0.49998 580
Cr 0.37995 230.22 0.86159 0.42 360
Fe 0.42886 300.22 1.9516 0.59477 650
Co 0.45898 270.89 0.51279 0.48788 600.54
Ni 0.5001 281.77 0.043678 0.43984 510
Cu 0.60886 280.22 1.4676 0.46634 500
Zr 0.13886 410.22 0.46159 0.43489 440
Mo 0.28886 590.22 1.9786 0.26622 80
W 0.14959 680.66 110.65 0.43432 1000
Re 0.2696 1010.8 0.6654 0.29875 200
Figure 3-265: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Be material bombarded by He + ions
166
Figure 3-266: Sputtering yield vs. ion Figure 3-267: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy
energy for B material bombarded by He + for C material bombarded by He + ions with
ions with Theoretical equation . Theoretical equation .
for AL material bombarded by He + ions with Si material bombarded by He + ions with
. 167
for Ti material bombarded by He + ions with for Cr material bombarded by He + ions with
Fe material bombarded by He + ions with for Co material bombarded by He + ions with
Theoretical equation . Theoretical equation . 168
Ni material bombarded by He + ions with for Cu material bombarded by He + ions with
Figure 3-276: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Figure 3-277: Sputtering yield vs. ion
Zr material bombarded by He + ions with energy for Mo material bombarded by He +
169
Figure 3-278: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for W material bombarded by He + ions
Figure 3-279: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for Re material bombarded by He + ions
170
(3-8-3-1) Some experimental data fitted with TRIM:

TRIM data and the experimental data for AL ,Ni, Cu and Mo material bombarded by H+
ions constants fitting equation for this studies are given by[156]:
−𝛽 𝐸 2
𝑓(𝐸) = 𝑘 exp (𝐸−𝐸 ) − 𝛾 log (𝐸 ) …………………….…………………….. (2 – 34)
𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑥
with 5000 ions number ,angle is 00 ,the tables(3-64) and figures (3-280− 3-23) are
illustrate this . The experimental data of monatomic solid are from [159].
Table 3-65: Parameters fitting for H+ incidence ion bombarding of AL ,Ni, Cu and Mo.
AL 0.0373 180.22 309.98 0.6596 240
Ni 0.1733 770.87 220.98 0.6396 130
Cu 0.14963 780.22 30.712 0.634 200
Mo 0.02333 1000.9 110.98 0.4396 120
Figure 3-280: sputtering yields vs. ion energy for experimental data and theoretical
(TRIM ), of AL bombarded by H+ ions with Theoretical equation .
Figure 3-281: sputtering yields vs. ion energy for experimental data and theoretical (TRIM
), of Ni bombarded by H+ ions with Theoretical equation .
171
Figure 3-282: sputtering yields vs. ion energy for experimental data and theoretical
(TRIM ), of Cu bombarded by H+ ions with Theoretical equation.
Figure 3-283: sputtering yields vs. ion energy experimental data and theoretical (TRIM
), of Mo bombarded by H+ ions with Theoretical equation.
172
(3-9) Mesh normalized sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident angle:
Normalized sputtering yield as a function ion energy(1,2,3,…..10)keV and

incident angle (100,200,300 ,……,890), mesh graphic showing sputtering yield
vs. ion energy and incident angle. for Hydrogen, Deuterium, Tritium and
Helium incidence ion bombarding of (Beryllium , Boron, Carbon, Aluminum, Silicon
,Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum, Tungsten,
Rhenium) target, show in figures(3-284) – (3-298).
Figure 3-284 mesh showing normalized sputtering Figure 3-285: Mesh showing normalized
yield vs. ion energy and incident angle for Be Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and
material bombarded by H+ ions. incident angle for B material bombarded
by H+ ions.
Figure 3-286: mesh showing normalized Figure 3-287: mesh showing normalized
Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident
angle for C material bombarded by H+ ions. angle for AL material bombarded by H+ ions.
173
Figure 3-289: mesh showing normalized

Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident
angle for Ti material bombarded by D+
angle for Si material bombarded by D+ ions.
ions.
Figure 3-290: mesh showing normalized Figure 3-291: mesh showing

Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident normalized Sputtering yield vs. ion
angle for Cr material bombarded by D+ ions. energy and incident angle for Fe
material bombarded by D+ ions.
174
Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and
angle for Co material bombarded by T+ ions. incident angle for Ni material bombarded
by T+ ions.

Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and
incident angle for Zr material
angle for Cu material bombarded by T+ ions. +
bombarded by T ions.
175
Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident
angle for Mo material bombarded by He+ ions. angle for W material bombarded by He+
ions.
Figure 3-298: mesh showing normalized Sputtering yield vs. ion energy and incident
angle for Re material bombarded by He+ ions.
176
(3-10) Sputtering yield as a function surface binding energy:
Constants fitting equation for this studies are given by:

𝑓𝑦 = a + bx …………………………………………..…………………(3-4)
for Be and Co material bombarded by H+ and He+ ions ,with 5000 ions number ,
1000A0 width target ,angle (00 , 600 , 700 ) and ion energy 1KeV.the tables(3-66)
and figures (3-299 and 300) are illustrate this .
Table 3-66: Parameters fitting sputtering yield vs. surface binding energy for
H+ and He+ incidence ion bombarding of Be and Co material .
Target Ion θ0 a b
Be H+ 00 0.060939 -0.00897
Be H+ 600 0.14202 -0.020686
Co He+ 00 0.77744 -0.10103
Co He+ 700 1.3816 -0.17023
Figure 3-299: Sputtering yield vs. surface binding energy of target material Be bombarded
by H + ions for (00 , 600) ion incident angles.
Figure 3-300: Sputtering yield vs. surface binding energy of target material Co bombarded
by He + ions for (00 , 700) ion incident angles.
177
(3-11) Sputtering yield as a function target atomic number:
Sputtering yield vs. target atomic number for various incident angles(00 ,500
,800) , Hydrogen incidence ion bombarding of (Beryllium , Boron, Carbon, Aluminum,
Silicon ,Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Zirconium, Molybdenum,
Tungsten, Rhenium) target, with ion energy 1.5 keV, width target 1000A0 and
5000 ions number for Hydrogen figures (3-301) is illustrate this .
Figure 3-301: Sputtering yield vs. atomic number target for various incident
angles bombarded by H+ ions.
178
(3-12) Sputtering yield vs. sputtering threshold energy:
relation between sputtering yield and sputtering threshold energy from ( Be,
B, C , Al , Si , Ti , Cr , Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) target materials
bombarded by ( H + , D+ , T+ , He+ ) ions, with 5000 ions number ,incident
angle is 00 and 1000 A0 width of target . figures (3-302− 3-305) are illustrate
this .
Figure (3-302 ): sputtering yield vs. sputtering threshold energy for ( Be, B,
C , Al , Si , Ti , Cr , Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) target materials
bombarded by D+ ions.
179
Figure (3-303 ): sputtering yield vs. sputtering threshold energy from (Be, B, C , Al , Si ,
Ti , Cr , Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) materials bombarded by T + ions.
Figure (3-304 ): sputtering yield vs. sputtering threshold energy for ( Be, B, C , Al , Si , Ti
, Cr , Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) target materials bombarded by He+ ions.
180
(3-13) sputtering threshold energy vs. atomic number and

atomic mass for target:
The relation between sputtering threshold energy and atomic number on the
one hand and on other hand with atomic mass of ( Be, B, C , Al , Si , Ti , Cr ,
Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) target materials bombarded by ( H + , D+ ,
T+ , He+ ) ions, with 5000 ions number ,incident angle is 00 and 1000 A0 width
of target . figures (3-306 𝑎𝑛𝑑 307) are illustrate this .
Figure (3-305 ): sputtering threshold energy vs. atomic number for ( Be, B, C , Al , Si , Ti
, Cr , Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) target materials bombarded by (H + , D+ , T + ,
He+ ) ions.
181
Figure (3-306 ): sputtering threshold energy vs. atomic mass for ( Be, B, C , Al , Si , Ti ,
Cr , Fe, Co , Ni, Cu , Zr , Mo , W , Re ) target materials bombarded by (H + , D+ , T + ,
He+ ) ions.
(3-14) Comparison among theoretical models of sputtering
yield:
Many models for sputter yield as a function of ion energy have been
developed. Sigmund and semi – empirical Formulas of Bohdansky,
Yamamura and Yamamura & Tawara which based upon Sigmund’s
theoretical construct. Comparison among sputtering yield models , figures (3-
308) − ( 3-322) are illustrate this
Figure 3-307: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Be
material bombarded by H+ ions.
182
Figure 3-308: Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for B

Figure 3-309: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for C
183
Figure 3-310: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for AL
Figure 3-311: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Si
184
Figure 3-312: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Ti
Figure 3-313: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Cr
185
Figure 3-314: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Fe
Figure 3-315: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Co
material bombarded by T+ ions.
186
Figure 3-316: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Ni
Figure 3-317: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Cu
187
Figure 3-318: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Zr
Figure 3-319: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Mo
material bombarded by He+ ions.
188
Figure 3-320: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for W
Figure 3-321: . Sputtering yield vs. ion energy for various models for Re
189
REFERENCES
REFERENCES:
[1]. D . M .Mattox, ( 2003 ). " The Foundations of Vacuum Coating

Technology", Noyes Publications, New York. pp. 11-19.
[2]. W. R .Grove , 1952. " On the Electrochemical Polarity of Gases ",
Philosophical Transactions Royal Society,(London), vol. 142, pp 87.
[3] . B. J. Stocker, (1961)."Cathode Sputtering in Inert-gas Glow
Discharges", British Journal of Applied Physics ,Vol. 12, pp. 465-468,
[4]. F. Keywell , (1955)."Measurements and Collision-Radiation Damage
Theory of High Vacuum Sputtering ",Physical Review, Vol. 97, no. 6, pp.
1611-1619,
[5]. P. Sigmund, (1981)." Sputtering by Ion Bombardment: Theoretical
Concepts", Sputtering by Particle Bombardment I, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
[6]. R. Behrisch, (1981),"Sputtering by Particle Bombardment I: Physical
Sputtering of Single-Element Solids", vol.47, pp17 of Topics in Applied
Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[7].P.D. Townsend, J.C. Kelly, and N.E.W. Hartley. (1976). "Ion
Implantation, Sputtering and Their Applications". Academic Press, New
York.
[8]. C. Alexander, (1999). "The Neutral Source for the Exosphere of
Ganymede from Sputtering and Sublimation Processes Combined",
American Geophysical Union Fall meeting, San Francisco, CA,
[9]. R.A. Baragiola, (2004). "Sputtering: Survey of Observations and
Derived Principles", Philosophical Transactions Royal Society of London
A., Vol. 362, pp. 29-53.
[10] G. McCracken, P. Stott. (2005). "Fusion – the energy of the
universe" ,Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington,
[11]. The ITER project. EFDA, European Fusion Development
Agreement (2006).
[12]. Gan, Y. Hernandez (2014). "Thermal Discrete Element Analysis of
EU Solid Breeder Blanket Subjected to Neutron Irradiation". Fusion
Science and Technology 66 (1): 83–90.
[13]. C.M. Braams, and P.E. Stott, (2010). “Nuclear Fusion: Half a
Century of Magnetic Confinement Fusion Research”. Taylor & Francis.
pp. 250–. ISBN 978-0-7503-0705-5.
REFERENCES
[14]. A. Pasternak, (2000) . "Global Energy Futures and Human

Development": A Framework for Analysis, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
[15]. J. GOLDEMBERG, (2001). "Energy and Human Well-being",
United Nations Development Programs Report, New York.
[16]. H .NASERI, (2000)."The relationship between energy and human
Development ", IAOS Conf . on Statistics, Development and Human
Rights, Session C-Pa 6e, Montreux.
[17]. V. SMIL , Energy at the Crossroads, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
(2003).vol.7.pp 2.
[18]. R. A. DIAS, C. A. MATTOS and J. A. P. BALESTIERI,(2006).
,"The limits of human development and the use of energy and natural
resources ",Energy Policy vol.34, pp1026–1031.
[19]. Naval Research Laboratory, Plasma Physics Division, NRL Plasma
Formulary (www.ppd.nrl.navy.mil/nrlformulary,( 2000).
[20]. ENDF database at the IAEA: (http://www- nds .iaea .org /exfor/
e4explorer.htm).
[21]. W. M. NEVINS and R. SWAIN, (2000)."The thermonuclear fusion
rate coefficient for p-11B reactions", Nucl. Fusion vol.40 ,pp865.
[22]. J.WESSON, Tokamaks , Oxford University Press, New York ISBN
0-19-856328-0,(1987).
[23]. L. A. ARTISIMOVICH, (1964). "Controlled Thermonuclear
Reactions", ISBN.
[24]. K. MYAMOTO, (1976)."Plasma Physics for Nuclear Fusion", MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
[25]. T.J. DOLAN, Fusion Research, Pergamon Press, New York (1982).
[26].M. WATAKANI, Stellarator and Heliotron Devices, Oxford
University .Press, New York, ISBN-0-19-507831-4, (1998).
[27]. H. Bolt, V. Barabash, F. Federici, J. Linke, A. Loarte, J. Roth, K.
Sato, J. Nucl. Mater. Vol.307, pp 43 ,(2002).
[28].www.resources.edb.gov.hk/physics/articleIE/starmaker/starmaker_e.
htm.
[29]. J. D. Lawson, "Proceedings of the Physical Society". Energy Policy
,vol. 70 (1957) pp 6.
[30]. R. O. Bangerter, (1996)."Fusion Engineering and Design" Nucl.
Fusion, vol. 27, pp 32-33 ,
[31]. I. M. Edward, Nuclear Fusion vol.49, pp22,(2009).
REFERENCES
[32]. M. Swan, M. A. Abdou, (2006)."Physics and technology conditions

for attaining tritium self-sufficiency for the DT fuel cycle", Fusion Eng ,
pp(8–14) vol.1131.
[33]. R. King, C. Challis, D. Ciric, "Fusion Engineering and Design"
Vol74 ,pp 455, (2005).
[34]. ITER. http://www.iter.org.
[35]. G. T. Hoang, J. Jacquinot, (2004). "Controlled fusion: the next step"
, Physics World .
[36]. J. Rapp, G. DE Temmerman, (2011). " PLASMA-FACING
MATERIALS RESEARCH FOR FUSION REACTORS AT FOM
RIJNHUIZEN ",Rom. Journ. Phys., Vol. 56, Supplement, P. 30–35,
Bucharest.
[37]. M. Rubel, J. Nucl. Matter. Vol.1185, pp 266 (1999).
[38]. J. R. Gilleland et al., Nuclear Fusion,vol. 29,pp7, (1989).
[39]. R. K. Janev, A. Miyahara. Plasma material interaction issues in
fusion-reactor design and status of the database. Nucl Fusion
vol.1,pp123–138, (1991).
[40]. S. ATZENI, "The Physics of Inertial Fusion ,Beam Plasma
Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense Matter", Oxford University
Press, Oxford ,ISBN 0 19 856264 0, (2004)
[41]. R. Matera, G. Federici. "Design requirements for plasma facing
materials in ITER". J Nucl Mater ,vol. 25,pp233–237, (1996).
[42]. A. Hassanein. Prediction of material erosion and lifetime during
major plasma instabilities in tokamak devices. Fusion Eng Des
vol.60,pp527–546, (2002).
[43]. P. Wienhold, V. Philipps, A. Kirschner, A. Huber, J. von Seggern,
H.G. Esser, D. Hildebrandt, M. Mayer, M. Rubel, W. Schneider, Journal
of Nuclear Materials ,vol. 311,pp313-316, (2003).
[44]. M. Rubel, V. Philipps, T. Tanabe, P. Wienhold, M. Freisinger, J.
Linke, J.v. Seggern, E. Wessel, Physica Scripta, vol.20,pp 23-250
(2003).
[45]. C. Grisolia, et al., Fusion Engineering and Design vol.81, pp149,
(2006).
[46]. J. P. Coad, J. Likonen, M. Rubel, E. Vainonen-Ahlgren, D.E. Hole,
T. Sajavaara, T. Renvall, G.F. Matthews, J.E. Contributors, Nuclear
Fusion, vol.7,pp350, (2006).
REFERENCES
[47]. B.J. Xiao, et al., Fusion Engineering and Design, vol. 83,pp 181,
(2008).
[48]. J.S. Hu, J.G. Li, Y.P. Zhao, Journal of Nuclear Materials vol.376,
pp207, (2008).
[49]. Y. K. Oh, et al., Fusion Engineering and Design vol.84 , pp344,
(2009).
[50]. O. Gruber, A.U. Team, Nuclear Fusion , vol.34,pp622 , (2007).
[51]. M. Mayer, et al., Journal of Nuclear Materials ,vol. 538,pp390-391,
(2009).
[52]. J. Roth, E. Tsitrone, A. Loarte," Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research " Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and
Atoms vol.258 ,pp 253 . (2007).
[53]. A.W. Kleyn, W. Koppers, N. Lopes Cardozo, Vacuum vol.80 ,
pp1098, (2006).
[54]. P. Pertersson, (2010)." Ion of First Wall Materials Exposed to
Plasma in Fusion Device ", ACTA . UPPSALA University.
[55].F. Gronlund and Walter J. Moore, "Sputtering of Silver by Light
Ions with Energies from 2 to 12 kev", J. Chem. Phys. Vol.32, pp1540.
(1960).
[56]. G. bei Munchen, (1977). "Light ion sputtering yields for
molybdenum and gold at low energies "West Germany.
[57]. L. G. Haggmark,W. D. Wilson, "Monte Carlo studies of sputtering "
Journal of Nuclear Materials, Vol. 76–77, pp 149-15. (1978) .
[58]. M. S. Ato, Y. Y. Moriya, "Sputtering yields of boron bombarded
by light ions ", Journal of Applied Physics Vol.49,pp12. (1978).
[59]. L.G. Haggmark, J.P. Biersack, "Monte Carlo calculations of light-
ion sputtering as a function of the incident angle ",Journal of Nuclear
Materials, Vol. 93–94, Part 2 , Pages 664-669. (1980).
[60]. L.G. Haggmark , J.P. Biersack" Sputtering yield calculations for
neutral beam particle energies", Journal of Nuclear
Materials,Vol.103,pp345-349,(1981).
[61]. Xu. Tingwei, Fan. Zhengtang, He. Qichao" Sputtering yield
calculations for light ions incident on the wall in a tokamak "
Applications of Surface Science, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp 473-480,(1982)..
[62]. U. Littmark, S. Fedder, " Primary recoil contribution to low energy
light ion sputtering ",Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research, Vol. 194,pp 607-610,(1982)..
REFERENCES
[63]. G. L. Chen Bohdansky, W. Eckstein, J. Roth, B.M.U. Scherzer, R.

Behrisch, " Light ion sputtering for H, D and He in the energy range of 25
keV to 100 keV ",Journal of Nuclear Materials, Vol. 111–112,pp717-
725(1982).
[64]. Y. Yamamura, " Theory of sputtering and comparison to
experimental data", Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research, Vol. 194,pp 515-522(1982)..
[65]. G. Falcone, A. Oliva , " Energy spectra of atoms sputtered by KeV
light-ion bombardment "Applied Physics A, Vol. 32,pp 201-203 (1983).
[66]. Y. Yamamura, Y. Mizuno, " Computer studies on bombarding-
angle dependence of threshold energy of sputtering yields", Journal of
Nuclear Materials, Vol. 128–129, pp 559-563(1984).
[67]. N. Matsunami, Y. Yamamura, Y. Itikawa, N. Itoh, Y. Kazumata, S.
Miyagawa, K. Morita, R. Shimizu, H. Tawara, , (1984). " Energy
dependence of the ion-induced sputtering yields of monatomic solids",
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 1-80.
[68]. W. Eckstein, J. Biersack, "Sputtering investigations with the Monte
Carlo program TRIM SP",Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Vol. 2,
pp 550-554(1984).
[69]. J. P. Biersack, W. Eckstein" Sputtering studies with the Monte
Carlo Program TRIM SP", Applied Physics A, Vol. 34, pp 73-94 ,
(1984).
[70]. J. Roth, " Physical Sputtering of Solids at Ion Bombardment",
Physics of Plasma-Wall Interactions in Controlled Fusion ,vol. 25,pp 351-
388 (1986).
[71]. G. Falcone,F. Gullo" Sputtering by light-ion bombardment",
Physics Letters A, Vol. 125, Issue 8, pp 432-434(1987). .
[72]. J. Roth, J. Bohdansky , " Sputtering of graphite with light ions at
energies between 20 and 1000 eV". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and
Atoms, Vol. 23, Issue 4, pp 549-551. (1987).
[73]. G. Falcone , " Theory of collisional sputtering ", Surface Science,
Vol. 187, Issue 1, 2, pp 212-222. (1987).
[74]. A. A. Haasz, J. W. Davis, C. H. Wu, "Angle of incidence
dependence of light ion physical sputtering of carbon", Journal of Nuclear
Materials, Vol. 162–164, pp 915-919. (1989).
REFERENCES
[75]. V.V. Manukhin , " Sputtering of solids under light-ion

bombardment ",Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Vol. 72, Issue 1,
pp 45-50. (1992).
[76]. W. Eckstein, C. Garciá-Rosales, J. Roth, J. László, " Threshold
energy for sputtering and its dependence on angle of incidence ",Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam
Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Vol. 83, Issues 1–2, , pp 95-109.
(1993).
[77]. L. Zhengming, H. Qing, T. Lijian, " A sputtering calculation:
Angular dependence of sputtering yields " Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with
Materials and Atoms, Vol. 135, Issues 1–4 , pp 149-153 . (1998).
[78]. P.C. Smith and D.N. Ruzic" Low energy (10 to 700 eV) angularly
resolved sputtering yields for D+ on beryllium " , Nucl. Fusion vol.38 ,pp
673. (1998).
[79]. M. V. Ramana Murty, " Sputtering: the material erosion tool",
Surface Science, Vol. 500, Issues 1–3, pp 523 – 544. ( 2002).
[80]. R. Behrisch, G. Federici, A. Kukushkin, D. Reiter, " Material
erosion at the vessel walls of future fusion devices ",Journal of Nuclear
Materials, Vol. 313–316, pp 388-392,(2003).
[81]. A. Kallenbach, R. Neu, R. Dux, H-U. Fahrbach, J. C. Fuchs, L.
Giannone, O. Gruber, A. Herrmann, P. T Lang, B. Lipschultz, C. F.
Maggi, J. Neuhauser, V. Philipps, T. Pütterich, V. Rohde, J. Roth, G.
Sergienko, " Tokamak operation with high-Z plasma facing components"
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion vol.47, pp207,(2005).
[82]. H. Bolt, A. Brendel, D. Levchuk, H. Greuner and H. Maier ,
"Materials for the plasma-facing components of fusion reactors ",Max-
Planck-Institut für Plasma physik, EURATOM Association,
Boltzmannstr. 2, D-85748 Garching, Germany, Energy Materials, Vol. 1
No. 2 ,pp121-126(2006)..
[83]. T. Ono, K. Shibata, T. Kenmotsu, T. Muramoto, Z. Li, T.
Kawamura," Extended incident-angle dependence formula for physical
sputtering" ,Journal of Nuclear Materials, Vol. 363–365, pp 1266-1271
,(2007).
REFERENCES
[84].W. Eckstein, M.H. Urbassek " Computer Simulation of Sputtering

Process" ,Sputtering by Particle Bombardment, Topics in Applied
Physics Vol.110, pp 21-31,(2007).
[85]. F.D. Johnson, E. A. Carter, " Hydrogen in tungsten : Absorption ,
diffusion, vacancy trapping, and decohesion ",Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering, and Program in Applied and Computational
Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton ,New Jersey vol. 85,pp44.
(2009).
[86] . G. Pintsuk , " Tungsten as a Plasma-Facing Material ",
Comprehensive Nuclear Materials, Vol. 4 , pp 551-581. (2012).
[87]. K. Shimizu, R.Payling, H.Habazaki, P.Skeldon and G.E. Thompson;
J. Anal. At. Spectrom.; vol.19,pp 692 (2004).
[88]. M. M. Abdelrahman; Brazilian J. Phys.; vol.40(1), pp 26 (2010).
[89]. R. A. Baragiola; Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A.; vol.362,pp 29
(2004).
[90]. R. Behrisch and W.Eckstein, (2007). "Sputtering by Particle
Bombardment : Experiments and Computer Calculations from Threshold
to Mev Energies", Springer, Berlin.
[91]. J. ROTH, J. BOHDANSKY and K. L. J. WILSON, Nucl. Mater.
Vol.1447, pp122,123, (1984).
[92]. I. Leon Maissel and R. Glang, , (1970)"Handbook of Thin Film
Technology". McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
[93]. M .Nastasi, JW. Mayer and JK .Hirvonen, (1996)."Ion-Solid
Interactions: Fundamentals and Applications", Cambridge University
Press, Great Britain,
[94]. J.F. Ziegler and J.P. Biersack. SRIM 2003 (Program and
Documentation). http://www.srim.org.
[95]. A. Kirk. Zoerb, (2007). “Differential Sputtering Yields Of
Refractory Metals By Ion Bombardment at Normal and Oblique
Incidences” Colorado State University.
[96]. J.S. Dolaghen, 1991. "Monte Carlo Simulation of Molecular
Redistribution in an Enclosure due to Sputtering", M.S. Thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO.
[97]. G. Betz and K. Wien, "Energy and Angular Distributions of
Sputtered Particles", International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion
Processes, Vol. 140, pp. 1-110, (1994).
REFERENCES
[98]. P.J. Wilbur, (2005). " Surface Interactions Handout", Course: Broad
Beam Ion Sources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
[99]. B. Schmidt and K. Wetzig ,(2013)." Ion Beam in Materials
Processing and Analysis ", Springer – verlag Wien.
[100]. J.F. Ziegler, J.P. Biersack, and U. Littmark, (1985)."The Stopping
and Range of Ions in Solids", volume 1 of The Stopping and Ranges of
Ions in Matter. Pergamon Press, New York.
[101]. J . Orloff, M . Utlaut, and L .Swanson, High Resolution Focused
Ion Beams: FIB and its Applications, Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, NY, (2003).
[102]. G.M. McCracken, Rep. Prog Phys.vol. 28, pp241, (1975).
[103]. International Fusion Research Council (IFRC), Status Report on
Fusion Research, Nucl. Fusion vol.52 pp1–28, (2005).
[104]. B. Olivier Duchemin, (2001). "An Investigation of Ion Engine
Erosion by Low Energy Sputtering". PhD thesis, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA.
[105]. N. Bohr, "The penetration of atomic particles through matter",
Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Vol.18. 8, pp. 1–144. (1948).
[106]. P. Sigmund "Particle penetration and radiation effects", Springer
Series in Solid-State Sciences, Vol. 151,pp104 (Springer, Berlin) ,(2006).
[107]. J. Lindhard, M. Scharff and H. E. Schiøtt"Range concepts and
heavy ion ranges", Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. Vol.33 no. 14, p.
1,(1963).
[108]. L.I. Maissel and R. Glang, editors, (1970). "Handbook of Thin
Film Technology", chapter3. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[109]. R. Michael Nakles, (2004)."Experimental and Modeling Studies of
Low-Energy Ion Sputtering for Ion Thrusters " Master of Science in
Aerospace Engineering.
[110]. R. Behrisch “Introduction and Overview”, Sputtering by Particle
Bombardment ed. ,Springer-Verlag, Berlin.vol. 1, pp. 1-8, , (1981).
[111]. V.S. Smentkowski, , Wei, C., and Browall, K. , (1999). "Summary
of Sputter Yield Literature", General Electric Research and Development
Center, General Electric Company.
[112]. R. Behrisch "Introduction Sputtering by Particle Bombardment
III", Behrisch, R., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.vol. 34, pp. 1-13 , (1991).
[113]. R. Behrisch and W. Eckstein “Sputtering by Particle
Bombardment” , Topics Appl. Physics vol.110 ,pp1145. ,(2007).
REFERENCES
[114]. R. Behrisch, (1991). “Sputtering by Particle Bombardment I”,

Topics Appl. Physics .
[115]. Y. Yamamura, T. Takiguchi, and Z. Li, Kakuyugokenkyu vol.66
pp 277,in Japanese, (1991).
[116]. P. Sigmund"Theory of sputtering. I. Sputtering yield of amorphous
and polycrystalline targets". Physical Review, vol.184(2):pp383–415. .
1969.
[117]. P.K. Ray and V. Shutthandan, 1999. "Low-energy sputtering
research". NASA/CR.
[118]. Y. Yamamura and H. Tawara. “Energy dependence of ion-induced
sputtering yields from monatomic solids at normal incidence” Atomic
Data and Nuclear Tables, vol.62(2):pp 149–253(1996)..
[119]. J. Bohdansky, "A universal relation for sputtering yield of mono-
atomic solids at normal ion incidence". Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research, vol.2,pp587,(1984)..
[120]. H.E. Wilhelm, "Quatum-statistical analysis of low-energy
sputtering". Austrailian Journal of Physics, vol.38(2),pp125–1331985..
[121]. R. G. Behrisch, B. M. U. Schemer and M. T Robinson, "The
Sputtering for Low-Energy tight Ions." J. Appl. Phys. Vol.18,pp 391.
(1979).
[122]. M.A. Mantenieks, (1997). "Sputtering threshold energies of heavy
ions". In 25th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Cleveland,
OH, IEPC 97-187
[123] Y. Yamamura ,N. matsunami and N.Itoh,Red.Eff.vol.71,pp
65(1983).
[124]J. Lindhard and M.Scharff,.phys.rev.vol.53,pp124-128(1961).
[125]. Y. Yamamura , "An Empirical Formula for Angular Dependence
of Sputtering Yields", Radiation Effects, vol. 80, pp.57-72,(1984)..
[126]. Y. Yasumichi, Yukikazu Itikawa, and Noriaki, (1983). "Ion.
Angular dependence of sputtering yields of monatomic solids". Nagoya
University Institute of Plasma Physics Report. IPPJ-AM-26.
[127]. J .L. Topper IV , 2011."Total and differential Sputter yields Of
Boron nitride" Colorado ,Spring.
[128]. J. F. Ziegler , J. P. Biersack , and U. Littmark, "Stopping and range
of ions in solids" , v 12 ,pp 321(1985) .
[129] E. Hotson, “Threshold Energies for Sputtering,” Nuclear Fusion
vol.15, pp544-547 ,1975. .
[130] R.C. Bradley. "Sputtering of alkali atoms by inert gas ions of low
energy". Physical Review, vol.93(4):pp1421–1440, 1954.
REFERENCES
[131]. J. F. Ziegler , M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Nuclear

Instruments &Methods in Physics Research Section B-Beam Interactions
with Materials and Atoms vol.268(11-12), pp1818–1823, (2010).
[132]. R.V. Stuart and G.K. Wehner. 1962."Sputtering yields at very low
bombarding ion energies". Journal of Applied Physics, 33(7):2345–2352.
[133]. W. Moller, W. Eckstein, and J. P. Biersack, Computer Physics
Communications vol.51(3), pp355–368 (1988).
[134]. A. Mutzke , R. Schneider , W. Eckstein, and R. Dohmen, Max-
Planck- Plasma, IPP-Report vol.12(8), pp1–70 (2011).
[135]. Y. Yamamura, and Y.Mizuno, (1985). "Low-energy sputtering
with the Monte Carlo code ACAT. Institute of plasma physics", Nagoya
University, IPPJ-AM-40.
[136] .A. Hu, A. Hassanein , How surface roughness affects the angular
dependence of the sputtering yield" Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research vol. 281,pp15–20. (2012)."
[137]. J.F. Ziegler and J.P. Biersack. SRIM 2013 (Program and
Documentation). http://www.srim.org.
[138]. A. Baeurle, Stephan "Multiscale modeling of polymer materials
using field-theoretic methodologies: A survey about recent
developments". Journal of Mathematical Chemistry vol.46 (2): pp363–
426 . (2009).
[139] A V. Chankin, D P .Coster and R Dux , " Monte Carlo Simulation
of tungsten redeposition at the divertor target ", plasma phys. control
fusion v 56, pp 11 . (2014).
[140].V. N. Karazin ,K harkov" sputtering of tungsten exposed to high –
flux and high –fluence Hydrogen ion beam ", national university
Kharkov,vol.24,pp86 ,2013.
[141]. H.L. Anderson" Metropolis, Monte Carlo and the MANIAC". Los
Alamos Science vol.14: pp96–108. ,(1986).
[142]. D . Hartiy ,M. Groth ,M. Beurskens ,2012." simulation tungsten
sputtering with EDG E2D-EIRENE in low triangularity-L-Model JET
ITER-Like wall configuration ",20th international conference on plasma
surface interactions , Germany.
[143]. F. Ziegler "SRIM-2003". Nucl. Instr. Meth. B. 219-220,(2004).
[144] G J Van Roaj, et al. 2012." Characterization of tungsten sputtering
in the JET divertor " ,24th IAEA fusion energy conference .
REFERENCES
[145]. J. F. Ziegler "RBS/ERD simulation problems: Stopping powers,

nuclear reactions and detector resolution". Nucl. Instr. Meth. vol.141. pp.
136-138:, (1998).
[146]C. Giroud et al .nuclear fusion vol.3,pp 52,(2012).
[147]. A. Galdikas ,Interaction of ions with condensed matter. Nova
Publishers. Vol.7,p. 15, (2000).
[148] M . Laenger et al. 20th international conference on plasma surface
interaction fusion , Aachen , Germany ,2012.
[149]. J. F. Ziegler and J. P. Biersack and M. D. Ziegler SRIM (2008).
"The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter". SRIM Co. ISBN 0-
9654207-1-X.
[150] M . Laenger et al. 20th international conference on plasma surface
interaction fusion , Aachen , Germany ,2012.
[151]. Yoshio Ueda ,2008."Status of plasma facing material studies and
issues toward DEMO"Proceedings of ITC18, Japan.
[152] .D C Stangby , nucl. fusion vol.52, pp363(2012).
[153] R A Pitt et al . J. nucl. Mater ,vol.10,pp19,(2013).
[154] H. J , X . Bonrin et al. " modeling of controlled ELMs for ITER
"40th European physical society conf. on plasma physics,vol.17 p104,
(2013).
[155] D Tskhakaya ,M Groth and JET EFDA contributors
j.nucl.matervol.438 ,pp522, (2013).
[156] S. Bianchi1 and A. Ferrara "IGM metal enrichment through dust
sputtering" Mon. Not. R. Astron.vol 22, pp 1–20. (2005).
[157] Audi , G. & Wapstra , A . " Nuclear physics " , vol. 595 ,pp 409
(1995).
[158] G. Killel, (1976 ). "Introduction to solid state physics" john wiley ,
New York,
[159] Yu. Eidelman ,“Sputtering of Materials for MEBT absorber and
PIXE Beam Dump ”. Nuclear physics,vol.785,pp1123 ,(2012).

Enas Ahmed Jawad Al-Atabe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Enas Ahmed Jawad Al-Atabe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

Calculation of Sputtering Yield of

Q,W,S = fitting parameter are function of Z2 .

Chapter One (Introduction)

Chapter Two ( Theory of Physical Sputtering )

2-1 Physics of Sputtering …………..……………………………….. 21

2-6-1 TRIM data fitted by theoretical function……………….……….. 44

Chapter Three ( Results and Calculations )

3-1 Information for ions and elements……………………………….. 45

3-7 Comparison among incident ions (H ,D, T, He) on the 105

3-8 Theoretical Models………………………………………………. 116

3-10 Sputtering yield as a function surface binding energy ………. 177

3-11 Sputtering yield as a function target atomic number ………… 178

3-12 Sputtering yield vs. sputtering threshold energy……………… 179

Chapter Four ( Discussion and Conclusions )

4-1 The angular dependence of sputtering yield of Beryllium for 190

4-1-2 The sputter yield due to Deuterium interaction with 195

4-1- 6 Critical width of Beryllium target……………………………... 203

4-1-10 The effect of the atomic mass of target…………………………... 219

4-1-11 Angular Sputtering Yield Formula applied for TRIM 220

4-2 Incident ions energy………………………………………………. 221

4-5 Influence of the surface binding energy…………………………. 228

4-7 Influence of the sputtering threshold energy……………………. 229

4-9 Conclusions …………………………………….………………… 232

There are many mathematical models that illustrate the interaction of

The sputtering yield of elements gradually increase with increasing

The data of sputtering yield is fitted using to a polynomial provided by

A comparison of TRIM simulation data with some experimental data was

This thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter one gives an

Finally chapter four includes discussion, conclusions and

1-1: Brief History of Sputtering:

In 1852 a description of the use of a wire as a sputtering source material

The most extensive early sputter measurements were made in the

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Thompson, Lindhard, and Sigmund separately

Sputtering is also used in surface preparation to remove contaminants and

1-2: Applications Of Sputtering:

1. High energy physics.

2. Space science: Sputtering is one of the forms of space weathering, a process

3. A major application is that of the creation of surface property changing.

5. Thin-film coatings are used heavily in the semi-conductor: Sputtering is

6. They are used to clean and modify micro-surfaces.

9. Etching: In the semiconductor industry sputtering is used to etch the target.

1-3: Nuclear Fusion:

With an increasing world population and a growing economy, the demand

Figure 1-1: Energy supply and demand projection based on UN population

Figure 1-3: Fusion cross-sections of various fusion reactions as a function of

The basic challenges of fusion are the following:

The first challenge is that of providing a huge amount of energy to the

Table 1-1, shows temperature thresholds "ignition temperatures" needed to

Table 1-1: Heating requirements for selected fusion reactions [27].

Fusion Reaction Threshold Temperature (OC)

The development of nuclear fusion technology is focused on achieving the

In addition to the temperature requirement, the so-called "Lawson criterion"

1-4: Tokamak, ITER:

The main issue of controlled thermonuclear fusion is to get a high plasma

poloidal field (traveling in circles orthogonal to the toroidal field). In a tokamak,

To achieve the required high temperature, several methods of heating the

ITER is a large tokamak device, currently under construction in France [34,

In brief, the reactor is composed of a support structure, a cryostat with

In a fusion reactor, materials will have to function in rather extreme

Figure 1-4: Schematic diagram of a Fusion reactor [28].