Institute of Metals Division - Surface Diffusion of Gold and Copper on Copper

The surfrrce-diffusion coefficients (DJ for Aulg8 on (100) and (111) surfaces of copper have been determined between 1050" and 780°C using a new avuzlysis imd experimental procedure. The results are: D, has also been determined fm cua4 at 870°C, and the values found are 4.5 times larger than those measured by the grain boundary grooving technique for the same surface orientations. This difference is felt to result from the approximate nature of the mathematical solution used in the present work. Attempts to measure D, for silver on copper and silver surfaces indicated a means of matter transport different from surface diffision was dominant in moving tracer from the source out over the surface. Cnlculations and experiment both indicate that this is the flow of silver through the vapor phase which completely masks the much smaller flow due to surface diffusion. The previous self-difhsion studies of D, for silver and copper are discussed in terms of our own analysis and found to yield values of D, factors of lo5 or more greater than those found by the grain boundary grooving tech -nique. UNTIL about 5 years ago it was widely believed that the activation energy for surface diffusion, AH, , was less than that for grain boundary diffusion, AHb,, which in turn was less than that for diffusion through the lattice, AHz.' This was concluded from various evidence that D,> Db>Dl, and one tracer study of D, for silver on silver from which AH, was inferred.2 In 1959 Mullins and Shewmon demonstrated that D, could be determined from the kinetics of the growth of grain-boundary grooves.3 Using this procedure, Gjostein measured D, on copper between 800" and 1050°C and found that the activation energy was roughly equal to AHl .4 Subsequent work on copper,5" silver,',' and goldg between the melting temperature T, and 0.87 T, confirmed that AH, as determined using the grain boundary grooving or scratch-relaxation technique was equal to or greater than AHz. During the same period, Drew and Pye again determined AH, for silver on silver using a tracer techniquelo and a mathematical solution similar to that of Nicker son and arker.' Though the values of D, Drew and Pye measured at any given temperature were about 200 times smaller than those reported by Nickerson and Parker, they again found a low activation energy of about 10 kcal, or about one fifth that found at the higher temperatures with the mass transport technique. A distinguishing characteristic of these two previous tracer studies is that they have worked at low temperatures (-1/2 T,) where they felt volume diffusion was negligible and then analyzed these data as if all tracer atoms leaving the source flowed out into and remained in a homogeneous high-diffusivity surface layer of undefined thickness. This is totally different from the model used in the mass-transport studies or the studies of grain boundary diffusion, which assume the high-diffusivity surface layer to be only a few angstroms thick. If this latter model is applied to the earlier tracer studies, it is shown that the tracer has really pe!etrated into the lattice a mean distance of 1000A. Thus the tracer distribution observed after an anneal is thought to be due to the combined effects of surface and volume diffusion. Independent of the relative validity of the two models, it seems evident to us that any comparison of the values of D, as determined in these two ways is meaningless and misleading, since the values of D, and AH, obtained in these two ways would be totally different for the same physical distributions of tracer. Once the fundamental difference in the approaches of the two techniques is established, we are faced with the question of which model better approximates physical reality. Here all the evidence seems to be on the side of the ''thin surface layer" analysis. In fact, the authors of Refs. 2 and 9 do not argue for the "thick-layer model" we have described; they simply invoke it through the equation they use to calculate D, . The primary evidence for the thin-film approach is: a) grain boundary grooves and scratches widen in proportion to tU4 and Mullins' rigorous analysis shows that this is only valid for a surface layer which is quite thin relative to the width of the groove;11 b) all accepted or seriously discussed models of solid-vapor interfaces and high-angle grain boundaries assume that the disturbed region of the interface is at most a few a0 thick. With the above in mind, it was desirable to determine D, using a radioactive tracer and a "thin-