Table 3. Various Simulations of TF Deposition Carried out Recently (all Employed Simulation Techniques Were Based Purely on MD) Compared to the MD + tfMC Simulation Performed in this Work, and the two Alternative Approaches (MD and MD + MD) Considered in this Work.

				deposition parameters
				deposition rate	atom flux	growth speed
authors, reference, and year	substrate (type, dimensions and size)	thin film (type, thickness and size)	interatomic potential(s) used				simulation method
Xie et al.15 2014	dc Si (001)	ZrxCu1–x	Tersoff,	0.5	800	120–225	MD
	2.5 × 2.5 nm2	4–7.5 nm	EAM, and
	≈400 atoms	≈10,000 atoms	Lennard-Jones
Kateb et al.19 2019	fcc Cu (111)	Cu	EAM	10	1443	960–1440	MD
	7.7 × 9 nm2	4–6 nm	with
	≈16,000 atoms	25,000 atoms	ZBL
Weng et al.20 2020	fcc Ni (001)	NiTi	2NN MEAM	66.7	5320	4765	MD
	11.2 × 11.2 nm2	3 nm
	63,488 atoms	25,200 atoms
Mes-adi et al.21 2022	dc Si (001)	Cu	EAM	1	343	144	MD
	5.4 × 5.4 nm2	1.2 nm		and	and	and
	4000 atoms	5000 atoms		10	3430	1440
This work	dc Si (001)	Au	2NN MEAM	0.167	3.48	3.73	MD + tfMC
	21.8 × 21.8 nm2	3 nm		0.799	16.8	18.0	MD + MD
	64,000 atoms	80,000 atoms		2.13	44.6	47.9	MD