For example, in the Ag/Cu (1 0 0) system (a reactive system), dissolution occurs when the couple is in contact. No PF with a certain width is formed beyond the triple line. In nonreactive couples (Table
1), PF is easily observed in the MD simulations. These researchers [
30,
36,
42‐
46] observed a significant effect of substrate orientation on PF formation. Even no oval shape of PF can be induced, owing to the different substrate orientation [
44‐
46], as in Cu/W (1 0 0), Li/Fe (1 1 2), and Li/Cu (1 1 0). However, most MD simulations of wetting systems have focused on the scaling law of
R(
t)~
tn for both PF and the primary drop to reveal PF formation ahead of the primary drop. Generally,
R(
t) for PF satisfies
R(
t)~
t1/2 [
30,
32,
34,
37,
38,
43,
47], whereas
R(
t) for the primary drop satisfies
R(
t)~
t1/7. Exceptions exist for the drop that spreads with
R(
t)~
t1/2 for a PF and
R(
t)~
t4/5 for the primary drop and for a PF that spreads with
R(
t)~
t1/4 [
43]. It should be noted that almost all PFs spread faster than the primary drop and thus can be ahead of the triple line. Web III et al. [
30] further suggested that the spreading of the PF film may dominate wetting kinetics. To verify this viewpoint, they simulated the spreading of a Pd drop on a Pb-prewetted Cu (1 0 0) substrate (prewetted layer with a thickness of two atoms). Their results demonstrated that the presence of a prewetting film accelerated the spreading of the Pd drop. Although most MD simulations involved simple liquids (that is, pure metals), some systems with alloy drops or alloy substrates have also been investigated (for example, Ag-Cu/Ni [
36], AgCuTi/Cu [
48], Al/NiAl [
49], and Al/Ni
3Al [
49]), and no PF formation mechanism was observed. Moreover, the number of atoms is very few in MD simulations (typically, 10
6 atoms) compared with that in a typical experimental system (~10
23 atoms), which might cause the time scales for the spreading in MD simulations to be significantly below that in experimental nonreactive metallic wetting systems. The time takes nanoseconds or picoseconds for MD simulations but tens to hundreds of milliseconds for a practical system under existing experimental conditions (that is, an oxygen-free or reducing atmosphere) [
50]. In these nonreactive metallic systems, the consensus points can be summarized as follows: the strong interaction at the interface, relatively weak interaction of the liquid, and high surface energy of the metallic substrate. Based on the relationship between the bond energy (
ε) and the heat of evaporation (
Heva) (that is,
Heva = −
ZNaε/2 [
50], where
Z is the number of nearest neighbors in the bulk crystal, and
Na is the Avogadro constant), the bond energy can be obtained from
Heva in terms of the molar unit, that is, assuming
ε* =
ZNaε. The interaction characteristics of the metallic systems with PF formation, as indicated by the MD simulation, are presented in Table
1.
\(\varepsilon_{{{\text{LL}}}}^{*} ,\;\varepsilon_{{{\text{LS}}}}^{*}\) and
\(\varepsilon_{{{\text{SS}}}}^{*}\) are the bond energy parameters for the liquid, liquid/solid interface, and solid, respectively. Almost all values of
λ are positive, where
λ is the interaction coefficient. A positive
λ value indicates that liquid and solid metals in the couple are thermodynamically repulsive and vice versa. Thermodynamic repulsion does not imply weak interfacial interactions. All absolute values of
\(\varepsilon_{{{\text{LS}}}}^{*}\) are higher than
\(\varepsilon_{{{\text{LL}}}}^{*}\), indicating that the interfacial interaction is stronger than the liquid. Moreover, this suggests that a contact angle below 90° should be formed in these couples. Therefore, the strong interfacial interaction, relatively weak interaction of the liquid (or higher surface energy of the solid metal), and thermodynamic repulsion in the couple may combine to induce PF formation. Moreover, the couples listed in Table
1 are immiscible systems. Furthermore, the results may be predicted, and PFs would appear in similar immiscible systems, for example, Pb/Fe, Pb/Mo, Sn/Mo, Ga/Mo, Ag/Ta, In/Ta, Ag/V, Ag/W, and Au/W. Web III et al. [
30], Benhassine et al. [
41,
51], and Blake and De Coninck [
52,
53] used the molecular kinetic theory (MKT) of wetting to fit MD simulation results. The results show that not only does the MKT fit the data, but the fitting has a physical interpretation and accurately depicts the dynamics. The MKT was developed by Eyring and coworkers of the absolute reaction rate theory. This theory focuses on the adsorption and desorption occurring at the microscopic and even atomic levels around the triple solid/liquid/vapor junction. In MD simulations of metallic systems, the PF may correspond to an adsorbed film ahead of the triple line. The formation mechanism may be closed but different from the fourth case depicted in Figure
1(d). Therefore, PFs may tend toward adsorbed films in metallic systems under ideal conditions; however, the exact formation mechanism of PF formation is still unclear.
Table 1
Liquid/solid couples in MD simulations with PF formation
| − 356 | − 462 | − 632 | 32 |
| − 510 | − 562 | − 632 | 9 |
| − 460 | − 548 | − 632 | − 2 |
| − 632 | − 1044 | − 1472 | 9 |
| − 632 | − 1757 | − 1200 | 75 |
| − 510 | − 1562 | − 1200 | 148 |
| − 356 | − 500 | − 756 | 56 |
| − 294 | − 481 | − 632 | − 18 |
| − 632 | − 1047 | − 1642 | 90 |
| − 294 | − 398 | − 694 | 96 |
| − 510 | − 571 | − 756 | 62 |
| − 294 | − 781 | − 1642 | 187 |