1CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Rare-Earth Silicides –a Holistic Study
Matt Probert & Chris Eamesemail: [email protected]
web: http://www.cmt.york.ac.uk/cmd/
2CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Outline
• Motivation
• Surface Physics– experimental and theoretical approaches
• Example 1 – Structure of Sm on Si surface– resolving STM and LEED conflicts
• Example 2 – Ho nanowire on Ge surface– structural and electronic model
3CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Why study Rare-Earth Silicides?• A potentially very useful metal-silicon
contact– low Schottky barrier (~0.4 eV) on n-type Si– sensor applications
• Bulk rare-earth silicides have good lattice match to silicon
• Novel interface/surface structures• Novel electronic properties• Fundamental interest
4CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Surface Physics• Much current interest -
$150 bn/year industry!• Understanding essential
for growth, catalysis, etc• Major impact on
electronic and atomic structure
• Surfaces may reconstruct in order to remove the effect of dangling bonds etc and hence attain lower energy state
Unreconstructed Si(111) Surface
5CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Silicon Surface Reconstruction
Si (111)-7x7 Takayanagi Reconstruction
Brommer et alPRL 68, 1355 (1992)
6CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Surfaces and Overlayers
• Overlayer periodicity related to bulk periodicity - in this case adatoms form 2x2 overlayer
7CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Low Energy Electron Diffraction• Electrons with energies
~40-300eV diffracted from periodic surface mesh
• Collect elastically scattered electrons
• Surface sensitive• Complementary to other
experimental surface techniques such as STM
• Can be qualitative (e.g. indicating overlayerperiodicity and quality) or quantitative … Si (111)-7x7 70eV
8CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Quantitative LEED• Intensity of each spot in the
LEED pattern depends on energy
• Intensity vs. Energy curves for each spot gives a unique fingerprint of the structure
• A difficult inverse problem to solve for the 3D structure which best fits the observations– Need phase shift of each
scattering event– Monte Carlo simulation with
many beams and look at yields, e.g. CAVLEED code
Kitayama et al Surf. Sci. V482-485, 1481, (2001)
9CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Rare-Earth Silicide Preparation• Start with Si(111) or Ge(111) and clean under UHV to
give 7×7 or c(2×8) reconstruction• Deposit 1 ML of rare-earth onto surface and anneal to
about 550 °C• LEED shows formation of ordered silicide/germanide
with a 1×1 reconstruction• MEIS shows that trivalent rare-earth ions do not sit on
top of silicon/germanium– get an ordered, flat layer underneath a reverse-buckled
silicon/germanium overlayer– a 2D silicide/germanide
• 3D silicides prepared under different conditions.
10CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
LEED for Ho on Si(111)• Generate clean Si(111)-7x7
– Check quality with LEED
• Deposit 1ML of Ho• Anneal at 500oC for ~15mins• Check quality with LEED
• Acquire I(V) curves
• Try to find structure that best fits measured I(V)
40 eV
150eV
11CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Generic 2D Structure
Trivalent Lanthanides e.g. Dy, Ho, Er, etc.
RE in flat layer on T4 sites under 1x1 reverse-buckled overlayer
Hydrogen passivationconverts reverse to normal buckling
Kitayama et al Surf. Sci. V482-485, 1481, (2001)
12CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Materials Studied• York Surface Physics group has studied
– Heavy Rare Earth elements (Lanthanides) on Si and Ge• Divalent = Sm, Eu, Yb• Trivalent = La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm• Done all except La, Ce, Pr, Pm• See “Trends and strain in the structures of 2D rare-earth silicides
studied using medium-energy ion scattering”, PRB 72, 165407 (2005)• Also Fe, Pb, Pd on Si etc
• With a variety of techniques– primarily STM and LEED in York– also MEIS at Daresbury– and now adding ab initio electronic structure calculations as a
complementary tool using CASTEP– a holistic approach
13CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
CASTEP for Surface Physics• Simple case: Si(100)-2x1• Small area surface so few
atoms required• Si atoms cheap to include
in calculation• Many experimental and
theoretical results to compare against
Unreconstructed Si(100) supercell
14CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Si(100)-2x1 CASTEP convergence
=> 9KP, 360eV sufficient => 10Å Vacuum gap
Typical calculation time: 15 hours on 9 nodes of a Beowulf
15CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Si(100)-2x1 Relaxed Structure
Asymmetric dimerisation
16CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Si(100)-2x1 Calculated Properties
Electron density contours →
← Angular Momentum channel resolved density of states
← STM profile +2.0V
17CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Si(100)-c4x2 Structure
40 atoms, 8 k-points, 260eV cutoff energy 16 days on 8 nodes of the White Rose Grid
18CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Si(111)-1x1-Ho
Experiment Theory
Flatter top bilayer and more relaxed in theoretical result
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Example 1 –
Geometry Optimisation of Samarium on Silicon Surface
20CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
STM of Si(111)-3x2-Sm
STM shows 3x2 reconstruction and a 1D chain of Sm atoms …
Sm is divalent on Si …
Ab-Initio Calculation done by Palmino et al using VASP and 150eV cutoff to get STM structure
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
The Honeycomb Chain Channel (HCC)• 1/6 ML alkali earth metals (Ca, Mg, Ba) and divalent rare earth metals (Sm, Eu, Yb) form a 3x2 reconstruction and 1D chain of “metal” atoms 3x2 unit cell side view
3x2 unit cell from above
See PRL 81, 2296 (1998)and PRL 87, 56104 (2001)
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
The Honeycomb Chain Channel (HCC)• 1/3 ML alkali metals (Li, Na, K, Rb) form a 3x1 reconstruction
• Common silicon structure responsible
3x1 unit cell from above
3x2 unit cell from above
• 1/6 ML alkali earth metals (Ca, Mg, Ba) and divalent rare earth metals (Yb, Eu, Sm) form a 3x2 reconstruction
23CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Problem with LEED of Si(111)-Sm
LEED shows 3x1 pattern not 3x2 like STM!Known problem for many metals on Si(111) eg Ba
Expected 3x2 Observed 3x1
24CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Structural Models and Registry Shifts
●Si(111) 3x2-Ba structure suggested by Wigren et al, PRB 48, 11014 (1993).
● Qualitative calculation of effect of registry shift on LEED pattern by J. Schafer et al, PRB 67, 85411 (2003)
•interference of amplitudes from two registry shifted cells (1/2 unit cell shift) proposed to explain cancellation of x2 spots
25CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Structural Model with a Registry Shift
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Quantitative LEED Experiment
• Deposit 1ML Sm on clean Si(111)• Anneal 700 °C 15 mins• Clean, thermally resilient structure
3 x 1 LEED pattern 40eV 3 x 1 LEED pattern 80eV
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
LEED I(V) Curves• I(V) curves gathered from many
runs on freshly made surfaces– Compare curves using the Pendry
R-Factor (sensitive to peak positions)
– Reproducible: variation in Rp ~ 0.1
– Averaged to reduce noise
• Uppermost layer produces fractional and integer spots
• All surface layers produce integer spots – LEED beam typically penetrates ~ 5 layers
• Fractional spots are sensitive to Sm and Si in honeycomb chain
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
• Earlier ab initio calc structure to fit STM experiment– VASP DFT geometry
optimisation by Palmino et alPRB 67, 195413 (2003)
• R-Factor comparison– Good is <0.4– Acceptable is <0.5– Overall R-Factor is 0.78 – Poor R-Factors when
compared to LEED I(V)– Suggests HCC model and/or
Palmino is wrong• R-Factor calculated from
structure using CAVLEED• Where next?
VASP Ab Initio Structure vs Experiment
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
CASTEP: Basis Set Optimisation
• Convergence w.r.t. basis set size and Brillouin zone sampling• Check forces and total energy
30CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Competing HCC Structures
• Two possible sites for Sm in HCC structure– H3 shown in (a) and (b)– T4 shown in (c) and (d)
• CASTEP geometry optimisation shows T4 is more stable than H3 by ~1eV
Silicon atoms are grey, samarium is black and the hydrogen atoms are white.
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
CASTEP Geometry Optimisation
• T4 structure relaxation performed on 32 processors of HPCx• Main relaxation found in interlayer spacings
Top view of T4
Side view of T4
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
CASTEP Structure vs Experiment• Pendry R-Factors from the CASTEP suggested structure
• Overall R-Factor is 0.48 (c.f. VASP Rp=0.78)
• Good is <0.4• Acceptable is <0.5 • Fractional spots better
than integer spots
• Suggests T4-HCC structure is valid but some further tweaking is still needed
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Independent check – structure fitting
CASTEP result (white cross) found to be in Rp minimum (missing thermal expansion)
256 structure runs of CAVLEED on White Rose Grid parallel computer
• 1.5 hours per run• Step size 0.05Å
• Calculate Rp as function of interlayer spacing and so map R-factor surface
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Sm on Si Summary• VASP ab initio result not refined enough to compare to quantitative surface science data: R-factor of 0.78
•CASTEP ab initio result agrees well with quantitative surface science data
• Careful optimisation of basis set parameters• New structure gives much better fit to experiment
•Independently verified by R-factor surface mapping• Need effects of thermal vibration/expansion• Further improved if include 60% T4 + 40% H3 mixture• Best overall R-factor now 0.42
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Example 2 –
Holmium Nanowires on a Germanium surface
36CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Ge(111)1x1-Ho Structure
• Structure common to trivalent RE of flat layer buried below reverse buckled Ge bilayer
• Details sensitive to Ho spin-state
Empty states STM 1.3V2nA experimentImage is ~5x5nm
Empty states STM 1.3VCASTEP with Tersoff-
Hamann schemeImage ~5x5nm
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Ho Nanowires on Ge(111) : STM Observations
• Nanowires: self-assembled lines of atoms – HOT topic
• Never before seen on a (111) surface (due to 3-fold symmetry)
• Depending on coverage they can be parallel => 5x1 environment
•MEIS shows Ho is notsubsurface but no more info• What is the structure? Too dilute for LEED!0.25ML Ho on clean Ge(111)-c2x8
grown at 250°C not 500°C
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Nanowires on Ge(111) – Structural Model
• Structure suggested by Chris Bonet based on STM dimensions –nanowire is 2 atoms wide!
• Is it stable?
• Does it agree with STM?
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Nanowires on Ge(111) – CASTEP
CASTEP can get accurate surface structures:• Need high quality convergence• High cutoff energy, vacuum gap, 4 k-points• Use Ultra-Soft Pseudopotentials and GGA-PBE• Took 5 hours on HPCx (128 processors)
Side view electronic structure
Top view
CASTEP stable structure•Delicate balance of forces/bonding
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Comparison with STM experiment
• Simulate STM from CASTEP calculated electronic structure using Tersoff-Hamann scheme
Empty states +1.5VTheory
Empty statesExperiment +1.5V, 2nA
Filled statesExperiment -2.0V, 2nA
Filled states -2.0VTheory
Image areas 4.2 x 3.3 nm
Atomic resolution
and agreement
CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Comparison with STS experiment
• Conducting properties of the nanowires• Theoretical DOS shows states at Fermi Level• Scanning Tunneling Spectroscopy shows nanowire has conducting states at Fermi Level (compare to Germanium with band gap)
Ab initio LDOS Experimental STS
42CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Ho Nanowires on Ge Summary• Novel observation of nanowires on Ge(111)
• Model structure proposed on basis of STM measurements but could not be validated
• Structure confirmed by CASTEP geometry optimisation– and both filled and empty states STM simulation
• Conducting character of nanowire seen experimentally in STS measurement– and also in large LDOS at EF with CASTEP
43CMD GroupDepartment of Physics
Acknowledgements• York Surface Physics Group
– especially Steve Tear, Chris Bonet, Ed Perkins (now Nottingham)– http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~phys24/
• EPSRC funding
• “STM and ab initio study of holmium nanowires on a Ge(111) Surface”, C. Eames, C. Bonet, E.W. Perkins, M.I.J. Probert, S.P. Tear , PRB 74, 193318 (2006)
• “Quantitative LEED I-V and ab initio study of the Si(111)-3x2-Sm surface structure and the missing half order spots in the 3x1 diffraction pattern”, C. Eames, M.I.J. Probert, S.P. Tear, PRB (accepted ‘07)