You are on page 1of 18

Chapter 3

Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic


Electron Emission Microscopy
Abstract
Current flowing across an interface of a metal and a semiconductor is usually non-linear
against the applied voltage as a result of the discontinuity of the electronic states responsible for conduction in the two materials. Owing to the presence of a finite band gap
in the semiconductor, the lowest lying states for n-type semiconductor can communicate with electrons in the metal at certain energy above the Fermi level. This potential
built at the interface is called the Schottky barrier. The current flow across the metalsemiconductor (M-S) interface is governed by the height of the Schottky barrier is thus
the most important parameter at the M-S interface. The formation mechanism of this
barrier at the M-S interface is an area of active research and many proposed models exist
elucidating the same. In this chapter, the fundamental principles of energy band alignment at the interface are discussed followed by an introduction to the commonly used
models describing the Schottky barrier height. Next, the main concepts of hot electron
transport and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy (BEEM) are presented. This section starts with a brief introduction of the working principle of BEEM followed by an
overview of the BEEM including the various scattering mechanisms of the hot carriers
in this transport technique. The most commonly used model of determining the local
Schottky barrier height, called the Bell-Kaiser model is discussed.

3.1

Introduction

etal-Semiconductor (M-S) interfaces are an essential part of all electronic devices. One of the most important properties of the M-S interface is its Schottky barrier height (SBH), which is a measure of the mismatch of energy levels for
the majority carriers across the M-S interface. The SBH controls charge transport
across any M-S interface and is therefore, of vital importance to the successful operation of semiconductor devices. However the deeper knowledge on the formation
of a Schottky barrier is a complex problem because of the dependence of the SBH
on the atomic structure of the M-S interface. Although a complete understanding

32

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

of the barrier formation is still widely researched, it is well known that even for
continuous thick metallic films, there is a wide variation in barrier heights at the
interface. Several comprehensive models explaining such variations exist, but only
a few address the phenomena completely across any M-S interface. In this chapter,
we first present the existing models explaining the SBH formation at a M-S interface. Thereafter, we discuss the nondestructive technique of Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy (BEEM) used to probe both the energy and spatial dependence of
charge transport across a Schottky interface. This is mainly motivated to give an
overview of the ballistic hot electron transport in solid state devices made of complex oxides and the wealth of information that such measurements bring out about
an unbiased (pristine) M-S interface.

3.2

Formation of a Schottky barrier

In order to understand how a Schottky barrier is formed when a metal comes in


contact with a semiconductor, imagine both the metal and and the semiconductor
to be electrically neutral and separated from each other. The energy band diagram
of the metal and a n-type semiconductor is as shown in Figure 3.1; where the the
work function is lesser than the metal. At this stage, any presence of surface states
are also ignored. Once the metal and semiconductor are connected by a piece of
metallic wire, electrons flow from the semiconductor to the metal and the two Fermi
levels coincide as shown in Figure 3.1(b). The energies of the electrons at rest outside the surfaces of the metal and semiconductor are not the same and there exists
an electric field in the gap. There must be a negative charge on the surface of the
metal balancing the positive charge in the semiconductor. As the semiconductor is
n-type, the positive charge is provided by the conduction electrons receding from
the surface, leaving uncompensated positive charges. This region is thus depleted
of electrons. As the donor concentration is many orders of magnitude less than the
concentration of electrons in the metal, the uncompensated donors occupy a layer of
appreciable thickness and the bands of the semiconductor bend upwards as shown
in Figure 3.1. The difference in the electrostatic potentials (Vi ) outside the surface of
the metal is given by (Vi ) = (Ei ); where being the separation distance and (Vi ),
the field in between. Now once the metal and semiconductor approaches each other,
the potential difference keeps diminishing with (Ei ) remaining finite. Finally, when
the two touch making a contact, the barrier due to the vacuum disappears and an
ideal metal-semiconductor junction is formed [1, 2]. Now, the barrier height is given

3.2. Formation of a Schottky barrier

(a)

cs

Fs

Fm

33

(b)

Vi

EC
Ef

Ef

EV
Metal

Metal

Semiconductor

++
+ + + +

Semiconductor

(d)

(c)

cs

Fm

Metal

Fb

Metal

Semiconductor

Semiconductor

Figure 3.1: Formation of a Schottky barrier. (a) Neutral-isolated contacts. (b) Electrically connected. (c) Separation by a narrow gap. (d) Intimate metal-semiconductor contact. Adapted
from Metal-semiconductor contacts, E. H. Rhoderick et al., Second Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford
(1988).

by :
B = M S

(3.1)

The Schottky-Mott limit, as obtained in Eqn. 3.1 above involves a lot of assumptions; namely : (i) The surface dipole contributions to M and S do not change
when the metal and the semiconductor are brought in contact; (ii) there are no localized states on the surface of the semiconductor and (iii) a perfect interface between
the metal and the semiconductor is made every time, i.e. a total absence of any
interfacial layer in between. The divergence in experimentally observed values of
SBH from Eqn. 3.1 only highlights that the model is too simple to realistically treat
M-S interfaces. Here we present a review of some models to construct the Schottky
barriers considering the concept of interface states of realistic M-S interfaces.

34

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

e gap
s

_
_
_
_

++

QSC
+++

eVbb
eVn

QM

Figure 3.2: Band diagram of a M-S interface without surface states, held at a distance s away
from the metal. The external connection makes the Fermi-levels of the two systems match up.

3.2.1

The Schottky-Mott relationship

The Schottky-Mott rule is the most primary theory on the formation of a Schottky
barrier. It prescribes that the alignment condition of the energy bands, each in their
isolated state should prevail over an intimate M-S interface of the same crystals.
This rule predicts the barrier height in the absence of interface states. As observed
in Figure 3.2, large flat surfaces of the semiconductor and metal are assumed to
be placed in parallel to each other and with a small gap S separating them. An
external electrical connection between the two blocks allow the Fermi level of the
two crystals to align. If the semiconductor has no surface states, the surface charge
QSC is the only source of charge on the semiconductor surface. This is balanced by
a charge of equal magnitude and of opposite sign on the surface of the metal. These
charges lead to a constant electric field in the gap, and the total potential drop is
given by:
S QSC
gap =
(3.2)
0
As the electric potential is continuous everywhere, the electric field in the gap is
given as:
egap = S + eVbb + eVN M
(3.3)
where Vbb is the total band bending, VN is the conduction band minima with
respect to the Fermi level at a neutral region of the semiconductor and M being
the work function of the metal. Combining the above two equations, the total band

3.2. Formation of a Schottky barrier

35

bending as a function of the gap (S ), is given as :


eVbb

"
e2 S S2 ND
e2 S S2 ND
= M S eVN +

2
0
20

e2 S S2 ND
+2M 2S 2eVN
20

!#1/2

(3.4)
It can be observed that for a large distance of separation (S ), no band bending occurs and for the limiting case of S =0, the normal Schottky-Mott relation is obtained.
B = M S

(3.5)

Thus, the Schottky-Mott relationship can be viewed as the band line-up when the
semiconductor without surface states approach the metal. This model is far away
from reality where upon a contact, chemical bonds are formed, new states are created and charges start flowing and thus, this model is not expected to give accurate
predictions of the SBH at M-S interfaces where interface bonding is unavoidable. It
describes the SBH of a non-interacting interface without charge and atomic relaxations.

3.2.2

Fermi-level pinning at semiconductor surface

A sudden termination of the periodic structure of the semiconductor crystal structure causes creation of electronic states particular to the surface. These states have
no equivalent states in the bulk band structures, and their wave functions peak at
the surface plane and decay away from the surface. The distribution of these states
depend on the atomic structure of the surface as the surface tends to attain a minimum surface energy.
This concept, is centered around a the charge neutrality level (CNL) which is explained as follows. At T=0 K, the surface states are filled from the lowest energy
states to the Fermi-level. If the electrons are filled to a point short of the CNL, the
surface region i.e. the first few atomic plane attains a net positive charge as the
Fermi-level sits lower than the CNL. In the other case, the surface has an excess
of electrons and attains a net negative charge. As the Fermi-level remains constant
across the entire semiconductor, the CNL makes an unique correspondence between
the population of the surface states and the band bending at the interface. The density of the surface states DGS is roughly considered to be constant around the Fermilevel and the net charge per unit area is given by: (as also seen from Figure. 3.3)
QGS = eDGS (B CN L Eg )

(3.6)

where CN L is the CNL position with respect to the valance band maximum. For an
uniformly doped semiconductor, the Fermi-level coincides with the CNL; and the

36

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

+ +
+ + +
CNL

QGS

eVbb

eVn

ECB

EVB

Figure 3.3: Band diagram of a semiconductor surface states.

Fermi-level position is defined by:


p
2 + 2 N e2 D 2 (E
S ND 2S ND
S D
g
CN L eVN )
GS
B = Eg CN L +
2
e2 DGS

(3.7)

where ND is the dopant density.


An important consequence of the surface states is the formation of surface dipoles
which ultimately alters the electron affinity of the semiconductor and this depends
on the spatial distribution of the charge. Such a phenomena could cause local
patches on the surface that have different charge density and thus, different dipole
interactions. However, as described in Chapters 4-5, their effect is negligible as long
as the interface is epitaxial and free from structural imperfections.

3.2.3

Metal induced gap states model

As the metal and the semiconductor makes an intimate contact, chemical bonds are
established across the interface. All the electronic properties of the M-S interface including the formation of the electric dipole and SBH are directly influenced by these
interface bonds. In the models mentioned earlier, the major drawback is that they

3.2. Formation of a Schottky barrier

37

ignore such chemical effects of interaction; and hence the departure of the actual
SBH from Schottky-Mott relationship is clearly related to this effect.
The presence of Bloch states from the metal at energies within the band gap of the
semiconductor rejects the occurrence of the surface states in an intimate M-S interface. The metal wave functions tunnel inside the band gap of the semiconductor
and decay progressively away from the interface. The density of the metal induced
gap states (MIGS) decay from the M-S interface with a characteristic length that correlates with the ionicity of the semiconductor. Owing to the MIGS, there is a spillage
of negative charges from the metal into the semiconductor side of the interface.
These negative charges at the interface causes a spatially extended distribution of
MIGS. The effective Schottky barrier, which mainly influences the electronic transport is given as
B = asym M IGS
(3.8)
where asym is the asymptotic SBH at the edge of the space charge region and
M IGS being the SBH lowering. This lowering of the SBH can be represented as:
(3.9)

M IGS = ezmax Emax

Here, Emax represents the electric field due to the space charge region.The asymptotic SBH is given as:
e2 DM IGS
S
(3.10)
As shown in Chapter 6, the SBH of BiFeO3 against various metals are considered using this model, where this considers the barrier height arising from electronegativity
differences.

asym = M IGS (M S )+(1M IGS )(Eg CN L ), where

3.2.4

M IGS = 1

Bond-polarization theory

Quite a few aspects of the MIGS model are vague; for instance the exchange of
charges between the metal and the MIGS which is often stated to be the mechanism
for interface dipole formation. The major shortcomings are, firstly; the semiconductor does not possess a density of electrons with energy within its band gap. Thus,
there cant be a transfer of electrons from the semiconductor to the metal around the
Fermi level. Secondly, as the MIGS are extended Bloch states of the metal, it is not
possible to add or remove MIGS from the semiconductor side without adding or
removing states on the metal side. How the MIGS theory is perceived to form interface dipoles is similar to how the fixed separation model works, with the exception
that the gap states in the semiconductor are MIGS rather than surface states. Being

38

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

alike in this view, the MIGS model is unable to account for the large scatter in SBH
data and the inhomogeneity of MS interfaces. This clearly demonstrates that the
SBH depends on the bonding and the structure of the interface. The hybridization
of orbitals and the creation of bonding and antibonding states take place at the M-S
interface.
Joining a metal and semiconductor in thermal equilibrium causes chemical bonding
to take place. At an ordinary, polycrystalline M-S interface, the bonding geometry
likely changes from place to place, leading to a locally varying interface dipole. The
measured SBH then reflects some weighted average of this interface dipole. As a
result of the randomness of the interface, there is the expectation that the interface
dipole can perhaps be estimated using bulk-derived properties. The total energy of
a multi-atomic molecule can be written, neglecting higher order terms, as:
 0

Etot (QA , ..., QN ) = EA
+ UA QA + (1/2)YA Q2A + (1/2)QA QB JA B
(3.11)
where E0A is the energy of atom A, -eQA is the net charge on atom A, UA (=A /2+
IA /2) is the Mulliken potential, YA (=IA -A ) is the idempotential and JAB (= e2 /0 dAB )
is the Coulomb potential between two charges positioned at A and B. mentioned
above is the electron affinity, I is the ionization potential and dAB is the distance between atoms A and B. In thermal equilibrium, the truncated lattices of the metal and
semiconductor are assumed to form bonds at the interface. A density of NB bonds
is assumed to be formed at the interface which is further influenced by the lattice
mismatch, structure incompatibility, interface intermixing which further reduce the
number of bonds formed laterally. Additionally, in case of metals the ionization
potential and the electron affinity are both known as the workfunction (M ). For
the semiconductor, the ionization potential and the electron affinity (s ) differ by its
band gap. Owing to symmetry considerations, every bonded metal atom has the
same net charge as every semiconductor atom, and is given by:
QM =

M S Eg /2
Eg +

(3.12)

where is the sum of all hopping interactions. The voltage drop across this interfacial dipole layer can be represented as:
Vint =

edM S NB M S Eg /2
it
Eg +

(3.13)

which ultimately results in the SBH represented as


B = B (M S ) + (1 B )

Eg
, where
2

B = 1

e2 dM S NB
)
it (Eg +

(3.14)

3.3. Ballistic electron emission microscopy

39

Thus, in accordance to the bond polarization model, the polarization of the interfacial bonds can quantitatively account for the Fermi level pinning, as observed
experimentally. Traditionally, both the interacting models; namely MIGS and bond
polarization model predicts very similarly the presence of an interface dipole results from the relaxation of the charge density across the interface. However, the
bond polarization model treats the origin of interface dipoles discretely as opposed
to the smeared out charge distribution in MIGS theory. Furthermore, the bond polarization model considers length scale at which the charge transfer takes place
across the interface and includes any non-uniformity caused by distortions at the
interface clearly reflecting on the measured SBH. This makes the bond polarization
model support the experimentally observed values strongly. In regards to our studies (Chapter 5), this model is used to explain the orbital coupling across the M-S
interface.

3.3

Ballistic electron emission microscopy

The physics of Schottky barrier formation and electronic transport across it is a subject of intense study for many decades due to its great technological importance.
As already observed, the electronic structure and the electrical behaviour of the interface is of particular interest and there exists an intricate correlation in between
them. Among various techniques that yield SBH, ballistic electron emission microscopy (BEEM) measures the pristine SBH at the M-S interface at the nanoscale.
[4, 3, 5]. A schematic view of the BEEM experiment is as shown in Figure 3.4. It
is a three terminally modified version of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM).
The electrons tunnel from the negatively biased STM tip with a tunnel voltage VT
and tunnel current of IT into a thin metallic film deposited on an n-type semiconductor. The injected electron distribution is termed as hot as they possess kinetic
energies a few eV above the thermal energy. These electrons tunnel into the unoccupied states of the metal over-layer. The metallic film and the semiconductor
have distinct electrical contacts. With a distribution of hot electrons injected into the
metallic film, they undergo heavy scattering as they travel through the thickness
of the film. Upon reaching the interface, if these electrons have energies above the
SBH (B ), they contribute to the BEEM current collected from the conduction band
of the semiconductor. Usually the tunnel current IT is the the range tens of nA, and
the extracted BEEM current is in the order of a few pA. Energies of the injected hot
electrons can be varied over a range and a spectroscopic study of the BEEM current for a range of voltage gives an accurate measure of the pristine energy band

40

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

IT
VT

IB

Semiconductor
Figure 3.4: Schematic of the BEEM set-up. A constant tunnel current (IT ) with an energy
distribution of eVT above Fermi level is injected into the metallic over-layer. At the M-S
interface, electrons with energies higher than the Schottky barrier get collected as the BEEM
current (IB ).

line-ups at the M-S interface. The lateral resolution, determined by the propagation of the transmitted electrons is strongly governed by the conservation of energy
and transverse momentum at the Schottky interface. Critical in understanding is
the electronic transport across the interface, BEEM provides information on the homogeneity of the interface and its correlation with structural features of the buried
interfaces.

3.3.1

Theory

The hot electron current is injected in a current perpendicular to plane geometry.


This entire transport can be divided into four main stages:
1. Injection of the charge carriers from the tip into the metal base; resulting
in an angular and energy distribution of the electrons in the surface region of the
metal.
2. Transport through the metal base, which is accompanied by elastic and
inelastic scattering processes finally leading to the broadening of the energy distribution of the injected hot electrons.
3. Transmission across the M-S interface, which depends on the conservation of lateral momentum.
4. Transport through the semiconductor, where back scattering into the

3.3. Ballistic electron emission microscopy

41

metal and impact ionization effects could lead to changes in the collected BEEM
current.
These four steps of tunneling, transport through the metal, interface transmission and transport in semiconductor each strongly influences the extracted BEEM
current and finally provides vital information about the electronic properties of the
heterostructures.
Tunneling from tip to metallic over-layer: A planar tunneling theory is applied to understand the energy and spatial distribution of the tunneling current in close proximity to the metallic thin film [8, 9]. Considering the free electron character of the electrons in the tip and the metal, propagation of electrons
take place in a direction parallel to the electron momentum. At the energies
of interest in BEEM, the densities of states is assumed to be constant with respect to the strong energy variation of the tunneling probability. Additionally,
at a constant energy, a deviation by an angle from the normal direction of tunneling increases the parallel component of the energy, resulting in a decrease
of the tunneling probability. Typically, this opening angle of the tip-emission
cone in the metal is 11o . [5]
Transport through the metal: As the injected hot electrons propagate through
the metallic film, they are heavily influenced by scattering. The different scattering mechanisms of hot electrons during their transmission from the tip
to the semiconductor is as shown in Figure 3.5. Other than pure ballistic
transport, there are several scattering processes involved. Typically at the energy levels of hot electron injection, inelastic scattering takes prominence[6,
7]. It could occur in the metal film thereby decreasing the energy of the primary electron. This process generates secondary electrons which can possess
enough energy at the interface to overcome the Schottky barrier and get collected as BEEM current. Additionally, elastic scattering in the metal film and
reflection at both the metal surface and at the interface may lead to change in
the momentum. After transmission across the interface inelastic scattering in
the semiconductor can lead to impact ionization which is an additional contribution to the BEEM current.
The attenuation of hot electrons by inelastic scattering is described by an energy dependent mean-free path. An electron-electron scattering process for
a hot electron injected at energy E can cause an energy loss between Fermienergy and E, and the number of final states for this electron to scatter into is
dependent on the density of unoccupied states in the metallic film. As mentioned before, the inelastic scattering events lead to secondary electrons which

42

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

Tip

Metal

Semiconductor

Figure 3.5: The different scattering mechanisms of hot electrons in the metallic layer is shown.
(a) Black - Pure ballistic transport. (b) Blue - inelastic scattering further causing the generation
of secondary electrons. (c) Green - elastic scattering at the M-S interface or within the metallic
film. (d) Green - Impact ionization in the semiconductor.

have sufficient energy to cross the interface and form an inelastic background
current in the BEEM spectra.
Elastic scattering occurs at lattice defects or by reflection at lattice planes.
These scattering events broaden the momentum distribution cone of the injected electrons. Careful observation of the BEEM spectra can lead to different
magnitude and spectral shape of the BEEM current. This could also have consequences on the lateral resolution of BEEM. For hot electron transmission
across a thin metallic film, the attenuation length (E) is described by an exponentially decaying function:
h
t i
IB (t, E)
exp
IT
(E)

(3.15)

Transmission across the interface: Here the transmission of the injected hot
electrons are considered with an emphasis on the energetic and angular characteristics. The conservation of momentum parallel to the interface has far
reaching implications in BEEM. In addition to the overcoming the Schottky
barrier, the transmitted hot electrons are influenced strongly different effective masses in the semiconductor. [4].
Typically electron refraction effects can be visualized as shown in Figure 3.6.
The effective electron mass in metal is equal to the free electron mass (m0 ),
where as the effective electron mass in the semiconductor is m . The energy

3.3. Ballistic electron emission microscopy

43

(a)

(b)

Metal

Metal

Semiconductor
vz

Semiconductor

vxy
vxy

z
vz

Figure 3.6: (a) Electron refraction during crossing the M-S interface enables the electron
to gain velocity component parallel to the interface, and lose the component perpendicular
to it. (b) If the incident angle is larger than the critical angle, the electron can not enter the
semiconductor and is reflected.

of the motion parallel to the interface is given by:


Exy = E(Kxy ) =

2
~2 kxy
~2
=
(k 2 + ky2 )
2m(z)
2m(z) x

(3.16)

Using this Eqn. 3.19 and applying the momentum conservation law for kxy ,
the energy component parallel to the interface is given by:
semiconductor
metal
Exy
= Exy

m0
m

(3.17)

Another limitation is the conservation of the total energy which can be written
as:
~2
~2 k 2
+Epotential =
(k 2 +k 2 +k 2 )+Epotential = Exy +Ez +Epotential
2m(z)
2m(z) x y z
(3.18)
Thus, the energy associated with the movement of electrons across the interface is given by:

E=

metal
metal
Ezsemiconductor = E Exy Eb = E0 +Ezmetal +Exy
Exy

metal
Ezsemiconductor = Ezmetal Exy

m

0
m

m0
Eb (3.19)
m


1 eVb0

(3.20)

where eVb0 is the height of the potential barrier (Eb -E0 ), E0 the conduction
band minima in the metal and Eb the conduction band minima in the semiconductor. The first subtrahend decreases the energy of Ez due to the change
in effective mass in addition to the constraint put by the potential barrier at
the interface. With effective masses of electrons in semiconductors (m ) just a

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

44

few percentage of the free electron mass, at the interface they gain a parallel
component of energy but lose Ez which results in their refraction away from
the perpendicular to the interface. Only those electrons which have exactly a
perpendicular angle of incidence at the interface will be transmitted through
the interface.
The critical angle for the total reflection can be obtained by considering the kk
momentum conservation rules, and is given by:
sin2 (critical ) =

m E Eb
m0 E E0

(3.21)

m eV eVb
m0 eV + Ef

(3.22)

Upon simplification, this takes the form:


sin2 (critical ) =

where eVb is the Schottky barrier height and Ef is the position of the Fermi
level; with respect to the conduction band minima. For electrons to travel
across the interface, their angle of incidence should fulfill:
sin2 () = sin2 (critical )

(3.23)

In BEEM, this condition defines the opening angle of the acceptance-cone in


the metal film for electrons that have overcome the tunnel barrier and further transmit to the semiconductor. These small critical angles (typically in the
range of 4.5o ) have crucial effect on the lateral resolution of BEEM. Only electrons within the acceptance cone will determine the lateral resolution. With
a point like electron source at the top of the base layer, the minimal interface
resolution is given by:
x = 2dtan(critical )
(3.24)
where d being the thickness of the base metallic layer.
Transport in the semiconductor: Scattering in the semiconductor layer close
to the M-S interface also has strong influences on the collected BEEM current.
The injected hot electrons in the semiconductor can be scattered elastically
and be reflected back into the metal. Furthermore, electrons possessing energy higher than the band-gap energy can excite an electron-hole pair in the
semiconductor thereby contributing to the BEEM current.

3.3.2

BEEM transport models

A theoretical model proposed by L.D. Bell and W. J. Kaiser on hot electron transport across the M-S interface is used to extract the Schottky barrier heights from

3.4. Summary

45

spectroscopy measurements. The tunnel current between the tip and the metallic
over-layer, based on planar tunneling theory can be written as:
Z

dEk [f (E) f (E + eVT )]

dE T (E )

IT = A
0

(3.25)

T (E ) is the tunnel probability for an electron to tunnel through the vacuum barrier over the transverse and parallel (to the interface) energies, E and Ek . A is the
constant related to effective tunneling area, f (E) is the Fermi distribution function,
and VT is the applied tip voltage.
According to widely used Bell-Kaiser (BK) model[4], BEEM transmission is the fraction of the ballistically transmitted tunnel current:
Ekmax

Z
IB = AR
min
E

Z
dEk [f (E) f (E + eVT )]

dE T (E )

(3.26)

Where R is an attenuation factor due to scattering in the metal base and the M-S
interface. According to BK model, R is considered to be energy independent but
min
it can also be weakly dependent on energy. Other parameters, E
=EF -e(VT -B )
and Ekmax =[mt /(m-mt )][E -EF +e(VT -B )].
For VT just above B , close to threshold, above Eqn 3.25 and 3.26 predict:
IB IT (VT B )2

(3.27)

Such quadratic onset considers classical transmission across the M-S interface with
parabolic conduction band minimum in the semiconductor. Considering quantum mechanical transmission across the M/S interface another model was given
by Ludeke-Prietsch (LP model) according to which IB IT (VT B )2.5 [5]. It was
found that near the threshold regime, no significant difference between the BK and
LP models can be resolved beyond experimental error. Increasing the bias voltage
approximately 0.2 - 0.3 V above the threshold the BEEM current starts varying linearly with the tip bias showing that the theory only models the BEEM current very
close to threshold. For the Schottky barrier extraction in our experimental measurement we have considered BK model instead of LP model and we have seen a better
match with the macroscopic I V measurements.

3.4

Summary

In summary, the physics of a M-S interface formation is described and the various
models describing the mechanism of energy barrier formation are discussed in de-

46

3. Physics of Schottky barrier and Ballistic Electron Emission Microscopy

tail. The models are divided into two types: non-interacting and interacting. During
the discussions, it gets clear that the atomic structure of the interface plays a dominant role. The spatial distributions of all the occupied electronic states at the MS
interface, which cover a wide range in energy, together are responsible for the magnitude of the interface dipole. Although each model is identified for its merits and
shortcomings, it got clear that no general rules could be established without the
knowledge of the interface specifics. In the second part, the basic working principle
of the microscopic or local technique i.e. ballistic electron emission microscopy is
introduced. The transport of hot carriers can be sub-divided into various regions of
transport from the STM tip to the semiconductor, and an introduction to the BellKaiser model is also made.

3.4. Bibliography

47

Bibliography
[1] S. M. Sze, Physics of Semiconductor Devices (New York, Wiley, 1981).
[2] R. T. Tung, J. M. Gibson and J. M. Poate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 429 (1983); R. T. Tung, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 52, 461 (1984).
[3] W. J. Kaiser, L.D. Bell, Phys. Rev. lett. 60, 1406, (1988).
[4] L. D. Bell, W. J. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. lett. 61 2368, 1406, (1988).
[5] M. Prietsch, Phys. Rep. 253, 163, (1995).
[6] L. D. Bell and W.J. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2679 (1990).
[7] L. D. Bell, W.J. Kaiser, M. H. Hecht, L. C. Davis, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 9, 594 (1991).
[8] J. G. Simmons, J. Appl. Phys. 34, 1793 (1965)
[9] I. Appelbaum, B. Huang, D. J. Monsma, Nature 447, 295 (2007)

You might also like