Dimer-anticorrelation-induced stabilization of adsorbate clustering on the Si(100)-(2 × 1) surface

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 92, Issue 9, 2004, Pages

  Chen, Dongxue ^a   Boland, John J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADSORPTION; CHEMICAL BONDS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FLOW INTERACTIONS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY; SILICON; SUBSTRATES; SURFACE CHEMISTRY; THERMAL EFFECTS;

DENSITY FUNCTIONAL THEORY (DFT); REPULSIVE INTERACTIONS; SURFACE DANGLING BONDS; SURFACE PATCHES;

DIMERS;

EID: 2442595727     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.096103     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. R. E. Schlier and H. E. Farnsworth, J. Chem. Phys. 30, 917 (1959).
2. R. J. Hamers, R. M. Tromp, and J. E. Demuth, Phys. Rev. B 34, 5343 (1986).
3. D. J. Chadi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 43 (1979).
4. R. A. Wolkow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2636 (1992).
5. P. Nachtigall, K. D. Jordan, and K. C. Janda, J. Chem. Phys. 95, 8652 (1991).
6. J. J. Boland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1539 (1991).
7. M. P. D'Evelyn, S. M. Cohen, E. Rouchouze, and Y. L. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 3560 (1993).
8. C. M. Aldo and J. H. Weaver, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 36, 2456 (1997).
9. D. Chen and J. J. Boland, Phys. Rev. B 67, 195328 (2003).
10. C. F. Herrmann and J. J. Boland, Surf. Sci. 460, 223 (2000).
11. C. F. Herrmann, D. Chen, and J. J. Boland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 096102 (2002).
12. D. Chen and J. J. Boland, Surf. Sci. 518, L583 (2002).
13. G. J. Xu, K. S. Nakayama, B. R. Trenhaile, C. M. Aldao, and J. H. Weaver, Phys. Rev. B 67, 125321 (2003).
14. D. Rioux, F. Stepniak, R. J. Pechman, and J. H. Weaver, Phys. Rev. B 51, 10 981 (1995).
15. J. H. G. Owen, D. R. Bowler, C. M. Goringe, K. Miki, and G. A. D. Briggs, Phys. Rev. B 54, 14153 (1996).
16. J. P. Perdew et al., Phys. Rev. B 46, 6671 (1992).
17. H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976).
18. A. Ramstad, G. Brocks, and P. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. B 51, 14 504 (1995).
19. The geometry optimization structures in Fig. 2 reveal that the passivated dimers in both cells are identical; whereas the bare dimers are 0.02 Å shorter and less tilted by 0.2° in the second cell. This difference can easily be attributed to reduced anticorrelation in the second cell, since anticorrelation is known to lead to bigger tilting angles and longer dimer bond lengths. [J. Fritsch and P. Pavone, Surf. Sci. 344, 159 (1995)]. Moreover, the potential energy curve associated with dimer tilting is known to be very flat around a minimum at 18°, and elastic models indicate that the energy contribution associated with a tilt angle change of 0.2° is less than 5 meV [J. Dabrowski and M. Scheffler, Appl. Surf. Sci. 56, 15 (1992)].
20. The geometry optimization structures in Fig. 2 reveal that the passivated dimers in both cells are identical; whereas the bare dimers are 0.02 Å shorter and less tilted by 0.2° in the second cell. This difference can easily be attributed to reduced anticorrelation in the second cell, since anticorrelation is known to lead to bigger tilting angles and longer dimer bond lengths. [J. Fritsch and P. Pavone, Surf. Sci. 344, 159 (1995)]. Moreover, the potential energy curve associated with dimer tilting is known to be very flat around a minimum at 18°, and elastic models indicate that the energy contribution associated with a tilt angle change of 0.2° is less than 5 meV [J. Dabrowski and M. Scheffler, Appl. Surf. Sci. 56, 15 (1992)].
21. N. Metropolis, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
22. J. J. Boland, Adv. Phys. 42, 129 (1993).
23. Y. L. Yang and M. P. D'Evelyn, J. Vac, Sci. Technol. A 11, 2200 (1993).
24. G. J. Xu, E. Graugnard, V. Petrova, K. S. Nakayama, and J. H. Weaver, Phys. Rev. B 67, 125320 (2003).