PROC. ITB Sains & Tek. Vol. 38 A, No.

1, 2006, 41-50 41

Transmission Coefficient of an Electron through a

Heterostructure with Nanometer-Thick Trapezoidal
Barrier Grown on an Anisotropic Material
Lilik Hasanah 1 , Fatimah A. Noor, Khairurrijal, Mikrajuddin, Toto Winata &
Sukirno

Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung,

Jalan Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132

Abstract. Transmission coefficient of an electron incident on a heterostructure

potential with nanometer-thick trapezoidal barrier grown on anisotropic
materials are derived by solving the effective-mass equation including off-
diagonal effective-mass tensor elements. The boundary condition for an electron
wave function (under the effective-mass approximation) at a heterostructure
anisotropic junction is suggested and included in the calculation. The analytic
expressions are applied to the Si(110)/Si0.5Ge0.5/Si(110) heterostructure, in which
the SiGe barrier thickness is several nanometers. It is assumed that the direction
of propagation of the electrons makes an arbitrary angle with respect to the
interfaces of the heterostructure and the effective mass of the electron is position
dependent. The transmission coefficient is calculated for energy below the
barrier height, varying the applied voltage to the barrier. The transmission
coefficient depends on the valley where the electron belongs and it is not
symmetric with respect to the incidence angle.

Keywords: Anisotropic material; heterostructure; nanometer-thick barrier;

transmission coefficient; tunneling time.

1 Introduction
Since last half century, the tunneling phenomenon through a potential barrier is
still of interest in the study of quantum transport in heterostructures. Paranjape
studied transmission coefficient of an electron in an isotropic heterostructure
with different effective masses [1]. Kim and Lee derived the transmission
coefficient of an electron tunneling through a barrier of an anisotropic
heterostructure by solving the effective-mass equation including off-diagonal
effective-mass tensor elements [2],[3]. The effects of different effective masses
to the heterostructure were also included but they did not consider the effects of
voltage applied to the barrier in which the square barrier becomes trapezoidal
one. In this paper, we report the derivation and the calculation of the
transmission coefficient of an electron through a heterostructure with a

1
On leave from Jurusan Fisika, FPMIPA, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.

Makalah diterima redaksi tanggal 15 Desember 2005, revisi diterima tanggal 29 Maret 2006.
42 Lilik Hasanah, et al.

nanometer-thick trapezoidal barrier grown on an anisotropic material, including

the effect of applied voltage to the barrier.

2 Theoretical Model
The conduction band energy diagram of a heterostructure is shown in Fig 1 with
the potential profile is expressed as:
0 for z0
eV
V ( z ) = b z for 0 < z < d (1)
d
eV b for z d.

(a) (b)
Figure 1 The potential profile of a heterostructure without a bias voltage (a)
and with the application of a voltage to the barrier (b).

Here, the barrier width and height are d and , respectively. The voltage
applied to the barrier is Vb with e is the electronic charge. The electron is
incident from region I to the potential barrier (region II), in which the material
of the region I is the same as that of the region III.

The Hamiltonian for general anisotropic materials is [2]

1 T
H= p (r )p + V (r ) , (2)
2mo
where mo is the free electron mass, p is the momentum vector, (1 mo ) (r ) is
the inverse effective-mass tensor and V(r) is the potential energy. The effective
mass of the electron and potential are dependent only on the z direction. The
wave function of the effective-mass equation with the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) is
given as [2]:
(r ) = ( z ) exp( iz ) exp(i (k x x + k y y )) , (3)
 Transmission Coefficient of an Electron 43

k x xz + k y yz
and = (4)
zz
is wave number parallel to the interface.

By employing the separation variable to Eq. (2), it is easily found that (z)
satisfies the one dimensional Schrdinger-like equation:
h2 2 ( z )
zz ,l + V ( z ) ( z ) = Ez ( z ) , (5)
2mo z 2
where is the reduced Planck constant, the subscript l in zz,l denotes each
region in Fig. 1 and
h2
Ez = E ij ki k j .
2mo i , j{x , y}
(6)

Here,
h2
E=
i , j{ x , y , z } 2m o
ij ,1 k i k j (7)

is the total energy,

iz zj
ij = ij , (8)
zz
and ij is the effective mass tensor element.

The time-independent electron wave function in each region is therefore written

as
( ik x x + ik y y )
1 ( r ) = ( Ae ik1 z + Be ik1 z )e ( i 1 z ) e , for z 0, (9)
z
z
k 2 ( z )dz
k 2 ( z ) dz ( ik x x + ik y y )
2 ( r ) = ( Ce 0 + De 0
)e ( i 2 z ) e , for 0 <z < d, (10)
( ik x x + ik y y )
3 ( r ) = Fe ik 3 z e ( i 1 z ) e , for z d. (11)
The incident wave Aexp(ik1z) has the wave number k1 which is given as
1
2m E 1 2
k1 = o2 z , (12)
h zz ,1
44 Lilik Hasanah, et al.

where Ez is smaller than the barrier height . The wave numbers k2(z) and k3
are expressed, respectively, as follows
1
2m 1 V zz ,1 2 1 2
k 2 ( z) = 20
h zz , 2
( e b z )
d zz , 2
k1
zz , 2
ij ,1 ij ,2 i j , (13)
( ) k k
i , j( x , y )
and
1
2m (E + eVb ) 1 2
k3 = o z2 . (14)
h zz ,1
By applying the boundary conditions at z = 0 dan z = d, which are written as
follows [3]:
I (z = 0 ) = 2 (z = 0+ ) , (15a)

1 d 1 d 1 d 1
mo zx , I dz + zy , I dz + zz , I dz
z =0
1 d 2 d 2 d 2
=
mo zx , 2 dz + zy , 2 dz + zz , 2 dz + , (15b)
z =0

2 (z = d ) = 3 (z = d + ) , (15c)

1 d 2 d 2 d 2
mo zx , 2 dz + zy , 2 dz + zz , 2 dz
z =d
1 d 3 d 3 d 3
=
mo zx ,1 dz + zy ,1 dz + zz ,1 dz + , (15d)
z =d
we obtain the transmission amplitude Ta which is defined as
F
Ta = = G exp(i ) . (16)
A
Here,
2k1 k 2d (17)
G= 1
( P 2 Sinh 2 (u ) + Q 2 Cosh 2 (u )) 2

is the magnitude and

P
= tan 1 tanh(u ) k 3 d + ( 1 2 )d (18)
Q
 Transmission Coefficient of an Electron 45

is the phase of Ta,

zz ,1 zz , 2 0 d
P=( k1 k 3 k2 k2 ) , (19)
zz , 2 zz ,1

Q = (k 3 k 20 + k1 k 2d ) , (20)

k 20 = k 2 ( z = 0) , (21)

k 2d = k 2 ( z = d ) , (22)
and
d
u = k 2 ( z )dz . (23)
0

The transmission coefficient is easily obtained from Eq. (16) by employing the
expression
T =Ta*Ta. (24)
If the voltage applied to the barrier is zero, then k 20 = k 2d = k 2 , k1 = k3, and the
expressions in Eqs. (17) and (18) will be the same as that given by Lee [2], in
which
2k1 k 2 , (25)
G= 1
( P Sinh (u ) + Q Cosh (u ))
2 2 2 2 2

P
= tan 1 tanh(u ) k 3 d + ( 1 2 )d , (26)
Q
where
zz , I 2 zz , 2 2
P=( k1 k2 ) , (27)
zz , 2 zz , I
Q = 2 k1 k 2 , (28)
and
u = k2d . (29)
46 Lilik Hasanah, et al.

3 Results and Discussion

The model used in the numerical calculation is shown in Fig. 1 with a potential
barrier is a strained Si0.5Ge0.5 potential barrier grown on Si (110). The width of
o
the barrier d is 50 A and the band discontinuity is taken as 216 meV [2].

There are four equivalent valleys in the conduction bands of Si(110) and
strained Si0.5Ge0.5. The effective mass tensor elements of these four valleys are
not the same. There are two groups of valleys in Si(110) and Si0.5Ge0.5. The
inverse effective inverse tensor used in Eq. (2) are related to the tensor elements
ij shown in Table 1 [2]. In Table 1, we see that one group (valley 1) has
positive yz, while another one (valley 2) has negative yz[3]. We denote the
group that has positive yz as valley 1 and the other as valley 2. Therefore, the
calculated results dependent on the group which electron belongs.

Table 1 Tensor elements (ij) used in the numerical calculation.

Valley Region I dan III (Si [110]) Region II (Si0,5Ge0,5)

1 5.26 0 0 6.45 0 0
0 3.14 2.12 0 4.56 2.74
0 2.12 3.14 0 2.74 4.56
2 5.26 0 0 6.45 0 0
0 3.14 -2.12 0 4.56 -2.74
0 -2.12 3.14 0 -2.74 4.56

k

y

X
Figure 2 The coordinate system used in the analysis.

Figure 2 shows the chosen coordinate system. We take the position where the
electron hits the barrier as the origin of the coordinate system. In the spherical
coordinate system, Eq. (7) becomes
 Transmission Coefficient of an Electron 47

E=
h2
2 mo
{
xx1 k 2 sin 2 cos 2 + yy1k 2 sin 2 sin 2 + zz1k 2 cos 2

(
+ 2 xy1 k 2 sin 2 cos sin + yz1 k 2 sin 2 cos sin . (30)
+ zx1 k 2 sin 2 cos cos )}
We calculated the transmission coefficient for the angle of incidence for k (the
wave vector of incident electron) varying from -90o to 90o with incident
energies of 25 meV, 75 meV and 150 meV and varying the applied voltage
from 50 mV to 150 mV. The incident angles are and , but we fix to /2 for
simplicity and change only .

0.0007
valley 1
0.0006 valley 2
Transmissions Coefficient

0.0005

0.0004

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

0
-90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90
incident angle () [degree]

Figure 3 The transmission coefficient for the incident angle varying from -90o
to 90o with incident energy of 75 meV and applied voltage of 50 mV.

The transmission coefficient as a function of incident angle for incident energy

of 75 meV and applied voltage of 50 mV is shown in Fig. 3. The solid line is for
electrons in the valley 1 and dashed line is for those in the valley 2. We can see
that the transmission coefficient for electrons in the valley 1 and valley 2 occurs
at normal incident. In addition, the transmission coefficient becomes the lowest
for -65o<<-45o (the valley 1) and 45o<<65o (the valley 2). The sign
corresponds to valley 1 and 2, respectively. This difference in direction also
indicates the anisotropy of the material. It is due to the fact that the motion in
the x and y directions is not independent of that in the z direction, but they are
mutually coupled by the off-diagonal effective-mass tensors elements[2].
48 Lilik Hasanah, et al.

0.009
Valley 1
0.008
Valley 2
Transmission Coefficient

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Incident angle () [degree]

Figure 4 The transmission coefficient for the incident angle varying from -90o
to 90o with incident energy of 150 meV and applied voltage of 50 mV.

Figure 5 The transmission coefficient for the incident angle varying from -90o
to 90o with incident energy of 25 meV and applied voltage of 100 mV.
 Transmission Coefficient of an Electron 49

0.00012
valley 1
valley 2
0.0001
Transmission Coefficient

0.00008

0.00006

0.00004

0.00002

0
-90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90
Incident Angle () [degree]

Figure 6 The transmission coefficient for the incident angle varying from -90o
to 90o with incident energy of 25 meV and applied voltage of 150 mV.

In Fig. 4 the transmission coefficient for incident energy of 150 meV and
applied voltage of 50 mV is presented. It is found that electron in the valley 1
and valley 2 have the highest transmission coefficient at about normal
incidence. It is noted that the maximum value of the transmission coefficient for
the incident energy of 75 meV is lower than that for the incident energy of 150
meV because the electrons have lower energy so that the probability of
electrons to tunnel the barrier is also smaller. The incident angles having the
lowest transmission coefficient becomes wider (-80o<<-40o and 40o<<80o) as
the electron energy increases. It is probably due to the fact that if we increase
the electron's incident energy then the energy in z direction is decreases. We
also observe that for all valleys, the transmission coefficients are not symmetric
with the incidence angle. If we decrease the incident energy, the electrons have
lower energy to tunnel the potential barrier so that the probability of tunneling
the barrier is smaller than that for the electrons with higher incident energy
although bias voltage is increased as shown in Fig. 5. Transmission coefficient
in Fig. 5 decrease two order of magnitude compare to transmission coefficient
in Fig. 3. But for the same incident energy, the transmission coefficient will
increase when the applied voltage to the barrier increased as shown in Fig. 6. In
Fig 5 and 6, the maximum transmission coefficient is 9 x 10-5 and 11 x 10-5,
respectively. For the case in Figs. 5 and 6, the transmission coefficient is
maximum at normal incident. We also see that, in all valleys, the transmission
50 Lilik Hasanah, et al.

coefficient is not symmetric with the change of sign of incidence angle (-),
which confirms the anisotropic of the materials [2].

4 Conclusion
We have derived an analytical expression of transmission coefficient of an
electron through a nanometer-thick trapezoidal barrier grown on anisotropic
materials under non-normal incidence. We included the effect of different
effective masses at heterojunction interfaces. The boundary conditions for
electron wave functions (under the effective-mass approximation) at
heterostructure anisotropic junctions are suggested and included in the
calculation. The transmission coefficient will increase if the incident energy is
increased. For the same incident energy, the highest value of the transmission
coefficient occurs if the applied voltage to the barrier is high. The result shows
that the transmission coefficient depends on the valley and it is not symmetric
with the angle of incidence.

Acknowledgement
One of the authors (L.H) would like to thank the Habibie Center for the
domestic doctoral scholarship.

References
1. V.V. Paranjape: Transmission coefficient and stationary-phase tunneling
time of an electron through a heterostructure, Phys.Rev. B. Vol 52. No 15,
1995, 10 740-10 743.
2. K.-Y. Kim and B. Lee: Transmission coefficient of an electron through a
heterostructure barrier grown on anisotropic materials, Phys.Rev. B. Vol
58. No 11, 1998, 6728-6731.
3. K.-Y. Kim and B. Lee: Tunneling time and the post-tunneling position of
an electron through a potential barrier in an anisotropic semiconductor,
Superlattice Microstruct. Vol. 24. No 6, 1998, 389-397.