### Abstract

The 2×1 and c(4×2) surface reconstructions on Ge(100) are investigated by the ab initio, all-electron, molecular-cluster method, which solves the local-density-functional equations and provides analytical energy gradients. We use finite-size clusters (up to 71 atoms including 39 Ge atoms) to model the Ge(100) surfaces. Atomic-force calculations are extensively used to obtain the minimum-energy geometry for the different structures investigated. We determine and compare the binding energy and geometry up to the fourth layer of the symmetric (2×1), buckled (2×1), as well as the higher-order c(4×2) reconstruction. Important energetic and structural differences are found compared to the corresponding Si(100)2×1 surface. The asymmetric dimer model is found to be 0.34 eV/dimer lower than the symmetric one with the up-dimer atom being 0.19 above the plane of the unreconstructed surface and a dimer tilt of 15°. The buckled 2×1 and c(4×2) reconstructions are found to be close in energy, which suggests that both could be present on the surface at room temperature. These results are in excellent agreement with scanning-tunneling-microscopy experiments and previous theoretical studies using a slab geometry. This energy is well below the energy of the symmetric dimer reconstruction indicating that dimer flipping recently suggested for the Si(100)2×1 surface is unlikely to occur in the case of the Ge(100) surface. In significant contrast to the Si(100) surface, we found that the Ge-Ge dimer is weaker with bond lengths that are slightly above the bulk value of 2.44, at 2.48 and 2.50 for the asymmetric 2×1 and c(4×2) reconstructions, respectively. It suggests that the Ge(100) surface might show some different behavior towards adsorption.

Original language | English |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 2249-2258 |

Number of pages | 10 |

Journal | Physical Review B |

Volume | 50 |

Issue number | 4 |

DOIs | |

Publication status | Published - 1994 |

### Fingerprint

### ASJC Scopus subject areas

- Condensed Matter Physics

### Cite this

*Physical Review B*,

*50*(4), 2249-2258. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.2249

**Ge(100) 2×1 and c(4×2) surface reconstructions studied by ab initio total-energy molecular-force calculations.** / Spiess, L.; Freeman, Arthur J; Soukiassian, P.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

*Physical Review B*, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 2249-2258. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.2249

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ge(100) 2×1 and c(4×2) surface reconstructions studied by ab initio total-energy molecular-force calculations

AU - Spiess, L.

AU - Freeman, Arthur J

AU - Soukiassian, P.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - The 2×1 and c(4×2) surface reconstructions on Ge(100) are investigated by the ab initio, all-electron, molecular-cluster method, which solves the local-density-functional equations and provides analytical energy gradients. We use finite-size clusters (up to 71 atoms including 39 Ge atoms) to model the Ge(100) surfaces. Atomic-force calculations are extensively used to obtain the minimum-energy geometry for the different structures investigated. We determine and compare the binding energy and geometry up to the fourth layer of the symmetric (2×1), buckled (2×1), as well as the higher-order c(4×2) reconstruction. Important energetic and structural differences are found compared to the corresponding Si(100)2×1 surface. The asymmetric dimer model is found to be 0.34 eV/dimer lower than the symmetric one with the up-dimer atom being 0.19 above the plane of the unreconstructed surface and a dimer tilt of 15°. The buckled 2×1 and c(4×2) reconstructions are found to be close in energy, which suggests that both could be present on the surface at room temperature. These results are in excellent agreement with scanning-tunneling-microscopy experiments and previous theoretical studies using a slab geometry. This energy is well below the energy of the symmetric dimer reconstruction indicating that dimer flipping recently suggested for the Si(100)2×1 surface is unlikely to occur in the case of the Ge(100) surface. In significant contrast to the Si(100) surface, we found that the Ge-Ge dimer is weaker with bond lengths that are slightly above the bulk value of 2.44, at 2.48 and 2.50 for the asymmetric 2×1 and c(4×2) reconstructions, respectively. It suggests that the Ge(100) surface might show some different behavior towards adsorption.

AB - The 2×1 and c(4×2) surface reconstructions on Ge(100) are investigated by the ab initio, all-electron, molecular-cluster method, which solves the local-density-functional equations and provides analytical energy gradients. We use finite-size clusters (up to 71 atoms including 39 Ge atoms) to model the Ge(100) surfaces. Atomic-force calculations are extensively used to obtain the minimum-energy geometry for the different structures investigated. We determine and compare the binding energy and geometry up to the fourth layer of the symmetric (2×1), buckled (2×1), as well as the higher-order c(4×2) reconstruction. Important energetic and structural differences are found compared to the corresponding Si(100)2×1 surface. The asymmetric dimer model is found to be 0.34 eV/dimer lower than the symmetric one with the up-dimer atom being 0.19 above the plane of the unreconstructed surface and a dimer tilt of 15°. The buckled 2×1 and c(4×2) reconstructions are found to be close in energy, which suggests that both could be present on the surface at room temperature. These results are in excellent agreement with scanning-tunneling-microscopy experiments and previous theoretical studies using a slab geometry. This energy is well below the energy of the symmetric dimer reconstruction indicating that dimer flipping recently suggested for the Si(100)2×1 surface is unlikely to occur in the case of the Ge(100) surface. In significant contrast to the Si(100) surface, we found that the Ge-Ge dimer is weaker with bond lengths that are slightly above the bulk value of 2.44, at 2.48 and 2.50 for the asymmetric 2×1 and c(4×2) reconstructions, respectively. It suggests that the Ge(100) surface might show some different behavior towards adsorption.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001542945&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0001542945&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.2249

DO - 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.2249

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 2249

EP - 2258

JO - Physical Review B-Condensed Matter

JF - Physical Review B-Condensed Matter

SN - 1098-0121

IS - 4

ER -