Making semiconductors magnetic: new materials properties, devices, and future JAIRO SINOVA Texas A&M...
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Making semiconductors magnetic: new materials properties, devices, and future JAIRO SINOVA Texas A&M...
Making semiconductors magnetic:
new materials properties, devices, and future
JAIRO SINOVATexas A&M University
Institute of Physics ASCR
Hitachi CambridgeJorg Wunderlich, A. Irvine, et al
Institute of Physics ASCRTomas Jungwirth, Vít Novák, et al
Texas A&M L. Zarbo
Ohio State UniversityOct 2nd 2009
University of Nottingham Bryan Gallagher, Tom
Foxon, Richard Campion, et al.
NRISWAN
OUTLINE
• Motivation• Ferromagnetic semiconductor materials:
– (Ga,Mn)As - general picture– Growth, physical limits on Tc – Related FS materials (searching for room temperature)– Understanding critical behavior in transport
• Ferromagnetic semiconductors & spintronics– Tunneling anisotropic magnetoresistive device– Transistors (4 types)
Technologically motivated and scientifically fueled
Incorporate magnetic properties with
semiconductor tunability (MRAM, etc)
Understanding complex phenomena:•Spherical cow of ferromagnetic systems (still very complicated)•Engineered control of collective phenomena
Generates new physics:•Tunneling AMR•Coulomb blockade AMR•Nanostructure magnetic anisotropy engineering
ENGINEERING OF QUANTUM MATERIALS
More knobs than usual in semiconductors: density, strain, chemistry/pressure, SO coupling engineering
1. Create a material that marriages the tunability of semiconductors and the collective behavior of ferromagnets; once created search for room temperature systems
2. Study new effects in this new material and utilize in metal-based spintronics
3. Develop a three-terminal gated spintronic device to progress from sensors & memories to transistors & logic
Ferromagnetic semiconductor research : strategies
(Ga,Mn)As GENERAL PICTURE
Ferromagnetic semiconductors
GaAs - standard III-V semiconductor
Group-II Mn - dilute magnetic moments & holes
(Ga,Mn)As - ferromagnetic semiconductor
Need true FSs not FM inclusions in SCs
Mn
Ga
AsMn
+
Mn
Ga
As
What happens when a Mn is placed in Ga sites:Mn–hole spin-spin interaction
hybridization
Hybridization like-spin level repulsion Jpd SMn shole interaction
Mn-d
As-p
In addition to the Kinetic-exchange coupling, for a single Mn ion, the coulomb interaction gives a trapped hole (polaron) which resides just above the valence band
5 d-electrons with L=0 S=5/2 local moment
intermediate acceptor (110 meV) hole
Mn
Ga
AsMn
EF
DO
S
Energy
spin
spin
Transition to a ferromagnet when Mn concentration increasesGaAs:Mn – extrinsic p-type semiconductor
FM due to p-d hybridization (Zener local-itinerant kinetic-exchange)
valence band As-p-like holes
As-p-like holes localized on Mn acceptors
<< 1% Mn ~1% Mn >2% Mn
onset of ferromagnetism near MIT
Mn
Ga
As
Mn
Ga
AsMn
•Low-T MBE to avoid precipitation
•High enough T to maintain 2D growth
need to optimize T & stoichiometry for each Mn-doping
•Inevitable formation of interstitial Mn-double-donors compensating holes and moments need to anneal out but without loosing MnGa
high-T growth
optimal-T growth
(Ga,Mn)As GROWTH
Interstitial Mn out-diffusion limited by surface-oxide
GaMnAs
GaMnAs-oxide
Polyscrystalline20% shorter bonds
MnI++
O
Optimizing annealing-T another key factorRushforth et al, ‘08
x-ray photoemission
Olejnik et al, ‘08
10x shorther annealing with etch
(Ga,Mn)As GENERAL THEORY
HOW DOES ONE GO ABOUT UNDERSTANDING SUCH
SYSTEMS
1. One could solve the full many body S.E.: not possible AND not fun
2. Combining phenomenological models (low degrees of freedom) and approximations and comparison to other computational technieques while checking against experiments
“This is the art of condensed matter science, an intricate tangobetween theory and experiment whose conclusion can only beguessed at while the dance is in progress”
A.H.M et al., in “Electronic Structure and Magnetism in Complex Materials” (2002).
Theoretical Approaches to DMSs
• First Principles LSDA PROS: No initial assumptions, effective Heisenberg model can be extracted, good for determining chemical trends
CONS: Size limitation, difficulty dealing with long range interactions, lack of quantitative predictability, neglects SO coupling (usually)
• Microscopic TB models
•k.p Local Moment
PROS: “Unbiased” microscopic approach, correct capture of band structure and hybridization, treats disorder microscopically (combined with CPA), very good agreement with LDA+U calculations
CONS: neglects (usually) coulomb interaction effects, difficult to capture non-tabulated chemical trends, hard to reach large system sizes
PROS: simplicity of description, lots of computational ability, SO coupling can be incorporated, CONS: applicable only for metallic weakly hybridized systems (e.g. optimally doped GaMnAs), over simplicity (e.g. constant Jpd), no good for deep impurity levels (e.g. GaMnN)
Jungwirth, Sinova, Masek, Kucera, MacDonald, Rev. of Mod. Phys. 78, 809 (2006)
Magnetism in systems with coupled dilute moments and delocalized band electrons
(Ga,Mn)As
cou
plin
g s
tren
gth
/ F
erm
i en
erg
y
band-electron density / local-moment density
Which theory is right?
KP EastwoodFast principles Jack
Impurity bandit vs Valence Joe
How well do we understand (Ga,Mn)As?
In the metallic optimally doped regime GaMnAs is well described by a disordered-valence band picture: both dc-data and ac-data are consistent with this scenario.
The effective Hamiltonian (MF) and weak scattering theory (no free parameters) describe (III,Mn)V metallic DMSs very well in the optimally annealed regime:• Ferromagnetic transition temperatures
Magneto-crystalline anisotropy and coercively Domain structure Anisotropic magneto-resistance Anomalous Hall effect MO in the visible range Non-Drude peak in longitudinal ac-conductivity • Ferromagnetic resonance • Domain wall resistance • TAMR •Transport critical behaviour •Infrared MO effects
TB+CPA and LDA+U/SIC-LSDA calculations describe well chemical trends, impurity formation energies, lattice constant variations upon doping
EXAMPLE: MAGNETO-OPTICAL EFFECTS IN THE INFRARED
Tc LIMITS AND STRATEGIES
Curie temperature limited to ~110K.
Only metallic for ~3% to 6% Mn
High degree of compensation
Unusual magnetization (temperature dep.)
Significant magnetization deficit
But are these intrinsic properties of GaMnAs ??
“110K could be a fundamental limit on TC”
As
GaMn
Mn Mn
Problems for GaMnAs (late 2002)
Can a dilute moment ferromagnet have a high Curie temperature ?
The questions that we need to answer are:
1. Is there an intrinsic limit in the theory models (from the physics of the phase diagram) ?
2. Is there an extrinsic limit from the ability to create the material and its growth (prevents one to reach the optimal spot in the phase diagram)?
EXAMPLE OF THE PHYSICS TANGO
COMBINATION OF THEORY APPROACHES PREDICTS:
Tc linear in MnGa local moment concentration; falls rapidly with decreasing hole density in more than 50%
compensated samples; nearly independent of hole density for compensation < 50%.
Jungwirth, Wang, et al. Phys. Rev. B 72, 165204 (2005)
3/1pxT MnMF
c
Intrinsic properties of (Ga,Mn)As
Extrinsic effects: Interstitial Mn - a magnetism killer
Yu et al., PRB ’02:
~10-20% of total Mn concentration is incorporated as interstitials
Increased TC on annealing corresponds to removal of these defects.
Mn
As
Interstitial Mn is detrimental to magnetic order:
compensating double-donor – reduces carrier density
couples antiferromagnetically to substitutional Mn even in
low compensation samples Blinowski PRB ‘03, Mašek, Máca PRB '03
MnGa and MnI partial concentrations
Microscopic defect formation energy calculations:
No signs of saturation in the dependence of MnGa concentrationon total Mn doping
Jungwirth, Wang, et al.Phys. Rev. B 72, 165204 (2005)
As grown Materials calculation
Annealing can vary significantly increases hole densities.
Low Compensatio
n
0 2 4 6 8 100
3
6
9
12
15
18
p (
x 1
020cm
-3)
Mntotal
(%)
0 2 4 6 8 100.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
p/M
n sub
Mntotal
(%)
Obtain Mnsub assuming
change in hole density due to
Mn out diffusion
Open symbols & half closed as grown. Closed symbols annealed
High compensatio
nJungwirth, Wang, et al.Phys. Rev. B 72, 165204 (2005)
Experimental hole densities: measured by ordinary Hall effect
Theoretical linear dependence of Mnsub on total Mn confirmed experimentally
Mnsub
MnIntObtain Mnsub & MnInt assuming change in hole density due to
Mn out diffusion
Jungwirth, Wang, et al.Phys. Rev. B 72, 165204 (2005)
SIMS: measures total Mn concentration. Interstitials only compensation assumed
Experimental partial concentrations of MnGa and MnI in as grown samples
Can we have high Tc in Diluted Magnetic Semicondcutors?
Tc linear in MnGa local (uncompensated) moment concentration; falls rapidly with decreasing hole density in heavily compensated samples.
Define Mneff = Mnsub-MnInt
NO INTRINSIC LIMIT NO EXTRINSIC LIMIT
There is no observable limit to the amount of substitutional Mn we can put in
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TC(K
)
Mntotal
(%)
8% Mn
Open symbols as grown. Closed symbols annealed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TC(K
)
Mneff
(%)
Tc as grown and annealed samples
● Concentration of uncompensated MnGa moments has to reach ~10%. Only 6.2% in the current record Tc=173K sample
● Charge compensation not so important unless > 40%
● No indication from theory or experiment that the problem is other than technological - better control of growth-T, stoichiometry
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TC(K
)
Mntotal
(%)
“... Ohno’s ‘98 Tc=110 K is the fundamental upper limit ..” Yu et al. ‘03
“…Tc =150-165 K independent of xMn>10% contradicting Zener kinetic exchange ...” Mack et al. ‘08
“Combinatorial” approach to growthwith fixed growth and annealing T’s
Tc limit in (Ga,Mn)As remains open
`
2008Olejnik et al
188K!!
- Effective concentration of uncompensated MnGa moments has to increase beyond 6% of the current record Tc=173K sample. A factor of 2 needed 12% Mn would still be a DMS
- Low solubility of group-II Mn in III-V-host GaAs makes growth difficult
Low-temperature MBEStrategy A: stick to (Ga,Mn)As
- alternative growth modes (i.e. with proper
substrate/interface material) allowing for larger
and still uniform incorporation of Mn in zincblende GaAs
More Mn - problem with solubility
Getting to higher Tc: Strategy A
Find DMS system as closely related to (Ga,Mn)As as possible with
• larger hole-Mn spin-spin interaction
• lower tendency to self-compensation by interstitial Mn
• larger Mn solubility
• independent control of local-moment and carrier doping (p- & n-type)
Getting to higher Tc: Strategy B
Weak hybrid.Delocalized holeslong-range coupl.
Strong hybrid.Impurity-band holesshort-range coupl.
InSb
GaP
d5
(Al,Ga,In)(As,P) good candidates, GaAs seems close to the optimal III-V host
Other (III,Mn)V’s DMSs
Mean-field butlow Tc
MF
Large TcMF but
low stiffness
Kudrnovsky et al. PRB 07
Using DEEP mathematics to find a new material
3=1+2
Steps so far in strategy B:
• larger hole-Mn spin-spin interaction : DONE BUT DANGER IN PHASE DIAGRAM
• lower tendency to self-compensation by interstitial Mn: DONE
• larger Mn solubility ?
• independent control of local-moment and carrier doping (p- & n-type)?
III = I + II Ga = Li + Zn
GaAs and LiZnAs are twin SC
Masek, et al. PRB (2006)
LDA+U says that Mn-doped are also twin DMSs
L
As p-orb.
Ga s-orb.As p-orb.
EF
It can be n and p doped!!!
No solubility limit for group-II Mn
substituting for group-II Zn !!!!
UNDERSTANDING CRITICAL
BEHAVIOUR IN TRANSPORT
Towards spintronics in (Ga,Mn)As: FM & transport
Dense-moment MSF<< d-
Eu - chalcogenides
Dilute-moment MSF~ d-
Critical contribution to resistivity at Tc
~ magnetic susceptibilityBroad peak near Tc disappeares with annealing (higher uniformity)???
~)0~~( Fkk
smalluncor Tc
EuCdSe
When density of carriers is smaller than density of local moments what matters is the long range behavior of Γ (which goes as susceptibility)
)/1~~( dkk F
vcdTddTd ~/~/
When density of carriers is similar to density of local moments what matters is the short range behavior of Γ (which goes as the energy)
Ni
Tc
Optimized materials with x=4-12.5% and Tc=80-185K
Remarkably universal both below and above Tc
Annealing sequence
d/dT singularity at Tc – consistent with kF~d-
V. Novak, et al “Singularity in temperature derivative of resistivity in (Ga,Mn)As at the Curie point”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 077201 (2008).
OUTLINE
• Motivation• Ferromagnetic semiconductor materials:
– (Ga,Mn)As - general picture– Growth, physical limits on Tc – Related FS materials (searching for room temperature)– Understanding critical behavior in transport
• Ferromagnetic semiconductors & spintronics– Tunneling anisotropic magnetoresistive device– Transistors (4 types)
AMRAMR~ 1% MR effect~ 1% MR effect
TMRTMR~ 100% MR effect~ 100% MR effect
TAMRTAMR
) vs.( ~ IMvgExchange split & SO-coupled bands:
Exchange split bands:
)()(~ TDOSTDOS
)(~ MTDOS
Au
discovered in (Ga,Mn)As Gold et al. PRL’04
ab intio theory Shick, et al, PRB '06, Park, et al, PRL '08
TAMR in metal structures
experiment Park, et al, PRL '08
Also studied by Parkin et al., Weiss et al., etc.
DMS DEVICES
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0V 3V 5V 10V
carr
ier
dens
ity
[ 10
19 c
m-3
]
GaMnAs layer thickness [nm]
Gating of highly doped (Ga,Mn)As: p-n junction FET
p-n junction depletion estimates
Olejnik et al., ‘08
~25% depletion feasible at low voltages
(Ga,Mn)As/AlOx FET with large gate voltages, Chiba et al. ‘06
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
18.6
18.8
19.0
19.2
19.4
[10
-3c
m]
T [K]
Vg = 0V
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5 Vg = 3V
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
-200
-100
0
100
d/d
T [1
0-6
T [K]
-300
-200
-100
0
AM
RIncreasing and decreasing AMR and Tc with depletion
Tc Tc
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100
200
65K62K
dR/d
T
T (K)
depletion accumulation
Persistent variations of magnetic properties with ferroelectric
gates
Stolichnov et al., Nat. Mat.‘08
exy = 0.1%
exy = 0%
Electro-mechanical gating with piezo-stressors
Rushforth et al., ‘08
Strain & SO
Electrically controlled magnetic anisotropies via strain
Single-electron transistor
Two "gates": electric and magnetic
(Ga,Mn)As spintronic single-electron transistor
Huge, gatable, and hysteretic MR
Wunderlich et al. PRL ‘06
GMMGG C
C
e
MVMVVCQ
C
QQU
)(&)]([&
2
)(0
20
electric && magneticmagneticcontrol of Coulomb blockade oscillations
n-1 n n+1 n+2n-1 n n+1 n+2
EC
QQindind = = nnee
QQindind = (= (n+1/2)n+1/2)eeQ0
Q0
e2/2C
Q
D e
MQQVdQU
0
'' )()(
[010]
M[110]
[100]
[110][010]
SO-coupling (M)
Source Drain
GateVG
VDQ
Single-electron charging energy controlled by Vg and M
Theory confirms chemical potential anisotropies in (Ga,Mn)As& predicts CBAMR in SO-coupled room-Tc metal FMs
Variant p- or n-type FET-like transistor in one single nano-sized CBAMR device
0
ONONOFFOFF
1
0
ONON OFFOFF
1
VDD
VA VB
VA
VB
Vout
0
0
0
OFFOFFONON
ONON
OFFOFF
0
0
1
1
ONONOFFOFF
A B Vout0 0 01 0 10 1 11 1 1
0
01
ONON
OFFOFF
0
0
OFFOFF
1
ONON
1
1
1
1
OFFOFF
ONON
1
1
ONON
OFFOFF
1
“OR”
Nonvolatile programmable logic
VDD
VA VB
VA
VB
Vout
Variant p- or n-type FET-like transistor in one single nano-sized CBAMR device
0
ONONOFFOFF
1
0
ONON OFFOFF
1
A B Vout0 0 01 0 10 1 11 1 1
“OR”
Nonvolatile programmable logic
Physics of SO & exchange
SET
Resistor
Tunneling device
Chemical potential CBAMR
Tunneling DOS TAMR
Group velocity & lifetime AMR
Device design
Materials
metal FMs
FSs
FSs and metal FS with strong SO
ConclusionNo intrinsic or extrinsic limit to Tc so far: it is a materials growth issue
In the metallic optimally doped regime GaMnAs is well described by a disordered-valence band picture: both dc-data and ac-data are consistent with this scenario.
The effective Hamiltonian (MF) and weak scattering theory (no free parameters) describe (III,Mn)V metallic DMSs very well in the optimally annealed regime:
BUT it is only a peace of the theoretical mosaic with many remaining challenges!!
TB+CPA and LDA+U/SIC-LSDA calculations describe well chemical trends, impurity formation energies, lattice constant variations upon doping
• Ferromagnetic transition temperatures Magneto-crystalline anisotropy and coercively Domain structure Anisotropic magneto-resistance Anomalous Hall effect MO in the visible range Non-Drude peak in longitudinal ac-conductivity • Ferromagnetic resonance • Domain wall resistance • TAMR •Transport critical behaviour •Infrared MO effects
Allan MacDonald U of Texas
Tomas JungwirthInst. of Phys. ASCR
U. of Nottingham
Joerg WunderlichCambridge-Hitachi
Bryan GallagherU. Of Nottingham
Tomesz DietlInstitute of Physics, Polish Academy of
Sciences
Other collaborators: John Cerne, Jan Masek, Karel Vyborny, Bernd Kästner, Carten Timm, Charles Gould, Tom Fox,
Richard Campion, Laurence Eaves, Eric Yang, Andy Rushforth, Viet Novak
Hideo OhnoTohoku Univ.
Laurens MolenkampWuerzburg
Ewelina HankiewiczFordham Univesrsity
· Model Anderson Hamiltonian: (s - orbitals: conduction band; p - orbitals: valence band)
+ (Mn d - orbitals: strong on-site Hubbard int. local moment)
+ (s,p - d hybridization)
· Semi-phenomenological Kohn-Luttinger model for heavy, light, and spin-orbit split-off band holes
· Local exchange coupling: Mn: S=5/2; valence-band hole: s=1/2; J
pd > 0
k.p Local Moment - Hamiltonian
IjIjvjI
pd SsRrJ
,
ELECTRONS
Mn
ELECTRONS-Mn
Large S: treat classically
Tc LIMITS AND STRATEGIES
Can we have high Tc in Diluted Magnetic Semicondcutors?
Define Mneff = Mnsub-MnInt
(lines – theory, Masek et al 05)
NO EXTRINSIC LIMIT
Relative Mn concentrations obtained through hole density measurements and saturation moment densities measurements.
Tc linear in MnGa local (uncompensated) moment concentration; falls rapidly with decreasing hole density in heavily compensated samples.
NO IDENTIFICATION OF AN INTRINSIC LIMIT
Qualitative consistent picture within LDA, TB, and k.p
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TC(K
)
Mntotal
(%)
8% Mn
Open symbols as grown. Closed symbols annealed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TC(K
)
Mneff
(%)
Tc as grown and annealed samples
● Concentration of uncompensated MnGa moments has to reach ~10%. Only 6.2% in the current record Tc=173K sample
● Charge compensation not so important unless > 40%
● No indication from theory or experiment that the problem is other than technological - better control of growth-T, stoichiometry
III = I + II Ga = Li + Zn
GaAs and LiZnAs are twin SC
Masek, et al. PRB (2006)
LDA+U says that Mn-doped are also twin DMSs
n and p type doping through Li/Zn stoichiometry
No solubility limit for group-II Mn
substituting for group-II Zn !!!!
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TC(K
)
Mntotal
(%)
Indiana & California (‘03): “ .. Ohno’s ‘98 Tc=110 K is the fundamental upper limit ..” Yu et al. ‘03
California (‘08): “…Tc =150-165 K independent of xMn>10% contradicting Zener kinetic exchange ...”
Nottingham & Prague (’08): Tc up to 185Kso far
“Combinatorial” approach to growthwith fixed growth and annealing T’s
?Mack et al. ‘08
Tc limit in (Ga,Mn)As remains open