\r
\begin{document}\r
\r
-%\title{Mobility of Carbon in Silicon -- a first-principles study}\r
\title{First-principles study of defects in carbon implanted silicon}\r
\author{F. Zirkelbach}\r
\author{B. Stritzker}\r
\affiliation{Experimentalphysik IV, Universit\"at Augsburg, 86135 Augsburg, Germany}\r
-\author{K. Nordlund}\r
-\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland}\r
\author{J. K. N. Lindner}\r
\author{W. G. Schmidt}\r
\author{E. Rauls}\r
The Kohn-Sham equations were solved using the generalized-gradient exchange-correlation (XC) functional approximation proposed by Perdew and Wang\cite{perdew86,perdew92}.\r
The electron-ion interaction was described by norm-conserving ultra-soft pseudopotentials\cite{hamann79} as implemented in VASP\cite{vanderbilt90}.\r
Throughout this work an energy cut-off of \unit[300]{eV} was used to expand the wave functions into the plane-wave basis.\r
-Sampling of the Brillouin zone was restricted to the $\Gamma$-point.\r
+To reduce the computational effort sampling of the Brillouin zone was restricted to the $\Gamma$-point, which has been shown to yield reliable results\cite{dal_pino93}.\r
The defect structures and the migration paths were modelled in cubic supercells with a side length of \unit[1.6]{nm} containing $216$ Si atoms.\r
+Formation energies and structures are reasonably converged with respect to the system size.\r
The ions and cell shape were allowed to change in order to realize a constant pressure simulation.\r
+The observed changes in volume were less than \unit[0.2]{\%} of the volume indicating a rather low dependence of the results on the ensemble choice.\r
Ionic relaxation was realized by the conjugate gradient algorithm.\r
Spin polarization has been fully accounted for.\r
\r
Migration and recombination pathways have been investigated utilizing the constraint conjugate gradient relaxation technique (CRT)\cite{kaukonen98}.\r
+While not guaranteed to find the true minimum energy path, the method turns out to identify reasonable pathways for the investigated structures.\r
The defect formation energy $E-N_{\text{Si}}\mu_{\text{Si}}-N_{\text{C}}\mu_{\text{C}}$ is defined by choosing SiC as a particle reservoir for the C impurity, i.e. the chemical potentials are determined by the cohesive energies of a perfect Si and SiC supercell after ionic relaxation.\r
+%In the same way defect formation energies are determined in the article\cite{dal_pino93} used for comparison.\r
+This corresponds to the definition utilized in another study on C defects in Si\cite{dal_pino93} that we compare our results to.\r
The binding energy of a defect pair is given by the difference of the formation energy of the complex and the sum of the two separated defect configurations.\r
-Accordingly, energetically favorable configurations show binding energies below zero while non-interacting isolated defects result in a binding energy of zero.\r
+%Accordingly, energetically favorable configurations show binding energies below zero while non-interacting isolated defects result in a binding energy of zero.\r
+Accordingly, energetically favorable configurations result in binding energies below zero while unfavorable configurations show positive values for the binding energy.\r
+The interaction strength, i.e. the absolute value of the binding energy, approaches zero for increasingly non-interacting isolated defects.\r
\r
\section{Results}\r
\r
Ref.\cite{dal_pino93,capaz94} & - & - & - & - & - & 1.89\cite{dal_pino93} & x & - & x+2.1\cite{capaz94}\r
\end{tabular}\r
\end{ruledtabular}\r
-\caption{Formation energies of silicon and carbon point defects in crystalline silicon given in electron Volt. T denotes the tetrahedral, H the hexagonal and BC the bond-centered interstitial configuration. V corresponds to the vacancy configuration. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB.}\r
+\caption{Formation energies of silicon and carbon point defects in crystalline silicon given in eV. T denotes the tetrahedral, H the hexagonal and BC the bond-centered interstitial configuration. V corresponds to the vacancy configuration. Dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB.}\r
\label{table:sep_eof}\r
\end{table*}\r
Results obtained by the present study compare well with results from literature\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03,dal_pino93,capaz94}.\r
-Regarding intrinsic defects in Si, the \hkl<1 1 0> self-interstitial dumbbell (Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB) is found to be the ground state configuration tersely followed by the hexagonal and tetrahedral configuration, which is consensus for Si$_{\text{i}}$\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03}.\r
+Regarding intrinsic defects in Si, the \hkl<1 1 0> self-interstitial dumbbell (Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB) is found to be the ground state configuration closely followed by the hexagonal and tetrahedral configuration, which is consensus for Si$_{\text{i}}$\cite{leung99,al-mushadani03}.\r
In the case of a C impurity, next to the C$_{\text{s}}$ configuration, in which a C atom occupies an already vacant Si lattice site, the C \hkl<1 0 0> interstitial dumbbell (C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB) constitutes the energetically most favorable configuration, in which the C and Si dumbbell atoms share a regular Si lattice site.\r
This finding is in agreement with several theoretical\cite{burnard93,leary97,dal_pino93,capaz94,jones04} and experimental\cite{watkins76,song90} investigations, which all predict this configuration to be the ground state.\r
%However, to our best knowledge, no energy of formation for this type of defect based on first-principles calculations has yet been explicitly stated in literature.\r
Another DFT calculation without fully accounting for the electron spin results in the smearing of a single electron over two non-degenerate Kohn-Sham states and an increase of the total energy by \unit[0.3]{eV} for the BC configuration.\r
Regardless of the rather small correction of \unit[0.3]{eV} due to the spin, the difference we found is much smaller (\unit[0.94]{eV}), which would nicely compare to experimentally observed migration barriers of \unit[0.70-0.87]{eV}\cite{lindner06,tipping87,song90}.\r
However, since the BC configuration constitutes a real local minimum another barrier exists which is about \unit[1.2]{eV} in height.\r
-Indeed Capaz et al. propose another path and find it to be the lowest in energy\cite{capaz94}, in which a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB migrates to a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 -1 0] DB located at the next neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.\r
+Indeed Capaz et al. propose another path and find it to be the lowest in energy\cite{capaz94}, in which a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB migrates to a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 -1 0] DB located at the neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.\r
Calculations in this work reinforce this path by an additional improvement of the quantitative conformance of the barrier height (\unit[0.90]{eV}) to experimental values.\r
A more detailed description can be found in a previous study\cite{zirkelbach10a}.\r
\r
In the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB configuration the net spin up density is localized in two caps at each of the two DB atoms perpendicularly aligned to the bonds to the other two Si atoms respectively.\r
No other configuration, within the ones that are mentioned, is affected.\r
\r
-Concerning the mobility of the ground state Si$_{\text{i}}$, we found an activation energy of \unit[0.67]{eV} for the transition of the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 1 -1] to \hkl[1 1 0] DB located at the next neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.\r
+Concerning the mobility of the ground state Si$_{\text{i}}$, we found an activation energy of \unit[0.67]{eV} for the transition of the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 1 -1] to \hkl[1 1 0] DB located at the neighbored Si lattice site in \hkl[1 1 -1] direction.\r
Further investigations revealed a barrier of \unit[0.94]{eV} for the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB to Si$_{\text{i}}$ H, \unit[0.53]{eV} for the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB to Si$_{\text{i}}$ T and \unit[0.35]{eV} for the Si$_{\text{i}}$ H to Si$_{\text{i}}$ T transition.\r
%Obtained values are of the same order of magnitude than values derived from other ab initio studies\cite{bloechl93,sahli05}.\r
These are of the same order of magnitude than values derived from other ab initio studies\cite{bloechl93,sahli05}.\r
\hkl[1 0 0] & -2.25 & -2.16 & -0.10 & -0.27 & -1.38 & -0.06\\\r
\end{tabular}\r
\end{ruledtabular}\r
-\caption{Binding energies in electron Volt of C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0>-type defect pairs. Equivalent configurations exhibit equal energies. Column 1 lists the orientation of the second defect, which is combined with the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB. The position index of the second defect is given in the first row according to Fig.~\ref{fig:combos}. R corresponds to the position located at $\frac{a_{\text{Si}}}{2}\hkl[3 2 3]$ relative to the initial defect position, which is the maximum realizable defect separation distance ($\approx \unit[1.3]{nm}$) due to periodic boundary conditions.}\r
+\caption{Binding energies in eV of C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0>-type defect pairs. Equivalent configurations exhibit equal energies. Column 1 lists the orientation of the second defect, which is combined with the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB. The position index of the second defect is given in the first row according to Fig.~\ref{fig:combos}. R corresponds to the position located at $\frac{a_{\text{Si}}}{2}\hkl[3 2 3]$ relative to the initial defect position, which is the maximum realizable defect separation distance ($\approx \unit[1.3]{nm}$) due to periodic boundary conditions.}\r
\label{table:dc_c-c}\r
\end{table}\r
-Most of the obtained configurations result in binding energies well below zero indicating a preferable agglomeration of these type of defects.\r
+Most of the obtained configurations result in binding energies well below zero indicating a preferable agglomeration of this type of defects.\r
For increasing distances of the defect pair the binding energy approaches to zero (R in Table~\ref{table:dc_c-c}) as it is expected for non-interacting isolated defects.\r
Energetically favorable and unfavorable configurations can be explained by stress compensation and increase respectively based on the resulting net strain of the respective configuration of the defect combination.\r
Antiparallel orientations of the second defect, i.e. \hkl[0 0 1] for positions located below the \hkl(0 0 1) plane with respect to the initial one (positions 1, 2 and 4) form the energetically most unfavorable configurations.\r
\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB and C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3 (left) into a configuration of a twofold coordinated Si$_{\text{i}}$ located in between two C$_{\text{s}}$ atoms occupying the lattice sites of the initial DB and position 3 (right). An activation energy of \unit[0.44]{eV} is observed.}\r
\label{fig:093-095}\r
\end{figure}\r
-Configuration A consists of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB with threefold coordinated Si and C DB atoms slightly disturbed by the C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3, facing the Si DB atom as a next neighbor.\r
+Configuration A consists of a C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB with threefold coordinated Si and C DB atoms slightly disturbed by the C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3, facing the Si DB atom as a neighbor.\r
By a single bond switch, i.e. the breaking of a Si-Si in favor of a Si-C bond, configuration B is obtained, which shows a twofold coordinated Si atom located in between two substitutional C atoms residing on regular Si lattice sites.\r
This configuration has been identified and described by spectroscopic experimental techniques\cite{song90_2} as well as theoretical studies\cite{leary97,capaz98}.\r
Configuration B is found to constitute the energetically slightly more favorable configuration.\r
\caption{Migration barrier and structures of the transition of the initial C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[0 0 -1] DB and C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 1 (left) into a C-C \hkl[1 0 0] DB occupying the lattice site at position 1 (right). An activation energy of \unit[0.1]{eV} is observed.}\r
\label{fig:026-128}\r
\end{figure}\r
-Configuration a is similar to configuration A, except that the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom at position 1 is facing the C DB atom as a next neighbor resulting in the formation of a strong C-C bond and a much more noticeable perturbation of the DB structure.\r
+Configuration a is similar to configuration A, except that the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom at position 1 is facing the C DB atom as a neighbor resulting in the formation of a strong C-C bond and a much more noticeable perturbation of the DB structure.\r
Nevertheless, the C and Si DB atoms remain threefold coordinated.\r
Although the C-C bond exhibiting a distance of \unit[0.15]{nm} close to the distance expected in diamond or graphite should lead to a huge gain in energy, a repulsive interaction with a binding energy of \unit[0.26]{eV} is observed due to compressive strain of the Si DB atom and its top neighbors (\unit[0.230]{nm}/\unit[0.236]{nm}) along with additional tensile strain of the C$_{\text{s}}$ and its three neighboring Si atoms (\unit[0.198-0.209]{nm}/\unit[0.189]{nm}).\r
Again a single bond switch, i.e. the breaking of the bond of the Si atom bound to the fourfold coordinated C$_{\text{s}}$ atom and the formation of a double bond between the two C atoms, results in configuration b.\r
This finding is in good agreement with a combined ab initio and experimental study of Liu et~al.\cite{liu02}, who first proposed this structure as the ground state identifying an energy difference compared to configuration B of \unit[0.2]{eV}.\r
% mattoni: A favored by 0.2 eV - NO! (again, missing spin polarization?)\r
A net magnetization of two spin up electrons, which are equally localized as in the Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB structure is observed.\r
-In fact, these two configurations are very similar and are qualitatively different from the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB that does not show magnetization but a nearly collinear bond of the C DB atom to its two next neighbored Si atoms while the Si DB atom approximates \unit[120]{$^{\circ}$} angles in between its bonds.\r
+In fact, these two configurations are very similar and are qualitatively different from the C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB that does not show magnetization but a nearly collinear bond of the C DB atom to its two neighbored Si atoms while the Si DB atom approximates \unit[120]{$^{\circ}$} angles in between its bonds.\r
Configurations a, A and B are not affected by spin polarization and show zero magnetization.\r
Mattoni et~al.\cite{mattoni2002}, in contrast, find configuration b less favorable than configuration A by \unit[0.2]{eV}.\r
Next to differences in the XC functional and plane-wave energy cut-off this discrepancy might be attributed to the neglect of spin polarization in their calculations, which -- as has been shown for the C$_{\text{i}}$ BC configuration -- results in an increase of configurational energy.\r
This finding agrees well with results by Mattoni et~al.\cite{mattoni2002}.\r
% all other investigated results: attractive interaction. stress compensation.\r
In contrast, all other investigated configurations show attractive interactions.\r
-The most favorable configuration is found for C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3, which corresponds to the lattice site of one of the upper next neighbored Si atoms of the DB structure that is compressively strained along \hkl[1 -1 0] and \hkl[0 0 1] by the C-Si DB.\r
+The most favorable configuration is found for C$_{\text{s}}$ at position 3, which corresponds to the lattice site of one of the upper neighbored Si atoms of the DB structure that is compressively strained along \hkl[1 -1 0] and \hkl[0 0 1] by the C-Si DB.\r
The substitution with C allows for most effective compensation of strain.\r
-This structure is followed by C$_{\text{s}}$ located at position 2, the next neighbor atom below the two Si atoms bound to the C$_{\text{i}}$ DB atom.\r
+This structure is followed by C$_{\text{s}}$ located at position 2, the lattice site of one of the neighbor atoms below the two Si atoms that are bound to the C$_{\text{i}}$ DB atom.\r
As mentioned earlier these two lower Si atoms indeed experience tensile strain along the \hkl[1 1 0] bond chain, however, additional compressive strain along \hkl[0 0 1] exists.\r
The latter is partially compensated by the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom.\r
Yet less of compensation is realized if C$_{\text{s}}$ is located at position 4 due to a larger separation although both bottom Si atoms of the DB structure are indirectly affected, i.e. each of them is connected by another Si atom to the C atom enabling the reduction of strain along \hkl[0 0 1].\r
Corresponding formation as well as binding energies and the separation distances of the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom and the Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB lattice site are listed in Table~\ref{table:dc_si-s_e}.\r
In total ten different configurations exist within the investigated range.\r
Configuration \RM{1} constitutes the energetically most favorable structure exhibiting a formation energy of \unit[4.37]{eV}.\r
-Obviously the configuration of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB and a next neighbored C$_{\text{s}}$ atom along the bond chain, which has the same direction as the alignment of the DB, enables the largest possible reduction of strain.\r
+Obviously the configuration of a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl[1 1 0] DB and a neighbored C$_{\text{s}}$ atom along the bond chain, which has the same direction as the alignment of the DB, enables the largest possible reduction of strain.\r
The relaxed structure is displayed in the bottom right of Fig.~\ref{fig:162-097}.\r
Compressive strain originating from the Si$_{\text{i}}$ is compensated by tensile strain inherent to the C$_{\text{s}}$ configuration.\r
-The Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB atoms are displaced towards the lattice site occupied by the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom in such a way that the Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB atom closest to the C atom does no longer form bonds to its top Si neighbors, but to the second next neighbored Si atom along \hkl[1 1 0].\r
+The Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB atoms are displaced towards the lattice site occupied by the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom in such a way that the Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB atom closest to the C atom does no longer form bonds to its top Si neighbors, but to the next neighbored Si atom along \hkl[1 1 0].\r
\r
However, the configuration is energetically less favorable than the \hkl<1 0 0> C$_{\text{i}}$ DB, which, thus, remains the ground state of a C atom introduced into otherwise perfect c-Si.\r
The transition involving the latter two configurations is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:162-097}.\r
Due to the low activation energy this process must be considered to be activated without much effort either thermally or by introduced energy of the implantation process.\r
\r
\begin{figure}\r
-\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c_sub_si110.ps}\r
-\caption{Binding energies of combinations of a C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB with respect to the separation distance. The binding energies of the defect pairs are well approximated by a Lennard-Jones 6-12 potential, which is used for curve fitting.}\r
+%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c_sub_si110.ps}\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{c_sub_si110_data.ps}\r
+\caption{Binding energies of combinations of a C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB with respect to the separation distance.}\r
+%\caption{Binding energies of combinations of a C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB with respect to the separation distance. The interaction strength of the defect pairs are well approximated by a Lennard-Jones 6-12 potential, which is used for curve fitting.}\r
\label{fig:dc_si-s}\r
\end{figure}\r
Fig.~\ref{fig:dc_si-s} shows the binding energies of pairs of C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 1 0> DB with respect to the separation distance.\r
-The interaction of the defects is well approximated by a Lennard-Jones 6-12 potential, which was used for curve fitting.\r
-The binding energy quickly drops to zero.\r
-The Lennard-Jones fit estimates almost zero interaction already at \unit[0.6]{nm}, indicating a low interaction capture radius of the defect pair.\r
+%The interaction of the defects is well approximated by a Lennard-Jones (LJ) 6-12 potential, which is used for curve fitting.\r
+%Unable to model possible positive values of the binding energy, i.e. unfavorable configurations, located to the right of the minimum, the LJ fit should rather be thought as a guide for the eye describing the decrease of the interaction strength, i.e. the absolute value of the binding energy, with increasing separation distance.\r
+%The binding energy quickly drops to zero.\r
+%The LJ fit estimates almost zero interaction already at \unit[0.6]{nm}, indicating a low interaction capture radius of the defect pair.\r
+As can be seen, the interaction strength, i.e. the absolute value of the binding energy, quickly drops to zero with increasing separation distance.
+Almost zero interaction may be assumed already at distances about \unit[0.5-0.6]{nm}, indicating a low interaction capture radius of the defect pair.
In IBS highly energetic collisions are assumed to easily produce configurations of defects exhibiting separation distances exceeding the capture radius.\r
For this reason C$_{\text{s}}$ without a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB located within the immediate proximity, which is, thus, unable to form the thermodynamically stable C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB, constitutes a most likely configuration to be found in IBS.\r
\r
Similar to what was previously mentioned, configurations of C$_{\text{s}}$ and a Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB might be particularly important at higher temperatures due to the low activation energy necessary for its formation.\r
At higher temperatures the contribution of entropy to structural formation increases, which might result in a spatial separation even for defects located within the capture radius.\r
-Indeed, an ab initio molecular dynamics run at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} starting from configuration \RM{1}, which -- based on the above findings -- is assumed to recombine into the ground state configuration, results in a separation of the C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB by more than 4 next neighbor distances realized in a repeated migration mechanism of annihilating and arising Si$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.\r
+Indeed, an ab initio molecular dynamics run at \unit[900]{$^{\circ}$C} starting from configuration \RM{1}, which -- based on the above findings -- is assumed to recombine into the ground state configuration, results in a separation of the C$_{\text{s}}$ and Si$_{\text{i}}$ DB by more than 4 neighbor distances realized in a repeated migration mechanism of annihilating and arising Si$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.\r
The atomic configurations for two different points in time are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:md}.\r
Si atoms 1 and 2, which form the initial DB, occupy Si lattice sites in the final configuration while Si atom 3 is transferred from a regular lattice site into the interstitial lattice.\r
\begin{figure}\r
\r
The investigation of defect pairs indicated a general trend of defect agglomeration mainly driven by the potential of strain reduction.\r
Obtained results for the most part compare well with results gained in previous studies\cite{leary97,capaz98,mattoni2002,liu02} and show an astonishingly good agreement with experiment\cite{song90}.\r
-For configurations involving two C impurities the ground state configurations have been found to to consist of C-C bonds, which are responsible for the vast gain in energy.\r
+For configurations involving two C impurities the ground state configurations have been found to consist of C-C bonds, which are responsible for the vast gain in energy.\r
However, based on investigations of possible migration pathways, these structures are less likely to arise than structures, in which both C atoms are interconnected by another Si atom, which is due to high activation energies of the respective pathways or alternative pathways featuring less high activation energies, which, however, involve intermediate unfavorable configurations.\r
Thus, agglomeration of C$_{\text{i}}$ is expected while the formation of C-C bonds is assumed to fail to appear by thermally activated diffusion processes.\r
\r
Agglomeration of C$_{\text{i}}$ is energetically favored and enabled by a low activation energy for migration.\r
Although ion implantation is a process far from thermodynamic equilibrium, which might result in phases not described by the Si/C phase diagram, i.e. a C phase in Si, high activation energies are believed to be responsible for a low probability of the formation of C-C clusters.\r
\r
-Unrolling these findings on the initially stated controversy present in the precipitation model, an increased participation of C$_{\text{s}}$ already in the initial stage must be assumed due to its high probability of incidence.\r
+In the context of the initially stated controversy present in the precipitation model, these findings suggest an increased participation of C$_{\text{s}}$ already in the initial stage due to its high probability of incidence.\r
In addition, thermally activated, C$_{\text{i}}$ might turn into C$_{\text{s}}$.\r
The associated emission of Si$_{\text{i}}$ serves two needs: as a vehicle for other C$_{\text{s}}$ atoms and as a supply of Si atoms needed elsewhere to form the SiC structure.\r
As for the vehicle, Si$_{\text{i}}$ is believed to react with C$_{\text{s}}$ turning it into highly mobile C$_{\text{i}}$ again, allowing for the rearrangement of the C atom.\r
% ----------------------------------------------------\r
\section*{Acknowledgment}\r
We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Bayerische Forschungsstiftung (Grant No. DPA-61/05) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant No. DFG SCHM 1361/11).\r
+Prof. Kai Nordlund is greatly acknowledged for useful comments on the present manuscript.\r
\r
% --------------------------------- references -------------------\r
\r
-\bibliography{../../bibdb/bibdb}{}\r
-\bibliographystyle{h-physrev3}\r
-\r
+%\bibliography{../../bibdb/bibdb}{}\r
+%\bibliographystyle{h-physrev3}\r
+\r
+\begin{thebibliography}{10}
+
+\bibitem{edgar92}
+J.~H. Edgar,
+\newblock J. Mater. Res. {\bf 7}, 235 (1992).
+
+\bibitem{morkoc94}
+H.~Morko\c{c}, S.~Strite, G.~B. Gao, M.~E. Lin, B.~Sverdlov, and M.~Burns,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 76}, 1363 (1994).
+
+\bibitem{wesch96}
+W.~Wesch,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 116}, 305 (1996),
+\newblock Radiation Effects in Insulators.
+
+\bibitem{capano97}
+M.~A. Capano and R.~J. Trew,
+\newblock MRS Bull. {\bf 22}, 19 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{park98}
+Y.~S. Park,
+\newblock {\em Si{C} Materials and Devices} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998).
+
+\bibitem{borders71}
+J.~A. Borders, S.~T. Picraux, and W.~Beezhold,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 18}, 509 (1971).
+
+\bibitem{lindner99}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 147}, 249 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{lindner01}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 178}, 44 (2001).
+
+\bibitem{lindner02}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. A {\bf 77}, 27 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{werner96}
+P.~Werner, R.~K{\"{o}}gler, W.~Skorupa, and D.~Eichler,
+\newblock {TEM} investigation of {C}-si defects in carbon implanted silicon,
+\newblock in {\em Ion Implantation Technology. Proceedings of the 11th
+ International Conference on}, pp. 675--678, 1996.
+
+\bibitem{werner97}
+P.~Werner, S.~Eichler, G.~Mariani, R.~K{\"{o}}gler, and W.~Skorupa,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 70}, 252 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{eichhorn99}
+F.~Eichhorn, N.~Schell, W.~Matz, and R.~K{\"{o}}gler,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 86}, 4184 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{lindner99_2}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B {\bf 148}, 528 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{koegler03}
+R.~K{\"{o}}gler, F.~Eichhorn, J.~R. Kaschny, A.~M{\"{u}}cklich, H.~Reuther,
+ W.~Skorupa, C.~Serre, and A.~Perez-Rodriguez,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. {\bf 76}, 827 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{strane94}
+J.~W. Strane, H.~J. Stein, S.~R. Lee, S.~T. Picraux, J.~K. Watanabe, and J.~W.
+ Mayer,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 76}, 3656 (1994).
+
+\bibitem{guedj98}
+C.~Guedj, M.~W. Dashiell, L.~Kulik, J.~Kolodzey, and A.~Hairie,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 84}, 4631 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{nejim95}
+A.~Nejim, P.~L.~F. Hemment, and J.~Stoemenos,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 66}, 2646 (1995).
+
+\bibitem{bar-yam84}
+Y.~Bar-Yam and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1129 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{bar-yam84_2}
+Y.~Bar-Yam and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 30}, 1844 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{car84}
+R.~Car, P.~J. Kelly, A.~Oshiyama, and S.~T. Pantelides,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1814 (1984).
+
+\bibitem{batra87}
+I.~P. Batra, F.~F. Abraham, and S.~Ciraci,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35}, 9552 (1987).
+
+\bibitem{bloechl93}
+P.~E. Bl{\"o}chl, E.~Smargiassi, R.~Car, D.~B. Laks, W.~Andreoni, and S.~T.
+ Pantelides,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 2435 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{tang97}
+M.~Tang, L.~Colombo, J.~Zhu, and T.~Diaz~de~la Rubia,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 14279 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{leung99}
+W.-K. Leung, R.~J. Needs, G.~Rajagopal, S.~Itoh, and S.~Ihara,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 2351 (1999).
+
+\bibitem{colombo02}
+L.~Colombo,
+\newblock Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. {\bf 32}, 271 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{goedecker02}
+S.~Goedecker, T.~Deutsch, and L.~Billard,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 235501 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{al-mushadani03}
+O.~K. Al-Mushadani and R.~J. Needs,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 235205 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{hobler05}
+G.~Hobler and G.~Kresse,
+\newblock Mater. Sci. Eng., B {\bf 124-125}, 368 (2005),
+\newblock EMRS 2005, Symposium D - Materials Science and Device Issues for
+ Future Technologies.
+
+\bibitem{posselt08}
+M.~Posselt, F.~Gao, and H.~Bracht,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 78}, 035208 (2008).
+
+\bibitem{ma10}
+S.~Ma and S.~Wang,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 81}, 193203 (2010).
+
+\bibitem{sahli05}
+B.~Sahli and W.~Fichtner,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72}, 245210 (2005).
+
+\bibitem{mazzarolo01}
+M.~Mazzarolo, L.~Colombo, G.~Lulli, and E.~Albertazzi,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 195207 (2001).
+
+\bibitem{holmstroem08}
+E.~Holmstr{\"o}m, A.~Kuronen, and K.~Nordlund,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 78}, 045202 (2008).
+
+\bibitem{tersoff90}
+J.~Tersoff,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 1757 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{dal_pino93}
+A.~{Dal Pino}, A.~M. Rappe, and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 12554 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{capaz94}
+R.~B. Capaz, A.~{Dal Pino}, and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 7439 (1994).
+
+\bibitem{burnard93}
+M.~J. Burnard and G.~G. DeLeo,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 10217 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{leary97}
+P.~Leary, R.~Jones, S.~{\"O}berg, and V.~J.~B. Torres,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 2188 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{capaz98}
+R.~B. Capaz, A.~{Dal Pino}, and J.~D. Joannopoulos,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 9845 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{zhu98}
+J.~Zhu,
+\newblock Comput. Mater. Sci. {\bf 12}, 309 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{mattoni2002}
+A.~Mattoni, F.~Bernardini, and L.~Colombo,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 195214 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{park02}
+S.~Y. Park, J.~D'Arcy-Gall, D.~Gall, J.~A. N.~T. Soares, Y.-W. Kim, H.~Kim,
+ P.~Desjardins, J.~E. Greene, and S.~G. Bishop,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 91}, 5716 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{jones04}
+R.~Jones, B.~J. Coomer, and P.~R. Briddon,
+\newblock J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 16}, S2643 (2004).
+
+\bibitem{chirita97}
+V.~Chirita, L.~Hultman, and L.~R. Wallenberg,
+\newblock Thin Solid Films {\bf 294}, 47 (1997).
+
+\bibitem{kitabatake93}
+M.~Kitabatake, M.~Deguchi, and T.~Hirao,
+\newblock J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 74}, 4438 (1993).
+
+\bibitem{cicero02}
+G.~Cicero, L.~Pizzagalli, and A.~Catellani,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 156101 (2002).
+
+\bibitem{pizzagalli03}
+L.~Pizzagalli, G.~Cicero, and A.~Catellani,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 195302 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{bockstedte03}
+M.~Bockstedte, A.~Mattausch, and O.~Pankratov,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 205201 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{rauls03a}
+E.~Rauls, T.~Frauenheim, A.~Gali, and P.~De\'ak,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 155208 (2003).
+
+\bibitem{gao04}
+F.~Gao, W.~J. Weber, M.~Posselt, and V.~Belko,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 245205 (2004).
+
+\bibitem{posselt06}
+M.~Posselt, F.~Gao, and W.~J. Weber,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 125206 (2006).
+
+\bibitem{gao07}
+F.~Gao, J.~Du, E.~J. Bylaska, M.~Posselt, and W.~J. Weber,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 90}, 221915 (2007).
+
+\bibitem{kresse96}
+G.~Kresse and J.~Furthm{\"{u}}ller,
+\newblock Comput. Mater. Sci. {\bf 6}, 15 (1996).
+
+\bibitem{perdew86}
+J.~P. Perdew and Y.~Wang,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 8800 (1986).
+
+\bibitem{perdew92}
+J.~P. Perdew, J.~A. Chevary, S.~H. Vosko, K.~A. Jackson, M.~R. Pederson, D.~J.
+ Singh, and C.~Fiolhais,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 6671 (1992).
+
+\bibitem{hamann79}
+D.~R. Hamann, M.~Schl{\"u}ter, and C.~Chiang,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43}, 1494 (1979).
+
+\bibitem{vanderbilt90}
+D.~Vanderbilt,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 7892 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{kaukonen98}
+M.~Kaukonen, P.~K. Sitch, G.~Jungnickel, R.~M. Nieminen, S.~P{\"o}ykk{\"o},
+ D.~Porezag, and T.~Frauenheim,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, 9965 (1998).
+
+\bibitem{watkins76}
+G.~D. Watkins and K.~L. Brower,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 36}, 1329 (1976).
+
+\bibitem{song90}
+L.~W. Song and G.~D. Watkins,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 5759 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{lindner06}
+J.~K.~N. Lindner, M.~H{\"a}berlen, G.~Thorwarth, and B.~Stritzker,
+\newblock Mater. Sci. Eng., C {\bf 26}, 857 (2006).
+
+\bibitem{tipping87}
+A.~K. Tipping and R.~C. Newman,
+\newblock Semicond. Sci. Technol. {\bf 2}, 315 (1987).
+
+\bibitem{zirkelbach10a}
+F.~Zirkelbach, B.~Stritzker, K.~Nordlund, J.~K.~N. Lindner, W.~G. Schmidt, and
+ E.~Rauls,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 82}, 094110 (2010).
+
+\bibitem{song90_2}
+L.~W. Song, X.~D. Zhan, B.~W. Benson, and G.~D. Watkins,
+\newblock Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 5765 (1990).
+
+\bibitem{liu02}
+C.-L. Liu, W.~Windl, L.~Borucki, S.~Lu, and X.-Y. Liu,
+\newblock Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 80}, 52 (2002).
+
+\end{thebibliography}
+
\end{document}\r
\r
projects / lectures / latex.git / blobdiff